Skip to main content

Full text of "Dictionary of the Bible : comprising its antiquities, biography, geography and natural history"

See other formats 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/1889dictionaryofb02smituoft 


t^ 


DR.   WILLIAM  SMITH'S 


DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE; 


COMPRISING    ITS 


ANTIQUITIES,   BIOGRAPHY,    GEOGRAPHY, 
AND   NATURAL   HISTORY. 


REVISED   AND   EDITED    BY 

PROFESSOR  H.   B.  HACKETT,   D.  D. 

WITH  THE   COOPERATION  OP 

EZRA  ABBOT,  LL.  D. 

ASSISTANT  LIBRAaiAN  OP  HABTABD  COIXSaB. 

VOLUME   II. 
GENNESARET,   SEA   OF,  to   MARKET. 


BOSTON: 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN   AND   COMPANY. 

2Dt)e  Htoer0ioe  press^,  CambriDge* 

1889. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1869,  by 

Huiu>  AND  Houghton, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of  New  York, 


RIVERSIDE,    CAMBRIDGE: 

STEREOTYPED   AND   PRINTED   BY 

II.    O.    HOUGHTON  AND   COMPANY. 


WRITERS  IN  THE    ENGLISH  EDITION. 


OnriALS  NAMES. 

H.  A.  Very  Rev.  Henry  Alford,  D.  D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury. 

II.  B.  Rev.  Hexry  Bailey,  B.  D.,  Warden  of  St.  Augustine's  College,  Can 

terbury ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge. 
H.  B.  Rev.  IIoRATius  Bonar,  D.  D.,  Kelso,  N.  B. ;  Author  of  "  The  Land 

of  Promise." 
[The  geographical  articles,  signed  H.  B.,  are  written  by  Dr.  Bonar  :  those  on  other  subjects, 
signed  II.  B.,  are  written  by  Mr.  Bailey.] 

A.  B.  Rev.  Alfred  Barry,  B.  D.,  Principal  of  Cheltenham  College  ;  late 

Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

W.  L.  B.  Rev.  William  Latham  Bevan,  ]\I.  A.,  Vicar  of  Hay,  Brecknock- 
shire. 

J.  W.  B.  Rev.  Joseph  Williams  Blakesley,  B.  D.,  Canon  of  Canterbury ;  late 
Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

T.  E.  B.  Rev.  Thomas  Edward  Broavn,  M.  A.,  Vice- Principal  of  King  Wil- 
liam's College,  Isle  of  Man  ;  late  Fellow  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford. 

R.  W.  B.  Ven.  Robert  William  Browne,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Bath,  and 
Canon  of  Wells. 

E.  H.  B.        Right  Rev.  Edward  Harold  Browne,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely. 
W.  T.  B.       Rev.  William  Thomas  Bullock,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the 

Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 
S.  C.  Rev.  Samuel  Clark,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of    Bredwardine  with  Brobury, 

Herefordshire. 

F.  C.  C.         Rev.  Frederic  Charles  Cook,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in   Ordinary  to  the 

Queen. 

G.  E.  L.  C.  Right  Rev.  George  Edward  Lynch  Cotton,  D.  D,,  late  Lord  Bishop 

of  Calcutta  and  Metropolitan  of  India. 
J.  LI.  D.        Rev.  John    Llewelyn   Davies,   M.    A.,    Rector  of  Christ   Church, 

Marylebone ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 
G.  E.  D.        Prof.  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
E.  D.  Emanuel  Deutsch,  M.  R.  A.  S.,  British  Museum. 

W.  D.  Rev.  William  Drake,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen. 

E.  P.  E.         Rev.  Edward  Paroissien  Eddrup,  M.  A.,  Principal  of  the  Theolog- 

ical College,  Salisbury. 
C.  J.  E.         Right  Rev.  Charles  John  Ellicott,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Glouces- 
ter and  Bristol. 

F.  W.  F.       Rev.  Frederick  William  Farrar,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Har* 

row  School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

J.  F.  James  Fergusson,   F.  R.  S.,   F.  R.  A.  S.,  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Insti- 

tute of  British  Architects. 

E.  S.  Ff.  Edward  Salusbury  Ffoulkes,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Jesus  College, 
Oxford, 

W.  F.  Right  Rev.  Wllliam  Fitzgerald,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Killaloe. 

'iii) 


IV 


LIST   OF   WlilTERS. 


rNiriALs. 

F. 

G. 

F. 

w.  a 

G. 

H. 

B.  H. 

E. 

H— s. 

H. 

H. 

A. 

C.  H. 

J. 

A.  H. 

J. 

D.  H. 

J. 

J.  H. 

W 

.  H. 

J. 

S.  H. 

E. 

H. 

W 

.  B.  J. 

A. 

11.  L. 

S. 

L. 

J.  B.  L. 


D. 

W.  M. 

F. 

M. 

Oppert. 

E. 

R.  0. 

T. 

J.  0. 

J. 

J.  S.  P. 

T. 

T.  P. 

H. 

\V.  P. 

E. 

H.  P. 

E. 

S.  P. 

R. 

S.  P. 

J. 

L.  P. 

Rev.  Fraxcis  Garden,  M.  A.,  Subdean  of  Her  Majesty's  Chapels 
Royal. 

Rev.  F.  William  Gotcii,  liL.  D.,  President  of  the  Baptist  College, 
Bristol ;  late  Hebrew  Examiner  in  the  University  of  London. 

George  Grove,  Crystal  Palace,  Sydenham. 

Prof  Horatio  Balcii  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 
tion, Newton,  Mass. 

Rev.  lilRNEST  Hawkixs,  B.  D.,  Secretary  of  the  Society  for  the  Propa- 
gation of  the  Gospel  in  Foreign  Parts. 

Rev.  Henry  HayiMAN,  B.  D.,  Head  Master  of  the  Grammar  School, 
Cheltenham  ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

Ven.  Lord  Arthur  Charles  Hervey,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Sud- 
bury, and  Rector  of  Ick worth. 

Rev.  Ja:mes  Augustus  Hessey,  D.  C.  L.,  Head  Master  of  Merchant 
Taylors'  School. 

Joseph  Dalton  Hooker,  M.  D.,  F.  R.  S.,  Royal  Botanic  Gardens, 
Kew. 

Rev-  Ja:\ies  John  Hornby,  M.  A.,  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Ox- 
ford ;  Principal  of  Bishop  Cosin's  Hall. 

Rev.  William  Houghton,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Rector  of  Preston  on  the 
Weald  Moors,  Salop. 

Rev.  John  Saul  Howson,  I).  D.,  Principal  of  the  Collegiate  Institu- 
tion, Liverpool. 

Rev.  Edgar  Huxtable,  M.  A.,  Subdean  of  Wells. 

Rev.  William  Basil  Jones,  M.  A.,  Prebendary  of  York  and  of  St. 
David's  ;  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  University  College,  Oxford. 

Austen  Henry  La  yard,  D.  C.  L.,  M.  P. 

Rev.  Stanley  Leatiies,  M.  A.,  M.  R.  S.  L.,  Hebrew  Lecturer  in 
King's  College,  London. 

Rev.  Joseph  Barber  Ligiitfoot,  D.  D.,  Ilulsean  Professor  of  Divinity, 
and  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  D.  W.  Marks,  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  University  College,  London. 

Rev.  Frederick  Meyrick,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  Trinity 
College,  Oxford. 

Prof.  Jules  Oppert,  of  Paris. 

Rev.  Edward  Redman  Orger,  M.  A.,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of  St. 
Aunustine's  College,  Canterbury. 

Ven.  Thomas  Johnson  Ormerod,  M.  A.,  Archdeacon  of  Suffolk-, 
late  Fellow  of  Brasenose  College,  Oxford. 

Rev.  John  James  Stewart  Perowne,  B.  D.,  Vice-Principal  of  St. 
David's  College,  Lampeter. 

Rev.  Thomas  Thomason  Perowne,  B.  D.,  Fellow  and  Tutor  o^ 
Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge. 

Rev.  Henry  Wright  Phillott,  M.  A.,  Rector  of  Staunton-on-Wye. 
Herefordshire  ;  late  Student  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

Rev.  Edward  Hayes  Plumptre,  M.  A.,  Professor  of  Divinity  in 
King's  College,  London. 

Edward  Stanley  Poole,  M.  R.  A.  S.,  South  Kensington  Museum. 

Reginald  Stuart  Poole,  British  Museum. 

Rev.  J.  Leslie  Porter,  M.  A.,  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature,  Assem 


LIST   OF   WRITERS.  ^ 

NAMES. 

bly*s  College,  Belfast ;  Author  of  "  Handboctk  of  Syria  and  Palestine," 
and  "  Five  Years  in  Damascus." 

C.  P.  Rev.   Charles  Pritchard,  M.  A.,  F.  R.  S.,  Hon.   Secretary  of  the 

Royal  Astronomical  Society ;  late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Cam- 
bridge. 

G.  R.  Rev.  George  Rawlixson,  M.  A.,  Camden  Professor  of  Ancient  His- 

tory, Oxford. 

H.  J.  R.  Rev.  Hexry  John  Rose,  B.  D.,  Rural  Dean,  and  Rector  of  Houghton 
Conquest,  Bedfordshire. 

W.  S.  Rev.  AViLLiAM  Selwyn,  D.  D.,  Chaplain   in   Ordinary  to  the  Queen ; 

Lady  Margaret's  Professor  of  Divinity,  Cambridge  ;  Canon  of  Ely. 

A.  P.  S.         Rev.  Arthur  Penrhyx  Stanley,  D.  D.,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesias- 

tical History,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford  ;  Chaplain  to  His 
Royal  Highness  the  Prince  of  Wales. 

C.  E.  S.         Prof.  Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn 

J.  P.  T.         Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

W.  T.  Most  Rev.  William  Thomson,  D.  D.,  Lord  Archbishop  of  York. 

S.  P.  T.  Samuel  Prideaux  Tregelles,  LL.  D.,  Author  of  "  An  Introduction 
to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Testament,"  &c. 

H.  B.  T.  Rev.  Henry  Baker  Tristram,  M.  A.,  F.  L.  S.,  Master  of  Greatham 
Hospital. 

J.  F.  T.  Rev.  Joseph  Francis  Thrupp,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Barrington ;  late  Fel- 
low of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

E.  T.  Hon.  Edward  T.  B.  Twisleton,  M.  A.,  late  Fellow  of  Balliol  College, 

Oxford. 

E.  V.  Rev.  Edmund  Venables,  M.  A.,  Bonchurch,  Isle  of  Wight. 

B.  F.  W.       Rev.  Brooke  Foss  Westcott,  M.  A.,  Assistant  Master  of  Han-ow 

School ;  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

C.  W.  Rev.  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.  D.,  Canon  of  Westminster. 

W.  A.  W.  William  Aldis  Wright,  M.  A.,  Librarian  of  Trinity  College,  Cam- 
bridge. 


WRITERS  IN  THE  AMERICAN  EDITION. 

A.  Ezra    Abbot,    LL.  D.,    Assistant    Librarian   of    Harvard    College, 

Cambridge,  Mass. 

B.  C.  B.         Pi-of.  Samuel  Colcord  Bartlett,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Sera.,  Chicago,  111. 
T.  J.  C.         Rev.  Thomas  Jefferson  Conant,  D.  D.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

G.  E.  D.        Prof.  George  Edward  Day,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn 

G.  P.  F.         Prof.  George  Park  Fisher,  D.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

F.  G.  Prof  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.  D.,  Middletown,  Conn. 

D.  R.  G.  Rev.  Daniel  Raynes  Goodwin,  D.  D.,  Provost  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 

H.  Prof.  Horatio  Balch  Hackett,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Theological  Institu- 

tion, Newton,  Mass. 

J,  H.  Prof.  James  Hadley,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

F,  W.  H.       Rev.  Frederick  Whitmore  Holland,  F.  R.  G.  S.,  London. 

A.  H.  Prof.  Alvaii  Hovey,  D.  D.,  Theological  Institution,  Newton,  Mass. 


»f  LIST    OF   WRITERS. 

IKITIAIft  WAMES. 

A.  C.  K.        Prof.  AsAHEL  Clark  Kendrick,  D.  D.,  University  of  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

C.  M.  M.        Prof.  Charles  Marsh  Mead,  Ph.  D.,  Theol.  Sera.,  Andover,  Mass. 

E.  A.  P.         Prof.  Edwards  Amasa  Park,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 

W.  E.  P.       Rev.  William  Edwards  Park,  Lawrence,  Mass. 

A.  P.  P.  Prof.  Andrew  Preston  Peabody,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Harvard  College, 
Cambridge,  Mass. 

G.  E.  P.         Rev.  George  E.  Post,  M.  D.,  Tripoli,  Syria. 

R.  D.  C.  R.  Prof.  Rensselaer  David  Chanceford  Robbins,  Middlebury  Col- 
lege, Vt. 

P.  S.  Rev.  Philip  Sciiaff,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

H.  B.  S.  Prof.  Henry  Boynton  Smith,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

C.  E.  S.        Rev.  Calvin  Ellis  Stowe,  D.  D.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

D.  S.  T.        Prof.  Daniel  Smith  Talcott,  D.  D.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Bangor,  Me. 
J.  H.  T.        Prof  Joseph  Henry  Thayer,  M.  A.,  Theol.  Seminary,  Andover,  Mass. 
J.  P.  T.         Rev.  Joseph  Parrish  Thompson,  D.  D.,  New  York. 

C.  V.  A.  V.  Rev.  Cornelius  Y.  A.  Van  Dyck,  D.  D.,  Beirut,  S}Tia. 

W.  H.  W.     Rev.  William  Hayes  Ward,  M.  A.,  New  York. 

W.  F.  W.  Prof  William  Fairfield  Warren,  D.  D.,  Boston  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Boston,  Mass. 

S.  W.  Rev.  Samuel  Wolcott,  D.  D.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

T.  D.  W.  President  Theodore  Dwight  Woolsey,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Yale  College, 
New  Haven,  Conn. 

%*  The  new  portions  in  the  present  edition  are  indicated  by  a  star  (*),  the  edi- 
torial additions  being  distinguished  by  the  initials  H.  and  A.  Whatever  is  enclosed 
in  brackets  is  also,  with  unimportant  exceptions,  editorial.  This  remark,  however, 
does  not  apply  to  the  cross-references  in  brackets,  most  of  which  belong  to  the  origi- 
nal work,  though  a  large  number  have  been  added  to  this  edition. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


Aid.       The  Aldine  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1518. 
Alex.     The  Codex  Alexandrinus  (5th  cent.),  edited  by  Baber,  1816-28. 
A.  V.     The  authorized  (common)  English  version  of  the  Bible. 
Comp.   The  Septuagint  as  printed  in  the  Complutensian  Polyglott,  1514-17,  published 
1522. 

FA.  The  Codex  Friderico-Augustanus  (4th  cent.),  published  by  Tlschendorf  in 
1846. 

Rom.  The  Roman  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1587.  The  readings  of  the  Septuagin 
for  which  no  authority  is  specified  are  also  from  this  source. 

Sin.  The  Codex  Slnaiticus  (4th  cent),  published  by  Tlschendorf  In  1862.  Th/S 
and  FA.  are  parts  of  the  same  manuscript. 

Vat.  The  Codex  Vaticanus  1209  (4th  cent.),  according  to  Mai's  edition,  published 
by  Vercellone  in  1857.  "  Vat.  H."  denotes  readings  of  the  MS.  (difierlng 
from  Mai),  given  in  Holmes  and  Parsons's  edition  of  the  Septuagint,  1798- 
1827.  "  Vat.^ "  distinguishes  the  primary  reading  of  the  MS.  from  «  Vat.*'* 
or  "  2.  m.,"  the  alteration  of  a  later  reviser. 


DICTIONARY 


OF 


BIBLICAL  ANTIQUITIES,  BIOGRAPHY,   GEOGRAPHY, 
AND   NATURAL    HISTORY. 


GENNESARET,  SEA  OF 

GENNES'ARET,  SEA  OF  (\ifivr]  Tsw-q- 
traper,  Luke  v.  1;  {JSwp  Vevvt](rap,  1  Mace.  xi. 
67),  called  in  the  0.  T.  »  the  Sea  of  Cliinnereth," 
or  "Cinneroth,"  Num.  xxxiv.  11:  Josh.  xii.  3), 
from  a  town  of  that  name  which  stood  on  or  near 
its  shore  (Josh.  xix.  35).     In  the  later  Hebrew 

we  always  find  the  Greek  form  IDp/^S,  which  may 
possibly  be  a  corruption  of  n^SS,  though  some 

derive  the  word  from  Ganuah,  "a  garden,"  and 
Sharon,  the  name  of  a  plain  between  Tabor  and 
this  lake  {Onom.'s.  v.  ^apcop;  Keland,  pp.  393, 
259).  Josephus  calls  it  T^vv-qa-aoiTiu  \i^i>r]v  {Ant. 
xviii.  2,  §  1);  and  this  seems  to  nave  been  its  com- 
mon name  at  the  commencement  of  our  era  (Strab. 
xvi.  p.  755;  Plin.  v.  16;  Ptol.  v.  15).  At  its 
northwestern  angle  was  a  beautiful  and  fertile  plain 
called  "  Gennesaret "  {yriv  Tcut/ricrapeT,  Matt.  xiv. 
34),  from  which  the  name  of  the  lake  was  taken 
(Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  10,  §  7).  The  lake  is  also  called 
in  the  N.  T.  &d\a<T(ra  ttjs  TaAiAaias,  from  the 
province  of  Galilee  which  bordered  on  its  western 
side  (Matt.  iv.  18;  Mark  vii.  31;  John  vi.  1);  and 
&d\a(rcra  rfj?  TtjSepictSos,  from  the  celebrated  city 
(John  vi.  1,  [xxi.  1]).  Eusebius  calls  it  Ai/uLvr] 
Ti^epids  ( Onom.  a.  v.  2a/)c6i/ ;  see  also  Cyr.  in  Jes. 
i.  5).  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  all  the  numerous 
names  given  to  this  lake  were  taken  from  places  on 
its  western  side.     Its  modef-n  name  is  Bahr  Tuba- 


iyeh  (ay^^  w^). 


In  Josh.  xi.  2  "  the  plains  south  of  Chinneroth  " 
are  mentioned.  It  is  the  sea  and  not  the  city  that 
ia  here  referred  to  (comp.  Deut.  iii.  17 ;  Josh.  xii. 
3) ;  and  "  the  plains  "  are  those  along  the  banks  of 
the  Jordan.  JMost  of  our  Lord's  public  life  was 
spent  in  the  environs  of  the  Sea  of  Gennesaret. 
On  its  shores  stood  Capernaum,  "his  own  city" 
(Matt.  iv.  13);  on  its  shore  he  called  his  first  dis- 
ciples fi-om  their  occupation  as  fishermen  (Luke  v. 
1-11);  and  near  its  shores  he  spake  many  of  his 
parab.es,  and  performed  many  of  his  miracles. 
This  region  was  then  the  most  densely  peopled  in 
all  Palestine.  No  less  than  nine  cities  stood  on  the 
very  shores  of  the  lake;  while  t/umerous  large  vil- 
lages dotted  the  plains  and  hill-sides  arou".d  (Por- 
ter, IlandOuok,  p.  421). 

ITie  Sea  of  Gennesaret  is  of  an  oval  shape,  about 
Uurteen  geogr-iphical  mile*  loiig,  and  sij  broad. 
57 


GENNESARET,  SEA  OF 

Josephus  gives  the  length  at  140  stadia,  and  the 
breadth  forty  {B.  J.  iii.  10,  §  7);  and  Pliny  sayi 
it  measured  xvi.  M.  p.  by  vi.  (//.  iV^.  xiv.).  Both 
these  are  so  near  the  truth  that  they  could  scarcely 
have  been  mere  estimates.  The  river  Jordan  enters 
it  at  its  northern  end,  and  passes  out  at  its  southern 
end.  In  fact  the  bed  of  the  lake  is  just  a  lower 
section  of  the  great  Jordan  valley.  Its  most  re- 
markable feature  is  its  deep  depression,  being  no 
less  than  700  feet  below  the  level  of  the  ocean 
(Robinson,  Blbl.  Ees.  i.  613).  Like  almost  aU 
lakes  of  volcanic  origin  it  occupies  the  bottom  of  a 
great  basin,  the  sides  of  which  shelve  down  with  a 
uniform  slope  from  the  surrounding  plateaus.  On 
the  east  the  banks  are  nearly  2000  feet  high,  des- 
titute of  verdure  and  of  foliage,  deeply  furrowed  by 
ravines,  but  quite  flat  along  the  summit ;  forming 
in  fact  the  supporting  wall  of  the  table-land  of 
Bashan.  On  the  north  there  is  a  gradual  descent 
from  this  table -land  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan; 
and  then  a  gradual  rise  again  to  a  plateau  of  nearly 
equal  elevation  skirting  the  mountains  of  Upper 
Galilee.  The  western  banks  are  less  regular,  yet 
they  present  the  same  general  features  —  plateaus 
of  different  altitudes  breaking  down  abruptly  to 
the  shore.  The  scenery  has  neither  grandeur  nor 
beauty.  It  wants  features,  and  it  wants  variety. 
It  is  bleak  and  monotonous,  especially  so  when  the 
sky  is  cloudless  and  the  sun  high.  The  golden 
tints  and  purple  shadows  of  evening  help  it,  but  it 
looks  best  during  a  thunder-storm,  such  as  the 
WTiter  has  often  witnessed  in  early  spring.  The 
cliffs  and  rocks  along  the  shores  are  mostly  a  hard 
porous  basalt,  and  the  whole  basin  has  a  scathed 
volcanic  look.  The  frequent  earthquakes  prove 
that  the  elements  of  destruction  are  still  at  work 
beneath  the  surface.  There  is  a  copious  warm 
fountain  near  the  site  of  Tiberias,  and  it  is  said 
that  at  the  time  of  the  great  earthquake  of  1837 
both  the  quantify  and  temperature  of  the  water 
were  m.uch  increased. 

The  great  depression  makes  the  climate  of  the 
shores  almost  tropical.  This  is  very  sensibly  felt 
by  the  traveller  in  going  down  from  the  plains  of 
Galilee.  In  summer  the  heat  is  intense,  and  even 
in  early  spring  the  air  has  something  of  an  Egyp- 
tian balminess.  Snow  very  rarely  falls,  and  though 
it  often  whitens  the  neighboring  mountains,  it 
never  lies  here.  The  vegetation  is  almost  of  a 
tropical  character.  The  thorny  lote-tree  grows 
(897) 


898  GENNEUS 

junong  the  basalt  rocks;  palms  flourish  luxuriantly, 
and  indigo  is  cultivated  in  the  fields  (comp.  Joseph. 
B.  J.  iii.  10,  §  G). 

The  water  of  the  lake  is  sweet,  cool,  and  trans- 
parent; and  as  the  beach  is  everywhere  pebbly  it 
has  a  beautiful  sparkling  look.  This  fact  is  some- 
what strange  when  we  consider  that  it  is  exposed  to 
the  powerful  rays  of  the  sun,  that  many  warm  and 
brackish  springs  flow  into  it,  and  that  it  is  suppUed 
by  the  Jordan,  which  rushes  into  its  northern  end, 
a  turbid,  ruddy  torrent.  The  lake  abounds  in  fish 
now  as  in  ancient  times.  Some  are  of  the  same 
species  as  those  got  in  the  Nile,  such  as  the  Siluruc, 
the  Jluf/'d,  and  another  called  by  Hasselquist  Spa- 
ms Galilceus  (Etlse,  pp.  181,  412  f. ;  comp.  Joseph. 
n.  J.  iu.  10,  §  7).  The  fishery,  like  the  soil  of 
the  surrounding  country,  is  sadly  neglected.  One 
little  crazy  boat  is  the  sole  representative  of  the 
fleets  that  covered  the  lake  in  N.  T.  times,  and 
even  with  it  there  is  no  deep-water  fishing.  Two 
modes  are  now  employed  to  catch  the  fish.  One  is 
a  hand-net,  with  which  a  man,  usually  naked 
(John  xxi.  7),  stalks  along  the  shore,  and  watching 
his  opportunity,  throws  it  round  the  game  with  a 
jerk.  The  other  mode  is  still  more  curious.  Bread- 
crumbs are  mixed  up  with  bi-chloride  of  mercury, 
and  sown  over  the  water;  the  fish  swallow  the 
poison  and  die.  The  dead  bodies  float,  are  picked 
up,  and  taken  to  the  market  of  'J'iberias !  (Porter, 
Handbook,  p.  432.) 

A  "  mournful  and  solitary  silence  "  now  reigns 
along  the  shores  of  the  Sea  of  Gennesaret,  which 
were  in  former  ages  studded  with  great  cities,  and 
resounded  with  the  din  of  an  active  and  industrious 
people.  Seven  out  of  the  nine  cities  above  referred 
to  are  now  uninhabited  ruins ;  one,  Magdala,  is  oc- 
cupied by  half  a  dozen  mud  hovels;  and  Tiberias 
alone  retains  a  wretched  remnant  of  its  former 
prosperity.  J.  L.  P. 

GENNE'US  (TevvaTos,  Alex.  Teuveos-  Oen- 
nceus),  father  of  Aiiolloiiius,  who  was  one  of  several 
generals  {crpaT-qyoi)  commanding  towns  in  Pales- 
tine, who  molested  the  Jews  while  Lysias  was  gov- 
ernor for  Antiochus  Kupator  (2  Mace.  xii.  2). 
Luther  understands  the  word  as  an  adjective  (^et-- 
yaios  =  well-born),  and  has  "des  edlen  ApoUo- 
nius." 

GENTILES.  I.  Old  Testament.  —  The  He- 
brew ''IS  in  sing.  =  a  people,  nation,  body  politic; 
in  which  sense  it  is  applied  to  the  Jewish  nation 
amongst  others.  In  the  plural  it  acquires  an  ethno- 
graphic, and  also  an  invidious  meaning,  and  is  ren- 
dered in  A.  V.  by  Gentiles  and  Heathen. 

D'1'12,  the  nations,  the  surrounding  nations,  for- 
tifjners,  as  opposed  to  Israel  (Neh.  v.  8).  In  Gen. 
X.  5  it  occurs  in  its  most  indefinite  sense  =  the  far- 
distant  inhabitants  of  the  AVestern  Isles,  without 
the  slightest  accessory  notion  of  heathenism,  or 
barbarism.  In  Lev.,  Dent.,  Ps.,  the  term  is  ap- 
plietl  to  the  various  heathen  nations  with  which 
Israel  came  into  contact;  its  meaning  grows  wider 
in  proportion  to  the  wider  circle  of  the  national  ex- 
perience, and  more  or  less  invidious  according  to 
the  success  or  defeat  of  the  national  arms.  In  the 
prophets  it  attains  at  once  its  most  comprehensive 
and  its  mpst  hostile  view;  hostile  in  presence  of 
victorious  rivals,  comprehensive  with  reference  to 
the  triumphs  of  a  spiritual  future. 

Notwithstanding  the  disagreeable  connotation  of 
jkhe  term,  the  Jews  were  able  to  use  it,  even  in  the 


GEON 

plural,  in  a  purely  technical,  geographical  *;n80  So 
Gen.  X.  5  (see  above);  Gen.  xiv.  1;  Josh.  xii.  23; 
Is.  ix.  1.  In  Josh.  xii.  2-3,  "the  king  of  the  na 
tions  of  Gilgal,"  A.  V. ;  better  with  Gesenius  "  the 
king  of  the  Gentiles  at  (Jilgal,"  v/here  probably,  as 
afterwards  in  Galilee,  foreigners,  Gentiles,  were  set- 
tled among  the  Jews. 

For  "  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles,"  comp.  Matt.  iv. 
15  with  Is.  ix.   1,  wJiere  A.  V.  "Galilee  of  the 

nations."   In  Heb.  □"^hsn  b'^bn,  the  "  circle  c/ 

the  Gentiles;"  kot'  e|oxV,  ^^'7^'^^'  ha-GsU-el. 
whence  the  name  Galilee  applied  to  a  districc  ^hich 
was  largely  peopled  by  the  Gentiles,  especially  the 
Phoenicians. 

The  Gentiles  in  Gen.  xiv.  1  may  either  be  the 
inhabitants  of  the  same  territory,  or,  as  suggested 
by  Gesenius,  "  nations  of  the  West  "  generally. 

11.  New  Testament.  —  1.  The  Greek  iOvos  in 
sing,  means  a  people  or  nation  (Matt.  xxiv.  7 ;  Acta 
ii.  5,  &c.),  and  even  the  Jewish  people  (Luke  vii. 

5,  xxiii.  2,  &c. ;  comp.  "^"^3,  supr.).     It  is  only  in 

the  pi.  that  it  is  used  for  the  Heb.  Q^'^2,  heathen, 
Gentiles  (comp.  cOuos,  heathen,  ethnic):  in  Matt, 
xxi.  43  eOuei  alludes  to,  but  does  not  directly  stand 
for,  "  the  Gentiles."  As  equivalent  to  Gentiles  it 
is  found  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  but  not  alwaya 
in  an  hividious  sense  (e.  [/.  Rom.  xi.  13 ;  Eph.  iii. 
1,6). 

2.  "EWrjv,  John  vii.  35,  ^  Ziaa-iTopa.  rwv  'E\- 
X-ffj/wu,  "  the  Jews  dispersed  among  the  Gentiles," 
Rom.  iii.  9,  'lovSalovs  Kol  "E/vArji/os,  Jews  and 
Gentiles. 

The  A.  V.  is  not  consistent  in  its  treatment  of 
this  word ;  sonjetimes  rendering  it  by  Gi-eek  (Acts 
xiv.  1,  xvii.  4;  Rom.  i.  16,  x.  12),  sometimes  by 
Gentile  (Rom.  ii.  9,  10,  iii.  9;  1  Cor.  x.  32),  in- 
serting Greek  in  the  margin.  The  places  where 
"EAAtji/  is  equivalent  to  Greek  simply  (as  Acts  xvi. 
1,  3)  are  much  fewer  than  those  where  it  is  equiva- 
lent to  Gentile.  The  former  may  probably  be 
reduced  to  Acts  xvi.  1,  3;  Acts  xviii.  17;  Rom.  i. 
14.  The  latter  use  of  the  word  seems  to  have 
arisen  from  the  almost  universal  adoption  of  the 
Greek  language.  Even  in  2  Mace  iv.  13  'EK\r]via- 
fi6s  appears  as  synonymous  with  a\\o(t)v\i<rfi6s 
(comp.  vi.  9);  and  in  Is.  ix.  12  the  LXX.  renders 

D'*nK?bQ  by  "eaAtjj/os;  and  so  the  Greek  Fathers 
defended  the  Clmstian  faith  irphs  "EWrjvas,  and 
KaO'  'EAArjj/w*/.     [Gkeek;  Heathen.] 

T.  E.  B. 

GENU'BATH  (nn3?  [theft,  Ges.] :  Faiy 
fJaO:  Genvhaih),  the  son  of  Hadad,  an  Edomite 
of  the  royal  fomily,  by  an  Egyptian  princess,  tht 
sister  of  Tahpenes,  the  queen  of  the  Pharaoh  who 
governed  Egypt  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of 
David  (1  K.  xi.  20;  comp.  IG).  Genubath  »vaa 
born  in  the  palace  of  Pharaoh,  and  weaned  by  the 
queen  herself;  after  which  he  became  a  menoier 
of  the  royal  establishment,  on  the  same  footing  as 
one  of  the  sons  of  Pharaoh.  The  fragment  of 
Edomite  chronicle  in  which  this  is  contained  is 
very  remarkable,  and  may  be  compared  with  that 
in  Gen.  xxxvi.  Genubath  is  not  again  mentioned 
or  alluded  to. 

GE'ON  {T-nuiv-  Gehon),  i.  e.  Grnox,  one  of 
the  four  rivers  of  Eden ;  introduced,  with  the  Jordan, 
and  probably  the  Nile,  into  a  figure  in  the  praise 


GERA 

>t  wisdom,  Ecclus.  xxiv.  27.  This  is  merely  the 
Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  name,  the  same  which 
\s  used  by  the  LXX.  in  .'.'eu.  ii.  13. 

GE'RA  (W;^2     [grain,   lilile   ioei(/ht,    Ges.] : 

rrjpd ;  [in  1  Chr.  viii.  5,  Rom.  Vat.  Tepd  •  Gera] ), 
one  of  the  "  sons,"  i.  e.  desceidants,  of  Benjamin, 
enumerated  in  Gen.  xlvi.  21,  as  already  living  at 
I  he  time  of  Jacob's  migration  into  Egypt.  He 
was  son  of  Bela  (1  Chr.  viii.  3).  [Bela.]  The 
text  of  tliis  last  passage  is  very  corrupt;  and  the 
diflw.'ent  Geras  there  named  seem  to  reduce  them- 
Belvcss  into  one  —  the  same  as  the  son  of  Bela. 
Gera,  who  is  named  Judg.  iii.  15  as  the  ancestor 
of  Ehud,  and  in  2  Sam.  xvi.  5  as  the  ancestor 
of  Shiniei  who  cursed  David  [Bkchku],  is  prob- 
»My  also  the  same  person.  Gera  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  list  of  Benjamite  families  in  Num. 
xxvi.  38-40 ;  of  which  a  very  obvious  explanation 
is  that  at  that  time  he  was  not  the  head  of  a  sep- 
arate family,  but  was  included  among  the  Belaites ; 
it  being  a  matter  of  necessity  that  some  of  Bela's 
sons  should  be  so  included,  otherwise  there  could 
be  no  family  of  Belaites  at  all.  Dr.  Kalisch  has 
uome  long  and  rather  perplexed  observations  on  the 
discrepancies  in  the  lists  in  Gen.  xlvi.  and  Num. 
xxvi.,  and  specially  as  regards  the  sons  of  Benjamin. 
But  the  truth  is  that  the  two  lists  agree  very  well 
as  far  as  Benjamin  is  concerned.  For  the  only  dis- 
crepance that  remains,  when  the  absence  of  Becher 
and  Gera  from  the  list  in  Num.  is  thus  explained, 

is  that  for  the  two  names  "^HS  and   ti?Sn   (Ehi 

and  Rosh)  in  Gen.,  we  have  the  one  name  Dn"^nM 

(Ahiram)  in  Num.  If  this  last  were  written  DM"), 
as  it  might  be,  the  two  texts  would  be  almost 
identical,  especially  if  written  in  the  Samaritan 
character,  in  which  the  sliin  closely  resembles  the 
mem.  That  Ahiram  is  right  we  are  quite  sure, 
from  the  family  of  the  Ahiram  ites,  and  from  the 
non-mention  elsewhere  of  Rosh,  which  in  fact  is 
not  a  proper   name.     [Rosh.]     The   conclusion 

therefore  seems  certain  that  ti7Mm"^nS  in  Gen. 
is  a  mere  clerical  error,  and  that  there  is  perfect 
agreement  between  the  two  lists.  This  view  is 
strengthened  by  the  further  fact  that  in  the  word 
which  follows  Rosh,  namely,  INIuppim,  the  initial 
m  is  an  error  for  sh.  It  should  be  Shuppim,  as  in 
Num.  xxvi.  39;  1  Chr.  vii.  12.  The  final  in  of 
Ahh-am,  and  the  initial  sh  of  Shuppim,  have  thus 
been  transposed.  To  the  remarks  made  under 
Bechek  should  be  added  that  the  great  destruction 
of  the  Benjamites  recorded  in  Judg.  xx.  may  ac- 
oonnt  for  the  introduction  of  so  many  new  names 
b  the  later  Benjamite  lists  of  1  Chr.  vii.  and  viii., 
i£  which  several  seem  to  be  women's  names. 

A.  C.  H. 
GERAH.     [Measures.] 

GE'RAR  (n;p2   [circle,  district,  Fiirst;  abode, 
residence,  Sim.,  Ges.]:  Tepapct  [oi-  Tcpapa;  in  2 


a  The  well  where  Isaac  and  Abimelech  covenanted 
ts  distinguished  by  the  LXX.  from  the  Beer-sheba 
whero  Abraham  did  so.  the  former  being  called  ^pe'ap 
*pKQv,  the  latter  ^pg'ap  bpiciafjiov. 

h  The  stopping  wells  is  a  device  still  resorted  to. by 
Jhe  Bedouins,  to  make  a  country  untenable  by  a  neigh- 
cor  of  whom  they  wish  to  be  rid. 

*  lu    his    Phys.    Geoi;r.  (p.   123)   Robinson    says 
merely  that  this  valley  w;is  doubtless  "  some  portion  or 


GERAR,  VALLEY  OF         899 

Chr.,  TeScip :  Gerura ;]  Joseph.  Ant.  1.  12,  §  1  / 
a  very  ancient  city  south  of  Gaza.  It  occurs  chiert> 
hi  Genesis  (x.  19,  xx.  1,  xxvi.  1,  6,  [17,  20,  26]) 
also  incidentally  in  2  Chr.  xiv.  13,  14.  In  GenesL 
the  people  are  spoken  of  as  Philistines ;  but  theii 
habits  appear,  in  that  early  stage,  more  pastora, 
than  they  subsequently  were.  Yet  they  are  even 
then  warlike,  since  Abimelech  was  "  a  captain  of  the 
host,"  who  appears  from  his  fixed  title,  "  Phichol," 
like  that  of  the  king,  "  Abimelech,"  to  be  a  per- 
manent officer  (comp.  Gen.  xxi.  32,  xxvi.  20,  and 
Ps.  xxxiv.,  title).  The  local  description,  xx.  1, 
"between  Kadesh  and  Shur,"  is  probably  meant 
to  indicate  the  limits  within  which  these  pastoral 
Philistines,  whose  chief  seat  was  then  Gerar,  ranged, 
although  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  their  ter- 
ritory embraced  all  the  interval  between  those  cities. 
It  must  have  trenched  on  the  "  south"  or  "south 
country  "  of  later  Palestine.  From  a  comparison 
of  xxi.  32  with  xxvi.  23,  2G,«  I^r-sheba  would 
seem  to  be  just  on  the  verge  of  this  territory,  and 
perhaps  to  be  its  limit  towards  the  N.  E.  For  its 
southern  boundary,  though  very  uncertain,  none  is 
more  probable  than  the  wadies  ei-Arish  ("  River 

ofF^gypt"  [torrent,  ^R^])  and  cI-Aiti;  south 
of  which  the  neighboring  "  wilderness  of  Paran  " 
(xx.  1^,  xxi.  22,  34)  may  be  probably  reckoned  to 
begui.  Isaac  was  most  probably  born  in  Gerar. 
The  great  crops  which  he  subsequently  raised  attest 
the  fertility  of  the  soil,  which,  lying  in  the  maritime 
plain,  still  contains  some  of  the  best  ground  in 
Palestine  (xxvi.  12).  It  is  possible  that  the  wells 
mentioned  by  Robinson  (i.  190)  may  represent 
those  digged  by  Abraham  and  reopened  by  Isaac 
(xxvi.  18-22).''  Williams  (Fluly  City,  i.  46)  speaks 
of  a  Joorf  el-Gerar  as  now  existing,  three  hours 
S.  S.  E.  of  Gaza,  and  this  may  probably  indicate 
the  northern  limit  of  the  territory,  if  not  the  site 
of  the  town ;  but  the  range  of  that  territory  need 
not  be  so  far  narrowed  as  to  make  the  Wady 
liuhaibeh  an  impossible  site,  as  Fiobinson  thinks  it 
(see  his  map  at  end  of  vol.  i.  and  i.  197),  for 
Rehoboth.  There  is  also  a  Wady  el-Jerur  laid 
down  S.  of  the  wadies  above-named,  and  running 
into  one  of  them;  but  this  is  too  far  south  (Robin  ■ 
son,  i.  189,  note)  to  be  accepted  as  a  possible  site 
The  valley  of  Gerar  may  be  almost  any  important 
wady  within  the  limits  indicated ;  but  if  the  above- 
mentioned  situation  for  the  wells  be  not  rejected,  it 
would  tend  to  designate  the  Wady  et-'Ain.  Robin- 
son (ii.  44)  appears  to  prefer  the  Wady  es-SherT<ih^ 
running  to  the  sea  south  of  Gaza.c  Eusebius  {de 
Sit.  if  Nom.  Loc.  Ileb.  s.  v. )  makes  Gerar  25  miles 
S.  from  Eleutheropolis,  which  would  be  about  the 
latitude  of  Beer-sheba ;  but  see  Jerome,  Lib.  Qucest. 
Heb.  Gen.  xxii.  3.  Bered  (xvi.  14)  may  perhaps 
have  lain  in  this  territory.  In  1  Chr.  iv.  39,  the 
LXX.  read  Gerar,  ^1$  tV  Tepapa,  for  Gedor;  a 
substitution  which  is  not  without  some  claims  tc 
support.     [Beued;  Beek-siieba;  Gedou.] 

H.  H. 
*  GERAR,  VALLEY  OF.     [Gerar.] 

b'-anch  of  these  valleys  south  and  southeast  of  Gaza." 
Van  de  Velde  (ii.  183)  heard  of  "  a  site  called  U7?i  el- 
Gerar,  about  3  hours  from  Gaza,  and  about  the  samt 
distance  from  the  sea,"  though  without  any  ruins  to 
indicate  its  antiquity.  Thomson  says  {Land  and  Boot, 
ii.  348)  that  Gerar  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  bu 
can  hardly  fiiil  to  be  brought  to  light,  "  jius t  as  sooc  M 
it  is  safe  to  travel  in  that  region."  H 


900 


GERASA 


GERASA  ir^pao-a,  Ptol. ;  r^^da-cra,  r^ot. 
Ecclea.:  Arab.  Jerash,  ji*^).    This  name  does 

Dot  occur  in  the  0.  T.,  nor  in  the  Received  Text  of 
tlie  N  T.  Tiut  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  in 
Matt.viii.  28  "Gerasenes"  supersedes  "Gadarenes." 
Gerasa  was  a  celebrated  city  on  the  eastern  borders 
of  Peraea  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  3),  placed  by  some 
in  the  province  of  Coelesyria  and  region  of  Decapolis 
(Steph.  s.  ?;.),  by  others  in  Arabia  (Epiph.  ndv. 
fleer.;  Origen.  in  Johan.).  These  various  state- 
ments do  not  arise  from  &ny  doubts  as  to  the 
locality  of  the  city,  but  from  the  ill-defined  bound- 
aries of  the  provinces  mentioned.  In  the  Roman 
age  no  city  of  Palestine  was  better  known  than 
(ierasa.  It  is  situated  amid  the  mountains  of 
Gilead,  20  miles  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  25  north  of 
Philadelphia,  the  ancient  Rabbath- Amnion.  Several 
MSS.  read  Tepao-yji/cDj/  instead  of  refjyfcrrfvwv,  in 
Matt.  viii.  28;  but  the  city  of  Gerasa  lay  too  far 
from  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  to  admit  the  possibility 
of  the  miracles  having  been  wrought  in  its  vicinity. 
If  the  reading  Tepaarivociu  be  the  true  one,  the 
Xc^pa,  "  district,"  must  then  have  been  very  large, 
including  Gadara  and  its  environs;  and  Matthew 
thus  uses  a  broader  appellation,  where  Slark  and 
Luke  use  a  more  specific  one.  This  is  not  improb- 
able; as  Jerome  {ad  Obad.)  states  that  Gilead  was 
in  his  day  called  Gerasa;  and  Origen  affirms  that 
repa<rr]ua)u  was  the  ancient  reading  ( Oj)p.  iv.  p. 
140).     [Gadaka.] 

It  is  not  known  when  or  by  whom  Gerasa  was 
founded.  It  is  first  mentioned  by  Josephus  as 
having  been  captured  by  Alexander  Jannoius  (circ. 
B.  c.  85;  Joseph.  B.  J.  i.  4,  §  8).  It  was  one  of 
the  cities  the  Jews  burned  in  revenge  for  the  mas- 
sacre of  their  countrymen  at  Cajsarea,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  their  last  war  with  the  Konians ;  and 
it  had  scarcely  recovered  from  this  calamity  when 
the  Emperor  Vespasian  despatched  Annius,  his 
general,  to  capture  it.  Annius,  having  carried  the 
city  at  the  first  assault,  put  to  the  sword  one 
thousand  of  the  youth  who  had  not  effected  their 
»scape,  enslaved  their  families,  and  plundered  their 
dwellings  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  9,  §  1).  It  appears 
to  have  been  nearly  a  century  subsequent  to  this 
period  that  Gerasa  attained  its  greatest  prosperity, 
and  was  atlorned  with  those  monuments  which  give 
it  a  place  among  the  proudest  cities  of  Syria.  His- 
tory tells  us  nothing  of  this,  but  the  fragments  of 
inscriptions  found  among  its  ruined  palaces  and 
temples,  show  that  it  is  indebted  for  its  architec- 
tural splendor  to  the  age  and  genius  of  the  Anto- 
nines  (a.  d.  138-80).  It  subsequently  became  the 
seat  of  a  bishopric.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the 
city  was  ever  occupied  by  the  Saracens.  There  are 
30  traces  of  their  architecture  —  no  mosques,  no  in- 
scriptions, no  reconstruction  of  old  edifices,  such  as 
are  found  in  most  other  great  cities  in  Syria.  All 
here  is  Roman,  or  at  least  ante-Islamic;  every 
structure  remains  as  the  hand  of  the  destroyer  or 
the  earthquake  shock  left  it  —  ruinous  and  de- 
serted. 

The  ruins  of  Gerasa  are  by  far  the  most  beauti- 
ful and  extensive  east  of  the  Jordan.  They  are 
jituiited  on  both  sides  of  a  shallow  valley  that  runs 
from  north  to  south  through  a  high  undulating 
plain,  and  falls  into  the  Zurka  (the  ancient  Jabbok) 
at  tho  distance  of  about  5  miles.  A  little  rivulet, 
thickly  fringed  with  oleander,  winds  through  the 
valley,  giving  life  and  beauty  to  the  deserted  city. 
rho  first  view  of  the  ruhis  is  very  striking ;  and 


GERIZIM 

such  as  have  enjoyed  it  will  not  sooe  forget  th« 
impression  made  upon  the  mind.  I'he  long  colon- 
nade running  through  the  centre  of  the  city,  ter- 
minating at  one  end  in  the  graceful  circle  of  the 
forum ;  the  groups  of  columns  clustered  here  and 
there  round  the  crumbling  walls  of  the  temples 
the  heavy  masses  of  masonry  that  distinguish  the 
positions  of  the  great  theatres ;  and  the  vast  field 
of  shapeless  ruins  rising  gradually  from  the  green 
banks  of  the  rivulet  to  the  battlemented  heights  on 
each  side  —  all  combine  in  forming  a  picture  s  ich 
as  is  rarely  equaled.  The  form  of  the  city  is  an 
irregular  square,  each  side  measuring  nearly  a  mile. 
It  was  surrounded  by  a  strong  wall,  a  large  portion 
of  which,  with  its  flanking  towers  at  intervals,  is 
in  a  good  state  of  preservation.  Three  gatewaya 
are  still  nearly  perfect ;  and  within  the  city  upwards 
of  two  hundred  and  tliirty  columns  remain  on  their 
pedestals.  (Full  descriptions  of  Gerasa  are  given 
in  the  Handbook  for  Syr.  and  Pal.  ;  Burckhardt's 
Travtls  in  Syria;  Buckingham's  Arab  Tribes; 
Ritter's  Pal.  und  Syr.)  J.  L.  P. 

GERGESE'NES,  Matt.  viii.  28.   [Gadara.] 

GER'GESITES,     THE     (ot    r€pyeaa7oi  i 
Vulg.  omits),  Jud.  v.  16.     [GiiiGASiiiTES.] 

GER'IZIM  (always  D'^-pr- IH,  har-Ger-iz- 
zim^  the  mountain  of  the  Gerizzites,  from  "^'pS, 
Crizzi,  dwellers  in  a  shorn  (J.  e.  desert)  land,  from 
T"n3,  gdraz^  to  cut  oflT;  possibly  the  tribe  subdued 
by  David,  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8:  TapiCiu,  [Vat.  Alex. 
-C^iv,  exc.  Alex.  Deut.  xi.  29,  Ta^ipetj/ :]  Garizim), 
a  mountain  designated  by  Moses,  in  conjunction 
with  INIount  Ebal,  to  be  the  scene  of  a  great  solem- 
nity upon  the  entrance  of  the  children  of  Israel 
into  the  promised  land.  High  places  had  a  pecu- 
liar charm  attached  to  them  in  these  days  of  ex- 
ternal observance.  The  law  was  delivered  from 
Sinai :  the  blessings  and  curses  affixed  to  the  per- 
formance or  neglect  of  it  were  directed  to  be  pro- 
nounced upon  Gerizim  and  Ebal.  Six  of  the 
tribes  —  Simeon,  Levi  (but  Joseph  being  repre- 
sented by  two  tribes,  Levi's  actual  place  probably 
was  as  assigned  below),  Judah,  Issachar,  Joseph,  and 
Benjamin  were  to  take  their  stand  upon  the  former 
to  bless;  and  six,  namely —  Reuben,  Gad,  Asher, 
Zebulun,  Dan,  and  Naphtali  —  upon  the  Litter  to 
curse  (Deut.  xxvii.  12-13).  Apparently,  the  Ark 
halted  mid-way  between  the  two  mountains,  en- 
compassed by  the  priests  and  Levites,  thus  divided 
by  it  into  two  bands,  with  Joshua  for  their  cory- 
phaeus. He  read  the  blessings  and  cursings  succes- 
sively (Josh.  viii.  33,  34),  to  be  re-echoed  by  the 
Levites  on  either  side  of  him,  and  responded  to  by 
the  tribes  in  their  double  array  with  a  loud  Amen 
(Deut.  xxvii.  14).  Curiously  enough,  only  the 
formula  for  the  curses  is  given  {ibid.  ver.  14-26); 
and  it  was  upon  Ebal,  and  not  Gerizim,  where  the 
altar  of  whole  unwrought  stone  was  to  be  built, 
and  where  the  huge  plastered  stones,  with  the  words 
of  the  law  (Josh.  viii.  32;  Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  8,  §  44, 
limits  them  to  the  blessings  and  curses  just  pro- 
nounced) wTitten  upon  them,  were  to  be  set  up 
(Deut.  xxvii.  4-6)  —  a  significant  omen  for  a  peo- 
ple entering  joyously  upon  their  new  inheritance 
and  yet  the  song  of  Moses  abounds  with  foreooa 
ings  still  more  sinister  and  plain-six)ken  (Deul 
xxxii.  5,  6,  and  15-28). 

The  next  question  is,  Has  Moses  defined  the  k 


GElilZIM 

jalitiea  of  Lbal  and  Geriziin?  Standing  on  the 
rastern  side  of  the  Jordan,  in  the  land  of  INIoab 
;Deut.  i.  5),  he  asks:  "Are  they  not  on  the  other 
jide  Jordan,  by  the  way  where  the  sun  goeth  down 
(t.  e.  at  some  distance  to  the  W.),  in  the  land  of 
the  Canaanites,  which  dwell  in  the  champaign  over 
against  Gilgal  (i.  e.  whose  territory  —  not  these 
mountains  —  ommenced  over  against  Gilgal  —  see 
Patrick  on  Deut.  xi.  30),  beside  the  plains  of  Mo- 
reh?"  .  .  .  These  closing  words  would  seem  to 
mark  their  site  with  unusual  precision:  for  in  Gen. 
lii.  G  "  the  plain  (LXX.  '  oak ')  of  Moreh  "  is  ex- 
pressly connected  with  "  the  place  of  Sichem  or  She- 
chem  "  (N.  T.  "  Sychem"  or  "Sychar,"  which  last 
form  is  thought  to  convey  a  reproach.  Keland, 
Dissert,  on  Gerizim,  in  Ugol.  Thesauv.  p.  dccxxv., 
in  Josephus  the  form  is  "  Sicima"),  and  accordingly 
Judg.  ix.  7,  Jotham  is  made  to  address  his  cele- 
brated parable  to  the  men  of  Shechem  from  "  the 
top  of  Mount  (ierizira."  The  "  hill  of  Moreh," 
mentioned  in  the  history  of  Gideon  his  father,  may 
have  heea  a  mountain  o\erhanging  the  same  plain, 
but  certainly  could  not  have  been  further  south 
(comp.  c.  vi.  33,  and  vii.  1).  Was  it  therefore 
prejudice,  or  neglect  of  the  true  import  of  these 
passages,  that  made  Eusebius  and  Epiphanius, 
both  natives  of  Palestine,  concur  in  placing  Ebal 
and  Gerizim  near  Jericho,  the  former  charging  the 
Samaritans  with  grave  error  for  affirming  them  to 
be  near  NeapolisV  (Keland.  Dissert.^  as  above,  p. 
dccxx.)-  Of  one  thing  we  may  be  assured,  namely, 
that  their  Scriptural  site  must  have  been,  in  the 
fourth  century,  lost  to  all  but  the  Samaritans; 
otherwise  these  two  fathers  would  have  spoken 
very  differently.  It  is  true  that  they  consider  the 
Samaritan  hypothesis  irreconcilable  with  Deut.  xi. 
30,  which  it  has  already  been  shown  not  to  be.  A 
more  formidable  objection  would  have  been  that 
Joshua  could  not  have  marched  from  Ai  to  She- 
chem, through  a  hostile  country,  to  perform  the 
above  solemnity,  and  retraced  his  steps  so  soon 
afterwards  to  Gilgal,  as  to  have  been  found  there 
by  the  Gibeonites  (Josh.  ix.  G;  comp.  viii.  30-35). 
Yet  the  distance  between  Ai  and  Shechem  is  not 
80  long  (under  two  days'  journey).  Neither  can 
the  interval  implied  in  the  context  of  the  former 
passage  have  been  so  short,  as  even  to  warrant  the 
modern  supposition  that  the  latter  passage  has  been 
misplaced.  The  remaining  objection,  namely,  "  the 
wide  interval  between  the  two  mountains  at  She- 
chem "  (Stanley,  S.  if  P.  p.  238,  note),  is  still  more 
easily  disposed  of,  if  we  consider  the  blessings  and 
curses  to  have  been  pronounced  by  the  Levites, 
elanding  in  the  midst  of  the  valley  —  thus  abridg- 
hig  the  distance  by  one  half — and  not  by  the  six 
tfibes  on  either  hill,  who  only  responded.  How 
indeed  could  000,000  men  and  upwards,  besides 
iromer.  and  children  (comp.  Num.  ii.  32  with  Judg. 
2X.  2  and  17),  have  been  accommodated  in  a  smaller 
space?  Besides  in  those  days  of  assemblies  "sub 
dio,"  the  sense  of  hearing  must  have  been  neces- 
sarily more  acute,  just  as,  before  the  aids  of  writing 
and  printing,  memories  were  much  more  retentive. 
We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  room 
for  doubting  tlie  Scriptural  position  of  Ebal  and 
Gerizim  to  have  been  —  where  they  are  now  placed 
—  in  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  I^jhraim ;  tht 
latter  of  them  overhanging  the  city  of  Shechem  ot 
Sicima,  as  Josephus,  following  the  Scriptural  nar- 
"ative,  asserts.  Even  Eusebius,  in  another  work  of 
tis  {Preen.  Evan;/,  ix.  22),  quotes  some  lines  from 
rheodotiis,  in  which  the  true  position  of  Ebal  and 


GERIZIM 


901 


Gerizim  is  described  with  great  force  and  accuracy 
and  St.  Jerome,  while  following  Eusebius  in  th 
Onomasticon,  in  his  ordinary  correspondence  do« 
not  hesitate  to  connect  Sichem  or  Neapolis,  th« 
well  of  Jacob,  and  Mount  Gerizim  {Ep.  cviii.  c. 
13,  ed.  Migne).  Procopius  of  Gaza  does  nothing 
more  than  follow  Eusebius,  and  that  clumsily 
(Keland,  PakeAt.  lib.  ii.  c.  13,  p.  503);  but  hig 
more  accurate  namesake  of  Cssarea  expressly  as 
serts  that  Gerizim  rose  over  Neapolis  {De  ^dif. 
v.  7)  —  that  Ebal  was  not  a  peak  of  Gerizim  (v. 
Quaresm.  Elucid.  T.  S.  Ub.  vii.  Per.  i.  c.  8),  but 
a  distinct  mountain  to  the  N.  of  it,  and  separated 
from  it  by  the  valley  in  which  Shechem  stood,  we 
are  not  called  upon  here  to  pi'ove;  nor  again,  that 
Ebal  was  entirely  barren,  which  it  can  scarce  be 
called  now;  while  Gerizim  was  the  same  proverb 
for  verdure  and  gushing  rills  formerly,  that  it  is 
now,  at  leixst  where  it  descends  towards  Ndbltis, 
It  is  a  far  more  important  question  whether  Geri- 
zim was  the  mountain  on  which  Abraham  was 
directed  to  offer  his  son  Isaac  (Gen.  xxii.  2  ff.). 
First,  then,  let  it  be  observed  that  it  is  not  the 
mountain,  but  the  district  which  is  there  called 
Moriah  (of  the  same  root  with  Moreh :  see  Com. 
a  Lapid.  on  Gen.  xii.  6),  and  that  antecedently  to 
the  occurrence  which  took  place  "  upon  one  of  the 
mountains  "  in  its  vicinity  —  a  consideration  which 
of  itself  would  naturally  point  to  the  locality, 
already  known  to  Abraham,  as  the  plain  or  plains 
of  Moreh,  "  the  land  of  vision,"  "  the  high  land  ; 
and  therefore  consistently  "  the  land  of  adoration, 
or  "religious  worship,"  as  it  is  variously  explained 
That  all  these  interpretations  are  incomparably 
more  applicable  to  the  natural  features  of  Gerizim 
and  its  neighborhood,  than  to  the  hillock  (in  com- 
parison) upon  which  Solomon  built  his  temple, 
none  can  for  a  moment  doubt  who  have  seen  both. 
.Jerusalem  unquestionably  stands  upon  high  ground : 
but  owing  to  the  hills  "  round  about  "  it  cannot 
be  seen  on  any  side  from  any  great  distance ;  nor, 
for  the  same  reason,  could  it  ever  have  been  a  land 
of  vision,  or  extensive  views.  Even  from  Mount 
Olivet,  which  must  always  have  towered  over  the 
small  eminences  at  its  base  to  the  S.  W.,  the  view 
cannot  be  named  in  the  same  breath  with  that  from 
Gerizim,  which  is  one  of  the  finest  in  Palestine, 
commanding,  as  it  does,  from  an  elevation  of  nearly 
2,500  feet  (Arrowsmith,  Geofjraph.  Diet,  of  the  If. 
S.  p.  145),  "the  Mediterranean  Sea  on  the  W., 
the  snowy  heights  of  Hermon  on  the  N.,  on  the  E. 
the  wall  of  the  trans-Jordanic  mountains,  broken 
by  the  deep  cleft  of  the  Jabbok  "  (Stanley,  S.  (f  P. 
p.  235),  and  the  lovely  and  tortuous  expanse  of 
plain  (the  Muhhna)  stretched  as  a  carpet  of  many 
colors  beneath  its  feet."  Neither  is  the  appearance, 
which  it  would  "  present  to  a  traveller  advancing 
up  the  PhiUstine  plain  "  {ibid.  p.  252)  —  the  direc- 
tion from  which  Abraliam  came  —  to  be  overlooked. 
It  is  by  no  means  necessary,  as  INIr.  Porter  thinks 
{Handbook  of  S.  cf  P.  i.  339),  that  he  should 
have  started  from  Beer-sheba  (see  (ien.  xxi.  34  — 
"the  whole  land  being  before  him,"  c.  xx.  15). 
Then,  "  on  the  morning  of  the  third  day,  he  would 
arrive  in  the  plain  of  Sharon,  exactly  where  the 
massive  height  of  Gerizim  is  visible  afar  off"  (ibid 
p.  251),  and  from  thence,  with  the  mount  alwayi 

a  *  From  the  top  of  Gerizim  the  traveller  enjoys  " 
prospect  unique  in  the  Holy  Land.'"  See  it  well  de 
scnbcwi  ft.  Trisfcrim's  Land  of  Israef  p.  151,  Ist  ed. 


902 


GERIZIM 


tn  t:sw,  be  wjuld  proceed  to  the  exact  "place 
which  God  had  told  him  of"  in  all  solemnity  —  for 
again,  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  have  ar- 
rived on  the  actual  spot  during  the  third  day.  All 
chat  is  said  in  the  narrative,  is  that,  from  the  time 
that  it  hove  in  sight,  he  and  Isaac  parted  from  the 
young  men,  and  went  on  together  alone.  Tiie 
Samaritans,  therefore,  through  whom  the  tradition 
of  the  true  site  of  Gerizim  has  been  preserved,  are 
probably  not  wrong  when  they  point  out  still  —  as 
they  have  done  from  time  immemorial  —  Gerizim 
as  the  hill  upon  whicli  Abraham's  "  faith  was  made 
perfect;  "  and  it  is  observable  that  no  such  spot  is 
attempted  to  be  shown  on  the  rival  hill  of  Jerusa- 
lem, as  distinct  from  Calvary.  Different  reasons 
in  all  probability  caused  these  two  localities  to  be 
80  named :  the  first,  not  a  mountain,  but  a  land, 
district,  or  plain  (for  it  is  not  intended  to  be  as- 
serted that  Gerizim  itself  ever  bore  the  name  of 
Moriah;  though  a  certain  spot  upon  it  was  ever 
afterwards  to  Abraham  }3ersonally  "  Jehovah- 
jireh  "),  called  Moreh,  or  ]\Ioriah,  from  the  noble 
vision  of  nature,  and  therefore  of  natural  religion, 
that  met  the  eye;  the  second,  a  small  hill  deriving 
its  name  from  a  special  revelation  or  vision,  as  the 
express  words  of  Scripture  say,  which  took  place 
"  by  the  tlireshing  floor  of  Araunah  the  Jebusite  " 
(2  Chr.  iii.  1;  comp.  2  Sam.  xxiv.  IG).  If  it  be 
thought  strange  that  a  place  once  called  by  the 
"  Father  of  the  faithful "  Jehovah-jireh,  should 
have  been  merged  by  Moses,  and  ever  afterwards, 
in  a  general  name  so  different  from  it  in  sense  and 
Diigin  as  Gerizim;  it  would  be  still  more  strange, 
that,  if  Mount  JVIoriah  of  the  book  of  Chronicles 
and  Jehovah-jireh  were  one  and  the  same  place,  no 
sort  of  allusion  should  have  been  made  by  the  in- 
spired historian  to  the  prime  event  which  had 
caused  it  to  be  so  called.  True  it  is  that  Josejihus, 
in  more  than  one  place,  asserts  that  where  Abra- 
ham offered,  there  the  temple  was  afterwards  built 
(Ant.  i.  13,  §  2,  and  vii.  13,  §  9).  Yet  the  same 
Josephus  makes  God  bid  Abraham  go  to  the  moun- 
tain —  not  the  land  —  of  Moriah;  having  omitted 
all  mention  of  the  plains  of  jNIoreh  in  his  account 
of  the  preceding  narrative.  Besides,  in  more  than 
one  place  he  shows  that  he  bore  no  love  to  the  Sa- 
maritans (ibid.  xi.  8,  §  6,  and  xii.  5,  §  5).  St. 
Jerome  follows  Josephus  ( Qiuesi.  in  Gen.  xxii.  5, 
ed.  Migne),  but  with  his  uncertainty  about  the  site 
of  Gerizim,  what  else  could  he  have  done  ?  Besides 
it  appears  from  the  Onomasticon  (s.  v.)  that  he 
considered  the  hill  of  Moreh  (Judg.  vii.  1)  to  be 
the  same  with  Moriah.  And  who  that  is  aware  of 
the  extravagance  of  the  Rabbinical  traditions  re- 
specting Mount  Moriah  can  attach  weight  to  any 
one  of  them  ?  (Cunaeus,  De  Repiibl.  Ihb.  lib.  ii. 
12).  Finally,  the  Christian  tradition,  which  makes 
the  site  of  Abraham's  sacrifice  to  have  been  on 
Calvary,  will  derive  countenance  from  neither  Jose- 
phus nor  St.  Jerome,  unless  the  sites  of  the  Tem- 
ple and  of  the  Cmcifixion  are  admitted  to  have 
been  the  same. 

Another  tradition  of  the  Samaritans  is  far  less 
trustworthy;  namely,  that  Mount  Gerizim  was  the 
spot  where  JNIelchisedech  met  Abraham  —  though 
there  certainly  was  a  Salem  or  Shalem  in  that 
neighborhood  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18;  Stanley,  S.  cf  P. 
p.  2i7  ff.).  The  first  altar  erected  in  the  land  of 
Abraham,  and  the  first  appearance  of  Jehovah  to 
him  in  it,  was  in  the  plain  of  ]\Ioi-eh  near  Sichem 
(G«L  xii.  G);  but  the  mountain  overhanging  that 
uty  (assuming  our  view  to  be  coirect)  had  not  yet 


GERIZIM 

been  hallowed  to  him  for  the  rest  of  hk  life  by  tha, 
decisive  trial  of  his  faith,  which  was  made  there 
subsequently.  He  can  hardly  therefore  be  supposed 
to  have  deviated  irom  his  road  so  far,  which  .ay 
through  the  plain  of  the  Jordan:  nor  again  h  it 
likely  that  he  would  have  found  the  king  of  Sodom 
so  far  away  from  liis  own  territory  (Gen.  xiv.  17 
ff.).  Lastly,  the  altar  which  Jacob  built  was 
not  cm  Gerizim,  as  the  Samaritans  contend, 
though  probably  about  its  base,  at  the  head  of  the 
plain  between  it  and  I'Lbal,  "  in  the  parcel  of  a 
field''  which  that  imtriarch  purchased  from  the 
children  of  Hamor,  and  where  he  spread  his  tent 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  18-20).  Here  was  likewise  his  wtll 
(John  iv.  6);  and  the  tomb  of  his  son  Jcsefh 
(Josh.  xxiv.  32),  both  of  which  are  still  shown; 
the  fonner  surmounted  by  the  remains  of  a  vaulted 
chamber,  and  with  the  ruins  of  a  church  hard  by 
(Kobinson,  Bibl.  Hes.  ii.  283)  the  latter,  with  "  a 
fruitful  vine"  trailing  over  its  white-washed  in- 
closure,  and  before  it  two  dwarf  pillars,  hollowed 
out  at  the  top  to  receive  lamps,  which  are  lighted 
every  Friday  or  Mohammedan  sabbath.  There  is, 
however,  another  ^Mohammedan  monument  claiming 
to  be  the  said  tomb  (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  241,  note). 
The  tradition  (Kobinson,  ii.  283,  note)  that  the 
twehe  patriarchs  were  buried  there  likewise  (it 
should  have  made  them  eleven  without  Joseph,  or 
thirteen,  including  his  two  sons),  probably  depends 
upon  Acts  vii.  IG,  where,  unless  we  are  to  suppose 
confusion  in  the  narrative,  avrSs  should  be  read 
for  ^AfiftadiuL,  which  may  well  have  been  suggested 
to  the  copyist  from  its  recuirence,  v.  17;  while 
avT6s,  from  having  already  occurred,  v.  15,  might 
have  been  thought  suspicious. 

We  now  enter  upon  the  second  phase  in  the  his- 
tory of  Gerizim.  According  to  Josephus,  a  marriage 
contracted  between  Manasseh,  brother  of  Jaddus, 
the  then  high-priest,  and  the  daughter  of  Sanballat 
the  Cuthsean  (comp.  2  K.  xvii.  24),  having  created 
a  great  stir  amongst  the  Jews,  who  had  been 
strictly  forbidden  to  contract  alien  marriages  (Ezr. 
ix.  2;  Neh.  xiii.  23)  —  Sanballat,  in  order  to  rec- 
oncile his  son-in-law  to  this  unpopular  affinity,  ob- 
tained leave  from  Alexander  the  Great  to  build  a 
temple  ujx)n  Mount  Gerizim,  and  to  inaugurate  a 
rival  priesthood  and  altar  there  to  those  of  Jerusa- 
lem (Ant.  xi.  8,  §§  2-4,  and  for  the  harmonizing 
of  the  names  and  dates,  Prideaux,  Ccmnect.  i.  396 
ff.,  IM'Caul's  ed.).  "Samaria  thenceforth,"  says 
Prideaux,  "  became  the  common  refuge  and  asylum 
of  the  refractory  Jews "  {ibid. ;  see  also  Joseph. 
Ant.  xi.  8,  §  7),  and  for  a  time,  at  least,  their 
temple  seems  to  have  been  called  by  the  name  of  a 
Greek  deity  {Ant.  xii.  5,  §  5).  Hence  one  of  the 
first  acts  of  Hyrcanus,  when  the  death  of  Antiochua 
Sidetes  had  set  his  hands  free,  was  to  seize  Shochem, 
and  destroy  the  temple  upon  Gerizim,  after  it  haA 
stood  there  200  years  {Ant.  xiii.  9,  §  1).  But  the 
destruction  of  their  temple  by  no  means  crushed 
the  rancor  of  the  Samaritans.  'i'he  road  from 
Galilee  to  Judaea  lay  then,  as  now,  through  Sa- 
maria, skirting  the  foot  of  Gerizim  (John  iv.  4). 
Here  wjis  a  constant  occasion  for  reKgious  contro- 
versy and  for  outrage.  "  Hew  is  it  that  'J'hou,  be- 
ing a  Jew,  askest  to  drink  of  me,  which  am  a  woman 
of  Samaria?  "  said  the  female  to  oiu-  Lord  at  the 
well  of  Jacob,  where  both  parties  would  always  bf 
sure  to  meet.  "  Our  fathers  worshipped  in  thv 
mountain,  and  ye  say  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  pLior 
where  men  ought  to  worship  ?  "  .  .  .  Subsequcntlt 
we  read  of  the  depredations  committed  oi  that  roa4 


I 


GERIZIM 

ipon  a  party  of  GalUseans  (Ant.  xx.  6,  §  1).  Tlie 
iberai  attitude,  first  of  the  Saviour,  and  then  of 
bis  disciples  (Acts  viii.  14),  was  thrown  away  upon 
ill  those  who  would  not  abandon  their  creed.  And 
Gerizini  continued  to  be  the  focus  of  outbreaks 
through  successive  centuries.  One,  inider  Pilate, 
while  it  led  to  their  se\ere  chastisement,  procured 
the  disgrace  of  that  ill-starred  magistrate,  who  had 
cnicified  "Jesus,  the  king  of  the  Jews,"  with  im- 
punity (Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  1).  Another  hostile  gath- 
ering on  the  same  spot  caused  a  slaughter  of  10,G00 
of  them  under  Vespasian.  It  is  remarkable  that, 
in  this  instance,  want  of  water  is  said  to  have  made 
them  easy  victims;  so  that  the  deliciously  cold  and 
pure  spring  on  the  summit  of  Gerizim  must  have 
tailed  before  so  great  a  multitude  (B.  J.  iii.  7,  § 
32).  At  length  their  aggressions  were  directed 
against  the  Christians  inhabiting  Neapolis  —  now 
powerful,  and  under  a  bishop  —  in  the  reign  of 
Zeno.  Terebinthus  at  once  carried  the  news  of 
this  outrage  to  IJyzantium:  the  Samaritans  were 
forcibly  ejected  from  Gerizim,  which  was  handed 
over  to  the  Christians,  and  adorned  with  a  church 
in  honor  of  the  Virgin;  to  some  extent  fortified, 
and  even  guarded.  This  not  proving  sufficient  to 
repel  the  foe,  Justinian  built  a  second  wall  round 
the  church,  which  his  historian  says  defied  all  at- 
tacks (Procop.  Be  yEdlf.  v.  7).  It  is  probably  the 
ruins  of  these  buildings  which  meet  the  eye  of  the 
modern  traveller  (Hamlb.  of  S.  (f-  P.  ii.  339). 
Previously  to  this  time,  the  Samaritans  had  been  a 
numerous  and  important  sect  —  sufficiently  so,  in- 
deed, to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  Jews 
and  Caelicolists  in  the  Theodosian  code.  This  last 
outrage  led  to  their  comparative  disappearance  from 
history.  Travellers  of  the  12th,  14th,  and  17th 
centuries  take  notice  of  their  existence,  but  extreme 
paucity  (Early  Travels,  by  Wright,  pp.  81,  181, 
and  432),  and  their  immber  now,  as  in  those  days, 
Is  said  to  be  below  200  (Robinson,  BlbL  lies.  ii. 
282,  2d  ed.).  We  are  confined  by  our  subject  to 
Gerizim,  and  therefore  can  only  touch  upon  the 
Samaritans,  or  their  city  Neapolis,  so  far  as  their 
history  connects  directly  with  that  of  the  mountain. 
And  yet  we  may  observe  that  as  it  was  undoubt- 
edly this  mountain  of  which  our  Ix)rd  had  said, 
"  Woman,  believe  me.  the  hour  cometh,  when  ye 
ihall  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  at  Jerusa- 
lem (i.  e.  exclusively),  worship  the  Father"  (John 
iv.  21)  —  so  likewise  it  is  a  singular  historical  fact, 
that  the  Samaritans  have  continued  on  this  self- 
same mountain  century  after  century,  with  the 
briefest  inteiTuptions,  to  worship  according  to  their 
ancient  custom  ever  since  to  the  present  day. 
While  the  Jews  —  expelled  from  Jerusalem,  and 
tlierefore  no  longer  able  to  offer  up  bloody  sacrifices 
tccording  to  the  law  of  Moses  —  have  been  obliged 
to  adapt  their  ceremonial  to  the  circumstances  of 
their  destiny:  here  the  Paschal  Lamb  has  been 
offered  up  in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  era  by  a 
gmall  but  united  nationality  (the  spot  is  accurately 
marked  out  by  Dr.  Robinson,  BlbL  Res.  ii.  277)." 
Their  copy  of  the  Law,  probably  the  work  of  Ma- 
aasseh,  and  known  to  the  fathers  of  the  2d  and  3d 
3en1irios  (Prideaux,  Connect,  i.  600;  ?.nd  Robin- 
son, ii.  297-301),  was,  in  the  17th,  vindicated 
from  oblivion  by  Scaliger,  Usher,   Morinus,  and 


GERIZIM 


90S 


a  •  The  reader  will  find  under  Passover  (Anier.  ed.) 

particular  account  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Sa- 

Biaritaas  celebi-ate  that  great  festival  on  Gerizim.     On 

i*rizim  and  tlie  modern  Samaritans  interestinK  infor- 


others;  and  no  traveller  now  visits  Palestine  with 
out  making  a  sight  of  it  one  of  his  prime  objects 
Gerizim  is  likewise  still  to  the  Samaritans  what 
Jerusalem  is  to  the  Jews,  and  Mecca  to  the  Mo- 
hammedans. Their  prostrations  are  directed  to- 
wards it  wlierever  they  are ;  its  holiest  spot  in  theii 
estimation  being  the  traditional  site  of  the  taber- 
nacle, near  that  on  which  they  believe  Abraham  to 
have  offered  his  son.  Both  these  s[X)ts  are  on  the 
summit ;  and  near  them  is  still  to  be  seen  a  mound 
of  ashes,  similar  to  the  larger  and  more  celebrated 
one  N.  of  Jerusalem ;  collected,  it  is  said,  from  the 
sacrifices  of  each  successive  age  (Dr.  Robinson, 
BlbL  Bes.  ii.  202  and  299,  evidently  did  not  see 
this  on  Gerizim).  Into  their  more  legendary  tra- 
ditions respecting  Gerizim,  and  the  story  of  their 
alleged  worship  of  a  dove,  —  due  to  the  Jews,  their 
enemies  (Reland,  Diss.  ap.  Ugolin.  Thesaur.  vii. 
pp.  dccxxix.-xxxiii.),  —  it  is  needless  to  enter. 

E.  S.  Ff. 

*■  The  theory  that  Gerizim  is  "  the  mountain  on 
which  Abraham  was  directed  to  offer  his  son  Isaac," 
advocated  by  Dean  Stanley  (S.  cf  /*.  p.  248)  and 
controverted  by  Dr.  Thomson  (Laml  and  Book,  ii. 
212),  is  brought  forward  by  the  writer  of  the  above, 
on  grounds  which  appear  to  us  wholly  unsubstan- 
tial. 

(1.)  The  assumed  identity  of  Moreh  and  Moriah 
cannot  be  admitted.  There  is  a  radical  difference 
in  their  roots  (Robinson's  Gesen.  Iltb.  Lex.  s.  w.), 
which  is  conceded  by  Stanley;  and  the  reasoning 
about  "the  plains  of  IMoreh,  the  land  of  vision,'' 
"  called  INIoreh,  or  Moriah,  from  the  noble  vision 
of  nature,"  etc.,  is  irrelevant.  Murphy  (Comm. 
in  loc. '.  justly  observes:  "As  the  two  names  occur 
in  the  same  document,  and  differ  in  form,  they  nat- 
urally denote  different  things." 

(2.)  The  distance  of  Gerizim  from  Beer-sheba 
is  fatal  to  this  hypothesis.  The  suggestion  that 
Abraham  need  not  have  ^^  started  from  Beer-sheba," 
is  gratuitous  —  the  narrative  fairly  conveying  the 
impression  that  he  started  from  his  residence,  which 
was  then  at  that  place.  [Beek-shkba.]  From 
this  point  Jerusalem  is  three  days,  and  Gerizim  two 
days  still  further,  north.  The  journey  could  not 
have  been  completed,  with  a  loaded  ass,  "  on  the 
third  day;"  and  the  route  by  which  this  wiiter, 
following  Stanley,  sends  the  party  to  Gerizim,  ia 
an  unknown  and  improbable  route. 

(3.)  The  suggestion  of  Mr.  Ffoulkes  above,  and 
of  Mr.  Grove  [Mokiah],  that  the  patriarch  only 
came  in  sight  of  the  mountain  on  the  third  day, 
and  had  an  indefinite  time  for  the  rest  of  the  jour- 
ney, and  the  similar  suggestion  of  Dr.  Stanley, 
that  after  coming  in  sight  of  the  mountain  he  had 
"  half  a  day  "  for  reaching  it,  are  inadmissible. 
Acknowledging  "that  from  the  time  it  hove  in 
sight,  he  and  Isaac  parted  from  the  young  men  and 
went  on  together  alone,"  these  writers  all  overlook 
the  fact  that  from  this  point  the  wood  for  the  bun)t- 
offering  was  laid  upon  Isaac.  Thus  far  the  needed 
materials  had  been  carried  by  the  servants  and  the 
ass.  That  the  young  man  could  bear  the  burden 
for  a  short  distance  alone,  does  not  warrant  the 
supposition  that  he  could  have  borne  it  for  a  day's 
journey,  or  a  half-day's  —  in  which  case  it  would 
seem  that  the  donkey  and  servants  might  have 


mation  wU'  be  found  in  Mills's  Three  Months''  Residenet 
at  Nahlus,  i-iond.  1864  ;  and  in  Mr.  Grove  f  paper  On 
tlw.  JSIodo'm  Samaritans  in  Vacation  Tour-its  for  1861 

H 


904 


GERIZITES 


been  left  at  home.  The  company  halted,  appar- 
ently, not  very  far  from  the  spot  of  the  intended 
«acrifice. 

(4.)  The  commanding  position  of  Gerizim,  with 
the  wide  prospect  from  its  summit,  is  not  a  necessary, 
nor  probahle,  element  in  the  decision  of  the  ques- 
tion. It  was  to  the  land  of  Aloriah  that  the  patri- 
arch was  directed,  some  one  of  the  eminences  of 
which,  apparently  not  yet  named,  the  I.ord  was  to 
designate  as  his  destination.  In  favor  of  Gerizim 
as  an  elevated  site,  Stanley  lays  stress  upon  the 
phrase,  '■'■  lifted  up  his  eyes,"  forgetting  that  this 
identical  phrase  had  been  applied  (Gen.  xiii.  10) 
to  Lot's  survey  of  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  below 
him. 

(5.)  The  Samaritan  tradition  is  unreliable. 
From  the  time  that  a  rival  temple  to  that  on  IMo- 
riah  was  erected  on  Gerizim,  the  Samaritans  felt  a 
natural  desire  to  invest  the  spot  with  some  of  the 
sanctities  of  the  earlier  Jewish  history.  Their 
substitution  of  Moreh  for  Moriah  (Gen.  xxii.  2)  in 
their  version,  is  of  the  same  character  with  this 
claim.  Had  this  been  the  traditionary  site  of  the 
scene  in  question,  Josephus  would  hardly  have 
ventured  to  advance  the  claim  for  Jerusalem ;  and 
though  sharing  the  prejudices  of  his  countrymen, 
his  general  fairness  as  a  historian  forbids  the  in- 
timation that  he  was  capable  of  robbing  this  com- 
munity of  a  cherished  site,  and  transferring  it  to 
another.  Moreover,  the  improbable  theory  that 
Gerizim,  and  not  Jerusalem,  was  the  scene  of  the 
meeting  oetween  Abraham  and  Melchisedec,  which , 
though  held  by  Prof.  Stanley,  Mr.  Ffoulkes  is  com- 
pelled to  reject,  has  the  same  authority  of  Samar- 
itan tradition. 

The  objections  to  the  Moriah  of  Jerusalem  as 
the  site  in  question,  need  not  be  considered  here. 
The  theory  which  claims  that  locality  for  this  sac- 
rificial scene,  has  its  difficulties,  which  wiU  be  ex- 
amined in  their  place.  [Mokiah,  Amer.  ed.] 
Whether  that  theory  be  accepted  or  rejected,  the 
claims  of  Gerizim  appear  to  us  too  slightly  sup- 
ported to  entitle  them  to  any  weight  in  the  discus- 
won.  S.  W. 

GERIZITES,  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8.    [Gerzitks.] 

GERRHE'NIANS,  THE  (ecos  tS>u  T^pp-n- 
vuv'i  Alex.  Tcvurjpcau'-  (id  Gerrenos)^  named  in  2 
Mace.  xiii.  24  only,  as  one  limit  of  the  district 
committed  by  Antiochus  Eupator  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Judas  Maccabaeus,  the  other  limit  being 
Ptolemais  (Accho).  To  judge  by  the  similar  ex- 
pression in  defining  the  extent  of  Simon's  govern- 
ment in  1  Mace.  xi.  59,  the  specification  has  refer- 
ence to  the  sea-coast  of  Palestine,  and,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  the  Gerrhenians,  wherever  they 
jvere,  must  have  been  south  of  Ptolemais.  Grotius 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  suggest  that  the 
town  Gerrhon  or  Gerrha  was  intended,  which  lay 
between  Pelusium  and  Rhinocolura  ( Wady  el- 
Arish).  But  it  has  been  pointed  out  by  Ewald 
(GescMchte,  iv.  365,  note)  that  the  coast  as  far 
north  as  the  latter  place  was  at  that  time  in  pos- 
session of  Egj^it,  and  he  thereon  conjectures  that 
the  inhabitants  of  the  ancient  city  of  Geuar,  S. 
E.  of  Gaza,  the  residence  of  Abraham  and  Isaac, 
ire  meant.  In  support  of  this  Grimm  {Kurzg. 
Handb.  ad  loc.)  mentions  that  at  least  one  MS. 
reads  Tepaprjuuv,  which  would  without  difficulty 
D©  corrupted  to  Tep^riuuv. 

It  seems  to  have  been  overlocjked  that  the  Syriac 
fcniou  (early,  and  entitled  to  much  respect)  has 


GERSHON 

Gozor  (^^N,^)-     By  this  maybe  intended  eitha 

(a)  the  ancient  Gezkh,  which  was  near  the  sea 
somewhere  about  Joppa;  or  (b)  Gaza,  which  appean 
sometimes  to  take  that  form  in  these  books.  It 
the  former  case  the  government  of  Judas  would 
contain  half,  in  the  latter  the  whole,  of  the  coast 
of  Palestine.  The  latter  is  most  probably  correct, 
as  otherwise  the  important  district  of  Idumaea, 
with  the  great  fortress  of  Betiisu  t^v,  would  have 
been  left  unprovided  for.  G. 

GER'SHOM   (in  the  earher  books   Db'n^a, 

in    Chr.  generally   dt^nS).      1.    {rzoardy.;    Lj 
Judg.  r-nparwu,   [Vat.  M.  rTjpa-ofi,  Vat.  H.]  nn»\ 
Alex.   Trjpacofi;    Joseph,   rrjpa-os-    Gersmn^    Get 
som.)     The  first-born  son  of  Moses  and  Zippora/; 
(Ex.  ii.  22 ;  xviii.  3).   The  name  is  explained  in  theai 

passages  as  if  "OW  "12  ( Gei'  sham)  =  a  strange 
there,  in  allusion  to  Closes'  being  a  foreigner  i. 
Midian  —  "For  he  said,  I  have  been  a  strange. 
(6'er)  in  a  foreign  land."  This  signification  i. 
adopted  by  Josephus  {Ant.  ii.  13,  §  1),  and  also 
by  the  LXX.  in  the  form  of  the  name  which  they 
give  —  V7)p(Ta.fx\  but  according  to  Gesenius  {Thes. 
p.  306  b),  its  true  meaning,  taking  it  as  a  Hebrew 

word,  is  "expulsion,"  from  a  root  ti?"n2,  being  only 
another  form  of  Gerstion  (see  also  Fiirst,  Ilandwb. ). 
The  circumcision  of  Gershom  is  probably  related 
in  Ex.  iv.  25.  He  does  not  appear  again  in  the 
history  in  his  own  person,  but  he  was  the  founder 
of  a  family  of  which  more  than  one  of  the  mem- 
bers are  mentioned  later,  (a.)  One  of  these  was  a 
reraarkalile  person  —  "  Jonathan  the  son  of  Ger- 
shom," the  "young  man  the  Levite,"  whom  we 
first  encoimter  on  his  way  from  Bethlehem-Judah 
to  Micah's  house  at  INIount  Ephraim  (Judg.  xvii. 
7),  and  who  subsequently  became  the  first  priest  to 
the  irregular  worship  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (xviii. 
30).  The  change  of  the  name  "Moses"  in  this 
passage,  as  it  originally  stood  in  the  Hel^rew  text, 
to  "  Manasseh,"  as  it  now  stands  both  in  the  text 
and  the  A.  V.,  is  explained  under  Maxasseh. 
ib.)  But  at  least  one  of  the  other  branches  of  the 
family  preser\ed  its  allegiance  to  Jehoxah,  for  when 
the  courses  of  the  Invites  were  settled  by  king  Da- 
vid, the  "  sons  of  Closes  the  man  of  God  "  received 
honorable  prominence,  and  Shebuel  chief  of  the 

sons  of  Gershom  was  appointed  ruler  (T*33)  of 
the  treasures.     (1  Chr.  xxiii.  15-17;  xxvi.  24-28.) 

2.  The  fonn  under  which  the  name  Gershon 
—  the  eldest  son  of  I^vi  —  is  given  in  se\eral  pas- 
sages of  Chronicles,  namely,  1  Chr.  vi.  16,  17,  20, 
43,  62,  71;  xv.  7.     The  Hebrew  is  almost  alter 

nately  Db*"12,  and  Dlt^nS  ;  the  LXX.  adhere  w 
their  ordinary  rendering  of  Gershon:  [Rom.]  Vat. 
reSo-wj',  Alex,  rrjptrcof ,  [exc.  vi.  43,  Vat.  reeSo-wi/. 
and  XV.  7,  Alex.  Btj/jo-wj/,  Vat.  FA.  Ttipcraix'^ 
Viilg.  Gerson  and  Gersom. 

3.  (Dtt?'?2  :  r-npcrdv,  [Vat.]  Alex.  Vinpcuin  ' 
Gersom),  the  representative  of  the  priestly  family 
of  Phinehas,  among  those  who  accompanied  Ezra 
from  Babylon  (Ezr.  viii.  2).  In  Esdras  the  name 
is  Gerson.  G. 

GER'SHON  (intr'?2  :  in  Gen.  Frj^aci; ,  ifi 
other  books  uniformly  reBaiau;  ind  so  also  Alex 
with  three  exceptions;  Joseph.  Ant.  ii.  7,  §  4 
T'npaSix'ris'-  [O'eraora]),  (l\e  eldest  of  the  three  ton 


GERSHONITES,  THE 

rf  Levi,  born  before  the  descent  of  Jacobs'  family 
into  Egypt  (Gen.  xlvi.  11;  Ex.  vi.  16).  But  thougli 
the  eldest  born,  the  families  of  Gershon  were  out- 
stripped in  fame  by  their  younger  brethren  of  Ko- 
hath,  from  whom  sprang  Moses  and  the  priestly 
line  of  Aaron."  Gershon's  sons  were  Libni  and 
SiUMi  (Ex.  vi.  17;  Num.  iii.  18,  21;  1  Chr.  vi. 
17),  and  their  families  were  duly  recognized  hi  the 
reign  of  David,  when  the  permanent  arrangements 
for  the  service  of  Jehovah  were  made  (1  Chr.  xxiii. 
7-11).  At  this  time  Gershon  was  represented  by 
the  famous  Asapli  "  the  seer,"  whose  genealogy  is 
given  in  1  Chr.  vi.  39-43,  and  also  in  part,  20,  21. 
The  family  is  mentioned  once  again  as  taking  part 
in  the  reforms  of  king  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  12, 
where  it  should  be  observed  that  the  sons  of  Asaph 
ara  reckoned  as  distinct  from  the  Gershonites).  At 
the  census  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  the  whole 
number  of  the  males  of  the  Bene-Gershon  was 
7,500  (Num.  iii.  22),  midway  between  the  Kohath- 
ites  and  the  Merarites.  At  the  same  date  the 
efficient  men  were  2,030  (iv.  40).  On  the  occasion 
of  the  second  census  the  numbers  of  the  Levites 
are  given  only  in  gross  (Num.  xxvi.  62).  The 
sons  of  Gershon  had  charge  of  the  fabrics  of  the 
Tabernacle  —  the  coverings,  cm-tains,  hangings, 
and  cords  (Num.  iii.  25,  26;  iv.  25,  26);  for  the 
./tansport  of  these  they  had  two  covered  wagons 
and  four  oxen  (vii.  3,  7).    In  the  encampment  their 

station  was  behind  ("^"^nS)  the  Tabernacle,  on  the 
west  side  (Num.  iii.  23).  When  on  the  march  they 
went  with  the  INIerarites  in  the  rear  of  the  first 
body  of  three  tribes, — Judah,  Issachar,  Zebu 
lun,  —  with  Keuben  behind  them.  In  the  appor 
tionment  of  the  Levitical  cities,  thirteen  fell  to  the 
lot  of  the  Gershonites.  These  were  in^the  northern 
tribes  —  two  in  IManasseh  beyond  Jordan ;  four  in 
Issachar;  four  in  Asher;  and  three  in  Naphtfili. 
All  of  these  are  said  to  have  possessed  ''  suburbs," 
and  two  were  cities  of  refuge  (Josh.  xxi.  27-33 ;  1 
Chr.  vi.  62,  71-76).  It  is  not  easy  to  see  what 
special  duties  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  Gershonites  in 
the  ser\ice  of  the  Tabernacle  after  its  erection  at 
Jerusalem,  or  in  the  Temple.  The  sons  of  .Tedu- 
thun  "prophesied  with  a  harp,"  and  the  sons  of 
Heman  "hfted  up  the  horn,"  but  for  the  sons  of 
Asaph  no  instrument  is  mentioned  (1  Chr.  xxv. 
1-5).  They  were  appointed  to  "prophesy"  (that 
is,   probably,    to    utter,   or   sing,   inspired  words, 

M123),  perhaps  after  the  special  prompting  of  Da- 
vid himself  (xxv.  2).  Others  of  the  Gershonites, 
sons  of  Laadan,  had  charge  of  the  "  treasures  of 
the  house  of  God,  and  over  the  treasures  of  the 
holy  things"  (xxvi.  20-22),  among  which  precious 
stones  are  specially  named  (xxix.  8). 

In  Chronicles  the  name  is,  with  two  exceptions 
(1  Chr.  vi.  1;  xxiii.  6),  given  in  the  shghtly  differ- 
ent form  of  Gershom.  [Gkkshom,  2.]  See  also 
Gkbshonites.  G. 

GERSHONITES,  THE  Ontp'pan,  i.  e. 
^hs  Gershunnite :  6  reSadou,  6  FeZcrMvi  [Vat.  -j/et]  ; 
iol  TiSawi/i   [Vat.  -yei] ;  Alex,  [in  Josh,  and  1 


GESHAM  906 

Chr.,]  Y7]p<T(av'  \_Gersonitoe,  Gerson^filii  Ocrsonof 
Gersoin] ),  the  family  descended  from  Gekshon  o- 
Gershom,  the  son  of  Levi  (Num.  iii.  21,  23,  24 
iv.  24,  27,  xxvi.  57;  Josh.  xxi.  33;  1  Chr.  xxiii 
7;  2  Chr.  xxix.  12). 

"  ThkGershonite"  [ryjpacaui,  T^Sauui',  Vat 
rr}paot)i/eh  rripaoiJ.i/ei;  Alex,  r-iqpcruvei,  Tripaoovi 
Gersonni,  Gersonites],  as  applied  to  individuals, 
occurs  in  1  Chr.  xxvi.  21  (Laadan),  xxix.  8  (Jehiel). 

G. 

GER'SON  {r-ppa-ciu;  [Vat.  corrupt:]  Ger- 
somus),  1  Esdr.  viii.  29.     [Gershom,  3.] 

GER'ZITES,  THE  ("^nSH,  or  ^-np  — 
(Ges.  Thes.  p.  301)  —  the  (iirzite,  or  the  Gerizzitc: 
Vat.  omits,  Alex,  lov  TeCpaiou-  Gerzl  and  Gezn 
[VJ,  but  in  his  Quxst.  JJtbr.  Jerome  has  Getri: 
Syr.  and  Arab.  Godola\  a  tribe  who  with  the 
Geshurites  and  the  Amalekites  occupied  the  land 
between  the  south  of  Palestine  ^  and  Egypt  in  the 
time  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxyii.  8).  They  were  rich  in 
Bedouin  treasures  —  "  sheep,  oxen,  asses,  camels, 
and  apparel"  (ver.  9;  comp.  xv.  3;  1  Chi*,  v.  21). 
The  name  is  not  found  in  the  text  of  the  A.  V. 
but  only  in  the  margin.  This  arises  from  its  having 
been  corrected  by  the  INIasorets  (Kerl)  into  Giz- 
KiTES,  which  form  [or  rather  Gezrites]  our  trans- 
lators have  adopted  in  the  text.  The  change  is 
supported  by  the  Targum,  and  by  the  Alex.  MS. 
of  the  LXX.  as  above.  There  is  not,  however,  any 
apparent  reason  fur  relinquishing  the  older  form  of 
the  name,  the  interest  of  which  hes  in  its  con- 
nection with  that  of  Mount  Gerizim.  In  (he  name 
of  that  ancient  mountain  we  have  the  only  remaio- 
hig  trace  of  the  presence  of  this  old  tribe  of  Be 
douins  in  central  Palestine-  They  appear  to  haya 
occupied  it  at  a  very  early  period,  and  to  have 
reUnquished  it  in  company  with  the  Amalekitoa, 
who  also  left  their  name  attached  to  a  mountain 
in  the  same  locality  (Judg.  xii.  15),  when  they 
abandoned  that  rich  district  for  the  less  fertile  but 
freer  South.  Other  tribes,  as  the  Avvim  and  the 
Zemarites,  also  left  traces  of  their  presence  in  the 
names  of  towns  of  the  central  district  (see  pp.  201  a, 
277,  note  b). 

The  connection  between  the  Gerizites  and  Mount 
Gerizim  appears  to  have  been  first  suggested  by 
Gesenius.  [Flirst  accepts  the  same  view.]  It  has 
been  since  adopted  by  Stanley  {S.  tj-  F.  p.  237, 
note).  Gesenius  interprets  the  name  as  "  dweUera 
in  the  dry,  barren  country."  G. 

GE'SEM,  THE  LAND  OF  (7^  Teo-e/i: 
tei-ra  Jesse),  the  Gre'ak  form  of  the  Hebrew  name 
Goshen  (Jud.  i.  9). 

GE'SHAM  CiW%  L  e.  Geshan  [filthy,  Ges.]. 
2,(oydp,  Alex,  r-npaw/x:  Gesan),  one  of  the  sons 
of  Jahdai,  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah  and  family 
of  Caleb  (1  Chr.  ii.  47).  Nothing  further  con- 
cerning him  has  been  yet  traced.  The  name,  as  it 
stands  in  our  present  Bibles,  is  a  corruption  of  the 
A.  V.  of  1611,  which  has,  accurately,  Geshan. 
Burrington,  usually  very  careful,  has  Geshur  (Table 
xi.  1,  280),  but  without  giving  any  authority. 


a  See  an  instaace  of  this  in  1  Clir.  vi.  2-15,  where 
tlie  line  of  Kohath  Ls  given,  to  the  exclusion  of  tli<} 
ather  two  families. 

f>  The  LXX.  has  rendered  the  passay^  referred  to 
18  tollosvs :  —  KoX  l5ou  17  yrj  KaTtoKeiVo  aTrb  afriKovTOiv 
'1  iirb  TeAa/Ai^ovp  (Alex.  Tekanaovp)  rereixto'/^eVa)!' 


a  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  m-iolam  .  .  Shurah  (A.  V 
"  of  old  .  .  to  Shur  "),  or  it  may  contain  a  mention 
o.  che  name  Telem  or  Telaim,  a  place  in  the  extreme 
south  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  24),  which  bore  a  prominent 
pari  .n  »  former  attack  on  the  Amalekites  (1  Sam.  XT. 
4).     In  the  latter  case  V  has  been  read  for  T.     (S« 


iu  6WS  yrjs  AlyvTTTov      The  word  Gelamsour  may  be  1  Lenserke  ;  Fiirst's  Handwb.   &c  ) 


906 


GESHAN 


*  GE  SHAN  (1  Chr.  ii.  47),  the  correct  form 
of  a  name  for  which  Gesham  has  been  improperly 
lubstituted  in  modern  editions  of  the  A.  V. 

A. 

GE'SHEM,  and  GASH'MU  (Dtt.^?.,  ^72^^ 

lco7-poreality,Jit'mness,¥urst]:  rrjcrd/j.:  [6'ose7?i,] 
Gossem),  an  Arabian,  mentioned  in  Neh.  ii.  19, 
and  vi.  1,  2,  G,  who,  with  "  Sanballat  the  Horonite, 
and  Tobiah,  the  servant,  the  Ammonite,"  opposed 
Nehemiah  in  the  repairing  of  Jerusalem.  Geshem, 
we  may  conclude,  was  an  inhabitant  of  Arabia 
I'etraea,  or  of  the  Arabian  Desert,  and  probably  the 
ihief  of  a  tribe  which,  like  most  of  the  tribes  on 
"ihe  eastern  frontier  of  Palestine,  was,  in  the  time 
)f  the  Captivity  and  the  subsequent  period,  allied 
livith  the  Persians  or  with  any  peoples  threatening 
the  Jewish  nation.  Geshem,  like  Sanballat  and 
Tobiah,  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  "  governors 
beyond  the  river,"  to  whom  Nehemiah  came,  and 
whose  mission  "  grieved  them  exceedingly,  that 
there  was  come  a  man  to  seek  the  welfare  of  the 
children  of  Israel  "  (Neh.  ii.  10);  for  the  wandering 
inhabitants  of  the  frontier  doubtless  availed  them- 
selves largely,  in  their  predatory  excursions,  of  the 
distracted  state  of  Palestine,  and  dreaded  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  kingdom ;  and  the  Arabians, 
Ammonites,  and  Ashdodites,  are  recorded  as  having 
"  conspired  to  fight  against  Jerusalem,  and  to 
hinder  "  the  repairing.  The  endeavors  of  these  con- 
federates and  their  failure  are  recorded  in  chapters 
ii.,  iv.,  and  vi.  The  Arabic  name  corresponding  to 
Geshem  cannot   easily  be   identified.     Jasim    (or 

Gasim,  a.a*/L^)  is  one  of  very  remote  antiquity; 
>nd  Jashum  ((V-www^)  is  the  name  of  an  historical 


tribe  of  Arabia  Proper ;  the  latter  may  more  prob- 
ably be  compared  with  it.  E.  S.  P. 

GE'SHUR  ("l^ti?!  and  nni^tT?,  a  biidge: 
[reSo-ouD,  exc.  2  Sam.  iii.  3,  V^caip,  Vat.  Tetreip ; 
1  Chr.  ii.  23,  Alex.  Tecra-ovp,  iii.  2,  Tea-ovp'-   Cles- 

sur ;]  Arab,  ^mj^,  Jessu?-),  a  little  principahty 

in  the  northeastern  comer  of  Bashan,  adjoining 
the  province  of  Argob  (Ueut.  iii.  14),  and  the  king- 
dom of  Aram  (Syria  in  the  A.  V. ;  2  Sam.  xv.  8 ; 
comp.  1  Chr.  ii.  23).  It  was  within  the  boundary 
of  the  allotted  territory  of  Manasseh,  but  its  inhab- 
itants were  never  expelled  (Josh.  xiii.  13;  comp. 
1  Chr.  ii.  23).  King  David  married  "  the  daughter 
of  Talmai,  king  of  Geshur"  (2  Sam.  iii.  3);  and 
her  son  Absalom  sought  refuge  among  his  maternal 
relatives  after  the  murder  of  his  brother.  The  wild 
acts  of  Absalom's  life  may  have  been  to  some  extent 
Ova  results  of  maternal  training :  they  were  at  least 
cha.'acteristic  '^^  the  stock  from  which  he  sprung. 
He  remained  ui  "Geshur  of  Aram"  until  he  was 
fjwken  back  to  Jerusalem  by  Joab  (2  Sam.  xiii.  37, 
IV.  8).  It  is  highly  probable  that  Geshur  was  a 
section  of  the  wild  and  rugged  region,  now  called 
*>i-Lejah,  among  whose  rocky  fastnesses  the  Gesh- 
orites  might  dwell  in  security  while  the  whole  sur- 
rounding plains  were  occupied  by  the  Israelites. 
On  the  north  the  Lejnh  borders  on  the  territory 
of  Damascus,  the  ancient  Aram;  and  in  Scripture 
the  name  is  so  intimately  connected  with  Bashan 
»nd  Argob,  that  one  is  led  to  suppose  it  formed 
part  of  Uiem  (Deut.  iii.  13, 14;  J  Chr.  ii.  23;  Josh. 
Kiu.  12, 13).     [Akgob.]  J.  L.  P. 


GETHSEMANE 

*  The  bridge  over  the  Jordan  above  toe  eea  o< 
Galilee  no  doubt  stands  where  one  must  havt  sto^ 
in  ancient  times.  [Bridge,  Amer.  ed.]  It  maj 
be,  says  Robinson  (P//?/s.  Geofjr.  p.  1.55),  "that 
the  adjacent  district  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  took 

the  name  of  Geshur  ("l-ltTS),  as  if  '  Bridge-land  ' ; 
at  any  rate  Geshur  and  the  Geshurites  were  in  this 
vicinity."  H. 

GESH'URI  and  GESH'URITES  On^tTa  : 

[in  Deut.,  Tapyaai,  Vat.  Alex,  -cei;  Comp.  T^a- 
(Tovpi;  in  Josh.,  Alex.  Teo-ovpi;  xii.  5,  repyeai, 
Vat.  -aei;  xiii.  2,  11,  13,  reaipi,  Vat.  r^aeipti] 
1  Sara.,  Teaiph  Vat.  -(ret-;  Alex.  Tetrepet:  Ges- 
smi.]  1.  The  inhabitants  of  Geshur,  which  see 
(Deut.  iii.  14;  Jos.  xii.  5,  xiii.  11). 

2.  An  ancient  tribe  which  dwelt  in  the  desert 
between  Arabia  and  Philistia  (,  Josh.  xiii.  2 ;  1  Sam. 
xxvii.  8);  they  are  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  Gezrites  and  Amalekites.     [Gkzek,  p.  909.] 

J.  L.  P. 

GE'THER  ("l.n?!:  Tarep  ;  [Alex.  Tadep:] 
Gei/ier),  the  third,  in  order,  of  the  sons  of  Ara,m 
(Gen.  X.  23).  No  satisfiictory  trace  of  the  people 
sprung  from  this  stock  has  been  found.  The  theories 
of  Bochart  and  others,  which  rest  on  improbable 
etymologies,  are  without  support;  while  the  sug- 
gestiojis  of  Carians  (Ilieron.),  Bactrians  (Joseph. 

AjiL),   and    kJuofy^    (Saad.),    are   not   better 

founded.  (See  Bochart,  Phaleg,  ii.  10,  and  Winer, 
s.  v.).  Kalisch  proposes  Gnsnuit;  but  he  does  not 
adduce  any  argument  in  its  favor,  except  the  sim- 
ilarity of  sound,  and  the  permutation  of  Aramaean 
and  Hebrew  letters. 

The  Arabs  write  the  name  yJ'Lc  (Ghathir); 

and,  in  the  mythical  history  of  their  country,  it  ia 
said  that  the  probably  aboriginal  tribes  of  Thamood, 
Tasur,  Jadces,  and  'Ad  (the  last,  in  the  second 
generation,  through  'God),  were  descended  from 
Ghathir  (Caussin  [de  Perceval],  Kssdy  i.  8,  9,  23; 
Abul-Fidii,  Hist.  Anteisl.  10).  These  traditions 
are  in  the  highest  degree  untrustworthy ;  and,  as 
we  have  stated  in  Ahaiua,  the  tiubes  referred  to 
were,  almost  demonstrably,  not  of  Semitic  origin. 
See  AuAiiiA,  AiiAM,  and  Nabath.e^vxs. 

E.  S.  P. 

GETHSEM'ANE  (n3,  gath,  a  "wine- 
press," and  "JPK?,  sliemen,  "oil;"  reda-mJ-avel 
[so  Tisch. ;  I^achm.  Treg.  -yeT],  or  more  generally 
r€6a-niJ.avri),  a  small  "  farm,"  as  the  French  would 
say,  "  un  bien  aux  champs "  (xcopiov  =■■  ager, 
pi-cBdlum  ;  or  as  the  Vulgate,  villa  ;  A.  V.  "  place; " 
Matt.  xxvi.  36;  Mark  xiv.  32),  situated  across  the 
brook  Kedron  (John  xviii.  1),  probably  at  the  foot 
of  Mount  Olivet  (Luke  xxii.  39),  to  the  N.  W., 
and  about  ^  or  f  of  a  mile  English  from  the  walla 
of  Jerusalem.  There  was  a  "garden,"  or  rather 
orchard  (k^ttos),  attached  to  it,  to  whi(th  the  olive, 
fig,  and  pomegranate  doubtless  invited  resort  by 
their  "  hospitable  shade."  And  we  know  from  the 
Evangelists  SS.  Luke  (xxii.  39)  and  .John  (xviii.  2\ 
that  our  I^rd  ofttimes  resorted  thither  with  hu 
disciples.  "  It  was  on  the  road  to  Bethany,"  say* 
Mr.  Greswell  {Harm.  Diss,  xhi.),  "and  the  faniUj 
of  Lazarus  might  have  possessions  there;  "  but,  if 
so,  it  should  have  been  rather  on  the  S  E  side  o* 
the  mountain  where  Bethany  lies :  part  of  which,  I 


GETHSEMANE 

may  be  remarked,  being  the  property  of  the  village 
still,  as  it  may  well  have  been  then,  is  e\en  now 
called  Bethany  {el-Aznriyeh )  by  the  natives."  Hence 
the  expressions  in  S.  Luke  xxiv.  50  and  Acts  i.  12 
are  quite  consistent.  According  to  Josephus,  the 
suburbs  of  Jerusalem  abounded  with  gardens  and 
pleasure-grounds  (TrapoSeiVoiy,  B.  J.  vi.  1,  §  1; 
comp.  V.  3,  §  2):  now,  with  the  exception  of  those 
belonging  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  convents,  hardly 
the  vestige  of  a  garden  is  to  be  seen.  There  is 
mdeed  a  favorite  paddock  or  close,  half-a-mile  or 
more  to  the  north,  on  the  same  side  of  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  valley  of  the  Kedron,  the  property 
of  a  wealthy  Turk,  where  the  jNIohammedan  kdies 
pass  tlie  day  with  their  families,  their  bright  flowing 
costume  forming  a  picturesque  contrast  to  the  stiff 
sombre  foliage  of  the  olive-grove  beneath  which 
they  cluster.  But  Gethsemane  has  not  come  down 
to  us  as  a  scene  of  mirth ;  its  inexhaustible  associa- 
tions are  the  offspring  of  a  single  event  —  the 
Agony  of  the  Son  of  God  on  the  evening  preceding 
His  Passion.     Here  emphatically,  as   Isaiah   had 


GETHSEMANE 


907 


foretold,  and  as  the  name  imports,  were  fulfilled 


those  dark  words. 


have  trodden  the  wine- 


alone"  (kiii.  3;  comp.  Kev.  xiv.  20,  '-tlie  wine- 
press .  .  .  without  the  city''').  "The  period  of 
the  year,"  proceeds  Mr.  Greswell,  "  was  the  Vernal 
Eqmnox:  the  day  of  the  month  about  two  days 
before  the  full  of  the  moon  — in  which  case  the 
moon  would  not  be  now  very  far  past  her  meridian ; 
and  the  night  would  be  enlightened  until  a  late 
hour  towards  the  morning  "  —  the  day  of  the  week 
Thursday,  or  rather,  according  to  the  Jews,  Friday 
—  for  the  sun  had  oet.  The  time,  according  to 
Mr.  Greswell,  would  be  the  last  watch  of  the  night, 
between  our  11  and  12  o'clock.  Any  recapitulation 
of  the  circumstances  of  that  ineffable  event  would 
be  unnecessary ;  any  commentss  upon  it  unscason 
able.  A  modern  garden,  in  which  are  eight  ven- 
erable olive-trees,  and  a  grotto  to  the  north,  de- 
tached from  it,  and  in  closer  connection  with  the 
Church  of  the  Sepulchre  of  the  Virgin  —  in  fact 
with  the  road  to  the  summit  of  the  mountain  run- 
ning between  them,  as  it  did  also  in  the  days  of 


Old  Olire-Trees  in  Gethsemane,  from  S.  E. 


the  Crusaders  (Sanuti  Secret.  Field.  Cruc.  lib.  iii. 
p.  liv.  c.  9)  —  both  securely  inclosed,  and  under 
.'ock  and  key,  are  pointed  out  as  making  up  the 
t;ue  Gethsemane.  These  may,  or  may  not,  be  the 
spots  which  Eusebius,  St.  Jerome  {Liber  de  Situ 
et  Noininibus,  s.  v.),  and  Adamnanus  mention  as 
such;  but  from  the  4th  century  downwards  some 
such  localities  are  spoken  of  as  known,  frequented, 
and  even  built  upon.  Every  generation  dwells  most 
apon  what  accords  most  with  its  instincts  and  pre- 
ilections.  Accordingly  the  pilgrims  of  antiquity 
eay  nothing  about  those  time-honored  ohve-trees. 


a  *  El-Azarhjeh  is  ths  Arabic  name,  derived  from 
(Azarus.  Bethany  is  current  only  among  foreigners, 
M  tiioee  of  foreign  crigin.    In  this  instance  the  native 


whose  age  the  poetic  minds  of  a  Lamartine  or  a 
Stanley  shrink  from  criticising — they  were  doubt- 
less not  so  imjx)sing  in  the  Gth  century ;  still,  \\dA 
they  been  noticed,  they  would  have  afforded  undy- 
ing witness  to  the  locality  —  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  few  modern  travellers  would  inquire  for,  and 
adore,  with  Antoniims,  the  three  precise  spots 
where  our  Lord  is  said  to  have  fallen  upon  His 
face.  Against  the  contemporary  antiquity  of  the 
olive  trees,  it  has  been  urged  that  Titus  cut  down 
all  the  trees  round  about  Jerusalem;  and  certainly 
this   is  no  more  than  Josephus  states  in  exjiress 


language  adopts  the  more  distinctiye  Christian  appeluii 
tion.  H. 


^08 


GETHSEMANB 


teitiis  (see  particularly  B.  J.  vi.  1,  §  1,  a  passage 
which  must  have  escaped  Mr.  WDliams,  Holy  City, 
vol.  ii.  p.  437,  2d  ed.,  who  only  ciies  v.  3,  §  2,  and 
vi.  8,  §  1 ).  Besides,  the  10th  legion,  arriving  from 
Jericho,  were  posted  about  the  ^Slount  of  Olives 
iv.  2,  §  3;  and  comp.  vi.  2,  §  8),  and,  in  the  course 
of  the  siege,  a  wall  was  carried  along  the  valley  of 
the  Kedroh  to  the  fountain  of  Siloam  (v.  10,  §  2). 
The  probability,  therefore,  would  seem  to  be,  that 
they  were  planted  by  Christian  hands  to  mark  the 
Bpot :  unless,  Uke  the  sacred  oUve  of  the  Acrop- 
ohs  (Biihr  ad  ITerod.  viii.  55),  they  may  have 
re2)roduced  themselves.  Maundrell  (Early  Travels 
'n  Pal.  by  Wright,  p.  471)  and  Quaresmius  (Elucid. 
T.  S.  lib.  iv.  per.  v.  ch.  7)  appear  to  have  been  the 
first  to  notice  them,  not  more  than  three  centuries 
ago;  the  former  arguing  against,  and  the  latter  in 
favor  of,  their  reputed  antiquity ;  but  nobody  read- 
ing their  accounts  would  imagine  that  there  were 
then  no  more  than  eight,  the  locality  of  Gethsemane 
being  supposed  the  same.  Parallel  claims,  to  be 
Bure,  are  not  wanting  in  the  cedars  of  Lelianon, 
which  are  still  visited  with  so  much  enthusiasm :  in 
the  terebinth,  or  oak  of  Mamre,  which  was  standing 
in  the  days  of  Constantine  the  Great,  and  even 
worshipped  (Vales,  ad  Euseb.  lit.  Const,  iii.  53), 
and  the  fig-tree  {Ficu.<i  elastica)  near  Nerbudda  in 
India,  which  native  historians  assert  to  be  2,500 
years  old  (Patterson's  Journal  of  a  Tour  in  Effyjfl, 
ijCi  p.  202,  note).  Still  more  appositely  there  were 
ohve-trees  near  Linternum  250  years  old,  according 
to  Pliny,  in  his  time,  which  are  recorded  to  have 
survived  to  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century  {Nouveau 
Diet,  d'llist.  Nat.  Paris,  1846,  vol.  xxix.  p.  61). 

E.  S.  Ef. 
*  Gethsemane,  which  means  "olive-press"  (see 
above)  is  found  according  to  the  narrative  in  the 
proper  place;  for  Olivet,  as  the  name  imports,  was 
famous  for  its  olive-trees,  still  sufficiently  numerous 
there  to  justify  its  being  so  called,  though  little  cul- 
tivation of  any  sort  appears  now  on  that  mount. 
The  place  is  called  also  "a  garden"  (k^ttos),  but 
we  are  not  by  any  means  to  transfer  to  that  term 
our  ideas  of  its  meaning.  It  is  to  be  remembered, 
as  Stanley  remarks  (S.  ef-  P.  p.  187,  1st  ed.),  that 
"  Eastern  gardens  are  not  flower-gardens  nor  private 
gardens,  but  the  orchards,  vineyards,  and  fig-enclos- 
ures "  near  the  towns.  The  low  wall,  covered  with 
white  stucco,  which  incloses  the  reputed  Gethsemane, 
is  comparatively  modern.  A  series  of  rude  pictures 
(utterly  cut  of  place  there,  where  the  memory  and 
the  heart  are  the  only  prompters  required)  are  hung 
up  along  the  face  of  the  wall,  representing  different 
scenes  in  the  history  of  Christ's  passion,  such  as 
the  scourging,  the  mockery  of  the  soldiers,  the 
sinking  beneath  the  cross,  and  the  like.  The  eight 
olive-trees  here,  though  stiU  verdant  and  productive, 
are  s^  decayed  as  to  require  to  be  propped  up  with 
heaps  of  stones  against  their  trunks  in  order  to 
prevent  their  being  blown  down  by  the  wind.  Trees 
of  this  class  are  proverbially  long-lived.  Schubert, 
the  celebrated  naturalist,  decides  that  those  in 
Gethsemane  are  old  enough  to  have  flourished  amid 
a  race  of  contemporaries  that  perished  long  cen- 
turies ago  (Jieise  in  das  Moi^yenland,  ii.  521 ).« 
Stanley  also  speaks  of  them  "  as  the  most  venerable 
of  their  race  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ...  the  most 


*»  *  An  argument  for  the  great  age  of  these  trees 
nas  been  drawn  from  the  fact  that  a  meclino  (an  old 
Tuikish  coin)  is  the  governmental  tax  paid  on  each 
one  of  this  group,  which  was  the  tax  on  trees  at  the 


GETHSEMANE 

affecting  of  the  sacred  memorials  in  or  about  Jtm 
salem."    (S.  if  P.  p.  450,  1st  ed.) 

There  are  two  or  three  indications  in  the  Gospd 
history  which  may  guide  us  as  to  the  general  situ- 
ation of  this  ever  memorable  spot  to  which  thfi 
Saviour  repaired  on  the  night  of  his  betrayal.  It 
is  quite  certain  that  Gethsemane  was  on  the  western 
slope  of  OUvet,  and  near  the  base  of  that  mountain 
where  it  sinks  down  into  the  valley  of  the  Kedron. 
AVhen  it  is  said  that  "  Jesus  went  forth  with  his 
disciples  beyond  the  brook  Kedron,  where  ^vas  a 
garden"  (John  xviii.  1),  it  is  implied  that  he  did 
not  go  far  up  the  Mount  of  Olives,  but  reached  the 
place  which  he  had  in  view  soon  after  crossing  the 
bed  of  that  stream.  The  garden,  it  will  be  observed, 
is  named  in  that  passage  with  reference  to  the 
brook,  and  not  the  mountain.  This  result  agrees 
also  with  the  presumption  from  the  Saviour's 
abrupt  summons  to  his  disciples  recorded  in  Matt, 
xxvi.  46 :  "  Arise,  let  us  be  going :  see,  he  is  at 
hand  that  doth  betray  me."  The  best  explanation 
of  this  language  is  that  his  watchful  eye,  at  that 
moment,  caught  sight  of  Judas  and  his  accomplices, 
as  they  issued  from  one  of  the  eastern  gates,  or 
turned  round  the  northern  or  southern  corner  of 
the  walls,  in  order  to  descend  into  the  valley.  The 
night,  with  the  moon  then  near  its  full,  and  about 
the  beginning  of  April,  must  have  been  clear,  oi 
if  exceptionally  dark,  the  torches  (John  xviii.  13'> 
would  have  left  no  doubt  as  to  the  object  of  such 
a  movement  at  that  unseasonable  hour.  It  may 
be  added  that  in  this  neighborhood  also  are  still  to 
be  seen  caverns  and  deserted  tombs  into  which  his 
pursuers  may  have  thought  that  he  would  endeavor 
to  escape  and  conceal  himself,  and  so  came  prepared 
with  lights  to  follow  him  into  these  lurking-places. 

The  present  inclosure  known  as  Gethsemane 
fulfills  all  these  conditions ;  and  so  also,  it  may  be 
claimed,  would  any  other  spot  similarly  situated 
across  the  brook,  and  along  the  westein  declivity  in 
front  of  Jerusalem.  Tischendoif  (lieise  in  den 
Onenf,  i.  312)  finds  the  traditionary  locahty  "  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  all  that  we  learn  from  the  Evange- 
lists." Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  ii.  284)  thinks 
it  should  be  sought  "  rather  in  a  secluded  vale  sev- 
eral hundred  yards  to  the  northeast  of  the  present 
Gethsemane."  Kobinson  alleges  no  positive  reasons 
against  the  common  identification.  "  The  authen- 
ticity of  the  sacred  garden,"  says  Williams  {I/oly 
City,  ii.  437),  "  I  choose  rather  to  believe  than  to 
defend."  But  such  differences  of  opinion  as  these 
involve  an  essential  agreement.  The  original  garden 
may  have  been  more  or  less  extensive  than  the 
present  site,  or  have  stood  a  few  hundred  rods 
further  to  the  north  or  the  south ;  but  far,  certainly., 
from  that  spot  it  need  not  be  supposed  to  have 
been.  We  may  sit  down  there,  and  read  the  nar- 
rative of  what  the  Saviour  endured  for  our  re- 
demption, and  feel  assured  that  we  are  near  the 
place  where  he  prayed,  "  Saying,  Eather,  not  my 
will,  but  thine  be  done; "  and  where,  "  being  in 
an  agony,  he  sweat  as  it  were  great  drops  of  blood, 
falling  down  to  the  ground."  It  is  altogether  prob- 
able that  the  disciples  in  going  back  tx)  Jerusalem 
from  Bethany  after  having  seen  the  Lord  taken  up 
into  heaven  passed  Gethsemane  on  the  way.  Whaf 
new  thoughts  nmst  have  arisen  in  their  minds. 


time  of  the  Saracenic  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  686 
Since  that  period  the  Sultan  receives  half  of  the  fruita 
of  every  tree  as  his  tribute.  (See  Raumer,  l^'aidstina^ 
p.  309,  4te  Aufl.)  «. 


GEUEL 

<rhat  deeper  insight  into  tlie  mystery  of  tlie  agony 
must  liave  flashed  upon  them,  as  they  looked  once 
more  upon  that  scene  of  the  sufferings  and  humil- 
iation of  the  crucified  and  ascended  One.  H. 

GETJ'EL  (^S1W2,  Sam.  ^S1:  IGocTs  ex- 
altation, Ges.]:  TouStrjA.;  [Vat.  Tou&tr/A:]  Guel), 
son  of  jNIachi:  ruler  of  the  tribe  of  Gad,  and  its 
representative  among  the  spies  sent  from  the  wil- 
derness of  Parau  to  explore  the  Promised  Land 
(Num.  xiii.  15). 

GE'ZER  ("ITS,  in  pause  1T|  [steep  place, 
precipice,  Fiirst,  Geg.] :  Fa^ep,  Fe^ep  [Alex.  1  K. 
ix.  15,  IG],  ToiCapa,  [raCvpd;  Josh.  x.  33.  Vat. 
ra(rjs;  1  Chr.  xiv.  ](j,  FA.  ra^apaV-]  Gazer, 
[Gezer,  Gazera']),  an  ancient  city  of  CanaaU;  whose 
king,  Horam,  or  Elam,  coining  to  the  assistance  of 
Lachish,  was  killed  with  all  his  people  by  Joshua 
(Josh.  X.  33;  xii.  12).  The  town,  however,  is  not 
said  to  have  been  destroyed ;  it  formed  one  of  the 
landmarks  on  the  south  boundary  of  Ephraim," 
between  the  lower  Beth-horon  and  the  IMediterra- 
iiean  (xvi.  3),  the  western  limit  of  the  tribe  (1  Chr. 
vii.  28).  It  was  allotted  with  its  suburbs  to  the 
Kohathite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  21;  1  Chr.  vi.  67); 
but  the  original  inhabitants  were  not  dispossessed 
( Judg.  i.  20 ) ;  and  even  down  to  the  reign  of  Solo- 
mon the  Canaanites,  or  (according  to  the  LXX. 
addition  to  Josh.  xvi.  10)  the  Canaanites  and  Per- 
Lzzites,  were  still  dwelling  there,  and  paying  tribute 
to  Israel  (1  K.  ix.  10).  At  this  time  it  must  in  fact 
have  been  independent  of  Israelite  rule,  for  Pharaoh 
had  burnt  it  to  the  ground  and  killed  its  inhabi- 
tants, and  then  presented  the  site  to  his  daughter, 
Solomon's  queen.  But  it  was  immediately  rebuilt 
by  the  king;  and  though  not  heard  of  again  till 
after  the  Captivity,  yet  it  played  a  somewhat  prom- 
inent part  in  the  later  struggles  of  the  nation. 
[Gazeka.] 

Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  280;  comp.  ii.  427)  takes 
Gezer  and  Geshur  to  be  the  same,  and  sees  in  the 
destruction  of  the  former  by  Pharaoh,  and  the 
simultaneous  expedition  of  Solomon  to  Hamath- 
zobah  in  the  neigliborhood  of  the  latter,  indications 
of  a  revolt  of  tlie  Canaanites,  of  whom  the  Geshur- 
ites  formed  the  most  powerful  remnant,  and  whose 
attempt  against  the  new  monarch  was  thus  frus- 
trated.    But  this  can  hardly  be  supported. 

In  one  place  Gob  is  given  as  identical  with  Gezer 
(1  Chr.  XX.  4,  comp.  2  Sam.  xxi.  18).  The  exact 
site  of  Gezer  has  not  been  discovered ;  but  its  g< 
eral  position  is  not  difficult  to  infer.  It  must  have 
been  between  the  lower  Beth-horon  and  the  sea 
(Josh.  xvi.  3;  1  K.  ix.  17);  therefore  on  the  great 
maritime  plain  which  lies  beneath  the  hills  of  which 
BtiVar  tt-tahta  is  the  last  outpost,  and  forms  the 
regular  coast  road  of  communication  with  Egypt 
(1  K.  ix.  10).  It  is  therefore  appropriately  named 
as  the  last  point  to  which  David's  pursuit  of  the 
PhiUstines  extended  (2  Sam.  v.  25;  1  Chr.  xiv 
16  *>) ,  and  as  the  scene  of  at  least  one  sharp  en- 


GIANTS 


909 


a  If  Lachish  be  where  Van  de  Velde  and  Porte 
would  place  it,  at  Urn  Likis,  near  Gaza,  at  least  40 
miles  from  the  southern  boundary  of  Ephraim,  there 
Is  some  ground  for  suspecting  the  axistence  of  two 
Gezers,  and  thi.s  is  confi-med  by  the  order  in  which  t 
|8  mentioned  in  the  list,  of  Josh.  xii.  with  Hebron 
Egloa,  and  Debir.  There  is  not,  howerer,  any  mean<» 
>f  determining  this. 

b  lu  these  two  places  the  word,  being  at  the  end 
if  a  period,  has,  according  to  Hebrew  custom,  its  first 


counter  (1  Chr.  xx.  4),  this  plain  being  their  owe 
peculiar  territory  (.comp.  Jos.  Ant.  viii.  «y,  §  1,  Tor 
^apd,  t)]u  ttjs  YlaXaLffTLVcau  x^P''-^  virdpxovaav) 
and  as  commanding  the  communication  betvv'eec 
Egypt  and  the  new  capital,  Jerusalem,  it  was  an 
important  point  for  Solomon  to  fortify.  By  Euse- 
bius  it  is  mentioned  as  foui-  miles  north  of  Nicopo- 
lis  (Amwds);  a  position  exactly  occupied  by  the 
important  town  Jiinzu,  the  ancient  Gimzo,  and 
corresponding  well  with  the  requirements  of  Joshua. 
But  this  hardly  agrees  with  the  indications  of  the 
1st  book  of  Maccabees,  which  speak  of  it  as  between 
Emmaus  {Amwds)  and  Azotus  and  .Jamnia;  md 
again  as  on  the  confines  of  Azotus.  In  the  ncigh- 
borliood  of  the  latter  there  is  more  than  one  site 
bearing  the  name  Yasur ;  but  whether  this  Arabic 
name  can  be  derived  from  the  Hebrew  Gezer,  and 
also  whether  so  important  a  town  as  Gazara  was  in 
the  time  of  the  ISIaccabees  can  be  represented  by 
such  insignificant  villages  as  these,  are  questions  to 
be  determined  by  future  investigation.  If  it  can, 
then  perhaps  the  strongest  claims  for  identity  with 
Gezer  are  put  forward  by  a  village  called  Yasur,  4 
or  5  miles  east  of  Joppa,  on  the  road  to  Rnmleb 
and  Lydd. 

From  the  occasional  occurrence  of  the  form  Ga- 
zer, and  from  the  LXX.  version  being  almost  uni- 
formly Gazera  or  Gazer,  Ewald  infers  that  this  was 
really  the  original  name.  G. 

GEZ'RITBS,  THE  C^lT^H,  accur.  the  Giz- 
rife:  [Vat.  omits;  Alex.]  tou  Fe^paiou'  Gezri). 
The  word  which  the  Jewish  critics  have  substituted 
in  the  margin  of  the  Bible  for  the  ancient  reading, 
"the  Gerizzite"  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  8),  and  which  has 
thus  become  incorporated  in  the  text  of  the  A.  V. 
If  it  mean  anything  —  at  least  that  we  know  —  it 
must  signify  the  dwellers  in  Gezer.  But  Gezek 
was  not  less  than  50  miles  distant  from  the  "  south 
of  Judah,  the  south  of  the  Jerahmeelites,  and  the 
south  of  the  Kenites,"  the  scene  of  David's  in- 
road ;  a  fact  which  stands  greatly  in  the  way  of  our 
receiving  the  change.     [Gkuzites,  the.] 

GI'AH  (n^2  [water-fall,  Fiirst  ;  fountain, 
Ges.] :  Tai\  [Comp.  Tie']  vallis),  a  place  named 
only  in  2  Sam.  ii.  24,  to  designate  the  position  of 
the  hill  Amniah  —  "  which  fax;es  Giah  by  the  way 
of  the  wilderness  of  Gibeon."  No  trace  of  the 
situation  of  either  has  yet  been  found.      By  the 

LXX.  the  name  is  read  as  if  S^2,  t.  e.  a  ravine  or 
glen ;  a  view  also  taken  in  the  Vulgate. 

GIANTS.  The  frequent  allusion  to  giants  m 
Scripture,  and  the  numerous  theoiies  and  disputes 
which  have  arisen  in  consequence,  render  it  neces- 
sary to  give  a  brief  view  of  some  of  the  m'lin  opin- 
ions and  curious  inferences  to  which  the  mention 
of  them  leads. 

1.  They  are  first  spoken  of  in  Gen.  vi.  4,  undei 
the  name  NepMUni  (Q'^v'^D?  :  LXX.  yiyavres 
Aquil.  iirnriTrTOVTes ;  Symm.  fiialoi :  Vulg.  ffif/an- 

vowel  lengthened,  and  stands  in  the  text  as  Gazer 
and  in  these  two  places  only  the  name  is  so  transferrel 
to  the  A.  V.  But,  to  be  consistent,  the  same  chang« 
should  have  been  made  in  several  other  passages, 
whore  it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew:  e.  g.  Judg.  i.  29, 
Josh.  xvi.  3,  10  ;  1  K.  ix.  15,  &c.  It  would  seem  bet- 
ter to  render  [represent]  the  Hebrew  name  always  bj 
the  same  English  one,  when  the  difference  arises  fironr 
nothing  but  an  emphatic  accent. 


910 


GIANTS 


les :  Ouk.  S'^'IDS  :  Luther,  Tyrannen).  The  word 
IS  derived  either  from  H  vQ,  or  W^^  (=  "  mar- 
velous"), or,  as  is  generally  believed,  from  vSS, 
either  in  the  sense  to  throw  down,  or  to  fall 
(=  fallen  angels,  Jarchi,  cf.  Is.  xiv.  12;  Luke  x. 
18);  or  meaning  ^'^'/jpeaes  irruentes''''  (Gesen.),  or 
collapsi  (by  euphemism,  Boettcher,  de  hifeiis,  p. 
92);  but  certainly  not  "because  men  fell  from  ter- 
ror of  them  "  (as  R.  Kimchi).  That  the  word 
means  "^^Vm^'   is  clear  from  Num.  xiii.  32,  33, 

and  is  confirmed  by  SvQD,  the  Chaldee  name  for 
"  the  aery  giant  "  Orion  (Job.  ix.  9,  xxxviii.  31 ;  Is. 
xiii.  10;  Targ.),  unless  this  name  arise  from  the 
obliquity  of  the  constellation  {Gen.  of'  Earthy 
p.  35). 

But  we  now  come  to  the  remarkable  conjectures 
about  the  origin  of  these  Nephiliin  in  Gen.  vi.  1—1. 
(An  immense  amount  has  been  written  on  this  pas- 
sage. See  Kurtz,  Die  Ehen  der  Sohne  Gottes,  &c., 
Berlin,  18.57;  Ewald,  Jahrb.  1854,  p.  126;  Govett's 
Isaiah  Unfulfilled;  Faber's  Many  Mansions,  in 
the  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit.,  Oct.  1858,  &c.)  We 
are  told  that  "there  wei-e  Nephihm  in  the  earth," 
and  that  "afterwards  (koI  fxer  eK€7t/o,  LXX.)  the 
"  sons  of  God  "  mingUng  with  the  beautiful  "  daugh- 
ters of  men"  produced  a  race  of  violent  and  inso- 
lent Gibborim  (D'^'^SS).  This  latter  word  is  also 
rendered  by  the  LXX.  yiyauresi  but  we  shall  see 
hereafter  that  the  meaning  is  more  general.  It  is 
clear  however  that  no  statement  is  made  that  the 
Nephilim  themselves  sprang  from  this  unhallowed 
union.     Who  then  were  they  ?     Taking  the  usual 

derivation  (7D3),  and  explaining  it  to  mean 
"fallen  spirits,"  the  Nephilim  seem  to  be  identical 
with  the  "  sons  of  God;  "  but  the  verse  before  us 
militates  against  this  notion  as  much  as  against 
that  which  makes  the  Nephilim  the  same  as  the 
Gibborim,  namely,  the  offspring  of  wicked  mar- 
riages. This  latter  supposition  can  only  be  ac- 
cepted if  we  admi*^  either  (1)  that  there  were  two 
kinds  of  Nephiliui,  —  those  who  existed  before  the 
unequal  intercourse,  and  those  produced  by  it 
(Heidegger,  Hist  Patr.  xi.),  or  (2)  by  following 
the  Vulgate  rendering,  jmstfjtunn  enim  imjressi 
sunt,  etc.  But  the  common  rendering  seems  to  be 
correct,  nor  is   there   much    proltability  in  Aben 

Ezra's  explanation,  that  ]5'*'"!'.l!^  ("after  that") 

means  b^QDH  nnW  (i.  e.  "after  the  deluge"), 
and  is  an  allusion  to  the  Anakims. 

The  genealogy  of  the  Nephilim  then,  or  at  any 
rate  of  i/ie  earliest  Nejyhilivi,  is  not  recorded  in 
Scripture,  and  the  name  itself  is  so  mysterious 
that  we  are  lost  in  conjecture  respecting  them. 

2.  The  sons  of  the  marriages  mentioned  in  Gen. 

n.  1-4,  are  called  Gibborim  (□'^n22,  from  "135, 
Jo  be  strong),  a  general  name  meaning  potoerfid 
{v$pi(TTa\  Kal  navThi  vTrepoirToi  Ka\ov,  Joseph. 
Ajit.  i.  3,  §  1;  yrjs  ira7des  rhu  vovv  iK^i^daavTcs 
Ti/G  KoyiCea-dai  k.t.A.,  Philo  de  Gigant.,  p.  270; 
comp.  Is.  iii.  2,  xlix.  24;  Ez.  xxxii.  21).  They 
were  not  necessarily  giants  in  our  sense  of  the  word 
ITheodoret,  Qtimst.  48).  Yet,  as  was  natural,  these 
powerful  chiefs  were  almost  universally  represented 
u  men  of  extraordinaii|'  stature.  The  LXX.  ren- 
ier  the  word  yiyavres,  and  call  Nimrod  a  yiyas 
cwrtyhs  (1  Chr.  i.  10);  Augustine  calls  them  Sla- 


GIANTS 

twosi  (de  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  4)  ;  Chrysostom  JJpwe^ 
fvfirjKcls,  Theodoret  -Ka^iix^yie^is  (comp.  B.vr.  iil 
2(5,  eu/ie^e^Pts,  diriaTd/jL^voi  TrSXe/xov)- 

But  rrho  were  the  parents  of  these  giants ;  whc 
are  "  the  sons  of  God  "  (C^n'lb.l^n  ^:?)  ?  The 
opinions  are  various:  (1.)  31  en  of  poicer  {vloi  8v 
uacxrevSvTWVy  Symm.,  Hieron.  Qucest.  Ileb.  ad  loc. ; 
SJ^nnn  ^32,  Onk.;    il^2T2^W  "^33,  Samar.; 

so  too  SeldeUj  Vorst,  &c.),  (comp.  Ps.  ii.  7,  Ixxxii. 
6,  Ixxxix.  27;  Mic.  v.  5,  &c.).  The  expression  will 
then  exactly  resemble  Homer's  AioyeueTs  ^a(n\rj(Sy 
and  the  Chinese  Tidn-tseii,  "  son  of  heaven,"  as  a 

title  of  the  Emperor  (Gesen.  s.  v.  "J 5).  But  why 
should  the  union  of  the  high-born  and  low-born 
produce  offspring  umisual  for  their  size  and 
strength?  (2.)  J/en  with  great  gifts,  "in  the 
image  of  God"  (Kitter,  Schumann);  (3.)  Cainites 
an-ogantly  assuming  the  title  (Paulus);  or  (4.)  the 
pious  Sethites  (comp.  Gen.  iv.  20;  Maimon.  Mar. 
Neboch.  i.  14;  Suid.  s.  w.  '2,-riQ  and  fiiaiyufxias', 
Cedren.  Hist.  Comp.  p.  10;  Aug.  de  Civ.  Lei,  xv. 
23 ;  Chrysost.  Hoyn.  22,  in  Gen. ;  Theod.  in  Gen. 
Qucest.  47;  Cyril,  c.  Jul.  ix.,  &c.).  A  host  of 
modern  commentators  catch  at  this  explanation, 
but  Gen.  iv.  26  has  probably  no  connection  with 
the  sul>ject.  Other  texts  quoted  in  favor  of  the 
view  are  Deut.  xiv.  1,  2;  Ps.  Ixxiii.  15;  Prov.  xiv. 
26;  Hos.  i.  10;  Rom.  viii.  14,  &c.  Still  the  mere 
antithesis  in  the  verse,  as  well  as  other  consider*- 
tions,  tend  strongly  against  this  gloss,  which  indeed 
is  built  on  a  foregone  conclusion.  Compare  how- 
ever the  Indian  notion  of  the  two  races  of  meu 
Suras  and  Asuras  (children  of  the  sun  and  of  the 
moon,  Nork,  Bram.  und  Rabb.  p.  204  fF.),  and  the 
I'ersian  belief  in  the  marriage  of  Djemshid  with 
the  sister  of  a  dev,  whence  sprang  black  and  im- 
pious men  (Kalisch,  Gen.  p.  175).  (5.)  Worship- 
pers of  false  gods  (TraTSes  twv  decbu,  Aqu.)  making 

"^35  =  "  servants  "  (comp.  Deut.  xiv.  1;  Prov.  xiv. 
26;  Ex.  xxxii.  1;  Deut.  iv.  28,  &c.).  This  view  is 
ably  supported  in  Genesis  of  Earth  and  Man,  p. 
39  f.  (6.)  Devils,  such  as  the  Incubi  and  Suc- 
cubi.  Such  was  the  belief  of  the  Cabbalists  (Va- 
lesius,  de  S.  Philosoph.  cap.  8).  That  these  beings 
can  have  intercourse  with  women  St.  Augustine 
declares  it  would  be  folly  to  doubt,  and  it  was  the 
universal  belief  in  the  East.  Mohammed  makes 
one  of  the  ancestors  of  Balkis  Queen  of  Sheba  a 
demon,  and  Damir  says  he  had  heard  a  INIoham- 
medan  doctor  openly  boast  of  having  married  ii' 
succession  four  demon  wives  (Bochart,  Hieroz.  i. 
p.  747).  Indeed  the  belief  still  exists  (Lane's  Mod. 
Egypt,  i.  ch.  X.  ad  in.)  (7.)  Closely  allied  to  this 
is  the  oldest  opinion,  that  they  were  angels  (dtyye- 
\oi  Tou  0eou,  LXX.,  for  such  was  the  old  readhig, 
not  vloi,  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  23;  so  too  Joseph. 
Ant.  i.  3,  §  1 ;  Phil,  de  Gig.  ii.  358 ;  Clem.  Alex. 
Stro7n.  iii.  7,  §  69 ;  Sulp.  Sever.  Hist.  Sa-ipt.  in 
Orthod.  1.  i.  &c. ;  comp.  Job  i.  6,  ii.  1 ;  Ps.  xxix. 
1,  Job  iv.  18).  The  rare  expression  "  sons  of  God  " 
certainly  means  angels  in  Job  xxxviii.  7,  i.  G,  ii.  1, 
and  that  such  is  the  meaning  in  Gen.  vi.  4  also, 
was  the  most  prevalent  opinion  both  in  the  Jewish 
and  early  Christian  Church. 

It  was  probably  this  very  ancient  view  which 
gave  rise  to  the  spurious  book  of  Enoch,  and  the 
notion  quoted  from  it  by  St.  Jude  (6),  and  alludeo 
to  by  St.  Peter  (2  Pet.  ii.  4 ;  comp.  1  Cor.  xi.  10 
Tert.  de   Virg.  Vel.  7).     According  to  this  boo! 


GIANTS 

sertain  angels,  sent  by  God  to  guard  the  earth 
{'Eyp-f^yopoi,  (/)uAa/ces),  were  per-erted  by  the 
\ie&iity  of  women,  "  went  after  strange  flesh," 
taught  sorcery,  finery  (luinina  laj'illoruin,  circulos 
ex  aure,  Tert.,  etc.),  and  being  banished  from 
heaven  had  sons  3,000  cubits  high,  thus  originating 
a  celestial  and  terrestrial  race  of  demons  —  "  Unde 
modo  vagi  subvertunt  corpora  multa  "  (Coramodi- 
ani  Instruct.  I J  I.,  Cultut;  Dcemonwn)  i.  e.  they  are 
still  the  source  of  epilepsy,  etc.  Various  names 
were  given  at  a  Later  time  to  these  monsters.  Their 
chief  was  Leuixas,  and  of  their  number  were  Mach- 
sael,  Aza,  Shemchozai,  and  (the  wickedest  of  them) 
a  goat-like  demon  Azael  (comp.  Azazel,  I^v.  xvi. 
8,  and  for  the  very  curious  questions  connected 
with  this  name,  see  Bochart,  Hieroz.  1.  p.  652  ff. ; 
Kab.  EUezer,  cap.  22 ;  Bereshith  Rab.  ad  Gen.  vi.  2 ; 
Sennert,  de  Giydntibus,  iii.). 

Against  this  notion  (which  Hiivernick  calls  "  the 
silliest  whim  of  the  Alexandrian  Gnostics  and  Cab- 
alistic Rabbis")  Heidegger  {Hist.  Patr.  1.  c.) 
quotes  Matt.  xxii.  30;  Luke  xxiv.  39,  and  similar 
testimonies.  Philastrius  {Adv.  Ilceres.  cap.  108) 
characterizes  it  as  a  heresy,  and  Chrysostom  {Flom. 
22)  even  calls  it  rh  fi\d(T(p7]fxa  iKcivo.  Yet  Jude 
is  explicit,  and  the  question  is  not  so  much  what 
can  be,  as  what  was  beheved.  The  fathers  almost 
unanimously  accepted  these  fables,  and  Tertullian 
argues  warmly  (partly  on  exj^edient  grounds ! )  for 
the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Enoch.  The  an- 
gels were  called  'Eypriyopoi,  a  word  used  by  Aquil. 

and  Symm.  to  Render  the  Chaldee  *T^V  (Dan.  iv. 
13  ff.:  Vulg.  Vir/il:  LXX.  etp;  Lex.'CyriUi,  ^7- 
ycXoi  ^  &ypvKvoi ;  Fabric.  Cod.  PseudejAf/r.  V.  T. 
p.  180),  and  therefore  used,  as  in  the  Zend-Avesta, 
of  good  guardian  angels,  and  applied  especially  to 

archangels  in  the  Syriac  hturgies  (cf.  "1-^''^%  Is. 
Kxi.  11),  but  more  often  of  evil  angels  (Castelli 
Lex.  Syr.  p.  649;  Scalig.  ad  Euseb.  Cliron.  p.  403; 

Gesen.  s.  v.  'H'^l?).  The  story  of  the  Egregori  is 
given  at  length  in  Tert.  de  Cult.  Fern.  i.  2,  ii.  10 ; 
Commodianus,  Instruct,  iii. ;  Lactant.  Div.  Inst.  ii. 
14 ;  Testain.  Patriarch.  \^Ruben^'\  c.  v.,  etc.  Every 
one  will  remember  the  allusions  to  the  same  inter- 
pretation in  Milton,  Par.  Reg.  ii.  179  — 

"  Before  the  Flood,  thou  with  thy  lusty  crew, 
Fahe-titled  sons  of  God,  roaming  the  earth. 
Cast  wanton  eyes  on  the  daughters  of  men. 
And  coupled  with  them,  and  begat  a  race." 

The  use  made  of  the  legend  in  some  modern  poems 
cannot  sufficiently  be  reprobated. 

We  need  hardly  say  how  closely  allied  this  is  to 
the  Greek  legends  which  connected  the  6.ypia  (pvXa 
yiydvrwv  with  the  gods  (Horn.  Od.  vii.  205 :  Pau- 
Ban.  viii.  29),  and  made  Sai/uLoves  sons  of  the  gods 
(Plat.  Apoloff.  rjfiideoL;  Cratyl.  §  32).  Indeed  the 
whole  heathen  tradition  resembles  the  one  before 
IIS  (Cumberland's  Sanchoniatho,  p.  24;  Hom.  Od. 
xi.  306  ff.;  Hes.  Theog.  185,  Opp  et  D.  144; 
Plat.  Rep.  ii.  §  17,  p.  604  E;  de  Legg.  iii.  §  16, 
p.  805  A;  Ov.  Metam.  1. 151;  Luc.  iv.''593;  Lucian, 
ie  Dea  Sijr.,  &c.;  cf.  Grot,  de  Ver.  i.  6);  and  the 
Greek  translators  of  the  Bible  make  the  resemblance 
itill  more  cfcse  by  introducing  such  words  as  Sto- 
uaxoi,  yrjyeufls,  and  even  Tiraues,  to  which  last 
lose^hus  {I.  c.)  expressly  compares  the  giants  of 
Genesis  (LXX.  Prov.  ii.  18;  Ps.  xlviii.  2  [xlix.  2]  • 
2  Sam.  V.  18;  Judith  xvi.  7).  The  fate  too  01 
Uin«ft  demon-chiefs  is  identical  with  that  of  heathen 


GIANTS 


yii 


story  (Job  xxvi.  5 ;  Ecclus.  xvi.  7 ;  Bar.  iii.  26-28 
Wisd.  xiv.  6;  3  Mace.  ii.  4;  1  Pet.  iii.  19). 

These  legends  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  dis 
tortious  of  the  Biblical  narrative,  handed  down  bj 
tradition,  and  embellished  by  the  fancy  and  imagi- 
nation of  eastern  nations.  The  belief  of  the  Jews 
in  later  times  is  remarkably  illustrated  by  the  story 
of  Asmodeus  in  the  book  of  Tobit.  It  is  deeply 
instructive  to  observe  how  wide  and  marked  a  con- 
trast there  is  between  the  incidental  allusion  of  the 
sacred  narrative  (Gen.  vi.  4),  and  the  minute  friv- 
olities or  prurient  follies  which  degrade  the  heatheu 
mythology,  and  repeatedly  appear  in  the  groundlesa 
imaginings  of  the  Rabbinic  interpreicrs.  If  therp 
were  fallen  angels  whose  lawless  desires  gave  birth 
to  a  monstrous  progeny,  both  they  and  their  intol 
erable  offspring  were  destroyed  by  the  deluge,  whioh 
was  the  retribution  on  their  wickedness,  and  they 
have  no  existence  in  the  baptized  and  renovated 
earth. 

Before  passing  to  the  other  giant-races  we  may 
observe  that  all  nations  have  had  a  dim  fancy  that 
the  aborigines  who  preceded  them,  and  the  earliest 
men  generally,  were  of  immense  stature.  Berosus 
says  that  the  ten  antediluvian  kings  of  Chaldea 
were  giants,  and  we  find  in  all  monkish  historians 
a  similar  statement  about  the  earliest  possessors  of 
Britain  (comp.  Hom.  Od.  x.  119 ;  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei, 
XV.  9;  Plin.  vii.  16;  Varr.  op.  AuL  Cell.  iii.  10; 
Jer.  on  IVIatt.  xxvii.).  The  great  size  decreased 
gradually  after  the  deluge  (2  Esdr.  v.  52-55).  That 
we  are  dwarfs  compared  to  our  ancestors  was  a 
common  belief  among  the  Latin  and  Greek  poets 
(//.  V.  302  ft-.;  Lucret.  ii.  1151;  Virg.  ^m.  xii. 
900;  Juv.  XV.  69),  although  it  is  now  a  matter  of 
absolute  certainty  from  the  remains  of  antiquity, 
reaching  back  to  the  very  earliest  times,  that  in  old 
days  men  were  no  taller  than  ourselves.  On  the 
origin  of  the  mistaken  supposition  there  are  curious 
passages  in  Natalis  Comes  {3fytholog.  vi.  21),  and 
Macrobius  {Saturn,  i.  20). 

The  next  race  of  giants  which  we  find  mentioned 
in  Scripture  is  — 

3.  The  JIephaim,  a  name  which  frequently  oc- 
curs, and  in  some  remarkable  passages.  The  earU- 
est  mention  of  them  is  the  record  of  their  defeat 
by  Chedorlaomer  and  some  allied  kings  at  Ashte- 
roth  Karnaim  (Gen.  xiv.  5).  They  are  again 
mentioned  (Gen.  xv.  20),  their  dispersion  recorded 
(Deut.  ii.  10,  20),  and  Og  the  giant  king  of  Bashan 
said  to  be  "the  only  remnant  of  them  "  (Deut.  iii, 
11;  Jos.  xii.  4,  xiii.  12,  xvii.  15).  Extirpated,  how- 
ever, from  the  east  of  Palestine,  they  long  found  a 
home  in  the  west,  and  in  connection  with  the  Phil- 
istines, under  whose  protection  the  small  remnant 
of  them  may  have  lived,  they  still  employed  their 
arms  against  the  Hebrews  (2  Sam.  xxi.  18  ff. ;  1 
Chr.  XX.  4).  In  the  latter  passage  there  seem* 
however  to  be  some  confusion  between  the  Rephaiu 
and  the  sons  of  a  particular  giant  of  Gath,  named 
Rapha.  Such  a  name  may  have  been  conjectured 
as  that  of  a  founder  of  the  race,  like  the  names 
Ion,  Dorus,  Teut,  etc.  (Boettcher,  de  Inferis,  p.  96, 
n. ;  Rapha  occurs  also  as  a  proper  name,  1  Chr.  vii. 
25,  viii.  2,  37).  It  is  probable  that  they  had  pos- 
sessed districts  west  of  the  Jordan  in  early  times, 
since  the  "  Valley  of  Rephaim  "  («:oiAoy  TcovTira- 
voov,  £  Sam.  v.  18 ;  1  Chr.  xi.  15 ;  Is.  xvii.  5 ;  «. 
tS}u  yiyavTur  Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  4,  §  1),  a  rich 
valley  S.  W.  of  Jerusalem,  derived  its  name  from 
them. 

That  they  were  not  Cauaanites  is  clear  ftoiP 


912  GIANTS 

there  bting  no  allusion  to  them  in  Gen.  x.  15-19. 
Tliey  were  probably  one  of  those  aboriginal  people 
to  whose  existence  the  traditions  of  many  nations 
testify,  and  of  whose  genealogy  the  Bible  gives  us 
no  information.  The  few  names  recorded  have, 
as  Ewald  remarks,  a  Semitic  aspect  {Geschich.  des 
Volkes  Jsr.  i.  311),  but  from  the  hatred  existing 
between  them  and  both  the  Canaanites  and  He- 
brews, some  suppose  them  to  be  Japhethites,  *'  who 
comprised  especially  the  inhabitants  of  the  coasts 
and  islands  "  (Kalisch  on  Gen.  p.  351). 

D'^StDH  is  rendered  by  the  Greek  versions  very 
variously  {"Pacpael/j.,  yiyavres,  yrjyevels,  Oeofid- 
Xoi,  TtTaj/fcs,  and  iarpol,  Vulg.  medici;  LXX. 
I's.  Ixxxvii.  10;  Is.  xxvi.  14,  where  it  is  confused 

with  D'^Spl  •  cf.  Gen.  I.  2,  and  sometimes  ueKpoU 
Te6vr}K6res,  especially  in  the  later  versions).  In 
A.  V.  the  words  used  for  it  are  "  Kephaim," 
••giants,"  and  "  the  dead."  That  it  has  the  latter 
meaning  in  many  passages  is  certain  (Ps.  Ixxxviii. 
10;  Prov.  ii.  18,  ix.  18,  xxi.  16;  Is.  xxvi.  19,  14). 
[Dead,  Thk,  Amer.  ed.]  The  question  arises, 
how  are  these  meanh)gs  to  be  reconciled  ?  Gese- 
iiius  gives  no  derivation  for  the  national  name,  and 

derives  "1  =  mortui,  from  SD"!,  sanavif,  and  the 
proper  name  Kapha  from  an  Arabic  root  signifying 
"  tall,"  thus  seeming  to  sever  all  connection  between 
the  meanings  of  the  word,  which  is  surely  most 
unlikely.  Masius,  Simonis,  &c.,  suppose  the  second 
meaning  to  come  from  the  fact  that  both  spectres 
and  giants  strike  terror  (accepting  the  derivation 

from  nCn,  I'emisit,  "  unstrung  with  fear,"  R. 
Bechai  on  Deut.  ii.);  Vitringa  and  Hiller  from  the 
notion  of  lenyth  involved  in  stretching  out  a  corpse, 
or  from  the  fancy  that  spirits  appear  in  more  than 
human  size  (Hiller,  Syntagm.  Ilermen.  p.  205; 
Virg.  ^n.  ii.  772,  &c.).  J.  D.  Michaelis  (ad 
Lowth  s.  Poes.  p.  466)  endeavored  to  prove  that  the 
Kephaim,  Ac,  were  Troglodytes,  and  that  hence 
they  came  to  be  identified  with  the  dead.     Passing 

over  other  conjectures,  Boettcher  sees  in  ^^"1  and 

nCn  a  double  root,  and  thinks  that  the  giants 

were  called  D'^MS^  {languefacti)  by  an  euphe- 
mism; and  that  the* dead  were  so  called  by  a  title 
which  will  thus  exactly  parallel  the  Greek  KaixSvres, 
K€KfMT]K6Tes  (comp.  liuttmanu,  Lexil.  ii.  237  fF.). 
His  arguments  are  too  elaborate  to  quote,  but  see 
Boettcher,  pp.  94-100.  An  attentive  consideration 
seems  to  leave  little  room  for  doubt  that  the  dead 
were  called  Kephaim  (as  Gesenius  also  hints)  from 
some  notion  of  Sheol  being  the  residence  of  the 
fallen  spirits  or  buried  giants.  The  passages  which 
seem  most  strongly  to  prove  this  are  Prov.  xxi.  16 
(where  obviously  something  more  than  mere  physi- 
cal death  is  meant,  since  that  is  the  common  lot  of 
all) ;  Is.  xxvi.  14,  19,  which  are  difficult  to  explain 
without  some  such  supposition;  Is.  xiv.  9,  where 

the  word  "^l^ri^  (ol  &p^avTcs  t9is  yris,  LXX.) 
if  taken  in  its  literal  meaning  of  goats,  may  mean 
evil  spirits  represented  in  that  form  (cf.  Lev.  xvii. 
7);  and  especially  Job  xxvi.  5,  6.  "Behold  the 
^yantes  (A.  V.  'dead  things')  grown  under  the 
waters  "  (Douay  version),  where  there  seems  to  be 
clear  allusion  to  some  subaqueous  prison  of  rebel- 
lious spirits  like  that  in  which  (according  to  the 
Hindoo  legend)  Vishnu  the  water-god  confines  a 
race  of  giants  (cf.  ttuXooxos,  as  a  title  of  Neptune, 


GIANTS 

lies.  Theog.  732 ;  Nork,  Bram.  und  Rabb.  p.  31s 
fF.).     [Og";  Goliath.] 

Branches  of  this  great  unknown  people  wert 
called  Emim,  Anakim,  and  Zuzim. 

*  In  Prov.  xxi.  16,  it  is  said  of  the  man  who 
wanders  from  the  ways  of  wisdom,  that  "he  &haL 
remain  in  the  congregation  of  the  dead  "  (properly, 
of  the  shades,  that  is,  disembodied  spirits;  see  art. 
Dead).  The  meaning  is,  —  that  shall  be  the  end 
of  his  wanderings;  there  he  shall  find  his  abode, 
though  not  the  one  he  seeks.  But,  as  is  said  in 
the  preceding  paragraph,  "something  more  than 
physical  death  is  meant,  since  that  is  the  lot  of  all." 
This  is  well  illustrated  in  Ps.  xlix.  14,  15,  19.  Of 
the  wicked  it  is  there  said :  "  Like  sheep  they  are 
laid  in  the  grave;"  like  brute  beasts,  having  no 
hope  beyond  it.  "  But  God,"  says  the  righteous, 
"  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of  the  grave  " 
(certainly,  not  from  subjection  to  physical  death, 
for  no  one  could  make  so  absurd  a  claim ) :  while 
of  the  wicked  it  is  said  (v.  19),  "they  shall  never 
see  light." 

In  Is.  xxvi.  14,  it  is  affirmed  of  the  tyrannical 
oppressors,  whom  God  had  cut  oflT,  that  they  "  shall 
live  no  more,"  "shall  not  rise  again,"  to  continue 
their  work  of  devastation  and  oppression  on  the 
earth;  while  in  ver.  19  is  expressed  the  confident 
hope  of  God's  people,  on  behalf  of  its  own  slain. 

Job  xxvi.  5  should  be  translated  thus:  — 

The  shades  tremble. 

Beneath  the  waters  and  their  tnhabitants. 

It  is  here  affirmed,  that  God's  dominion,  with 
the  dread  it  inspires,  extends  even  to  the  abodes  of 
departed  spirits,  beneath  the  earth,  and  lower  than 
the  ocean  depths,  which  are  no  barrier  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  power. 

We  need  not,  therefore,  resort  to  fabulous  leg- 
ends, for  the  explanation  of  these  passages. 

T.  J.  C. 

4.  Emim  (D^^**W  :  LXX.  'Ofifilv,  'lfjifia7oi\ 
smitten  by  Chedorlaomer  at  Shaveh  Kiriathaim 
(Gen.  xiv.  5),  and  occupying  the  country  after- 
wards held  by  the  Moabites   (Deut.  ii.  10),  who 

gave  them  the  name  D^^"*S,  "terrors."  The 
word  rendered  "tall"  may  perhaps  be  merely 
"haughty"  {la-xvovres)-     [Emim.J 

5.  Anakim  (D'^i735).  The  imbecile  terror  of 
the  spies  exaggerated  their  proportions  into  some- 
thing superhuman  (Num.  xiii.  28,  33),  and  their 
name  became  proverbial  (Deut.  ii.  10.  ix.  2). 
[Anakim.] 

6.  Zuzim  (D'^T^T),  whose  principal  town  was 
Ham  (Gen.  xiv.  5),  and  who  lived  between  the 
Arnon  and  the  Jabbok,  being  a  northern  tribe  of 
Kephaim.     The  Ammonites,  who  defeated  then:, 

called  them  C^^tpT  (Deut.  ii.  20  fF.  which  is, 
however,  probably  an  early  gloss). 

We  have  now  examined  the  main  names  applied 
to  giant-races  in  the  Bible,  but  except  in  the  case 
of  the  two  first  (NephiUm  and  Gibborim)  there  is 
no  necessity  to  suppose  that  there  was  anjthing 
very  remarkable  in  the  size  of  these  nations,  be- 
yond the  general  fact  of  their  being  finely  propor- 
tioned. Nothing  can  be  built  on  tlie  exaggeratioB 
of  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.  33),  and  Og,  Goliath 
Ishbi-benob,  etc.  (see  under  the  names  themselves) 
are  obviously  mentioned  as  exceptional  cases.     Th« 


GIBEAH 


913 


i 


GIANTS 

Jews  however  (misled  by  supposed  relics)  thought 
othen\ise  (Joseph.  Ant.  v.  2,  §  3). 

No  one  has  yet  proved  by  experience  the  possi- 
bility of  giant  races,  materially  exceeding  in  size 
the  average  height  of  man.  There  is  no  great  va- 
riation in  the  ordinary  standard.  The  most  stunted 
tribes  of  Esquimaux  are  at  least  four  feet  high,  and 
the  tallest  races  of  America  (e.  (/.  the  Guayaquilists 
ind  people  of  Paraguay)  do  not  exceed  six  feet 
and  a  half.  It  was  long  thought  that  the  Patago- 
nians  were  men  of  enormous  stature,  and  the  asser- 
•-ions  of  the  old  voyagers  on  the  point  were  positive. 
For  instance  Pigafetta  (  Voijnye  Round  the  World, 
Pinkerton,  xi.  314)  mentions  an  individual  Pata- 
gonian  so  tall,  that  they  "  hardly  reached  to  his 
waist."  Similar  exaggerations  are  found  in  the 
Voyages  of  Byron,  \Vallis,  Carteret,  Cook,  and 
Forster ;  but  it  is  now  a  matter  of  certainty  from 
the  recent  visits  to  Patagonia  (by  Winter,  Capt. 
Snow,  and  others),  that  there  is  nothing  at  all 
extraordinary  in  their  size. 

The  general  behef  (until  very  recent  times)  in 
the  existence  of  fabulously  enormous  men,  arose 
from  fancied  giant-graves  (see  De  la  V'alle's  Travels 
in  Persia,  ii.  89),  and  above  all  from  the  discovery 
Df  huge  bones,  which  were  taken  for  those  of  men, 
in  days  when  comi^arative  anatomy  was  unknown. 
Even  the  ancient  Jews  were  thus  misled  (Joseph. 
Ant.  V.  2,  §  3).  Augustin  appeals  triumphantly 
to  this  argument,  and  mentions  a  molar  tooth  which 
h<  had  seen  at  Utica  a  hundred  times  larger  than 
oliinary  teeth  {De  Civ.  Dei,  xv.  9).  No  doubt  it 
Ouce  belonged  to  an  elephant.  Vives,  in  his  com- 
ttientary  on  the  place,  mentions  a  tooth  as  big  as  a 
fist,  which  was  shown  at  St.  Christopher's.  In  fact 
this  source  of  delusion  has  only  very  recently  been 
dispelled  (Sennert,  De  Giyant.  passim;  INIartin's 
West.  Islands,  in  Pinkerton,  ii.  691).  Most  bones, 
which  have  been  exhibited,  have  turned  out  to  be- 
long to  whales  or  elephants,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  vertebra  of  a  supposed  giant,  examined  by  Sir 
Hans  Sloane  in  Oxfordshire. 

On  the  other  hand,  isolated  instances  of  mon- 
-  trosity  are  sufficiently  attested  to  prove  that  beings 
tike  Goliath  and  his  kinsmen  may  have  existed. 
Columella  {E.  R.  iii.  8,  §  2)  mentions  Navius  Pol- 
lio  as  one,  and  Phny  says  that  in  the  time  of 
Claudius  Caesar  there  was  an  Arab  named  Gab- 
baras  nearly  ten  feet  high,  and  that  even  he  was 
not  so  tall  as  Pusio  and  Secundilla  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus,  whose  bodies  were  preserved  (vii.  16). 
Josephus  tells  us  that,  among  other  hostages,  Arta- 
banus  sent  to  Tiberius  a  certain  Eleazar,  a  Jew, 
suniamed  "  the  Giant,"  seven  cubits  in  height  {Ant. 
xviii.  4,  §  5).  Nor  are  well-authenticated  instances 
wanting  in  modem  times.  O'Brien,  whose  skele- 
ton is  presented  in  the  Museum  of  the  College  of 
Surgeons,  must  have  been  8  feet  high,  but  his  un- 
natural height  made  him  weakly.  On  the  other 
hand  the  blacksmith  Parsons,  in  Charles  II.'s  reign, 
was  7  feet  2  inches  high,  and  also  remarkable  for 
his  strength  (Fuller's  Woi^ihies,  Staffordshire). 

For  information  on  the  various  subjects  touched 
upon  in  this  article,  besides  minor  authorities  quoted 
in  it,  see  Grot,  de  Veritat.  i.  16;  Nork,  Bram. 
und  Rcdjb.  p.  210  ad  Jin. ;  Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  305-312; 

Winer,  s.  v.  Riesen,  etc. ;  Gesei-  s.  v.  D^SDT ; 
Rosenmiiller,  Kalisch,  et  Comment,  a^  loca  cit. ; 
Kosenm.  Allerthumsk.  ii. ;  Boettcher,  de  Jh/eris,  p. 

db   f.;    Heidegger,  Hist.  Pair,  xi.;    Havernick's   App.  §  25).     Like  most  words  of  this  kind  it  gave 
Tntrod.  to  Pentat.  p.  345  f.;  Home's   Introd.  i.  |  its  name  to  several  towns  and  places  in  Pilestine 
58 


148 ;  Faber's  Bampt.  Lect.  iii.  7 ;  Maithwid's  Ert^- 
vin;  On  (J.  of  Pagan  Idol.  i.  217,  in  Maitland'i 
False  Wm-ship,  1-67;  Pritchard's  Nnt.  Hist,  of 
Man,  v.  489  f. ;  Hamilton  On  the  Pentat.  pp.  18»- 
201 ;  Papers  on  the  Kephaim  by  Miss  F.  Corbaux, 
Journ.  of  Sacr.  Lit.  1851.  There  are  also  mono- 
graphs by  Cassanion,  Sangutelli,  and  Sennert;  we 
have  only  met  with  the  latter  {Dissert.  Hist.  Phil. 
de  Giyantibus,  Vittemb.  1663);  it  is  interesting  and 
learned,  but  extraordinarily  credulous.    F.  W.  F. 

GIB^BAR  ("^2l2  [liero,  or  hiyh,  (jigantic\: 
ra^ep;  [Vat.  Ta)8ep:]  Gebbar),  Bene-Gibbar,  to 
the  number  of  ninety-five,  returned  with  Zerubba- 
bel  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  ii.  20).  In  the  parallel  list 
of  Neh,  vii.  the  name  is  given  as  Gibkcn. 

GIB'BETHON  (V'^riSSl  [eminence,  hill:  in 
Josh.,]  BeyeScii',  V^Q^hap,  Alex.  Fa^adcau,  Tafie- 
eccv;  [in  1  K.,  ra^adwv.  Vat.  1  K.  xv.  27,  Ta- 
fiacou:  Gebbetlion,]  Gabathon),  a  town  allotted  to 
the  tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix.  44),  and  afterwards 
given  with  its  "suburbs"  to  the  Kohathite  I^evites 
(xxi.  23).  Being,  like  most  of  the  towns  of  Dan, 
either  in  or  close  to  the  Philistines'  country,  it  waa 
no  doubt  soon  taken  possession  of  by  them ;  at  any 
rate  they  held  it  in  the  early  days  of  the  monarchy 
of  Israel,  when  king  Nadab  "and  all  Israel,"  and 
after  him  Omri,  besieged  it  (1  K.  xv.  27;  xvi.  17). 
^^'hat  were  the  special  advantages  of  situation  oi 
otherwise  which  rendered  it  so  desirable  as  a  pos- 
session for  Israel  are  not  apparent.  In  the  Ono- 
masticon  (Gabathon)  it  is  quoted  as  a  small  village 
{■KoKixv-n)  called  Gabe,  in  the  17th  mile  from  Caes- 
area.  This  would  place  it  nearly  due  west  of  Sa- 
maria, and  about  the  same  distance  therefrom. 
No  name  at  all  resembling  it  has,  however,  been 
discovered  in  that  direction. 

GIB'S  A  (S^ri2  [hill-inhabitant,  Fiirst;  hill, 
Gesen.]:  FatySaA;  Alex.  TaijSaa:  Gabaa).  Sheva 
"the  father  of  Macbenah,"  and  "father  of  Gibea," 
is  mentioned  with  other  names  unmistakably  those 
of  places  and  not  persons,  among  the  descendants 
of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  49,  comp.  42).  [Father.] 
This  would  seem  to  point  out  Gibea  (which  in  some 
Hebrew  MSS.  is  Gibeah;  see  Burrington,  i.  216) 
as  the  city  Gibkah  in  Judah.  The  mention  of 
Madmannah  (49,  comp.  Josh.  xv.  31 ),  as  well  as  ot 
Ziph  (42)  and  Maon  (45),  seems  to  caiTy  us  to  a 
locality  considerably  south  of  Hebron.  [Giiskah, 
1.]  On  the  other  hand  Madn\annah  recalls  Mad- 
menah,  a  town  named  in  connection  with  Gibeah' 
of  Benjamin  (Is.  x.  31),  and  therefore  lying  some- 
where north  of  .Jerusalem. 

GIB'EAH  (n^?2,  derived,  according  to  Ge 

seniua  {Thes.  pp.  259,  260),  from  a  root,  375?. 
signifying  to  be  round  or  humped ;  comp.  the  Latu 
gibbus,  English  gibbous;  the  Arabic  (j^jc^,  j'ebel, 
a  mountain,  and  the  German  gipfd).  A  word  em- 
ployed in  the  BiLlo  to  denote  a  "  hill  "  —  that  is, 
an  eminence  of  less  considerable  height  and  extent 

than  a  "  mountain,"  the  term  for  which  is  "IH, 
har.  For  the  distinction  between  the  two  terms, 
see  Ps.  cxlviii.  9 ;  Prov.  viii.  25 ;  Is.  ii.  2,  xl.  4,  &c. 
In  the  historical  books  gibeah  is  commordy  applied 
to  the  bald  rounded  hills  of  central  Palestine,  es- 
pecially in  the  neighborhood  of  .Jerusalem  (Stanley, 


914 


GIBEAH 


which  wou\d  doubtless  he  generally  on  or  near  a 
hill,     'i'bej  are  — 

1.  Gib'kah  (rafiad'  Gabaa),  a  city  in  the 
mountain-district  of  Judah,  named  with  Maon  and 
the  southern  Carmel  (Josh.  xv.  57;  and  comp.  1 
Chr.  U.  49,  <fcc.).  In  the  Onomasticon  a  village 
name<I  Gahatha  is  mentioned  as  containing  tlie 
monument  of  Hahakkuk  the  prophet,  and  lying 
twelve  miles  from  Eleuthero{)olis.  The  direction, 
however,  is  not  stated.  Possibly  it  was  identical 
with  Keilah,  which  is  given  as  eastward  from  Eleu- 
theroix)lis  (I'^usebius  says  seventeen,  Jerome  eight 
miles)  on  the  road  to  Hebron,  and  is  also  mentioned 
as  containing  the  monument  of  Habakkuk.  But 
neither  of  these  can  be  the  place  intended  in  Joshua, 
since  that  would  appear  to  have  been  to  the  S.  E. 
of  Hebron,  near  where  Carmel  and  Maon  are  still 
existing.  For  the  same  reason  this  Gibeah  cannot 
be  that  discovered  by  Robinson  as  Jebd'h  in  the 
Wddy  MusmTj  not  far  west  of  Bethlehem,  and  ten 
Qiiles  north  of  Hebron  (Rob.  ii.  6,  16).  Its  site  is 
therefore  yet  to  seek. 

2.  Gib'eath  (n^!?2  :  ra$awe;  Alex.  Tafiaad 
Gabaath).  This  is  enumerated  among  the  last 
group  of  the  towns  of  lienjaniin,  next  to  Jerusalem 
(Josh,  xviii.  28).  It  is  generally  taken  to  be  the 
place  which  afterwards  became  so  notorious  as 
"  Gibeah-of-Benjamin  "  or  "of-Saul."  But  this, 
as  we  shall  presently  see,  was  five  or  six  miles  north 
of  Jerusalem,  close  to  Gibeon  and  Ramah,  with 
which,  in  that  case,  it  would  have  been  mentioned 
in  ver.  25.  The  name  being  in  the  "construct 
state,"  —  Gibeath  and  not  Gibeah,  —  may  it  not  be- 
long to  the  following  name,  Kirjath  {i.  e.  Kirjath- 
jearira,  as  some  MSS.  actually  read),  and  denote  the 
hill  adjoining  that  town  (see  below,  No.  3)?  The 
obvious  objection  to  this  proposal  is  the  statement 
of  the  number  of  this  group  of  towns  as  fourteen, 
but  this  is  not  a  serious  objection,  as  in  these  cata- 
logues discrepancies  not  unfrequently  occur  between 
the  numbers  of  the  towns,  and  that  stated  as  the 
sum  of  the  enumeration  (comp.  Josh.  xv.  32,  36; 
six.  6,  &c.).  In  this  very  list  there  is  reason  to 
believe  that  Zelah  and  ha-Eleph  are  not  separate 
names,  but  one.  The  Usts  of  Joshua,  though  in 
the  main  coeval  with  the  division  of  the  country, 
nmst  have  been  often  added  to  and  altered  before 
they  became  finally  fixed  as  we  now  possess  them,« 
and  the  sanctity  conferred  on  the  "  hill  of  Kirjath  " 
by  the  temporary  sojourn  of  the  Ark  there  in  the 
time  of  Saul  would  have  secured  its  insertion 
among  the  lists  of  the  towns  of  the  tribe. 

3.  (n^5?D  •  eV  Tw  ^ovpifi',  [Alex,  ej/  fiovva:] 
in  Gabaii),  the  place  in  which  the  Ark  remained 
from  the  time  of  its  return  by  the  Philistines  till 
its  removal  by  David  (2  Sam.  vi.  3,  4;  comp.  1 


a  For  instance,  Beth-marcaboth,  "  house  of  char- 
iots," and  Hazar-susah,  "  village  of  horses  "  (Josh. 
xix.  6),  would  seem  to  date  from  the  time  of  Solomon, 
when  the  traffic  in  these  articles  began  with  Egypt. 

f>  m^D,  A.  V.  "meadows  of  Gibeah,"  taking  the 
vord  [after  the  Targum  and  R.  Kimchi]  as  Maareh,  an 
open  field  (Stanley,  App.  §  19) ;  the  LXX.  [Rom.  Vat.] 
transfers  the  Hebrew  word  literally,  Mapaaya/3e  ;  [Q 
MSS.  read  Maapa  Ta/Saa  or  ttjs  T.  ;  but  Comp.  Aid., 
with  Alex,  and  about  15  other  MSS.,  ano  fiva/utoii' 

r^s  Ta/Saa;]  the  Syriac  has  l.^.^\)  =  cave.      The 

Hebrew   word   for  cave,    Me&r&h^   differs   from    that 
kdopted  in  the  A   Y.  only  in  the  vowel-point^s ;  aud 


GIBEAH 

Sam.  vii.  1,  2).  The  name  has  the  definite  ui 
icle,  and  in  1  Sam.  vii.  1  [as  here  in  the  margii.  ol 
the  A.  v.]  it  is  translated  "the  hill."  (See  No. 
2  above.) 

4.  Gib'eah-of-Ben'jamix.  This  town  doea 
not  appear  in  the  lists  of  the  cities  of  Benjamin 
in  Josh,  xviii.  (1.)  We  first  enounter  it  in  the 
tragical  story  of  the  Levite  and  his  concubine,  when 
it  brought  all  but  extermination  on  the  tribe  (Judg 

xix.,  XX.).     It  was  theji  a  "city  "  ("^"'l?)  with  the 

usual  open  street  (^"^n"l)  or  square  (Judg.  xix.  15 
17,20),  and  containing  700  "chosen  men"  (x.x 
15),  probably  the  same  whose  skill  as  slingers  is 
preserved  in  the  next  verse.  Thanks  to  the  pre- 
cision of  the  narrative,  we  can  gather  some  genei-al 
knowledge  of  the  position  of  Gibeah.  The  Levite 
and  his  party  left  Bethlehem  in  the  "  afternoon  " 

—  when  the  day  was  coming  near  the  time  at 
which  the  tents  would  be  pitched  for  evening.  It 
was  probably  between  two  and  three  o'clock.  At 
the  ordinary  speed  of  eastern  travellers  they  would 
come  "over  against  Jebus  "  in  two  hours,  saj  by 
five  o'clock,  and  the  same  length  of  time  would 
take  them  an  equal  distance,  or  about  four  miles,  to 
the  north  of  the  city  on  the  Nablus  road,  in  tlie 
direction  of  Mount  Ephraim  (xix.  13,  comp.  1), 
Ramah  and  Gibeah  both  lay  in  sight  of  the  road, 
Gibeah  apparently  the  nearest;  and  when  the  sud- 
den sunset  of  that  chmate,.unaccompanied  by  more 
than  a  very  brief  twilight,  made  further  progre.ss 
impossible,  they  "  turned  aside  "  from  the  beaten 
track  to  the  town  where  one  of  the  party  was  to 
meet  a  dreadful  death  (Judg.  xix.  9-15).  Later 
indications  of  the  story  seem  to  show  that  a  little 
north  of  the  town  the  main  track  divided  into  two 

—  one,  the  present  Nablus  road,  leading  up  to 
liethel,  the  "  house  of  God,"  and  the  other  taking 
to  Gil>eah-in-the- field  (xx.  31),  possibly  the  present 
Jeba.  Below  the  city,  probably,  — about  the  base 
of  the  hill  which  gave  its  name  to  the  town,  —  was 
the  "cave''  of  Gibeah,"  in  which  the  liers  hi  wait 
concealed  themselves  until  the  signal  was  given  ^ 
(xx.  33). 

During  this  narrative  the  name  is  given  simply 
as  "Gibeah,"  with  a  few  exceptions;  at  its  intro- 
duction it  is  called  "  Gibeah  which  belongeth  to 
Benjamin  "  (xix.  14,  and  so  in  xx.  4).  In  xx.  10 
we  have  the  expression  "  Giljeah  of  Benjamin,"  but 

here  the  Hebrew  is  not  Gibeah,  but  Geba  —  ^5?.- 
The  same  form  of  the  word  is  found  in  xx.  33, 
where  the  meadows,  or  cave,  "of  Gibeah,"  should 
be  "of  Geba." 

In  many  of  the  above  particulars  Gibeah  agrees 
very  closely  with  Tuleil  el-Ful  ["hill  of  beans"], 
a  conspicuous  eminence  just  four  miles  north  cf 

there  seems  a  certain  consistency  in  an  ambush  con- 
cealing themselves  in  a  cave,  which  in  an  open  field 
would  be  impossible. 

*  Bertheau  {BiicJi  der  Richter  u.  Rut,  p.  224)  objecti 
to  the  meaning  "  cave  "  that  the  liers-in-wait  are  said 
(ver.  29)  to  have  been  set  "  round  about  Gibeah."  He 
understands  the  last  part  of  ver.  33  to  mean  that  the 
men  of  Israel  came  forth  from  their  ambush  wegen 
der  Entblossung  von  Geba\  "  on  account  of  the  com- 
plete exposure  of  Geba"  by  the  withdrawal  of  th« 
Beiyamites  (vv.  31,  32).  Buxtorf,  Trtmellius  and 
others  give  nearly  the  same  interpretation,  rendering 
the  last  clause  of  the  verse  "  post  denudationop 
Gibeao."  A. 

c  Josephus,  Ant.  v.  2,  §  11. 


GIBEAH 

itmaatem  to  tlie  riirlit  of  the  road.  Two  miles 
ieyond  it  and  full  in  view  is  er-Ram^  in  all  prob- 
iljility  the  ancient  Kaniali,  and  between  the  two 
the  main  road  divides,  one  branch  going  off  to  the 
right  to  the  village  of  Jeba,  while  the  other  con- 
tinues its  course  upwards  to  Beitin^  the  modern 
representative  of  Bethel.     (See  No.  5  below.) 

(2.)  We  next  meet  with  Gibeah  of  Benjamin 
during  the  PhiUstine  wars  of  Saul  and  Jonathan 
(1  Sam.  xiii.,  xiv.).  It  now  bears  its  full  title. 
The  position  of  matters  seems  to  have  been  this: 
The  Philistines  were  in  possession  of  the  village  of 
Geba,  the  present  Jeba  on  the  south  side  of  the 
Wmhj  Suweinit.  In  their  front,  across  the  wady, 
which  is  here  about  a  mile  wide,  and  divided  by 
several  swells  It  wer  than  the  side  eminences,  was 
Saul  in  the  town  of  INIichmash,  the  modern  Mukh- 
mas,  and  holding  also  "  Mount  Bethel,"  that  is, 
the  heights  on  the  north  of  the  great  wady  —  Deir 
Diicdn,  Burka,  Tdl  el-llajar,  as  far  as  Btitin  itself. 
South  of  the  Philistine  camp,  and  about  three 
miles  in  its  rear,  was  Jonathan,  in  Gibeah-of-Ben- 
jamin,  with  a  thousand  chosen  warriors  (xiii.  2). 
^rhe  first  step  was  taken  by  Jonathan,  who  drove 
out  the  Philistines  from  Geba,  by  a  feat  of  arms 
which  at  once  procured  him  an  immense  reputation. 
But  in  the  meantime  it  increased  the  difficulties  of 
Israel,  for  the  Philistines  (hearing  of  their  reverse) 
gathered  in  prodigious  strength,  and  advancing 
with  an  enormous  armament,  pushed  Saul's  little 
force  before  them  out  of  Bethel  and  Michmash,  and 
down  the  eastern  passes,  to  Gilgal,  near  Jericho  in 
the  Jordan  valley  (xiii.  4,  7).  They  then  estab- 
lished themselves  at  Michmash,  formerly  the  head- 
quarters of  Saul,  and  from  thence  sent  out  their 
bands  of  plunderers,  north,  west,  and  east  (vv.  17, 
18).  I>ut  nothing  could  dislodge  Jonathan  from 
his  main  stronghold  in  the  south.  As  far  as  we 
can  disentangle  the  complexities  of  the  story,  he 
soon  relinquished  Geba,  and  consolidated  his  little 
force  in  Gibeah,  where  he  was  joined  by  his  father, 
with  Samuel  the  pi-ophet,  and  Ahiah  the  priest, 
who,  perhaps  remembering  the  former  fate  of  the 
Ark,  had  brought  down  the  sacred  Ephod «  from 
Shiloh.  These  three  had  made  their  way  up  from 
Gilgal.  with  a  force  sorely  diminished  by  deserti(m 
to  the  Philistine  camp  (xiv.  21),  and  flight  (xiii.  7) 
—  a  mere  remnant  {KardXciixixa)  of  the  people  fol- 
lowing in  the  rear  of  the  little  band  (LXX.).  Then 
occurred  the  feat  of  the  hero  and  his  armor-bearer. 
En  the  stillness  and  darkness  of  the  night  they  de- 
scended the  hill  of  Gibeah,  crossed  the  intervening 
country  to  the  steep  terraced  slope  of  Jeba,  and 
threading  the  mazes  of  the  ravine  below,  climbed 
the  opposite  hill,  and  discovered  themselves  to  the 
garrison  of  the  Philistines  just  as  the  day  was 
breaking.* 

No  one  had  been  aware  of  their  depai-ture,  but 
it  was  not  long  unknown.  Saul's  watchmen  at 
Tnleil  el-Ful  were  straining  their  eyes  to  catch  a 
glimpse  in  the  early  morning  of  the  position  of  the 
Ibe;  and  as  the  first  rays  of  the  rising  sim  on  their 
ight  broke  over  the  mountains  of  Gilead,  and  glit- 


GIBEAH 


911 


a  1  Sam.  xiv.  3.  In  ver.  18  the  ark  is  said  to  have 
5«en  at  Gibeah;  but  this  is  in  direct  contradictiuu  to 
tie  statement  of  vii.  1,  compared  with  2  Sam.  vi.  3,  4, 
md  1  Chr.  xiii.  3 ;  and  aiso  to  those  cf  the  LXX.  and 
Josephus  at  ^lif  place.    Tne  Hebrew  words  for  ark  and 

«phod  — pnS  and  "712S  — are  very  similar,  and 
nay  hart  been  mistaken  for  one  another  (Ewald, 
Bfteh.  ill  46.  note;  Stanley,  p.  205). 


tered  on  the  rocky  summit  of  Michmash,  their  pnus* 
ticed  eyes  quickly  discovered  the  unusual  stir  io 
the  camp:  they  could  see  "the  multitude  melting 
away,  and  beating  down  one  another."  Through 
the  clear  air,  too,  came,  even  to  that  distance,  the 
unmistakable  sounds  of  the  :;onflict.  The  muster- 
roll  was  hastily  called  to  discover  the  absentees. 
The  oracle  of  God  was  consulted,  out  so  rapidly  did 
the  tumult  increase  that  Saul's  impatience  would 
not  permit  the  rites  to  be  completed,  and  soon  he 
and  Ahiah  (xiv.  30 )  were  rushing  down  from  Gibeah 
at  the  head  of  their  hungry  warriors,  joined  at 
every  step  by  some  of  the  wretched  Hebrews  from 
their  hiding  places  in  the  clefts  and  holes  of  the 
Benjamite  hills,  eager  for  revenge,  and  for  the  re- 
covery of  the  "sheep,  and  oxen,  and  calves"  (xiv. 
32),  equally  with  the  arms,  of  which  they  had  been 
lately  plundered.  So  quickly  did  the  news  run 
through  the  district  that  —  if  we  may  accept  the 
statements  of  the  LXX.  —  by  the  time  Saul  reached 
the  Philistine  camp  his  following  amounted  to 
10,000  men.  On  every  one  of  the  heights  of  the 
country  {^afxdiO)  the  people  rose  against  the  hated 
invaders,  and  before  the  day  was  out  there  was  not 
a  city,  even  of  Mount  Ephraim,  to  which  the 
struggle  had  not  spread.     [Jonathan.] 

(3.)  As  "  Gibeah  of  Benjamin  "  this  place  is  re- 
ferred to  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  29  [LXX.  Ta^aed:  Vulg. 
Gabaath]  (comp.  1  Chr.  xi.  31  [fiovv6s-  Gabaatli]), 
and  as  "  Gibeah ''  it  is  mentioned  by  Hosea  (v.  8, 
ix.  9,  X.  9  [LXX.  01  ^ovvoi,  6  fiovv6s\),  but  it 
does  not  again  appear  in  the  history.  It  is,  however, 
almost  without  doubt  identical  with  — 

5.  Gib'eah-of-Saul  (b^SK?  TODS :  the 
LXX.  do  not  recognize  this  name  except  in  2  Sam. 
xxi.  G,  where  they  have  Ta^awv  ^aovK^  and  Is.  x. 
30,  iv6Xis  ^aov\  [Vulg.  Gabaatk  Snulis],  else- 
where simply  Va^ad  or  [Alex.]  Ta^aaQd).  This  is 
not  mentioned  as  Saul's  city  till  after  his  anointing 
(1  Sam.  X.  26),  when  he  is  said  to  have  gone 
"home"  (Hebr.  "to  his  house,"  as  in  xv.  34)  to 
Gibeah,  "  to  which,"  adds  Josephus  {A^it.  vi.  4,  § 
6),  "  he  belonged."  In  the  subsequent  narrative 
the  town  bears  its  full  name  (xi.  4),  and  the  king 
is  hving  there,  still  following  the  avocations  of  a 
simple  farmer,  when  his  relations  '^  of  Jabesh-Gilead 
beseech  his  help  in  their  danger.  His  Ammonite 
expedition  is  followed  by  the  first  Philistine  war, 
and  by  various  other  conflicts,  amongst  others  an 
expedition  against  Amalek  in  the  extreme  south  of 
Palestine.  But  he  returns,  as  before,  "  to  hia 
house"  at  Gibeah-of-Saul  (1  Sam.  xv.  34).  Again 
we  encounter  it,  when  the  seven  sons  of  the  king 
were  hung  there  as  a  sacrifice  to  turn  away  the 
anger  of  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  xxi.  6  ^).  The  name  of 
Saul  has  not  been  found  in  connection  with  any 
place  of  modern  Palestine,  but  it  existed  as  late  as 
the  days  of  Josephus,  and  an  allusion  of  his  has 
fortunately  given  the  clew  to  the  identification  of 
the  town  with  the  spot  which  now  bears  the  name 
of  Tideil  el-Ful.  Josephus  {B.  J.  v.  2,  §  1),  de 
scribing  Titus's  march  from  Csesarea  to  Jerusalem, 


b  We  owe  this  touch  to  Joeephua:  viro<}>aivov<nti 
riSr)  TT)?  jtixepa^  (Ant.  vi.  6,  §  2). 

c  This  is  a  fair  inference  from  the  fact  that  the 
wives  of  400  out  of  the  600  Detyamitres  who  escaped 
the  massacre  at  Gibeah  came  from  Jabeeh-Gilead 
(Judg.  xxi.  12). 

('  The  word  in  this  verse  rendered  "  hill "  is  not 
gibeah  but  har,  i.  e.  "  mountain,"  a  singular  chaniM 
and  not  quite  intelligible. 


916 


GIBEAH 


giyes  his  route  as  though  Samaria  to  Gophna, 
Lhence  a  day's  march  to  a  valley  "  called  by  the 
Jews  the  Valley  of  Thorns,  near  a  certain  village 
called  Gabathsaoule,  distant  from  Jerusalem  about 
thirty  stadia,"  i.  e.  just  the  distance  of  Tuleil  el- 
Fid.  Here  he  was  joined  by  a  part  of  his  army 
from  Emmaus  (Nicopolis),  who  would  naturally 
come  up  the  road  by  Beth-horon  and  Gibeon,  the 
same  which  still  falls  into  the  northern  road  close 
to  Tukdl  d-Ful.  fn  both  these  respects  therefore 
the  agreement  is  complete,  and  Gibeah  of  Benjamin 
must  be  taken  as  identical  with  Gil)eah  of  Saul. 
The  discovery  is  due  to  Dr.  Robinson  (i.  577-79), 
though  it  was  partly  suggested  by  a  writer  in  Biivd. 
und  Kritiken. 

This  identification  of  Gibeah,  as  also  that  of 
Geba  with  Jeba^  is  fully  supported  by  Is.  x.  28-32, 
where  we  have  a  specification  of  the  route  of  Sen- 
nacherib from  the  north  through  the  villages  of 
the  Benjamite  district  to  Jerusalem.  Commencing 
with  Ai,  to  the  east  of  the  present  Beitin,  the  route 
proceeds  by  MukJimds,  across  the  "passages"  of 
the  Wady  Suiveinit  to  Jeba  on  the  opposite  side ; 
and  then  by  er-Rmn  and  Txdeil  el-Ful,  villages 
actually  on  the  present  road,  to  the  heiglits  north 
jf  Jerusalem,  from  which  the  city  is  visible.  Gallim, 
Madmenah,  and  Gebim,  none  of  which  have  been 
yet  identified,  must  have  been,  like  Anathoth 
(Anntn)^  villages  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  the 
direct  line  of  march.  The  only  break  in  the  chain 
is  Migron,  which  is  here  placed  between  Ai  and 
Michmash,  while  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  2  it  appears  to 
have  been  five  or  six  miles  south,  at  Gibeah.  One 
explanation  that  presents  itself  is,  that  in  that 
uneven  and  rocky  district  the  name  "  ^ligron," 
"precipice,"  would  very  probably,  like  "Gibeah," 
be  borne  by  more  than  one  town. 

In  1  Sam.  xxii.  6,  xxiii.  19,  xxvi.  1,  "  Gibeah  " 
[LXX.  fiovv6s'  Vulg.  Gabad]  doubtless  stands  for 
G.  of  Saul. 

6.  Gib'eah-in-the  Field  (rn*U?2  n^n2  : 
ra^aa  it/  aypw',  [Alex.  r.  €P  too  aypw:]  Gaban), 
named  only  in  Judg.  xx.  31,  as  the  place  to  which 

one  of  the  "highways"  (nivpD)  led  from 
Gibeah-of-lienjamin,  —  "  of  which  one  goeth  up  to 
Bethel,  and  one  to  Gibeah-in-the-field."  BddeJi, 
"iitf  word  here  rendered  "  field,"  is  applied  specially 
*o  cultivated  ground,  "  as  distinguished  from  town, 
desert,  or  garden  "  (Stanley,  App.  §  15).  Cultiva- 
tion was  so  general  throughout  this  district,  that 
the  term  affords  no  clew  to  the  situation  of  the 
place.  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that  the  north 
road  from  Jerusalem,  shortly  after  passing  Tuleil 
el-Ful,  separates  into  two  branches,  one  running 
on  to  Beit'in  (Bethel),  and  the  other  diverging  to 
the  right  to  Jeba  (Geba).  The  attack  on  Gibeah 
iSLvne  from  the  north  (comp.  xx.  18,  19,  and  26,  in 
which  "  the  house  of  God  "  is  really  Bethel),  and 
therefore  the  divergence  of  the  roads  was  north  of 
the  town.  In  the  case  of  Gibeah-of-Benjamin  we 
have  seen  that  the  two  forms  "  Geba"  and 
'  Gibeah  "  appear  to  be  convertible,  the  former  for 
the  latter.  If  the  identification  now  proposed  for 
Gibeah-in-the-field  be  correct,  the  case  is  here  re- 
versed, and    '  Gibeah  "  is  put  for  "  Geba." 

The  "  meadows  of  Gaba"  (1?5^  '  A.  V.  Gibeah; 
Judg.  XX.  33)  have  no  connection  with  the  "  field," 
the  Hebrew  words  being  entirely  diflferent.  As 
itated  above,  the  word  rendered  "  meadows "  is 
•robably  accurately  "  cave."     [Geba,  p.  877  «.] 


GIBEOIf 

7.  There  are  several  other  names  compoun«5«3 
of  Gibeah,  which  are  given  in  a  translated  form  it 
the  A.  v.,  probably  from  their  appearing  not  U 
belong  to  towns.     These  are :  — 

(1.)  The  "hill  of  the  foreskins"  (Josh.  v.  3) 
between  the  Jordan  and  Jericho;  it  deri\e8  its 
name  from  the  circumcision  which  took  place  there, 
and  seems  afterwards  to  ha^e  received  the  name  of 

GiLGAL. 

(2.)  [Fafiahp  4>ev€h  (Vat.  4>et-);  Alex.  Aid. 
TaHaad  *.  :  Gnbanth  Phinees.]  The  "  hill  of 
Phinehas  "  in  Mount  Ephraim  (Josh.  xxiv.  33). 
This  may  be  the  Jibia  on  the  left  of  the  XabluA 
road,  half-way  bet^veen  Bethel  and  Shiloh ;  or  thr 
Jeba  north  of  Nabliis  (Kob.  ii.  2G5  note,  312). 
Both  would  be  "  in  Mount  Ephraim,"  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  text  to  fix  the  position  of  the  place, 
while  there  is  no  lack  of  the  name  am  .mg  the  vil- 
lages of  Central  Palestine. 

(3.)  The  "hiU  of  Mokeh  "  (.Judg.  ni.  1). 

(4.)  The  "  hill  of  God  "  —  Gibeath  ha-Elohim 
(1  Sara.  X.  5);  one  of  the  places  in  the  route  cf 
Saul,  which  is  so  difficult  to  trace.  In  verses  10 
and  13,  it  is  apparently  called  "  the  hill,"  and  "  the 
high  place." 

(5.)  [Vulg.  1  Sara.  xxvi.  3,  Gabaa  ffacMlaJ] 
The  "  hill  of  Hachilah  "  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  19,  xxvi. 
1,  [3]). 

(6.)  The  "hill  of  Ammaii  "  (2  Sam.  ii.  24). 

(7.)  The  "hill  Gaueb"  (Jer.  xxxi.  39). 

GIBEATH,  Josh,  xviii.  28.  [Gibeah,  2.] 

GIB'EATHITE,  THE  OOy^SH  •  <, 
roi8o0tTrjs;  [Vat.  FA.  re)3aj06."rT?s;  Alex.  ra;8o5t- 
TTjsO  Gabaa(Jiites),  i.e.  the  native  of  Gibeah  (1 
Cbr.  xii.  3)  ;  in  this  case  Shemaah,  or  "  the 
Shemaah,"  father  of  two  Benjamites,  "  Saul's 
brethren,"  who  joined  David. 

GIB'EON  (l*"^^??*  i-  e.  behnrjing  to  a  hill  : 
rafiadou;  [Vat.  1  K.  ix.  2,  Ta^auB,  Jer.  xli.  12, 
rafiao) ;]  Joseph.  Ta^ado  '■  Gabaon)^  one  of  the 
four"  cities  of  the  IIivites,  the  inhabitants  of 
which  made  a  league  with  Joshua  (ix.  3-15),  and 
thus  escaped  the  fate  of  Jericho  and  Ai  (comp.  xi. 
19).  It  appears,  as  might  be  inferred  from  its 
taking  the  initiative  in  this  matter,  te  have  been 
the  largest  of  the  four  —  "a  great  city,  like  one  of 
the  royal  cities  "  —  larger  than  Ai  (x.  2).    Its  men 

too  were  all  practiced  wairiors  ( Gibbar'im,  CHSlSl). 
Gibeon  lay  within  the  territory  of  Benjamin  (xviii. 
25),  and  with  its  "suburbs"  was  allotted  to  the 
priests  (xxi.  17),  of  whom  it  became  afterwards  a 
principal  station.  Occasional  notices  of  its  existence 
occur  in  the  historical  books,  which  are  examined 
more  at  length  below :  and  after  the  Captivity  we 
find  the  "  men  of  Gibeon  "  returning  with  Zer^^^- 
babel  (Neh.  vii.  25 :  in  the  list  of  Ezra  the  name 
is  altered  to  Gibbar),  and  assisting  Nehemiah  in 
the  repair  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (iii.  7).  In  the 
post-biblical  times  it  was  the  scene  of  a  victory  by 
the  Jews  over  the  Poman  troops  under  Cestius 
Gallus,  which  offers  in  many  respects  a  close  parallel 
to  that  of  Joshua  over  the  Canaanites  (Jos.  B.  J. 
ii.  19,  §  7;  Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  212). 

The  situation  of  Gibeon  has  fortunately  l>een 
recovered  with  as  great  certainty  as  any  ancient 
site  in  Palestine.  The  traveller  who  pursues  the 
northern  camel-road  from  Jerusalem,  turning  off  to 


a  So  Josh.  Ix.  17.    Josephus  {Ant.  T.  1,  §  lb; 
Beeroth 


GIBEON 

the  left  at  Tukil  d-Ful  (Gibeali)  on  thai,  branch 
of  it  which  leads  westward  to  Jatfa,  finds  himself, 
aftw  crossing  one  or  two  stony  and  barren  ridges, 
in  a  district  of  a  more  open  character.  The  hills 
are  rounder  and  more  isolated  than  those  through 
which  he  has  been  passing,  aud  rise  in  well-defined 
mamelons  from  broad  undulating  valleys  of  tolerable  i 
extent  and  fertile  soil.  This  is  the  central  plateau  ] 
of  the  country,  the  "  land  of  Benjamin ;  "  and  these 
round  hills  are  the  Gibealis,  Gebas,  Gibeons,  and 
iiamahs,  whose  names  occur  so  frequently  in  the 
records  of  this  district.  Retaining  its  ancient  name 
almost  intact,  el-Jib  stands  on  the  northernmost 
of  a  couple  of  these  mamelons,  just  at  the  place 
where  the  road  to  the  sea  parts  into  two  branches, 
the  one  by  the  lower  level  of  the  IVady  Suleiman, 
the  other  by  the  heights  of  the  Beth-horons,  to 
Ginizo,  Lydda,  and  Joppa.  The  road  passes  at  a 
«hort  distance  to  the  north  of  the  base  of  the  hill 


GIBEON  917 

of  el- Jib.  The  strata  of  the  hills  in  tins  listrict 
lie  much  more  horizontally  than  those  furthei  south. 
With  the  hills  of  Gibeon  this  is  peculiarly  the  case, 
and  it  imparts  a  remarkable  precision  to  their  ap- 
pearance, especially  when  viewed  from  a  height  such 
as  the  neighboring  eminence  of  N^ehy  Sninwil.  The 
natural  terraces  are  carried  round  the  hill  like  con- 
tour lines;  they  are  all  dotted  thick  with  olives  and 
vines,  and  the  ancient-looking  houses  are  scattered 
over  the  flattish  summit  of  the  mound.  On  the 
east  side  of  the  hill  is  a  copious  spring  which  issues 
in  a  cave  excavated  in  the  limestone  rock,  so  as  to 
form  a  large  reservoir.  In  the  trees  further  down 
are  the  remains  of  a  pool  or  tank  of  considerable 
size,  probably,  says  Dr.  Robinson,  120  feet  by  100, 
i.  e.  of  rather  smaller  dimensions  tlian  the  lower 
pool  at  Hebron.  This  is  doubtless  the  "  pool  of 
Gibeon"  at  which  Abner  and  Joab  met  together 
with  the  troops  of  Ish-bosheth  and  David,  and  where 


C.LcOa  a,aJ  Ncbj  Samwil,  fiom  N 


that  sliarp  conflict  took  place  which  ended  in  the 
death  of  Asahel,  find  led  at  a  later  period  to  the 
treacherous  murder  of  Abner  himself.  Here  or  at 
the  spring  were  the  "  great  waters  (or  the  many 

waters,  D**S'7'  C"!^)  of  Gibeon," «  at  which 
Johanan  the  son  of  Kareah  found  the  traitor  Ish- 
mael  (Jer.  xli.  12).  Round  this  water  also,  accord- 
ing to  the  notice  of  Josephus  (i-rri  tlvl  Tnjyp  ttjs 
w6\eQ}s  oiiK  ot.irw6eu.  Ant.  v.  1,  §  17  \  the  five  kings 
of  the  Amorites  were  ancamned  when  Joshua  burst 
upon  them  from  Gilgal.  The  "  wilderness  of 
Gibeon"  (2  Sam.  ii.  24  —  the  ^fidbar,  i.  e.  rather 
the  waste  pasture-grounds  —  must  have  been  to  the 
east,  beyond  the  circle  or  subui'b  of  cultivated  fields, 
and  towards  the  neighboring  swells,  which  bear  the 


a  B'kth  here  and  in  1  K.  iii.  4,  Josephus  substitutes 
Otbroa  ror  Gil>eon  {Ant.  x.  9,  §  5,  riii  2,  §  1). 


names  of  Jedireh  and  Bir  Neballnh.  Such  is  ttie 
situation  of  Gibeon,  fulfilling  in  position  every  re- 
quirement of  the  notices  of  the  Bible,  Josephus. 
Eusebius,  and  Jerome.  Its  distance  from  Jerusalem 
by  the  main  road  is  as  nearly  as  possible  GJ  miles; 
but  there  is  a  more  direct  road  reducing  it  to  5 
miles. 

The  name  of  Gibeon  is  most  familiar  to  us  in 
connection  with  the  artifice  by  which  its  inhabitants 
obtained  their  safety  at  the  hands  of  Joshua,  and 
with  the  memorable  battle  which  ultimately  resulted 
therefrom.  This  transaction  is  elsewhere  examined, 
and  therefore  requires  no  further  reference  here. 
[Joshua;  Beth-hokon.] 

We  next  hear  of  it  at  the  encounter  between 
the  men  of  David  and  of  Ish-bosheth  under  their 
respective  leaders  Joab  and  Abner  (2  Sam.  ii.  12- 
17).     The  meeting  has  all  the  air  of  liaving  Ijcen 


918  GIBEON 

prenietUtatfcd  by  both  parties,  unless  we  suppose 
that  Joab  had  heaid  of  the  intentioi)  of  the  Ben- 
jamites  to  revisit  from  the  distant  Mahanaim  their 
nati\e  villages,  and  had  seized  the  opportunity  to 
try  his  strength  with  Abner.  The  details  of  this 
disastrous  encounter  are  elsewhere  given.  [Joab.] 
The  place  where  the  struggle  began  received  a  name 
from  the  circumstance,  and  seems  to  have  been 
long  afterwards  known  as  the  "field  of  i-he  strong 
men."     [IIklkath-hazzukim.] 

We  again  meet  with  Gibeon  in  connection  with 
Joab;  this  time  as  the  scene  of  the  cruel  and  re- 
volting death  of  Amasa  by  his  hand  (2  Sam.  xx. 
5-10).  Joab  was  in  pursuit  of  the  rebellious  Sheba 
the  son  of  Bichri,  and  his  being  so  far  out  of  the 
direct  north  road  as  Gibeon  may  be  accounted  for 
by  supposing  that  he  w^,s  making  a  search  for  this 
Benjamite  among  the  towns  of  his  tribe.  The  two 
rivals  met  at  "  the  great  stone  «  which  is  in  Gibeon  " 
—  some  old  landmark  now  no  longer  recognizable, 
at  least  not  recognized  —  and  then  Joab  repeated 
the  treachery  by  which  he  had  murdered  Abner, 
but  with  circumstances  of  a  still  more  revolting 
character.      [Joah;  Akims,  p.  159.] 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  retribution  for  this 
crowning  act  of  perfidy  should  have  overtaken  Joab 
close  to  the  very  spot  on  which  it  had  been  com- 
mitted. For  it  was  to  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon 
(1  K.  ii.  28,  29;  comp.  1  Chr.  xvi.  39)  that  Joab 
fled  for  sanctuary  when  his  death  was  pronounced 
by  Solomon,  and  it  was  while  clinging  to  the  horns 
of  the  brazen  altar  there  that  he  received  his  death- 
blow from  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  (1  K.  ii. 
28,  30,  34;  and  LXX.  29). 

Familiar  as  these  events  in  connection  with  the 
history  of  Gibeon  are  to  us,  its  reputation  in  Israel 
was  due  to  a  very  different  circumstance  —  the  fact 
that  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  and  the 
brazen  altar  of  burnt-offering  were  for  some  time 
.located  on  the  "  high  place  "  attached  to  or  near 
the  town.  We  are  not  informed  whether  this 
"high  place"  had  any  fame  for  sanctity  before  the 
tabernacle  came  there;  but  if  not,  it  would  have 
probably  been  erected  elsewhere.  We  only  hear  of 
it  in  connection  with  the  tabernacle,  nor  is  there 
any  indication  of  its  situation  in  regard  to  the  town. 
Professor  Stanley  has  suggested  that  it  was  the 
remarkable  hill  of  Ntby  Sainuil^  the  most  prominent 
and  individual  eminence  in  that  part  of  the  country, 
and  to  which  the  special  appellation  of  "  the  great 

high-place"  (1  K.  iii.  4;  nV-nSH  r\12'^r\) 
would  perfectly  apply.  And  certainly,  if  "  great  " 
is  to  be  understood  as  referring  to  height  or  size, 
there  is  no  other  hill  which  can  so  justly  claim  the 
distinction  (Sinai  and  Pal.  p.  21G).  But  the  word 
has  not  always  that  meaning,  and  may  equally 
imply  eminence  in  other  respects,  e.  g.  superior 
sanctity  to  the  nvmierous  other  high  places  — 
Bethel,  Ramah,  Mizpeh,  Gibeah  —  which  surrounded 
it  on  every  side.    The  main  objection  to  this  identi- 


a  The  Hebrew  preposition  (D^)  almost  implies 
that  they  were  on  or  touching  the  stone. 

''  The  various  stations  of  the  Tabernacle  and  the 
Ark,  from  their  entry  on  the  Promised  l^and  to  their 
fiual  deposition  in  tlie  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  will  be 
exjimined  under  TABERNiJCLE.  Meantime,  with  refer- 
snce  to  the  above,  it  may  be  said  that  though  not  ex- 
pressly stated  to  have  been  at  Nob,  it  may  be  con- 
fluaivsly  inferr-^d  from  the  mention  of  the  "  shew 
braaiJ '    (1  Sam    xxi  6).     The  «  echod  "  (9)  and  the 


GIBEON 

fication  is  the  distance  of  Neby  Samml  trom  Gilicoo 
—  more  than  a  mile  —  and  the  absence  of  amy 
closer  connection  therewith  than  with  any  other  of 
the  neighboring  places.  I'he  most  natural  position 
for  the  high  place  of  Gibeon  is  the  twin  mount 
immediately  south  of  el-Jib  —  so  close  as  to  be  all 
but  a  part  of  the  town,  and  yet  quite  separate  and 
distinct.  The  testimony  of  Epiplianius,  by  which 
Mr.  Stanley  supports  his  conjecture,  namely,  that 
the  "  INIount  of  Gabaon  "  was  the  highest  roiuid 
Jerusalem  (Adv.  IJcei-eses,  i.  394),  should  be  received 
with  caution,  standing  as  it  does  quite  alone,  and 
belonging  to  an  age  which,  though  early,  was 
marked  by  ignorance,  and  by  the  most  improbable 
conclusions. 

To  this  high  place,  wherever  situated,  the  "  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation  "  —  the  sacied  tent  which 
had  accompanied  tlie  children  of  Israel  through  the 
whole  of  their  wanderings — had  been  transferred 
from  its  last  station  at  Nob.''  The  exact  date  of 
the  transfer  is  left  in  uncertainty.  It  was  either 
before  or  at  the  time  when  David  brought  up  the 
ark  ^rom  Kiijath-jearim,  to  the  new  tent  which  he 
had  pitJied  for  it  on  IVIount  Zion,  that  the  original 
tent  was  spread  for  the  last  time  at  Gibeon.  The 
expression  in  2  Chr.  i.  5,  "  the  brazen  altar  he  put 
before  the  tabernacle  of  Jehovah,"  at  first  sight 
appears  to  refer  to  David.  But  the  text  of  the 
passage  is  disputed,  and  the  authorities  are  divided 

between  Dtr  =  »he  put,"  and  DK'  =  "  was  there." 
^^'hether  king  David  transferred  the  tabernacle  to 
Gibeon  or  not,  he  certaiidy  appointed  the  staff  of 
priests  to  offer  the  daily  sacrifices  there  on  the 
brazen  altar  of  Moses,  and  to  fulfill  the  other  re- 
quirements of  the  law  (1  Chr.  xvi.  40),  with  no 
less  a  person  at  their  head  than  Zadok  the  priest 
(39),  assisted  by  the  famous  musicians  Heman  and 
Jeduthun  (41). 

One  of  the  earliest  aets  of  Solomon's  reign  —  it 
must  have  been  while  the  remembrance  of  the 
execution  of  Joab  was  still  fresh  —  was  to  visit 
Gibeon.  The  ceremonial  was  truly  magnificent: 
he  went  up  with  all  the  congregation,  the  great 
oflficers  of  the  state  —  the  captains  of  hundreds  an  i 
thousands,  the  judges,  the  governors,  and  the  chief 
of  the  fathers  —  and  the  sacrifice  consisted  of  a 
thousand  burnt-ofterings  ^^  (1  K.  iii.  4).  And  thii 
glimpse  of  Gibeon  in  all  the  splendor  of  its  greatest 
prosperity  —  the  smoke  of  the  thousand  animals 
rising  from  the  venerable  altar  on  the  commanding 
height  of  "the  great  high  place"" — the  clang  of 
"trumpets  and  cymbals  and  musical  instrumenta 
of  God  "  (1  Chr.  xvi.  42)  resounding  through  tht 
valleys  far  and  near  —  is  virtually  the  last  we  have 
of  it.  In  a  few  jears  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  waa 
completed,  and  then  the  tabernacle  was  once  more 
taken  down  and  removed.  Again  "  all  the  men 
of  Israel  assembled  themselves  "  to  king  Solomon, 
with  the  "elders  of  Israel,"  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  brought  up  both  the  tabernacle  and  the 


expression  <;  before  Jehovah  "'  (6)  prove  nothing  eithei 
way.     .rosephus  throws  no  light  on  it. 

c  It  would  be  very  satisfiictory  to  believe,  wirn 
Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  ii.  547),  that  the  present 
Wady  Sideimariy  i.  e.  "  Solomon's  valley,"  which  com- 
mences on  the  west  side  of  Gibeon,  and  leads  down  tc 
the  Plain  of  Sharon,  derived  its  name  from  this  visit 
But  the  modern  names  of  places  in  Palestine  oftei 
spring  from  very  modem  persons  or  ciroumstaucM 
and,  without  confirmation  or  investigiition,  this  eaa 
not  be  received 


i 


GIBEONITES,  THE 

Ilk,  and  "all  the  holy  vessels  that  were  in  the 
iabernacle"  (1  K.  viii.  3;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  4,  §  1), 
And  placed  the  venerable  relics  in  their  new  home, 
theie  to  remain  until  tlie  plunder  of  the  city  by 
Nebuchadnezzar.  Tlie  introduction  of  the  name 
of  Gibeon  in  1  Chr.  ix.  35,  which  seems  so  abrupt, 
is  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  preceding  verses 
of  the  chapter  contain,  as  they  appear  to  do,  a  list 
of  the  staff  attached  to  the  "  Tabernacle  of  the 
congregation  "  which  was  erected  there;  or  if  these 
persons  should  prove  to  be  the  attendants  on  the 
"new  tent"  which  David  had  pitched  for  the  ark 
on  its  aiTival  in  the  city  of  David,  the  transition 
to  the  place  where  the  old  tent  was  still  standing 
is  both  natural  and  easy.  G. 

GIBEONITES,  THE  (D'^33752n :  ot 
1  afiacavlrai  [Vat.  -vei-]  '■  Gabaonitm),  the  people 
of  Gibeon,  and  perhaps  also  of  the  three  cities  asso- 
ciated with  Gibeon  (Josh.  ix.  17)  —  Hivites;  and 
who,  on  the  discovery  of  the  stratagem  by  which 
they  had  obtained  the  protection  of  the  Israelites, 
were  condemned  to  be  perpetual  bondmen,  hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  the  congregation, 
and  for  the  house  of  God  and  altar  of  Jehovah 
(Josh.  ix.  23,  27).  Saul  appears  to  have  broken 
this  covenant,  and  in  a  fit  of  enthusiasm  or  patriot- 
ism to  have  killed  some  and  devised  a  general  mas- 
sacre of  the  rest  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1,  2,  5).  This  was 
expiated  many  years  after  by  giving  up  seven  men 
of  Saul's  descendants  to  the  Gibeonites,  who  hung 
them  or  crucified  them  "  before  Jehovah  "  —  as  a 
kind  of  sacrifice  —  in  Gibeah,  Saul's  own  town 
(4,  6,  9).«  At  this  time,  or  at  any  rate  at  the 
time  of  the  composition  of  the  narrative,  the  Gib- 
eonites were  so  identified  with  Israel,  that  the  his- 
torian is  obliged  to  insert  a  note  explaining  their 
origin  and  their  non-Israelite  extraction  (xxi.  2). 
The  actual  name  "Gibeonites"  appears  only  in 
this  passage  of  2  Sam.     [Nethinim.] 

Individual  Gibeonites  named  are  (1)  Is3iAiAir, 
one  of  the  iienjamites  who  joined  David  in  his  dif- 
ficulties (1  Chr.  xii.  4);  (2)  Melatiah,  one  of 
those  who  assisted  Nehemiah  in  repairing  the  wall 
of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  7);  (3)  Hananiah,  the  son 
of  Azur,  a  false  prophet  from  Gibeon,  who  opposed 
Jeremiah,  and  shortly  afterwards  died  (Jer.  xxviii. 
1,  10,  13,  17).  G. 

GIB'LITES,  THE  O^nSH,  i.  e.  singular, 
the  Gihlite.:  TaXiaO  ^vKiarTieifx;  Alex.  Ta^Kt  [*• :] 
confirda).  The  "  land  of  the  Gibhte "  is  men- 
tioned in  connection  with  Lebanon  in  the  enumera- 
tion of  the  portions  of  the  Promised  Land  remain- 
ng  to  be  conquered  by  Joshua  (Josh.  xiii.  5).  The 
wDcient  versions,  as  will  be  seen  above,  give  no  help, 
bat  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  allusion  is 
to  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  Gebal,  which  was 
on  the  sea-coast  at  the  foot  of  the  northern  slojies 
of  I^ebanon.  The  one  name  is  a  regular  derivative 
from  the  other  (see  Gesenius,  Tlies.  p.  258  b).  We 
nave  here  a  confirmation  of  the  identity  of  the 
Aphek  mentioned  in  this  passage  with  Aflca^  which 
was  overlooked  by  the  writer  when  examining  the 
latter  name  [Aphek,  2] ;  and  the  whole  passage 
Is  in3tructive,  as  showing  how  very  far  the  limits 
ftf  ths  country  designed  for  the  Israelites  exceeded 
Uiose  which  they  actually  occupied. 


GIDEON 


919 


a  *  Dean  Stanley  describes  the  artifice  of  fne  abo- 
dglual  Gibeonites,  and  the  acts  of  revenge  of  their  de- 
icen<lant«  against  the  family  of  Saul,  with  his  wonted 


The  Giblites  are  again  named  (though  not  in 
the  A.  V.  [except  in  the  margin] )  in  1  K.  v.  18 

(D^^?2in  :  [Rom.  Vat.  omit;]  Alex,  oi  Bi^\ioi 
Giblii)  as  assisting  Solomon's  builders  and  Hiram' 
builders  to  prepare  the  trees  and  the  stones  for 
building  the  Temple.  That  they  were  clever  artifi- 
cers is  evident  from  this  passage  (and  comp.  Ez. 
xxvii.  9);  but  why  our  translators  should  have  so 
far  improved  on  this  *s  to  render  the  word  by 
"  stone-squarers "  [so  the  Bishops'  Bible;  the 
Genevan  version  has  "masons"]  is  not  obvious. 
Possibly  they  followed  the  Targum,  which  has  a 
word  of  similar  import  in  this  place.  G. 

GIDDAL'TI  C'.n^"??  [/  have  praised-]. 
ToSoWaei;  [Vat.  roSo\\adei,  ToSofiadei;]  Alex. 
TeSoXAadi,  redde\0t-  Gedddthi,  Geddthi]),  one 
of  the  sons  of  Heman,  the  king's  seer,  and  there- 
fore a  Kohathite  Levite  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4 ;  comp.  vi. 
33):  his  office  was  with  thirteen  of  his  brothers  to 
sound  the  horn  in  the  service  of  the  tabernacle 
(5,  7).  He  had  also  charge  of  the  22d  division  or 
course  (29). 

GID'DEL  ( V^^S  \very  great,  gigantic]  :  TeS- 
StjA,  [raSyjA;  in  Ezr.,  Vat.  Ke5e5;  in  Neh.,  Alex. 
2aS77A:]  Gmklel,  [Geddel]).  1.  Children  of  Giddel 
(Bene-Giddel)  were  among  the  Nethinim  who  re- 
turned from  the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii. 
47;  Neh.  vii.  49).  In  the  parallel  lists  of  1  Esdraa 
the  name  is  corrupted  to  Cathua. 

2.  [FeSyjA,  TaSa^A;  Vat.  reSrjo,  FaSrjA  (so  FA. 
in  Neh.);  Alex.  TcSStjA,  ToSStjA:  Geddel,  Jeddel.] 
Bene-Giddel  were  also  among  the  "servants  of 
Solomon "  who  returned  to  Judaea  in  the  same 
caravan  (Ezr.  ii.  56;  Neh.  vii.  58).  In  1  Esdras 
this  is  given  as  Isdael. 

GID'EON  (V'T^ia,  from  5?12,  a  sucker,  or 
better  =  (7  hewer,  i.  e.  a  brave  warrior;  comp.  Is. 
X.  33;  TeSecau-  Gcdeon),  a  Manassite,  youngest 
son  of  Joash  of  the  Abiezrites,  an  undistinguished 
family,  who  lived  at  Ophrah,  a  town  probably  on 
this  side  Jordan  (Judg.  vi.  15),  although  its  exact 
position  is  unknown.  He  was  the  fifth  recorded 
Judge  of  Israel,  and  for  many  reasons  the  greatest 
of  them  all.  When  we  first  hear  of  him  he  was 
grown  up  and  had  sons  (Judg.  vi.  11,  viii.  20),  and 
from  the  apostrophe  of  the  angel  (vi.  12)  we  may 
conclude  that  he  had  already  distinguished  himself 
in  war  against  the  roving  bands  of  nomadic  robbers 
who  had  oppressed  Israel  for  seven  years,  and  whose 
countless  multitudes  (compared  to  locusts  from 
their  terrible  devastations,  vi.  5)  annually  destroyed 
all  the  produce  of  Canaan,  except  such  as  could  be 
concealed  in  mountain-fastnesses  (vi.  2).  It  was 
probably  during  this  disastrous  period  that  the 
emigration  of  Elimelech  took  place  (Ruth  i.  1,  2; 
Jahn's  Hebr.  Comm.  §  xxi.).  Some  have  identified 
the  angel  who  appeared  to  Gideon  {(pavrafffxa 
veaviffKov  /xopcpfj,  Jos.  Ant.  v.  6)  with  the  prophet 
mentioned  in  vi.'  8,  which  wiU  remind  the  reader 
of  the  legends  about  Malachi  in  Origen  and  other 
commentators.  Paulus  (Exeg.  Conserv.  ii.  190  ff.) 
endeavors  to  give  the  narrative  a  subjective  coloring, 
but  rationalism  is  of  little  value  in  accounts  like 
this.  When  the  angel  appeared,  Gideon  was  thrash- 
ing whea;.  with  a  flail  (e/coTrre,  LXX.)  in  the  wine- 


vividness  and  skill  (^History  of  the  Jewish  durch,  i. 
264,  and  ii.  36).     See  also  Rizpah.  H. 


920 


GIDEON 


press,  to  conceal  it  from  the  predatory  tyrants. 
After  a  natural  hesitation  he  accepted  the  commis- 
sion of  a  deliverer,  and  learned  the  true  character  of 
his  visitant  from  a  miraculous  sign  (vi.  12-23); 
and  being  reassured  from  the  fear  which  first  seized 
him  (Ex.  XX.  19;  Judg.  xiii.  22),  built  the  altar 
Jehovah-shalom,  which  existed  when  the  book  of 
Judges  was  written  (vi.  24).  In  a  dream  the  same 
night  he  was  ordered  to  throw  down  the  altar  of 
Baal  and  cut  down  the  Asherah  (A.  V.  "grove") 
upon  it  [AsiiKUAii],  with  the  wood  of  which  he 
was  to  offer  in  sacrifice  his  father's  "  second  bullock 
of  seven  years  old,"  an  expression  in  which  some 
Bee  an  allusion  to  the  seven  years  of  servitude  (vi. 
26,  1).  Perhaps  that  particular  bullock  is  specified 
because  it  had  been  reserved  by  his  father  to  sacri- 
fice to  Baal  (Koseiimliller,  ScJioL  ad  loc),  for  Joash 
seems  to  have  been  a  priest  of  that  worship.  Ber- 
theau  can  hardly  be  right  in  supposing  that  Gideon 
was  to  offer  ticu  bullocks  (Richt.  p.  115).  At  any 
rate  the  miimte  touch  is  valuable  as  an  indication 
of  truth  in  the  story  (see  Ewald,  Gesch.  ii.  498, 
and  note).  Gideon,  assisted  by  ten  faithful  servants, 
obeyed  the  vision,  and  next  morning  ran  the  risk 
of  being  stoned:  but  Joash  appeased  the  popular 
indignation  by  using  the  conuuon  argument  that 
Baal  was  capable  of  defending  his  own  majesty 
(comp.  1  K.  xviii.  27).     This  circumstance  gave 

to  Gideon  the  surname  of  vl^S"!'^  ("  Let  Baal 
plead,"  vi.  32;  LXX.  'Upo^da\),  a  standing  ui- 
stance  of  national  irony,  expressive  of  Baal's  impo- 
tence.   Winer  thinks  that  this  irony  was  increased 

by  the  fact  that  V^m'^  was  a  surname  of  the 
Phoenician  Plercules  (comp.  Movers,  Phoniz.  i.  434). 
We  have  similar  cases  of  contempt  in  the  names 
Sychar,  Baal-zebul,  etc.  (Lightfoot,  IJor.  Hehr. 
ad  Matt.  xii.  24).  In  consequence  of  this  name 
some  have  identified  Gideon  with  a  certain  priest 
'lepSfifiaXos,  mentioned  in  Eusebius  {Proep.  Evdncj. 
i.  10)  as  having  given  much  accurate  information 
to  Sanchoniatho  the  Berytian  (Bochart,  Pludc(j,  p. 
776;  Huetius,  Dtm.  Evang.  p.  84,  &c.),  but  this 
opinion  cannot  be  maintained  (Ewald,  Gesch.  ii. 
494;  Gesen.  s.  v.).  We  also  find  the  name  in  the 
form  Jerubbesheth  (2  Sam.  xi.  21 ;  comp.  Esh-baal, 
1  Chr.  viii.  33  with  Ish-bosheth  2  Sam.  ii.  flF.). 
Ewald  (p.  495,  n.)  brings  forward  several  arguments 
t^ainst  the  supposed  origin  of  the  name. 

2.  After  this  begins  the  second  act  of  Gideon's 
life.  »  Clothed  "  by  the  Spirit  of  God  (Judg.  vi. 
34;  comp.  1  Chr.  xii.  18;  Luke  xxiv.  49),  he  blew 
a  trumpet;  and,  joined  by  "  Zebulun,  Naphtali,  and 
even  the  reluctant  Asher "  (which  tribes  were 
chiefly  endangered  by  the  Midianites),  and  possibly 
also  by  some  of  the  original  inhabitants,  who  would 
suffer  from  these  predatory  "sons  of  the  East"  no 
less  than  the  Israelites  themselves,  he  encamped  on 
the  slopes  of  Gilboa,  from  which  he  overlooked  the 
plains  of  Esdraelon  covered  by  the  tents  of  INIidian 
(Stanley,  -S.  (f  P.  p.  243)."  Strengthened  by  a 
double  sign  from  God  (to  which  Ewald  gives  a 
strange  figurati\c  meaning,  Gesch.  ii.  500),  he  re- 


GIDEON 

duced  his  army  of  32,000  by  the  usual  prociamatioi 
(Deut.  XX.  8;  comp.  1  Mace.  iii.  56).  'ilie  expri» 
sion  "let  him  depart  from  Mount  Gilead  "  is  per 
plexing ;  Dathe  would  render  it  "  to  Mount  Gilead  " 
-  on  the  other  side  of  Jordan ;  and  Clericus  readg 

^217?)  Gilboa;  but  Ewald  is  probably  right  in 
regarding  the  name  as  a  sort  of  war-cry  and  gen- 
eral designation  of  the  Manassites.  (See,  too, 
Gesen.  Thes.  p.  804,  n.)  By  a  second  test  at  "  the 
spring  of  trembling  "  (now  probably  ^Ain  Jdlud, 
on  which  see  Stanley,  S.  tj-  P.  p.  342),  he  again 
reduced  the  number  of  his  followers  to  300  (Judg. 
vii.  5  f.),  whom  Josephus  explains  to  have  been  the 
most  cowardly  in  the  army  (^1?*^.  v.  0,  §  3).  Finally, 
being  encouraged  by  words  fortuitously  overheard 
(what  the  later  Jews  termed  the  Bath  Kol ;  comp. 
1  Sam.  xiv.  9,  10,  Lightfoot,  Ilor.  Ilebr.  ad  Matt. 
iii.  14)  in  the  relation  of  a  significant  dream,  he 
framed  his  plans,  which  were  admirably  adapted  to 
strike  a  panic  terror  into  the  huge  and  undisciplii::ed 
nomad  host  (Judg.  viii.  15-18).  We  know  from 
history  that  large  and  irregular  oriental  armies  are 
especially  liable  to  sudden  outbursts  of  uncontrol- 
lable terror,  and  when  the  stillness  and  darkness  of 
the  night  were  suddenly  disturbed  in  three  differ- 
ent directions  by  the  flash  of  torches  and  by  the 
reverberating  eclioes  which  the  trumpets  and  the 
shouting  woke  among  the  hills,  we  cannot  be  as- 
tonished at  the  complete  rout  into  which  the  enemy 
were  thrown.  It  must  be  remembered,  too,  thai 
the  sound  of  300  trumpets  would  make  them  sup- 
pose that  a  corresponding  numlier  of  companies 
were  attacking  them."  For  sj)ecimens  of  similar 
stratagems  see  Liv.  xxii.  16;  Poly*n.  titrate (/.  ii. 
37;  Frontin.  ii.  4;  Sail.  Juy.  99;  Kiebuhr,  Descr. 
de  l' Arable,  p.  304;  Jotirn.  As  1841,  ii,  516 
(quoted  by  Ewald,  IJosenmiiller,  and  \Mner).  The 
custom  of  dividing  an  army  into  three  seems  to 
have  been  common  (1  Sam.  xi.  11;  Gen.  xiv.  15), 
and  Gideon's  war-cry  is  not  unlike  that  ado^jted  by 
Cyrus  (Xenoph.  Cyr.  iii.  28).  He  adds  his  own 
name  to  the  war-cry,''  as  suited  both  to  inspire  con- 
fidence in  his  followers  and  strike  terror  in  the 
enemy.  His  stratagem  was  eminently  successful, 
and  the  INIidianites,  breaking  into  thcu*  wild  peculiar 
cries,  fled  headlong  "  down  the  descent  to  the  Jor- 
dan," to  the  "house of  the  Acacia"  (Beth-shittah) 
and  the  "meadow  of  the  dance"  (Abel-meholah), 
but  were  intercepted  by  the  Ephi-aimites  (to  whom 
notice  had  been  sent,  vii.  24)  at  the  fords  of  Beth- 
barah,  where,  after  a  seconil  fight,  the  princes  Oreb 
and  Zeeb  ("the  Baven  "  and  "the  Wolf")  were 
detected  and  slain  —  the  former  at  a  rock,  and  the 
latter  concealed  in  a  wine-piess,  to  which  their  names 
were  afterwards  given^  Meanwhile  the  "higher 
sheykhs  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  had  already  e.scaped," 
and  Gideon  (after  pacifying  —  by  a  soft  answer 
which  became  proverbial  —  the  haughty  tribe  of 
Ephraim,  viii.  1-3)  pursued  them  into  eastern  Ma- 
nasseh,  and.  bursting  upon  them  in  their  fancied 
security  among  the  tents  of  their  Bedouin  country- 
men (see  Kakkor),  won  his  tiiird  victory,  and 
avenged  on  the  Midiauitish  emirs  the  massacre  of 


a  It  is  curious  to  find  "  lamps  and  pitchers "  in 
use  for  a  similar  purpose  at  this  very  day  in  the 
-treets  of  Cairo.  The  Zabtt  or  Agha  of  the  police 
^rrios  with  him. at  night  "a  torch  wliich  burns,  soon 
ifter  it  is  lighted,  without  a  flame,  excepting  when  it  is 
frayed  through  tlio  air,  when  it  suddenly  blazes  forth : 
K  therefore  answers  the  same  purpose  as  our  dark 
Aatnm.     Iht  burning  end  is  sometimes  concealed  in  a 


small  pot  or  jar ^  or  covered  with  something  else,  whea 
not  required  to  give  light "  (Lane's  Mod.  Egypt,  i.  cb 
iv.). 

b  *  The  war-cry  was  properly,  "  For  Jehovah  and 
for  Gideon."  The  A.  V,  inserts  "  the  sword,"  but  ttuk 
has  no  warrant,  and  restricts  too  much  the  id«a. 

H 


GIDEONI 

hi*  kingly  brethren  whom  they  had  slain  nt  la!)or 
(viii.  18  f.}.  In  these  three  battles  only  15,000  out 
of  120,000  IMidianites  escaped  alive.  It  is  indeed 
stated  in  Judg.  viii.  10,  that  120,000  Midianites 
had  already /alien;  but  here  as  elsewhere,  it  may 
merely  be  intended  that  such  was  the  original  num- 
ber of  the  routed  host.  During  his  triumphal  re- 
turn Gideon  took  signal  and  appropriate  vengeance 
on  the  coward  and  apostate  towns  of  Succoth  and 
Peuiel.  The  memory  of  this  splendid  deliverance 
took  deep  root  in  the  national  traditions  (1  Sam. 
xii.  11 ;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  11 ;  Is.  ix.  4,  x.  26 ;  Heb.  xi.  32). 

3.  After  this  there  was  a  j^eaee  of  40  years,  and 
we  see  Gideon  in  peaceful  possession  of  his  well- 
earned  honors,  and  surrounded  by  the  dignity  of 
a  numerous  household  (viii.  29-31).  It  is  not  im- 
probable that,  like  Said,  he  had  owed  a  part  of  his 
popularity  to  his  princely  appearance  (Judg.  viii.  18). 
In  this  third  stage  of  his  life  occur  alike  his  most 
noble  and  his  most  questional )le  acts,  namely,  the 
refusal  of  the  monarchy  on  theocratic  grounds,  and 
the  irregular  consecration  of  a  jeweled  ephod,  fomied 
out  of  the  rich  spoils  of  Midian,  which  proved  to 
the  Israelites  a  temptation  to  idolatry,  although  it 
was  doubtless  intended  for  use  in  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  Gesenius  and  others  {T/ies.  p.  135; 
Bertheau,  p.  133  f.)  follow  the  Peshito  in  making 
the  word  Ephod  here  mean  an  idol,  chiefly  on  ac- 
count of  the  vast  amount  of  gold  (1,700  shekels) 
and  other  rich  material  appropriated  to  it.  But  it 
is  simpler  to  understand  it  as  a  significant  symbol 
of  an  unauthorized  worship. 

Respecting  the  chronology  of  this  period  little 
certainty  can  be  obtained.  Making  full  allowance 
for  the  use  of  round  numbers,  and  even  admitting 
the  improbable  assertion  of  some  of  the  Kabbis  that 
the  period  of  oppression  is  counted  in  the  years  of 
rest  (m/e  Rosenmiiller,  On  Judfj.  iii.  11),  insuper- 
able difficulties  remain.  If,  however,  as  has  been 
suggested  by  Lord  A.  Her\'ey,  several  of  the  judge- 
ships really  synchronize  instead  of  being  successive, 
much  of  the  confusion  vanishes.  For  instance,  he 
supposes  (from  a  comparison  of  Judg.  iii.,  viii.,  and 
xii.)  that  there  was  a  combined  movement  under 
thrp«»  great  chiefs,  Ehud,  Gideon,  and  Jephthah,  by 
which  the  Israelites  emancipated  themselves  from 
the  dominion  of  the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  and 
Midianites  (who  for  some  years  had  occupied  their 
land),  and  enjoyed  a  long  term  of  peace  through 
all  their  coasts.  "  If,"  he  says,  "  we  string  together 
the  different  accounts  of  the  different  parts  of 
Israel  which  are  given  us  in  that  miscellaneous  col- 
lection of  ancient  records  called  the  book  of  Judges, 
and  treat  them  as  connected  and  successive  history, 
we  shall  fall  into  as  great  a  chronographical  error 
as  if  yvQ  treated  in  the  same  manner  the  histories 
of  Mercia,  Kent,  Essex,  Wessex,  and  Northujnber- 
land,  before  England  became  one  kingdom"  {Ge- 
nenlog.  of  our  Lord,  p.  238).  It  is  n©w  well  known 
that  a  similar  source  of  error  has  long  existed  in 
the  chronology  of  Egypt.  F.  W.  F. 

GIDEO'NI  (^33772  or  once  '^^yJ'Vi  [apros- 
trator,  warrior]:  TaBewui;  [Vat.  TeSewvet,  Ta- 
iea>uei,  etc.:]  Gedeonis  [gen.]).  Abidan,  son  of 
Gideoni,  was  the  :hief  man  of  the  tribe  of  Benja- 
Tun  at  the  time  of  the  census  in  the  wilderness  of 
Sinai  (Num.  i.  11;  ii.  22;  vii.  60,  65;  x.  24). 

GIDOM  (D^S?!!!  [a  cutting doim, desolating]: 
VthaV,  Alex.  rtAooS;  [Comp.  Aid.  TaSati/x]),  a 
pboe  named  only  in  Judg.  xx.  45,  aa  the  limit  to 


GIER-EA(iLE 


921 


wnicfi  the  pursuit  of  Benjamin  extended  after  th« 
final  battle  of  Gibeah.  It  would  appear  to  hav 
been  situated  between  Gibeah  ( Tuttil  el-Ful)  and 
the  cliff  Rimn.on  (probably  Bummon,  about  three 
miles  E.  of  Bethel) ;  but  no  trace  of  the  name,  nor 
yet  of  that  of  Menucah,  if  indeed  that  was  a  place 
(Judg.  XX.  43 ;  A.  V.  "  with  ease  "  —  but  see  mar- 
gin), has  yet  been  met  with.  [Menucah,  Amer. 
ed.]  The  reading  of  the  Alex.  LXX.,  "  Gilead," 
can  hardly  be  taken  as  well  founded.  In  the  Vul- 
gate the  word  does  not  seem  to  be  represented. 

G. 

GIER-EAGLE  (Dn^,  rdchdm;  HDm, 
rachdmali  :  kvkuos,  iropcpvpiwy:  porphyria),  an 
unclean  bird  mentioned  in  Lev.  xi.  18  and  Deut. 
xiv.  17.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
rdcliam  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  is  identical  in 

reality  as  in  name  with  the  racham  (jv^O  of  the 

Arabs,  namely,  the  Egyptian  vulture  {Neophron 
perctiopterus) ;  see  Gesner,  Be  Avib.  p.  170;  Bo- 
chart,  Hieroz.  iii.  56;  Hasselquist,  Trav.  p.  195, 
and  Russell's  Natural  Hist,  of  Aleppo,  ii.  195,  2d 
ed.  The  LXX.  in  Lev.  /.  c.  renders  the  Hebrew 
term  by  "  swan  "  {kvkvos)i  while  in  Deut.  /.  c.  the 
"purple  water-hen"  (Purphyrio  hyncintldniis)  is 
given  as  its  representative.  There  is  too  much  dis- 
crepancy in  the  LXX.  translations  of  the  various 
birds  mentioned  in  the  Levitical  law  to  allow  us  to 
attach  much  weight  to  its  authority.  The  Hebrew 
term  etymologically  signifies  "  a  Inrd  which  is  very 
affectionate  to  its  young,"  which  is  perfectly  true 
of  the  Egyptian  vulture,  but  not  more  so  than  of 
other  birds.  The  Arabian  writers  relate  many 
fables  of  the  Racham,  some  of  which  the  reader 
may  see  in  the  Hierozoicon  of  Bochart  (iii.  p.  56). 
The  Egyptian  vulture,  according  to  Bruce,  is  called 
by  the  Euroj)eans  in  Egypt  "  Pharaoh's  Hen."     It 


Egyptian  Vulture. 

is  generally  distributed  throughout  Egypt,  and  Mr 
Tristram  says  it  is  common  in  Palestine,  and  breedi 
in  great  numbers  in  the  valley  of  the  Cedron  ( Ibis, 
i.  23).  Though  a  bird  of  decidedly  unprepossessing 
appearance  and  of  disgusting  habits,  the  P^gyptians, 
like  ah  other  Orientah,  wisely  protect  so  efficient  a 
scavenger,  which  rids  them  of  putrefying  carct^ses 
that  would  otherwise  breed  a  pestilence  in  their 
towns.  Near  Cairo,  says  Shaw  {Trav.  p.  384, 
folio),  there  are  several  flocks  of  the  Ach  Bobba^ 
"white  father."  —  a  name  given  it  by  the  Tiukii 


922 


GIFT 


partly  out  of  the  reverence  they  have  for  it,  partly 
6rom  the  color  of  its  plumage,  —  "  which,  like  the 
ravens  about  our  nietroiwlis,  feed  upon  the  carrion 
and  nastiness  that  is  thrown  without  the  city." 
Young  birds  are  of  a  brown  color  with  a  few  white 
feathers ;  adult  specimens  are  white,  except  the  pri- 
mary and  a  }x)rtion  of  the  secondary  wing-feathers, 
which  are  black.  Naturalists  have  referred  this 
vulture  to  the  irepKv6irTepos  or  6p€nr4\apyo5  of 
Aristotle  {Hist.  Aniin.  vs..  22,  §  2,  ed.  Schneid.). 

W.  H. 

*  There  are  two  birds  known  as  >vjS\  among 

the  Arabs  in  Egypt.  The  first  is  the  vulture  known 
as  Neophron  ptrcnoiAerus.  It  is  found  extensively 
in  all  parts  of  Egypt,  and  is  common  in  Palestine 
and  Syria.  The  adult  has  the  front  of  the  head 
and  the  upper  part  of  the  throat  and  cere  naked, 
and  of  a  bright  lemon  yellow.  The  plumage  is  a 
dirty  white,  with  the  exception  of  the  quill-feathers, 
which  are  a  grayish  black.  The  appearance  of  this 
bird  soaring  (in  circles)  over  and  around  the  towns 
in  Egypt,  with  its  bright  yellow  beak  and  neck  and 
crop,  and  white  body,  and  dai-k  wing- feathers,  is 
exceedingly  beautiful. 

The  second  is  the  Pelecanus  onocrotnlus,  found 
m  large  numbers  in  Egypt,  and  about  lake  Huleh 
in  Palestine.    This  is  probably  the  bird  intended  by 

Dnn  in  Lev.  xi.  18  and  Deut.  xiv.  17,  while  the  bird 
there  translated  "pelican"  should  be  "cormorant." 
This  seems  altogether  more  natural  when  we  consider 
the  context,  and  that  it  is  grouped  with  the  large 

water-fowl.  The  word  TJ^^  '  translated  "cor- 
morant "  in  Lev.  xi.  17  and  Deut.  xiv.  17  more 
properly  suits  the  Uiver  ( Colymhus),  of  which  there 
is  a  large  species  in  Egypt.  G.  E.  P. 

GIFT.  The  giving  and  receiving  of  presents 
has  in  all  ages  been  not  only  a  more  frequent,  but 
also  a  more  formal  and  significant  proceeding  in 
the  East  than  among  ourselves.  It  enters  largely 
into  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life :  no  negotiation, 
alliance,  or  contract  of  any  kind  can  be  entered  into 
between  states  or  sovereigns  without  a  previous 
interchange  of  presents:  none  of  the  important 
events  of  private  life,  betrothal,  marriage,  coming 
of  age,  birth,  take  place  without  presents:  even  a 
visit,  if  of  a  formal  nature,  must  be  prefaced  by  a 
present.  We  cannot  adduce  a  more  remarkable 
proof  of  the  important  part  which  presents  play  in 
the  social  life  of  the  East,  than  the  fact  that  the 
Hebrew  language  possesses  no  less  than  fifteen  dif- 
ferent expressions  for  the  one  idea.  Many  of  these 
expressions  have  specific  meanings:  for  instance, 

minchah  {r\n^T2i)  applies  to  a  present  from  an  in- 
ferior to  a  superior,  as  from  subjects  to  a  king 
(Judg.  iii.  15;  1  K.  x.  25;  2  Chr.  xvii.  5);  maseth 

(nStlTtt)  expresses  the  converse  idea  of  a  present 
from  a  superior  to  an  inferior,  as  from  a  king  to  his 
subjects  (Esth.  ii.  18);  hence  it  is  used  of  a  portion 
of  food  sent  by  the  master  of  the  house  to  his  in- 
Terior  guests  (Gen.  xliii.  34;  2  Sam.  xi.  8);  nisseih 

[nt^Wi)  has  very  much  the  same  sense  (2  Sam. 

tix.  42);  berdcah  (71312),  literally  a  "  blessing," 
(8  used  'vhere  the  present  is  one  of  a  complimentary 
aature,  either  accompanied  with  good  wishes,  or 
fiven  as  a  token  of  affection  (Gen.  xxxiii.  11 ;  Judg. 
.  16:  1  Sam  xxv.  27,  xxx.  2H;  2  K.  v.  15);  and 


GIFT 

agahi,  shochad  (THtt?)  is  a  gift  for  the  purpoge  of 
escaping  punishment,  presented  either  to  a  juiga 
(Ex.  xxiii.  8;    Deut.   x.   17),  or  to  a  conqueroi 

(2  K.  xvi.  8).  Other  terms,  as  mattdn  Cjri^), 
were  used  more  generally.  The  extent  to  which 
the  custom  prevailed  admits  of  some  explanation 
from  the  peculiar  usages  of  the  ICast;  it  is  clear 
that  the  term  "gift"  is  frequently  used  where  we 
should  substitute  "  tribute,"  or  "  fee."  The  tribute 
of  subject  states  was  paid  not  in  a  fixed  sum  of 
money,  but  in  kind,  each  nation  presenting  its 
particular  product  —  a  custom  whvch  is  frequently 
illustrated  in  the  sculptures  of  Assyria  and  Egypt; 
hence  the  numerous  instances  in  which  the  present 
was  no  voluntary  act,  but  an  exaction  (Judg.  iii. 
15-18;  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  6;  1  K.  iv.  21;  2  K.  xvii. 
3;  2  Chr.  xvii.  11,  xxvi.  8);  and  hence  the  expres- 
sion "  to  bring  presents  "  =to  own  submission  (Ps. 
Ixviii.  29,  Ixxvi.  11;  Is.  xviii.  7).  Again,  the  pres- 
ent taken  to  a  prophet  was  viewed  very  much  iu 
the  light  of  a  consulting  "fee,"  and  conveyed  no 
idea  of  bribery  (1  Sam.  ix.  7,  comp.  xii.  3;  2  K. 
v.  5,  viii.  9):  it  was  only  when  false  prophets  and 
corrupt  judges  arose  that  the  present  was  prosti- 
tuted, and  became,  instead  of  a  minchah  (as  in  the 
instances  quoted),  a  shochad,  or  bribe  (Is.  i  23,  v. 
23;  Ez.  xxii.  12;  Mic.  iii.  11).  But  even  allowing 
for  these  cases,  which  are  hardly  "gifts"  in  our 
sense  of  the  term,  there  is  still  a  large  excess  re- 
maining in  the  practice  of  the  East:  friends  brought 
presents  to  friends  on  any  joyful  occasion  (Esth.  ix. 
19,  22),  those  who  asked  for  information  or  advice 
to  those  who  gave  it  (2  K.  viii.  8),  the  needy  to  the 
wealthy  from  whom  any  assistance  was  expected 
(Gen.  xliii.  11;  2  K.  xv.  19,  xvi.  8),  rulers  to  their 
favorites  (Gen.  xiv.  22;  2  Sam.  xi.  8),  especially  to 
their  officers  (Esth.  ii.  18;  Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  2,  § 
15),  or  to  the  people  generally  on  festive  occasions 
(2  Sam.  vi.  19);  on  the  occasion  of  a  marriage,  the 
l)ridegroom  not  only  paid  the  pai-ents  for  his  bride 
(A.  V.  "dowry"),  but  also  gave  the  bride  catain 
presents  (Gen.  xxxiv.  12;  comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  22), 
while  the  father  of  the  bride  gave  her  a  present  on 
sending  her  nway^  as  is  expressed  in  the  term  »hil- 

lucMm  {W^TJhW)  {I  K.  ix.  16);  and  again,  the 
portions  of  the  sons  of  concubines  were  paid  in  the 
form  of  presents  (Gen.  xxv.  6). 

The  nature  of  the  presents  was  as  \'arious  as 
were  the  occasions:  food  (1  Sam.  ix.  7,  xvi.  20,  xxv. 
11),  sheep  and  cattle  (Gen.  xxxii.  13-15;  Judg.  iv. 
8),  gold  (2  Sam.  xviii.  11;  Job  xlii.  11;  Matt.  iL 
11),  jewels  (Gen.  xxiv.  53),  furniture,  and  vessel* 
for  eating  and  drinking  (2  Sam.  xvii.  28),  delica- 
cies, such  as  spices,  honey,  etc.  (Gen.  xxiv.  53; 
1  K.  X.  25,  xiv.  3),  and  robes  (1  K.  x.  25;  2  K. 
V.  22),  particularly  in  the  case  of  persons  inducted 
into  high  office  (Esth.  vi.  8;  Dan.  v.  16;  comp. 
Herod,  iii.  20).  The  mode  of  presentation  was 
with  as  much  parade  as  possible ;  the  presents  were 
conveyed  by  the  hands  of  servants  (Judg.  iii.  18), 
or  still  better  on  the  backs  of  beasts  of  burden 
(2  K.  viii.  9),  even  when  such  a  mode  of  convey- 
ance was  unnecessary.  The  refusal  of  a  present 
was  regarded  as  a  high  uidignity,  and  this  con- 
stituted the  aggravated  insult  noticed  in  Matt, 
xxii.  11,  the  marriage  robe  havuig  been  offered 
and  refused  (Trench,  Par(fbles).  No  less  an  in 
suit  was  it,  not  to  bring  a  present  when  the  poa 
tion  of  the  parties  demanded  it  (]  Sam.  x.  27 y. 

W.  L.R 


GIHON 

GIHON  (rrr*?  [stream-]  I  Fewj/;  Alex.  Ttj- 
itv:  Gehcra).  1.  The  second  river  of  Paradise  (Gen. 
i.  1-3).  The  name  d-)es  not  again  occur  in  the 
Hebrew  text  of  the  0.  T.;  but  in  the  LXX.  it 
[rTjwj/]  is  used  in  Jer.  ii.  18,  as  an  equivalent  for 
:he  word  Shichor  or  Sihor,  i.  e.  the  Nile,  and  in 
Kcclus.  xxiv.  27  (A.  V.  "Geon").  All  that  can 
be  said  upon  it  will  be  found  under  Eden,  p.  658  f. 

2.  (P"^3,  and  in  Chron.  f\rV^:  [in  1  K.,] 
7}  Ti(i}v,  [Yat.  T^iwu,  Alex,  o  VicaW,  in  2Chr.  xxxii. 
30,]  Tei'MV,  [Vat.  5ei«j/,  Alex.  Tiuv;  in  2  Chr. 
Kxxiii.  14,  Kara  j/Jrov,  Comp.  rod  Tetcui/:]  Gihon.) 
A  place  near  Jerusalem,  memorable  as  the  scene  of 
the  anointing  and  proclamation  of  Solomon  as  king 
(1  K.  i.  33,  38,  45).  From  the  terms  of  this  pas- 
sage, it  is  evident  it  was  at  a  lower  level  than  the 

city  —  "  bring  him  down  (Dri'T'^rT)  upon  ( /^) 

Gihon  "  —  "  they  are  come  up  (^V^^)  from 
thence."  With  this  agrees  a  later  mention  (2 
Chr.  xxxiii.  14),  where  it  is  called  "  Gihon-in-the- 
valley,"    the   word   rendered  valley  being  nachal 

(7)13).  In  this  latter  place  Gihon  is  named  to 
designate  the  direction  of  the  wall  built  by  Manas- 
seh  —  "  outside  the  city  of  David,  from  the  west 
of  Gihon-in-the-valley  to  the  entrance  of  the  Fish- 
gate."  It  is  not  stated  in  any  of  the  above  pas- 
sages that  Gihon  was  a  spring ;  but  the  only  re- 
maining place  in  which  it  is  mentioned  suggests 
this  belief,  or  at  least  that  it  had  given  its  name  to 
Bome  water  —  "  Hezekiah  also  stopped  the  upper 

source  or  issue  (M^1X2,  from  W^^,  to  rush  forth ; 
incorrectly  "watercourse"  in  A.  V.)  of  the  waters 
of  Gihon  "  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  30).  If  the  place  to 
which  Solomon  was  brought  down  on  the  king's 
mule  was  Gihon-in-the-valley  —  and  from  the  terms 
above  noticed  it  seems  probable  that  it  was  —  then 
the  "upper  source  "  would  be  some  distance  away, 
and  at  a  higher  level. 

The  locality  of  Gihon  will  be  investigated  under 
Jerusalem;  but  in  the  mean  time  the  following 
facts  may  be  noticed  in  regard  to  the  occurrences 
of  the  word.  (1.)  Its  low  level;  as  above  stated. 
(2.)  The  expression  "Gihon-in-the-valley;"  where 
it  will  be  observed  that  nachal  ("  torrent "  or 
"  wady  ")  is  the  word  always  employed  for  the  val- 
ley of  the  Kedron,  east  of  Jerusalem  —  the  so- 
oalled  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat;  ge  ("  ravine "  or 
"glen")  being  as  constantly  employed  for  the  Val- 
ley of  Hinnora,  south  and  west  of  the  town.  In 
this  connection  the  mention  of  Ophel  (2  Chr.  xxxiii. 
14)  with  Gihon  should  not  be  disregarded.  In 
agreement  with  this  is  the  fact  that  (3)  the  Tar- 
n;um  of  Jonathan,  and  the  Syriac  and  Arabic  Ver- 
jions,  have  Shiloha,  i,  e.  Siloam  (Arab.  ylm-Shi- 
ioha)  for  Gihon  in  1  K.  i.  In  Chronicles  they 
agree  with  the  Hebrew  text  in  having  Gihon.  If 
Siloam  be  Gihon,  then  (4)  "  from  the  west  of  Gihon 
to  the  Fish-gate  "  —  which  we  know  from  St.  Jerome 
to  have  been  near  the  present  "  Jaffa-gate,"  would 
answer  to  the  course  of  a  wall  inclosing  "  the  city 
Df  David  "  (2  Chr.  xxxiii.  14);  and  (5)  the  omis- 
uon  of  Gihon  from  the  very  detailed  catalogue  of 
Neh.  iv.  is  explained.  G. 


GILBOA 


923 


o  *  This  name  arose  from  a  misapprehension  of  Ps. 
icxxix.  13  (12),  as  ?f  Hermou  and  Tabor,  being  ther« 
ipoken  of  together,  must  have  been  near  each  o  her 
This  Jfbet  ed-Ddky  ifl  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible,  u» 


GIL'ALAI  [3  syl.]  C^h)?^  [i^erh.  weighty 
powerful,  Ftirst] :  [Kom.]  TeAc^A;  [V^at.  Alex 
FA.i  omit:  Galalai]),  one  of  the  party  of  priests- 
sons  who  played  on  David's  instruments  at  the  con- 
secration of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  in  the  company 
at  whose  head  was  Ezra  (Neh.  xii.  36). 

GILBO'A   (^2^3,  bubbling  fountain,   frcrr 

b|l  and  ^-121 :  reA/Soue;  [Alex.  2  Sam.  i.  6, 
rejSove :]  Gelboe),  a  mountain  range  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  rising  over  the  city 
of  Jezreel  (comp.  1  Sam.  xxviii.  4  with  xxix.  1). 
It  is  only  mentioned  in  Scripture  in  connection  with 
one  event  in  Israelitish  history,  the  defeat  and  death 
of  Saul  and  Jonathan  by  the  Philistines  (1  Sam. 
xxxi.  1;  2  Sam.  i.  6,  xxi.  12;  1  Chr.  x.  1,  8). 
The  latter  had  encamped  at  Shunem,  on  the  north- 
ern side  of  the  valley  of  Jezreel ;  the  former  took 
up  a  position  round  the  fountain  of  Jezreel,  on  the 
southern  side  of  the  valley,  at  the  base  of  Gilboa. 
The  result  is  well  known.  Saul  and  Jonathan, 
with  the  flower  of  their  army,  fell  upon  the  moun- 
tain. When  the  tidings  were  carried  to  David,  he 
broke  out  into  this  pathetic  strain :  "  Ye  mountains 
of  Gilboa,  let  there  be  no  rain  upon  you,  neithei 
dew,  nor  field  of  oflTering  "  (2  Sam.  i.  21).  Of  the 
identity  of  Gilboa  with  the  ridge  which  stretches 
eastward,  from  the  ruins  of  Jezreel,  no  doubt  can 
be  entertained.  At  the  northern  base,  half  a  mile 
from  the  ruins,  is  a  large  fountain,  called  in  Scrip- 
ture both  the  "  Well  of  Harod  "  (Judg.  vii.  1),  and 
"  The  fountain  of  Jezreel"  (1  Sam.  xxix.  1),  and 
it  was  probably  from  it  the  name  Gilboa  was  de- 
rived. Eusebius  places  Gilboa  at  the  distance  of 
six  miles  from  Scythopolis,  and  says  there  is  still  a 
village  upon  the  mountain  called  Gelbus  {Onom. 
s.  V.  rejSoue)-  The  village  is  now  called  Jtlbon 
(Kobinson,  ii.  316),  and  its  position  answers  to  the 
description  of  Eusebius :  it  is  situated  on  the  top 
of  the  mountain.  The  range  of  Gilboa  extends  in 
length  some  ten  miles  from  W.  to  E.  The  sides 
are  bleak,  white,  and  barren ;  they  look,  in  fact,  as 
if  the  pathetic  exclamation  of  David  had  proved 
prophetic.  The  greatest  height  is  not  more  than 
500  or  600  feet  above  the  plain.  Their  modem 
local  name  is  Jebel  Fukuah,  and  the  highest  point 
is  crowned  by  a  village  and  wely  called  Wezar 
(Porter,  Handbook,  p.  353).  J.  L.  P. 

*  The  mention  of  Gilboa.  in  David's  touching 
elegy  on  Saul  and  Jonathan,  has  given  an  imperish- 
able name  to  that  mountain.  The  account  of  the 
battle  which  was  so  disastrous  to  the  Hebrew  king, 
designates  not  merely  the  general  scene  of  the  ac- 
tion, but  various  places  connected  with  the  move- 
ments of  the  armies,  and  introduced  in  such  a  way 
as  to  be  in  some  measure  strategetically  related  to 
each  other.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  as  a  corrobora- 
tion of  the  Scripture  narrative,  that  all  these  places, 
except  possibly  one  of  them,  are  still  found  to  exist 
under  their  ancient  names,  and  to  occupy  precisely 
the  situation  with  reference  to  each  other  which  the 
requirements  of  the  history  imply.  We  have  the 
name  of  the  ridge  Gilboa,  on  which  the  battle  was 
fought,  transmitted  to  us  in  that  of  Jelb'un,  applied 
to  a  village  on  the  southern  slope  of  this  ridge, 
known  to  travellers  as  Little  Hermon,«  but  among 


lees  it  be  the  Hill  of  Moreh  (Judg.  vii  1).  Jei-ome,  io 
the  4th  century,  is  the  first  who  speaks  of  it  as  Her- 
moi..     (See  Rob.  Phys.  Geogr.  p.  27.)  H 


92i 


GILBOA 


the  natives  as  Jebel  ed-Dtihy.  The  ridge  rises  out, 
of  the  piaui  of  PZsdraelon,  and,  running  eastward, 
wnica  down  into  the  valley  of  the  Jordan.  The 
Israelites  at  fii'st  pitched  their  tents  at  Jezreel,  the 
present  Zerhi  on  the  western  declivity  of  Gilboa, 
and  near  a  fountain  (1  Sam.  xxix.  1),  undoubtedly 
the  present  Mm  Jdlild,  exactly  in  the  right  position, 
and  forming  naturally  one  inducement  for  selecting 
that  spot.  The  "high  places"  on  which  Saul  and 
Jonathan  were  slain  would  be  the  still  higher  sum- 
niits  of  the  ridge  up  which  their  forces  were  driven 
as  the  tide  of  battle  turned  against  them  in  the 
progress  of  the  fight.  The  J^hilistines  encamped 
at  first  at  Shunem  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  4),  now  called 
Soldin,  on  the  more  northern,  but  parallel,  ridge 
opposite  to  Jezreel,  where  they  could  overlook  and 
watch  the  enemy,  and  at  the  same  time  were  pro- 
tected against  any  surprise  by  the  still  higher 
ground  behind  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
camp  of  the  Philistines  was  visible,  distant  only 
eight  or  ten  miles,  from  the  camp  of  Israel.  Hence 
when  "  Saul  saw  the  host  of  the  Philistines,  he  was 
afraid,  and  his  heart  greatly  trembled."  The  Phihs- 
tines,  in  their  proper  home,  dwelt  in  the  country 
south  of  Judah,  and  having  in  all  probability 
marched  north  along  the  coast  as  far  as  Carmel, 
had  then  turned  across  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and 
had  thus  reached  this  well-chosen  camping-  ground 
at  Shunem. «  The  Philistines  are  next  mentioned 
as  rallying  their  forces  at  AjAek  (1  Sam.  xxix.  1). 
No  place  of  this  name  has  yet  been  discovered  in 
that  neighborhood.  Some  suppose  that  it  was  only 
another  name  for  Shunem ;  but  it  is  more  likely  to 
be  the  name  of  a  different  place,  situated  nearer 
Jezreel,  perhaps  the  one  from  which  the  Philistines 
made  their  direct  attack  on  the  Israelites.  Further, 
we  read  that  the  conquerors,  after  the  battle,  carried 
the  bodies  of  Saul  and  his  sons  to  Beth-shean,  and 
hung  them  up  on  the  walls  of  that  city.  Beth- 
shean  was  a  stronghold  of  the  Phihstines  which  the 
Israelites  had  never  wrested  from  them.  That 
place,  evidently,  reappears  in  the  present  Beisdn, 
which  is  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  Gilboa  range, 
visible  in  fact  from  Jezreel,  and  still  remarkable  for 
its  strength  of  position  as  well  as  the  remains  of 
ancient  fortifications. 

The  strange  episode  of  Saul's  nocturnal  visit  to 
the  witch  of  Endor  illustrates  this  same  feature  of 
the  narrative.  It  is  evident  that  Saul  was  absent 
on  that  errand  but  a  few  hours,  and  the  place  must 
have  been  near  his  encampment.  This  Endor,  as 
no  one  can  doubt,  must  be  the  present  Kndor,  with 
its  dreary  caverns  (Thomson's  Land  and  Book,  ii. 
161),  a  fitting  abode  of  such  a  necromancer,  on 
the  north  side  of  -Dufiy,  at  the  west  end  of  which 
was  Shunem.  Hence  Saul,  leaving  his  camp  at 
Jezreel,  could  rteal  his  way  under  cover  of  the  night 
across  the  intervening  valley,  and  over  the  moderate 
summit  which  ho  would  have  to  ascend,  and  then, 
ifter  consulting  the  woman  with  "  a  familiar  spirit " 
it  Endor,  could  return  to  his  forces  without  his 
departure  being  known  to  any  except  those  in  the 
lecret.  All  these  places,  so  interwoven  in  the  net- 
work of  the  story,  and  clearly  identified  after  the 
apse  of  so  many  centuries,  lie  almost  within  sight 
S)f  each  other.  A  person  may  start  from  any  one 
of  them  and  make  the  circuit  of  them  all  in  a  few 
hours.     The  date  assigned  to  this  battle  is  B.  c. 


a  *  PcGsibly  the  Philistines,  instead  of  taking  the 
•naritime  route,  may  have  crossed  the  Jordan  and 
sai^b«d  north  on  that  side  of  the  river.  H. 


GILEAI) 

1055,  later  but  a  little  than  the  ti-aoitionar/  i^c  at 
the  siege  of  Troy.  It  is  seldom  that  a  re<»rd  of 
remote  events  can  be  subjected  to  so  severe  a  scru- 
tiny as  this. 

For  other  sketches  which  reproduce  more  or  lesi 
fully  the  occurrences  of  this  battle,  the  reader  may 
see  Van  de  Velde  ( Tnivds  in  Syr.  ij-  Pal.  ii.  308 
fF.);  Stanley  {S.  cf  P.  p.  339  f.,  Amer.  ed.);  RoIk 
inson  {Bib.  Res.  iii.  173  fF.,  Isted.);  and  Portcj 
(Handbook,  ii.  355  ft'.).  Some  of  the  writers  differ 
as  to  whether  the  final  encounter  took  place  at  Jez- 
reel or  higher  up  the  mountain.  Stanley  has  drawn 
out  the  personal  incidents  in  a  sti'iking  manner 
(Jewish  Church,  ii.  30  ff.).  For  geographical  in- 
formation respecting  this  group  of  places,  see  espe- 
cially Kob.  Phys.  Geoyr.  pp.  20-28,  and  Kitter'a 
Geogr.  of  Paksline,  Gage's  transl.,  ii.  321-336. 

H. 

GIL'EAD  ny^S  [see  below]:  TaXadS:  Gor 
laa/l),  a  mountainous  region  east  of  the  Jordan; 
bounded  on  the  north  by  Bashan,  on  the  east  by 
the  Arabian  plateau,  and  on  the  south  by  Moab 
and  Ammon  (Gen.  xxxi.  21;  iJeut.  iii.  12-17).  It 
is  sometimes  called  "Mount  Gilead  "  (Gen.  xxxi 

25,  T^vSn  *nn),  sometimes  "the  land  of  Gil- 
ead" (Num.  xxxii.  1,  *T^7^  V^^)  |  ^^^  some 
times  simply  "Gilead"  (Ps.  Ix.  7;  Gen.  xxxvii 
25);  but  a  comparison  of  the  several  passages  shows 
that  they  all  mean  the  same  thing.  There  is  no 
evidence,  in  fact,  that  any  particular  mountain  was 
meant  by  Mount  Gilead  more  than  by  Mount  Leb- 
anon (Judg.  iii.  3)  —  they  both  comjirehend  the 
whole  range,  and  the  range  of  Gilead  embraced  the 
whole  province.  The  name  Gilead,  as  is  usual  in 
Palestine,  describes  the  physical  aspect  of  the  coun- 
try. It  signifies  "a  hard,  rocky  region ; "  and  it 
may  be  regarded  as  standing  in  contrast  to  Bashan, 
the  other  great  trans-Jordanic  proN-ince,  which  is, 
as  the  name  implies,  a  "  level,  fertile  tract." 

The  statements  in  Gen.  xxxi.  48  are  not  opposed 
to  this  etymology.     The  old  name  of  ihe  district 

was  *T^^2  (Gilead),  but  by  a  slight  change  in  the 
pronunciation,  the  radical  letters  being  retained, 
the  meaning  was  made  beautifully  applicable  to  the 
"  heap  of  s(x)nes  "  Jacob  and  Laban  had  built  up- 

"  and  Laban  said,  this  heap  ( /2)  is  a  uitness  (13^) 
between  me  and  thee  this  day.  Therefore  was  the 
name  of  it  called  Gal-eed''^  {IV  /-3,  the  heap  oj 
witness).  Those  acquainted  with  the  modem 
Arabs  and  their  literature  will  see  how  intensely 
such  a  play  upon  the  word  would  be  appreciated 
by  them.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  interview 
between  Jacob  and  his  father-in-law  took  place  on 
any  particular  mountain  peak.  Jacob,  having 
passed  the  Euphrates,  "  set  his  face  toward  Mount 
Gilead;  "he  struck  across  the  desert  by  the  great 
fountain  at  Palmyra;  then  traversed  the  eastern 
part  of  the  plain  of  Damascus,  and  the  plateau  of 
Bashan,  and  entered  Gilead  from  the  northeast. 
"  In  the  Mount  Gilead  Laban  overtook  him  "  — 
apparently  soon  .after  he  entered  the  district;  foi 
when  they  separated  again,  Jacob  went  on  his  wa} 
and  arrived  at  Mahanaim,  which  must  have  been 
considerably  north  of  the  river  Jabbok  (Gen.  xxxiL 
1,  2,  22). 

The  extent  of  Gilecd  we  can  ascertain  with  tol- 
erable exactness  from  incidentiil  !iotice«i  in  the  HA} 
Scriptures.     The  Jordan  was  its  westeiti  border  (I 


GILEAD 

Bmh.  xiii.  7;  2  K.  x.  33).  \  comparison  of  a 
Dumber  of  passages  shows  that  the  river  Hieromax, 
the  mocleni  Sheriat  el-M(md/iui;  separated  it  from 
Bashan  on  the  north.  <' Half  Gileacl"  is  said  to 
have  been  possessed  by  Sihon  king  of  the  Amorites, 
and  the  other  half  by  Og  king  of  Bashan;  and  the 
river  Jabbok  was  the  division  between  the  two 
kingdoms  (Deut.  iii.  12;  Josh.  xii.  1-5).  The 
half  of  Gilead  posses3ed  by  Og  must,  therefore, 
have  been  north  of  the  Jabbok.  It  is  also  stated 
that  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Gad  extended  along 
the  Jordan  valley  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee  (Josh.  xiii. 
27);  and  yet  "a//  Bashan"  was  given  to  Manasseh 
(ver.  30).  We,  therefore,  conclude  that  the  deep 
glen  of  the  Hieromax,  which  runs  eastward,  on  the 
parallel  of  the  south  end  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  was 
the  dividing  line  between  Bashan  and  Gilead. 
North  of  that  glen  stretches  out  a  flat,  fertile  pla- 
teau, such  as  the  name  Bashan  ("J  ^21,  like  the 

Arabic     '^jJii,  signifies    "soft   and  level  soil") 

would  suggest;  while  on  the  south  we  have  the 
rough  and  rugged,  yet  picturesque  hill  country,  for 
which  Gilead  is  the  fit  name.  (See  Porter  in  Jour- 
nal of  Sac.  Lit.  vi.  284  ff.)  On  the  east  the 
mountain  range  melts  away  gradually  into  the  high 
plateau  of  Arabia.  The  boundary  of  Gilead  is  here 
not  so  clearly  defined,  but  it  may  be  regarded  as 
running  along  the  foot  of  the  range.  The  south- 
em  boundary  is  less  certain.  The  tribe  of  Reuben 
occupied  the  country  as  far  south  as  the  river  Ar- 
non,  which  was  the  border  of  Moab  (Deut.  ii.  36, 
iii.  12).  It  seems,  however,  that  the  southern  sec- 
tion of  their  territory  was  not  included  in  Gilead. 
In  Josh.  xiii.  9-11  it  is  intimated  that  the  "  plain 
of  Medeba  "  ("the  Mishor  "  it  is  called),  north  of 
the  Arnon,  is  not  in  Gilead ;  and  when  speaking 
of  the  cities  of  refuge,  INIoses  describes  Bezer,  which 
was  given  out  of  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  as  being 
"  in  the  wilderness,  in  the  plain  country  {i.  e.  in 

the  country  of  the  Mishor,''  IW^ipTl  V^S), 
while  Ramoth  is  said  to  be  in  Gilead  (Deut.  iv. 
43).  This  southern  plateau  was  also  called  "  the 
laud  of  Jazer"  (Num.  xxxii.  1;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6; 
compare  also  Josh.  xiii.  iG-25).  The  valley  of 
Heshbon  may  therefore,  in  all  probability,  be  the 
southern  boundary  of  Gilead.  Gilead  thus  extended 
from  the  parallel  of  the  south  end  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  to  that  of  the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  — 
about  60  miles ;  and  its  average  breadth  scarcely 
exceeded  20. 

While  such  were  the  proper  limits  of  Gilead, 
the  name  is  used  in  a  wider  sense  in  two  or  three 
parts  of  Scripture.  JNIoses,  for  example,  is  said  to 
nave  seen,  from  the  top  of  Pisgah,  "  all  the  land  of 
Gilead  unto  Dan  "  (Deut.  xxxiv.  1);  and  in  Judg. 
Kx.  1,  and  Josh.  xxii.  9,  the  name  seems  to  com- 
prehend the  whole  territory  of  the  Israelites  beyond 
the  Jordan.  A  little  attention  shows  that  this  is 
only  a  vague  way  of  speaking,  in  common  use 
everywhere.  We,  for  instance,  often  say  "  Eng- 
land "  when  we  mean  "  England  and  Wales."  The 
section  of  Gilead  l}'ing  between  the  Jabbok  and  the 
Hieromax  is  now  called  Jebel  Ajlun ;  while  that  to 
Ae  south  of  the  Jabbok  constitutes  the  modern 
•jrovince  of  Bdha.     One  of  the  most  conspicuous 


GILEAD 


925 


«  •  Mr.  Tristram  regards  the  peak  called  Jebel  Oska, 
M  the  ancient  Mount  Oilead,  saiu  oy  the  people  of  the 
wwitzy  to  rontain  the  tomb  of  Ilosea.     for  a  descrip- 


peaks  in  the  mountain  range  still  retains  the  an 
cient  name,  being  called  Jebel  J  Wad.,  "  Mouat 
Gilead."  «*  It  is  about  7  miles  south  of  the  Jabbok, 
and  commands  a  magnificent  view  over  the  whole 
Jordan  valley,  and  the  mountains  of  Judah  and 
Ephraim.  It  is  probably  the  site  of  Ramath-^SIiz- 
peh  of  Josh.  xiii.  20 ;  and  the  "  Mizpeh  of  Gilead," 
from  which  Jephthah  "  passed  over  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Amnion"  (Judg.  xi.  29).  The  spot  is 
admirably  adapted  for  a  gathering  place  in  time  of 
invasion,  or  aggressive  war.  The  neighboring  vil- 
lage of  es-Salt  occupies  the  site  of  the  old  "  city 
of  refuge  "  in  Gad,  Ramoth-Gilead.     [Ramoth- 

GlLEAD.] 

We  have  already  alluded  to  a  special  descriptive 
term,  which  may  almost  be  regarded  as  a  proper 
name,  used  to  denote  the  great  plateau  which  bor- 
ders Gilead  on  the  south  and  east.  The  refuge- 
city  Bezer  is  said  to  be  "  in  the  country  of  the 
Mishor'"  (Deut.  iv.  43);  and  Jeremiah  (xlviii.  21) 
says,  "judgment  is  come  upon  the  country  of  the 
Mishar  "  (see  also  Josh.  xiii.  9,  16,  17,  21,  xx.  8). 

Mishor  {'IMD^l^  and  1127"^^)  signifies  a  "  level 

plain,"  or  "table-land;"  and  no  word  could  be 
more  applicable.  This  is  one  among  many  exam- 
ples of  the  minute  accuracy  of  Bible  topography. 

The  mountains  of  Gilead  have  a  real  elevation 
of  from  two  to  three  thousand  feet ;  but  their  ap- 
parent elevation  on  the  western  side  is  much  greater, 
owing  to  the  depression  of  the  tlordan  valley,  which 
averages  about  1,000  feet.  Their  outline  is  singu- 
larly uniform,  resembling  a  massive  wall  ruiming 
along  the  horizon.  From  the  distant  east  they 
seem  very  low,  for  on  that  side  they  meet  the 
plateau  of  Arabia,  2,000  ft.  or  more  in  height. 
Though  the  range  appears  bleak  from  the  distance, 
yet  on  ascending  it  we  find  the  scenery  rich,  pictur- 
esque, and  in  places  even  grand.  The  summit  is 
broad,  almost  like  table-land  "  tossed  into  wild  con- 
fusion, of  undulating  downs"  (Stanley,  S.  (f  P.  p. 
320).  It  is  everywhere  covered  with  luxuriant 
nerbage.  In  the  extreme  north  and  south  there 
are  no  trees ;  but  as  we  advance  toward  the  centre 
they  soon  begin  to  appear,  at  first  singly,  then  in 
groups,  and  at  length,  on  each  side  of  the  Jabbok, 
in  fine  forests  chiefly  of  prickly  oak  and  terebinth. 
The  rich  pasture  land  of  Gilead  presents  a  striking 
contrast  to  the  nakedness  of  western  Palestine. 
Except  among  the  hills  of  Galilee,  and  along  the 
heights  of  Carmel,  there  is  nothing  to  be  compared 
with  it  as  "  a  place  for  cattle"  (Num.  xxxii.  1). 
Gilead  anciently  abounded  in  spices  and  aromatic 
gums  which  were  exported  to  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxvii. 
25;  Jer.  viii.  22,  xlvi.  11). 

The  first  notice  we  have  of  Gilead  is  in  con- 
nection with  the  history  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxi.  21 
ff. ) ;  but  it  is  possibly  this  same  region  which  ia 
referred  to  under  the  name  Ham,  and  was  inhabited 
by  the  giant  Zuzims.  The  kings  of  the  East  who 
came  to  punish  the  rebellious  "  cities  of  the  plain," 
first  attacked  the  Rephaims  in  Ashteroth  Karnaim, 
i.  e.  in  the  country  now  called  Ilauran  ;  then  they 
advanced  southwards  against  the  "  Zuzims  in 
Ham ; "  and  next  against  the  Emims  in  Shaveh- 
Kiriathaim,  which  was  subsequently  possessed  by 
the  Moabites  (Gen.  xiv.  5;  Deut.  ii.  9-19).  [See 
Emi3IS;  Rephaim.]     We  hear  nothing  more  of 


tion  of  the  magnificent  view 
Land  of  Israel^  p.  558, 1st  ed. 


that  summit,  set 
h 


926 


GILEAD 


urilead  till  the  invasion  of  the  country  by  the 
fgraelites.  One  half  of  it  was  then  in  the  hands 
of  Sihon  king  of  the  Amorites,  who  had  a  short 
time  previously  driven  out  the  Afoabites.  Og,  king 
of  Bashan,  had  the  other  section  north  of  tlie  Jab- 
bok.  The  Israelites  defeated  the  former  at  Jahaz, 
and  the  latter  at  Edrei,  and  took  possession  of  Gilead 
and  Bashan  (Num.  xxi.  23  ff.).  The  rich  pasture 
land  of  Gilead,  with  its  shady  forests,  and  copious 
streams,  attracted  the  attention  of  IJeuben  and  Gad, 
who  "had  a  very  great  multitude  of  cattle,"  and 
was  allotted  to  them.  The  future  history  and  habits 
of  the  tribes  that  occupied  Gilead  were  greatly 
affected  by  the  character  of  the  country.  Rich  in 
flocks  and  herds,  and  now  the  lords  of  a  fitting 
region,  they  retained,  almost  unchanged,  the  nomad 
pastoral  habits  of  their  patriarchal  ancestors.  Like 
all  Bedawln  they  lived  in  a  constant  state  of  war- 
fare, just  as  Jacob  had  predicted  of  Gad  —  "a  troop 
shall  plunder  him;  but  he  shall  plunder  at  the 
last"  (Gen.  xlix.  19).  The  sons  of  Tshmael  were 
subdued  and  plundered  in  the  time  of  Saul  (1  Chr. 
V.  9  fF.);  and  the  children  of  Ammon  in  the  days 
of  Jephthah  and  David  (Judg.  xi.  32  fF.;  2  Sam. 
X.  12  fF.).  Their  wandering  tent  life,  and  their 
almost  inaccessible  country,  made  them  in  ancient 
times  what  the  Bedavvy  tribes  are  now  —  the  pro- 
tectors of  the  refugee  and  the  outlaw.  In  Gilead 
the  sons  of  Saul  found  a  home  while  they  vainly 
attempted  to  reestablish  the  authority  of  their 
house  (2  Sam.  ii.  8  fF.).  Here,  too,  David  found 
a  sanctuary  during  the  unnatural  rebellion  of  a 
beloved  son;  and  the  surrounding  tribes,  with  a 
characteristic  hospitality,  carried  presents  of  the 
best  they  possessed  to  the  fallen  monarch  (2  Sam. 
xvii.  22  fF.).  Elijah  the  Tishbite  was  a  Gileadite 
(1  K.  xvii.  1);  and  in  his  simple  garb,  wild  aspect, 
abrupt  address,  wonderfully  active  habits,  and 
movements  so  rapid  as  to  evade  the  search  of  his 
watchful  and  bitter  foes,  we  see  all  the  character- 
istics of  the  genuine  Bedawy,  ennobled  by  a  high 
prophetic  mission.     [Gad.] 

Gilead  was  a  frontier  land,  exposed  to  the  first 
attacks  of  the  Syrian  and  Assyrian  invaders,  and 
to  the  unceasing  raids  of  the  desert  tribes  —  "  Be- 
cause Machir  the  first-born  of  Manasseh  was  a  man 
of  war,  therefore  he  had  Bashan  and  Gilead  "  (Josh. 
xvii.  1).  Under  the  wild  and  wayward  Jephthah, 
Mizpeh  of  Gilead  became  the  gathering  place  of  the 
trans-Jordanic  tribes  (Judg.  xi.  29);  and  in  subse- 
quent times  the  neighboring  stronghold  of  Ramoth- 
Gilead  appears  to  have  been  considered  the  key  of 
Palestine  on  the  east  (1  K.  xxii.  3,  4,  6 ;  2  K.  viii. 
28,  ix.  1). 

The  name  Galaad  {TaKadZ)  occurs  several  times 
in  the  history  of  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  v.  9  fF.): 
and  also  in  Josephus,  but  generally  with  the  Greek 
termination  —  YaKaaBlris  or  TaKahrivh  {Ant.  xiii. 
14,  §  2;  B.  J.  i.  4,  §  J).  Under  the  Roman 
dominion  the  country  became  more  settled  and 
civilized ;  and  the  great  cities  of  Gadara,  Pella,  and 
Gerasa,  with  Philadelphia  on  its  southeastern  border, 
speedily  rose  to  opulence  and  splendor.  In  one  of 
these  (Pella)  the  Christians  of  Jerusalem  found  a 
lanctuary  when  the  armies  of  Titus  gathered  round 
the  devoted  city  (Euseb.  If.  K.  iii.  5).  Under 
Mohammedan  rule  the  country  has  again  lapsed 
Into  semi- barbarism.    Some  scattered  villages  amid 


o  *  Probably  a  patronymic  —  "^Tl?^!!,  a  Gileadite, 
M  Jeohthah  is  called  both  when  first  and  last  men- 
(Judg.  xi.  1,  and  xii.  7).     The  pei-soual  name 


GILEADITES,  THE 

the  fastnesses  of  Jthd  Ajltin,  and  a  few  fierce  mm 
dering  tribes,  constitute  the  whole  population  of 
Gilead.  They  are  nominally  subject  to  the  Porte 
but  their  allegiance  sits  lightly  upon  them. 

For  the  scenery,  products,  antiquities,  and  history 
of  Gilead,  the  following  works  may  be  consulted. 
Burckhardt's  Trav.  in  Syr. ;  Buckingham's  Ai'ab 
Tribes ;  Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels ;  Porter's 
Handbook,  and  Five  Years  in  Damascus ;  Stanley's 
Sin.  and  Pal.  ;  Hitter's  Pal.  and  Syria. 

2.  Possibly  the  name  of  a  mountain  west  of  the 
Jordan,  near  Jezreel  (Judg.  vii.  3).  We  are  in- 
clined, however,  to  agree  with  the  suggestion  of 
Clericus  and  others,  that  the  true  reading  in  this 

place  should  be  3?2 /2,  Gilboa,  instead, of  "Tr/S. 
Gideon  was  encamped  at  the  "  spring  of  Harod," 
which  is  at  the  base  of  Mount  Gilboa.  A  copyist 
would  easily  make  the  mistake,  and  ignorance  of 
geography  would  prevent  it  from  being  afterwarda 
detected.  For  other  explanations,  see  Ewald,  Gesch. 
ii.  500;  Schwarz,  p.  164,  note;  Gesen.  Thes.  p. 
804,  note. 

*  As  regards  Gilead  (2),  Bertheau  also  (Buck  der 
Richter,  p.  120),  would  substitute  (jilboa  for  that 
name  in  Judg.  vii.  3.  Keil  and  DeUtzsch  hesitate 
between  that  view  and  the  conclusion  that  there 
may  have  been  a  single  mountain  or  a  range  so 
called  near  Jezreel,  just  as  in  Josh.  xv.  10,  we 
read  of  a  jNIount  Seir  in  the  territory  of  Judah 
otherwise  unknown  ( Com.  on  Joslma,  Judfjes,  and 
Ruth,  p.  341).  Dr.  Wordsworth  has  the  following 
note  on  this  perplexed  question  :  "  Probably  the 
western  half-tribe  of  INIanasseh  expressed  its  con- 
nection with  the  eastern  half-tribe  by  calling  one 
of  its  mountains  by  the  same  name,  INIount  Gilead, 
as  the  famous  mountain  bearing  that  name  in  the 
eastern  division  of  their  tribe  (Gen.  xxxi.  21-25, 
xxxvii.  25;  Num.  xxxii.  1,  40,  &c.).  May  we  not 
see  '  a  return  of  the  compliment '  (if  the  expres- 
sion may  be  used)  in  another  name  which  has 
perplexed  the  conmientators,  namely,  the  Wood  of 
Ephraim  on  the  eastern  side  of  Jordan  (2  Sam. 
xviii.  6)  ?  Ephraim  was  on  the  west  of  Jordan,  and 
yet  the  Wood  of  Ephraim  was  on  the  east.  1  'erhaps 
that  half-tribe  of  Manasseh,  which  was  in  the  east, 
marked  its  connection  with  Ephraim,  its  brother 
tribe,  by  calling  a  wood  in  its  own  neighborhood 
by  that  name."  (See  his  Holy  Bible  uitli  Notes, 
ii.  pt.  i.  p.  111.)  Cassel  {Ridtter,  p.  71)  thinks 
that  Gilead  here  may  denote  in  effect  character 
rather  than  locality:  the  Mottnt  of  Gilead^ the 
community  of  the  warlike  ]Manassites  (Josh.  xvii. 
1),  now  so  fitly  represented  by  Gideon,  sprung  from 
that  tribe  (Judg.  vi.  15).  The  cowardly  deserve  no 
place  in  the  home  of  such  heroes,  and  should  sep- 
arate themselves  from  them.  H. 

3.  The  name  of  a  son  of  Machir,  grandson  of 
Manasseh  (Num.  xxvi.  29,  30). 

4.  The  father  of  Jeplithah  (Judg.  xi.  1,  2).  It 
is  difficult  to  understand  (comp.  ver.  7,  8)  whether 
this  Gilead  was  an  individual  or  a  personification 
of  the  community." 

*  5.  One  of  the  posterity  of  Gad,  through  whom 
the  genealogy  of  the  Gadites  in  Bashan  is  traced 
(1  Chr.  v.  14).  11. 

GIL'EADITES,  THE   ("T^^2   Judg.  xU 


of  the  father  being:  unknown,  that  of  his  country 
stands  in  place  of  it.  See  Cassel,  Riehter  u.  Ruth  ii 
Lange's  Bibeliverk,  p.  102.  11 


GILGAL 

1,6,  *''T5?v2rT:  Judg.  xii.  4,  5,  TaAaaS;  Num. 
nvi.  29,  TaXaadi  [Vat.  -Set];  Judg.  x.  3,  6 
r<f\adS;  [Judg.  xi.  1,  40,  xii.  7;  2  Sam.  xvii.  27, 
lix.  31;  i  K.  ii.  7;  Ezr.  ii.  61;  Neh.  vii.  03,]  6 
raAaadlrr]?  [Vat.  -Set-,  exc.  Judg.  xi.  40,  Vat. 
FoAaaS] ;  Alex,  o  TaAaaStTis,  o  Ta\aaSeiTr)s, 
[and  Judg.  xii.  5,  ai/dpes  TaAaoS:]  Galaddikn. 
Galaadites,  viri  Galiad).  A  branch  of  the  tribe  of 
Manasseh,  descended  from  Gilead.  There  appears  to 
have  been  an  old  standing  feud  between  them  and 
the  Ephraimites,  who  taunted  them  with  being 
deserters.  See  Judg.  xii.  4,  which  may  be  ren- 
dered, "  And  the  men  of  Gilead  smote  Ephraim, 
Ijecause  they  said,  Runagates  of  Ephraim  ai-e  ye 
(Gilead  is  between  Ephraim  and  Manasseh);  "  the 
last  clause  being  added  parenthetically.  In  2  K. 
XV.  25  for  "  of  the  Gileadites  "  the  LXX.  have  ctTr^ 
Twi/  TeTpaKocrioou  [Vulg.  deJUiis  Galaiditarurn]. 

GIL'GAL  (always  with  the  article  but  once, 
727il'!75  [^^*^  circuit,  the  rolling,  see  below]: 
roA7oAa  (plural);  [in  Deut.  xi.  30,  ro\y6A;  Josh. 
xiv.  6,  Rom.  Vat.  TaAyaA:]  Gcdynla  [sing,  and 
plur.]).  By  this  name  were  called  at  least  two 
places  in  ancient  Palestine. 

1.  The  site  of  the  first  camp  of  the  Israelites  on 
the  west  of  the  Jordan,  the  place  at  which  they 
passed  the  fii-st  night  after  crossing  the  river,  and 
where  the  twelve  stones  were  set  up  which  had 
been  taken  from  the  bed  of  the  stream  (Josh.  iv.  19, 
20,  corap.  3);  where  also  they  kept  their  first  pass- 
over  in  the  land  of  Canaan  (v.  10).     It  was  in  the 

"end  of  the  east  of  Jericho  "  ('*»  VH^l^  n;^i72  : 
A.  V.  "  in  the  east  border  of  Jericho  "),  apparently 
on  a  hillock  or  rising  ground  (v.  3,  comp.  9)  in  the 
Arboth-Jericho  (A.  V.  "the  plains"),  that  is,  the 
hot  depressed  district  of  the  Ghor  which  lay  be- 
tween the  town  and  the  Jordan  (v.  10).  Here  the 
Israelites  who  had  been  born  on  the  march  through 
the  wilderness  were  circumcised  ;  an  occurrence 
from  which  the  sacred  historian  derives  the  name: 
■"  '  This  day  I  have  rolled  away  {(jnlliothi)  the  re- 
proach of  Egypt  from  oft'  you.'  Therefore  the  name 
of  the  place  is  called  Gilgal"  to  this  day."  By 
Joseph  us  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  11)  it  is  said  to  signify 
"freedom"  (iXevOepiou)-  The  camp  thus  estab- 
lished at  Gilgal  remained  there  during  the  early 
part  of  the  conquest  (ix.  6,  x.  G,  7,  9,  15,  43);  and 
we  may  probably  infer  from  one  narrative  that 
Joshua  retired  thither  at  the  conclusion  of  his 
labors  (xiv.  6,  comp.  15). 

We  again  encounter  Gilgal  in  the  time  of  Saul, 
when  it  seems  to  have  exchanged  its  military  asso- 
ciations for  those  of  sanctity.  True,  Saul,  when 
driven  from  the  highlands  by  the  Philistines,  col- 
lected his  feeble  force  at  the  site  of  the  old  camp 
(1  Sam.  xiii.  4,  7);  but  this  is  the  only  occurren*.? 
it  all  connecting  it  vath  war.  It  was  now  one  of 
the  "holy  cities"  (ot  rjyiacr/jLfuoi)  —  if  we  accept 
the  addition  of  the  LXX.  —  to  which  Samuel  reg- 
ilarly  resorted,  where  he  administered  justice  (1 
Sam.  vii.  10),  and  wiiere  burnt-offerings  and  peace - 
Dlferings  were  accustomed  to  be  offered  "before 
"Jehovah"  (x.  8,  xi.  15,  xiii.  8,  9-12,  xv.  21);  and 
on  one  occasion  a  sacrifice  of  a  more  terrible  de- 


o  This  derivation  of  the  name  ;annot  apply  in  tae 
case  of  the  other  Gilgals  mentioned  below.  May  it 
not  1>>  the  adaptation  to  Hebrew  of  a  name  previously 
iziating  m  the  former  language  of  the  country  ? 

ft  Such  is  the  real  force  \^  the  Hebrew  text  (xix.  40). 


GILGAL  927 

scription  than  either  (xv.  33)-  The  ah*  of  ih% 
narrative  all  through  leads  to  the  conclusion  tl:at 
at  the  time  of  these  occurrences  it  was  the  chiei 
sanctuary  of  the  central  portion  of  the  nation  (see 
X.  8,  xi.  14,  XV.  12,  21).  But  there  is  no  sign  of 
its  being  a  town ;  no  mention  of  building,  or  of  ita 
being  allotted  to  the  priests  or  Levites,  as  was  the 
case  with  other  sacred  towns,  Bethel,  Shechem,  etc. 

We  again  have  a  glimpse  of  it,  some  sixty  ye:ir8 
later,  in  the  history  of  David's  return  to  Jerusalem 
(2  Sam.  xix.).  The  men  of  Judah  came  down  to 
Gilgal  to  meet  the  king  to  conduct  him  over  Jordan, 
as  if  it  was  close  to  the  river  (xix.  15)  and  David 
arrived  there  immediately  on  crossing  the  stream, 
after  his  parting  with  Barzillai  the  Gileadite. 

How  the  remarkable  sanctity  of  Gilgal  became 
appropriated  to  a  false  worship  we  are  not  told,  but 
certainly,  as  far  as  the  obscure  allusions  of  Hosea 
and  Amos  can  be  understood  (provided  that  they 
refer  to  this  Gilgal),  it  was  so  appropriated  by  the 
.kingdom  of  Israel  in  the  middle  period  of  ita 
existence  (Hos.  iv.  15,  ix.  15,  xii.  11;  Amos  iv. 
4,  V.  5). 

Beyond  the  general  statements  above  quoted,  the 
sacred  text  contains  no  indications  of  the  position 
of  Gilgal.  Neither  in  the  Apocr3pha  nor  the  N.  T. 
is  it  mentioned.  Later  authorities  ai-e  more  precise, 
but  unfortunately  discordant  among  themselves. 
By  Josephus  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  4)  the  encampment  is 
given  as  fifty  stadia,  rather  under  six  miles,  from 
the  river,  and  ten  from  Jericho.  In  the  time  of 
Jerome  the  site  of  the  camp  and  the  twelve 
memorial  stones  were  still  distinguishable,  if  we 
are  to  take  literally  the  expression  of  the  Epit. 
Paulce  (§  12).  The  distance  from  Jericho  waa 
then  two  miles.  The  spot  was  left  uncultivated, 
but  regarded  with  great  veneration  by  the  residents; 
"  locus  desertus  .  .  •  ab  illius  regionis  mortalibug 
miro  cultu  habitus"  {Ononi.  Galgala).  When 
Arculf  was  there  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  century 
the  place  was  shown  at  five  miles  from  Jericho.  A 
large  church  covered  the  site,  in  which  the  twelve 
stones  were  ranged.  The  church  and  stones  were 
seen  by  Willibald,  thirty  years  later,  but  he  gives 
the  distance  as  five  miles  from  the  Jordan,  which 
again  he  states  correctly  as  seven  from  Jericho. 
The  stones  are  mentioned  also  by»Thietmar,<'  A.  d. 
1217,  and  lastly  by  Ludolf  de  Suchem  a  century 
later.  No  modern  traveller  has  succeeded  in  elicit- 
ing the  name,  or  in  discovering  a  probable  site.  In 
Van  de  Velde's  map  (1858)  a  spot  named  Mohai-fei\ 
a  little  S.  E.  of  er-Riha,  is  marked  as  possible;  but 
no  explanation  is  afforded  either  in  bis  Syria,  or 
his  Memoir. 

2.  But  this  was  certainly  a  distinct  place  from 
the  Gilgal  which  is  connected  with  the  last  seem 
in  the  life  of  Elijah,  and  with  one  of  Elisha't 
miracles.  The  chief  reason  for  believing  this  is  the 
impossibility  of  making  it  fit  into  the  notice  of 
Elijah's  translation.     He  and    Elisha  are  said  to 

"  go  down  "  {^Ty^)  from  Gilgal  to  Bethel  (2  K 
ii.  1),  in  opposition  to  the  repeated  expressions  ol 
the  narratives  in  Joshua  and  1  Samuel,  in  which 
the  way  from  Gilgal  to  the  neighborhood  of  Bethel 
is  always  spoken  of  as  an  ascent,  the  fact  being 
that  the  former  is  nearly  1,200  feet  below  the  latter 
Thus  there  must  have  been  a  second  Gilgal  at  a 

c  According  to  this  pilgrim,  it  was  to  these  tha< 
John  the  Baptist  pointed  when  he  said  that  God  was 
"  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  VLuvt 
Abraham"  (Thietmar,  Peregr.  Zl\. 


928 


GILOH 


higber  level  than  Bethel,  and  it  wJtS  probably  that 
at  which  Elisha  worked  the  miracle  of  healing  on 
the  poisonous  jwttage  (2  K.  iv.  38).  Perhaps  the 
expression  of  2  K.  ii.  1,  coupled  with  the  "  came 
again  "  of  iv.  38,  may  indicate  that  Elisha  resided 
there.  The  mention  of  Baal-shalisha  (iv.  42)  gives 
a  clew  to  its  situation,  when  taken  with  the  notice 
of  Eusebius  ( Oiiam.  Bethsarisa)  that  that  place  was 
fifteen  miles  from  Diospolis  (Lydda)  towards  the 
north.  In  that  very  position  stand  now  the  ruins 
bearing  the  name  of  Jiljilleh,  i.  e.  Gilgal.  (See 
V^an  de  Velde's  map,  and  Rob.  iii.  139.) 

3,  The    "KING  OF  THE  NATIONS  OF  GiLGAL," 

or  rather  perhaps  the  "  king  of  Goim-at-Gilgal " 

(b|^;^  D'^'ll-'qlpn  :   [fia<n\eifs  Tef  rrjs  FaKt- 

Kaiai]  Alex.  fi.  Tcoeifi  rris  TeA-yea  (conip.  Aid. 
roA76A.):  rex  fjentium  Galffcd]),  is  mentioned  in 
the  catalogue  of  the  chiefs  overthrown  by  Joshua 
(Josh.  xii.  23).  The  name  occurs  next  to  Dok  in 
an  enumeration  apparently  proceeding  southwards, 
and  therefore  the  position  of  the  Jiljilieh  just  named 
is  not  wholly  inappropriate,  though  it  must  be  con- 
fessed its  distance  from  Dor  —  more  than  twenty- 
five  miles  —  is  considerable :  still  it  is  nearer  than 
any  other  place  of  the  name  yet  known.  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  (  Onom.  Gelgel)  speak  of  a  "  Galgulis  " 
six  miles  N.  of  Antipatris.  This  is  slightly  more 
suitable,  but  has  not  been  identified.  Wliat  these 
Goim  were  has  been  discussed  under  Heathen. 
By  that  word  (Judg.  iv.  2)  or  "  nations "  (Gen. 
xiv.  1)  the  name  is  usually  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
as  in  the  well-known  phrase,  "  Galilee  of  the 
nations"  (Is.  ix.  1;  corap.  Matt.  iv.  15).  Possibly 
they  were  a  tribe  of  the  early  inhabitants  of  the 
country,  who,  like  the  Gerizites,  the  Avim,  the 
Zemarites,  and  others,  have  left  only  this  faint 
casual  trace  of  their  existence  there. 

A  place  of  the  same  name  has  also  been  discovered 
nearer  the  centre  of  the  country,  to  the  left  of  the 
main  north  road,  four  miles  from  Shiloh  (Seilun), 
and  rather  more  than  the  same  distance  from  Bethel 
(Beitin).  This  suits  the  requirements  of  the  story 
of  Elijah  and  Elisha  even  better  than  the  former, 
being  more  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  established 
holy  places  of  the  country,  and,  as  more  central, 
and  therefore  less  liable  to  attack  from  the  wan- 
derers in  the  mailtime  plain,  more  suited  for  the 
residence  for  the  sons  of  the  prophets.  In  position 
it  appears  to  be  not  less  than  500  or  600  feet  above 
Bethel  (Van  de  Velde,  Memoir,  p.  179).  It  may 
be  the  Beth-Gilgal  of  Neh.  xii.  29 ;  while  the  Jil- 
jilieh  north  of  Lydd  may  be  that  of  Josh.  xii.  23. 
Another  Gilgal,  under  the  slightly  different  form  of 
Kilkille/i,  lies  about  two  miles  E.  of  KeJ'r  Saba. 

4.  [ra\yd\;  Vat.  tu  A7aS:  Galf/ala.]  A 
Gilgal  is  spoken  of  in  Josh.  xv.  7,  in  describing  the 
north  border  of  Judah.  In  the  parallel  list  (Josh, 
xviii.  17)  it  is  given  as  Geliloth,  and  under  that 
word  an  attempt  is  made  to  show  that  Gilgal,  i.  e. 
the  Gilgal  near  Jericho,  is  probably  correct.     G. 

GI'LOH  (n  "^2  [exile.  Ges. ;  or,  castle,  mount, 
Dietr.T:  TTjActi/i,  Alex.  rrjAcoj/;  [Vat.  om.;  Comp. 
ViXw ;']  in  Sam.  TcoAa,  [Comp.  reAc6 :  Gilo] ),  a  town 
in  the  mountainous  part  of  Judah,  named  in  the 
first  group,  with  Debir  and  Eshtemoh  (Josh.  xv.  51). 
Its  only  interest  to  us  lies  in  the  fact  of  its  having 
been  the  native  place  of  the  famous  Ahithophel  (2 
Sam.  XV.  12),  where  he  was  residing  when  Absalom 
•ent  for  him  to  Hebron,  and  whither  he  returned 
tD  destroy  himself  after  his  counsel  had  been  set 


GIRDLE 

aside  for  that  of  Hushai  (xvii.  23).     The  tiie  im 

not  yet  been  met  N\ith. 

GIXONITE,  THE  {"'''^''^'n  and  ''bblirT ' 
©e/cwj/t  [Vat.  -j/6t],  reAwyiTTjs  [Vat.  -j/fi-],  Alex 
Ti\(avaios,  {TeiKwuLTtis-  Gilonites]),  i.  e.  the  na- 
tive of  Giloh  (as  Shilonite,  from  Shiloh):  applied 
only  to  Ahithophel  the  famous  counsellor  (2  Sam. 
XV.  12;  xxiii.  34). 

GIM'ZO  (Trp2  [place  of  sycamores]:  -f] 
ro^^c6;  Alex.  ra/lai(at'-  [Gamzo]),  a  town  which 
with  its  dependent  villages  (Hebrew  "daughters") 
was  taken  possession  of  by  the  Philistines  in  the 
reign  of  Ahaz  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  18).  The  name  — 
which  occurs  nowhere  but  here  —  is  mentioned  with 
Timnath,  Socho,  and  other  towns  in  the  northwest 
part  of  Judah,  or  in  Dan.  It  still  remains  attached 
to  a  large  village  between  two  and  three  miles  S.  W . 
of  Lydda,  south  of  the  road  between  Jerusalem  and 
Jaffa,  just  where  the  hills  of  the  highland  finally 
break  down  hi  to  the  mai-itime  plain.  Jimzu  is  a 
tolerably  large  village,  on  an  eminence,  well  sur- 
rounded with  trees,  and  standing  just  beyond  the 
point  where  the  two  main  roads  trom  Jerusalen? 
(that  by  the  Beth-horons,  and  that  by  Wady  Sn-- 
leiman),  which  parted  at  Gibeon,  again  join  and 
run  on  as  one  to  Jaffa.  It  is  remarkable  for  noth- 
ing but  some  extensive  corn  magazines  underground, 
unless  it  be  also  for  the  silence  maintained  regard- 
ing it  by  all  travellers  up  to  Dr.  Ivobuison  (ii.  249). 

G. 

GIN,  a  trap  for  birds  or  beasts :  it  consisted  of 
a  net  (HQ),  and  a  stick  to  act  as  a  springe  (tTpl^) ; 
the  latter  word  is  translated  "gin"  in  the  A.  V. 
Am.  iii.  5,  and  the  former  in  Is.  viii.  14,  the  term 
"  snare  "  being  in  each  case  used  for  the  other  part 
of  the  trap.  In  Job  xl.  24  (marginal  translation) 
the  second  of  these  terms  is  applied  to  the  ring  run 
through  the  nostrils  of  an  animal.        W.  L.  B. 

GI'NATH  {i^T^  [protection,  Fiirst;  or, 
(jarden,  Gesen.]  :  TcavdQ'-  Gineth),  father  of  Tibni, 
who  after  the  death  of  Zimri  disputed  the  throne 
of  Israel  with  Omri  (1  K.  xvi.  21,  22). 

GIN'NETHO  (^"inpS  [gardener],  i.  e.  Giu- 
nethoi:  fKom.  Vat.  Alex,  omit;  FA.-^  TevvriBovi 
Comp.  re»/o0a>i/O   Genthon),  one  of  the  "chief 

("'trS*l  =  heads)  of  the  priests  and  Levites  who 
returned  to  Judaea  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  4). 
He  is  doubtless  the  same  jierson  as 

GIN'NETHON  (]"in32  [as  above] :  Tavva- 
ddcv,  Tauadwe;  [in  x.  6,  Vat.  TvaToO,  Alex.  Taav- 
vaQwv,  EA.  PLvarwd'-,  in  xii.  10,  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i 
omit:]  Genthon),  a  priest  who  sealed  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  6).  He  was  head  of  a 
family,  and  one  of  his  descendants  is  mentioned  in 
the  list  of  priests  and  Levites  at  a  later  period  (xii. 
16).  He  is  probably  the  same  person  as  the  pre- 
ceding. 

GIRDLE,  an  essential  article  of  dress  in  tne 
East,  and  worn  both  by  men  and  women.     The 

corresponding  Hebrew  words  are:   (1.)  "I^-H  or 

mi]2n,  which  is  the  general  term  for  a  girdle  of 
any  kind,  whether  worn  by  soldiers,  as  1  Sam. 
xviii.  4,  2  Sam.  xx.  8,  1  K.  ii.  5,  2  K.  iii.  21;  or 

by  women,  Is.  iii.  24.  (2.)  "1")TS,  especially  usei 
of  the  girdles  worn  by  men ;  whether  by  prbpbeta 


GIRDLE 

1  !*. '..  *,  Jer.  xiii.  1;  soldiers,  Is.  v.  27;  Ez.  xxiii. 
15 ,  o*  kings  in  their  military  capacity,  Job  xii.  18. 

(3.)  r.TD  or  n'^tp,  used  of  the  girdle  worn  by 
men  ^.one,  Job  xii'.  21,  Ps.  cix.  19,  Is.  xxiii.  10. 
(4.)  T^JllW,  the  girdle  worn  by  tne  priests  and  state 
officp  i  In  addition  to  these,  ^'^J'^H?,  Is.  iii. 
24,  y  a  costly  girdle  worn  by  women.  The  Vul- 
gate rjiiders  it  Jascia  ptctoraUs.  It  would  thus 
seem  tv  correspond  with  the  Latin  strophmm,  a 
belt  vvc  n  by  women  about  the  breast.  In  the 
LXX.  However,  it  is  translated  x^'''^"  fjLe(roTr6p- 
(pvpos,  *•  a  tunic  shot  with  purple,"  and  Gesenius 
[Thes'.j  has  '•'■buntes  Feyerkkid''  (comp.  Schroe- 
der,   de    Vest.   Mul.  pp.    137,   138,  404).      The 

D'^n^tJ^  I  mentioned  in  Is.  iii.  20,  Jer.  11.  32,  were 
probabl}'  girdles,  although  both  Kimchi  and  Jarchi 
consider  them  as  fillets  for  the  hair.  In  the  latter 
passage  the  Vulgate  has  again  fascia  jJecioi-alis, 
and  the  LXX.  (TT-ndoBeafiis,  an  appropriate  bridal 
ornamer.t. 

The  common  girdle  was  made  of  leather  (2  K. 
i.  8 ;  Matt.  iii.  4),  like  that  worn  by  the  Bedouins  of 
the  present  day,  whom  Curzon  describes  as  "  armed 
with  a  long  crooked  knife,  and  a  pistol  or  two  stuck 
in  a  red  leathern  girdle"  (Monast.  of  the  Levant, 
p.  7).  In  the  time  of  Chardin  the  nobles  of  INIin- 
grelia  wore  girdles  of  leather,  four  fingers  broad, 
and  embossed  with  silver.  A  finer  girdle  was  made 
of  linen  (Jer.  xiii.  1;  Ez.  xvi.  10),  embroidered 
with  silk,  and  sometimes  with  gold  and  silver  thread 
(Uan.  X.  5;  Rev.  i.  13,  xv.  6),  and  frequently 
studded  with  gold  and  precious  stones  or  pearls 
(Le  Bruyn,  Voy.  iv.  170;  comp.  Virg.  ^n.  ix. 
359 ).«  Morier  {Second  Journey,  p.  150),  describ- 
ing the  dress  of  the  Armenian  women,  says,  "  they 
wear  a  silver  girdle  which  rests  on  the  hips,  and  is 
generally  curiously  wrought."  The  manufacture 
of  these  girdles  formed  part  of  the  employment  of 
women  (Frov.  xxxi.  24). 

The  girdle  was  fastened  by  a  clasp  of  gold  or 
silver,  or  tied  in  a  knot  so  that  the  ends  hung 
down  in  front,  as  in  the  figures  on  the  ruins  of 
Persepolis.     It  was  worn  by  men  about  the  loins, 

hence  the  expressions  0*^30^  "^"^^i??)  Is.  xi.   5; 

D'^^bn  "I'lTS,  Is.  v.  27.  The  girdle  of  women 
was  generally  looser  than  that  of  the  men,  and  was 
worn  about  the  hips,  except  when  they  were  act- 
ively engaged  (Prov.  xxxi.  17).  Curzon  (p.  58), 
describing  the  dress  of  the  Egyptian  women,  says, 
"  not  round  the  waist,  but  round  the  hips  a  large 
and  heavy  Cashmere  shawl  is  worn  over  the  yelek, 
and  the  whole  gracefulness  of  an  Egyptian  dress 
consists  in  the  way  in  which  this  is  put  on."  The 
military  girdle  was  worn  about  the  waist,  the 
sword  or  dagger  was  suspended  from  it  (Judg.  iii. 
16;  2  Sam.  xx.  8;  Ps.  xlv.  3).  In  the  Nineveh 
sculptures  the  soldiers  are  represented  with  broad 
girdles,  to  which  the  sword  is  attached,  and  through 
which  even  two  or  three  daggers  in  a  sheath  are 
passed.  Q.  Curtius  (iii.  3)  says  of  Darius,  "zona 
aurea  rauliebriter  cinctus  acinacem  suspenderat,  cui 
ex  gemma  erat  vagina."  Hence  girding  up  the  loins 
denotes  preparation  for  battle  or  for  active  exertion. 
In  times  of  mourning,  girdles  of  sackcloth  were 


GIRGASHITES,  THE 


929 


a  *  In  contrast  with  such  girdles,  John's  was  "  a 
leathern  girdle  "  (Matt.  iii.  4),  in  conformity  with  lue 
Bimple  habits  whicli  characterized  the  stern  reformev. 

H. 


worn  as  marks  of  humihation  and  sorrow  (Ig.  iii 
24;  xxii.  12). 

In  consequence  of  the  costly  materials  of  which 
girdles  were  made,  they  were  frequently  given  as 
presents  (1  Sam.  xviii.  4;  2  Sam.  xviii.  11),  as  is 
still  the  custom  in  Persia  (cf.  Morier,  p.  93). 
Villages  were  given  to  the  queens  of  Persia  to 
supply  them  with  girdles  (Xenoph.  Anab.  i.  4,  §  9 ; 
Plat.  Ale.  i.  p.  123). 

They  were  used  as  pockets,  as  among  the  Arabs 
still  (Niebuhr,  Descr.  p.  50),  and  as  purses,  one 
end  of  the  girdle  being  folded  back  for  the  purpose 
(Matt.  X.  9;  Mark  vi.  8).  Hence  "zonam  per- 
dere,"  "  to  lose  one's  purse  "  (Hor.  Episl.  ii.  2,  40; 
comp.  Juv.  xiv.  297).  Inkhorns  were  also  carried 
in  the  girdle  (Ez.  ix.  2). 

The  t^?.?^,  or  girdle  worn  by  the  priests  about 
the  close-fitting  tunic  (Ex.  xxviii.  39;  xxxix.  29), 
is  described  by  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  2)  as  made 
of  hnen  so  fine  of  texture  as  to  look  like  the  slough 
of  a  snake,  and  embroidered  with  flowers  of  scarlet, 
purple,  blue,  and  fine  linen.  It  was  about  four 
fingers'  broad,  and  was  wrapped  several  times 
round  the  priest's  body,  the  ends  hanging  down  to 
the  feet.  When  engaged  in  sacrifice,  the  priest 
threw  the  ends  over  his  left  shoulder.  According 
to  Maimonides  {de  Vas.  Sanct.  c.  8),  the  girdle 
worn  both  by  the  high-priest  and  the  common 
priests  was  of  white  linen  embroidered  with  wool^ 
but  that  worn  by  the  high-priest  on  the  day  of 
Atonement  was  entirely  of  white  linen.  The  length 
of  it  was  thirty-two  cubits,  and  the  breadth  about 
three  fingers.  It  was  worn  just  below  the  arm- 
pits to  avoid  perspiration  (comp.  Ez.  xliv.  18). 
Jerome  {Ep.  ad  Fabiolam,  de  Vest.  Sac.)  follows 
Josephus.  With  regard  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  girdle   was   embroidered,  the   "needlework' 

(D|T1  nt275^,  Ex.  xxviii.  39)  is  distinguished  iu 

the  INIishna  from  the  "  cunning-work "  (ntt75?i2 

;3E?n,  Ex.  xxvi.  31)  as  being  worked  by  the  needle 
with  figures  on  one  side  only,  whereas  the  latter 
was  woven  work  with  figures  on  both  sides  ( Cod, 
Joma,  c.  8).  So  also  Maimonides  {de  Vas.  Sand 
viii.  35).  But  Jarchi  on  Ex.  xxvi.  31,  36,  explahis 
the  difference  as  consisting  in  this,  that  in  the 
former  case  the  figures  on  the  two  sides  are  the 
same,  whereas  in  the  latter  they  are  different. 
[Embkoiderek.] 

In  all  passages,  except  Is.  xxii.  21,  ^35^  "^ 
used  of  the  girdle  of  the  priests  only,  but  in  that 
instance  it  appears  to  have  been  worn  by  Shebna, 
the  treasurer,  as  part  of  the  insignia  of  his  office; 
unless  it  be  supposed  that  he  was  of  priestly  rank, 
and  wore  it  in  his  priestly  capacity.  He  is  called 
"  high-priest "  in  the  Chronicon  Paschale,  p.  115  a, 
and  in  the  Jewish  tradition  quoted  by  Jarchi  in  he. 

The  "  curious  girdle  "  (ntC'n,  Ex.  xxviii.  8)  was 
made  of  the  same  materials  and  colors  as  the 
ephod,  that  is  of  "  gold,  blue,  and  purple,  and  scar- 
let, and  fine  twmed  linen."  Josephus  describes  it 
as  sewn  to  the  breastplate.  After  passing  once 
round  it  was  tied  in  front  upon  he  seam,  the  ends 
hanging  down  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  5).  According  to 
Maimonides  it  was  of  woven  work. 

"Girdle"  is  used  figuratively  in  Ps.  cix.  19, 
Is.  xi.  5;  cf .  1  Sam.  ii.  4;  Ps.  xxx.  11,  Ixv.  12? 
Eph.  vi.  14.  W.  A.  W. 

GIRGASHITES,  THE  ("27|13in,  t. e. m- 


930 


GIRGASITE,  THE 


cording  to  the  Hebrew  usage,  singular  —  "  the  Gir- 
gashite;  "  in  which  form,  however,  it  occurs  in  the 
A.  V.  but  twice,  1  Chr.  i.  14,  and  Gen.  x.  16;  in 
the  latter  the  Girgasite;  elsewhere  uniformly 
plural,  as  above:  6  Tepyeaalos^  and  so  also  Jo- 
sephus:  Gergesceus  [but  Deut.  vii.  1,  Gergezceus])^ 
one  of  the  nations  who  were  in  possession  of  Canaan 
before  the  entrance  thither  of  the  children  of  Israel. 
The  name  occurs  in  the  following  passages:  Gen. 
X.  16,  XV.  21 ;  Deut.  vii.  1  (and  xx.  17  in  Samar- 
itan and  LXX.);  Josh.  iii.  10,  xxiv.  11;  1  Chr.  i. 
U;  Neh.  ix.  8.  In  the  first  of  these  "the  Gir- 
gasite" is  given  as  the  fifth  son  of  Canaan;  in 
the  other  places  the  tribe  is  merely  mentioned,  and 
that  but  occasionally,  in  the  formula  expressing  the 
doomed  country;  and  it  may  truly  be  said  in  the 
words  of  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  2)  that  we  possess 
the  name  and  nothing  more;  not  even  the  more 
definite  notices  of  position,  or  the  slight  glimpses 
of  character,  general  or  individual,  with  which  we 
are  favored  in  the  case  of  the  Amorites,  Jebusites, 
and  some  others  of  these  ancient  nations.  The 
expression  in  Josh.  xxiv.  11  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  the  district  of  the  Girgashites  was  on  the  west 
of  Jordan ;  nor  is  this  invalidated  by  the  mention 
of  "  Gergesenes "  in  Matt.  viii.  28  {Tfpyic-qvwu 
in  Rec.  lext,  and  in  a  few  MSS.  mentioned  by 
Epiphanius  and  Origen,  Tepyicaiwv)^  as  on  the 
east  side  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  since  that  name  is 
now  generally  recognized  as  repaarjuoiu,  —  "  Gera- 
senes," — and  therefore  as  having  no  connection 
with  the  Girgashites.  G. 

GIR'GASITE,  THE  (Gen.  x.  16).  See  the 
foregoing. 

*  GIS'CHALA  [FtVxaAa:  Rabb.  dhn  12712, 

Gush   Chalab:  Arab,    (jiioil,  el-Jish),  a  village 

in  Galilee  on  a  hill  about  two  hours  northwest 
from  Snfed.  It  was  fortified  by  order  of  Josephus, 
and  was  the  last  fortress  m  Galilee  to  surrender  to 
the  Roman  arms  (Joseph.  B.  J.  ii.  20,  §  6 :  iv.  2, 
§§  1-5).  It  has  been  identified  by  Dr.  Robinson 
as  the  modern  el-Jish^  which  was  destroyed  by  an 
earthquake  in  1837  (Bibl.  Res.  iii.  368  AT.,  1st  ed.). 
It  must  have  been  one  of  the  towns  in  the  circuit 
of  Christ's  labors,  and  well  known  to  his  Galilean 
disciples.  There  was  a  tradition  that  the  parents 
of  Paul  emigrated  from  this  place  to  Tarsus.  [See 
Ahlab.]  S.  W. 

GIS'PA  (SSira  [hearkening]:  [FA.3]  recr- 
tpd;  [Comp.  r€<7(pds;  Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i 
omit:]  Gaspha)^  one  of  the  overseers  of  the  Ne- 
thinim,  in  "the  Ophel,"  after  the  return  from 
Captivity  (Neh.  xi.  21 ).  By  the  LXX.  the  name 
appears  to  have  been  taken  as  a  place. 

GIT^TAH-HETHER,  Josh.  xix.  13. 
LGath-Hepher.] 

GITTATM  (C^iD?,  i-  e.  tioo  wine-presses: 
[in  2  Sam.,]  reSatV,  {Vat.  re0at,]  Alex.  T^QBein', 
[in  Neh.  xi.  33,  Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit;  FA.» 
T^QQljx'^  Gethaim),  a  place  incidentally  mentioned 
in  2  Sam.  iv.  3,  where  the  meaning  appears  to  be  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Beeroth,  which  was  allotted  to 
Benjamin,  had  been  compelled  to  fly  from  that  place, 
and  had  taken  refuge  at  Gittaim.  Beeroth  was 
one  of  the  towns  of  the  Gibeonites  (Josh.  ix.  17); 
Mid  the  cause  of  the  flight  of  its  people  may  have 
been  (though  this  is  but  conjecture)  Saul's  persecu- 
tion of  the  Gibeonites  alluded  to  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  2. 
3itt»im  ia  again  mentioned  [Neh.  xi.  33]  in  the 


GIZONITE,  THE 

list  (/f  places  inhabited  by  the  Be)ija.riii/e8  ifla 
their  return  from  the  Captivity,  with  Ramah  Ne- 
baUat,  Lod,  and  other  known  towns  of  Benjamiii 
to  the  N.  W.  of  Jerusalem.  The  two  may  be  the 
same;  though,  if  the  persecution  of  the  Berothites 
proceeded  from  Benjamin,  as  we  must  infer  it  did, 
they  would  hardly  choose  as  a  refuge  a  place  within 
the  limits  of  that  tribe.  Gittaim  is  the  duul  form 
of  the  word  Gath,  which  suggests  the  I'hUistine 
plain  as  its  locality.  But  there  is  no  e\  idence  for 
or  against  this. 

Gittaim  occurs  in  the  LXX.  version  of  1  Sam. 
xiv.  33  —  "  out  of  Getthaim  roll  me  a  great  stone." 
But  this  is  not  supported  by  any  other  of  the 
ancient  versions,  which  unanimously  adhere  to  the 
Hebr.  text,  and  probably  proceeds  from  a  mistake 

or  corruption  of  the  Hebrew  word  Di^"?^?^ :  A.  V. 
"  ye  have  transgressed."  It  further  occurs  in  the 
LXX.  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  35  and  1  Chr.  i.  46,  as  the 
i-epresentative  of  Aa  ith,  a  change  not  so  inteUigible 
as  the  other,  and  equally  unsupported  by  the  otlier 
old  versions.  G. 

GITTITES  (D'*r}2,  patron,  from  n? : 
[redaloi,  Alex,  rcddaioi:  Geihcn]),  the  600  men 
who  followed  David  from  Gath,  under  Ittai  the 

Gittite  C^rian,  2  Sam.  xv.  18, 19),  and  who  prob- 
ably acted  as  a  kind  of  body-guard.  Obed-edom  the 
Invite,  in  whose  house  the  Ark  was  for  a  time 
placed  (2  Sam.  vi.  10),  and  who  afterwards  served 
in   Jerusalem   (1   Chr.   xvi.  38),   is   called    "the 

Gittite"  OnSn).  We  can  scarcely  think,  how- 
ever, that  he  was  so  named  from  the  royal  city  of 
the  Philistines,  ^lay  he  not  have  been  fix)m  the 
town  of  Gittaim  in  Benjamin  (2  Sam.  iv.  3;  Neh. 
xi.  33),  or  from  Gath-rimmon,  a  town  of  Dan. 
allotted  to  the  Kohathite  I>evites  (Josh.  xxi.  24), 
of  whom  Obed-edom  seems  to  have  been  one  (1 
Chr.  xxvi.  4)  ?  J.  L.  P. 

GIT'TITH  (n^n2)  [see  infra],  a  musical 
instrument,  by  some  supposed  to  have  been  used 
by  the  people  of  Gath,  and  tiience  to  have  been 
adopted  by  David  and  used  in  worship;  and  by  oth- 
ers ,  who  identify  rT^Pil  with  HI.  a  wine-press,  or 
trough,  in  which  the  grapes  were  trodden  with  the 
feet)  to  have  been  employed  at  the  festivities  of  the 

vintage.  The  Chaldee  paraphrase  of  rT^riSn  ^V. 
occasionally  found  in  the  headuig  of  Psalms,  is, 
"  On  the  instrument  S'TID''^  (Cinora),  which  was 
brought  from  Gath."  Rashi,  whilst  he  admits 
Gittith  to  be  a  musical  instrument,  in  the  manu- 
facture of  which  the  artisans  of  Gath  excelled, 
quotes  a  Talmudic  authority  which  would  assign 
to  the  word  a  different  meaning.  '*  Our  sages," 
says  he,  «  have  remarked  «  On  the  natiom  who  are 
in  future  to  be  trodden  down  like  a  icine-press.'  " 
(Comp.  Is.  Ixiii.  3.)  But  neither  of  the  Psalms, 
viii.,  Ixxxi.,  or  Ixxxiv.,  which  have  Gittith  for  a 
heading,  contains  any  thing  that  may  be  connected 
with  such  an  idea.  The  interpretation  of  the  LXX. 
uTTcp  rwv  ATji/wy,  "for  the  wine-presses,"  is  con- 
demned by  Aben-Ezra  and  other  eminent  Jewisb 
scholars.  Fiirst  (Concordance)  describes  Gittit* 
as  a  hollow  instrument,  from  riilD,  to  deepen 
(synonymous  with  b'^bfl).  D.  W.  M. 

GFZONITE,  THE  ('^:''^T3n:<J  riCovlrrjs ; 


GIZRITES 

"V«t.  corrupt;]  Alex,  o  Tovvi'  Gezonltes).  "The 
ions  of  Hashem  the  Gizonite  "  are  named  amongst 
the  warriors  of  David's  guard  (1  vjhr.  xi.  34).  In 
the  parallel  list  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  the  word  is  entirely 
omitted;  and  the  conclusion  of  Kennicott,  who 
examines  the  passage  at  length,  is  that  the  name 
should  be  Gouni  [see  Guni],  a  proper  name,  and 
not  an  appellative  (Disset-t.  pp.  l'J9-203).  [No 
place  corresponding  to  the  name  is  known.] 
*  GIZ'RITES.     [Gerzites.] 

GLASS  (n^p-IDt  :  liaKos:  vitrum).  The  word 
occurs  only  in  Job  xxviii.  17,  where  in  the  A.  V. 

it  is  rendered  "crystal."  It  comes  from  "TT5^  {io 
be  7?M7'e),  and  according  to  the  best  authorities 
means  a  kind  of  glass  which  in  ancient  days  was 
held  in  high  esteem  (J.  D.  Michaelis,  Hist.  Vitri 
apud  Hebr. ;  and  Hamberger,  Hist.  Vitri  ex  an- 
tiquitate  erutn^  quoted  by  Gesen.  s.  v.).  Sym- 
raachus  renders  it  KpiaraWos,  but  that  is  rather 

intended  by  W^ll'Si  (Job  xxviii.  18,  A.  V.  "pearls," 
LXX.  7aj3t5,  a  word  which  also  means  "ice; "  cf. 
Plin.  ff.  N.  xxxvii.  2),  and  nn[7_  (Ez.  i.  22).  It 
seems  then  that  Job  xxviii.  17  contains  the  only 
allusion  to  glass  found  in  the  O.  T.,  and  even  this 
reference  is  disputed.  Besides  Symmachus,  others 
also  render  it  Siauyrj  KpvaraXKov  (Schleusner, 
Thesnu)\  s.  v.  va\os),  and  it  is  argued  that  the 
\7ord  SaXos  frequently  means  crystal.  Thus  the 
Schol.  on  Aristoph.  Ntib.  764,  defines  vaXos  (when 
it  occurs  in  old  writers)  as  Sia^av^s  \idos  ioiKws 
vdXcp,  and  Hesychius  gives  as  its  equivalent  xiOos 
Tifiios.  In  Herodotus  (iii.  24)  it  is  clear  that  ueA.os 
must  mean  crystal,  for  he  says,  ^  Se  acpi  ttoXA^ 
Kal  eijepyos  opvaaerai,  and  Achilles  Tatius  speaks 
of  crystal  as  vaXos  6pwpvyfi4yrj  {u.  3;  Baehr,  On 


GLASS 


931 


ITerod.  iL  44;  Heeren,  Tdeen,  ii.  1,  335).  Other* 
consider  iT^p^^T  to  be  amber,  or  electrum,  oc 
alabaster  (Bochart,  Hieroz.  ii.  vi.  872). 

In  spite  of  this  absence  of  specific  allusion  to 
glass  in  the  sacred  writings,  the  Hebrews  must 
have  been  aware  of  the  invention.  There  has  been 
a  violent  modern  prejudice  against  the  belief  that 
glass  was  early  known  to,  or  extensively  used  by, 
the  ancients,  but  both  facts  are  now  certain.  Fronr 
paintings  representing  the  process  of  glassblowing 
which  have  been  discovered  in  paintings  at  Beni- 
Hassan,  and  in  tombs  at  other  places,  we  know 
that  the  invention  is  at  least  as  remote  as  the  age 
of  Osirtasen  the  first  (perhaps  a  contemporary  of 
Joseph),  3,500  years  ago.  A  bead  as  old  as  1500 
B.  c.  was  found  by  Captain  Hervey  at  Thebes. 
"  the  specific  gravity  of  which,  25°  30',  is  precisely 
the  same  as  that  of  the  crown  glass  now  made  in 
England."  Fragments  too  of  wine-vases  as  old  as 
the  Exodus  have  been  discovered  in  Egypt.  Glass 
1  beads  known  to  be  ancient  have  been  found  in 
!  Africa,  and  also  (it  is  said)  in  Cornwall  and  Ireland, 
I  which  are  in  all  probability  the  relics  of  an  old 
j  Phoenician  trade  (Wilkinson,  in  Rawlinsori's  Herod. 
ii.  50,  i.  475;  Anc.  Egypt,  iii.  88-112).  The  art 
was  also  known  to  the  ancient  Assyrians  (Layard, 
Nineveh,  ii.  42),  and  a  glass  bottle  was  found  in 
the  N.  W.  palace  of  Nimroud,  which  has  on  it  the 
name  of  Sargon,  and  is  therefore  probably  older 
than  B.  c.  702  (id.  Nin.  and  Bah.  p.  197,  503). 
This  is  the  earUest  known  specimen  of  transparent 
glass. 

The  disbelief  in  the  antiquity  of  glass  (in  spite 
of  the  distinct  statements  of  early  writers)  is  dif- 
ficult to  account  for,  because  the  invention  must 
almost  naturally  arise  in  making  bricks  or  pottery, 
during  which  processes  there  must  be  at  least  a 


-iW 


Egyptian  Glass  Blowers.     (T^kinson.) 


lupeificial  ntrification.  There  is  little  doubt  that 
ihe  honor  of  the  discovery  oelongs  to  the  Egj^tians. 
Pliny  gives  no  date  for  his  celebrated  story  of  the 
discovery  of  glass  from  the  solitary  accident  of  some 
Phoenician  sailors  using  blocks  of  natron  to  support 
Jieir  saucepans  when  they  were  unable  to  find 
itones  for  the  purpose  {H.  N.  xxxvi.  65).  But  this 
account  is  less  likely  than  the  supposition  that 
ritreous  matter  first  attracted  observation  from  the 
tfwtom  of  lighting  fires  on  the  sand.  "  in  a  country 
Producing  natron  or  subcarbonate  of  soda"  (Raw- 


linson's  Herod,  ii.  82).  It  has  been  pointed  om 
that  Pliny's  story  may  have  originated  in  the  fact 
that  the  sand  of  the  Syrian  river  Belus,«  at  the 
mouth  of  which  the  incident  is  supposed  to  have 
occurred,  "was  esteemed  peculiarly  suitable  for 
glass-making,  and  exported  in  great  quantities  to 
the  workshops  of  Sidon  and  Alexandria,  long  tha 

a  *  This  Belua  is  the  modem  Nakr  Na'man  whiob 
flows  into  the  ftTAditerranean  just  south  of  4.kka,  tha 
0.  T.  Accho  and  tne  N  T,  Ptolemais.  P 


932  GLEANING, 

most  fiimoua  in  the  anciient  world  "  {Diet,  oj  Ant. 
art.  Vitrum,  where  everything  requisite  to  the 
illustration  of  the  classical  allusions  to  glass  may 
be  found).  Some  find  a  remarkable  reference  to 
this  little  river  (respecting  which  see  J'lin.  H.  N. 
V.  17,  xxxvi.  65;  Joseph.  B.  J.  ii.  10,  §  2;  Tac. 
Hist.  v.  7)  in  the  blessing  to  the  tribe  of  Zebulun, 
"  they  shall  suck  of  the  abundance  of  the  seas,  and 
of  treasures  hid  in  the  sand"  (Deut.  xxxiii.  19). 
Both  the  name  Belus  (Keland,  quoted  in  Diet,  oj 

Geogr.  s.  v.  and  the  Hebrew  word  vlH,  "  sand  " 
(Calmet,  s.  v.)  have  been  suggested  as  derivations 
for  the  Greek  0a\os,  which  is  however,  in  all  prob- 
ability, from  an  Egyptian  root. 

Glass  was  not  only  known  to  the  ancients,  but 
used  by  them  (as  Winckehnann  thinks)  far  more 
extensively  than  in  modern  times.  PUny  even  tells 
us  that  it  was  employed  in  wainscoting  (vitreae 
camerae,  //.  A^.  xxxvi.  64;  Stat.  Sylv.  i.  v.  42). 
The  Egyptians  knew  the  art  of  cutting,  grinding, 
and  engraving  it,  and  they  could  even  inlay  it  witla 
gold  or  enamel,  and  "  permeate  opaque  glass  with 
designs  of  various  colors."  Besides  this  they  could 
color  it  with  such  brilliancy  as  to  be  able  to  imitate 
precious  stones  in  a  manner  which  often  defied 
detection  (Plin.  //.  N.  xxxvii.  26,  33,  75).  This 
is  probably  the  explanation  of  the  incredibly  large 
gems  which  we  find  mentioned  in  ancient  authors ; 
e.  g.  Larcher  considers  that  the  emerald  column 
alluded  to  by  Herodotus  (ii.  44)  was  "  du  verre 
colord  dont  I'intc^rieur  ^tait  ^clairc^  par  des  lampes." 
Strabo  was  told  by  an  Alexandrian  glass-maker 
that  this  success  was  partly  due  to  a  rare  and  val- 
uable earth  found  in  Egypt  (Beckmann,  liistm-y  of 
Inventions,  "Colored  Glass,"  i.  195  f.  Eng.  Transl-, 
also  iii.  208  f.,  iv.  54).  Yet  the  perfectly  clear  and 
transparent  glass  was  considered  the  most  valuable 
(Plin.  xxxvi.  26). 

Some  suppose  that  the  proper  name  mQl.trD 
C^D  (burnings  by  the  waters)  contains  an  allusion 
to  Sidonian  glass-factories  (Meier  on  Jos.  xi.  8,  xiii. 
6),  but  it  is  much  more  probable  that  it  was  so 
called  from  the  burning  of  Jabin's  chariots  at  tliat 
place  (Lord  A.  Hervey,  On  the  Geneabgies,  p.  228), 
or  from  hot  springs. 

In  the  N.  T.  glass  is  alluded  to  as  an  emblem 
of  brightness  (Rev  iv.  6,  xv.  2,  xxi.  18).  The 
three  other  places  where  the  word  occurs  in  the 
A.  V.  (1  Cor.  xiii.  12;  2  Cor.  iii.  18;  Jam.  i.  23), 
as  also  the  word  "glasses"  (Is.  iii.  23),  are  con- 
sidered under  Mirrors.  For,  strange  to  say, 
although  the  ancients  were  aware  of  the  reflective 
power  of  glass,  and  although  the  Sidonians  used  it 
for  mirrors  (Plin.  //.  N.  xxxvi.  66),  yet  for  some 
unexplained  reason  mirrors  of  glass  must  have 
proved  unsuccessful,  since  even  under  the  empire 
they  were  universally  made  of  metal,  which  is  at 
once  less  perfect,  more  expensive,  and  more  difficult 
to  preserve  (Diet,  of  Ant.  art.  Speculum). 

F.  W.  F. 

GLEANING  (n'lbbi:  as  applied  to  produce 

generally,  t^i7/7  rather  to  com).  The  remarks 
under  Cornkr  on  the  definite  character  of  the 
rights  of  the  poor,  or  rather  of  poor  relations  and 
dependants,  to  a  share  of  the  crop,  are  especially 
exemplified  in  the  instance  of  Ruth  gleaning  in  the 
field  of  Boaz.  Poor  young  women,  recognized  as 
heitig  "hia  maidens,"  were  gleaning  his  field,  and 


GOAD 


on  her  claim  upon  him  by  near  affinity  being 
known,  she  was  bidden  to  join  them  and  not  go  to 
any  other  field ;  but  for  this,  the  reapen*  it  seenu 
would  have  driven  her  away  (Ruth  ii.  6,  8,  9).  The 
gleaning  of  fruit  trees,  as  well  as  of  cornfields,  was 
reserved  for  the  poor.  Hence  the  proveib  of  Gideon, 
Judg.  viii.  2.  Slaimonides  indeed  lays  down  th« 
principle  ( Constitutiones  de  donis  jmuperum,  cap. 
ii.  1),  that  whatever  crop  or  growth  is  fit  for  food, 
is  kept,  and  gathered  all  at  once,  and  carried  into 
store,  is  liable  to  that  law.  See  for  further  remarks, 
Maimon.  Constitutiones  de  donis  pauperum,  c&t^.  iv. 

H.  H. 

GLEDE,  the  old  name  for  the  common  kif« 

(Milvus  ater),  occurs  only  in  Deut.  xiv.  13  (f^^^) 

among  the  unclean  birds  of  prey,  and  if  HST  be 
the  correct  reading,  we  must  suppose  the  name  to 
have  been  taken  from  the  bird's  acuteness  of  vision; 
but  as  in  the  parallel  passage  in  Lev.  xi.  14  wo 

find   nS^,  vultur,  it  is  probable  that  we  should 

read  HS'^  in  Deut.  also.  The  LXX.  have  y^  in 
both  places.  W.  D. 

GNAT  {K(lova)T]i)i  mentioned  only  in  the  prover- 
bial expression  used  by  our  Saviour  in  Matt,  xxiii. 
24,  "  Ye  blind  guides,  which  strain  at  a  gnat  and 
swallow  a  camel."  "  Strain  at,  in  the  A.  V.,  seems 
to  be  a  typographical  error,  since  the  translations 
before  the  A.  V.  had  "strain  out,'''  the  Greek  word 
divXl^co  signifying  to  strain  through  (a  sieve,  etc.), 
to  filter  (see  Trench,  On  the  Auth.  Vers.,  Ist  ed. 
p.  131)  [2d  ed.  p.  172].  The  Greek  k^jvu^  is  the 
generic  word  for  gnat.  W.  D. 

GOAD.  The  equivalent  terms  in  the  Hebrew 
are  (1)  l^ibD  (Judg.  ui.  31),  and  (2)  ]n"}'ij 
(1  Sam.  xiii.  21;  Eccl.  xii.  11).  The  explanation 
given  by  Jahn  (Archceol.  i.  4,  §  59)  is  that  the 
former  represents  the  pole,  and  the  latter  the  iron 
spike  'rith  which  it  was  shod  for  the  purpose  of 
goading.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  however,  it 
may  refer  to  anything  pointed,  and  the  tenor  of 
Eccl.  xii.  requires  rather  the  sense  of  a  peg  or  nail, 
anything  in  short  which  can  be  fastened ;  while  in 
1  Sam.  xiii.  the  point  of  the  pkmghshare  is  more 
probably  intended.  The  former  does  probably  refer 
to  the  goad,  the  long  handle  of  which  might  be 
used  as  a  formidable  weapon  (comp.  Hom.  //.  vi. 
135),  though  even  this  was  otherwise  understood 
by  the  LXX.  as  a  ploughshare  (eV  t<S  auoTp6iroSi). 
it  should  also  be  noted  that  the  etymological  force 

of  the  word  is  that  of  giiiding  (from  "Tp^,  to  teach) 
rather  than  goading  (Saalschiitz,  Archdol.  i.  K5). 
There  are  undoubted  references  to  the  use  of  the 
goad  in  driving  oxen  in  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  25,  and 
Acts  xxvi.  14.  The  instrument,  as  still  used  in  the 
countries  of  southern  Eui-ope  and  western  Asia, 
consists  of  a  rod  about  eight  feet  long,  brought  tc 
a  sharp  point  and  sometimes  cased  with  iron  at  the 
head  (Harmer's  Observations,  iii.  348).  The  ex- 
pression "to  kick  against  tJ'e  goads"  (Acts  ix.  5; 
A.  V.  "  the  pricks"),  was  proverbially  used  by  the 
Greeks  for  unavailing  resistance  to  superior  power 
(comp.  M%c\x.  Agam.  1633,  Prom.  323;  Eurip 
Bacch.  791).  W.  L.  B. 

*  The  use  of  the  goad  in  driving  animals,  which 
is  still  common  in  the  Ea.st,  is  implied  in  2  K.  iv 
24,  where  it  explains  a  slight  obscurity  in  the  ve-ie 
as  given  in  the  A.  V.     Mounted  on  her  donli  ey  — 


GOAT 

Jie  fevorite  mode  of  travelling  with  oriental  ladies  - 
the  Sliuiiammite,  intent  on  the  utmost  dispatch, 
directs  her  servant,  runninj;  by  her  side,  tc  urge 
the  animal  with  the  goad  to  its  full  speed. 

The  long  ox-goad,  used  in  the  field,  with  an  iron 
point  at  one  end,  and  an  iron  paddle  at  the  other 
to  clean  the  plough  in  the  furrows,  often  was,  and 
still  is,  a  massive  implement.  In  the  hands  of  a 
strong  and  valiant  man,  like  Shamgar,  as  repre- 
sented in  Judg.  iii.  81,  it  would  be  a  destructive 
weapon.  (See  Hackett's  Illustr.  of  Scripture,  p. 
155.)  S.  W. 

GOAT.  1.  Of  the  Hebrew  words  which  are 
translated  yoai  and  she-goat  in  A.  V.,  the  most 

common  is  TS7  =  Syr.  jl-^,  Ai-ab.  wLfr,  Phoen. 

&^a-  The  Indo-Germanic  languages  have  a  similar 
word  in  Sanskr.  afa  =  goat,  a(/'d  =  she-goat, 
Germ,  ffeis  or  <jems,  Greek  a%  aly6s-  The  deri- 
vation from  TT3?,  to  be  strong^  points  to  he-goat  as 
the  original  meaning,  but  it  is  also  specially  used 
for  she-goat,  as  iu  Gen.  xv.  9,  xxxi.  38,  xxxii.  14; 

Num.  XV.  27.  In  Judg.  vi.  19  U^')V  ^'IS  is  ren- 
dered kid,  and  in  Deut.  xiv.  4  D"^'T37  r\W  is 
rendered  the  goat,  but  properly  signifies  Jiock  of 
goats.  D"^-tl7  is  used  elliptically  for  goats'  hair  in 
Ex.  xxvi.  7,  xxxvi.  14,  &c.,  Num.  xxxi.  20,  and  in 
1  Sam.  xix.  13. 

2.  Q"^ /^^  are  wild  or  mountain  goats,  and  are 
rendered  loild  goats  in  the  three  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture in  which  the  word  occurs,  namely,  1  Sam. 
xxiv.  2,  Job  xxxix.  1,  and  Ps.  civ.  18.     The  word 

is  from  a  root  V^^,  to  ascend  or  climb,  and  is  the 
Heb.  name  of  the  ibex,  which  abounds  in  the  moun- 
tainous parts  of  the  ancient  territory  of  Moab.  In 
Job  xxxix.  1,  the  LXX.  have  rpayeXdcpcov  Trerpas. 

3.  1)"?M  is  rendered  the  wild  goat  in  Deut.  xiv. 
5,  and  occurs  only  in  this  passage.  It  is  a  con- 
tracted form  of  nipDM,  according  to  Lee,  who 
renders  it  gazelle,  but  it  is  more  properly  the  tra- 
gelaphus  or  goat-deer  (Shaw.  Suppl.  p.  76). 

4.  I^n^,  a  he-goat,  as  Gesenius  thinks,  of  four 
months  old  —  strong  and  vigorous.  It  occurs  only 
in  the  plural,  and  is  rendered  by  A.  V.  indifferently 
goats  and  he-goats  (see  Ps.  1.  9  and  13).  In  Jer. 
1.  8  it  signifies  he-goats,  leaders  of  the  flock,  and 
hence  its  metaphorical  use  in  Is.  xiv.  9  for  chief 
ones  of  the  earth,  and  in  Zech.  x.  3,  where  goats 
=  principal  men,  chiefs.  It  is  derived  from  the 
rsKvt  "Tni7,  to  set,  to  place,  to  prepare. 

5  "T^?^  occurs  in  2  Ghr.  xxix.  21,  and  in  Dan. 
fiii  5,  8  —  it  is  followed  by  □"^•tVn,  and  signifies 
»  he-goat  of  the  goats.  Gesenius  derives  it  from 
"13^,  to  leap.  It  is  a  word  found  only  in  the  later 
books  <[  the  0.  T.  In  Ezr.  vi.  17  we  find  the 
Chald.  form  of  the  word,  "I'^C^. 

I.  "T^37iZ7  is  translated  goat,  and  signifies  prcp- 
nly  a  he-goat,  being  derived  from  '^VW,  to  stand 
n  end,  to  bristle.  It  occurs  frequently  in  Leviticus 
Cd  Numbers  (n«^nn  I^I^tp),  and  is  the  goat 


GOAT 


938 


of  the  sin-offering,  Lev.  ix.  3,  15,  x.  16.  The  worf 
is  used  as  an  adjective  w'th  T^Dl^  iu  Dan.  viii.  21, 
"  —  and  the  goat,  the  rough  one,  is  the  king  of 
Javan." 

7.  'Q^\Pi  is  from  a  root  127*^^1,  o  strike.  It  ia 
rendered  he-goat  in  Gen.  xxx.  35,  xxxii.  15,  Prov. 
xxx.  31,  and  2  Chr.  xvii.  11.  It  does  not  occur 
elsewhere. 

8.  ^t^^l?*  scape-goat  in  Lev.  xvi.  8,  10,  26 
On  this  word  see  Atonement,  Day  of,  p.  197. 

In  the  N.  T.  the  words  rendered  goats  in  Matt 
XXV.  32,  33,  are  €pi<pos  and  ipl<\>iou=^^  young 
goat,  or  kid ;  and  in  Heb.  ix.  12,  13,  19,  and  x.  4, 
rpdyos  =  he-goat.  Goat-skins,  in  Heb.  xi.  37,  are 
in  the  Greek,  eV  alyeiois  Sepfiacriv;  and  in  Judg. 
ii.  17  aJyas  is  rendered  goats.  W.  D. 

There  appear  to  be  two  or  three  varieties  of  the 
common  goat  {Hir'cus  cegagrus)  at  present  bred  in 
Palestine  and  Syria,  but  whether  they  are  identical 
with  those  which  were  reared  by  the  ancient  He- 
brews it  is  not  possible  to  say.  The  most  marked 
varieties  are  the  Syrian  goat  (Capra  Mambrica, 
Linn.),  with  long  thick  pendent  ears,  which  are 
often,  says  Russell  {Nat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo,  ii.  150, 
2d  ed.),  a  foot  long,  and  the  Angora  goat  (Capi-a 
Angorensis,  Linn.),  with  fine  long  hair.  The  Syr- 
ian goat  is  mentioned  by  Aristotle  {Hist.  An.  ix. 
27,  §  3).  There  is  also  a  variety  that  differs  but 
little  from  British  specimens.  Goats  have  from  the 
earliest  ages  been  considered  important  animals  in 
rural  economy,  both  on  account  of  the  milk  they 
afford,  and  the  excellency  of  the  flesh  of  the  young 
animals.  The  goat  is  figured  on  the  Egyptian 
monuments  (see  VV^ilkinson's  Anc.  Egypt,  i.  223). 
Col.  Ham.  Smith  (Griffith's  An.  King.  iv.  308) 
describes  three  Egyptian  breeds:  one  with  long 
hair,  depressed  horns,  ears  small  and  pendent; 
anotlier  with  horns  very  spiral,  and  ears  longer 
than  the  head ;  and  a  third,  which  occurs  in  Upper 
Egypt,  without  horns. 

Goats  were  offered  as  sacrifices  (Lev.  iii.  12,  ix.  15 ; 
Ex.  xii.  5,  etc.);  their  milk  was  used  as  food  (Prov. 
xxvii.  27);  their  flesh  was  eaten  (Deut.  xiv.  4;  Gen. 
xxvii.  9);  their  hair  was  used  for  the  curtains  of 
the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxvi.  7,  xxxvi.  14),  and  for 
stuffing  bolsters  (1  Sam.  xix.  13);  their  skins  were 
sometimes  used  as  clothing  (Heb.  xi.  37). 

The  passage  in  Cant.  iv.  1,  which  compares  the 
hair  of  the  beloved  to  "  a  flock  of  goats  that  eat  of 
Mount  Gilead,"  probably  alludes  to  the  fine  hair 
of  the  Angora  breed.  Some  have  very  plausibly 
supposed  that  the  pro'phet  Amos  (iii.  12),  when  he 
speaks  of  a  shepherd  "  taking  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  lion  two  legs  or  a  piece  of  an  ear,""  alludes  to 
the  long  pendulous  ears  of  the  Syrian  breed  (see 
Harmer's  Obser.  iv.  162).  In  Prov.  xxx.  31,  a  he- 
goat  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  "  four  things  which 
are  comely  in  going;  "  in  allusion,  prolmbly,  to  the 
stately  march  of  the  leader  of  the  flock,  which  was 
always  associated  in  the  minds  of  the  Hebrews 
with  the  notion  of  dignity.  Hence  the  metaphor 
in  Is.  xiv.  9,  "  all  the  chief  ones  (margin,  '  great 
goats')  of  the  earth."  So  the  Alexandrine  ver- 
sion of  •'he  LXX.  understands  the  allusion,  koH 
Tpdyos  7)you/j.euos  aiiroXlov.'* 

As  to  the  ye'elim  (D*^  V^**. :  rpaye\a(poi,  kKat 


a  Tx^mp.  Theocritus,  Id.  viii.  49,  '12  rpaye,  tSlv  Xev 
kSlv  aiyat  xvep ;  and  Virg.  Ed.  vii.  7,  "  Vir  gregis  ips^ 
caper." 


934 


GOAT 


fof.  ibnes:  "wild  goats,"  A.  V.),  it  is  not  at  all 
bnprobable,  as  the  Vulg.  interprets  the  word,  that 
■ome  species  of  ibex  is  denoted,  perhaps  the  Copra 
Sinaiiica  (Ehrenb. ),  the  Beden  or  Jaela  of  Egypt 
and  Arabia.  This  ibex  was  noticed  at  Sinai  'by 
Ehrwiberg  and  Hemprich  {Sym.  Phys.  t.  18),  and 
by  Burckhardt  {Trav.  p.  526),  who  (p.  405)  thus 


GOB 

the  akko  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  might  foraottfj 
have  inhabited  the  Lebanon,  though  it  is  not  found 
in  Palestine  now.  Perhaps  the  paseng  ( Cop.  aga- 
grtis,  Cuv.)  which  some  have  taken  to  be  the  parent 
stock  of  the  common  goat,  and  whicn  at  present 
inhabits  the  mountains  of  Persia  and  Caucasus, 
may  have  in  Biblical  times  been  found  in  Palestine, 
and  may  be  the  akko  of  Scripture.  But  we  allov 
this  is  mere  conjecture.  W.  H. 


Long-eared  Syrian  goat. 

ipeaks  of  these  animals :  "  In  all  the  valleys  south 
of  the  Modjeb,  and  particularly  in  those  of  INIodjeb 
and  El  Ahsa,  large  herds  of  mountain  goats,  called 

by  the  Arabs  Beden  ( i^tX^ ),  s^re  met  with.  This 
is  the  steinbock«  or  bouquetin  of  the  Swiss  and 
Tyrol  Alps.  They  pasture  in  flocks  of  forty  and 
fifty  together.  Great  numbers  of  them  are  killed 
by  the  people  of  Kerek  and  Taf^le,  who  hold  their 
flesh  in  high  estimation.  They  sell  the  large  knotty 
horns  to  the  Hebrew  merchants,  who  carry  them  to 
Jerusalem,  where  they  are  worked  into  handles  for 

knives  and  daggers The  Arabs  told  me 

that  it  is  difficult  to  get  a  shot  at  them,  and  that 
the  hunters  hide  themselves  among  the  reeds  on 
the  banks  of  streams  where  the  animals  resort  in 
the  evening  to  drink.  They  also  asserted  that, 
when  pursued,  they  will  throw  themselves  from  a 
height  of  fifty  feet  and  more  upon  their  heads  with- 
out receiving  any  injury."  Hasselquist  (Trar.  p. 
190)  speaks  of  rock  goats  {Copra  certicopro,  Linn.) 
^hich  he  saw  hunted  with  falcons  near  Nazareth. 
But  the  C.  cervicajn-a  of  Linnaeus  is  an  antelope 
{Antilope  cervicopra,  Pall.). 

There  is   considerable  difiiculty  attending  the 

identification  of  the  akko  C^p^?),  which  the  LXX. 
render  by  rpayeXacpos,  and  the  Vulg.  tragelaphus. 
The  word,  which  occurs  only  in  Deut.  xiv.  5  as  one 
of  the  animals  that  might  be  eaten,  is  rendered 
"  wild  goat "  by  the  A.  V.  Some  have  referred 
the  okko  to  the  ahu  of  the  Persians,  i.  e  the  Ca- 
vreolus pygargus,  or  the  "  tailless  roe  "  (Shaw,  Zool. 
li.  287),  of  Central  Asia.  If  we  could  satisfactorily 
establish  the  identity  of  the  Persian  word  with  the 
Hebrew,  the  animal  in  question  might  represent 


o  The  Cxijna  Sinaitica  is  not  identical  with  the 
Bi?iflfl  ibex  or  steinbock  (C.  Ibez),  though  it  is  a  closely 
illisd  species. 


Goat  of  Mount  Sinai. 


GOAT,  SCAPE.     [Atonement,  Day  of.] 


GO^ATH  (nr2  [see  infra] :  the  LXX. 
to  have  had  a  different  text,  and  read  e|  e/cAe/crcDv 
KiQojv-  Goatha),  a  place  apparently  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  Jerusalem,  and  named,  in  connection 
with  the  hill  Gareb,  only  in  Jer.  xxxi.  39.  The 
name  (which  is  accurately  Goah,  as  above,  the  th 
being  added  to  connect  the  Hebrew  particle  of  mo- 
tion,—Goathah)  is  derived  by  Gesenius  from  71V^, 
"  to  low,"  as  a  cow.  In  accordance  with  this  is  the 
rendering   of  the  Targum,  which   has  for  Goah, 

Wb?^  ri?*''nS  =  the  heifer's  pool.    The  Syriac, 

on  the  other  hand,  has  j^^O*.!^,  leromto^  "to 

the  eminence,"  perhaps  reading  nK'5  (Fiirst, 
Tlandwb.  p.  269  b).b  Owing  to  the  presence  of 
the  letter  Ain  in  Goath,  the  resemblance  between 
it  and  Golgotha  does  not  exist  in  the  original  to 
the  same  degree  as  in  English.     [Golgotha.] 

G. 
GOB  (2^,  and  2^2,  perhaps  =  a  pit  or  ditch'. 
Fee,  "P6h,  Alex,  [in  ver.  19]  ro)3;  [Comp.  Nw)80 
Gob),  a  place  mentioned  o)dy  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  18, 19, 
as  the  scene  of  two  encounters  between  David'g 
warriors  and  the  Philistines.  In  the  parallel  ac- 
count—  of  the  first  of  these  only  =  in  1  Chr.  xx. 
4,  the  name  is  given  as  Gezer,  and  this,  as  well  as 
the  omission  of  any  locality  for  the  second  event, 
is  supported  by  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  2).  On 
the  other  hand  the  LXX.  and  Syriac  have  Gath 
in  the  first  case,  a  name  which  in  Hebrew  muc** 
resembles  Gob ;  and  this  appears  to  be  bonie  out 


&  *  Fiirst  makes  the  Syriac  •. 
as  above). 


Jfelshiigel,  rock-hiU  (r 


GOBLET 

sy  the  account  of  a  third  and  subsequent  fight, 
fMeh  all  agree  happened  at  Gath  (2  Sam.  xxi.  20 ; 
1  Chr.  XX.  G),  and  which,  from  the  terms  of  the 
oarrative,  seems  to  have  occurred  at  the  same  place 
313  the  others.  The  suggestion  Df  Nob  —  which 
Davidson  {Uebr.  Text)  reports  as  in  many  MSS. 
and  which  is  also  found  in  copies  of  the  LXX.  — 
is  not  admissible  on  account  of  the  situatioc  of 
that  place.  G. 

GOBLET  (PM  :  Kparrip  -  crater ;  joined  with 

inp  to  express  roundness.  Cant.  vii.  2;  Gesen. 
Thes.  pp.  22,  39 ;  in  plur.  Ex.  xxiv.  6,  A.  V.  "  ba- 
sons;" Is.  xxii.  2-i,  LXX.  hterally  ayavcifl:  crate- 
rce:  A.  V.  "cups"),  a  circular  vessel  for  wine  or 
other  hquid.     [Basin.]  H.  W.  P. 

*  GODLINESS,  MYSTERY  OF.  [Bap- 
tism, vii.  5,  p.  239.] 

*  GOD  SPEED  is  the  translation  of  xaip^^J^ 
in  2  John  10, 11,  the  Greek  form  of  salutation.  It 
has  been  transferred  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  god- 
spedifj,  but  with  a  different  meaning  there,  namely, 
"good-speed."  H. 

GOG.  1.  D'la:  Toiy,  [Comp.  Aid.  Tc^y:] 
Go(j.).  A  Reubenite  (1  Chr.  v.  4);  according  to 
the  Hebrew  text  son  of  Shemaiah.  The  LXX. 
have  a  different  text  throughout  the  passage. 

2.  [Magog.] 

3.  In  the  Samarit.  Codex  and  LXX.  of  Num. 
ixiv.  7,  Gog  is  substituted  for  Agag. 

GO'LAN  (^^^2  [a,  circle,  region,  Dietr. 
Fiirst ;  migration,  Ges.] :  TavXdv,  [in  1  Chr,  vi. 
71,  ToKiVi  Alex,  also  in  Josh.  TcoAaj/:   Gaulon, 

exc.  Deut.  Golan] ),  a  city  of  Bashan  CjtZ^SS  ^  ^"^Sj 
Deut.  iv.  43)  allotted  out  of  the  half  tribe  of  Ma- 
nasseh  to  the  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  27),  and  one  of 
the  three  cities  of  refuge  east  of  the  Jordan  (xx.  8). 
We  find  no  further  notice  of  it  in  Scripture;  and 
though  Eusebius  and  Jerome  say  it  was  still  an  im- 
portant place  in  their  time  ( Onom.  s.  v. ;  Reland, 
p.  815),  its  very  site  is  now  unknown.  Some  have 
supposed  that  the  village  of  Naioa,  on  the  eastern 
border  of  Jauldn,  around  which  are  extensive  ruins 
(see  Handbook  for  Syr.  and  Pal.),  is  identical 
with  the  ancient  Golan ;  but  for  this  there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  evidence ;  and  Nawa  besides  is  much  too 
far  to  the  eastward. 

The  city  of  Golan  is  several  times  referred  to  by 
Josephus  {TavKavT],  B.  J.  i.  4,  §  4,  and  8);  he, 
however,  more  frequently  speaks  of  the  province 
which  took  its  name  from  it,  Gaulanitis  {TavKavl- 
ris)'  When  the  kingdom  of  Israel  was  overthrown 
by  the  Assyrians,  and  the  dominion  of  the  Jews  in 
Bashan  ceased,  it  appears  that  the  aboriginal  tribes, 
before  kept  in  sabjection,  but  never  annihilated, 
rose  again  to  some  power,  and  rent  the  country 
into  provinces.  Two  of  these  provinces  at  least 
vera  of  ancient  origin  [Trachonitis  and  Hau- 
RAn],  and  had  been  distinct  principalities  previous 
to  the  time  when  Og  or  his  predecessors  united 
them  under  one  sceptre.  Before  the  Babylonish 
raptivity  Bashan  appears  in  Jewish  history  as  one 

»  Kingdom ;  but  subsequent  to  that  period  it  is  spo- 
ken of  as  divided  into  four  provinces  —  Gaulauitis, 
Trachonitis,  Auranitis,  and  Batanea  (Joseph.  Ant. 
Iv.  5,  §  3,  and  7,  §  4,  i.  6,  §  4,  xvi.  9,  §  1;  B.J. 
I.  20,  ?  4,  iii.  3,  §  1,  iv.  1,  §  1).  It  seems  that 
when  the  city  of  Golan  rose  to  powe*  it  became  the 
head  of  a  large  province,  the  extent  of  whiih  is 


GOLAN  98£ 

pretty  accurately  given  by  Josephus,  espwjially  when 
his  statements  are  compared  with  the  modem  di- 
visions of  Bashan.  It  lay  east  of  Galilee,  and  north 
of  Gadarrtis  (Gadara,  Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  1). 
Gamala,  an  important  town  on  the  eastern  bank 
of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  now  called  El-IIusn  (see 
Handbook  for  Syr.  and  Pal.),  and  the  province 
attached  to  it,  were  included  in  Gaulanitis  (B.  I. 
iv.  1,  §  1).  But  the  boundary  of  the  provinces  of 
Gadara  and  Gamala  must  evidently  have  been  the 
river  liieromax,  which  may  therefore  be  regarded 
aa  the  south  border  of  Gaulanitis.  The  Jordan 
from  the  Sea  of  Galilee  to  its  fountains  at  Dan  and 
Csesarea-Philippi,  formed  the  western  boundary 
(B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  5).  It  is  important  to  observe  that 
the  boundaries  of  the  modern  province  of  Jauldn 

(  lO^^^   ^   ^^®  Arabic   form  of  the   Hebrew 

1  v12,  from  which  is  derived  the  Greek  ravXaui- 
Tis)  correspond  so  far  with  those  of  Gaulanitis; 
we  may,  therefore,  safely  assume  that  their  north- 
ern and  eastern  boundaries  are  also  identical.  Jau- 
lan  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  Jedur  (the  ancient 
Itw'cea),  and  on  the  east  by  Hauran  [Hauran]. 
The  principal  cities  of  Gaulanitis  were  Golan,  Hip- 
pos, Gamala,  Julias  or  Bethsaida  (Mark  viii.  22), 
Seleucia,  and  Sogane  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  1,  and 
5,  iv.  1,  §  1).  The  site  of  Bethsaida  is  at  a  small 
tell  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Jordan  [Bethsaida]  ; 
the  ruins  of  KuVat  el-Husn  mark  the  place  of  Ga- 
mala ;  but  nothing  definite  is  known  of  the  others. 
The  greater  part  of  Gaulanitis  is  a  flat  and  fertile 
table-land,  well-watered,  and  clothed  with  luxuriant 
grass.     It   is   probably  to  this  region    the   name 

Mishor  {^W^72i)  is  given  in  1  K.  xx.  23,  25  — 
"  the  plain  "  in  which  the  Syrians  were  overthrown 
by  the  Israelites,  near  Aphek,  which  perhaps  stood 
upon  the  site  of  the  modem  Fik  (Stanley,  App. 
§  6;  Handbook  for  S.  and  P.  p.  425).  The 
western  side  of  Gaulanitis,  along  the  Sea  of  Gali- 
lee, is  steep,  rugged,  and  bare.  It  is  upwards  of 
2,500  feet  in  height,  and  when  seen  from  the  city 
of  Tiberias  resembles  a  mountain  range,  though  in 
reality  it  is  only  the  supporting  wall  of  the  plateau. 
It  was  this  remarkable  feature  which  led  the  ancient 
geographers  to  suppose  that  the  mountain  range  of 
Gilead  was  joined  to  Lebanon  (Reland,  p.  342). 
Further  north,  along  the  bank  of  the  upper  Jordan, 
the  plateau  breaks  down  in  a  series  of  terraces,  , 
which,  though  somewhat  rocky,  are  covered  with 
rich  soil,  and  clothed  in  spring  with  the  most  lux- 
uriant herbage,  spangled  with  multitudes  of  bright 
and  beautiful  flowers.  A  range  of  low,  round- 
topped,  picturesque  hills,  extends  southwards  foi 
nearly  20  miles  from  the  base  of  Hermon  along 
the  western  edge  of  the  plateau.  These  are  in 
places  covered  with  noble  forests  of  prickly  oak  and 
terebinth.  Gaulanitis  was  once  densely  populated, 
but  it  is  now  almost  completely  deserted.  The 
writer  has  a  list  of  the  towns  and  villages  which  it 
once  contained;  and  in  it  are  the  names  of  127 
places,  all  of  which,  with  the  exception  of  about 
eleven,  are  now  uninhabited.  Only  a  few  patches 
of  its  soil  are  cultivated ;  and  the  very  best  of  ita 
pasture  is  lost  —  the  tender  grass  of  early  spring. 
The  flocks  of  the  Turkmans  and  el-Fiulkl  Arabs  — 
the  only  triues  that  remain  nermanently  in  thia 
region  —  are  not  able  to  consume  it;  and  the 
^Anazeh,  those  "  children  of  the  East  "  who  spread 
over  the  land  like  locusts,  and  "  wnose  camels  arc 
without  number  "  (Judg.  vii.  12),  onlv  anive  about 


^30 


GOLD 


the  beginning  of  May.  At  that  season  the  whole 
»untry  is  covered  with  them  —  their  black  tents 
pitched  in  circles  near  the  fountains ;  their  cattle 
thickly  dotting  the  vast  plain ;  and  their  fierce  cav- 
aliers roamitig  far  and  wide,  "  their  hand  against 
avery  man,  and  every  man's  hand  against  them." 

For  fuller  accounts  of  the  scenery,  antiquities, 
and  history  of  Gaulanitis,  see  Porter's  Handbook 
far  Syr.  and  Pal.  pp.  295,  424-,  461,  531;  Five 
Years  in  Damascus.,  ii.  250 ;  Journal  of  Sac.  Lit. 
ri.  282 ;  Burckhardt's  Trav.  in  Syr.  p.  277. 

J.  L.  P. 

GOLD,  the  most  valuable  of  metals,  from  its 
color,  lustre,  weight,  ductUity,  and  other  useful 
properties  (PUn.  //.  N.  xxxiii.  19).  Hence  it  is 
used  as  an  emblem  of  purity  (Job  xxiii.  10)  and 
nobility  (Lam.  iv.  1).  There  are  six  Hebrew  words 
used  to  denote  it,  and  four  of  them  occur  in  Job 
xxviii.  15,  16,  17.     These  are; 

1.  )2nT,  the  common   name,  connected  with 

Dn^  {to  be  yellow),  as  geld,  from  gel,  yellow. 
Various  epithets  are  appUed  to  it:  as,  "fine"  (2 
Chr.  iii.  5),  "refined  "  (1  Chr.  xxviii.  18),  "  pure" 
(Ex.  XXV.  11).  In  opposition  to  these,  "  beaten  "  gold 

(tO^nti?  T)  is  probably  mixed  gold ;  LXX.  i\aT6s ; 
used  of  Solomon's  shields  (1  K.  x.  16). 

2.  1^30  {K€ifi'f]Kiou)  treasured,  i.  e.  fine  gold 
(1  K.  vi.  20,  vii.  49,  &c.).  Many  names  of  precious 
substances  in  Hebrew  come  from  roots  sigiufying 

concealment,  as  'jl^^.'^'^  (Gen.  xUii.  23,  A.  V. 
"  treasure  "). 

3.  TQ,  pure  or  native  gold  (Job  xxviii.  17 ;  Cant. 

V.  15;  probably  from  ^*^,  to  separate).  Rosen- 
miiller  (Alterthumsk.  iv.  p.  49)  makes  it  come  from 
a  Syriac  root  meaning  solid  or  massy;  but  "11  HID 

(2  Chr.  ix.  17)  corresponds  to  TQ^in  (1  K.  x.  18). 
The  LXX.  render  it  by  xiOos  rl/j-ios,  xP'^^^ov 
&Trvpop  (Is.  xiii.  12  ;  Theodot.  i.Tve<pdov ;  comp. 
Thuc.  ii.  13;  PUn.  xxxiii.  19,  obrussa).  In  Ps. 
cxix.  127,  the  LXX.  render  it  roird^iov  (A.  V. 
"fine  gold");  but  Schleusner  happily  conjectures 
rh  ird^iou,  the  Hebrew  word  being  adopted  to  avoid 
the  repetition  of  ^pvaos  (Thes.  s.  v.  r6Tra(i  Hesych. 
9.  V.  TrdCiov)- 

4.  D— 3,  gold  earth,  or  a  mass  of  raw  ore  (Job 
xxii.  24,  'dirvpou,  A.  V.  "gold  as  dust"). 

The  poetical  names  for  gold  are : 

1.  DnS  (also  implying  something  concealed); 
LXX.  xp^(^^ov;  and  in  Is.  xiii.  12,  XiOos  iroXv- 
Te\'f]s.  In  Job  xxxvii.  22,  it  is  rendered  in  A.  V. 
"fair  weather;"  LXX.  pe^r}  xpi/crau'yoiJj'Ta. 
(Comp.  Zech.  iv.  12.) 

2.  \^^"^n,  =  c?«^  out  (Prov.  viii.  10),  a  gen- 
sral  name,  which  has  become  special,  Ps.  Ixviii. 
13,  where  it  cannot  mean  gems,  as  some  suppose 
(Bochart,  Ilieroz.  torn.  ii.  p.  9).  Michaelis  con- 
nects the  word  chdrutz  wdth  the  Greek  ^pvcros- 

Gold  was  known  from  the  very  earliest  times 
(Gen.  ii.  11).  Pliny  attributes  the  discovery  of 
it  (at  JMount  Pangseus),  and  the  art  of  working  it, 
to  Cadmus  {H.  N.  vii.  57);  and  his  statement  is 
awlopted  by  Clemens  Alexandrinus  {Stroin.  i.  363, 
ed.  Pott.).  It  was  at  first  chiefly  used  for  orna- 
foeats,  etc.  (Gen.  xxiv.  22) ;  and  although  Abraham 


GOLGOTHA 

is  said  to  have  been  "very  rich  in  cattle,  in  «lvee 
and  in  gold  "  (Gen.  xiii.  2),  yet  no  mention  of  it 
as  used  in  purchases,  is  made  till  after  hiii  retun 
from  Egypt.  Coined  money  was  not  knowii  to  th« 
ancients  (e.  g.  Hom.  //.  vii.  473)  till  a  compara- 
tively late  period ;  and  on  the  Egyptian  tombs  gold 
is  represented  as  being  weighed  in  rings  for  com- 
mercial purposes.  (Comp.  Gen.  xliii.  21.)  No  coins 
are  found  in  the  ruins  of  Egypt  or  Assyria  (I^yard's 
Nin.  ii.  418).  "  Even  so  late  as  the  tin.e  of  David 
gold  was  not  used  as  a  standard  of  value,  but  was 
considered  merely  as  a  very  precious  article  of  com- 
merce, and  was  weighed  hke  other  ai tides  "  (Jahn, 
Ai^ch.  Bibl.  §  115,  1  Chr.  xxi.  25). 

Gold  was  extremely  abundant  in  ancient  tim2» 
(1  Chr.  xxii.  14;  2  Chr.  i.  15,  ix.  9;  Nah.  ii.  9; 
Dan.  iii.  1);  but  this  did  not  depreciate  its  value, 
because  of  the  enormous  quantities  consumed  by 
the  wealthy  in  furniture,  etc.  (1  K.  vi.  22,  x.  pas- 
sim; Cant.  iii.  9,  10;  Esth.  i.  6;  Jer.  x.  9;  comp. 
Hom.  Od.  xix.  55;  Herod,  ix.  82).  Probably  too 
the  art  of  gilding  was  known  extensively,  being 
applied  even  to  the  battlements  of  a  city  (Herod. 
i.  98 ,  and  other  authorities  quoted  by  Layard,  ii. 
264). 

The  chief  countries  mentioned  as  producing  gold 
are  Arabia,  Sheba,  and  Ophir  (1  K.  ix.  28,  x.  1 ; 
Job  xxviii.  16 :  in  Job  xxii.  24,  the  word  Ophir  is 
used  for  gold ).  Gold  is  not  found  in  Arabia  now 
(Niebuhr's  Travels,  p.  141),  but  it  used  to  be 
(Artemidor.  ap.  Strab.  xvi.  3,  18,  where  he  speaks 
of  an  Arabian  river  y\/riyixa  xpv<^ov  KaTa<p4p(ov)' 
Diodorus  also  says  that  it  was  found  there  native 
(dirupov)  in  good-sized  nuggets  ifiuKapia)-  Some 
suppose  that  Ophir  was  an  Arabian  port  to  which 
gold  was  brought  (comp.  2  Chr.  ii.  7,  ix.  10). 
Other  gold-bearing  countries  were  Uphaz  (Jer.  x. 
9;  Dan.  x.  5)  and  Parvaim  (2  Chr.  iii.  6). 

Metallurgic  processes  are  mentioned  in  Ps.  Ixvi. 
10,  Prov.  xvii.  3,  xxvii.  21 ;  and  in  Is.  xlvi.  6,  the 

trade  of  goldsmith  (cf.  Judg.  xvii.  4,  ^^2)  is 
alluded  to  in  connection  ■with  the  overlaying  of 
idols  with  gold-leaf  (Rosenmiiller's  Minerals  of 
Script,  pp.  46-51).     [Hakdickaft.]    F.  W.  F. 

*  GOLDSMITH.     [Handicraft.] 

GOL^GOTHA  (roXyoea  [a skull]:  Golgotha), 
the  Hebrew  name  of  the  spot  at  which  our  Lord 
was  crucified  (Matt,  xxvii.  33;  Mark  xv.  22;  John 
xix.  17).  By  these  three  Evangelists  it  is  inter- 
preted to  mean  the  "  place  of  a  skull."  St.  Luke, 
in  accordance  with  his  practice  in  other  cases  (com- 
pare Gabbatha,  Gethsemane,  etc.),  omits  the  He- 
brew term  and  gives  only  its  Greek  equivalent, 
Kpaviov-  The  word  Calvary,  which  in  Luke  xxiii. 
33  is  retained  in  the  A.  V.  from  the  Vulgate,  as 
the  rendering  of  Kpaviov,  obscures  the  statement 
of  St.  Luke,  whose  words  are  really  as  follows: 
"  the  place  which  is  called  '  a  skull '  "  —  not,  as  in 
the  other  Gosj^els,  Kpaviov,  "of  a  skull;"  thus 
employing  the  Greek  term  exactly  as  Ihey  do  the 
Hebrew  one.  [Calvary,  Amer.  ed.]-  This  He- 
brew,  or    rather   Chaldee,    term,   was    doubtless 

Sribsbil,  Gulgolta,  in  pure  Hebrew  nVsba, 
applied  to  the  skull  on  account  of  its  round  globu- 
lar form,  that  being  the  idea  at  the  root  of  the 
word. 

Two  explanations  of  the  name  are  given :  (1)  that 
it  was  a  spot  where  executions  ordinarily  took  place 
and  therefore  abounded  in  skulls;  liut  riccording  t« 
the  Jewish  law  these  mu  »t  have  beer  buri'^,  aiiC 


I 

I 


GOLIATH 

i'lersfore  were  no  more  likely  to  confer  a  name  on 
khe  spot  than  any  other  part  of  the  skeleton.  In 
lihia  case  too  <lie  Greek  should  be  "Sttos  Kpaviwv, 
"of  skulls,"  instead  of  Kpaviov,  ''of  a  skull," 
gtill  less  "a  skull"  as  in  the  Hebrew,  and  in  the 
Greek  of  St.  Luke.  Or  (-2)  it  may  come  from  the 
look  or  form  of  the  spot  itself,  bald,  round,  and 
skull-like,  and  tlierefore  a  mound  or  hillock,  in 
accordance  with  the  conmion  phrase  —  for  which 
there  is  no  direct  authox'ity  —  "  JMount  Calvary." 
Whichever  of  these  is  the  correct  explanation  — 
and  there  is  apparently  no  means  of  deciding  with 
certainty  —  Golgotha  seems  to  have  been  a  known 
si)ot.  This  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  way  in  which 
it  is  mentioned  in  the  Gospels,  each  except  St. 
Matthew  «  having  the  definite  article  —  "  the  place 
Golgotha  "  —  "  the  place  which  is  called  a  skull  " 
—  "  the  place  (A.  V.  omits  the  article)  called  of, 
or  after,  a  skull."  It  was  "outside  the  gate," 
e|aj  TTJs  irvArjs  (Heb.  xiii.  12)  but  close  to  the  city, 
iyyv9  TTJs  irSXccos  (John  xix.  20);  apparently  near 
a  thoroughfare  on  which  there  were  passers-by. 
This  road  or  path  led  out  of  the  "  country " '' 
(aypSs)-  It  was  probably  the  ordinary  spot  for 
executions.  AVhy  should  it  have  been  otherwise  ? 
To  those  at  least  who  carried  the  sentence  into 
effect,  Christ  was  but  an  ordinary  criminal;  and 
there  is  not  a  word  to  indicate  that  the  soldiers  in 
"leadhig  Him  away"  went  to  any  other  than  the 
usual  place  for  what  must  have  been  a  common 
operation.  Howerer,  in  the  place  (eV  t^  rSiro}) 
itself — at  the  very  spot  —  was  a  garden  or  orchard 
(«f)7ros). 

These  are  all  the  indications  of  the  nature  and 
situation  of  Golgotha  which  present  themselves  in 
the  N.  T.  Its  locality  in  regard  to  Jerusalem  is 
fully  examined  in  the  description  of  the  city. 
[Jerusalem.] 

A  tradition  at  one  time  prevailed  that  Adam  was 
buried  on  Golgotha,  that  from  his  skull  it  derived 
its  name,  and  that  at  the  Crucifixion  the  drops  of 
Christ's  blood  fell  on  the  skull  and  raised  Adam  to 
life,  whereby  the  ancient  prophecy  quoted  by  St. 
Paul  in  Eph.  v.  14  received  its  fulfillment— "Awake, 
thou  Adam  that  sleepest,"  —  so  the  old  versions 
appear  to  have  run  —  "  and  arise  from  the  dead, 
for  Christ  shall  touch  thee "  (e7rti//ou<ret  for  eVt- 
(^ouo-et).  See  Jerome,  Comm.  on  Matt,  xxvii.  33, 
and  the  quotation  in  Keland,  Pal.  p.  860;  also 
Saewulf,  in  E(trlij  Travels,  p.  39.  The  skull  com- 
monly introduced  in  early  pictures  of  the  Cmcifixion 
refers  to  this. 

A  connection  has  been  supposed  to  exist  between 
GoATii  and  Golgotha,  but  at  the  best  this  is  mere 
conjecture,  and  there  is  not  in  the  original  the 

same  simdarity  between  the  two  names  —  HV^ 

and  Sn737i  —  which  exists  in  theur  English  or 
Latin  garb,  and  which  probably  occasioned  the 
suggestion.  G. 

GOLI'ATH  (n^Vs  [splendor,  brilliant,  Dietr. ; 
5ut  see  below]:  roxidd:  Goliath),  a  famous  giant 
Df  Gath,  who  "  morning  and  evening  for  forty  days  " 
lefied  the  armies  of  Israel  (1  Sam.  xvii.).  He  was 
possibly  descended  from  the  old  Rephaim,  of  whom 
\  scattered  remnant  took  refuge  with  the  Phihs- 
tines  after  their  dispersion  by  the  Anjmonites  (Deut. 
ii.  20,  21;  2  Sam.  xxi.  22).  Some  trace  of  this 
))ndition  may  be  preserved  in  the  giant's  name,  if 


«  8t.  Matthew  too  has  the  article  in  Codex  B. 


GOLIATH  987 

it  be  connected  with  H^'^S,  an  exile.  Sisionu. 
however,  derives  it  from  an  Arabic  word  meaning 
"stout"  (Gesen.  Tlies.  s.  v.).  His  height  was 
"  six  cubits  and  a  span,"  which,  taking  the  cubit 
at  21  inches,  would  make  him  10^  feet  high.  But 
the  LXX.  and  Josephus  read  '■'■four  cubits  and  a 
span"  (1  Sam.  xvii.  4;  Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  9,  §  1). 
This  will  make  him  about  the  same  size  as  the 
royal  champion  slain  by  Antimenidas,  brother  of 
Alcaeus  (ctTroAeiTroi'Ta  [xXav  \i6vov  waxeoou  eiTrb 
irefiirwu,  ap.  Strab.  xiii.  p.  617,  with  Midler's 
emendation).  Even  on  this  computation  Goliath 
would  be,  as  Josephus  calls  him,  avijp  irafifieyedeT- 
TUTos  —  a  truly  enormous  man. 

The  circumstances  of  the  combat  are  in  all 
respects  Homeric;  free  from  any  of  the  puerile 
legends  which  oriental  imagination  subsequently 
introduced  into  it  —  as  for  instance  that  the  stones 
used  by  David  called  out  to  him  from  the  In-ook, 
"  By  our  means  you  shall  slay  the  giant,"  etc. 
(Hottinger,  Ilisl.  Orient,  i.  3,  p.  Ill  AT.;  D'Her 
belot,  s.  V.  Gialut).  The  fancies  of  the  Kabbis  are 
yet  more  extraordinary.  After  the  victory  David 
cut  off  Goliath's  head  (1  Sam.  xvii.  51;  comp. 
Herod,  iv.  6 ;  Xenoph.  Anab.  v.  4,  §  17 ;  Niebuhr 
mentions  a  similar  custom  among  the  Arabs,  Descr. 
Winer,  s.  v.),  which  he  brought  to  Jerusalem 
(probably  after  his  accession  to  the  throne,  Ewald, 
Gescli.  iii.  94),  while  he  hung  the  armor  in  his 
tent. 

The  scene  of  this  famous  combat  was  the  Valley 
of  the  Terebinth,  between  Shochoh  and  Azekah, 
probably  among  the  western  passes  of  Benjamin, 
although  a  confused  modern  tradition  has  given  the 
name  of  'Ain  Jalud  (spring  of  Goliath)  to  the 
spring  of  Harod,  or  "  trembling  "  (Stanley,  p.  342; 
Judg.  vii.  1).     [Elah,  valley  of.] 

In  2  Sam.  xxi.  19,  we  find  that  another  Goliath 
of  Gath,  of  whom  it  is  also  said  that  "  the  staff  of 
his  spear  was  like  a  weaver's  beam,"  was  slain  by 
Ellianan,  also  a  Bethlehem ite.  St.  Jerome  (  QiUBst. 
Ihbr.  ad  loc.)  makes  the  unlikely  conjecture  that 
Elhanan  was  another  name  of  David.  The  A.  V . 
here  interpolates  the  words  "  the  brother  of,"  from 
1  (^hr.  XX.  5,  where  this  giant  is  called  "  Lahmi.' 
This   will   be   found    fully   examined   under   El - 

HAN  an. 

In  the  title  of  the  Psalm  added  to  the  Psalter  in 
the  LXX.  we  find  tw  AoulS  irphs  rhu  ro\id5;  and 
although  the  allusions  are  vague,  it  is  perhaps  pos- 
sible that  this  Psalm  may  have  been  v\Titten  after 
the  victory.  This  Psalm  is  given  at  length  under 
David,  p.  554  b.  It  is  strange  that  we  find  no 
more  definite  allusions  to  this  combat  in  Hebrew 
poetry ;  but  it  is  the  opinion  of  some  that  the  song 
now  attributed  to  Hannah  (1  Sam.  ii.  1-10)  was 
originally  written  really  in  commemoration  of 
David's  triumph  on  this  occasion  (Thenius,  die 
Biicher  Sam.  p.  8;  comp.  Bertholdt,  FAnl  iii. 
915;  Ewald,  Poet.  Biicher  des  A.  B.  i.  111). 

By  the  Mohammedans  Saul  and  Goliath  are 
called  Taluth  and  Galuth  ( Jalut  in  Koran ),  perhaps 
for  the  sake  of  the  homoioteletifon,  of  which  they 
are  so  fond  (Hottinger,  flist.  Orient,  i.  3,  p.  28). 
Abulfeda  .nentions  a  Canaanite  king  of  the  name 
Jalut  (Hisi.  Antehlam.  p.  176,  in  Winer  s.  v.);  and, 
according  to  Ahmed  al-Fassi,  Gialout  was  a  dynastio 
name  of  the  old  giant-chiefs  (D'Herbelot,  s.  y. 
FcJasthin).     [Giants.]  F.  W.  F. 


&  But  the  Vuljcate  has  rfe  viUix. 


938 


GOMER 


GO'MER  n^'2    Ic07n2)leteness]:   Ta/iep;   [in 

Ezek.,  ro/xep:]  Comer).  1.  The  eldest  son  of 
Japheth,  and  the  father  of  Ashkenaz,  Kiphath,  and 
Togarmah  (Gen.  x.  2,  3;  [1  Chr.  i.  5,  G]).  His 
name  is  subsequently  noticed  but  once  (Ez.  xxxviii. 
6)  as  an  ally  or  subject  of  the  Scythian  king  Gog. 
He  is  generally  recognized  as  the  progenitor  of  the 
early  Cimmerians,  of  the  later  Cimbri  and  the  other 
branches  of  the  Celtic  family,  and  of  the  modern 
Gael  and  Cymry,  the  latter  presemng  with  very 
slight  deviation  the  original  name.  The  Cimme- 
rians, when  first  known  to  us,  occupied  the  Tauric 
Chersonese,  where  they  left  traces  of  their  presence 
in  the  ancient  names,  Cimmerian  Bosphorus,  Cim- 
merian Isthmus,  Mount  Cimmerium,  the  district 
Cimmeria,  and  particularly  the  Cimmerian  walls 
(Her.  iv.  12,  45, 100:  ^sch.  Prom.  Vinct.  729),  and 
in  the  modern  name  Crimea.  They  forsook  this 
abode  under  the  pressure  of  the  Scythian  tribes, 
and  during  the  early  part  of  the  7th  century  B.  c. 
they  poured  over  the  western  part  of  Asia  Minor, 
committing  immense  devastation,  and  defying  for 
more  than  half  a  century  the  power  of  the  Lydian 
kings.  They  were  finally  ex])elled  by  Alyattes,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few,  who  settled  at  Sinope  and 
Antandrus.  It  was  about  the  same  period  that 
Ezekiel  noticed  them,  as  acting  in  conjunction  with 
Armenia  (Togarmah)  and  Magog  (Scythia).  The 
connection  between  Gomer  and  Armenia  is  sup- 
iwrted  by  the  tradition,  preserved  by  IMoses  of 
Chorene  (i.  11),  that  Gamir  was  the  ancestor  of 
the  Haichian  kings  of  the  latter  country.  After 
the  expulsion  of  the  Cimmerians  from  Asia  Minor 
their  name  disappears  in  its  original  form;  but 
there  can  be  little  reasonable  doubt  that  both  the 
name  and  the  people  are  to  be  recognized  in  the 
Cimbri,  whose  abodes  were  fixed  during  the  Roman 
Empire  in  the  north  and  west  of  Europe,  partic- 
ularly in  the  Cimbric  Chersonese  {Denmark).,  on 
the  coast  between  the  Elbe  and  Rhine,  and  in  Bel- 
gium, whence  they  had  crossed  to  Britain,  and 
occupied  at  one  period  the  whole  of  the  British  isles, 
but  were  ultimately  driven  back  to  the  western  and 
northern  districts,  which  their  descendants  still 
occupy  in  two  great  divisions,  the  Gael  in  Ireland 
and  Scotland,  the  Cymry  in  Wales.  The  latter 
name  preserves  a  greater  similarity  to  the  original 
Gomer  than  either  of  the  classical  forms,  the  con- 
sonants being  identical.  The  link  to  connect  Cymry 
with  Cimbri  is  furnished  by  the  forms  Cambria 
and  Cumber-land.  The  whole  Celtic  race  may 
therefore  be  regarded  as  descended  from  Gomer, 
ind  thus  the  opinion  of  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  6,  §  1), 
that  the  Galatians  were  sprung  from  him,  may  be 
reconciled  with  the  view  propounded.  Various 
other  conjectures  have  been  hazarded  on  the  sub- 
ject: Bochart  {Phaleg,  iii.  81)  identifies  the  name 
on  etymological  gi'ounds  with  Phrygia ;  Wahl 
{Asien,  i.  274)  proposes  Cappadocia;  and  Kalisch 
' Comni.  on  Gen.)  seeks  to  identify  it  with  the 
Jhomari,  a  nation  in  Bactriana,  noticed  by  Ptolemy 
(vi.  11,  §  6). 

2.  [TSfjLep.']  The  daughter  of  Diblaim,  and 
concubine  of  Hosea  (i.  3).  The  name  is  significant 
<rf  a  maiden,  ripe  for  marriage,  and  connects  well 


G(>M0RRA11 

with  th^   nanu   DiBLAiai,  which  is   \\ao  derivud 
from  the  subject  of  fruit.  W.  L.  U. 

GOMOR'RAH  {'H'^TIV,  Gh'morah,  prob- 
ably submersion,  from  '^'2"'^''^"  unused  root;  in 
Arabic   y4-h,  ghamara,  is  to  "overwhelm  with 

water":  r6/xop^a:  GomorrliU),  one  of  the  five 
"citifs  of  the  plain,"  or  "vale  of  Siddim,"  that 
under  their  respective  kings  joined  battle  there 
with  Chedorlaomer  (Gen.  xiv.  2-8)  and  his  allies, 
b}  whom  they  were  discomfited  till  Abram  came  tc 
the  rescue.  Four  out  of  the  five  were  afterwards 
destroyed  by  the  Lord  with  fii-e  from  heaven  (Gen. 
xix.  23-29).  One  of  them  only,  Zoar  or  Bela, 
which  was  its  original  name,  was  spared  at  the 
request  of  Lot,  in  order  that  he  might  take  refuge 
there.  Of  these  Gomorrah  seems  to  have  been 
only  second  to  Sodom  in  importance,  as  well  as  in 
the  wickedness  that  led  to  tlieir  overthrow.  What 
that  atrocity  was  may  be  gathered  from  Gon.  xix. 
4-8.  Their  miserable  fate  is  held  up  as  a  warning 
to  the  children  of  Israel  (Deut.  xxix.  23;;  as  a 
precedent  for  the  destruction  of  Babylon  (Is.  xiii. 
19,  and  Jer.  1.  40),  of  Edom  (Jer.  xlix.  18),  of 
Moab  (Zeph.  ii.  9),  and  even  of  Israel  (Am.  iv. 
11).  By  St.  Peter  in  the  N.  T.,  and  by  St.  Jude 
(2  Pet.  ii.  (i;  Jude,  vv.  4-7),  it  is  made  "an  en- 
sample  unto  those  that  after  should  live  ungodly," 
or  "deny  Christ."  Similarly  their  wickedness 
rings  as  a  proverb  throughout  the  prophecies  (e.  g. 
Deut.  xxxii.  32;  Is.  i.  9,  10;  Jer.  xxiii.  14).  Je- 
rusalem herself  is  there  unequivocally  called  Sodom, 
and  her  people  Gomorrah,  for  their  enormities;  just 
in  the  same  way  that  the  con-uptions  of  the  Church 
of  Kome  have  caused  her  to  be  called  Babylon.  On 
the  other  hand,  according  to  the  N.  T.,  there  is  a 
sin  which  exceeds  even  that  of  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, that,  namely  'J  which  T}Te  and  Sidon,  Ca- 
pernaum, Chorazin,  and  Bethsaida  were  guilty,  when 
they  "repented  not,"  in  spite  of  "the  mighty 
works"  which  they  had  witnessed  (Matt.  x.  15); 
and  St.  jNIark  has  ranged  under  the  same  category 
all  those  who  would  not  receive  the  preaching  of 
the  Apostles  (vi.  11). 

To  turn  to  their  geographical  position,  one  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  seems  expressly  to  assert  that  the 
vale  of  Siddim  had  become  the  "salt,"  or  dead, 
"sea"  (Gen.  xiv.  3),  called  elsewhere  too  the  "sea 
of  the  plain"  (Josh.  xii.  3);  the  expression,  how- 
ever, occurs  antecedently  to  their  overthrow.a  Jo- 
sephus {Ant.  i.  9)  says  that  the  lake  Asphaltites  or 
Dead  Sea,  was  formed  out  of  what  used  to  be  the 
valley  where  Sodom  stood;  but  elsewhere  he  de- 
clares that  the  territory  of  Sodom  was  not  suIh 
merged  in  the  lake  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  4),  but  still 
existed  parched  and  burnt  up,  as  is  the  appearance 
of  that  region  still;  and  certainly  nothing  in  Scrip- 
ture would  lead  to  the  idea  that  they  wen;  destroyetl 
by  submersion  —  though  they  may  have  been  sub- 
merged afterwards  when  destroyed  —  for  their  de- 
struction is  expressly  attributed  to  the  brimstone 
and  fire  rained  upon  them  from  heaven  (Gen.  xix. 
24;  see  also  Deut.  xxix.  23,  and  Zeph.  ii.  9;  also 
St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude  before  cited).  And  St. 
Jerome  in  the  Onomasticon  says  of  Sodom,  "ci\ita» 


u  ♦  This  view,  we  think,  is  incorrect.  We  have  no 
reason  to  regard  the  record  (Gen.  xiv.  3),  at  least  in 
the  form  in  which  we  have  it,  as  older  than  the  date 
»f  the  destruction  of  the  cities.  The  next  remark 
«]bo  in  reitard  to  Josephus  must  be  an  inadvertence. 


Josephus  does  not  affirm  that  Sodom  was  in  the  rait 
of  Siddim.  He  ^ays  that  it  lay  near  it ,  and  his  twt 
testimonies,  quoted  in  the  article  above,  are  entini* 
consistent.  S  W. 


GOMORRHA 

jnpioruni  divin )  igne  consiimpta  juxtz.  mare  mor- 
tuum,"  and  so  of  the  rest  {ibid.  s.  v.).  The  whole 
lulyect  is  ably  handled  by  Cellarius  (ap.  Uyol. 
Thesaur.  vii.  pp.  decxxxix.-lxxviii.l,  though  it  is 
not  always  necessary  to  agree  with  his  conclusions. 
Among  modern  travellers,  Dr.  Robinson  shows  tha* 
the  Jordaii  could  not  have  ever  flowed  into  the  gulf 
of  \ikabuh  ;  on  the  contrary  that  the  rivers  of  the 
desert  themselves  flow  northwards  into  the  Dead 
Sea.  [ArakaII.]  And  this,  added  to  the  con- 
figuration and  deep  depression  of  the  valley,  serves 
in  his  opinion  to  prove  that  there  must  have  been 
always  a  lake  there,  into  which  tlie  Jordan  flowed ; 
though  he  admits  it  to  ha\-e  been  of  far  less  extent 
than  it  now  is,  and  even  the  whole  southern  part 
of  it  to  have  been  added  subsequently  to  the  over- 
throw of  the  four  cities,  which  stood,  according  to 
him,  at  the  original  south  end  of  it,  Zoar  probably 
being  situated  in  the  mouth  of  IVady  Kerak,  as  it 
opens  upon  the  isthmus  of  the  peninsula.  In  the 
same  plain,  he  remarks,  were  slime  pits,  or  wells  of 
bitumen  (Gen.  xiv.  10;  "salt-pits"  also,  Zeph.  ii. 
9);  while  the  enlargement  of  the  lake  he  considers 
to  have  been  caused  by  some  convulsion  or  catas- 
trophe of  nature  coimected  with  the  miraculous 
destruction  of  the  cities  —  volcanic  agency,  that  of 
earthquakes  and  the  like  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  187-192, 
2d  ed. ).  He  might  have  adduced  the  great  earth- 
quake at  Lisbon  as  a  case  in  point.  The  great 
difference  of  level  between  the  bottoms  of  the 
northern  and  southern  ends  of  the  lake,  the  former 
1,300,  the  latter  only  13  feet  below  the  surface,  sin- 
gularly confirms  the  above  view  ([Stanley,  S.  if  P. 
p.  287,  2d  ed.).  Pilgrims  of  Palestine  formerly 
saw,  or  fancied  that  they  saw,  ruins  of  towns  at  the 
bottom  of  the  sea,  not  far  from  the  shore  (see 
Maundrell,  J-Jcaiy  Travels,  p.  454).  M.  de  Saulcy 
was  the  first  to  ix)int  out  ruins  along  the  shores 
(the  Redjom-el-Mezorrhel ;  and  more  particularly 
aptijpos  to  our  present  subject,  Gvumran  on  the 
N.  W.).  Both  perhaps  are  right.  Gomorrah  (as 
its  very  name  implies)  may  have  been  mere  or  less 
submerged  with  the  other  three,  subsequently  to 
their  destruction  by  fire;  while  the  ruins  of  Zoar, 
inasmuch  as  it  did  not  share  their  fate,  would  be 
found,  if  found  at  aU,  upon  the  shore.  (See  gen- 
erally Mr.  Isaac's  Dead  Sea.)    [Sodom,  Amer.  ed.] 

E.  S.  Ff. 
GOMOR'RHA,  the  manner  in  which  the 
name  Goiiokrah  is  written  in  the  A.  V.  of  the 
Apocryphal  books  and  the  New  Testament,  follow- 
ing the  Greek  form  of  the  word,  rSfioppa  (2  Esdr. 
ii.  8;  Matt.  x.  15 ;  Mark  vi.  11 ;  Rom.  ix.  29 ;  Jude 
r-  2  Pet.  ii.  6). 

*  GOODMAN  OF  THE  HOUSE  (oIko- 
^€<rir6Tris),  employed  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  master 
»f  the  house  (Matt.  xx.  11),  and  simply  equivalent 
to  that  expression,  without  any  reference  to  moral 
character.  This  was  a  common  usage  when  the  A. 
V.  was  made.  The  Greek  term  being  the  same, 
there  was  no  good  reason  for  saying  "  goodman  of 
the  house"  in  that  veise,  and  "house  holder"  at 
the  beginning  of  the  parable  (ver.  1).  See  Trench, 
Authorized  Version,  p.  96  (1859).  H. 

GOPHER  WOOD.  Only  once  in  Gen.  vi. 
14.  The  Hebrew  "l^D  "^"^V.,  trees  of  Gopher,  does 
not  occur  in  the  cognate  dialects.  The  A.  V.  has 
(nade  no  attempt  at  translation :  the  LXX  (|uAa 
Ttrpdycova)  and  Vulgate  {lif/7ia  kevit/ata]    elicited 

by  mjtathesls  of  H  and  ^  ("123  —  ^'^'3),  the  for- 


GORTYNA 


939 


mer  having  reference  to  square  blocks,  tut  by  tiu 
axe,  the  latter  to  planks  smoothed  by  the  plane, 
have  not  found  much  favor  with  modem  commen- 
tators. 

The  conjectures  of  cedar  (Aben  Ezra,  Onk 
Jonath.  and  Raljbins  generally),  wood  most  jjrcper 
to  float  (Kimchi),  the  Greek  KeSpeXdrr]  (Juu 
Tremell. ;  Buxt.),  7>iHe  (Avenar. ;  Munst.),  tur- 
peniine  (Castalio),  are  little  better  than  gratuitous. 
The  rendering  cedar  has  been  defended  by  PoUetier, 
who  refers  to  the  great  abundance  of  this  tree  in 
Asia,  and  the  durability  of  its  timber. 

The  Mohammedan  equivalent  is  sig,  by  which 
Herbelot  understands  the  Indian  plane-tree.  Two 
principal  conjectures,  however,  have  been  proposed : 
(1.)  By  Is.  Vossius  {Diss,  de  LXX.  Jnterp.  c.  12) 

that  "^521  =  "123,  resitt;  whence  H  "^^^^^j  iiiP-'i»ing 
any  trees  of  the  resinous  kind,  such  as  pine,  fir, 
etc.  (2.)  By  Fuller  {Miscell.  Sac.  iv.  5),  Bochart 
{Phaleg,  i.  4),  Celsius  {IJierobot.  pt.  i.  p.  328), 
Hasse  {Entdeckunfjen,  pt.  ii.  p.  78),  that  Gopher  Ls 
cypress,  in  favor  of  which  opinion  (adopted  by 
Gesen.  Lex.)  they  adduce  the  similarity  in  sound 
of  gopher  and  cypress  (Kuirap  =  yocfxp) ;  the  suit- 
ability of  the  cypress  for  ship-building;  and  the 
fact  that  this  tree  abounded  in  Babylonia,  and  more 
particularly  in  Adiabene,  where  it  supplied  Alex- 
ander with  timber  for  a  whole  fleet  (Arrian.  vii.  p. 
IGl,  ed.  Steph.). 

A  tradition  is  mentioned  in  Eutychius  (Annals, 
p.  34)  to  the  effect  that  the  Ark  was  made  of  the 
wood  SadJ,  by  which  is  probably  meant  not  the 
ebony,  but  the  Junijyerus  Sabina,  a  species  of  cy- 
press (Bochart  and  Cels. ;  Rosenm.  Sc/wl.  ad  Gen. 
vi.  14,  and  Alterthumsk.  vol.  iv.  pt.  1).     T.  E.  B. 

GOR'GIAS  (Topylas,  [Alex.  1  Mace.  iii.  38, 
2  Mace.  xii.  35,  37,  Topycia^;  1  Mace.  iv.  5,  Kop- 
yio.s\  )i  a  general  in  the  service  of  Antiochus  Epi- 
phanes  (1  INIacc.  iii.  38,  0Lv)}p  Svyarhs  twu  (pi\wv 
Tov  fiaa-iAccas;  cf.  2  Mace.  viii.  9),  who  was  ap- 
pointed by  his  regent  Lysias  to  a  command  in  the 
expedition  against  Judaja  n.  c.  106,  in  which  he 
was  defeated  by  Judas  Maccabaeus  with  great  loss 
(1  Mace.  iv.  1  ff".).  At  a  later  time  (b.  c.  104)  he 
held  a  garrison  in  Jamnia,  and  defeated  the  forces 
of  Joseph  and  Azarias,  who  attacked  him  contrary 
to  the  orders  of  Judas  (1  Mace.  v.  56  ff". ;  Joseph. 
Ant.  xii.  8,  §  6 ;  2  Mace.  xii.  32).  The  account 
of  Gorgias  in  2  jNIacc.  is  very  obscure.  He  is 
represented  there  as  acting  in  a  military  capacity 
(2  Mace.  X.  14,  (rTpaTrjyhs  rwv  r6ira}v  (?), 
hardly  of  Ccele-Syria,  as  Grinmi  (/,  c.)  takes  it), 
apparently  in  concert  with  the  Idumoeans,  and 
afterwards  he  is  described,  according  to  the  present 
text  as,  "governor  of  Idumaea"  (2  Mace.  xii.  32), 
though  it  is  possible  (Giotius,  Grimm,  I.  c.)  that 
the  reading  is  an  error  for  "  governor  of  Jamnia  " 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  8,  §  6,  o  rrjs  'lafiveias  OTparr)- 
yos)-  The  hostility  of  the  Jews  towards  him  is 
described  in  strong  terms  (2  Mace.  xii.  35.  Thv 
KardpaTou,  A.  V.  "that  cursed  man  ");  ai  d  while 
his  success  is  only  noticed  in  passing,  hi;j  defeat 
and  flight  are  given  in  detail,  though  confusedly 
{2  Mace.  xii.  34-38;  cf.  Joseph.  /.  c). 

The  name  itself  was  borne  by  one  of  Alexander'j 
generals,  and  occurs  at  later  times  among  the  east- 
ern Greeks.  B.  F.  W. 

GORTY'N A  (rSpTvvai  [rSprwa  in  1  Mace.] 
in  ciassiical  writers,  rSprvva  or  roprvV.  [Gortyna])^ 
a  city  of  Crete,  and  in  ancient  times  its  most  ia. 


?iO  GOSHEN 

jortant  city,  next  to  Cnossus.  The  only  direct 
Biblical  interest  of  Gortyna  is  in  the  fact  that  it 
appears  from  1  Mace.  xv.  23  to  have  contained 
Jewish  residents.  [Cukte.]  The  circumstance 
alluded  to  in  tliis  passage  took  place  in  the  reign 
of  Ptolemy  Physcon;  and  it  is  possible  that  the 
Jews  had  increased  in  Crete  during  the  reign  of 
his  predecessor  Ptolemy  Philometor,  who  recei\ed 
many  of  them  into  Egypt,  and  who  also  rebuilt 
some  parts  of  (Jortyna  (Strab.  x.  p.  478).  'I'his 
city  was  nearly  half-way  between  the  eastern  and 
western  extremities  of  the  island;  and  it  is  worth 
while  to  notice  that  it  was  near  Fair  Havens;  so 
that  St.  l*aul  may  possiljly  have  preached  the  gos- 
jxil  there,  when  on  his  voyage  to  Rome  (Acts  xxvii. 
8,  9).  Gortyna  seems  to  have  been  the  capital  of 
the  island  under  the  Komans.  For  the  remains  on 
the  old  site  and  in  the  neighborhood,  see  the  Mu- 
seum of  Cl((sstccU  Antiquities,  ii.  277-280. 

J.  S.  H. 

GO'SHEN  ("Jtra:  reo-e^;  [Gen.  xlvi.  29, 
'HpdoQJv  ttSKis'i  for  ver.  28  see  below:]  Gessen),  a 
word  of  uncertain  etymology,  the  name  of  a  part 
of  Egypt  where  the  Israelites  dwelt  for  the  whole 
period  of  their  sojourn   in  that  country.      It  is 

usually  called  the  "land  of  Goshen,"  ^t^'H  V'T'^? 
but  also  Goshen  simply.  It  appears  to  have  borne 
another   name,    "the  land   of    Rameses,"    VTl^ 

DDPPn  (Gen.  xlvii.  11),  unless  this  be  the  name 
of  a  district  of  Goshen.  The  first  mention  of  Go- 
shen is  in  Joseph's  message  to  his  father :  "  Thou 
shalt  dwell  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  thou  shalt 
be  near  unto  me  "  (Gen.  xlv.  10).  This  shows  that 
the  territory  was  near  the  usual  royal  residence  or 
the  residence  of  Joseph's  Pharaoh.  The  dynasty 
to  which  we  assign  this  king,  the  fifteenth  [Egyit; 
JosKPii],  appears  to  have  resided  part  of  the  year 
at  IMemphis,  and  part  of  the  year,  at  harvest-time, 
at  Avaris  on  the  Bubastite  or  Pelusiac  branch  of  the 
Nile:  this,  Manetho  tells  us,  was  the  custom  of  the 
first  king  (Joseph,  c.  Apicm.  i.  14).  In  the  account 
of  the  arri\'al  of  Jacob  it  is  said  of  the  patriarch : 
"  He  sent  Judah  before  him  unto  Joseph,  to  direct 
his  face  unto  Goshen ;  and  they  came  into  the  land 
of  Goshen.  And  Joseph  made  ready  his  chariot, 
and  went  up  to  meet  Israel  his  father,  to  Goshen  " 
(Gen.  xlvi.  28,  29).  This  land  was  therefore  be- 
tween Joseph's  residence  at  the  time  and  the  frontier 
of  Palestine,  and  apparently  the  extreme  province 
towards  that  frontier.  The  advice  that  Joseph 
gave  his  brethren  as  to  their  conduct  to  Pharaoh 
further  characterizes  the  territory:  "  When  Pharaoh 
shall  call  you,  and  shall  say,  What  [is]  your  occu- 
pation ?    Then  ye  shall  say.  Thy  servants  have  been 

herdsmen  of  cattle  (HIirTp  "*t?*3S)  from  our  youth 
even  until  now,  both  we  [and]  also  our  fathers: 
that  ye  may  dwell  in  the  land  of  Goshen ;  for  every 

shepherd  (]S^  "^r?"^)  [is]  an  abomination  unto 
the  Egyptians  "  (xlvi.  33,  34).  It  is  remarkable 
that  in  Coptic  Cy  JUC  signifies  both  "  a  shepherd  " 
and  "  disgrace  "  and  the  like  (Rosellini,  Monumenti 
Sfnnji,  i.  177).  This  passage  shows  that  (lOshen 
nas  scarcely  regarded  as  a  part  of  Egypt  Proper, 
and  was  not  peopled  by  Egyptians  —  characteristics 
iat  would  positively  indicate  a  frontier  province. 
But  it  is  not  to  be  inferred  that  Goshen  had  no 
Egyptian  iuhal)itants  at  this  period :  at  the  time 
9f  the  ten  plagues  such  are  distinctly  mentioned. 


GOSHEN 

That  there  was,  moreover,  a  foreign  populatioi  be- 
sides the  Israelites,  seems  evident  from  the  aconml 
of   the  calamity  of  Ephraim's  house   [Heiuah], 

and  the  mention  of  the  HT  2']^  wlio  went  out  at 
the  Exodus  (Ex.  xii.  38),  notices  referring  to  the 
earlier  and  the  later  period  of  the  sojourn.  The 
name  Goshen  itself  appears  to  be  Hebrew,  or  Semitic 
—  although  we  do  not  venture  with  Jerome  to  de- 
rive it  from  Dt?'2  —  for  it  also  occurs  as  the  natae 
of  a  district  and  of  a  town  in  the  south  of  Palea- 
tine  (infra,  2),  where  we  could  scarcely  cxpe<u  an 
appellation  of  Egyptian  origin  unless  given  after 
the  Exodus,  which  in  this  case  does  not  seem  likely. 
It  is  also  noticeable  that  some  of  the  names  of 
places  in  Goshen  or  its  neighborhood,  as  certainly 
Migdol  and  Baal-zephon,  are  Semitic  [Baal-ze- 
phon],  the  only  positive  exceptions  being  the  cities 
Pithom  and  Rameses,  built  during  the  oppression. 
The  next  mention  of  Goshen  confirms  the  previous 
inference  that  its  position  was  between  Canaan  and 
the  Delta  (Gen.  xlvii.  1).  The  nature  of  the 
country  is  indicated  more  clearly  than  in  the  pas- 
sage last  quoted  in  the  answer  of  Pharaoh  to  the 
request  of  Joseph's  brethren,  and  in  the  accoimt  of 
their  settling :  "  And  Pharaoh  spake  unto  Joseph, 
saying'  I'^y  father  and  thy  brethren  are  come  unto 
thee:  the  land  of  Egypt  [is]  before  thee;  in  the 
best  of  the  land  make  thy  father  and  brethren  to 
dwell :  in  the  land  of  Goshen  let  them  dwell :  and 
if  thou  knowest  [any]  men  of  activity  among  them, 
then  make  them  rulers  o^•er  my  cattle.  .  .  .  And 
Joseph  placed  his  fathirand  his  brethren,  and  gave 
them  a  possession  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  best 
of  the  land,  in  the  land  of  Rameses,  as  Pharaoh 
had  commanded"  (Gen.  xlvii.  5,  G,  11).  Goshen 
was  thus  a  pastoral  country  where  some  of  Pha- 
raoh's cattle  were  kept.     The  expression  "  in  the 

best  of  the  land,"  V^^*?  ^^^^4^  (eV  tt]  0e\' 
ricrTT)  777,  in  optimo  loco),  must,  we  think,  be  rel- 
ative,' the  best  of  the  land  for  a  pastoral  people 
(although  we  do   not  accept  JNIichaelis'   reading 

"  pastures  "  by  comparison  with  V»3*Ji5«jO,  Suppl. 

p.  1072;  see  Gesen.  Thes.  s.  v.  ^t2^^),  for  in  the 
matter  of  fertihty  the  richest  parts  of  Egypt  are 
those  nearest  to  the  Nile,  a  position  which,  as  will 
be  seen,  we  cannot  assign  to  Goshen.  The  suf- 
ficiency of  this  tract  for  the  Israelites,  their  pros- 
perity there,  and  their  virtual  separation,  as  is 
evident  from  the  account  of  the  plagues,  from  the 
great  body  of  the  Egj'ptians,  must  also  be  borne  in 
mind.  The  clearest  indications  of  the  exact  position 
of  Goshen  are  those  aflTorded  by  the  nairative  of 
the  ICxodus.  The  Israelites  set  out  from  the  town 
of  Rameses  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  made  two  days' 
journey  to  "  the  edge  of  the  wilderness,"  and  in  one 
day  more  reached  the  Red  Sea.  At  the  starting- 
point  two  routes  lay  before  them,  "  the  way  of  the 
land  of  the  Philistines  .  .  .  that  [was]  near,"  and 
"  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of  the  Red  Sea  "  (Ex. 
xiii.  17,  18).  From  these  indications  we  infer  that 
the  land  of  Goshen  must  have  in  part  been  neai 
the  eastern  side  of  the  ancient  Delta,  Rameses  ly- 
ing within  the  valley  now  called  the  Wikli-f-  Tuiuey^ 
Idt,  about  thirty  miles  in  a  direct  course  from  th« 
ancient  western  shore  of  the  Arabian  Gulf  [Ex 
ODcs,  the]. 

The  results   of  the   foregoing  examination  0/ 
Biblical  evidence  are  that  tlie  lar  d  of  Goshen  Uj 


GOSHEN 

jct\reen  the  eastern  part  of  the  uicient  Delta  and 
the  western  border  of  Palestine,  that  it  was  scarcely 
a  part  of  I*4^ypt  Proper,  was  inhabited  by  other 
foreigners  besides  the  Israelites,  and  was  in  its 
geographical  names  rather  Senii'-.ic  than  Egyptian ; 
that  it  was  a  pasture-land,  especially  suited  to  a 
shepherd-people,  and  sufficient  for  the  Israelites, 
who  there  prospered,  and  were  separate  from  the 
main  body  of  the  Egyptians;  and  lastly,  that  one 
of  its  towns  lay  near  the  wes.ern  extremity  of  the 
Wwli-t-  Tumeyldt.  These  indications,  except  only 
that  of  sufficiency,  to  be  afterwards  considered,  seem 
to  us  decisively  to  indicate  the  Wdcli-t-  Tumeyldt, 
the  vidley  along  which  anciently  llowed  the  canal 
of  the  Ked  Sea.  Other  identifications  seem  to  us 
to  be  utterly  untenable.  If  with  Lepsius  we  place 
Goshen  below  Heliopolis,  near  Bubastis  and  Bil- 
beys,  the  distance  from  tlie  Ked  Sea  of  three  days' 
journey  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  separate  character 
of  the  country,  are  violently  set  aside.  If  we  con- 
sider it  the  same  as  the  Bucolia,  we  have  either  the 
same  diiHculty  as  to  the  distance,  or  we  must  imagine 
a  route  almost  wholly  through  the  wilderness,  in- 
stead of  only  for  the  last  third  or  less  of  its  distance. 

Having  thus  concluded  that  the  land  of  Goshen 
appears  to  have  corresponded  to  the  Wddi-t-  Tumey- 
ldt. we  have  to  consider  whether  the  extent  of  this 
tract  would  be  sufficient  for  the  sustenance  of  the 
Israelites.  The  superficial  extent  of  the  Wddi-t- 
Tumeyldt,  if  we  include  the  whole  cultivable  part 
of  the  natural  valley,  which  may  somewhat  exceed 
that  of  the  tract  bearing  this  appellation,  is  prob- 
ably under  60  square  geographical  miles.  If  we 
supiwse  the  entire  Israelite  population  at  the  time 
of  the  Exodus  to  have  been  1,800,000,  and  the 
whole  population,  including  Egyptians  and  foreign- 
ers other  than  the  Israelites,  about  2,000,000,  this 
would  give  no  less  than  between  30,000  and  40,000 
inhabitants  to  the  square  mile,  which  would  be 
half  as  dense  as  the  ordinary  population  of  an 
eastern  city.  It  must  be  remembered,  however, 
that  we  need  not  suppose  the  Israelites  to  have 
been  limited  to  the  valley  for  pasture,  but  like  the 
Arabs  to  have  led  their  flocks  into  fertile  tracts  of 
the  deserts  around,  and  that  we  have  taken  for  our 
estimate  an  extreme  sum,  that  of  the  people  at  the 
Exodus.  For  the  greater  part  of  the  sojourn  their 
numbers  must  have  been  far  lower,  and  before  the 
Exodus  they  seem  to  have  been  partly  spread  about 
the  territory  of  the  oppressor,  although  collected  at 
Rameses  at  the  time  of  their  departure.  One  very 
large  place,  like  the  Shepherd-stronghold  of  Avaris, 
which  Manetho  relates  to  have  had  at  the  first  a 
garrison  of  240,000  men,  would  also  greatly  dimin- 
ish the  disproportion  of  population  to  superficies. 
The  very  small  superficial  extent  of  Egypt  in  rela- 
tion to  the  population  necessary  to  the  construction 
of  the  vast  monuments,  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
gresit  armies  of  the  Pharaohs,  requires  a  different 
proportion  to  that  of  other  countries  —  a  condition 
fully  explained  by  the  extraordinary  fertility  of  the 
soil.  Even  now,  when  the  population  is  almost  at 
the  lowest  point  it  has  reached  in  history,  when  vil- 
lages have  replaced  towns,  and  hamlets  villages,  it  is 
Btill  denser  than  that  of  our  rich  and  thickly-pop- 
ulated Yorkshire.  We  do  not  think,  therefore,  that 
the  small  superficies  presents  any  serious  difficulty. 

Thus  far  we  have  reasoned  alone  on  the  evidence 
'^f  the  Hebrew  text.  The  LXX.  version,  however, 
presents  some  curious  evidence  whicn  must  not  be 
jAiKcti  by  unnoticed.  The  testimony  of  this  ver- 
lUMi  in  any  Egyptian  matter  is  not  to  be  disre- 


GOSPELS 


941 


garded,  although  in  this  particular  case  too  mucL 
stress  should  not  be  laid  on  it,  since  the  tradition 
of  Goshen  and  its  inhabitants  must  ha\  5  become 
very  faint  among  the  Egyptians  at  the  t  me  when 
the  Pentateuch  was  translated,  and  we  have  no 
warrant  for  attributing  to  the  translator  or  trans- 
lators any  more  than  a  general  and  iwpnlar  knowl- 
edge of  Egyptian  matters.     In  Gen.  xlv.  10,  for 

1^'2  the  LXX.  has  Tecrh/jL  'Apafiias-  The  ex- 
planatory word  may  be  imderstood  eitlier  as  mean- 
ing that  Goshen  lay  in  the  region  of  Lower  Egypt 
to  the  east  of  the  Delta,  or  else  as  indicating  that 
the  Arabian  Nome  was  partly  or  wholly  the  same. 
In  the  latter  case  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
Nonies  very  anciently  wei-e  far  more  extensive  than 
under  the  Ptolemies.  On  either  supposition  the 
passage  is  favorable  to  our  identification.     In  Gen 

xlvi.  28,  instead  of  ^t^a  n^nS,  the  LXX.  haa 
Kad^  'Upcacoi/  irSkiu,  iy  yfj  "Pajx^aafj  (or  ets  yriv 
'Payuecro-/)),  seemh)gly  identifying  Kameses  with 
Herocpolis.  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  fix  tlie  site 
of  the  latter  town,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  it 
lay  in  the  valley  not  far  from  the  ancient  head  of 
the  Arabian  Gulf.  Its  position  is  too  near  the  gulf 
for  the  Kameses  of  Scripture,  and  it  was  probably 
chosen  merely  because  at  the  time  when  the  trans- 
lation was  made  it  was  the  chief  place  of  the  terri- 
tory where  the  Israelites  had  been.  It  must  be 
noted,  however,  that  in  Ex.  i.  11,  the  LXX.,  fol- 
lowed by  the  Coptic,  reads,  instead  of  "  Pitbom 
and  Kaamses,"  tt]v  re  nei9(v,  Koi  'Pa^uewcrJj,  Kal 
"riu,  7}  ia-Tiu  'HXioviroAis-  Eusebius  identifies 
Kameses  with  Avaris,  the  Shepherd-stronghold  on 
the  Pelusiac  branch  of  the  Nile  (ap.  Cramer, 
Aneccl.  Paris,  ii.  p.  174).  The  evidence  of  the 
LXX.  version  therefore  lends  a  general  support  to 
the  theory  we  have  advocated.  [See  Exodus, 
THE.]  K.   S.  P. 

2.  (]tt''2 :  roa-Sfi'  [Gosen ;  Josh.  x.  41,  in 
Vulg.  ed.'l590,]  Gesseii,  [ed.  1503,]  Cozen)  the 
"  land"  or  the  "country  (both  \^"i^S)  of  Goshen," 
is  twice  named  as  a  district  in  Southern  Palestine 
(Josh.  X.  41,  xi.  16).  From  the  first  of  these  it 
would  seem  to  have  lain  between  Gaza  and  Gibeon, 
and  therefore  to  be  some  part  of  the  maritime  plain 
of  Judah ;  but  in  the  latter  passage,  that  plain  — 
the  SheJ'elak,  is  expressly  specified  in  addition  to 
Goshen  (here  with  the  article).  In  this  [lace  too 
the  situation  of  Goshen  —  if  the  order  of  tlie  state- 
ment be  any  indication  —  would  seem  to  be  between 
the  "south"  and  the  Shefdnh  (A.  V.  "valley"). 
If  Goshen  was  any  portion  of  this  rich  plain,  is  it 
not  possible  that  its  fertility  may  have  suggested 
the  name  to  the  Israelites  ?  but  this  is  not  more 
than  mere  conjecture.  On  the  other  hand  tho 
name  may  be  far  older,  and  may  retain  a  trace  of 
early  intercourse  between  I^gypt  and  the  south  ol 
the  promised  land.  For  such  intercourse  conip.  1 
Chr.  vii.  21. 

3.  \Vo(TOft.'  GoaenJ]  A  town  of  the  same  nam3 
is  once  mentioned  in  company  with  Debir,  Socoh, 
and  others,  as  in  the  mountains  of  Judah  (Josh. 
XV.  51).  There  is  nothing  to  connect  this  place 
with  the  district  last  spoken  of.  It  has  not  yet 
been  identified.  G. 

GOSPELS.  The  name  Gospel  (from  god  and 
spell,  Aug.  Sax.  (jood  messnye  or  news,  which  is  a 
translation  of  the  Greek  euayyekiov)  is  applied  to 
the  ijur  inspred  histories  of  the  life  and  teaching 


942  GOSPELS 

jf  Christ  contained  in  the  New  Testament,  of  which 
leparate  accounts  will  be  given  in  their  place. 
lM^tthew;  Makk;  Luke;  John.]  It  may  be 
fairly  said  that  the  genuineness  of  these  four  nar- 
ratives rests  upon  better  evidence  than  that  of  any 
otliei  ancient  writings.  'I'hey  were  all  composed 
during  the  latter  half  of  the  first  century :  those 
of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  some  years  before 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  that  of  St.  Luke 
probably  about  A.  D.  64;  and  that  of  St.  John 
towards  the  close  of  the  century.  Before  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  there  is  abundant  evidence 
that  the  four  Gospels,  as  one  collection,  were  gen- 
erally used  and  accepted.  Irena^us,  who  suffered 
martyrdom  about  A.  i).  202,  the  disciple  of  Poly- 
carp  and  Papias,  who,  from  having  been  in  Asia, 
in  Gaul,  and  in  Konie,  had  ample  means  of  know- 
ing the  belief  of  various  churches,  says  that  the 
authority  of  the  four  Gospels  was  so  far  confirmed 
that  even  the  heretics  of  his  time  could  not  reject 
them,  but  were  obliged  to  attempt  to  prove  tbeir 
tenets  out  of  one  or  other  of  them  ( Contr.  Beer.  iii. 
11,  §  7).  Tertullian,  in  a  work  written  about  A.  u. 
208,  mentions  the  four  Gospels,  two  of  them  as  the 
work  of  Apostles,  and  two  as  that  of  the  disciples 
of  Apostles  {apostoUci);  and  rests  their  authority 
on  their  apostoUc  origin  {Adv.  Marcion.  lib.  iv.  c. 
2).  Origen,  who  was  born  about  A.  D.  185,  and 
died  A.  D.  253,  describes  the  Gospels  in  a  charac- 


a  *  Theophilus  does  not  use  the  temi  "  Evangelists," 
but  speaks  of  "  the  Prophets  "  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  "  the  Gospels  "  as  alike  divinely  inspired  (Ad 
Aiitol.  lib.  iii.  c.  12,  p.  218,  ed.  Otto),  and  expressly 
names  John  as  among  those  "  moved  by  the  Spirit," 
quoting  John  i.  1  {ibid.  ii.  22,  p.  120).  After  citing  a 
passage  from  the  Book  of  Proverbs  on  the  duty  of 
chastity,  he  says,  "  But  the  Evangelic  voice  teaches 
purity  yet  more  imperatively,"  quoting  Matt.  v.  28,  32 
{ibijJ.  iii.  13).  Further  on,  he  introduces  a  quotation 
from  Matthew  with  the  expression,  "  The  Gospel  says  " 
{ibid.  iii.  14). 

Among  the  writers  who  bear  testimony  to  the  gen- 
eral reception  of  the  Gospels  by  Christians  before  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  Clement  might  well  have 
been  mentioned,  who  succeeded  Pantsenus  as  president 
of  the  celebrated  Catechetical  School  at  Alexandria 
about  A.  D.  190.  and  was  one  of  the  most  learned  men 
of  his  age.  His  citations  from  all  the  Gospels  as 
luthoritative  are  not  only  most  abundant,  but  he  ex- 
pressly speaks  of  "  the  four  Gospels  which  have  been 
handed  down  to  us,"  in  contrast  with  an  obscure 
apocryphal  book,  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyp- 
tians," used  by  certain  heretics  {Strom,  iii.  13,  0pp. 
p.  553,  ed.  Potter).  A. 

b  *  The  Muratorian  fragment  expressly  designates 
he  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John  as  the  "  third  "  and 

fourth  "  in  order  ;  and  the  imperfect  sentence  with 
Khich  it  begins  applies  to  Mark.  A  note  of  time  in 
the  document  itself  appears  to  indicate  that  it  was 
oomposed  not  far  from  a.  d.  170,  perhaps  earlier  ;  but 
the  question  of  the  date  is  not  wholly  free  from  diffi- 
culty. Recent  critical  editions  and  discussions  of  this 
Interesting  relic  of  Christian  antiquity  may  be  found 
In  Credner's  Gesih.  des  Neulest.  Knnon,  herauss:.  von 
Volk7?iar  (Ber\.  1860),  pp.  141-170,  341-364;  Uilgen- 
feld's  Der  Kanon  n.  die  Kritik  des  N.  T.  (Halle,  1863). 
>p.  39-43  ;  and  Westcott's  Hist,  of  the  Canon  of  tlie 
N.  T.,  2d  ed.  (Lond.  1866),  pp.  184-193,  466-480. 

The  statements  that  follow  in  the  text  in  regard  to 
sarly  citations  from  the  Gospels  require  some  modifica- 
Kon.  The  earliest  formal  quotation  from  any  of  the 
Sospeis  appears  to  be  found  in  the  epistle  ascribed  to 
Barnabas  (see  Barnabas),  where  the  saying  "  Many  are 
sailed,  but  few  chosen  '•  is  introduced  by  a>?  yeypanrai, 
•*M  it  is  written  "  (Bamab.  c.  4  ;  Matt.  xxii.  14).  With 


GOSPELS 

teristic  strain  of  metaphor  as  "  the  [four]  elemmtl 
of  the  Church's  faith,  of  which  the  whole  woiid, 
reconciled  to  God  in  Christ,  is  composed "  {Jn 
Johan.  [tom.  i.  §  6] ).  Elsewhere,  in  commenting 
on  the  opening  words  of  St.  Luke,  he  draws  a  Una 
between  the  inspired  Gospels  and  such  productiona 
"  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians,"  "  tha 
Gospel  of  the  Twelve,"  and  the  hke  {Jhmil.  in 
Luc,  0pp.  iii.  932  f.).  Although  TheophiiUS,  who 
became  sixth  (seventh?)  bishop  of  Antioch  about 
A.  I).  1G8,  speaks  only  of  "the  Evangehsts,"  with- 
out adding  tlieir  names  {Ad  Autol.  iii.  pp.  124, 125), 
we  might  fairly  conclude  with  Gieseler  that  he 
refers  to  the  collection  of  four,  already  known  in 
his  time.«  But  from  Jerome  we  know  that  The- 
ophilus arranged  the  records  of  the  four  Evangelists 
hito  one  work  {Ejnst.  ad  Ahjas.  iv.  p.  197).  'i'atian, 
who  died  about  A.  D.  170  (?),  compiled  a  Diaies- 
saron,  or  Hai'mony  of  the  Gospels.  I'he  Muratorian 
fragment  (Muratori,  Antiq.  It.  iii.  p.  854;  Kouth, 
lid.  Sacr.  vol.  iv.  [vol.  i.  ed.  alt.] ),  which,  even  if 
it  be  not  by  Caius  and  of  the  second  century,  is  at 
least  a  very  old  monument  of  the  Koman  Church, 
describes  the  Gospels  of  Luke  and  John ;  but  time 
and  carelessness  seem  to  have  destroyed  the  sen- 
tences relating  to  Matthew  and  JNIark.''  Another 
source  of  evidence  is  open  to  us,  in  the  citations 
from  the  Gospels  found  in  the  earliest  writers.  Bar- 
nabas, Clemens  Komanus,  and  Polycarp,  quote  pas- 


this  exception,  there  is  no  express  reference  to  any 
written  Gospel  in  the  remains  of  the  so-called  Apostol- 
ical Fathers.  Clement  of  Rome  {Epist.  cc.  13,  46)  and 
Polycarp  {Epist.  cc.  2,  7),  using  the  expression,  "  The 
Lord  said,"  or  its  equivalent,  quote  sayings  of  Christ 
in  a  form  agreeing  in  essential  meaning,  but  not  ver- 
bally, with  passages  in  Matthew  and  Luke ;  except 
that  in  Polycarp  two  short  sentences,  "Judge  not, 
that  ye  be  not  judged,"  and  "  The  spirit  indeed  is 
willing,  but  the  tiesh  is  weak,"  are  given  precisely  a^ 
we  have  them  in  Matthew.  The  epistles  attributed 
to  Ignatius  have  a  considerable  number  of  exprcssioni 
svhich  appear  to  imply  an  acquaintance  with  words  of 
Christ  preserved  by  Matthew  and  John  ;  but  they  con- 
tiiin  no  formal  quotation  of  the  Gospels  ;  and  the  un- 
certainty respecting  both  the  authorship  and  the  text 
of  these  epistles  is  such  as  to  make  it  unsafe  to  rest 
any  argument  on  them.  In  regard  to  the  Apostolical 
Fathers  in  general,  it  is  obvious  tliat  the  words  of 
Jesus  and  the  facts  in  his  history  whicli  they  hav« 
recorded  may  have  been  derived  by  them  from  oiul 
tradition.  Their  writings  serve  to  confirm  the  truth 
of  the  Gospels,  but  cannot  be  appealed  to  as  affording 
direct  proof  of  their  genuineness. 

When  we  come  to  Justin  Martyr,  however,  we  stand 
on  firmer  ground.  Ue,  indeed,  does  not  name  the 
Evangelists  :  and  it  cannot  be  said  that  "  many  of  his 
quotiitions  are  found  verbatim  in  the  Gospel  of  John." 
llis  quotations,  however,  from  the  "  Memoirs  of  the 
Apostles,"  o|»  "  Memoirs  composed  by  tiio  Apostles, 
ichich  are  called  Gospels  "  {Apol.  i.  c.  66),  or  as  he  de- 
scribes them  in  one  place  more  pjirticularly,  "  Memoirs 
composed  by  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their  companions  " 
{Dial.  c.  Tnjph.  c.  103),  are  such  as  to  leave  no  rejison- 
able  doubt  of  his  use  of  the  first  three  Gospels  ;  and 
his  use  of  the  fourth  Gospel ,  though  contested  by  most 
of  the  critics  of  the  Tiibingeu  school  is  now  concederi 
even  by  Hilgenfeld  {Zeitsrhr.  f.  wist  Theol.  IStJo,  p 
336).  The  subject  of  Justin  Martyr's  quotations  is  di» 
cussed  in  a  masterly  manner  by  Mr.  Norton  in  his 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  i.  200-239,  and  with  fullei 
detail  by  Semisch,  Die  apostol.  Denkwiirdi^keiten  dt, 
Martynrs  Jiistitius  {Hsimh.  1848),  and  Wcstcott  (History 
of  the  Canon  of  the  N.  T.,  2d  ed..  pp.  83-145).  1/ 
nuist  not  be  forgotten  that  the  "  Memoirs  of  th« 
Apostles"  used  by  Justin  Martyr  were  sacre^i  booka 


GOSPELS 

•iges  from  them,  but  not  with  verbal  exactness  ) 
rhe  testimony  of  Justin  Mirtyr  (born  about  a.  d. 
d!),  martyred  a.  d.  165)  is  much  fuller;  many  of 
his  quotations  are  found  verbatim  in  the  Gospels  of 
St.  Matthew,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John,  and  possibly 
■jf  St  Mark  also,  whose  words  it  is  more  difficult  to 
separate.  The  quotations  from  St.  Matthew  are 
the  most  numerous.  In  historical  references,  tlie 
mode  of  quotation  is  more  free,  and  the  narrative 
occasionally  unites  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke :  in 
a  Nery  few  cases  he  alludes  to  matters  not  mentioned 
in  the  canonical  Gospels.  Besides  these,  St.  Mat- 
thew appears  to  be  quoted  by  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  Diognetus,  by  llegesippus,  Irenieus,  Ta- 
tian,  Athcnagoras,  and  Theophilus.  Eusebius  re- 
cords that  Pantaenus  found  in  India  ( ?  the  south 
of  Arabia  V)  Christians  who  used  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew.  All  this  shows  that  long  before  the  end 
of  the  second  century  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew 
was  in  general  use.  From  the  fact  that  St.  Mark's 
Gospel  has  few  places  peculiar  to  it,  it  is  more 
difficult  to  identify  citations  not  expressly  assigned 
to  him :  but  Justin  Maityr  and  Athenagoras  appear 
to  quote  his  Gospel,  and  Irena;us  does  so  by  name. 
St.  Luke  is  quoted  by  Justin,  Irenieus,  Tatian, 
Athenagoras,  and  Theophilus ;  and  St.  John  by  all 
of  these,  with  the  addition  of  Ignatius,  the  Epistle 
to  Diognetus,  and  Polycrates.  From  these  we  may 
conclude  that  before  the  end  of  the  second  century 
the  Gospel  collection  was  well  known  and  in  general 
use.  There  is  yet  another  line  of  evidence.  The 
heretical  sects,  as  well  as  the  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
knew  tlie  Gospels ;  and  as  there  was  the  greatest 
hostility  between  them,  if  tlie  Gospels  had  become 
known  in  the  Church  aftei-  the  dissension  arose, 
the  heretics  would  never  have  accepted  them  as 
genuine  from  such  a  quarter.  But  tlie  Gnostics 
Hud  Marcionites  arose  early  in  the  second  century ; 
and  therefore  it  is  probable  tliat  the  Gospels  were 
then  accepted,  and  thus  they  are  traced  back  almost 
to  the  times  of  the  Apostles  (Olshausen).  Upon  a 
review  of  all  the  witnesses,  from  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  down  to  the  Canon  of  the  Laodicean  Council 


read  in  the  churches  on  the  Lord's  day,  in  connection 
with  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  (Justin,  ApoL 
I.  c.  67).  The  supposition  that  in  the  interval  of  25 
or  30  years  between  the  time  of  Justin  and  Irenaeus 
these  books  disappeared,  and  a  wholly  different  set  was 
silently  substituted  in  their  place  throughout  the 
Christian  world,  is  utterly  incredible.  The  ''  Memoirs  "' 
therefore  of  which  Justin  speaks  must  have  been  our 
present  Gospels. 

The  iDiporbmce  of  the  subject  will  justify  the  inser- 
tion of  the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Norton  on  the 
peculiar  nature,  of  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels.     lie  observes  : 

"  The  mode  of  reasoning  by  which  we  may  estabUsh 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  has  been  regarded  as 
much  move  analogous  than  it  is  to  that  by  which  we 
prove  historically  the  genuineness  of  other  ancient 
books ;  that  is  to  say,  through  tlie  mention  of  their 
titles  and  authors,  and  quotations  from  and  notices  of 
Ihem,  in  individual,  unconnected  writers.  This  mode 
i)f  reasoning  is,  in  its  nature,  satisfactory  ;  and  would 
be  so  in  its  application  to  the  Gospels,  if  the  question 
?f  their  genuineness  did  not  involve  the  most  moment 
■•lis  of  all  questions  in  the  history  of  our  race,  ^ 
whether  Christianity  be  a  special  manifestation  of  God's 
love  toward  man.  or  only  the  most  remarkable  devel- 
opment of  those  tendencies  to  fanaticism  which  exist 
In  human  nature.  Reasoning  in  the  manner  supposed, 
ire  find  tlunr  genuineness  unequivocally  asserted  by 
ireiueUB  ;  we  may  satisfy  ourselves  tha-  thef  were 
enured  SIS  genuine  by  Justin  Martyr ;  we  tri  the 


GOSPELS  943 

in  364,  and  that  of  the  third  Council  of  Carthaga 
m  397,  hi  both  of  which  the  four  Gospels  are  num- 
bered in  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  there  can  hardly 
be  room  for  any  candid  person  to  doubt  that  from 
the  first  the  four  Gospels  were  recognized  as  genuine 
and  as  inspired ;  that  a  sharp  hue  of  distinction  waa 
drawn  between  them  and  the  so-called  apocryphal 
Gospels,  of  which  the  number  was  very  great;  that, 
from  the  citations  of  passages,  the  Gospels  bearing 
these  four  names  were  the  same  as  those  which  we 
possess  in  our  Bibles  under  the  same  names;  that 
unbelievers,  like  Celsus,  did  not  deny  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels,  even  when  rejecting  their  con  • 
tents ;  and,  lastly,  that  heretics  thought  it  necessary 
to  plead  some  kind  of  sanction  out  of  the  Gospels 
for  their  doctrines :  nor  could  they  venture  on  the 
easier  path  of  an  entire  rejection,  because  the 
Gospels  were  everywhere  known  to  be  genuine.  Aa 
a  matter  of  literary  history,  nothing  can  be  better 
established  than  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels; 
and  if  in  these  latest  times  they  have  been  assailed, 
it  is  plain  that  theological  doubts  have  been  con- 
cerned in  the  attack.  The  authority  of  the  books  has 
been  denied  from  a  wish  to  set  aside  their  contents. 
Out  of  a  mass  of  authorities  the  following  may  be 
selected:  Norton,  On  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels, 
2  vols.  London,  1847,  2d  ed.  [3  vols.  Cambridge 
and  Boston,  1846-48] ;  Kirchhofer,  Quellensamm- 
lung  zur  Gesdnchte  des  N.  T.  Canons,  Ziirich, 
1844;  De  Wette,  Lelirbuch  der  Jdst.-krit.  Einlei- 
tumj,  etc.,  5th  ed.,  Berhn,  1852  [translated  by  F. 
Frothingham,  Boston,  1858 ;  Gth  ed.  of  the  original, 
by  Messiier  and  Liinemann,  Berl.  1860] ;  Hug's 
Einleitung,  etc.,  Fosdick's  [American]  translation 
with  Stuart's  Notes  [Andover,  1836] ;  Olshausen, 
Biblischer  Commentary  Introduction,  and  hig 
EcJdheit  der  vier  canon.  Evan(/elien,  1823;  Jer. 
Jones,  Method  of  settlinc/  the  Canonical  Authority 
of  the  N.  r.,  Oxford,  1798,  2  vols.;  F..  C.  Baur, 
Krit.  Untersuchumien  iiher  die  kanon.  Evangtlien, 
Tijbingen,  1847;  Keuss,  Geschichte  der  heilic/en 
Schriften  N.  T.  [4th  ed.,  Braunschweig,  1864] ; 
Dean  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Prolegomena,  vol 


Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark  mentioned  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century  by  Papias  ;  and  to  the 
genuineness  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  we  have  his  own 
attestation  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Confining 
ourselves  to  this  narrow  mode  of  proof,  we  arrive  at 
what  in  a  common  case  would  be  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion. But  when  we  endeavor  to  strengthen  this 
evidence  by  appealing  to  the  writings  ascribed  to 
Apostolical  Fathers,  we  in  fact  weaken  its  force.  At 
the  very  extremity  of  the  chain  of  evidence,  where  it 
ought  to  be  strongest,  we  are  attaching  defective  links 
which  will  bear  no  weight. 

But  the  direct  historical  evidence  for  the  genuino 
ness  of  the  Gospels  ...  is  of  a  very  different  kina 
from  what  we  have  just  been  considering.  It  consists 
in  the  indisputable  fact,  that  throughout  a  community 
of  millions  of  individuals,  scattered  over  Europe,  Asia, 
and  Africa,  the  Gospels  were  regarded  with  the  highest 
reverence,  as  the  works  of  those  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed,  at  so  early  a  period  that  there  could  be  no 
difficulty  in  determining  whether  they  were  genuine 
or  not,  and  when  every  intelligent  Christian  must  hava 
been  deeply  interested  to  ascertain  the  truth.  And 
this  fact  does  not  merely  involve  the  testimon}'  of  the 
great  bt  Jy  of  Christians  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  ;  t  i«  itself  a  phenomenon  admitting  of  no 
explanation,  evcent  that  the  four  Gospels  had  all  been 
handed  down  w  genuine  from  the  Apostolic  age,  and 
had  every  where  accompanied  our  religion  as  it  sprea</ 
through  the  world."  {Genuineness  of  the  Gosptli 
vol.  i   Additional  c  otes,  p.  cclxix.  f.)  A 


944 


GOSPELS 


I ;  Key.  B.  F.  Westcott's  f/ist07-y  of  N.  T.  Canon, 
r^ndon,  1859  [2d  ed.  1866] ;  Gieseler,  IJlstorisch- 
kritischtr  Versuch  iibcr  die  Enstchim;/,  (fc,  der 
ichn/tlichen  Evangelien,  Leipzig,  18J8.  [For 
jther  works  on  the  subject,  see  the  addition  to  this 
article.] 

On  comparing  these  four  books  one  with  another, 
a  peculiar  ditficulty  claims  attention,  which  has  had 
much  to  do  with  the  controversy  as  to  their  geimine- 
ness.  In  the  fourth  Gospel  the  narrative  coincides 
with  that  of  the  other  three  in  a  few  passages  only. 
Putting  aside  the  account  of  the  Passion,  there  are 
only  three  facts  which  John  relates  in  conunon  with 
the  other  Evangelists.  Two  of  these  are,  the  feed- 
ing of  the  five  thousand,  and  the  storm  on  the  Sea 
of  Galilee  (ch.  vi.),  which  appear  to  be  introduced 
in  connection  with  the  discourse  that  arose  out  of 
the  miracle,  related  by  John  alone.  The  third  is 
the  anointing  of  His  leet  by  Mary ;  and  it  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  the  narrative  of  John  recalls  some- 
thing of  each  of  the  other  three :  the  actions  of  the 
woman  are  drawn  from  Luke,  the  ointment  and  its 
value  are  described  in  INIark,  and  the  admonition 
to  Judas  appears  in  iNIatthew;  and  John  combines 
in  his  narrative  all  these  particulars.  Whilst  the 
three  present  the  life  of  Jesus  in  (Jalilee,  John  fol- 
lows him  into  JudiEa;  nor  should  we  know,  but  for 
him,  that  our  Lord  had  journe3ed  to  Jerusalem  at 
the  prescribed  feasts.  Only  one  discoui-se  of  our 
Jx)rd  that  was  delivered  in  Galilee,  that  in  the  6th 
chapter,  is  recorded  by  John.  The  disciple  whom 
Jesus  loved  had  it  put  into  his  mind  to  write  a 
Gospel  which  should  more  expressly  than  the  others 
set  forth  Jesus  as  the  Licarnate  Word  of  God :  if 
he  also  had  in  view  the  beginnings  of  the  errors  of 
Cerinthus  and  others  before  him  at  the  time,  as 
Irenseus  and  Jerome  assert,  the  polemical  purpose 
is  quite  subordinate  to  the  dogmatic.  He  does  not 
war  against  a  temporary  error,  but  preaches  for  aU 
time  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  in 
order  that  believing  we  may  have  life  through  His 
name.  Now  many  of  the  facts  omitted  by  St.  John 
and  recorded  by  the  rest  are  such  as  would  have 
contributed  most  directly  to  this  great  design ;  why 
then  are  they  omitted  V  The  received  explanation 
is  the  only  satisfactory  one,  namely,  that  John, 
writing  last,  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  had 
seen  the  other  Gospels,  and  purposely  abstained 
from  writing  anew  what  they  had  sufiiciently  re- 
corded.     [.loTTN.] 

In  the  other  three  Gospels  there  is  a  great  amount 
of  agreement.  If  we  suppose  the  history  that  they 
contain  to  be  divided  into  sections,  in  42  of  these 
all  the  three  narratives  coincide,  12  more  are  given 
by  Matthew  and  INIark  oidy,  5  by  Mark  and  Luke 
only,  and  14  by  Matthew  and  Luke.  To  these 
must  be  added  5  peculiar  to  Matthew,  2  to  Mark, 
ind  9  to  Luke;  and  the  enumeration  is  complete. 
But  this  applies  only  to  general  coincidence  as  to 
the  facts  narrated:  the  amount  of  verbal  coinci- 
dence, that  is,  the  passages  either  verbally  the  same, 
or  coinciding  in  the  use  of  many  of  the  same  words, 
is  much  smaller.  "  Cy  far  the  larger  portion," 
aays  Profeosor  Andrews  Norton  {Genuineness,  i.  p. 
240,  2d  ed.  [Addit.  Notes,  p.  cvii.  f.,  Amer.  ed.]), 
"  of  thia  verbal  agreement  is  found  in  the  recital 
pf  the  words  of  others,  and  particularly  of  the  words 
of  Jesus.  Thus,  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  passages 
ferbally  coincident  with  one  or  both  of  the  other 
two  Gospels  amount  to  less  than  a  sixth  part  of  its 
>8ontent8 ;  and  of  this  about  seven  eighths  occur  in 
(jhs  racilal  of  the  words  of  others,  and  only  about 


GOSPELS 

one  eighth  in  what,  by  way  of  distinction,  I  maf 
call  mere  narrative,  in  which  the  Evangelist,  8))eak- 
ing  in  his  own  person,  was  unrestrained  in  the 
choice  of  his  expressions.  In  Mark,  the  proportion 
of  coincident  passages  to  the  whole  contents  of  the 
Gospel  is  about  one  sixth,  of  which  not  one  fifth 
occurs  in  the  narrative.  Luke  Jias  still  less  agree- 
ment of  expression  with  the  other  Evangelists. 
The  passages  in  which  it  is  I'onnd  amount  only  to 
about  a  tenth  part  of  his  Gospel ;  and  but  an  in 
considerable  poition  of  it  appears  in  the  narrative 
—  less  than  a  twentieth  part.  I'hese  proportions 
should  be  further  compared  with  those  which  the 
narrative  part  of  each  Gospel  bears  to  that  in  which 
the  Mords  of  others  are  professedly  repeated.  jNIat- 
thew's  narrative  occupies  about  one  fourth  of  hia 
Gospel ;  jNIark's  about  one  half,  and  Luke's  about  one 
third.  It  may  easily  be  computed,  therefore,  that 
the  proportion  of  verbal  coincidence  found  in  the  nar- 
rative part  of  each  Gospel,  compared  with  what  ex- 
ists in  the  other  part,  is  about  in  the  following 
ratios :  in  Matthew  as  one  to  somewhat  more  than 
two.  in  Mark  as  one  to  fom-,  and  ui  Luke  as  one  to 
ten." 

Without  going  minutely  into  the  examination 
of  examples,  which  woidd  be  desirable  if  space  per- 
mitted, the  leading  facts  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject may  be  thus  sunnned  up:  The  verbal  and 
material  agreement  of  the  three  first  Evangelists  is 
such  as  does  not  occur  in  any  other  authors  who 
have  written  independently  of  one  another.  The 
verbal  agreement  is  greater  where  the  spoken  words 
of  others  are  cited  than  where  facts  are  recorded ; 
and  greatest  in  quotations  of  the  words  of  our  Lord. 
But  in  some  leading  events,  as  in  the  call  of  the 
four  first  disciples,  that  of  iMatthew,  and  the  Trans- 
figuration, the  agreement  e\en  in  expression  is 
remarkable:  there  are  also  narratives  where  there 
is  no  verbal  harmony  in  the  outset,  but  only  in  the 
crisis  or  emphatic  part  of  the  story  (Matt.  viii.  3  = 
Mark  i.  41  =  Luke  v.  13,  and  Matt.  xiv.  19,  20  = 
Mark  vi.  41-43  =  Luke  ix.  16,  17).  The  narratives 
of  our  Lord's  early  life,  as  given  by  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke,  have  little  in  common:  while  St. 
Mark  does  not  include  that  part  of  the  history  in 
his  plan.  The  agreement  in  the  narrative  portions 
of  the  Gospels  begins  with  the  Baptism  of  John, 
and  reaches  its  highe-st  point  in  the  account  of  the 
Passion  of  our  Lord  and  the  facts  that  preceded  it; 
so  that  a  direct  ratio  miuht  almost  be  said  to  exist 
between  the  amount  of  agreement  and  the  nearness 
of  the  fivcts  related  to  the  Passion.  After  this 
event,  in  the  account  of  His  burial  and  resunection. 
the  coincidences  are  few.  The  language  of  all  three 
is  Greek,  with  Hebrew  idioms:  the  Hebraisms  are 
most  abundant  in  St.  Mark,  and  fewest  in  St.  Luke. 
In  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  Evange- 
lists, or  two  of  them,  .sometimes  exhibit  a  verbal 
agreement,  although  they  differ  from  the  Hebrew 
and  from  the  Septuagint  version  (Matt.  iii.  3  =^ 
Mark  i.  3  =  Luke  iii.  4.  Matt.  iv.  10  =  Luke  i> 
8.  Matt.  xi.  10  =  :Mark  i.  2  ==  Luke  vii.  27,  &c.;. 
Except  as  to  24  ^'erses,  the  Gosj)el  of  Mark  con- 
tains no  principal  facts  which  are  not  found  in 
Matthew  and  Luke :  liut  he  often  supplies  detaibi 
omitted  by  them,  and  these  are  often  such  as  would 
belong  to  the  graphic  aceoimt  of  an  eye-witnes«. 
There  are  no  cases  in  which  Matthew  and  Luks 
exactly  harmonize,  where  Mark  does  not  also  coin- 
cide with  them.  In  several  places  the  words  of 
INIark  have  something  ui  conunon  with  each  of  th« 
other  narratives,  so  as  to  form  a  connecting  link 


GOSPELS 

itweeu  them,  where  their  words  slightly  differ. 
!"he  examples  of  verbal  agreement  between  Mark 
.!id  l.uke  are  not  so  long  or  so  numerous  as  those 
r-tween  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  Matthew  and 
»lark;  but  as  to  the  arrangement  of  events  Mark 
,iid  Luke  frequently  coincide,  where  Matthew  differs 
rom  them.  These  are  the  leadhig  particulars;  but 
hey  are  very  for  from  giving  a  complete  notion  of 
i  phenomenon  that  is  well  worthy  of  that  attention 
ind  reverent  study  of  the  sacred  text  by  which 
i!one  it  can  be  fully  and  fairly  apprehended. 

These  facts  exhilut  the   three  Gospels  as  three 
'i;3tinct  records  of  the  life  and  works  of  the  Ke- 
eemer,  but  with  a  greater  amount  of  agreement 
lan  three  wholly  independent  accounts  could  be 
xpxted  to  exhibit.     The  agreement  would  be  no 
ifficulty,  witiiout   the  differences;  it  would  oidy 
'lark  the  one  divine  source  fronj  which  they  are 
.11  derived  —  the   1  loly  Spirit,  who  spake  by  the 
prophets.     The  difference  of  form  and  style,  with- 
out the  agreement,  would  offer  no  difficulty,  since 
there  may  be  a  substantial  harmony  between  ac- 
counts that  differ  greatly  in  mode  of  expression, 
and  the  vei'y  difference  might  be  a  guarantee  of 
independence.     The  harmony  and  the  variety,  the 
agreement  and  the  differences,  form  together  the 
problem  with  which  Biblical  critics  have  occupied 
themselves  for  a  century  and  a  half. 

The  attempts  at  a  solution  are  so  many,  that 
they  can  be  more  easily  classified  than  ermmerated. 
The  first  and  most  o!)\ious  suggestion  would  be, 
that  the  nan'ators  made  use  of  each  other's  work. 
Accordingly  Grotius,  -Mill,  W'etstein,  Griesbach,  and 
many  others,  have  endeavored  to  ascertain  which 
Gospel  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  first;  which  is 
copied  from  tlie  fu-st;  and  which  is  the  last,  and 
copied  from  the  other  two.  It  is  remarkable  that 
each  of  the  six  possible  combinations  has  found 
advocates ;  and  this  of  itself  proves  the  uncertainty 
of  the  theory  (lip.  Marsh's  MlchntUs,  iii.  p.  172; 
De  Wette,  llandbuch,  §  22  ff.)  When  we  are  told 
by  men  of  research  that  the  (iospel  of  St.  Mark  is 
plainly  founded  upon  the  other  two,  as  Griesbach, 
Biisching,  and  others  assure  us;  and  again,  that 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  is  certainly  the  primitive 
Gospel,  on  which  the  other  two  are  founded,  as  by 
Wilke,  Bruno  Bauer,  and  others,  both  sides  relying 
mainly  on  facts  that  lie  within  the  compass  of  the 
text,  we  are  not  disposed  to  expect  much  fruit  from 
the  discussion.  But  the  theory  in  its  crude  form 
is  in  itself  most  improbable;  and  the  wonder  is 
ihat  so  much  time  and  learning  have  been  devoted 
to  it.  It  assumes  tliat  an  Evangelist  has  taken  up 
the  work  of  his  predecessor,  and  without  substantial 
alteration  has  made  a  few  changes  in  form,  a  few 
additions  and  retrenchments,  and  has  then  allowed 
the  whole  to  go  forth  under  his  name.  Whatever 
order  of  the  three  is  adopted  to  favor  the  hypothesis, 
the  omission  by  the  second  or  third,  of  matter  in- 
serted by  the  first,  offers  a  great  difficulty;  since  it 
would  indicate  a  tacit  opinion  that  these  passages 
are  either  less  useful  or  of  less  authority  than  the 
rest.  The  nature  of  the  alterations  is  not  such  as 
we  should  expect  to  find  in  an  age  little  given  to 
literary  composition,  and  in  writings  so  simple  and 
unlearned  as  these  are  admit*^ed  to  be.  The  re- 
placement of  a  word  by  a  synonym,  neither  more 
nor  less  apt,  the  omission  of  a  sayhig  in  one  place 
and  insertion  of  it  in  another,  the  occasional  trans- 
position of  events ;  these  are  not  in  conformity  with 
the  habits  of  a  time  in  which  composition  was  little 
itudied,  ajjd  only  practiced  tis  a  necessity.  Besides, 
BO 


GOSPELS  946 

such  deviations,  which  in  writers  wholly  indep«i4« 
ent  of  each  other  are  only  the  guarantee  of  theii 
independence,  cannot  appear  in  those  who  copy 
from  each  other,  without  showing  a  certain  willful- 
ness—  an  intention  to  contritdict  and  alter  —  that 
seems  quite  irreconcilable  with  any  view  of  inspira- 
tion. These  general  objections  will  be  found  to 
take  a  still  more  cogent  shaj)e  against  any  particular 
form  of  this  hypothesis:  whether  it  is  attempted  to 
show  that  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  as  the  shortest, 
is  also  the  earliest  and  primiti\e  Gospel,  or  that 
this  very  Gospel  bears  evident  signs  of  being  tlie 
latest,  a  compilation  from  the  other  two;  or  that 
the  order  in  the  canon  of  Scripture  is  also  the 
chronological  order  —  and  all  these  views  have 
found  defenders  at  no  distant  date  —  the  theory 
that  each  EvangeUst  only  copied  from  his  predeces- 
sor offers  the  same  general  features,  a  plausible 
argument  from  a  few  facts,  which  is  met  by  in- 
superable difficulties  as  soon  as  the  remaining  facts 
are  taken  in  (Gieseler,  pp.  35,  36;  Bp.  Marsh's 
^^chaelis,  vol.  iii.,  part  ii.  p.  171  ff.). 

The  supjxtsition  of  a  connnon  original  from 
which  the  three  Gos[x;ls  were  drawn,  each  with 
more  or  less  modification,  would  naturally  occur 
to  those  who  rejected  the  notion  that  the  Evange- 
lists had  copied  from  each  other.  A  passage  of 
Epiphanius  has  been  often  quoted  in  support  of 
this  {Iheres.  li.  G),  but  the  e|  aurvjs  t/js  tr-nyris 
no  doubt  refers  to  the  inspiring  Spirit  from  which 
all  three  drew  their  authority,  and  not  to  any 
earthly  copy,  written  or  oral,  of  His  divine  mes- 
sage. The  best  notion  of  that  class  of  specula- 
tions which  would  estabhsh  a  written  document  as 
the  common  original  of  the  three  Gospels,  will  be 
gained  perhaps  from  Bishop  INIarsli's  {Mlcluielis, 
vol.  iii.  part  ii.)  account  of  Eichhorn's  hypothesis, 
and  of  his  own  additions  to  it.  It  apj^eared  to 
Eichhorn  that  the  portions  which  are  connnon  to 
all  the  three  Gospels  were  contained  in  a  certain 
common  document,  from  which  they  all  drew. 
Niemeyer  had  already  assumed  that  copies  of  such 
a  document  had  got  into  circulation,  and  had  been 
altered  and  annotated  by  different  hands.  Now 
Eichhorn  tries  to  show,  from  an  exact  comparison 
of  passages,  that  "  the  sections,  whether  great  or 
small,  which  are  common  to  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark,  but  not  to  St.  Luke,  and  at  the  same  time 
occupy  places  in  the  Gospels  of  St.  jNIatthew  and 
St.  JNIark  which  correspond  to  each  other,  were  ad- 
ditions matle  in  the  copies  used  by  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark,  but  not  in  the  copy  used  by  St. 
Luke;  and,  in  like  manner,  that  the  sections  found 
in  the  corresponding  places  of  the  Gospels  of  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke,  but  not  contained  in  the  Gos- 
pel of  St.  Matthew,  were  additions  made  in  the 
copies  used  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke"  (p.  192). 
Thus  Eichhorn  considers  himself  entitled  to  assume 
that  he  can  reconstruct  the  original  document,  and 
also  that  there  must  have  been  four  other  docu- 
ments to  account  for  the  phenomena  of  the  text. 
Thus  he  makes  — 

1.  The  original  document. 

2.  An  altered  copy  which  St.  Matthew  used. 

3.  An  altered  copy  which  St.  Luke  used. 

4.  A  third  copy,  made  from  the  two  preced",  g, 
used  by  St.  Mark. 

5.  A  fourth  altered  copy,  used  by  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Luke  in  common. 

As>  *here  is  no  external  evidence  worth  consider- 
ing that  this  original  or  any  of  its  numerous  copiea 
ever  existed,  the  value  of  this  elaborate  hypotlieain 


946  GOSPELS 

must  depend  upon  its  furnishing  the  only  explana- 
tion, and  that  a  sufficient  one,  of  the  facts  of  the 
text,  liishop  Marsh,  however,  finds  it  necessarj^, 
in  order  to  complete  the  account  of  the  text,  to 
raise  the  number  of  documents  to  eight,  still  with- 
out producing  any  external  evidence  for  the  exist- 
ence of  any  of  tliera;  and  this,  on  one  side,  de- 
prives Eichhorn's  theory  of  the  merit  of  complete- 
ness, and,  on  the  other,  presents  a  much  broader 
surface  to  the  obvious  oljections.  He  assumes  the 
existence  of — 

1.  A  Hebrew  original. 

'2.  A  Greek  translation. 

3.  A  transcript  of  No.  1,  with  alterations  and 
additions. 

4.  Another,  with  another  set  of  alterations  and 
additions. 

6.  Another,  combining  both  the  preceding,  used 
by  St.  Mark,  who  also  used  No.  2. 

6.  Another,  with  the  alterations  and  additions 
of  No.  3,  and  with  further  additions,  used  by  St. 
Matthew. 

7.  Another,  with  those  of  No.  4  and  further  ad- 
ditions, used  by  St.  Luke,  who  also  used  No.  2. 

8.  A  wholly  distinct  Hebrew  document,  in  which 
our  Lord's  precepts,  parables,  and  discourses  were 
recorded,  but  not  in  chronological  order;  used  both 
by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. 

To  this  it  is  added,  that  "  as  the  Gospels  of  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke  contain  Greek  translations  of 
Hebrew  materials,  which  were  incorporated  into 
St.  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gospel,  the  person  who  trans- 
lated St.  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gospel  into  Greek  fre- 
quently derived  assistance  from  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Mark,  where  he  had  matter  in  connection  with 
St.  Matthew:  and  in  those  places,  but  in  those 
places  only,  where  St.  JNIark  had  no  matter  in  con- 
nection with  St.  Matthew,  he  had  fi-equently  re- 
course to  St.  Luke's  Gosi)el"  (p.  3G1).  One  is 
hardly  surprised  after  this  to  learn  that  Eichhorn 
soon  after  put  forth  a  revised  hypothesis  {Eiildtuny 
in  das  N.  T.  1804),  in  which  a  supposed  Greek 
translation  of  a  supposed  Aramaic  original  took  a 
conspicuous  part;  nor  that  Hug  was  able  to  point 
out  that  even  the  most  liberal  assumption  of  written 
documents  had  not  pro\ided  for  one  case,  that  of 
the  verbal  agreement  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke,  to 
the  exclusion  of  St.  Matthew;  and  which,  though 
it  is  of  rare  occurrence,  would  require,  on  Eich- 
horn's theory,  an  additional  Greek  version. 

It  will  be  allowed  that  this  elaliorate  hypothesis, 
whether  in  the  form  given  it  by  INIarsh  or  by  Eich- 
horn, possesses  almost  every  fault  that  can  be 
charged  against  an  argument  of  that  kind.  For 
every  new  class  of  facts  a  new  document  must  be 
assufned  to  have  existed ;  and  Hug's  objection  does 
not  really  weaken  the  theory,  since  the  new  class 
of  coincidences  he  mentions  only  requires  a  new 
version  of  the  "original  Gospel,''  which  can  be 
suppUed  on  demand.  A  theory  so  prolific  in  as- 
sumptions may  still  stand,  if  it  can  be  proved  that 
no  other  solution  is  possible ;  but  since  this  cannot 
be  shown,  even  as  against  the  modified  theory  of 
Gratz  {Neutr  Versuch,  etc.,  1812),  then  we  are 
reminded  of  the  schoolman's  caution,  entia  rum 
sunt  multipiicnnda  jyrceier  necessitatem.  To  assume 
for  every  new  class  of  facts  the  existence  of  another 
complete  edition  and  recension  of  the  original  work 
k  quite  gratuitous ;  the  documents  might  have  been 
9S  easily  supposed  to  be  fragmentary  memorials, 
WTOUglit  in  by  the  Evangelists  into  the  web  of  the 
Briginal  Gospel ;  or  the  coincidences  might  be,  as 


GOSPELS 

Gratz  supposes,  cases  where  one  Gospel  ltu«  beea 
interpolated  by  portions  of  another.  Then  the 
"  original  Gospel "  is  supposed  to  have  been  of 
such  authority  as  to  be  circulated  everywhere:  yet 
so  defective,  as  to  require  annotation  from  any 
hand ;  so  little  reverenced,  that  no  hand  spared  it. 
If  all  the  Evangelists  agreed  to  draw  from  such  a 
work,  it  must  have  been  widely  if  not  uni\ersally 
accepted  in  the  Church;  and  yet  there  is  no  record 
of  its  existence.  The  force  of  this  dilemma  has 
been  felt  by  the  supporters  of  the  theory:  if  the 
work  was  of  high  authority,  it  would  have  been 
preserved,  or  at  least  mentioned;  if  of  lower  au- 
thority, it  could  not  have  become  the  b^sis  of  three 
canonical  Gospels :  and  various  attempts  have  been 
made  to  escajje  from  it.  Bertholdt  tries  to  find 
traces  of  its  existence  in  the  titles  of  works  othei 
than  our  present  Gospels,  which  were  current  in 
the  earliest  ages;  but  Gieseler  has  so  diminished 
the  force  of  his  arguments,  that  only  one  of  them 
need  here  be  mentioned.  Bertholdt  ingeniously 
argues  that  a  Gospel  used  by  St.  Paul,  and  trans- 
mitted to  the  Christians  in  Pontus,  was  the  basis 
of  Marcion's  Gospel ;  and  assumes  that  it  was  also 
the  "original  Gospel:"  so  that  in  the  Gospel  of 
INIarcion  there  would  be  a  transcript,  though  cor- 
rupted, of  this  primitive  document.  But  there  is 
no  proof  at  all  that  St.  Paul  used  any  written 
CJospel;  and  as  to  that  of  Marcion,  if  the  work  of 
Hahn  had  not  settled  the  question,  the  researches 
of  such  writers  as  N'olckmar,  Zeller,  P»itschl,  and 
tlilgenfeld,  are  held  to  ha\e  proved  that  the  old 
opinion  of  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius  is  also  the 
true  one,  and  that  the  so-called  fiospel  of  Marcion 
was  not  an  independent  work,  but  an  abridged  ver- 
sion of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  altered  by  the  heretic  to 
suit  his  peculiar  tenets.  (See  Bertholdt,  iii.  1208- 
1223;  Gieseler,  p.  57;  Weisse,  Kvmuitlkvfrage^ 
p.  73.)  ^^'e  must  conclude  then  that  the  work  has 
lievished  without  record.  Not  only  has  this  fate 
befallen  the  Aramaic  or  Hebrew  original,  but  the 
translation  and  the  five  or  six  recensions.  But  it 
may  well  be  asked  whether  the  state  of  letters  in 
Palestine  at  this  time  was  such  as  to  make  this 
constant  editing,  translating,  annotating,  and  en- 
riching of  a  history  a  natural  and  probable  process. 
With  the  independence  of  the  Jews  their  literature 
had  declined;  from  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nebe- 
miah,  if  a  writer  here  and  there  arose,  his  works 
became  known,  if  at  all,  in  Greek  translations 
through  the  Alexandrine  Jews.  That  the  period 
of  which  we  are  speaking  was  for  the  Jews  one  of 
very  little  literary  activity,  is  generally  admitted ; 
and  if  this  applies  to  all  classes  of  the  people,  it 
would  be  true  of  the  humble  and  uneducated  class 
from  which  the  first  converts  cime  (jVcts  iv.  13; 
James  ii.  5).  Even  the  second  law  (Scurepc^jcreij), 
which  grew  up  after  the  Captivity,  and  in  which 
the  knowledge  of  the  learned  class  consisted,  wa* 
handed  down  by  oral  tradition,  without  being  re- 
duced to  writing.  The  theory  of  Eichhorn  is  only 
probable  amidst  a  people  given  to  literary  habits, 
and  in  a  class  of  that  peojjle  where  education  was 
good  and  literary  activity  hkely  to  prevail:  the 
conditions  here  are  the  very  reverse  (see  Gieseler'a 
able  argument,  p.  59  fF.).  These  are  only  a  few 
of  the  objections  which  may  be  raised,  on  criticai 
and  historical  grounds,  against  the  theory  of  Eich- 
horn and  Marsh. 

But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  this  question 
reaches  beyond  history  and  criticism,  and  has  a 
deep  theological  interest.     We  are  oflered  here  M 


GOSPELS 

>ri^inal  G  )spel  composed  by  somft  unknown  per- 
son; probably  not  an  apostle,  as  Kichhorn  admits, 
n  his  endeavor  to  account  for  the  loss  of  the  book. 
This  was  translated  by  one  equally  unknown ;  and 
the  various  persons,  into  whose  hands  the  two  docu- 
ments came,  all  equally  unknown,  exercised  freely 
the  power  of  altering  and  extending  the  materials 
thus  provided.  Out  of  such  unattested  materials 
the  three  Evangelists  composed  their  Gospels.  So 
far  as  they  allowed  their  materials  to  bind  and 
guide  them,  so  far  their  worth  as  independent  wit- 
nesses is  lessened.  But,  according  to  Eichhorn, 
they  all  felt  bound  to  admit  ilie  whole  of  the  origi- 
nal document,  so  that  it  is  possible  to  recover  it 
fipom  theni  by  a  simple  process.  As  to  all  the  pas- 
lages,  then,  in  which  this  document  is  employed, 
it  is  not  the  Evangelist,  but  an  anonymous  prede- 
3essor  to  whom  we  are  listening  —  not  JNIatthew  the 
Apostle,  and  iMark  the  companion  of  apostles,  and 
Luke  the  beloved  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  are  affording 
us  the  strength  of  their  testimony,  but  one  witness 
whose  name  no  one  has  thought  fit  to  record.  If, 
indeed,  all  three  Evangelists  confined  themselves  to 
this  document,  this  of  itself  would  be  a  guarantee 
of  its  fidelity  and  of  the  respect  in  which  it  was 
held ;  but  no  one  seems  to  have  taken  it  in  hand 
that  did  not  think  himself  entitled  to  amend  it. 
Surely  serious  people  would  have  a  right  to  ask,  if 
the  critical  objections  were  less  decisive,  with  what 
view  of  inspiration  such  a  hypothesis  could  be  rec- 
onciled. The  internal  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
the  Gospel,  in  the  harmonious  and  self-consistent 
representation  of  the  I^erson  of  Jesus,  and  in  the 
promises  and  precepts  which  meet  the  innermost 
needs  of  a  heart  stricken  with  the  consciousness  of 
sin,  would  still  remain  to  us.  But  the  wholesome 
confidence  with  which  we  now  rely  on  the  Gospels 
as  pure,  true,  and  genuine  histories  of  the  life  of 
-Jesus,  composed  by  four  independent  witnesses  in- 
spired for  that  work,  would  be  taken  away.  Even 
the  testimony  of  the  writers  of  the  second  century 
to  the  universal  acceptance  of  these  books  would  be 
invalidated,  from  their  silence  and  ignorance  about 
the  strange  circumstances  which  are  supposed  to 
have  aftected  their  composition. 

Bibliography.  —  The  English  student  will  find 
in  Bp.  Marsh's  Trandalion  of  Michaelis's  Introd. 
to  N.  T.  iii.  2,  1803,  an  account  of  Eichhorn's 
earlier  theory  and  of  his  own.  Veysie's  Examina- 
tion of  Mr.  Marsli's  Hypothesis,  1808,  has  sug- 
gested many  of  the  objections.  In  Bp.  Thii-lwall's 
Translation  of  Schleierm'tcher  on  St.  Luke,  1825, 
Introduction,  is  an  account  of  the  whole  question. 
Other  principal  works  are,  an  essay  of  Eichhorn,  in 
the  5th  vol.  AlUjemeine  Bibliothek  der  bihlischen 
Literatur,  1794;  the  Essay  of  Bp.  Marsh,  just 
I  uoted;  Eichhorn,  Einkitunfj  in  das  N.  T.  1804; 
Gratz.  Neuer  Versuch  die  Enstehung  der  drey 
erslen  Evany,  zu  erUciren,  1812;  Bertholdt,  Ilis- 
tor.  kritische  Einfeiturif/  in  sdmmtllche  knnon.  und 
apok.  Schiiften  des  A.  und  N.  T.,  1812-1819; 
and  the  work  of  Gieseler,  quoted  above.  See  also 
De  Wette,  Lehrbuch,  and  Westcott,  Introduction, 
already  quoted ;  also  Weisse,  Evangelienfra<je, 
185G.  [For  a  fuller  account  of  the  literature  of 
the  subject,  see  addition  to  the  present  article.] 

There  is  another  supposition  to  account  for  these 
facts,  of  which  perhaps  Gieseler  has  been  tne  most 
•cute  expositor.  It  is  probable  that  none  of  the 
Gtospels  was  written  until  many  years  after  the  day 
3€  Pentecost,  on  which  the  Holy  Spirit  descended 
901  the  assembled  disciples.     From  that  day  con:- 


GOSPELS 


947 


menced  at  Jerusalem  the  work  cf  preaching  th€ 
Gospel  and  converting  the  world.  So  seduloua 
were  the  Apostles  in  this  work  that  they  divested 
themselves  of  the  labor  of  ministering  to  the  jioor 
in  order  that  tliey  might  give  tliemselves  "  contin- 
ually to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word" 
(Acts  vi.).  Prayer  and  preaching  \\ere  the  business 
of  their  lives.  Now  tlieir  preaching  must  have 
been,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  in  great  part 
historical ;  it  must  have  been  based  upon  an  account 
of  the  life  and  acts  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  They 
had  been  the  eye-witnesses  of  a  wondrous  life,  of 
acts  and  sufferings  that  had  an  influence  over  all 
the  world :  many  of  their  hearers  had  never  heard 
of  Jesus,  many  others  had  received  false  accounts  of 
one  whom  it  suited  the  Jewish  rulers  to  stigmatize 
as  an  impostor.  Tlie  ministry  of  our  Lord  went 
on  principally  in  Galilee;  the  first  preaching  was 
addressed  to  people  in  Judaja.  There  was  no  writ- 
ten record  to  which  the  hearers  might  be  referred 
for  historical  details,  and  therefore  the  [)reacher3 
must  furnish  not  only  inferences  from  the  life  of 
our  Lord,  but  the  facts  of  the  life  itself.  The 
preaching,  then,  must  have  been  of  such  a  kind  as 
to  be  to  the  hearers  what  the  reading  of  lessons 
from  the  Gospels  is  to  us.  So  far  as  the  records  of 
apostolic  preaching  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  go, 
they  confirm  this  view.  Peter  at  Cajsarea,  and 
Paul  at  Antioch,  preach  alike  the  focts  of  the  Re- 
deemer's life  and  death.  There  is  no  improbability 
in  supposing  that  in  the  course  of  twenty  or  thirty 
years'  assiduous  teaching,  without  a  written  Gos- 
pel, the  matter  of  the  apostolic  preaching  should 
have  taken  a  settled  form.  Not  only  might  the 
Apostles  think  it  well  that  their  own  accounts 
should  agree,  as  in  substance  so  in  form ;  but  the 
teachers  whom  they  sent  forth,  or  left  behind  in 
the  churches  they  visited,  would  have  to  be  pre- 
pared for  their  mission;  and,  so  long  as  there  waa 
no  written  Gospel  to  put  into  their  hands,  it  might 
be  desirable  that  the  oral  instruction  sliould  be  as 
far  as  jwssible  one  and  the  same  to  all.  It  is  by 
no  means  certain  that  the  interval  between  the 
mission  of  the  C'omforter  and  his  work  of  directing 
the  writing  of  the  first  Gospel  was  so  lung  as  is 
here  supposed:  the  date  of  the  Hebrew  St.  Mat- 
thew may  be  earlier.  [Matthkw.]  But  the  ar- 
gument remains  the  same:  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles  would  probably  begin  to  take  one  settled 
form,  if  at  all,  during  the  first  years  of  their  min- 
istry. If  it  were  allowed  us  to  ask  why  God  in 
his  providence  saw  fit  to  defer  the  gift  of  a  written 
Gospel  to  his  people,  tlie  answer  would  be,  that  for 
the  first  few  years  the  powerful  working  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  living  members  of  the  church 
supplied  the  jilace  of  those  records,  which,  as  soon 
as  the  brightness  of  his  presence  began  to  be  at  all 
withdrawn,  became  indispensable  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  corruption  of  the  Gospel  history  by  fiilse 
teachei's.  He  was  promised  as  one  who  should 
"  teach  them  all  things,  and  bring  -dl  things  to 
their  remembrance,  whatsover  "  the  ix;rd  had  "  said 
unto  them  "  (John  xiv.  2(5).  And  more  than  once 
his  aid  is  spoken  of  as  needful,  even  for  the  proc- 
lamation of  the  facts  that  relate  to  Christ  (Acts  i. 
8;  1  P-^t.  i.  12);  and  he  is  described  as  a  witness 
with  the  Apostles,  rather  than  through  them,  of 
the  things  which  they  had  seen  during  the  course 
of  a  ministry  which  they  had  shared  (John  xv.  20, 
27;  Acts  v.  32.  Compare  Acts  xv.  28).  The  i>er- 
sonal  qirthority  of  the  Apostles  as  eye-witnesses  of 
what  *i"^y  preached  is  not  set  aside  by  this  divini 


948 


GOSPELS 


aid:  again  and  again  they  describe  themsplves  as 
''witnessps  ''  to  facts  (Acts  ii.  32,  iii.  15,  x.  39,  &c.); 
Mid  wiien  a  vacancy  occurs  in  their  number  through 
the  fall  of  Judas,  it  is  almost  assumed  as  a  thing 
of  course  that  his  successor  shall  be  chosen  from 
those  "  which  had  companied  with  them  all  the 
time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went  in  and  out  among 
them  "  (Acts  i.  21).  The  teachhigs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  consisted,  not  in  whisi)ering  to  them  facts 
which  they  had  not  witnessed,  but  rather  in  re- 
viving the  fading  remembrance,  and  throwing  out 
into  their  true  importance  events  and  sayings  that 
had  been  esteemed  too  lightly  at  the  time  they 
took  place.  But  the  Apostles  could  not  have 
spoken  of  the  Spirit  as  they  did  (Acts  v.  32,  xv. 
28)  unless  lie  were  known  to  be  working  in  and 
with  them  and  directing  them,  and  manifesting 
diat  this  was  the  case  by  unmistakable  signs. 
Here  is  the  answer,  both  to  the  question  why  was 
it  not  the  first  care  of  the  Apostles  to  prepare  a 
written  Gospel,  and  also  to  the  scruples  of  those 
who  fear  that  the  supposition  of  an  oral  Gospel 
would  give  a  precedent  for  those  views  of  tradition 
which  have  been  the  bane  of  the  Christian  church 
as  they  were  of  the  Jewish.  The  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  supplied  for  a  time  such  aid  as  made 
a  written  Gospel  unnecessary ;  but  the  Apostles  saw 
the  dangers  and  errors  which  a  traditional  Gospel 
would  be  exposed  to  in  the  course  of  time ;  and, 
whilst  they  were  still  preacliing  the  oral  Gosi)el  in 
the  strength  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were  admon- 
islied  by  the  same  divine  Person  to  prepare  those 
written  records  which  were  hereafter  to  be  the  daily 
spiritual  food  of  all  the  church  of  Christ."  Nor 
is  there  anything  unnatural  in  the  supposition  that 
the  Apostles  intentionally  uttered  their  witness  in 
the  same  order,  and  even,  for  the  most  part,  in  the 
same  form  of  words.  They  would  thus  approach 
most  nearly  to  the  condition  in  which  tlie  church 
was  to  be  when  written  books  were  to  be  the  means 
of  edification.  They  quote  the  scriptures  of  the 
Old  Testament  frequently  in  their  discourses;  and 
as  their  Jewish  education  had  accustomed  them  to 
the  use  of  the  words  of  the  Bible  as  well  as  the 
matter,  they  would  do  no  Auolence  to  their  prejudices 
in  assimilating  the  new  records  to  the  old,  and  in 
reducing  theui  to  a  ^'■furm  of  sound  words."  They 
were  all  Jews  of  Palestine,  of  humble  origin,  all 
alike  chosen,  we  may  suppose,  for  the  loving  zeal 
with  which  they  would  observe  the  works  of  their 
Master  and  afterwards  propagate  his  name ;  so  that 
the  tendency  to  variance,  arising  from  peculiarities 
of  education,  taste,  and  character,  would  be  re- 
duced to  its  lowest  in  such  a  body.  The  language 
of  their  first  preaching  was  the  Syro-Chaldaic, 
which  was  a  poor  and  scanty  language;  and  though 
Greek  was  now  widely  spread,  and  was  the  language 
even  of  several  places  in  Palestine  (Josephus,  Ant. 
xvii.  11,  §  4;  B.  ./.  iii.  9,  §  1),  though  it  prevailed 
in  Antioch,  whence  the  first  missions  to  Greeks  and 
Hellenists,  or  Jews  who  spoke  Greek,  proceeded 
(Acts  xi.  2',\  xiii.  1-3),  the  Greek  tongue,  as  used 
by  Jews,  pai'took  of  the  poverty  of  the  speech  which 


a  The  opening  words  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  "  Foras- 
^ucn  as  umuy  have  tsxkeri  in  liand  to  set  forth  in  order 

lecliu-ation  of  those  things  wliich  are  most  surely 
Delievcd  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them  unto 
us,  wliich  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  aud 
ministers  of  the  wora,"  appear  to  mean  that  many 
persons  who  lieard  the  preacliing  of  the  Apostles  wrote 
Sown  what  they  heard,  in  order  to  preserve  it  in  a 
pexiuanent  form,     'the  word  "  many  "  cannot  refer 


GOSPELS 

it  replaced ;  as,  indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  borrow 
a  whole  language  witho'it  borrowing  the  habits  of 
thought  upon  which  it  has  built  itself.  Whilst 
modern  taste  aims  at  a  \aiiety  of  expression,  aud 
abhors  a  repetition  of  the  same  phrases  as  monoto- 
nous, the  simplicity  of  the  men,  and  their  lan- 
guage, and  their  education,  and  the  state  of  liter- 
ature, would  all  lead  us  to  expect  that  the  Apostles 
would  have  no  such  feeling.  As  to  this,  we  have 
more  than  mere  conjecture  to  rely  on.  Occasional 
repetitions  occur  in  the  Gospels  (Luke  \ii.  l<i,  20; 
xix.  31,  34),  such  as  a  writer  in  a  mere  cnpiou? 
and  cultivated  language  would  perhaps  have  sought 
to  avoid.  In  the  Acts,  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul 
is  three  times  related  (Acts  ix.,  xxii.,  xxvi.),  cnce 
by  the  writer  and  twice  by  St.  Paul  himself;  and 
the  two  first  harmonize  exactly,  except  as  to  a  few 
expressions,  and  as  to  one  more  important  circum- 
stance (ix.  7  =  xxii,  9),  —  which,  however,  admits 
of  an  explanation,  —  whilst  the  thh-d  deviates  some- 
what more  in  expression,  and  has  one  passage  pe- 
culiar to  itself.  The  vision  of  Cornelius  is  also 
three  times  related  (Acts  x.  3-G,  30-32;  xi.  13, 
14),  where  the  words  of  the  angel  in  the  two  first 
are  almost  precisely  alike,  and  the  rest  vei-y  similar, 
whilst  the  other  is  an  abridged  account  of  the  same 
facts.  The  vision  of  Peter  is  twice  related  (Acts 
X.  10-lG;  xi.  5-10),  and,  except  in  one  or  two 
expressions,  the  agreement  is  verbally  exact.  These 
places  from  the  Acts,  which,  both  as  to  their  re- 
semblance and  their  difference,  may  be  compared 
to  the  narrati\es  of  the  Evangelists,  show  the  same 
tendency  to  a  common  form  of  narrative  which, 
according  to  the  present  view,  may  have  influenced 
the  preaching  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  supposed, 
then,  that  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
teaching  whereby  they  prepared  others  to  preach, 
as  they  did,  would  tend  to  a.ssume  a  common  form, 
more  or  less  fixed;  and  that  the  portions  of  th« 
three  Gospels  which  harmonize  most  exactly  owe 
their  agreement  not  to  the  fact  that  they  were 
copied  from  each  other,  although  it  is  impossible 
to  say  that  the  later  writer  made  no  use  of  the 
earlier  one,  nor  to  the  existence  of  any  original 
document  now  lost  to  us,  but  to  the  fact  that  the 
apostolic  preaching  had  already  clothed  itself  in  a 
settled  or  usual  form  of  wonJs,  to  which  the  writers 
inclined  to  confonn  without  feeling  bound  to  do  so; 
and  the  differences  which  occur,  often  in  the  closest 
proximity  to  the  harmonies,  arise  from  the  feeling 
of  independence  with  which  each  wrote  what  he 
had  seen  and  heard,  or,  in  the  case  of  INIark  and 
Luke,  what  apostolic  witnesses  hatl  told  him.  The 
harmonies,  as  we  have  seen,  begin  with  the  baptism 
of  John ;  that  is,  with  the  consecration  of  the  Lord 
to  his  messianic  office;  and  with  this  event  prob- 
ably the  ordinary  preaching  of  the  Apostles  would 
begin,  for  its  purport  was  that  Jesus  is  the  iles.siah, 
and  that  as  Messiah  he  suflfered,  died,  and  rose 
again.  They  are  very  frequent  as  we  approach  the 
period  of  the  Passion,  because  the  sutierings  of  the 
Lord  would  be  much  in  the  mouth  of  e\ery  one 
who  preached  the  Gospel,  and  all  would  become 
familiar  with  the  words  in  which  the  Apostles  da. 


to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  only  ;  and  if  the  piv.«.sag« 
implies  an  intention  to  supersede  the  <vritings  alluded 
to,  then  these  two  Evangelists  cannot  be  included 
under  them.  Partial  and  incomplete  reports  of  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles,  written  with  a  g<  ed  aim 
but  without  authority,  are  intended ;  and,  if  w«  m»j 
argue  from  St.  Luke's  sphere  of  observation,  tnejf  WMi 
probably  fcomposed  by  Greek  coaverts. 


GOSPELS 

jcribal  it.  Hut  as  regards  the  Kesurrection,  which 
differed  from  the  Passion  in  that  it  was  a  fact  whlcli 
ihe  oiieiiiies  of  C'hristiaiiity  felt  bound  to  dispute 
(Matt,  xxviii.  15),  it  is  possible  that  the  divergence 
arose  from  tlie  intention  of  each  EvangeUst  to  con- 
tribute something  towards  tlie  weight  of  evidence 
for  this  central  truth.  Accordingly,  all  the  four, 
sven  St.  JNIark  (xvi.  14),  who  oftener  throws  a  new 
light  upon  old  ground  than  opens  out  new,  men- 
tion distinct  acts  and  appearances  of  the  Lord  to 
establish  tliat  he  was  risen  indeed.  The  verbal 
agreement  is  greater  where  the  words  of  others  are 
recorded,  and  greatest  of  all  where  they  are  those 
of  Jesus,  because  here  the  apostolic  preaching 
9f  ould  be  especially  exact ;  and  where  the  historical 
fact  is  the  utterance  of  certain  words,  the  duty  of 
the  historian  is  narrowed  to  a  bare  record  of  them. 
(See  the  works  of  Gieseler,  Norton,  Westcott, 
Weisse,  and  others  already  quoted.) 

That  this  opinion  would  explain  many  of  the 
facts  coimected  with  the  text  is  certain.  Whether, 
besides  conforming  to  the  words  and  arrangement 
of  the  apostolic  preaching,  the  Evangelists  did  in 
any  cases  make  use  of  each  other's  work  or  not,  it 
would  require  a  more  careful  investigation  of  de- 
tails to  discuss  than  space  permits.  Every  reader 
would  probably  find  on  examination  some  places 
which  could  best  be  explained  on  this  supijosition. 
Nor  does  this  involve  a  sacrifice  of  the  independ- 
ence of  the  narrator.  If  each  of  the  three  drew 
the  substance  of  his  narrative  from  the  one  com- 
mon strain  of  preaching  that  everywhere  prevailed, 
to  have  departed  entirely  in  a  written  account  from 
the  common  form  of  words  to  which  Christian 
ears  were  beginning  to  be  familiar,  would  not  have 
been  independence  but  willfulness.  To  follow  here 
and  there  the  words  and  arrangement  of  another 
written  Gospel  already  current  would  not  compro- 
mise the  writer's  independent  position.  If  the 
principal  part  of  the  narrative  was  the  voice  of  the 
whole  church,  a  few  portions  might  be  conformed 
to  another  writer  without  altering  the  character  of 
the  testimony.  In  the  separate  articles  on  the  Gos- 
pels it  will  be  shown  that,  however  close  may  be 
the  agreement  of  the  Evangelists,  the  independent 
position  of  each  appears  from  the  contents  of  his 
book,  and  has  been  recognized  by  writers  of  all 
ages.  It  will  appear  that  St.  Matthew  describes 
the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  as  founded  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  fulfilled  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth ;  that 
St.  ^lark,  with  so  little  of  narrative  peculiar  to 
himself,  brings  out  by  many  minute  circumstances 
a  more  vivid  delineation  of  our  Lord's  completely 
human  life;  that  St.  Luke  puts  forward  the  work 
of  Redemption  as  a  universal  benefit,  and  shows 
JlsUs  not  only  as  the  Messiah  of  the  chosen  people 
but  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world;  that  St.  John, 
writing  last  of  all,  passed  over  most  of  what  his 
predecessors  had  related,  in  order  to  set  forth  more 
fully  all  that  he  had  heard  from  the  Master  who 
lived  him,  of  his  relation  to  the  Father,  and  of 
the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  both.  The  inde- 
[>endence  of  the  writers  is  thus  established ;  and  if 
ihey  seem  to  have  here  and  there  used  each  other's 
iccount,  which  it  is  perhaps  impossible  to  prove  or 
lisprove,  such  cases  will  not  compromise  that  claim 
vhich  alone  gives  v?lue  to  a  plurality  of  witnesses. 
How  does  this  last  theory  bear  upon  our  belief 
a  the  inspiration  of  the  (Jospels  ?  This  momentous 
Hiestion  admits  of  a  satisfactory  reply.  Our  blessed 
Lord,  on  five  different  occasions,  promised  to  the 
the  divine  guidance,  to  teach  and  enlighten 


GOSPELS 


949 


them  in  their  dangers  (^Nlatt.  x.  19;  Lukt  xii.  11 
12;  Mark  xiii.  11;  and  John  xiv.,  xv.,  xvi.).  H 
bade  them  take  no  thought  about  defending  them 
selves  before  judges;  he  promised  them  the  Spirit 
of  Truth  to  guide  them  into  all  truth,  to  teacl: 
them  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  their  re- 
membrance. That  this  promise  was  fully  realized 
to  them  the  history  of  the  Acts  sufficiently  sliows. 
But  if  the  divine  assistance  was  given  them  in  their 
discourses  and  preaching,  it  would  be  rendered 
equally  when  they  were  about  to  put  down  in 
writing  the  same  gospel  which  they  preached:  and, 
as  this  would  be  their  greatest  time  of  need,  the 
aid  would  be  granted  then  most  surely.  So  that, 
as  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John,  we  may  say  that 
their  Gospels  are  inspired  because  the  writers  of 
them  were  inspired,  according  to  their  INIaster's 
promise;  for  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  He 
who  put  words  into  their  mouths  when  they  stood 
before  a  human  tribunal,  with  no  greater  fear  than 
that  of  death  before  them,  would  withhold  hia 
light  and  truth  when  the  want  of  them  would  mis- 
lead the  whole  Church  of  Christ  and  turn  the  light 
that  was  in  it  into  darkness.  The  case  of  the  other 
two  Evangelists  is  somewhat  different.  It  has 
always  been  held  that  they  were  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Apostles  in  what  they  wrote — St.  Mark 
under  that  of  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Luke  under  that 
of  St.  Paul.  We  are  not  expressly  told,  indeed,  that 
these  Evangelists  therasehes  were  persons  to  whom 
Christ's  promises  of  supernatural  guidance  had  been 
extended,  but  it  cei'tainly  was  not  confined  to  the 
twelve  to  whom  it  was  originally  made,  as  the  case 
of  St.  Paul  himself  proves,  who  was  admitted  to  all 
the  privileges  of  an  apostle,  though,  as  it  were, 
"  born  out  of  due  time;  "  and  as  St.  Mark  and  St. 
Luke  were  the  companions  of  apostles  —  shared 
their  dangers,  confronted  hostile  tribunals,  had  to 
teach  and  preach  —  there  is  reason  to  think  that 
they  equally  enjoyed  what  they  equally  needed.  Id 
Acts  XV.  28,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  spoken  of  as  the 
common  guide  and  light  of  all  the  brethren,  not  of 
apostles  only;  nay,  to  speak  it  reverently,  as  one 
of  themselves.  So  that  the  Gospels  of  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke  appear  to  have  been  admitted  into 
the  canon  of  Scripture  as  written  by  inspired  men 
in  free  and  close  communication  with  inspired 
apostles.  But  supposing  that  the  portion  of  the 
tliree  first  Gospels  which  is  common  to  all  has  been 
derived  from  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  in  gen- 
eral, then  it  is  drawn  directly  from  a  source  which 
we  know  from  our  Lord  himself  to  have  been  in- 
spired. It  comes  to  us  from  those  Apostles  into 
whose  mouths  Christ  promised  to  put  the  words  of 
his  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  not  from  an  anonymous 
writing,  as  Eichhom  thinks  —  it  is  not  that  the 
three  witnesses  are  really  one,  as  Story  and  others 
have  suggested  in  the  theory  of  copying  —  but  that 
the  daily  preaching  of  all  apostles  and  teachers  has 
found  three  independent  transcribers  in  the  three 
Evangelists.  Now  the  inspiration  of  an  historical 
writing  will  consist  in  its  truth,  and  in  its  selection 
oi  events.  Everything  narrated  must  be  substan- 
tially and  exactly  true,  and  the  conparison  of  the 
Gospels  jne  with  another  offers  us  nothing  that 
does  no*  answer  to  this  test.  There  are  differences 
of  arrangement  of  events ;  here  some  details  of  a 
narrative  or  a  discourse  are  supplied  which  are 
wanting  there;  and  if  the  writer  had  professed  to 
follow  a  stn-.t  chronological  order,  or  had  protended 
that  his  rec\)rd  was  not  only  true  l)ut  complete. 
I  then  one  uircrsion  of  order,  or  one  omission  ol  i 


950 


GOSPELS 


lyllable,  would  convict  liim  of  inaccuracy.  But  if 
tt  is  plain  —  if  it  is  all  but  avowed  —  that  minute 
chronological  data  are  not  part  of  the  writer's  pur- 
pose—  if  it  is  also  plain  that  nothing  but  a  selection 
of  the  facts  is  intended,  or,  indeed,  possible  (John 
xxi.  25)  —  then  the  proper  test  to  apply  is,  whether 
each  gives  us  a  picture  of  the  life  and  ministry  of 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  that  is  self-consistent  and  con- 
Bistent  with  the  others,  such  as  would  be  suitable 
to  the  use  of  those  who  were  to  believe  on  His 
Name —  for  this  is  their  evident  intention.  About 
the  answer  there  should  be  no  doubt.  We  have 
seen  that  each  Gosi)el  has  its  own  features,  and  that 
the  divine  element  has  controlled  the  human,  but 
not  destroyed  it.  But  the  picture  which  they  con- 
spire to  draw  is  one  full  of  harmony.  The  Saviour 
they  all  describe  is  the  same  loving,  tender  guide 
of  his  disciples,  sympathizing  with  them  in  the 
Borrows  and  temptations  of  earthly  life,  yet  ever 
ready  to  enlighten  that  life  by  rays  of  truth  out  of 
the  infinite  world  where  the  Father  sits  upon  his 
throne.  It  has  been  said  that  St.  Matthew  por- 
trays rather  the  human  side,  and  St.  John  the 
divine;  but  this  holds  good  only  in  a  limited  sense. 
It  is  ill  St.  John  that  we  read  that  "Jesus  wept;  " 
and  there  is  nothing,  even  in  the  last  discourse  of 
Jesus,  as  reported  by  St.  John,  that  opens  a  deeper 
view  of  his  divine  nature  than  the  words  in  St. 
Matthew  (xi.  25-30)  beginning,  "  I  thank  thee,  0 
Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because  thou 
hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes."  All  reveal 
the  same  divine  and  human  Teacher;  four  copies 
of  the  same  portrait,  perhaps  with  a  difference  of 
expression,  yet  still  the  same,  are  drawn  here,  and 
it  is  a  portrait  the  like  of  which  no  one  had  ever 
delineated  before,  or,  indeed,  could  have  done,  ex- 
cept from  having  looked  on  it  with  observant  eyes, 
and  from  having  had  the  mind  opened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  comprehend  features  of  such  uns|5eakable 
radiance.  Not  only  does  this  highest  "  harmony 
of  the  Gospels  "  manifest  itself  to  every  pious  reader 
of  the  Bil>le,  but  the  lower  harmony  —  the  agree- 
ment of  fact  and  word  in  all  that  relates  to  the 
ministry  of  the  Lord,  in  all  that  would  contribute 
to  a  true  view  of  his  spotless  character  —  exists 
also,  and  cannot  be  denied.  For  example,  all  tell 
us  alike  that  Jesus  was  transfigured  on  the  mount; 
that  the  slwhinah  of  divine  glory  shone  upon  his 
face ;  that  Moses  the  lawgiver  and  Elijah  the  prophet 
talked  with  him ;  and  that  the  voice  from  heaven 
bare  witi;ess  to  him.  Is  it  any  imputation  upon 
the  truth  of  the  histories  that  St.  Matthew  alone 
tells  us  that  the  witnesses  fell  prostrate  to  the 
earth,  and  that  Jesus  raised  them?  or  that  St. 
Luke  alone  tells  us  that  for  a  part  of  the  time  they 
were  heavy  with  sleep?  Again,  one  Evangelist,  in 
describing  our  Lord's  temptation,  follows  the  order 
of  the  occurrences,  another  arranges  according  to 
the  degrees  of  temptation,  and  the  third,  passing 
over  all  particulars,  merely  mentions  that  our  I^rd 
was  tempted.  Is  there  anything  here  to  shake  our 
faith  in  the  writers  as  credible  historians  V  Do  we 
treat  other  histories  in  this  exacting  spirit?  Is  not 
the  very  independence  of  treatment  the  pledge  to 
OS  that  we  have  really  three  witnesses  to  the  fact 
hat  Jesus  was  tempted  like  as  we  are?  for  if  the 
Evangelists  were  coj)yists,  nothing  would  have  been 
iiore  ejwy  than  to  remove  such  an  obvious  difference 
w  this.  The  histories  are  true  according  to  any 
test  that  should  be  applied  to  a  history ;  and  the 
events  that  they  select  —  though  we  could  not  pre- 


GOSPELS 

sume  to  say  that  they  were  more  important  that 
what  are  omitted,  except  from  the  fact  of  the  omis- 
sion —  are  at  least  such  as  to  have  given  the  whoU 
Christian  Church  a  clear  conception  of  the  lie- 
deemer's  life,  so  that  none  has  ever  complained  of 
insufficient  means  of  knowing  him. 

There  is  a  perverted  form  of  the  theory  we  an 
considering  which  pretends  that  the  facts  of  tlu 
Redeemer's  life  remained  in  the  state  of  an  oral 
tradition  till  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century 
and  that  the  four  Gospels  were  not  written  till  that 
time.  The  difference  is  not  of  degree  but  of  kind 
between  the  opinion  that  the  Gospels  were  written 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  who  were  eye- 
witnesses, and  the  notion  that  for  nearly  a  century 
after  the  oldest  of  them  had  passed  to  his  rest  th« 
events  were  only  preserved  in  the  changeable  and 
insecure  form  of  an  oral  accoimt.  But  for  the  latter 
opinion  there  is  not  one  spark  of  historical  evidence. 
Heretics  of  the  second  century  who  would  gladly 
have  rejected  and  exposed  a  new  gospel  that  made 
against  them  never  hint  that  the  Gospels  are  spuri- 
ous ;  and  orthodox  writers  ascribe  without  contrar 
diction  the  authorship  of  the  books  to  those  whose 
names  they  bear.  The  theory  was  invented  to 
accord  with  the  assumption  that  miracles  are  im- 
possible, but  upon  no  evidence  whatever;  and  the 
argument  when  exijosed  runs  in  this  vicious  circle: 
"  There  are  no  miracles,  therefore  the  accounts  of 
them  nmst  have  grown  up  in  the  course  of  a  century 
from  popular  exaggeration,  and  as  the  accounts  are 
not  contemporaneous  it  is  not  proved  that  there  are 
miracles!"  That  the  Jewish  mind  in  its  lowest 
decay  should  have  invented  the  character  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth,  and  the  sublime  system  of  morality 
contained  in  his  teaching  —  that  four  writers  should 
have  fixed  the  popular  impression  in  four  plain, 
simple,  unadorned  narratives,  without  any  outbursts 
of  national  prejudice,  or  any  attempt  to  give  a 
political  tone  to  the  events  they  wrote  of —  would 
be  in  itself  a  miracle  harder  to  believe  than  that 
Lazaius  came  out  at  the  Lord's  call  from  his  four- 
days'  tomb. 

It  will  be  an  appropriate  conclusion  to  this  im- 
perfect sketch  to  give  a  conspectus  of  the  harmony 
of  the  Gospels,  by  which  the  several  theories  may 
be  examined  in  their  bearing  on  the  gospel  account* 
fin  detail.  I^t  it  be  remembered,  liowever,  that  a 
complete  harmony,  including  the  chronological  ar- 
rangement and  the  exact  succession  of  all  events, 
was  not  intended  by  the  sacred  wTiters  to  be  con- 
structed; indeed  the  data  for  it  are  pointedly  with- 
held. Here  most  of  the  places  where  there  is  some 
special  diflBculty,  and  where  there  has  been  a  ques- 
tion whether  the  events  are  parallel  or  distinct,  are 
marked  by  figures  in  different  type.  The  sections 
might  in  many  cases  have  been  subdivided  but  for 
the  limits  of  space,  but  the  reader  can  supply  this 
defect  for  himself  as  cases  arise.  (The  principal 
works  employed  in  constructing  it  are,  Griesbach, 
Synopsis  Evangellorum^  1776:  I)e  Wette  and 
Liicke,  Syn.  J-X-auf/.,  [1818,]  1842;  R(  diger,  Syn. 
Evang.^  1829;  Clausen,  Quntuor  Kvang.  Tabula. 
SynopticcB.,  1829;  Greswell's  llnrnvmy  [^llavmonia 
Evangelica,  ed.  5ta,  Oxon.  1856]  and  Dissertatioiu 
[2d  ed.,  4  vols,  in  5,  Oxford,  1837],  a  most  im- 
portant work;  the  Kev.  I.  Williams  On  (he  Gos/)els , 
Theile's  Greek  Testnimni ;  and  Tischendorfs  Syiu 
Evang.  1854  [2d  ed.  1864] ;  besides  the  well-known 
works  of  Lightfoot,  Macknight,  Newcome,  and 
Robinson.)  [For  other  works  of  this  class,  aet 
ad.lition  to  the  present  article.]  W.  T. 


GOSPELS 


951 


TABLE  OF  THE   HARMONY   OF  THE   FOUR  GOSPELS. 


IB  —  Tn  the  following  Table,  where  all  the  references  under  a  given  section  are  printed  in  heavy  type,  » 
Ufldcir  ''Two  Genealogies,"  it  is  to  oe  understood  that  some  special  difficulty  besets  the  bannon; 
Where  one  or  more  references  under  a  given  section  are  in  light,  and  one  or  more  in  lieavy  type,  it  is  to 
be  understood  that  the  former  are  given  as  in  their  proper  place,  and  that  it  is  more  or  less  doubtful 
whether  the  latter  are  to  be  considered  as  parallel  narratives  or  not. 


St.  Matthew. 

St.  Blark. 

St.  Luke. 

St.  John. 

The  Word" 

. 

. 

. 

i.  1-14 

Preface,  to  Tbeophilus  .... 

. 

. 

i.  i-4 

Annunciation  of  the  Baptist's  birth  .     . 

. 

. 

i.  5-25 

Annunciation  ol'  tlie  birth  of  Jesus  .     . 

. 

. 

i.  26-38 

Mary  visits  I-^li/.abeth 

,          , 

i.  39-56 

Birth  of  .lohii  the  Baptist  ... 

, 

. 

i.  57-80 

Birth  of  Jesus  Christ 

i.  18-25 

• 

ii.  1-7 

Two  Genealogies 

i.  1-17 

iii.  23-38 

The  watching  Shepherds 

. 

ii.  8-20 

The  Circumcision 

. 

ii.  21 

Presentation  in  the  Temple      .... 

. 

. 

ii.  22-38 

The  wise  men  from  the  East    .     . 

ii.  1-12 

. 

Flight  to  JCgypt 

ii.  13-23 

. 

ii.  39 

Disputhig  with  the  Doctors     .... 

. 

ii.  40-52 

Ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  .... 

iii.  1-12 

i.  1-8 

iii.  1-18 

i.  15-31 

Baptism  of  Jesus  Christ 

iii.  13-17 

i.  9-11 

iii.  21,  22 

i.  32-34 

The  Temptation 

iv.  1-11 

i.  12,  13 

iv.  1-13 

Andrew  and  another  see  Jesus      .     .     . 

. 

. 

. 

i.  35-40 

Simon,  iiow  Cephas 

. 

, 

. 

i.  41,  42 

Philip  and  Nathanael 

, 

, 

i.  43-51 

The  water  made  wine 

. 

,         , 

ii.  1-11 

Passover  (1st)  and  cleansing  the  Temple 

. 

. 

ii.  12-22 

Nicodemus 

. 

! 

, 

ii.  2:3-iii.  21 

Christ  and  John  baptizing 

. 

, 

,         . 

iii.  22-36 

The  woman  of  Samaria      .                .     . 

. 

. 

iv.  1-42 

John  the  Baptist  in  prison       .... 

iv.  12;  xiv.  3 

i.  14;  vi.  17 

iii.  19,  20 

iii.  24 

Return  to  Galilee 

iv.  12 

i.  14,  15 

iv.  14,  15 

iv.  43-45 

The  synagogue  at  Xazareth     .          .     . 

, 

, 

iv.  16-30 

The  nobleman's  son 

. 

•         • 

. 

iv.  46-54 

Capernaum.     Four  Apostles  called    .     . 

iv.  18-22 

i.  16-20 

V.  1-11 

Demoniac  healed  there 

. 

i.  21-28 

iv.  31-37 

Simon's  wife's  mother  healed        .     .     . 

viii.  14-17 

i.  29-34 

iv.  38-41 

Circuit  round  GaUlee 

iv.  23-25 

i.  35-39 

iv.  42-44 

Healing  a  leper    .....          .     . 

viii.  1-4 

i.  40-45 

V.  12-10 

Christ  stills  the  storm 

viii.  18-27 

iv.  35-41 

viii.  22-25 

Demoniacs  in  land  of  Gadarenes   .     .     . 

viii.  28-34 

v.  1-20 

viii.  26-39 

Jairus's  daughter.     Woman  healed  .     . 

ix.  18-36 

v.  21-43 

viii.  40-56 

BUnd  men,  and  demoniac 

ix.  27-34 

Healing  the  paralytic 

ix.  1-8 

ii.  1-12 

V.  17-26 

Matthew  the  publican    ... 

ix.  9-13 

ii.  13-17 

V.  27-32 

"  Thy  disciples  fast  not  "    .     .     . 

ix.  14-17 

ii.  18-22 

V.  33-39 

Journey  to  Jerusalem  to  2d  Passover      ; 

. 

. 

v.  1 

Pool  of  Bethesda.     Power  of  Christ .     . 

. 

. 

. 

V.  2  47 

Plucking  ears  of  corn  on  Sabbath     .     . 

xii.  1-8 

ii.  23-28 

vi.  1-5 

The  withered  hand.     Miracles      .     .     . 

xii.  9-21 

iii.  1-12 

vi.  6-11 

The  Twelve  Apostles 

X.  2-4 

iii.  13-19 

vi.  12-16 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount      .... 

V.  1-vu.  29 

. 

vi.  17-49 

The  centurion's  servant 

viu.  5-13 

vii.  1-10 

iv.  4b  M 

The  widow's  son  at  Nain 

. 

, 

ni.  11-17 

Messengers  from  John 

xi.  2-19 

vii.  18-35 

Woe  to  the  cities  of  Galilee     .... 

xi.  20-24 

Uall  to  the  meek  and  suffering      .     .     . 

xi.  25-30 

Anointing  tiie  feet  of  Jesus     .... 

vii.  36-50 

Becond  circuit  round  Galilee    .... 

viii.  1-3 

Parable  of  the  Sower 

xiii.  1-23 

iv.  1-20  * 

viii.  4-15 

"     Candh  under  a  Bushel     .     .     . 

, 

iv.  21-25 

viii.  16-18 

"     the  Sewer 

^ 

iv.  26-29 

«     the  ^Vheat  and  Tares  .... 

xiii".  24-30 

. 

"     Grain  of  Mustard-seed     .     .     . 

xiii.  31,  32 

iv.  *30-32 

Trill,  18, 19 

«•     Leaven 

xiii.  33 

.        . 

xiii.  20, 21 

3n  teaching  by  parables     .     . 

dii.  34,  35 

iv.  33,  34 

952 


GOSPELS 

TABLE   OF   THE   HARMONY   OF    THE    FOUR   GOSPELS  —  (con«mu«d). 


St.  Matthew. 

St.  Marl 

:.            St.  Luke. 

St.  Jdm. 

Wheat  and  tares  explained       .     . 
The  treasure,  the  pearl,  the  net    . 
His  mother  and  His  brethren  .     . 

xiii.  36-43 
xiii.  44-52 
xii.  46-50 
xiii.  53-58 
ix.  35-38;  / 
xi.l        i 

X. 

xiv.  1,  2 
xiv.  3-12 

xiv.  13-21 
xiv.  22-33 
xiv.  34-36 

xv.*l~20* 
XV.  21-28 
XV.  29-31 
XV.  32-39 
xvi.  1-4 
xvi.  5-12 

xvi.  13-19 
xvi.  20-28 
xvii.  1-9 
xvii.  10-13 
xvii.  14-21 
xvii.  22,  23 
xvii.  24-27 
xviii.  1-5 

xviii.  6-9 
xviii.  10-14 
xviii.  15-17 
xviii.  18-20 
xviii.  21-35 

viu'.  19-22 

vi.*9-l3 
vii.  7-11 
xii.  22-37 
xii.  43-45 
xii.  38-42 
(  V.  15  ;  vi. 
1      22,  23 
xxiii. 
X.  26-33 

vi.  25-33 

xiii.  31,  32 
xiii.  33 

xxiii.  37-39 

iii.  31-3 
vi.  1-6 
n.  6 

vi.  7-13 
vi.  14-16 
vi.  17-29 

vi.  *30-44 
vi.  45-52 
vi.  53-56 

vii.' 1-23 
vii.  24-3( 
vii.  31-3' 
viii.  1-9 
viu.  10-1 
viii.  14-2 
viu.  22-2 
viii.  27-2 
viii.  30-b 
ix.  2-10 
ix.  11-13 
ix.  14-29 
ix.  30-32 

ix.  33-37 
ix.  38-41 
ix.  42-48 

ix.  '49,  50 
iii.  20-C 

!; 

iv.  dO-2 

5       viii.  19-21 

ix.  1-6 
ix.  7-9 

ix.  10-17 
) 

r 

3          '.       '. 
1 

6 

9        ix.  18-20 

I.  1    ix.  21-27 

ix.  28-36 

ix.  37-42 
ix.  43-45 

ix.  46-48 
ix.  49,  50 
xvii.  2 
XV.  4-7 

ix.  51 
ix.  52-56 
ix.  57-62 
X.  1-16 

X.  17-24' 
X.  25-37 
X.  38-42 
xi.  1-4 
xi.  5-13 
\0      xi.  14-23 
xi.  24-28 
xi.  29-32 

xi.  33-36 

xi.  37-54 
xii.  1-12 
xii.  13-15 
xii.  16-31 
xii.  32-59 
xiii.  1-9 
xiii.  10-17 
2       xiii.  18,  19 
xiii.  20,  21 
xiii.  22 
xiii.  23-30 
xiii.  31-33 
xiu.  34,  35 

Third  circuit  round  Galilee      .     . 
Sending  forth  of  the  Twelve   .     .     . 

Death  of  John  the  Baptist      .     . 
Approach  of  I'assover  (3d)       .     . 
Feeding  of  the  five  thousand   .     . 
Walking  on  the  sea 

vi  4 
vi   1-15 
v^   16-21 

The  bread  of  life 

The  washen  hands 

T  'ja-es 

Tlie  Syroph(Bnician  woman      .     . 

Feeding  of  the  lour  thousand  .     . 

The  leaven  of  the  Pharisees     .     . 

Peter's  profession  of  faith  .     . 

#d.  ee-'yi 

The  Passion  foretold      .... 

The  Transfiguration 

Elijah 

The  lunatic  healed 

The  Passion  a^ain  foretold  .     . 

Fish  caught  for  the  tribute      .     . 
The  little  child 

One  casting  out  devils    .... 
Offenses 

The  lost  sheep      .     .     . 

Forgiveness  of  injuries  .... 

Binding  and  loosing       .... 

Forgiveness.     Parable   .... 

"  Salted  with  fire  " 

Journey  to  Jerusalem     .... 

Fire  from  heaven 

Answers  to  disciples 

ni.  1-10 

Tlie  Seventy  disciples     .... 
Discussions  at  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
Woman  taken  in  adultery  .     .     . 
Dispute  with  the  Pharisees     .     .     . 
The  man  born  blind      .... 

The  good  Shepherd 

The  return  of  the  Seventy .     .     . 
The  good  Samaritan      .... 

Mary  and  Martha 

The  Lord's  Prayer 

\ii.  11-53 
viii.  1-11 
viii.  12-5J 
ix.  1-41 
X.  1-21 

*rayer  effectual 

Through  Beelzebub "  .     .     .     . 
The  unclean  spirit  returning    .     . 
The  sign  of  Jonah 

The  light  of  the  body    .... 

The  IMiarisees 

W'lat  to  fear 

"  Master,  speak  to  my  brother  "   . 
Jovetousness 

VVatchfulnesa 

ialileans  that  perished  .... 
Woman  healed  on  Sabbath      .     . 
rhe  grain  of  mustard-seed      .     . 
The  leaven 

Towards  Jerusalem 

'  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  "  . 
Warning  against  Herod      .     .     . 
'0  Jerusalem,  Jer.isaleui "'     .     . 

GOSPELS  96f 

TABLE   OF    TUB   HARMONY   OF   THE   FOUR   Q0SPEh3  —  (continued.) 


[)ropsy  healed  on  Sabbath-day 
Choosing  the  chief  rooms    .     .  .     . 

Parable  of  the  Great  Supper  .  .  . 
Following  Clirist  with  the  Cross  .  . 
Parables  of  Lost  Sheep,  Piece  of  Money, 

Prodigal  Son,  Unjust  Steward,  Rich 

Man  and  Lazarus  .     .     . 

Offenses 

Faith  and  Merit  .... 
The  ten  lei^ers      .... 
How  the  kingdom  cometh  . 
Parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge 
"     the  Pharisee  and  Publican 

Divorce 

Infants  brought  to  Jesus  . 
The  rich  man  inquiring 
Promises  to  the  disciples  . 
Laborers  in  the  vineyard 
Death  of  Christ  foretold  . 
Request  of  James  and  John 
Blind  men  at  Jericho     .     . 

Zacchseus 

Parable  of  the  Ten  Talents 
Feast  of  Dedication  .  .  . 
Beyond  Jordan  .... 
Raising  of  Lazarus  .  .  . 
Meeting  of  the  Sanhedrim 
Christ  in  Ephraim  .  .  . 
The  anointing  by  Mary 
Christ  enters  Jerusalem 
Cleansing  of  the  Temple  (2d) 

The  barren  fig-tree   .     .     . 


Pray,  and  forgive      .     .     , 
"By  what  authority,"  etc. 
Parable  of  the  Two  Sons    . 

»       the  Wicked  Husbandmen 

"  the  Wedding  Garment 
The  tribute-money  .... 
The  state  of  the  risen  .  .  . 
The  great  Commandment  .  . 
David's  Son  and  David's  Lord 
Against  the  Pharisees  .  .  . 
The  widow's  mite  .... 
Christ's  second  coming  .  .  . 
Parable  of  the  Ten  Virgins     . 

"       the  Talents  .... 
The  Last  Judgment .... 
Greeks  visit  Jesus.     Voice  from  heaven 
Eleflections  of  John  .     .     . 
Last  Passover  (4th),     Jews  conspire 

Judas  Iscariot 

Paschal  Supper 

Contention  of  the  Apostles 
Peter's  fall  foretold    .... 
Last  discourse.     The  departure 

Comforter 

The  vine  and  the  b'^nches.     Abiding 

in  love 

Work  of  the  Comforter  in  disciples 
The  prayer  of  Christ     .     . 

Sethsemane 

rhe  betiayal 


Before  Annas  (Caiaphas).    Peter* 
Before  the  Sanhedrim    .     .     . 
defoie  PiJatc 


the 


St.  Matthew. 


denia. 


xxii.  1-14 
X.  37,  38 


xviii.  6-15 
xvii.  20 


xix.  1-12 
xix.  13-15 
xix.  16-26 
xix.  27-30 
XX.  1-16 
XX.  17-19 
XX.  20-28 
XX.  29-34 

XXV.  L4-30 


xxvi.  6-13 
xxi.  1-11 
xxi.  12-16 

xxi.  17-22 

vi,  14,  15 
xxi.  23-27 
xxi.  28-32 
xxi.  33-46 
xxii.  1-14 
xxii.  15-22 
xxii.  23-33 
xxii.  34-40 
xxii.  41-46 
xxiii.  1-39 

xxiv.  1-51 
XXV.  1-13 
XXV.  14-30 
XXV.  31-46 


xxvi.  1-5 
xxvi.  14-16 
xxvi.  17-29 

xxvi.  30-35 


xxvi.  36-46 
xxvi.  47-56 
(  XX  7i.  57  ] 
I  58,69-75  j 
xxvi.  59-68 
(  xxvii.  1,  j 
I    2, 11-14  j 


St.  Mark. 


X.  1-12 
X.  13-16 
X.  17-27 
X.  28-31 

X.  32-34 
X.  35-45 
X.  46-52 


xiv.  3-9 
xi.  1-10 
xi.  15-18 
I  xi.  11-14, 
/       19-23 
xi.  24-26 
xi.  27-33 

xii.  1-12 

xii.  13-17 
xii.  18-27 
xii.  28-34 
xii.  35-37 
xii.  38-40 
xii.  41-44 
xiii.  1-37 


xiv.  1,  2 
xiv.  10,  11 
xiv.  12-25 

xiv.  26-31 


xiv.  32-42 
xiv.  43-52 
I  xiv.  53, 
I  54,66-72 
xiv.  55-65 


St.  Luke. 


XV.  1-5 


xiv.  1-6 
xiv.  7-14 
xiv.  15-24 
xiv.  25-35 

XV.  xvi. 

xvii.  1-4 
xvii.  5-10 
xvii.  11-19 
xvii.  20-37 
xviii.  1-8 
xviii.  9-14 

xviii.  15-17 
xviii.  18-27 
xviii.  28-30 

xviii.  31-34 

xviii.  35-43 
xix.  1-10 
xix.  11-28 


vii.  36-50 
xix.  29-44 
xix.  45-48 


XX.  1-8 

XX.  9-19 
xiv.  16-24 
XX.  20-26 
XX.  27-40 

XX.  41-44 
XX.  45-47 
xxi.  1-4 
xxi.  5-38 

xix.  11-28 


xxii.  1,  2 
xxii.  3-6 
xxii.  7-23 
xxii.  24r-30 
xxii.  31-39 


St.  John. 


X.  22-35J 
X.  40-42 
xi.  1-44 
xi.  45-53 
xi.  54-57 
xii.  1-11 
xii.  12-19 
ii.  13-22 


xii.  20-36 
xii.  36-50 


xiii.  1-35 

aii.  36-38 
xiv.  1-31 

XV.  1-27 


• 

• 

xvi.  1-33 
xvii.  1-26 

xxii. 

40-46 

xviii.  1 

xxii. 

47-53 

xviii.  2-11 

xxii. 

54-62 

xviii.  12-27 

xxii. 

63-71 

xxiii 

.1-3 

xviU.  28 

954 


GOSPELS 

TABLE  OF  THE  HARMONY  OF  THE  FOUR  Q^)SPELB  —  {ccntinved). 


rhe  Traitor's  death 
Before  Herod  .     . 


Accusation  and  Condemnation 

Treatment  by  the  soldiers  .     . 

The  Crucifixion 

The  mother  of  Jesus      .     .     . 
Mockings  and  raikngs    .     .     . 

The  malefactor 

The  death 

Darlcness  and  other  portents    . 

The  bystanders 

The  side  pierced 

The  burial 


The  guard  of  the  sepulchre 

The  Ilesurrection  .  .  . 
Disciples  going  to  Emmaus 
Appearances  in  Jerusalem  . 
At  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  .  . 
On  the  Mount  in  Galilee    . 

Unrecorded  Works  .     .     . 

Ascension 


St.  Matthew. 

xxvii. 

3-10 

xxvdi. 

15-26 

xxvii. 

27-31 

xxvii. 

32-38 

xxvii. 

39-44 

xxvii. 

50 

xxvii. 

45-53 

xxvn. 

54-56 

xxvii. 

57-61 

xxvii. 

62-66 

xxvui 

. 11-15 

xxvui 

.1-10 

• 

• 

xxviii 

.  16-20 

• 

• 

St.  Mark. 


XV.  6-15 

XV.  16-20 
XV.  21-28 

XV.  29-32 

XV.  37 
XV.  33-38 
XV.  39-41 

XV.  42-47 


xvi.  1-11 
xvi.  12,  13 
xvi.  14-18 


xvi.  19,  20 


St.  Luke. 


St  John. 


xxiii.  4-11 

xxiii.  13-25 

xxiii.  36,  37 
xxiu.  26-34 

xxiii.  35-39 
xxiii.  40-43 
xxiii.  46 
xxiii.  44,  45 
xxiii.  47-49 

xxiii.  50-56 


xxiv.  1-12 
xxiv.  13-35 
xxiv.  36-49 


xxiv.  50-53 


I  xviii.  29-41. 
I      xix.  1-ie 
xix.  2,  3 
xix.  17-24 
xix.  25-27 


xix.  28-30 


xix.  31-37 
xix.  38-42 


XX.  1-18 


XX.  19-29 
xxi.  1-23 


XX.  30.  31; 
xxi.  24,  25 


*  The  theory  which  bears  the  name  of  Strauss 
•wuld  hardly  have  originated  anywhere  but  in  Ger- 
many, nor  is  it  easy  for  an  Anglo-Saxon  mind  to 
conceive  of  its  being  seriously  propounded  and  act- 
ually believed.  It  is  far  from  being  clearly  defined 
and  self-consistent  in  the  author's  own  statement; 
and  his  Life  of  Jesus,  while  a  work  of  great  learn- 
ing in  detail,  is  singularly  deficient  in  comprehen- 
siveness and  unity. 

The  theory,  in  brief,  is  this.  Jesus  was  the  son 
of  Joseph  and  Mary.  In  his  childhood  he  man- 
ifested unusual  intelUgence  and  promise,  as  com- 
pared with  his  external  advantages,  and  was  the 
object  of  admiration  in  the  humble  family  circle  in 
which  his  lot  was  cast.  He  early  became  a  dis- 
ciple of  John  the  Baptist;  and,  from  strong  sym- 
pathy with  his  enthusiastic  expectation  of  the 
speedy  advent  of  the  Messiah  (an  expectation 
vividly  entertained  by  all  loyal  Jews  of  that 
day),  he  conceived  the  idea  of  assuming  that 
character  himself,  and  personated  it  so  successfully 
as  to  become  his  own  dupe,  and  thus  to  pass  un- 
consciously from  imposture  to  self-delusion.  He 
made  proselytes,  chose  disciples,  uttered  discourses 
which  impressed  themselves  profoundly  upon  the 
popular  mind,  and  drew  upon  himself  the  hostility 
of  the  chief  men  of  the  nation,  especially  of  the 
Pharisees.  They  procured  his  execution  as  a 
traitor;  but  his  disciples,  beheving  that  the  Mes- 
siah could  not  die,  maintained  that  he  must  have 
risen  alive  from  the  sepulchre,  and,  as  he  had  not 
been  seen  among  men  after  his  crucifixion,  that  he 
lad  ascended  to  heaven.  This  simple  life-story 
eecame  the  basis  of  a  series  of  myths  —  narratives 
not  intentionally  false  or  consciously  invented,  but 
«ome  of  them  the  growth  of  popular  credulity, 
ethers,  symbolical  forms  in  which  his  disciples 
•ought  to  embody  the  doctrines  and  precepts  which 
aad  been  the  staple  of  his  discourses.  His  mirac- 
nbus  birth  was  imagined  and  believed,  because  it 


W.  T. 

seemed  impossible  that  the  Messiah  should  have 
been  born  like  other  men.  Supernatural  worka 
were  ascribed  to  him,  because  the  Hebrew  legends 
had  ascribed  such  works  to  the  ancient  prophets, 
and  it  could  not  be  that  he  who  was  greater  than 
they,  and  of  whom  they  were  thought  to  have  writ- 
ten glowing  predictions,  should  not  have  performed 
more  numerous  and  more  marvellous  miracles  than 
any  of  them.  His  appearances  after  his  resurrec- 
tion were  inferred,  defined  as  to  time  and  place,  and 
incorporated  into  the  faith  of  his  disciples,  because 
it  was  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  retm-ned 
to  life  without  being  seen.  These  myths  had  their 
origin  chiefly  outside  of  the  circle  of  the  Apostles  and 
the  persons  most  closely  intimate  with  Jesus,  and 
were  probably  due  in  great  part  to  the  constructive 
imagination  of  dwellex's  in  portions  of  Gahlee  where 
he  had  tarried  but  a  Uttle  while,  or  of  admirers 
who  had  been  his  companions  but  for  a  brief  period. 
The  mythical  element,  once  introduced  into  his 
history,  had  a  rapid  growth  for  some  thirty,  forty, 
or  fifty  years  after  his  death,  and  new  incidents  in 
accordance  with  the  Messianic  ideal  were  constantl) 
added  to  the  multiform  oral  Gospel  propagated  and 
transmitted  by  his  disciples.  Within  that  period, 
various  persons,  none  of  them  apostles  or  intimate 
friends  of  Jesus,  compiled  such  narratives  as  had 
come  to  their  ears;  and  of  these  narratives  there 
have  come  down  to  us  our  four  Gospels,  together 
with  other  fragmentary  stories  of  equal  authority 
wliich  bear  the  popular  designation  of  the  Apocry 
phal  Gospels. 

Such  was  the  complexion  of  Strauss's  mythica 
theory,  as  developed  in  his  Life  of  Jesus,"  pubUshed 
in  1835-36,  repeatedly  repubhshed,  and  sufficiently 
well  known  in  this  country  by  a  cheap  reprint  of  a 
moderately  good  English  translation.  In  his  new 
work,  issued  in  1864,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  for  tk* 


a  Das  Leben  Jesu,  kritisch  bearbtittt. 


GOSPELS 

German  Peopleo^  he  departs  from  liis  former  posi- 
ion  so  far  as  to  charge  the  propaajaiidista  and  his- 
korians  of  Christianity  with  willful  and  conscious 
SJsifications,  and  to  maintam  with  the  critics  of 
she  Tubingen  school  that  the  four  Gospels  were 
written,  in  great  part,  to  sanction  and  promote  the 
dogmatic  beliefs  of  their  respective  authors,  and 
that  they  thus  represent  so  many  divergent  theolog- 
ical tendencies.  In  assuming  this  ground,  Sti'auss 
enlarges  the  definition  of  the  term  myth,  which  no 
longer  denotes  merely  the  fabulous  outgrowth  or  em- 
bodiment of  an  idea  without  fraudulent  intent,  but 
includes  such  wanton  falsehoods  as  are  designed  to 
express,  promulgate,  or  sanction  theological  dogmas. 
We  have  said  that  Strauss  admits  an  historical 
oasis  for  the  mythical  structure  reared  by  the  Evan- 
geUsts.  How  is  this  basis  to  be  determined  ?  How 
are  we  to  distinguish  between  facts  and  myths? 
(1.)  The  usual  order  of  nature  cannot  in  any  in- 
stance, way,  or  measure,  have  been  interi'upted. 
Therefore  every  supernatural  incident  must  be 
accounted  as  mythical.  (2.)  Jesus  having  been 
regarded  as  the  Messiah,  it  was  inevitable  that  rep- 
resentations should  have  been  made  of  him  in 
accordance  with  the  Messianic  notions  of  his  time 
and  people,  and  with  the  predictions  deemed  Mes- 
sianic in  the  writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets. 
Consequently,  all  such  representations,  though  in- 
volving nothing  supernatural,  such  as  his  descent 
from  David  and  his  flight  into  Egypt,  are  at  least 
suspicious,  and  may  be  safely  set  down  as  myths. 
(3.)  His  admirers  would  have  been  likely  to  attrib- 
ute to  him  sayings  and  deeds  corresponding  with 
those  recorded  of  various  distinguished  persons  in 
Jewish  history.  Therefore,  every  portion  of  tlie 
narrative  which  bears  any  resemblance  or  analogy 
to  any  incident  related  in  the  Old  Testament,  is 
mythical.  But  (4),  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus  was 
a  Hebrew,  confined  within  the  narrow  circle  of 
Jewish  ideas,  and  not  under  any  training  or  influ- 
ence which  could  have  enlarged  that  circle.  Con- 
sequently every  alleged  utterance  of  his,  and  every 
idea  of  his  mission  and  character,  that  is  broader 
and  higher  than  the  narrowest  Judaism,  is  also 
mythical.  Thus  we  have  an  historical  personage, 
of  whom  the  critic  denies  at  once  everything  na 
tional  and  everything  extra-national.  By  parity  of 
reasoning,  we  might,  in  the  biography  of  Washing- 
ton, cast  suspicion  on  everything  tliat  he  is  alleged 
to  have  said  or  done  as  a  loyal  American,  because 
he  was  one,  and  his  biographer  would  of  course 
ascribe  to  him  the  attributes  of  an  American ;  and 
on  everything  that  he  is  alleged  to  have  said  or 
done  from  the  impulse  of  a  larger  humanity,  be- 
cause, being  an  American,  it  was  impossible  that 
he  should  have  been  anything  more  —  a  style  of 
criticism  which,  with  reference  to  any  but  a  saered 
personage,  the  world  would  regard  as  simply  idiotic. 
But  this  is  not  all.  (5.)  Though  among  secular 
historians,  even  of  well-known  periods  and  events, 
there  are  discrepancies  in  minor  details,  and  these 
are  held  to  be  confirmations  of  ^ the  main  facts,  as 
evincing  the  mutual  independence  of  the  writers 
tonsidered  as  sepa,rate  authorities,  for  some  unex- 
plained and  to  us  nscrutable  reason,  this  law  does 
not  apply  to  the  Gospels.  In  then-  every  discrep- 
incy,  however  minute,  casts  just  suspicion  on  an 
lUeged  fact  or  a  recorded  discourse  or  conversation. 
This  suspicion  is  extended  e\'en  to  the  omission  or 
Jie  varied  narration  of  very  shght  particulars,  with- 


a  Ba%  Lebm  Jesu/ur  das  Deutsche  Volk. 


GOSPELS  955 

out  making  any  allowance  for  the  different  points  of 
v'ew  which  several  independent  witnesses  must  of 
necessity  occupy,  or  for  the  different  portions  of  a 
prolonged  transaction  or  discourse  which  would 
reach  their  eyes  or  ears,  according  as  they  were 
nearer  or  more  remote,  earlier  or  later  on  the 
ground,  more  or  less  absorbed  in  what  was  passing. 
All,  therefore,  in  which  the  lilvangelists  vary  from 
one  another,  is  mythical.  But  while  their  variance 
always  indicates  a  myth  (G),  their  very  close  agree 
ment  demands  the  same  construction ;  for  wherever 
the  several  narrators  coincide  circumstantially  and 
verbally,  their  coincidence  indicates  some  common 
legendary  source.  Thus  mutually  inconsistent  and 
contradictory  are  the  several  tests  empbyed  by 
Strauss  to  separate  myth  from  fact.  Practically, 
were  Strauss's  LiJ'e  of  Jesus  lost  to  the  world,  one 
might  reconstruct  it,  by  classing  as  a  myth,  under 
one  or  more  of  the  heads  that  we  have  specified, 
every  fact  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  and  every  deed  or 
utterance  of  his,  which  indicates  either  the  divinity 
of  his  mission,  his  unparalleled  wisdom,  or  the 
transcendent  loveliness,  purity,  and  excellence  of 
his  character. 

Yet,  while  Jesus  is  represented  as  in  part  self- 
deluded,  and  in  part  an  impostor,  and  his  biography 
as  in  all  its  distinctive  features  utterly  fictitious, 
strange  to  say,  Strauss  recognizes  this  biography  aa 
symbohcal  of  the  spiritual  history  of  mankhid. 
What  is  false  of  the  individual  Jesus  is  true  of  the 
race.  Humanity  is  "  God  manifest  in  the  flesh," 
the  child  of  the  visible  mother,  Nature,  and  the 
invisible  father.  Spirit.  It  works  miracles;  for  it 
subdues  Nature  in  and  around  itself  by  the  power 
of  the  Spirit.  It  is  sinless;  for  pollution  cleaves 
to  the  individual,  but  does  not  aflect  the  i-ace  or 
its  history.  It  dies,  rises,  and  ascends  to  heaven ; 
for  the  suppression  of  its  personal  and  earthly  life 

—  in  other  words,  the  annihilation  of  individual 
men  by  death  —  is  a  reunion  with  the  All-Father, 
Spirit.  Faith  in  this  metaphysical  fan'ago  is  jus- 
tifying and  sanctifying  Christian  faith.  Thus  a 
history,  which  is  the  joint  product  of  imposture 
and  credulity,  by  a  strange  chance,  (for  providence 
tliere  is  none,)  has  become  a  symbolical  representa- 
tion of  true  spiritual  philosophy. 

We  will  now  offer  some  of  the  leading  consider- 
ations, which  are  fairly  urged  against  the  mythical 
theory. 

1.  This  theory  assumes  that  miracles  are  impos- 
sible. But  why  are  they  impossible,  if  there  be  a 
God  ?  The  power  which  established  the  order  of 
nature  includes  the  power  to  suspend  or  modify  it,  aa 
the  greater  includes  the  less.  If  that  order  was  es- 
tablished with  a  moral  and  spiritual  purpose,  for  the 
benefit  of  reasoning,  accountable,  immortal  beings, 
and  if  that  same  purpose  may  be  sensed  by  the  sus- 
pension of  proximate  causes  at  any  one  epoch  of 
human  history,  then  we  may  expect  to  find  authentic 
vestiges  of  such  an  epoch.  AH  that  is  needed  in 
order  to  make  miracles  credible  is  the  discovery  of 
an  adequate  purpose,  a  justifying  end.  Such  a 
purpose,  such  an  end,  is  the  development  of  the 
highest  forms  of  goodness  in  human  conduct  and 
character;  and  whether  miracles  —  real  or  imagined 

—  have  borne  an  essential  part  in  such  development, 
is  an  historical  question  which  we  are  competent  to 
answer.  Suppose  that  we  write  down  the  names 
of  all  the  men  who  have  left  a  reputation  for  pre- 
eminent excellence,  —  Orientals,  Greeks,  Komans, 
ancient,  modern,  the  lights  of  dark  ages,  the  cho- 
sen representatives  of  every  philosophical  school,  tb« 


956 


GOSPELS 


Bnisbed  product  of  the  highest  civilization  of  every 
ty|je,  reformers,  philanthropists,  those  who  have 
■domed  the  loftiest  stations,  those  who  have  made 
lowly  stations  illustrious.  Let  us  then  separate 
the  names  into  two  columns,  wTiting  the  Christians 
in  one  column,  all  the  rest  in  the  other.  We  shall 
find  that  we  have  made  a  horizontal  division,  — 
that  the  least  in  the  Christian  column  is  greater 
than  the  greatest  out  of  it.  From  Paul,  Peter, 
and  .lohn  ;  from  Fenelon,  Xavier,  Boyle,  Doddridge, 
Martyn,  Heber,  Judson,  Channing,  men  whose 
genius  and  culture  conspired  with  their  piety  to 
make  them  greatly  good,  down  to  the  unlettered 
Bedford  tinker,  John  Pounds  the  cobbler,  the  Dairy- 
man's daughter,  with  just  education  enough  to  read 
her  Bible  and  to  know  the  will  of  her  Lord,  we 
find  traits  of  character,  which  in  part  are  not 
shared,  in  any  degree,  in  part  are  but  remotely  ap- 
proached, by  the  best  men  out  of  the  Christian  pale. 
Now  when  we  look  into  the  forming  elements  and 
processes  of  these  Christian  characters,  we  shall 
find  that  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  hold 
a  foremost  place,  and  we  shall  find  it  impossible 
even  to  conceive  of  their  formation  under  the  myth- 
ical theory.  It  is  absurd  to  think  of  Paul  as  com- 
passing sea  and  land,  laying  bare  his  back  to  the 
scourge,  reaching  after  the  crown  of  martyrdom, 
to  defend  a  mythical  resurrection  and  ascension  of 
humanity;  of  Martyn  or  Judson  as  forsaking  all 
the  joys  of  civihzed  life,  and  encountering  hardships 
worse  than  death,  to  preach  Straussianism ;  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  Strauss  as  taking  the  place  of 
Matthew's  or  John's  Gospel  in  the  hands  of  the 
tinker  or  the  dairy-maid,  developing  the  saintly 
Bpirit,  heralding  the  triumphant  deaths,  of  which 
we  have  such  frequent  record  in  the  annals  of  the 
poor.  These  holy  men  and  women  have  been  guided 
and  sustained  in  virtue  by  the  authority  of  a  di- 
vinely commissioned  Lawgiver,  whose  words  they 
have  received  because  he  had  been  proclaimed  and 
attested  as  the  Son  of  God  by  power  from  on  high. 
They  have  had  a  working  faith  in  immortality,  — 
Buch  a  faith  as  no  reasoning,  or  analogy,  or  instinct 
has  ever  given,  —  because  they  have  stood  in  thought 
by  the  bier  at  the  gates  of  Nain  and  by  the  tomb 
of  Bethany ;  because  they  have  seen  the  light  that 
streams  from  the  broken  sepulchre  of  the  crucified, 
and  heard  the  voice  of  the  resurrection-angel. 
Now  if  the  development  of  the  highest  style  of 
human  character  is  a  purpose  worthy  of  God,  and 
if  in  point  of  fact  a  belief  in  miracles  has  borne 
an  essential  part  in  the  development  of  such  char- 
acters, then  are  miracles  not  only  possible,  but  an- 
tecedently probable  and  intrinsically  credible.  And 
this  is  an  argument  which  cannot  be  impeached  till 
Straussianism  has  furnished  at  least  a  few  finished 
characters,  which  we  can  place  by  the  side  of  those 
that  have  been  formed  by  faith  in  a  miraculously 
empowered  and  endowed  Teacher  and  Saviour. 
Miracle,  lying  as  it  does  clearly  within  the  scope 
/  f  omnipotence,  needs  only  adequate  testimony  to 

nbstantiate  it.  Human  testimony  is  indeed  ap- 
pealed to  in  proof  of  the  unbroken  order  of  nature ; 
but,  so  far  as  it  goes,  it  proves  the  opposite.  We 
can  trace  back  no  Une  of  testimony  which  does  not 
reach  a  miraculous  epoch.  Nay,  if  there  be  any 
■)ne  element  of  human  nature  which  is  univer- 
sal, with  exceptions  as  rare  as  idiocy  or  insanity,  it 
is  the  appetency  for  miracle.  So  strong  is  this, 
that  at  the  present  day  none  are  so  ready  to  receive 
the  diivellings  of  hyper-electrified  women  as  utter- 
uicee  from  departed  spirits,  and  to  accept  the  ab- 


GOSPELS 

surdities  of  the  newest  form  of  i  ecronaaiicy,  m 
those  who  set  aside  the  miracles  of  the  New  Tesia- 
ment  and  cast  contempt  on  the  risen  Saviour 
Such  being  the  instinctive  craving  of  human  nature 
for  that  which  is  above  nature,  it  is  intrinsically 
probable  that  God  has  met  this  craving  by  authentic 
voices  from  the  spirit-realm,  by  authentic  glimpses 
from  behind  the  veil  of  sense,  by  authentic  forth- 
reachings  of  the  omnipotent  arm  from  beneath  the 
mantle  of  proximate  causes. 

2.  Strauss  is  self-refuted  on  his  own  ground. 
He  maintains  the  uniformity  of  the  law  of  causation 
in  all  time,  equally  in  the  material  and  the  intel- 
lectual universe,  so  that  no  intellectual  phenomenon 
can  make  its  appearance,  except  from  causes  and 
under  conditions  adapted  to  bring  it  into  being. 
Myths,  therefore,  cannot  originate,  except  from 
causes  and  under  conditions  favorable  to  their  birth 
and  growth.  Now,  if  we  examine  the  undoubted 
myths  connected  with  the  history  and  religion  of 
the  ancient  nations,  we  shall  find  that  they  had 
their  origin  prior  to  the  era  of  written  hterature ; 
that  their  evident  nucleus  is  to  be  sought  in  his- 
torical personages  and  events  of  a  very  early  date; 
that  they  grew  into  iantastic  forms  and  vast  pro- 
portions by  their  transmission  from  tongue  to 
tongue,  whether  in  story  or  in  song;  that  their 
various  versions  are  the  result  of  oral  tradition 
through  different  channels,  as  in  the  separate  states 
of  Greece,  and  among  the  aboriginal  tribes  and  pre- 
historical  colonists  of  Italy;  and  that  they  receiveo 
no  essential  additions  or  modifications  after  the 
age  at  which  authentic  history  begins.  Thus  the 
latest  of  the  gods,  demigods  and  wonder-working 
heroes  of  Grecian  fable  —  such  of  them  as  ever  lived 
—  lived  seven  centuries  before  Herodotus,  and  not 
less  than  four  centuries  before  Hesiod  and  Homer; 
the  various  accounts  we  have  of  them  appear  to 
have  been  extant  in  the  earliest  period  of  Greek 
literature;  and  we  have  no  proof  of  the  origin  of 
any  extended  fable  or  of  the  existence  of  any  per- 
sonage who  became  mythical,  after  that  period. 
The  case  is  similar  with  the  distinctively  Boman 
myths  and  the  mythical  portions  of  Boman  history. 
They  are  all  very  considerably  anterior  to  the  earliest 
written  history  and  literature  of  Rome.  The 
mythical  and  the  historical  periods  of  all  nations 
are  entirely  distinct,  the  one  from  the  other.  Now 
the  Christian  era  falls  far  within  the  historical 
period.  Single  prodigies  are  indeed  related  in  the 
history  of  that  age,  as  they  are  from  time  to  time 
in  modern  and  even  recent  history;  but  the  leading 
incidents  of  individual  lives  and  the  successive 
stages  of  public  and  national  affairs  in  that  age  are 
detailed  with  the  same  hteralness  with  which  the 
history  of  the  seventeenth  or  eighteenth  century  is 
WKJtten.  Yet,  had  the  conditions  for  the  growth 
of  myths  existed,  there  were  not  wanting,  then, 
personages,  whose  vast  abilities,  strange  vicissitudes 
of  fortune,  and  extended  fame  would  have  made 
them  mythical.  It  is  hardly  possible  that  there 
could  have  been  a  fuller  supply  of  the  material  for 
myths  in  the  Ufe  of  Hercules,  or  of  Cadmus,  or  of 
Medea,  than  in  that  of  Juhus  Caesar,  or  of  Marcus 
Antonius,  or  of  Cleopatra.  Nor  can  it  be  main- 
tained that  in  this  respect  Judaea  was  at  an  earlier 
and  more  primitive  stage  of  culture  than  Kome  or 
Egypt.  Josephus,  the  Jewish  historian,  was  bora 
about  the  time  of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
wrote  very  nearly  at  the  period  assigned  by  StrauM 
for  the  composition  of  the  earliest  of  our  Gospels- 
In  addition  to  what  we  believe  to  have  Nien  th« 


GOSPELS 

miracles  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  reerrds  many 
undoubled  myths  of  the  early  Hebrew  ages;  but 
his  history  of  liis  own  times,  with  now  and  then 
a  touch  of  the  marvellous,  has  no  more  of  the 
mythical  element  or  tendency  than  we  find  in  the 
narratives  of  the  same  epoch  by  Roman  historians. 
In  fine,  there  was  nothing  in  that  age  more  than 
in  this,  which  could  give  rise  or  currency  to  a 
mythical  history. 

3.  Myths  are  vague,  dateless,  incoherent,  dreamy, 
poetical ;  while  the  Gospels  are  eminently  prosaic, 
pircumstantial,  abounding  in  careful  descriptions 
of  persons,  and  designations  of  places  and  times. 
The  genealogies  given  in  Matthew  and  Luke  are 
represented  by  Strauss  as  mythical;  but  nothing 
could  be  more  thoroughly  opposed  to  our  idea  of  a 
myth,  and  to  the  character  of  the  acknowledged 
myths  of  antiquity,  than  such  catalogues  of  names. 
We  believe  both  these  genealogies  to  be  authentic ; 
for  Matthew  alone  professes  to  give  the  natural  and 
actual  ancestry  of  Joseph,  while  Luke  expressly 
says  that  he  is  giving  the  legal  genealogy  of  Jesus, 
{as  he  ivas  legally  reckoned  being  the  literal  ren- 
dering of  the  words  employed  by  the  Evangelist,  ws 
ivofii^iTo,)  and  it  is  well  known  that  the  legal 
genealogy  of  a  Jew  might  diverge  very  widely  from 
the  line  of  his  actual  parentage.  But  even  were  we 
to  admit  the  alleged  inconsistency  of  the  two,  they 
both  bear  incontestable  marks  of  having  been  copied 
from  existing  documents,  and  not  imagined  or  in- 
vented. All  through  the  Gospels  we  find,  in  close 
connection  with  the  miracles  of  Christ,  details  of 
common  Jewish  life,  often  so  minute  and  trivial, 
that  they  would  have  been  wholly  beneath  the  aim 
of  ambitious  fiction  or  tumid  fancy,  and  could  have 
found  a  place  in  the  narrative  only  because  they 
actually  occurred.  The  miracles  are  not  in  a  setting 
of  their  own  kind,  as  they  would  have  been  in  a 
fictitious  narrative.  They  are  imbedded  in  a  sin- 
gularly natural  and  lifelike,  humble  and  unpretend- 
ing history.  The  style  of  the  Evangelists  is  not 
that  of  men  who  either  wondered  themselves,  or 
expected  others  to  wonder,  at  what  they  related; 
but  it  is  the  unambitious  style  of  men  who  ex- 
)ected  to  be  believed,  and  who  were  perfectly 
amiliflr  with  the  marvellous  events  they  described, 
lad  they  related  these  events  from  rumor,  from  a 
:  eated  imagination,  or  with  a  disposition  to  deceive, 
-hey  must  hare  written  in  an  inflated  style,  with  a 
profusion  of  epithets,  with  frequent  appeals  to  the 
gentiment  of  the  marvellous,  not  unmixed  with  the 
show  of  argument  to  convince  the  incredulous. 
WTien  we  find  on  the  current  of  the  Gospel  history 
not  a  ripple  of  swollen  diction,  not  a  quickening  of 
the  rhetorical  pulse,  not  a  deviation  from  the  quiet, 
prosaic,  circumstantial  flow  of  narrative,  in  describ- 
ing such  events  as  the  walking  upon  the  sea,  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  the  ascension  of  Jesus  Christ  to 
heaven,  we  can  account  for  this  unparalleled  literary 
phenomenon  only  by  supposing  that  the  wiiters 
bad  become  so  conversant  with  miracle,  either  in 
iieir  own  experience  or  through  their  intimacy  with 
"e-witnesses,  that  events  aside  from  the  ordinary 
ourse  of  nature  had  ceased  to  be  contemplated  with 
imazement. 

4.  Another  conclusive  argument  against  the 
mythical  theory  is  derived  from  the  sufferings  and 
ihe  martyrdoms  of  the  primitive  Christians.  Strauss 
admits  that  the  earliest  of  our  Gospels  assumed  its 
present  form  within  thirty  or  forty  years  after  the 
death  of  Jesus.  At  that  time  there  were  still  livLig 
^reat  multitudes,  m  ho  muyt  have  been  contemporary 


GOSPELS  957 

and  coeval  with  Jesus,  and  who  had  the  means  ol 
ascertaining  the  truth  with  regard  to  his  personal 
history.  Mere  fable,  which  involved  no  serious 
consequences  to  those  who  received  it,  might  have 
passed  unquestioned,  and  might  have  been  devoured 
by  weak  men  and  superstitious  women  with  easy 
credulity.  But  men  are  not  wont  to  stake  their 
reputation,  their  property,  their  lives,  on  stories 
which  they  have  the  means  of  testing,  without  look- 
ing carefully  into  the  evidence  of  their  tnith.  Now 
no  fact  in  history  is  more  certain  than  that,  within 
forty  years  from  the  death  of  Christ,  large  numbers 
of  persons,  many  of  them  natives  of  Judaea,  suffered 
the  severest  persecution,  and  incurred  painful  and 
ignominious  death  by  fire,  by  crucifixion,  and  by 
exposure  to  wild  beasts,  in  consequence  of  their 
professed  belief  in  the  divine  mission,  the  miracu- 
lous endowments,  and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Many  of  these  persons  were  men  of  intelligence  and 
cultivation.  They  must  have  known  how  far  the 
alleged  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  were  confirmed  by 
eye-witnesses,  and  how  far  and  on  what  grounds 
they  were  called  in  question.  They  lived  at  a  time 
when  they  could  have  tried  the  witnesses,  and  they 
must  have  been  more  cr  less  than  human  if  they 
threw  away  their  lives  for  mere  exaggerations  or 
fables.  The  genuineness  of  several  of  Paul's  epistles 
is  admitted  by  Strauss,  and  neither  he  nor  any  one 
else  doubts  the  fact  of  Paul's  protracted  sacrifices 
and  sufferings,  and  his  ultimate  martyrdom  as  a 
Christian  behever,  Paul's  epistles  show  him  to 
have  been  a  man  of  eminent  power  and  culture,  —  in 
the  opinion  of  many,  the  greatest  man  that  God 
ever  made ;  in  the  judgment  of  all,  far  above  medioc- 
rity. Born  a  Jew,  educated  in  Jerusalem,  familiar 
with  the  alleged  scenes  and  witnesses  of  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  at  first  a  persecutor  of  the  infant  church, 
he  could  have  become  a  believer  and  a  champion 
of  the  Christian  faith  only  on  strong  evidence,  and 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  grounds  for  unbelief 
and  doubt;  and  we  have  his  own  statement  of  what 
he  believed,  and  especially  of  his  undoubting  belief 
in  the  crowning  miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
We  know  of  no  man  whose  testimony  as  to  the 
state  of  the  argument  as  it  stood  in  the  very  Hfe- 
time  of  the  coevals  of  Jesus  could  be  worth  so  much 
as  his ;  and  it  is  inconceivable  that  he,  of  all  men, 
should  have  suffered  or  died  in  attestation  of  what 
he  supposed  or  suspected  to  be  myths.  But  we 
must  multiply  his  testimony  by  hundreds,  nay,  by 
thousands,  in  order  to  represent  the  full  amount 
and  weight  of  the  testimony  of  martyrdom.  Now 
while  we  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  out 
Gospels  were  written,  three  of  them  at  least  at  an 
earlier  date  than  Strauss  assigns  to  the  first,  and 
all  of  them  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear,  we 
should  deem  them,  if  possible,  more  surely  authen- 
ticated as  to  their  contents,  did  we  suppose  them 
anonymous  works  of  a  later  date ;  for  in  that  case 
they  would  embody  narratives  already  sealed  by  the 
martyr -blood  of  a  cloud  of  witnesses,  and  thus  would 
be  not  the  mere  story  of  their  authors,  but  the 
story  of  the  collective  church. 

5.  The  character  of  the  primitive  Christians  is 
an  impregnable  argument  for  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel-history,  as  opposed  to  the  mythical  theory. 
Therfr  's  no  doubt  whatever  that  from  the  lifetime 
jf  Jexns  commenced  the  moral  regeneration  of 
humamty.  Virtues  which  had  hardly  a  name  be- 
fore, sprang  into  being.  Vices  which  had  been 
embalmed  in  song  and  cherished  in  the  heart  of  th( 
highest  civilization  of  the  Roman  empire,  were  con- 


958  GOSPELS 

demned  and  denounced.  A  loftier  ethical  standard 
—  a  standard  which  has  not  yet  been  improved 
upon  —  was  held  forth  by  the  earhest  Christian 
writers,  and  recognized  in  all  the  Christian  com- 
munities. There  were  among  the  early  Christians 
types  of  character,  which  have  never  been  surpassed, 
hardly  equalled  since.  Strauss  maintains  that  there 
are  no  uncaused  eflfbcts,  —  no  effects  which  have  not 
causes  fully  commensurate  with  themselves.  A 
Jewish  youth,  half-enthusiast,  half-impostor,  must 
have  been  immeasurably  inferior  to  those  great 
philosophers  and  moralists  of  classic  antiquity,  who 
hardly  made  an  impression  on  the  depravity  of 
their  own  and  succeeding  times.  Such  a  youth 
must  have  had  very  vague  notions  of  morality,  and 
have  been  a  very  poor  example  of  it  He  might 
have  founded  a  sect  of  fanatics,  but  not  a  body  of 
singularly  pure,  true  and  holy  men.  There  is  a 
glaring  inadequacy,  —  nay,  an  entire  and  irrecon- 
cilable discrepancy  between  the  cause  and  the  effect. 
We  can  account  for  the  moral  reformation  that 
followed  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  only  by  supposing 
him  endowed  with  a  higher  and  calmer  wisdom, 
with  a  keener  sense  of  truth  and  right,  with  a  more 
commanding  influence  over  the  human  heart  and 
conscience,  than  has  ever  belonged  to  any  other 
being  that  the  world  has  seen.  Outwardly  he  was 
a  humbly  bom,  illiterate  Jew,  in  a  degenerate  age, 
of  a  corrupt  national  stock;  and  there  is  no  way 
of  accounting  for  his  superiority  over  all  other 
teachers  of  truth  and  duty,  unless  we  believe  that 
he  held  by  the  gift  of  God  a  preeminence,  of  which 
his  alleged  sway  over  nature  and  victory  over  death 
were  but  the  natural  and  fitting  expression. 

6.  Strauss  bases  his  theory  on  the  assumption 
that  our  Gospels  were  not  written  by  the  men  whose 
names  they  bear,  but  were  the  productions  of 
authors  now  unknown,  at  later  and  uncertain 
periods;  and  he  admits  that  the  mythical  fabric 
which  he  supposes  the  Gospels  to  be  could  not  have 
had  its  origin  under  the  hands,  or  with  the  sanction, 
of  apostles  or  their  companions.  But  the  genuine- 
ness of  no  ancient,  we  might  almost  say,  of  no 
modem  work,  rests  on  stronger  evidence  than  does 
the  authorship  cf  our  Gospels  by  the  men  whose 
names  they  bear.  In  the  earlier  ages  their  com- 
position by  their  now  reputed  authors  was  never 
denied  or  called  in  question,  —  not  even  by  the 
heretics  who  on  dogmatical  grounds  rejected  some 
Df  them,  and  would  have  found  it  convenient  to 
^ject  all,  —  not  even  by  Jewish  and  Gentile  op- 
X)sers  of  Christianity,  who  argued  vehemently  and 
oitterly  against  their  contents  without  impugning 
their  genuineness.  Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  speaks  repeatedly 
of  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  called  Gospels,  and  in 
his  frequent  recapitulation  of  what  he  professes  to 
have  drawn  from  this  source  there  are  numerous 
coincidences  with  our  Gospels,  not  only  in  the  facts 
narrated,  but  in  words  and  in  passages  of  consid- 
erable length.  From  his  extant  works  we  could 
almost  reproduce  the  gospel  history.  He  was  a 
man  of  singularly  inquisitive  mind,  of  philosophical 
.raining,  of  large  and  varied  erudition ;  and  it  is 
impossible  that  he  should  not  have  known  whether 
hese  books  were  received  without  question,  or 
♦whether  they  rested  under  the  suspicion  of  spurious 
luthorship.  Irenseus,  who  wrote  a  little  later,  gives 
a  detailed  description  of  our  four  Gospels,  naming 
Lheir  respective  authors,  and  stating  the  order  in 
which  and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were 
X>mpeied  j  and  he  writes,  not  only  in  his  own 


GOSPELS 

name,  but  in  that  of  the  whole  church,  saying  llia 
these  books  were  not  and  had  not  been  called  in 
question  by  any.  These  are  but  specimens  of  vcrj 
numerous  authorities  that  might  be  cited.  Abon. 
the  same  time,  Celsus  wrote  against  Christianity 
and  he  drew  so  largely  from  our  Gospels  as  the 
authorized  narratives  of  the  life  of  Christ,  that  a 
connected  history  of  that  life  might  almost  be  made 
from  the  extant  passages  quoted  from  his  ^vritings 
by  his  Christian  opponents. 

In  the  middle  and  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
cen'cury,  there  were  large  bodies  of  Christiang  in 
every  part  of  the  civilized  world,  and  the  copies  of 
the  Gospels  must  have  been  numbered  by  many 
thousands.  Their  universal  reception  as  the  works 
of  the  men  whose  names  they  now  bear  can  be 
accounted  for  only  by  their  genuineness.  Suppose 
that  they  were  spurious,  yet  WTitten  and  circulated 
in  the  lifetime  of  the  Apostles,— it  is  impossible  that 
they  should  not  have  openly  denied  their  author- 
ship, and  that  this  denial  should  not  have  left 
traces  of  itself  in  the  days  of  Justin  Martyr  and 
Irenaeus.  Suppose  that  they  were  first  put  ir  cir- 
culation under  the  names  they  now  bear,  after  the 
death  of  the  Apostles,  —  it  is  inconceivable  that 
there  should  not  have  been  men  shrewd  enough  to 
ask  why  they  had  not  appeared  while  their  authors 
were  living,  and  their  late  appearance  would  have 
given  rise  to  doubts  and  questions  which  would  not 
ha\e  been  quieted  for  several  generations.  Suppose 
that  they  were  first  issued  and  circulated  anony- 
mously, —  there  must  have  been  a  time  when  the 
names  of  Matthew,  ^lark,  Luke,  and  John  were 
first  attached  to  them,  and  it  is  impossible  that 
the  attaching  of  the  names  of  well-known  men  as 
authors  to  books  which  had  been  anonymous  should 
not  have  been  attended  by  grave  doubt. 

The  statement  of  L'uke  in  the  Introduction  of 
his  Gospel,  and  the  very  nature  of  the  case  render 
it  certain  that  numerous  other  accounts,  more  or 
less  authentic,  of  the  life  of  Christ  were  early 
written,  and  some  such  accounts,  commonly  called 
the  Apocryphal  Gospels,  are  still  extant.  But  Me 
have  ample  evidence  that  no  such  writings  were 
ever  received  as  of  authority,  read  in  the  churches, 
or  sanctioned  by  the  office-bearers  and  leading  men 
in  the  Christian  communities;  and  most  ot  them 
disappeared  at  an  early  date.  Nom'  it  is  impossible 
to  account  for  the  discrediting  and  suppression  of 
these  wTitings,  unless  the  Church  was  in  the  pos- 
session of  authoritative  records.  If  our  Gospels 
had  no  higher  authority  than  belonged  to  those 
narratives,  all  the  accounts  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
would  have  been  received  and  transmitted  with 
equal  credit.  But  if  there  were  four  narratives 
written  by  eye-witnesses  and  their  accredited  com- 
panions, while  all  the  rest  were  written  by  persons 
of  inferior  means  of  information  and  of  inferior 
authority,  then  may  we  account,  as  we  can  in  no 
other  way,  for  the  admitted  fact  that  these  foui 
Gospels  crowded  all  others  out  of  the  Church,  and 
drove  them  into  discredit,  almost  into  oblivion. 

We  have  then  abundant  reason  to  believe,  and 
no  reason  to  doubt,  that  our  present  four  Gospeia 
were  written  by  the  men  whose  names  they  bear- 
and  if  this  be  proved,  by  the  confession  of  Strauss 
himself  the  mythical  theory  is  untenable. 

A.  P.  P. 

*  Literature.  The  preceding  article  would  b« 
incomplete  without  some  further  notice  of  the  lit 
erature  of  the  subject,  which  it  will  be  convenient 
to  distribute  under  several  heads. 


GOSPELS 

1.  Ciiticnl  history  of  the  Gospels ;  their  origin, 
nutual  relation,  and  credibility.  In  addition  to 
the  works  refeiTed  to  above  (np.  943,  947),  the  fol- 
lowing may  be  mentioned:  Tboluck,  Die  Glaub- 
wiirdiffkeil  der  evang.  Geschichte,  2e  Autl.,  Hamb. 
1838;  Ullmann,  Historisch  oder  Mythisch  f  Hamb. 
1838 ;  Furness,  Jesus  and  his  Biographers,  Philad. 
1838,  an  enlargement  of  his  Bemnrks  on  the  Four 
Gospels ;  Gfrorer,  Die  heilige  Sage,  2  Abth.,  and 
Das  Ileiligthum  u.  d.  Wahrheit,  Stuttg.  1838;  C. 
II.  Weisse,  Die  evang.  Geschichte,  krit.  u.  phibs. 
bearbeitet,  2  Bde.  Leipz.  1838;  Wilke,  Der  Ur- 
evangelist,  oder  exeg.  krit.  Untersuchung  ub.  ci. 
Verwandtschaftsverhdltniss  der  drei  ersten  Evan- 
gelien,  Dresd.  1838;  Hennell,  Inquiry  concerning 
the  Origin  of  Christianity  (1st  ed.  1838),  2d  ed. 
I^nd.  1841;  Bruno  Bauer,  Kntik  der  evang.  Gesch. 
der  Synoptiker,  3  Bde.  Berl.  1841-42;  and  Kritik 
der  Evangelien  u.  Gesch.  Hires  Ursprungs,  4  Bde. 
Berl.  1850-52;  Ebrard,  WissenschaftUche  Kritik 
d.  evang.  Geschichte  (1st  ed.  1841),  2e  umgearb. 
A.ufl.  Erlangen,  1850,  English  translation,  con- 
densed, Edin.  1863 ;  W.  H.  Mill,  On  the  attempted 
Application  of  Pantheistic  Principles  to  the 
Theory  and  Historic  Criticism  of  the  Gospels, 
Cambr.  (Eng.)  1840-44;  Isaac  Williams,  Thoughts 
on  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  Lond.  1842;  F.  J. 
Schwarz,  Neue  Untersuchung  en  uber  d.  Verwandt- 
schafts-  Verhdltniss  der  synopt.  Evnngtlien,  Tiib. 
1844;  (Anon.)  Die  Evangelien,  ihr  Geist,  ihre 
Verfasser  und  ihr  Verhdltniss  zu  einnnder,  Leipz. 
1845;  J.  R.  Beard,  Voices  of  the  Church  in  reply 
to  Strauss,  Lond.  1845;  C.  L.  W.  Grimm,  Die 
Glaubiviii^digkeit  der  evang.  Geschichte,  Jena,  1845, 
in  opposition  to  Strauss  and  Bauer  •  Thiersch,  Ver- 
such  zur  Herstellung  d.  histor.  Standpunkls  far  d. 
Kritik  d.  neutest.  Schriften,  Erlangen,  1845,  comp. 
Baur,  Der  Kritiker  u.  der  Fanatiker,  u.  s.  w. 
Stuttg.  1846,  and  Thiersch,  Einige  Worte  ub.  d. 
Aechtheit  d.  neutest.  Schriften,  1846;  Schwegler, 
Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  2  Bde.  Tiib.  1846 ; 
Bleek,  Beitrdge  zur  Evangelien-Kritlk,  Berl.  1846, 
valuable;  Davidson,  Introd.  to  the  Neiv  Test.  vol. 
'.  Ix)nd.  1848;  Ewald,  Ursprung  und  wesen  der 
Evangelien,  in  his  Jahrb.  d.  Bibl.  wissenschaft, 
1848-1854,  namely,  i.  113-154;  ii.  180-224;  iii. 
140-183;  V.  178-207;  vi.  32-72;  comp.  also  ix. 
49-87,  X.  83-114,  xii.  212-224;  also  his  Die  drei 
ersten  Evajigelien  ilbersezt  u.  erkldri,  Gutt.  1850; 
Hilgenfeld,  Krit.  Untersuchung  en  iiber  die  Evan- 
gelien Justin's,  u.  3.  w.  Halle,  1850;  D::is  Marktcs- 
Evangelium,  Leipz.  1850;  arts,  in  Theol.  Jahrb. 
1852,  pp.  102-132,  259-293 ;  Die  Evangelien  nach 
ihrer  Entstehung  u.  gesch.  Bedeutung,  Leipz.  1854; 
arts,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1857,  pp.  381-440,  498- 
532,  and  in  his  Zeitschr.  f.  wlss.  Theol.  1859, 1861, 
and  1862-67,  jmssim;  Baur,  Kritische  Unter- 
mchungen  iib.  d.  kanon.  Evangelien,  Tiib.  1847, 
already  noticed  ;  Das  Markusevangelium,  Tiib. 
1851;  arts,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1853,  pp.  54-93; 
1854,  pp.  196-287,  and  Zeitschr.  f  wiss.  Theol. 
1859 ;  for  a  summary  of  results,  see  his  Dis  Chris- 
enthum  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  2^  Ausg._ 
Tiib.  1860;  Ritschl,  Ueber  den  gegenicdrtiger. 
Stand  der  Kritik  der  synopt.  Evangelien,  in  Tneol. 
/ahrb.  1851,  pp.  480-538;  C.  E.  Stowe,  The  Four 
Gospels,  and  the  Hegelian  Assaults  upon  them,  in 
the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  July  1851  and  Jan.  1852,  re- 
printed in  Journ.  of  Sac.  Lit.  Oct.  1865  and  Jan. 
1866;  Da  Costa,  The  Four  WLnesses  (trans,  from 
•■he  Dutch),  Lond.  1851,  reprinted  New  York,  1855 ; 
r.  R.  Birks,  Horm  EvangtUcca    or  the   Internal 


GOSPELS 


95£ 


Evidence  of  the  Gospel  History,  I^ntl.  1862;  C 
R.  Kostlin,  Der  Ursprung  u.  d.  Kompositiyn  d. 
synopt.  Evangelien,  Stuttg.  1853;  James  Smith 
of  Jordanhill,  Diss,  on  the  Origin  and  Connectior 
of  the  Gospels,  Edin.  1853;  F.  X.  Patritius  (Cath.), 
be  Evangeliis,  Friburgi,  1853;  G.  F.  Simmons. 
The  Gospels,  etc.  in  the  (Boston)  Christian  Exam- 
iner, May,  1853;  J.  H.  Morison,  Genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  ibid.  Jan.  1854;  C.  F.  Ranke,  De 
Libris  histm\  Novi  Test.,  Berol.  1855;  Norton, 
Internal  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gos- 
pels, including  "  Remarks  on  Strauss's  Life  of 
Jesus,"  Boston,  1855  (posthumous),  —  an  abridged 
edition  of  his  admirable  work  on  the  external  Ev- 
idences of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels  (see  p. 
943),  has  just  been  published,  Boston,  1867;  C. 
H.  Weisse,  Die  Evang elienf rage  in  ihreni  gegen- 
wdrtigen  Stadium,  Leipz.  1856;  Reuss,  arts,  in 
the  Strasbourg  Revue  de  Theol.  vols.  x.  xi.  xv., 
and  Nouvelle  Revue  de  Theol.  1858,  ii.  15-72, 
comp.  his  Gesch.  d.  heiligen  Schriften  N.  T. 
3e  Ausg.  1860,  §  179  ff.;  Volkmar,  Die  Religion 
Jesu,  etc.  Leipz.  1857;  J.  T.  Tobler,  Die  Evan- 
gelienfrage,  Ziirich,  1858,  comp.  Hilgenfeld's 
Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol.  1859  and  1860;  Scherer, 
Notes  sur  les  evangiles  synoptiques,  6  articles  in 
the  Nouvelle  Rev.  de  Theol.  (Strasbourg),  1859 
and  1860,  vols,  iii.,  iv.,  and  v. ;  I.  Nichols,  Hours 
with  the  Evangelists,  2  vols.  Boston,  1859-64; 
Westcott,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels, 
Cambr.  1860,  3d  ed.  1867,  Amer.  reprint,  Boston, 
1862,  12mo;  Furness,  Origin  of  the  Gospels,  in 
Christ.  Exam,  for  Jan.  1861,  comp.  his  Veil  partly 
lifted  (1864),  pp.  227-301;  Weiss,  Zur  Entsteh- 
ungsgeschichte  der  synopt.  Evangelien,  in  the 
Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1861,  pp.  29-100,  646-713, 
comp.  his  arts.  Die  Redestiicke  des  aposiol.  Mat- 
thdus,  in  Jahrb.  f  Deutsche  Theol.  1864,  ix.  49- 
140,  and  Die  Erzahlungsstucke  d.  apost.  Matthdm, 
ibid.  1865,  x.  319-376 ;  C.  Wittichen,  Bemerkungen 
iiber  die  Tendenz  und  den  Lehrgehalt  der  synopt. 
Reden  Jesu,  in  the  Jahrb.  f  Deutsche  Theol.  1862, 
vii.  314-372,  and  Ueber  den  histor.  Charakter  der 
synopt.  Evangelien,  ibid.  1866,  xi.  427-482 ;  Bleek, 
Einl.  in  das  N.  T,  Berl.  18G2,  2d  ed.  1866 ;  Holtz- 
mann.  Die  synopt.  Evangelien,  ihr  Urspruruj  u 
gesch.  Charakter,  Leipz.  1863 ;  Eichthal,  Les  Evan- 
giles, 2  tom.  Paris,  1863 ;  G.  A.  Freytag,  Die  Sym- 
phonie  der  Evangelien,  Neu-Ruppin,  1863 ;  Alex 
Roberts,  Discussions  on  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  Edin 
1864;  G.  P.  Fisher,  The  Mythical  Theory  of 
Strauss,  in  the  New  Englander  for  April,  1864, 
excellent;  Oiigin  of  the  First  Three  Gospels,  ihid. 
Oct.  1864;  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in 
Bibl.  Sacra,  April,  1864;  all  reprinted,  with  addi- 
tions, in  his  Essays  on  the  Supernatural  Origin  of 
Christianity,  New  York,  1866 ;  Weizsacker,  Unter- 
suchungen  iiber  die  evang.  Geschichte,  ihre  QueU 
len,  u.  den  Gang  ihrer  Entwickelung,  Gotha,  1864, 
comp.  Weiss's  review  in  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1866, 
pp.  129-176 ;  M.  Nicolas,  lEtudes  crit.  sur  la  Bible 
—  Nouveau  Testament,  Paris,  1864  ;  the  Abb^ 
Meignan,  Les  jSvangiles  et  la  critique  au  XfX* 
siecle,  Paris,  1864;  N.  C.  Burt,  Hours  am<mg  the 
Gospels,  VhiUd.  1865,  12mo;  Tischendorf,  Wann 
tourden  unsere  Evangelien  verfasst  ?  Leipz.  1865, 
4th  ed.,  greatly  enlarged,  1866,  Eng.  trans,  by 
W.  L.  Gage,  Boston,  1868  (Amer.  Tract.  Soc); 
Hilgenfeld,  Const antin  Tischendorf  als  Defensor 
fidei,  in  his  Zeitschr.  f.  wlss.  Theol.  1865,  pp. 
329-343 ;  Volkmar,  Der  Ursprung  unserer  Evan^ 
gelien  nach  den  Urkunden,  Ziirich,  1866  (Tiach- 


960  GOSPELS 

widorf  has  replied  tx)  Hilgenfeld  and  Volkraar  in 
his  4th  edition);  J.  H.  Scholten,  De  oudste  6'e- 
luigenissen,  etc.,  Leiden,  1866,  trans,  by  Manchot, 
Die  cUtesten  Zeuynisse  betrejf'end  die  Schriften  des 
N.  T.  historisch  untersucht^  Bremen,  1867,  in  op- 
position to  Tischendorf ;  Hofstede  de  Groot,  Basii- 
ides  als  erster  Ztiuje  f.  Aller  u.  Autoritat  neutest. 
Schriften,  u.  s.  w.  Leipz.  1868  [1867],  against 
Scholten;  J.  L  Mombert,  The  Origin  of  the  Gos- 
oels,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  July  and  Oct.  1866, 
with  particular  reference  to  Strauss 's  New  Life 
of  Jesus ;  L.  A.  Sabatier,  Jissai  sur  les  sources 
de  la  vie  de  Jesics,  Paris,  1866;  A.  Reville,  La 
question  des  evangiles  devnnt  la  cHtique  moderne, 
in  Rev.  des  Deux  Mondes,  1  mai  and  1  juin, 
1866;  H.  U.  Maijboom,  Geschiedenis  en  Critiek 
der  Marcus-Hypothese,  Amst.  1866 ;  Klostermann, 
Das  Marcus-Lvanaelium  nach  seinem  Quellen- 
werthef.  d.  evang.  Geschichte,  Gott.  1867:  C  A. 
Row.  The  Historical  Character  of  the  Gospels 
tested  by  an  Examination  of  their  Contents,  in  the 
Journ.  of  Sacred  Lit.  for  July  and  Oct.  1865, 
Jan.  Apr.  and  July,  1866,  and  Jan.  1867,  —  an 
original  and  valuable  series  of  articles,  which  ought 
to  be  published  separately.  Holtzmann,  Der  gegen- 
wdrtige  Stand  der  Evangelievfrcge,  in  Bunsen's 
Bibelwerk,  Bd.  viii.  (1866),  pp.  2-3--77,  gives  a  good 
survey  of  the  literature.  For  other  reviews  of 
the  literature,  see  Hilgenfeld's  Der  Kanon  u.  die 
Kritik  des  N.  T.  (Halle,  1863),  and  Uhlhorn's 
article,  Die  kirchenhistorischen  Arbeiten  des  Jahr- 
zehents  von  1851-1860,  in  the  Zeiischrift  f.  hist. 
TheoL  for  1866,  see  esp.  pp.  6-19. 

2.  Harmonies  of  the  Gospels,  and  their  Chro- 
nology. In  addition  to  the  works  named  above  (p. 
950),  the  following  deserve  mention  here:  Lach- 
mann,  De  Ordine  Narrationum  in  Kvangeliis 
Synopticis,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1835,  pp. 
570-590,  comp.  his  Nov.  Test.  torn.  ii.  (1850),  pp. 
xiii.-xxv. ;  Gelpke,  Ueber  die  Ancn'dn.  d.  Erzali- 
lungen  in  den  synopt.  Evangelien.  Sendschreiben 
an  K.  Lachmann,  Bern,  1839;  I^ant  Cai'penter, 
Apostolical  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  2d  ed.,  Ix)nd. 
1838 ;  J.  G.  Sommer,  Synoptische  Tafeln  [11]  /. 
d.  Kritik  u.  Exegese  der  drei  ersten  Evangelien, 
Bonn,  1842;  Wieseler,  Chronol.  Synopse  der  vier 
Evangelien,  Harab.  1843,  Eng.  trans.  Lond.  1864, 
comp.  his  art.  Zeitrechnung,  neutestamentliche,  in 
Herzog's  Real-Encykl.  xxi.  543  fF. ;  S.  F.  Jarvis, 
Chronol.  Introd.  to  the  Hist,  of  the  Church,  con- 
taining an  Original  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels, 
Lond.  1844,  and  New  York,  1845,  comp.  J.  L. 
Kingsley  in  the  New  Englander  for  April,  1847, 
and  July,  1848 ;  H.  B.  Hackett,  Synoptical  Study 
of  the  Gospels,  in  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Feb.  1846;  J. 
C.  G.  L.  KrafFt,  Chronol.  u.  Harm.  d.  vier  Evan- 
gelien, Erlang.  1848;  Anger,  Synopsis  Evangg. 
Matt.  Marci  Lucce,  cum  Locis  qwz  supersunt  par- 
allelis  Litterarum  et  Traditionum  Irenoe.o  antiqui- 
orum.  Lips.  1852,  valuable;  James  Strong,  Neio 
Harmony  and  Exposition  of  the  Gospels,  loith 
Chronol.  and  Topog.  Dissertations,  finely  illus- 
trated. New  York,  1852,  large  8vo;  Harmony  of 
the  Gospels,  in  the  Greek  of  the  Received  Text, 
by  the  same,  New  York,  1854,  12mo;  Stroud, 
New  Greek  Harm,  of  the  Four  Gospels,  compris- 
ing a  Synopsis  and  a  Diatessaron,  Lond.  1853,  4to ; 
Mirapriss,  Treasury  Harmony  and  Practical  Ex 
position  of  the  Four  Evangelists,  rx)nd.  1855,  4to; 
Lichtonstein,  Lebensgeschichte  d.  Herrn  Jesu 
Christi  in  chronologischer  Uebersicht,  Erlang.  1866; 
(E.  E.  Hale)  Logical  Order  of  the  Gosptl  Narra- 


GOSPELS 

lives,  in  the  ChHst.  Examiner  for  Sept.  1858,  ano 
System  and  Order  of  Christ  s  Ministry,  ibid.  Jan. 
1864 ;  M.  H.  Schulze,  Evangtlientajel  als  erne 
Ubersichtl.  Darstellung  d.  synopt.  Ew.  in  ihrem 
Verwandtschaftsverhdltnis  zu  einander,  u.  s.  w 
I^ipz.  1861;  Chavannes,  Determination  de  quel" 
ques  dates  de  Vhist.  evangelique,  i.i  the  Strasbourg 
Rev.  de  Theol.  1863,  pp.  209-248 ;  Bunsen's  Bibel- 
loerk,  Bd.  viii.  (1866),  pp.  115-322,  comp.  Bd.  ix. 
{Leben  Jesu) ;  Sevin,  Die  drei  ersten  Evangelien 
synoptisch  zusammengesttllt,  Wiesbaden,  1866, 
Greek  after  the  Codex  Sinaiticns,  with  the  varia- 
tions of  the  Rec.  Text;  Emi,  Evang elien-Ueber- 
sicht:  sdmmtUche  vier  kanon.  Ew.,  auf  7  Bldtieiit 
.  .  .  wortlich  nach  der  offiziellen  Uebersetzung  d. 
Zilrcherischen  I^andeskirche  bearbeitet,  u.  s.  w. 
Ziirich,  1867.  A  Harmony  of  the  Gosjjels  in  Greek 
(Tischendorf 's  text),  with  various  readings,  notes, 
tables,  etc.,  by  the  Rev.  Frederic  Gardiner,  is  now 
in  press  (New  York,  1868). 

3.  Commentaries.  Passing  by  older  works,  we 
may  notice  Campbell,  Four  Gospels  translated,  mth 
Notes,  reprinted  Andover,  1837,  2  vols.  8vo,  val- 
uable for  the  Preliminary  Dissertations;  Kuinoel 
(Kiihniil),  Comm.  in  IJbr.  N.  T.  historicos,  4  vols. 
Lips.  (Matt.,  4th  ed.  1837;  Mark  and  Luke,  4th 
ed.  1843;  John,  3d  ed.  1825),  often  unsound  in 
philology,  but  still  useful;  Paulus,  Exeg.  Handb. 
lib.  die  drei  ersten  Ew.,  3  Theile,  Heidelb.  1830-33; 
Baumgarten-Crusius,  Exeg.  Schiiften  zum  N.  T. 
Bd.  i.  in  2  Th.  (Matt.,  Mark,  Luke),  Jena,  1844-45, 
posthumous  ;  his  TheoL  Auslegung  d.  J  oh  an. 
Schriften  (1844-45)  is  more  imiwrtant;  Olshausen, 
Bibl.  Cmim.  I3de.  i.  and  ii.  Abth.  1,  2,  4fi  Aufl. 
rev.  von  Ebrard,  Konigsb.  1853-62,  Eng.  trans, 
revised  by  A.  C.  Kendrick,  New  York,  1856-57; 
^leyer,  Krit.  exeg.  Komm.  ub.  das  N.  T.  Abth. 
i.,  ii.  Giitt.  (Matt.,  5th  ed.  1864;  Mark  and  Luke 
5th  ed.  1867;  John,  4th  ed.  1862);  De  Wette, 
Kurzgef  exeg.  Handb.  zum  N.  T.  13d.  i.  Th.  i.- 
iii.  Leipz.  (Matt.,  4th  ed.  by  Messner,  1857 ;  Luke 
and  Mark,  3d  ed.  1846;  John,  5th  ed.  by  Briickner, 
1863);  Stier,  Die  Reden  des  Herrn  Jesu,  2e  Auti., 
7  Theile,  Barmen,  1851-55,  Eng.  trans.  8  vols. 
Edin.  1855-61;  John  Brown,  Discourses  and  Say- 
ings of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  3  vols.  Edin.  1850, 
reprinted  in  2  vols.  New  York,  1864 ;  Ewald,  Die 
drei  ersten  Ew.  iibers.  u.  erklart,  Gcitt.  1850,  and 
Die  Johan.  Schriften  iibers.  u.  erklart,  Gott.  1861- 
62;  Norton,  New  Translation  of  the  Gospels,  with 
Notes,  2  vols.  Boston,  1855,  posthumous;  Joel 
Jones  (Judge),  Notes  on  Scr-i/Hure,  Philad.  1861; 
Bleek,  Synopt.  Erkldrung  der  drei  ersten  Evange- 
lien, 2  Bde.  Leipz.  1862;  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  Bd. 
iv.  Th.  i.  (1862),  ed.  by  Holtzmann,  translation 
with  brief  notes;  and  the  Greek  Testaments  of 
Bloomfield  (9th  ed.  1855),  Alford  (5th  ed.  1863), 
Webster  and  Wilkinson  (1855),  and  Wordsworth 
(4th  ed.  1866).  Of  lunge's  great  Bibelwerk, 
"  critical,  theological,  and  homiletical,"  the  vols, 
on  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  have  been  translated 
and  published  in  this  country,  with  valuable  addi- 
tions, under  the  general  editorship  of  Dr.  Schaff 
(New  York,  1865-66);  the  volume  on  John  is  in 
press.  Nast's  Commentary  (Matt,  and  Mark,  Cin- 
cinnati, 1864)  is  on  a  similar  plan.  This  volunw 
has  a  valuable  General  Introduction  to  the  Gospels, 
treating  of  their  genuineness,  authenticity,  hanuony 
etc.,  which  has  also  been  issued  separately.  Since 
the  publication  of  the  Rev.  Albert  liarnes's  Notet 
on  the  Gospels,  2  vols.  New  York,  1832,  17th  ed. 
revised,    1847    (when   32,000   copies   had   aireadj 


f 


GOTHOLIAS 

been  sold),  numerous  popular  commentaries  have] 
api)enre(l  in  this  country,  representing  more  or  less 
the  Uieological  views  of  different  religious  denom- 
inations, as  by  H.  .1.  Ulpley  (Baptist),  2  vols.  Boston, 
]837-;J8;  Jos.  I^ngking  (Methodist),  4  vols.  IGmo, 
New  York,  1841-44  ;  A.  A.  Livermore  (Uni- 
tarian), 2  vols.  Boston,  184; -42;  L.  R.  Paige 
(Univevsalist),  2  vols.  Boston,  1844-45;  M.  W. 
Jacobus,  3  vols.  New  York,  1848-56 ;  C.  II.  Hall 
(Episcopalian).  2  vols.  New  York,  1857;  J.  J.  Owen, 
3  vols.  New  Yo.-k,  1857-60  ^.  D.  Whedon  (Meth- 
odist), 2  vols  New  York,  1860-66;  and  I.  P. 
Warren,  Ntio  Tent,  loitk  Notes,  vol.  i.  Boston,  1867 
(Amer.  Tr.  Soc).  Of  works  illustratuig  portions  of 
the  Gospels,  Abp.  Trench's  Notes  on  the  Paiutbks 
(1841,  9th  ed.  1864),  Notes  on  the  Miracles  (1846, 
7th  ed.  1800),  and  Studies  in  the  Gospels  (1867), 
of  all  of  which  we  have  American  editions,  deserve 
particular  mention,  ^\''ichelhaus  has  written  an 
elaborate  commentary  on  the  history  of  the  Passion 
Week  {Aus/'iihrl.  Komm.  zu  d.  Gesch.  des  Leidens 
Jesu  Chnsti,  Halle,  1855).  Of  the  works  named 
above,  the  most  valuable  in  a  critical  and  philo- 
logical point  of  view  are  those  of  Meyer,  De  Wette, 
and  Bleek.  For  treatises  on  the  separate  Gospels, 
see  their  respective  names  ;  see  also  the  article 
Jesus  Christ.  A. 

GOTHOLrAS.  Josias,  son  of  Gotholias  (Po- 
doXiov-  Gotholite),  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Elam 
who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Esdras  (1  Esdr. 
viii.  33).  The  name  is  the  same  as  Athaliah, 
with  the  common  substitution  of  the  Greek  G  for 
the  Hebrew  guttural  Ain  (comp.  Gomorrah,  Gaza, 
etc.).  This  passage  compared  with  2  K.  xi.  1,  &c. 
shows  that  Athaliali  was  both  a  male  and  female 
uame. 

GOTHO'NIEL  {VodoviiiX,  L  e.  Othniel ; 
[Sin.  I  ToQoviov,  gen.  :J  Gothoniel),  father  of  Cha- 
bris,  who  was  one  of  the  governors  (apxoj/Tes)  of 
the  city  of  Bethulia  (Jud.  vi.  15). 

GOURD.  I.  ]V|5*'|7,  only  in  Jon.  iv.  G-10: 
KoXoKvvBr]'  hedera.  A  difference  of  opinion  has 
long  existed  as  to  the  plant  which  is  intended  by 
this  word.  The  argument  is  as  old  us  Jerome, 
whose  rendering  hedera  was  impugned  by  Augus- 
tine as  a  heresy !  In  reality  Jerome'«  rendering 
was  not  intended  to  be  critical,  but  rather  as  a  kind 
of  2iis  aller  necessitated  by  the  want  of  a  proper 
Latin  word  to  express  the  original.  Besides  he  was 
unwilUng  to  leave  it  in  merely  Latinized  Hebrew 
(kikayon),  which  might  have  occasioned  misappre- 
hensions. Augustine,  following  the  LXX.  and  Syr. 
Versions,  was  in  favor  of  the  rendering  yourd, 
which  was  adopted  by  Luther,  the  A.  V.,  etc.  In 
Jerome's  description  of  the  plant  called  in  Syr. 
Icaro,  and  Punic  el-keroa,  Celsius  recognizes  the 
Ricinus  Palnia  Christi,  or  Castor-oil  plant  {fliero- 
bot.  ii.  273  ff.;  Bochart,  Hiei-oz.  ii.  293,  623). 
The  Riciniis  was  seen  by  Niebuhr  {De script,  of 
Arab.  p.  148)  at  Basra,  where  it  was  distinguished 
by  the  name  el-keroa;  by  Rauwolf  (Trav.  p.  52) 
it  was  noticed  in  great  abundance  near  Tripoli, 
where  the  Arabs  called  it  el-kerua;  while  both 
Hasselquist  and  Robinson  observed  very  large  speci- 
mens of  it  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jericho  ("  Ri- 
cmus  in  altitudinem  arboris  insignis,'  Hasselq.  p. 
555;  see  also  Rob.  i.  553). 

Niebuhr  observes  that  the  Jews  and  Christians 
Kt  Mosul  (Nineveli)  maintained  that  tht,  ^ree  which 
■hdterec  Jonah  was  not  "  el-keroa,"  but  "  el-kerra," 
61 


GOURD 


<jfn 


a  sort  of  gourd,  '.'his  revival  of  the  August,  ren 
dering  has  been  defended  by  J.  E.  Eabei  (Notes  r>n 
Ilarmer's  Observations,  etc.  i.  145).  And  it  nnist 
be  confessed  that  the  evidently  miraculous  charac» 
ter  of  the  narrative  in  Jon.  deprives  the  Palnia 
Christi  of  any  special  claim  to  identification  on  the 
ground  of  its  rapid  growth  and  decay,  as  describe/l 
by  Niebuhr.  Much  more  important,  however,  is 
it  to  observe  the  tree-like  character  of  this  plant, 
rendering  it  more  suitable  for  the  purpose  which  it 
is  stated  to  have  fulfilled ;  also  the  authority  of  the 
Palestine  Jews  who  were  contemporaries  of  Jerome, 
as  compared  with  that  of  the  Mosul  Jews  convened 
with  by  Niebuhr.  But  most  decisive  of  all  seems 
the  derivation  of  the  Hebrew  word  from  the  I'^gyp- 
tian  kiki  (Herod,  ii.  94;  comp.  Biihr,  ad  loc. ;  and 
Jablonsky,  Opusc.  pt.  i.  p.  110)  established  by  Cel- 
sius, with  whose  arguments  Michaelis  declares  him 
self  entirely  satisfied   (J.   D.   Mich.   Supjd.);  and 

confirmed  by  the  Talmudical  P'^P  ]^^^^.,  kik-oil, 
prepared  from  the  seeds  of  the  Ricinus  (Buxt.  Lex. 
Chald.  Talmud,  col.  2029),  and  Dioscorides,  vr. 
164,  where  KpSruu  {=Palma  Christi)  is  described 
under  the  name  of  kIki,  and  the  oil  made  from  its 
seeds  is  called  kiklvov  eAaiov- 

IL  n*"117)?Q,  and  D^rfl?.  (1.)  In  2  K-  iv. 
39 ;  a  fruit  used  as  food,  disagreeable  to  the  taste, 
and  supposed  to  be  poisonous.  (2.)  In  1  K.  vi. 
18,  vii.  24,  as  an  architectural  ornament,  where  A. 
V.  "  knops."     In  Hebrew  the  plant  is  described  as 

•^"^^  f? V  •  ^I^T^^^ou  iv  To3  aypq):  vifem  silves- 
trem ;  whence  in  A.  V.  "  wild  vine  "  [2  K.  iv.  39]. 
The  fruit  is  called  in  Hebrew  as  above;  ToXv-nt] 
aypia,  LXX.  =  aypia  KoXoKvvOriy  Suid. :  colocyn- 
ihides  ayri;  "wild  gourds,''  A.  V. 

The  inconsistency  of  all  these  renderings  is  man- 
ifest; but  the  fact  is  that  the  Hebrew  name  of  the 
j)lant  may  denote  any  shrub  which  grows  in  ten  - 
drils,  such  as  the  colocynth,  or  the  cucumber. 
Rosenmiiller  and  Gesenius  pronounce  in  favor  of 
the  wikl  cucumber^  Cucumis  ayrestis  or  asininus 
(Cels.  Hierobot.  i.  393  ff.).  This  opinion  is  con- 
firmed by  the  derivation  from  ^f7Q,  to  burst.  The 
wild  cucumber  bursts  at  the  touch  of  the  finger, 
and  scatters  its  seeds,  which  the  colocynth  does  not 
(Rosenm.  Alterthumsk.  iv.  pt.  1,  (fee). 

T.  E.  B. 

There  can,  we  think,  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  kikayon  which  aflfbrded  shade  to  the  prophet 
Jonah  before  Nineveh  is  the  Ricinus  communis,  or 
castor-oil  plant,  which,  formerly  a  native  of  Asia, 
is  now  naturalized  in  America,  Africa,  and  the  south 
of  Europe.  This  plant,  which  varies  considerably 
in  size,  being  in  India  a  tree,  but  in  England  sel 
dom  attaining  a  greater  height  than  three  or  four 
feet,  receives  its  generic  name  from  the  resemblance 
its  fruit  was  anciently  supposed  to  bear  to  the 
acarus  ("tick")  of  that  name.  See  Dioscorides 
(iv.  161,  ed.  Sprengel)  and  Pliny  (ff.  N.  xv.  7). 
The  leaves  are  large  and  palmate,  with  serrated 
lobes,  and  would  form  an  excellent  shelter  for  the 
sun-stricken  prophet.  The  seeds  contain  the  oil  so 
well  known  under  the  name  of  "castor-oil,"  which 
has  for  ages  been  in  high  repute  as  a  medicine. 

With  regard  to  the  "  wild  gourds "  (DIl^fyQ, 
pakkuoth)  of  2  K.  iv.  39,  which  one  of  "the  sons 
of  the  prophets  "  gathered  ignorantly,  supposing 
them  to  be  good  for  food,  there  can  be  no  doubt 


962 


GOURD 


GOVERNOR 


Castor-oil  plant. 

that  it  is  a  sjjecies  of  the  gourd  tribe  {Cucur- 
bitncece),  which  contain  some  plants  of  a  very  bitter 
and  dangerous  character.  The  leaves  and  tendrils 
of  this  family  of  plants  hear  some  resemblance  to 
those  of  the  vine.  Hence  the  expression,  "  wild 
vine;""  and  as  several  kinds  of  Cucurbitncece, 
such  as  melons,  pumpkins,  etc.,  are  favorite  articles 
of  refreshing  food  amongst  the  Orientals,  we  can 
easily  understand  the  cause  of  the  mistake. 

The  plants  which  have  been  by  different  writers 
identified  with  the  pakkuoth  are  the  following :  the 
colocynth,  or  coloquintida  {Cifrullus  colocynthis) \ 
the  Cucumis  prop/ietarum,  or  globe  cucumber  ; 
and  the  Ecbalium  (Mormn-dica)  elaterium;  all  of 
which  have  claims  to  denote  the  plant  in  question. 

The  etymology  of  the  word  from  VJ^Q,  "  to  split 
or  burst  open,"  has  been  thought  to  favor  the  iden- 
tification of  the  plant  with  the  Ecbnlium  elaterium^^ 
or  "  squirting  cucumber,"  so  called  from  the  elas- 
ticity with  which  the  fruit,  when  ripe,  opens  and 
scatters  the  seeds  when  touched.  This  is  the 
6.ypios  criKvos  of  Dioscorides  (iv.  152)  and  Theo- 
phrastus  (vii.  6,  §  4,  &c.),  and  the  Cucumis  syU 
veslris  of  Pliny  (//.  N.  xx.  2).  Celsius  (Hierob. 
I  393),  Rosenraiiller  {Bibl.  Bot.  p.  128),  Winer 
{B'M.  Realw.  i.  625),  and  Gesenius  ( r/?es.  p.  1122), 
are  in  favor  of  this  explanation,  and,  it  must  be 
confessed,  not  without  some  reason.  The  old  ver- 
sions, however,  understand  the  colocynth,  the  fruit 
uf  which  is  about  the  size  of  an  orange.  The 
drastic  medicine  in  such  general  use  is  a  prepara- 
tion from  this  plant.  Michaelis  {Suppl.  Lex.  Heb. 
p.  3-i4)  and  Oedmann  (  Verm.  Samm.  iv.  88)  adopt 
this  explanation;  and  since,  according  to  Kitto 
{Pict.  Bibl.  1.  c. ),  the  dry  gourds  of  the  colocynth, 
when  crushed,  burst  with  a  crashing  noise,  there  is 
much  reason  for  being  satisfied  with  an  explanation 
which  has  authority,  etymology,  and  general  suit- 
ablenftss  in  its  favor.  All  the  above-named  plants 
are  found  in  the  East.  W.  H. 


a     One  went  out  into  the  field  to  gather  potnerlw 
(inns),  And  found  a  wild  vine  "  {niW   ]E;2). 


Colocynth. 

*  There  is  a  Letter  relating  to  Jonah's  Gourd  in 
the  Bibl.  Sacra,  xii.  39G  ff.,  from  the  late  Rev.  H. 
I^bdell,  M.  D.,  missionary  at  Mosid  in  Mesopotamia. 
He  says  that  "  the  Mohammedans,  Christians,  and 
Jews  all  agree  in  referring  the  plant  to  the  ker'a, 
a  kind  of  pumpkin  pecuhar  to  the  East.  The 
leaves  are  large,  and  the  rajjidity  of  the  growth  of 
the  plant  is  astonishing.  Its  fruit  is,  for  the  most 
part,  eaten  in  a  fresh  state,  and  is  somewhat  like 
the  squash.  It  has  no  more  than  a  generic  resem- 
blance to  the  gourd  of  the  United  States,  though  I 
suppose  that  both  are  species  of  the  cucurbita.  It 
is  grown  in  great  abundance  on  the  alluvial  banks 
of  the  Tigris,  and  on  the  plain  between  the  river 
and  ruins  of  Nineveh,  which  is  about  a  mile  wide." 
He  gives  J  easons  for  supposing  that  the  LXX.  ko- 
KoKvvQf]  was  really  meant  to  designate  that  plant. 
Dr.  Pusey  (Jonah,  p.  259)  follows  those  who  adopt 
our  marginal  rendering  as  correct,  namely,  pal?7iC7nst 
or  the  castor-oil  plant  as  described  above.  He  re- 
marks conceniing  this  plant  (which  must  be  true, 
perhaps,  of  any  plant  with  which  the  kikdyon  was 
identical)  that  while  the  rapidity  of  its  growth  was 
supernatural,  it  was  a  growth  in  confonnity  with 
the  natural  character  of  the  product.  H. 

GOVERNOR.  In  the  A.  V.  this  one  Eng- 
lish word  is  the  representative  of  no  less  than  ten 
Hebrew  and  four  [five]  Greek  words.  To  discrim- 
inate between  them  is  the  object  of  the  following 
article. 

1.  ^^\  S,  alMph,  the  chief  of  a  tribe  or  family, 

?lbw,  eleph  (Judg.  vi.  15;  Is.  Ix.  22;  Mic.  v.  2), 
and  equivalent  to  the  "  prince  of  a  thousand  "  of 
Ex.  xviii.  21 ,  or  the  "  head  of  a  thousand  "  of  Num. 
i.  16.  It  is  the  term  applied  tc  the  "  dukes  "  of 
Edom  (Gen.  xxxiv.).  The  LXX.  have  retained  the 
etymological  significance  of  the  word  in  rendering 
it  by  x^^'i-f'-PX'^^  ^"  Zech.  ix.  7 ;  xii.  5,  0  (comp. 
^"^r^T*'  ^°"^  ^'  ''^^•)'  The  usage  in  other  pas- 
sages seems  to  imply  a  more  intimate  i  elationship 
than  that  which  would  exist  between  a  chieftftiB 


b  From  eKBdWm. 


GOVERNOK 

vad  his  fellow-clansmen,  and  to  express  the  closest 
friendship.  AUuph  is  then  "  a  guide,  director, 
counsellor"  (Ps.  Iv.  13;  Prov.  ii.  17;  Jer.  iii.  4), 
the  object  of  confidence  or  trust  (Mic.  v.  2). 

2.  YiTiy^^  chokek  (Judg.  v.  9),  and  3.  prP.^HTP, 
m'clwkek  (Judg.  v.  14),  denote  a  ruler  in  his  ca- 
pacity of  Idwyiver  and  dispenser  of  justice  (Gen. 
kUx.  10;  Prov.  viii.  15;  comp.  Judg.  v.  14,  with 
Is.  X.  1). 

4.  vti7D,  moshel,  a  ruler  considered  especially  as 
having /»<?2i'er  over  the  property  and  persons  of  his 
subjects;  whether  his  authority  were  absolute,  as  in 
Josh.  xii.  2,  of  Sihon,  and  in  Ps.  cv.  20,  of  Pharaoh ; 
or  delegated,  as  in  the  case  of  Abraham's  steward 
(Gen.  xxiv.  2),  and  Joseph  as  second  to  Pharaoh 
(Gen.  xlv.  8,  26,  Ps.  cv.  21).  The  "governors  of 
the  people  "  in  2  Chr.  xxiii.  20  appear  to  have  been 
the  khig's  body-guard  (cf.  2  K.  xi.  19). 

5.  "T"^^3,  ndffid,  is  connected  etymologically  with 

"Tjp  and  *T!l3,  and  denotes  a  prominent  personage, 
whatever  his  capacity.  It  is  applied  to  a  king  as 
the  military  and  civil  chief  of  his  people  (2-  Sam. 
V.  2,  vi.  21;  1  Chr.  xxix.  22),  to  the  general  of  an 
army  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  21),  and  to  the  head  of  a  tribe 
(2  Chr.  xix.  11).  The  heir- apparent  to  the  crown 
was  thus  designated  (2  Chr.  xi.  22),  as  holding  a 
prominent  position  among  the  king's  sons.  The 
term  is  also  used  of  persons  who  fulfilled  certain 
offices  in  the  temple,  and  is  applied  equally  to  the 
high-priest  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  10,  13),  as  to  inferior 
priests  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  8)  to  whose  charge  were  com- 
mitted the  treasures  and  the  dedicated  things  (1 
Chr.  xxvi.  24),  and  to  Levites  appointed  for  special 
service  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  12).  It  denotes  an  officer  of 
high  rank  in  the  palace,  the  lord  high  chamberlain 
(2  Chr.  xxviii.  7),  who  is  also  described  as  "over 
the  household  "  (1  K.  iv.  6),  or  "  over  the  house  " 
(1  K.  xviii.  3).  Such  was  the  office  held  by  Shebna, 
the  scribe,  or  secretary  of  state  (Is.  xxii.  15),  and 
in  which  he  was  succeeded  by  Eliakim  (2  K.  xviii. 
J  8).  It  is  perhaps  the  equivalent  of  oIkouS/jlos, 
Kom.  xvi.  23,  and  of  iepoaTaTTjs,  1  Esdr.  vii.  2 
(ef.  1  Esdr.  i.  8). 

6.  W^tTJ,  nasi.  The  prevailing  idea  in  this 
word  is  that  of  elevation.  It  is  applied  to  the 
chief  of  the  tribe  (Gen.  xvii.  20;  Num.  ii.  3,  &c.), 
to  the  heads  of  sections  of  a  tribe  (Num.  iii.  32, 
vii.  2),  and  to  a  powerful  sheykh  (Gen.  xxiii.  6). 
It  appears  to  be  synonymous  with  aUiiph  in  2  Chr. 

i.  2,  D\SJi7;  ==  n""in«  •'trWl  (cf.  2  Chr.  v.  2). 
In  general  it  denotes  a  man  of  elevated  rank.  In 
jater  times  the  title  was  given  to  the  president  of 
kha  great  Sanhedrim  (Selden,  De  Synedriis,  ii.  6, 

7.  nnQ,  pechdh,  is  probably  a  word  of  Assyrian 
origin.  It  is  applied  in  1  K.  x.  15  to  the  petty 
rbicftains  who  were  tributary  to  Solomon  (2  Chr. 
X.  14);  to  the  military  commander  of  the  Syrians 
1  K.  XX.  24),  the  Assyrians  (2  K.  xviii.  24),  the 
.'haldieans  (Jer.  U.  23),  and  the  Medes  (Jer.  Ii.  28). 
Jn.ler  the  Persian  viceroys,  during  the  Babylonian 
Captivity,  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  appear^,  to  liav3 

I een  portioned  out  among  "governors"  (n^n3. 
pacholk)  inferior  in  rank  to  the  satraps  (Ezr.  vii'.. 
io),  like  the  other  provinces  which  were  under  the 
iominion  of  the  Persian  king  (Neh.  ii.  7,  9).  It 
k  impossible  to  determine  the  precise  limits  of  their 


GOVERNOR 


96g 


authority,  or  the  functions  which  they  had  tc  per- 
form. They  formed  a  part  of  the  liabylonian  sys- 
tem of  government,  and  are  expressly  distinguished 

from  the  D^^^O,  s'(/dnim  (Jer.  Ii.  23,  28),  to 
whom,  as  well  as  to  the  satraps,  they  seem  to  have 
been  hiferior  (Uan.  iii.  2,  3,  27);  as  also  from  the 

uD^nti?,  sdrim  (Esth.  iii.  12,  viii.  9),  who,  on  the 
otlier  hand,  had  a  subordinate  jurisdiction.  Shesh- 
bazzar,  the  "prince"  (W'tpD,  Ezr.  i.  8)of  Judah, 
was  appointed  by  Cyrus  "  governor  "  of  Jerusalem 
(Ezr.  V.  14),  or  "governor  of  the  Jews,"  as  he  is 
elsewhere  designated  (Ezr.  vi.  7),  an  office  to  which 
Nehemiah  afterwards  succeeded  (Neh.  v.  14)  under 
the  title  of  Tirshatha  (Ezr.  ii.  63;  Neh.  viii.  9). 
Zerubbabel,  the  representative  of  the  royal  family 
of  Judah,  is  also  called  the  "governor"  of  Judah 
(Hag.  i.  1),  biit  whether  in  consequence  of  hia 
position  in  the  tribe  or  from  his  official  rank  is  not 
quite  clear.  Tatnai,  the  "  governor  "  beyond  the 
river,  is  spoken  of  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xi.  4,  §  4) 
under  the  name  of  Sisines,  as  erraoxos  of  Syria 
and  Phoenicia  (cf.  1  Esd.  vi.  3);  the  same  term 
being  employed  to  denote  the  Roman  proconsul  or 
propraetor  as  well  as  the  procurator  (Jos.  Ant.  xx. 

8,  §  1).  It  appears  from  Ezr.  vi.  8  that  these 
governors  were  intrusted  with  the  collection  of  the 
king's  taxes;  and  from  Neh.  v.  18,  xii.  20,  that 
they  were  supported  by  a  contribution  levied  upon 
the  people,  which  was  technically  termed  "  the 
bread  of  the  governor  "  (comp.  Ezr.  iv.  14).  They 
were  probably  assisted  in  discharging  their  official 
duties  by  a  council  (Ezr.  iv.  7,  vi.  6).  In  the 
Peshito  version  of  Neh.  iii.  11,  Pahath  Moab  is  not 
taken  as  a  proper  name,  but  is  rendered  "  chief  of 
Moab;  "  and  a  similar  translation  is  given  in  other 
passages  where  the  words  occur,  as  in  Ezr.  ii.  6, 
Neh.  vii.  11,  x.  14.  The  "governor"  beyond  the 
river  had  a  judgment-seat  at  Jerusalem,  from  which 
probably  he  administered  justice  when  making  a 
progress  through  his  province  (Neh.  iii.  7). 

8.  T^r?^?  pdkid,  denotes  simply  a  person  ap- 
pointed to  any  office.  It  is  used  of  the  officers  pro- 
posed to  be  appointed  by  Joseph  (Gen.  xii.  34);  of 
Zebul,  Abimelech's  lieutenant  (Judg.  ix.  28);  of 
an  officer  of  the  high-priest  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  11),  in- 
ferior to  the  7ur(/id  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  12,  13),  or  pdkid 
ndgid  (Jer.  xx.  1 ) ;  and  of  a  priest  or  Levite  of  high 
rank  (Neh.  xi.  14,  22).  The  same  term  is  applied 
to  the  eunuch  who  was  over  the  men  of  war  (2  K. 
XXV.  19;  Jer.  Hi.  25),  and  to  an  officer  appointed 
for  especial  service  (Esth.  ii.  3).  In  the  passage 
of  Jer.  XX.  above  quoted  it  probably  denotes  the 
captain  of  the  temple  guard  mentioned  in  Acts  iv. 
1,  v.  24,  and  by  Josephus  {B.  J.  vi.  5,  §  3). 

'  9.  10^  V  W,  shallit,  a  man  of  authority.  Applied 
to  Joseph  as  Pharaoh's  prime  minister  (Gen.  xlii. 
6);  to  Arioch,  the  captain  of  the  guard,  to  the  king 
of  Babylon  (Dan.  ii.  15),  and  to  Daniel  as  third  in 
rank  under  Belshazzar  (Dan.  v.  29). 

10.  "n^,  sar,  a  chief,  in  any  capacity.  Tho 
term  is  used  equally  of  the  general  of  an  army  (Gen. 
xxi.  22),  or  the  commander  of  a  division  (1  K.  xvi. 

9,  xi.  24),  as  of  the  governor  of  Pharaoh's  prison 
(Gen.  xxxix.  21),  and  the  chief  of  his  butlers  and 
bakers  (Gen.  xl.  2),  or  herdsmen  (Gen.  xlvii.  0). 
The  chief  officer  of  a  city,  in  his  civic  capacity,  waa 
thus  designated  (1  K.  xxii.  26;  2  K.  xxiii.  8) 
The  same  dignitary  is  elsewhere  described  aa  "  om 


364 


GOVERNOR 


the  city"  (Neh.  xi.  9).     In  Judg,  ix.  30  sar  is 
lynuuymous  with  ^jcU-jcZ  in  ver.  28,  and  witli  botii 


pakid   and   iiag 


in    1   Chr.    xxiv.    5. 


hamTn'dmdth,  "the  princes  of 
provinces  "  (I  K.  xx.  14),  appear  to  have  held  a 
somewhat  similar  position  to  the  "governors" 
under  the  Persian  kings. 

11.  'EBi/dpxv^,  2  Cor.  xi.  32  —  an  officer  of  rank 
under  Aretas,  the  Arabian  king  of  Damascus.  It 
is  not  easy  to  determine  the  capacity  in  which  he 
acted,  'i'lie  term  is  applied  in  1  Mace.  xiv.  47,  xv. 
1  to  Simon  the  high-i)riest,  who  was  made  general 
and  ethnarch  of  the  Jews,  as  a  vassal  of  Demetrius. 
From  this  the  office  would  appear  to  be  distinct 
from  a  militaiy  command.  The  jurisdiction  of 
Arohelaus,  called  by  Josephus  {B.  J.  ii.  G,  §  3)  an 
ethnarchy,  extended  over  Idumaea,  Samaria,  and 
ail  Judtea,  the  half  of  his  father's  kingdom,  which 
he  held  as  the  emperor's  vassal.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  Strabo  (xvii.  13),  in  enumerating  the  officers 
who  formed  part  of  the  machinery  of  the  Roman 
government  in  Egypt,  mentions  ethnarchs  appar- 
ently as  inferior  both  to  the  military  commanders 
and  to  the  nomarchs,  or  governors  of  districts. 
Again,  the  prefect  of  the  colony  of  Jews  in  Alex- 
andria (called  by  Philo  yevdpxn^,  ^'^-  *"  J'^iftcc. 
§  10)  is  designated  by  this  title  in  the  edict  of 
Claudius  given  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xix.  5,  §  2). 
According  to  Strabo  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  7,  §  2)  he 
exercised  the  prerogatives  of  an  ordinary  independent 
ruler.  It  has  therefore  been  conjectured  that  the 
ethnarch  of  Damascus  was  merely  the  governor  of 
the  resident  Jews,  and  this  conjecture  receives  some 
support  from  the  parallel  narrative  in  Acts  ix.  24, 
where  the  Jews  alone  are  said  to  have  taken  part 
in  the  conspiracy  against  the  Apostle.  But  it  does 
not  seem  probable  that  an  officer  of  such  Umited 
jurisdiction  would  be  styled  "  the  ethnarch  of 
Aretas  the  king; "  and  as  the  term  is  clearly  capa- 
ble of  a  wide  range  of  meaning,  it  was  most  likely 
intended  to  denote  one  who  held  the  city  and  dis- 
trict of  Damascus  as  the  king's  vassal  or  repre- 
sentative. 

12.  'Uyefxdu,  the  procurator  of  Judaea  under  the 
Romans  (Matt,  xxvii.  2,  etc.).  The  verb  is  em- 
ployed (Luke  ii.  2)  to  denote  the  nature  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  Quirinus  over  the  imperial  province 
of  Syria. 

13.  OIkov6/j.o^  (Gal.  iv.  2),  a  steward;  apparently 
uitrusted  with  the  management  of  a  minor's  prop- 
erty. 

14.  'ApxtTplK\Luos,  John  ii.  9,  "  the  governor 
of  the  feast."  It  has  been  coiyectured,  but  with- 
out much  show  of  probability,  that  this  officer  cor- 
responded to  the  avjJiiTocrlapxos  of  the  Greeks, 
whose  duties  are  described  by  l^lutarch  {Syiiij)os. 
Qucesl.  4),  and  to  the  arbiter  bibendi  of  the  Romans. 
Lightfoot  supposes  him  to  have  been  a  kind  of 
chaplain,  who  pronounced  the  blessings  upon  the 
wine  that  was  drunk  during  the  seven  days  of  the 
marriage  feast.  Again,  some  have  taken  him  to 
be  equivalent  to  the  Tpa-Ki^oirods,  who  is  defined 
by  Pollux  ( Onom.  vi.  1 )  as  one  who  had  the  charge 
of  all  the  servants  at  a  feast,  the  carvers,  cup- 
bearers, cooks,  etc.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the 
narrative  of  the  marriage  feast  at  Cana  which  would 
lead  to  the  supposition  that  the  apxiTpiKhivos  held 


GOZAN 

the  rank  of  a  servant.     He  appears  rather  to  hftvc 

been  on  intimate  terms  with  the  bi  idcgrcom,  and 
to  have  presided  at  the  banquet  in  his  stead.  Th« 
duties  of  the  master  of  a  feast  are  given  at  ftiJl 
length  in  Ecclus.  xxxv.  (xxxii.). 

In  the  Apocryphal  books,  in  addition  to  the  com 
mon  words,  6,pxci}v,  5€(nr6T7)Si  arparriyos,  wluc3 
are  rendered  "governor,"  we  find  eTrio-Tarrjs  (' 
Esdr.  i.  8;  Jud.  ii.  14),  which  closely  correspono"* 

to  'T'^17^  •  67rapxos  "sed  of  Zerubbabel  and  Tatn» 
(1  Esdr.  vi.  3,  29,  vii.  1),  and  Trpoo-rc^TTjy,  applies 
to  Sheshbazzar  (1  Esdr.  ii.  12),  both  of  which  rep 

resent  TIHB :  UpoardT-ns  (1  Esdr.  vii.  2)  am 
irpo(TTdry]s  Tov  Upov  (2  Mace.  iii.  4),  "the  gov 
ernor  of  the  temple"  ='7'^3T  (cf.  2  Chr.  xxxv.  8) 
and  aaTpdir-qs  (1  Esdr.  iii.  2,  21),  "a  satrap,"  not 
always  used  in  its  strict  sense,  but  as  the  equivalent 
of  a-TpuT-nyds  (Jud.  v.  2,  vii.  8). 

W.  A.  W. 

*  15.  'O  euOvvcou,  the  governor  (dirigens^Yulg.)^ 
Jas.  iii. 4,  where  the  pilot  or  helmsman  is  meant. 
Both  KvfiepvriT'ns  (Acts  xxvii.  11  and  Rev.  xviii, 
17 )  and  the  Latin  gubernalor^  whence  our  "  gov- 
ernor" is  derived,  denote  the  man  at  the  helm  of 
the  vessel.  H. 

GO'ZAN  CjpS  [perh.  quarry^  Ges.  ;  jmss^ 
ford,  Fiirst] :  Voo^dv,  [Vat.  2  K.  xvii.  6,  Tw^ap, 
and  1  Chr.,  XcoCap:]  Gozan,  [in  Is.,  Gozam])  seems 
in  the  A.  V.  of  1  Chr.  v.  26  to  be  the  name  of  a 
river;  but  in  Kings  (2  K.  xvii.  6,  and  xviii.  11)  it 
is  evidently  applied  not  to  a  river  but  a  country." 
Where  Kings  and  Chronicles  differ,  the  authority 
of  the  latter  is  weak :  and  the  name  Gozan  will 
therefore  be  taken  in  the  present  article  for  the 
name  of  a  tract  of  country. 

Gozan  was  the  tract  to  which  the  Israelites  were 
carried  away  captive  by  Pul,  Tiglath-Pilcser,  and 
Shalmaneser,  or  possibly  Sargon.  It  has  been 
variously  placed ;  but  it  is  probably  identical  with 
the  Gauzanitis  of  Ptolemy  {Geogrnph.  v.  18),  and 
may  be  regarded  as  represented  by  the  Mj-gdonia  of 
other  writers  (Strab.,  Polyb.,  etc.).  It  w:vs  the  tract 
watered  by  the  Habor  {'A^6pf)as,  or  Xa/8ajpas), 
the  modern  Khohimr,  the  great  Mesoiwtamian 
affluent  of  the  Euphrates.  Mr.  Layard  describes 
this  region  as  one  of  remarkable  fertility  {Aimrelt 
ami  Babylon,  pp.  2G9-313).  According  to  the 
LXX.  Ilalah  and  Habor  were  both  riv  irs  of  Gozan 
(2  K.  xvii.  G);  but  this  is  a  mistransl  ition  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  and  it  is  corrected  in  t'le  following 
chapter,  where  we  have  the  term  "  rivci  "  used  in 
the  singular  of  the  Habor  only.  Halali  seems  to 
have  been  a  region  adjoining  Gozan.  [Halau.] 
With  respftct  to  the  term  Mygdonia,  which  became 
the  recognized  name  of  the  region  in  classic  times, 
and  which  Strabo  (xvi.  1,  §  27)  and  I'lutarch 
{LucuU.  c.  32)  absurdly  connect  with  the  Mace- 
donian Mygdones,  it  may  be  obsened   that  it  is 

merely  Gozan,  with  the  participial  or  adjectival  ^ 
prefixed.  The  Greek  writers  always  represent  the 
Semitic  z  by  their  own  d.  Thus  Gaza  became 
Car/ytis,  Acluib  became  Ea^ppa,  the  river  Zab 
became  the  7)iaba,  and  M'go^an  became  IMyg  /on. 

The  conjunction  of  Gozan  with  Haran  or  HpJTau 
in  Isaiah  (xxxvii.  12)  is  in  entire  agreement  witk 


a  ♦  On  th«!  contrary,  Fiirst  maintains  {Hnndw  "  "  ^    was  on  the  river,  and  a  ford  there  (see  above)  may  h* 
that  a  region  and  a  river  bore  this  name  (the  hitter  rne  •  given  name  to  both.  U- 

Ctse^Oaen,  Bittors  jErdA  viii.  590,  615).    The  district  i 


URABA 

the  position  here  assigned  to  the  former.  As  Gozan 
WB»  the  district  on  the  K/ialjour,  so  Haran  was 
that  u[>ori  the  Biiik,  the  next  affluent  of  the 
Euphrates.  [See  Ciiakran.]  Tiie  Assyrian  kings, 
having  conquered  the  one,  would  naturally  go  on 
to  the  other.  G.  K. 

GRA'BA  CAypa^d ;  [so  Aid. ;  Vat.]  Alex, 
[and  10  other  AISS.J  'Ayya^Sa:  Armncha),  I  Esdr. 
V.  2!J.  [Hagaba.]  As  is  the  case  with  many 
names  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  Apocryphal  books,  it  is 
not  obvious  whence  our  translators  got  the  form 
they  have  here  employed  —  without  tlie  initial  A, 
which  even  the  corrupt  Vulgate  retains. 

*  GRAFT  (Rom.  xi.  17  ff.).    [See  Olive.] 

GRAPE.     [Vine.] 

GRASS.  1.  This  is  the  ordinary  rendering  of 
th3  Ucb.  word  T^!^n,  which  signifies  properly  an 

inclosed  spot,  from  the  root  "l^n,  to  inclose ;  but 
this  root  also  has  the  second  meaning  to  flourish, 
and  hence  the  noun  frequently  signifies  "fodder," 
"  food  of  cattle."  In  this  sense  it  occurs  in  1  K. 
xviii.  5;  Job  xl.  15;  Ps.  civ.  14;  Is.  xv.  6,  &c. 
As  the  herbage  rapidly  fades  under  tlie  parching 
heat  of  the  sun  of  Palestine,  it  has  afforded  to  the 
sacred  writers  an  image  of  the  fleeting  nature  of 
binnan  fortunes  (Job  viii.  12;  Ps.  xxxvii.  2),  and 
also  of  the  brevity  of  human  life  (Is.  xl.  6,  7 ;  Ps. 

«c.  5).  The  LXX.  render  "I'^^n  by  fiorduri  and 
ir6a,  but  most  frequently  by  x'^Rtos,  a  word  which 
in  Cireck  has  passed  through  the  very  same  modifi- 
cations of  meaning  as  its  Hebrew  representative: 
x6pT0^  =  f/''((nien,  "fodder,"  is  properly  a  court 
or  inclosed  space  for  cattle  to  feed  in  (Horn.  /L  xi. 
774),  and  then  any  feedmg-place  whether  inclosed 
or  not  (b>ar.  Jph.  T.  134,  x'^P'^'oi  euSeuBpoi)- 
Gesenius  questions  whether  "^^^H,  x^pTos,  and 
the  Sansk. /m/t7  =  " green"  a: ay  rot  be  traceable 
to  the  same  root. 

2.  In  Jer.  I.  11,  A.  V.  renders  StfH  nb33?3 
as  the  heifer  at  f/rass,  and  the  LXX.  ws  fio'iSia  iu 
fioToivri'     It  should  be  "  as  the  heifer  treading  out 

corn"  (comp.  Hos.  x.  11).  SK?"^  comes  from 
l?^^,  coiiterere,  triturare,  and  has  been  con- 
founded with  Stlv^,  gramen,  from  root  Mt?7"^, 
bo  germinate.  This  is  the  word  rendered  (/rass 
in  Gen.  i.  11,  12,  where  it  is  distinguished  from 

— K737,   the   latter   signifying    herbs   suitable    for 

human  food,  while  the  former  is  herbage  for  cattle. 

Gesenius  says  it  is  used  chiefly  concerning  grass, 

which  has  no  seed  (at  least  none  obvious  to  general 

observers),  and  the  smaller  weeds  which  spring  up 

iponLineously  from  the  soil.     The  LXX.  render  it 

H        by  x>'h:  "^^  '^^ '^  as  by  x^pros,  ^OToiur),  and  TrJa. 

B  3.  In  Xu-U.  xz'ii.  4,  where  mention  is  made  of 

B        Ihe  ox  hcking  Uiy  the  grass  of  the  field,  the  Heb. 

^B  word  is  pT?.*!?  which  elsewhere  is  rendered  green, 
^K,  rhen  followed  by  SK?!  or  ^^V,  as  in  Gen.  i. 
^B     i[\  and  Ps.  xxxvii.  2.     It  answers  to  the  German 


ins  Griine,   and   comes  from   the  root  p^**?  to 
lourish  like  grass. 

4   'D.WV  is  used  m  Deut.,  in  the  Psalms,  and 
II  the  I'rophets,  and,  as  distinguished  from  S^"''^, 


GREECE,  GREEKS,  ETC.      966 

signifies  herbs  for  human  food  (Gen.  i.  30 ;  Fa.  dr 
14),  but  also  fodder  for  cattle  (Deut.  xi  15;  Jer. 
xiv.  6).  It  is  the  grass  of  the  field  (Gcii.  ii.  5 
Ex.  ix.  22)  and  of  the  mountain  (Is.  xiii.  15 
Prov.  xxvii.  25). 

In  the  N.  T.  wherever  the  word  grass  occurs  it 
is  the  representative  of  the  Greek  x^P^os-^ 

W.  D. 

*  GRASS      ON     THE     HOUSE-TOP.         [AnA- 

THOTH,  Amer.  ed.] 

GRASSHOPPER.     [Locust.] 

*  GRATE.     [Altar.] 
GRAVE.     [Burial.] 

GREAVES  {"nni^p).  This  word  occurs  in 
the  A.  V.  only  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  6,  in  the  description 
of  the  equipment  of  Goliath  —  "  he  had  greaves  of 
brass  upon  his  legs."  Its  ordinary  meaning  is  a 
piece  of  defensive  armor  which  reached  from  the 
foot  to  the  knee,  and  thus  protected  the  shin  of  the 
wearer.  This  was  the  case  with  the  Kurjfiis  of  the 
Greeks,  which  derived  its  name  from  its  covering 
the  KvrjfMT],  i-  e.  the  part  of  the  leg  above-named. 
Hut  the  Alitzchah  of  the  above  passage  can  hardly 
have  been  armor  of  this  nature.  Whatever  the 
armor  was,  it  was  not  worn  on  the  legs,  but  on  the 

feet  ("^  Vin)  of  Goliath.  It  appears  to  be  derived 
from  a  root  signifying  brightness,  as  of  a  star  (see 
Gesenius  and  lurst).  The  word  is  not  in  either 
the  dual  or  plural  number,  but  is  singular.  It 
would  therefore  appear  to  have  been  more  a  kind 
of  shoe  or  boot  than  a  "greave;"  tliough  in  our 
ignorance  of  the  details  of  the  arms  of  the  He- 
brews and  the  Philistines  we  cannot  conjecture 
more  closely  as  to  its  nature.  At  the  same  time  it 
must  be  allowed  tliat  all  the  old  versions,  includuig 
Josephus,  give  it  the  meaning  of  a  piece  of  armor 
for  the  leg  —  some  even  for  the  thigh.  G. 

GREECE,  GREEKS,  GRECIANS.     The 

histories  of  Greece  and  Palestine  are  as  little  con- 
nected as  those  of  any  other  two  nations  exercising 
tlie  same  influence  on  the  destinies  of  mankind 
could  well  be. 

The  Homeric  Epos  in  its  widest  range  does  not 
include  the  Hebrews,  while  on  the  other  hand  the 
Mosaic  idea  of  the  Western  world  seems  to  have 
been  sufficiently  indefinite.  It  is  possible  that 
jNIoses  may  have  derived  some  geographical  outlines 
from  the  Egyptians ;  but  he  does  not  use  them  in 
Gen.  X.  2-5,  where  he  mentions  the  descendants  of 
Javan  as  peopling  the  isles  of  the  Gentiles.  This 
is  merely  the  vaguest  possible  ijidication  of  a  geo- 
graphical locality ;  and  yet  it  is  not  improbable  that 
liis  Egyptian  teachers  were  almost  equally  in  the 
dark  as  to  the  jwsition  of  a  country  which  had  not 
at  that  time  arrived  at  a  unity  sufficiently  imposing 
to  arrest  the  attention  of  its  neighl)ors.  The 
amount  and  precision  of  the  information  possessed 
by  Moses  must  be  measured  by  the  nature  of  the 
relation  which  we  can  conceive  as  existing  in  hia 
time  between  Greece  and  Egypt.  Now  it  appears 
from  Herodotus  that  prior  to  the  Trojan  war  the 
current  of  tradition,  sacred  and  mythological,  set 
from  Egypt  towards  Greece;  and  tlie  first  quasi- 
historical  ever*,  which  awakened  the  curiosity,  and 
stimulated  the  imagination  of  the  Egyptian  j  riests, 


«  *  In  Matt.  xiii.  26  and  Mark  iv.  28  xoproi  is  rea 
dered  "  blade,"  and  in  1  Cor.  iii.  12  '•  hay  '-  Th» 
other  trano-dtioa  occurs  12  times.  H 


966      GREECE,  GllEEKS,  ETC 

jTM  the  story  of  Paris  and  Helen  (Herod,  ii.  43, 
51,  52,  and  112).  At  the  time  of  the  Exodus, 
therefore,  it  is  not  likely  that  Greece  had  entered 
into  any  definite  relation  whatever  with  Egypt. 
Withdrawn  from  the  sea-coast,  and  only  gradually 
fighting  their  way  to  it  during  the  period  of  the 
Judges,  the  Hebrews  can  have  had  no  opportunity 
of  forming  connections  with  the  Grcieks.  From  the 
time  of  Moses  to  that  of  Joel,  we  have  no  notice 
of  the  Greeks  in  the  Hebrew  writings,  except  that 
which  was  contained  in  the  word  Javan  (Gen.  x. 
2);  and  it  does  not  seem  jirobable  that  during  this 
period  the  word  had  any  peculiar  significance  for  a 
Jew,  except  in  so  far  as  it  was  associated  with  the 
idea  of  islanders.  AVhen,  indeed,  they  came  into 
contact  with  the  lonians  of  Asia  3Iinor,  and  recog- 
nized them  as  the  long-lost  islanders  of  the  western 
migration,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  mark 

the  similarity  of  sound  between  )"!**  =  1^^  and 
lones,  and  the  application  of  that  name  to  the 
Asiatic  Greeks  would  tend  to  satisfy  in  some  meas- 
ure a  longing  to  realize  the  Mosaic  ethnography. 
Accordingly  the  0.  T.  word  which  is  Grecia,  in 

A.  V.  Greece,  Greeks,  etc.,  is  in  Hebrew  "JV,  Ja- 
van  (Joel  iii.  6;  Dan.  viii.  21):  the  Hebrew,  how- 
ever, is  sometimes  retained  (Is.  Ixvi.  19 ;  I'^z.  xxvii. 
]3).  In  Gen.  x.  2,  the  LXX.  have  kol  'idvav 
Koi  ^E\icrd,  with  which  Eosenmiiller  compares 
Herod,  i.  5G-58,  and  professes  to  discover  the  two 
elements  of  the  Greek  race.  From  'Ic^uav  he  gets 
the  Ionian  or  Pelasgian,  fi'om  'EAktcI  (for  which  he 

supposes  the  Heb.  original  ntt?"^/S),  the  Hellenic 
element.  This  is  excessively  fanciful,  and  the  de- 
gree of  accuracy  which  it  implies  upon  an  ethno- 
logical question  cannot  possibly  be  attributed  to 
Moses,  and  is  by  no  means  necessarily  involved  in 
the  fact  of  his  divine  inspiration. 

The  Greeks  and  Hebrews  met  for  the  first  time 
in  the  slave-market.  The  medium  of  conmiunica- 
tion  seems  to  have  been  the  Tyrian  slave-merchant. 
About  B.  c.  800  Joel  speaks  of  the  Tyrians  as  sell- 
ing the  children  of  Judah  to  the  Grecians  (Joel  iii. 
6);  and  in  Ez.  xxvii.  13  the  Greeks  are  mentioned 
as  bartering  their  brazen  vessels  for  slaves.  On  the 
other  hand,  Bochart  says  that  the  Greek  slaves 
were  highly  valued  throughout  the  East  {Geocjr. 
Sac.  pt.  i.  Hb.  iii.  c.  3,  p.  175);  and  it  is  probable 
that  the  Tyrians  took  advantage  of  the  calamities 
which  befell  either  nation  to  sell  them  as  slaves  to 
the  other.  Abundant  opportunities  would  be  af- 
forded by  the  attacks  of  the  Lydian  monarchy  on 
the  one  people,  and  the  Syrian  on  the  other;  and 
it  is  certain  that  Tyre  would  let  slip  no  occasion  of 
replenishing  her  slave-market. 

Prophetical  notice  of  Greece  occurs  in  Dan.  viii. 
21,  etc.,  where  the  history  of  Alexander  and  his 
successors  is  rapidly  sketclied.  Zechariah  (ix.  13) 
foretells  the  triumphs  of  the  Maccabees  against  the 
Graeco-Syrian  empire,  while  Isaiah  looks  forward 
jO  the  conversion  of  the  Greeks,  amongst  other 
Gentiles,  through  the  instrumentality  of  Jewish 
missionaries  (Ixvi.  19).  For  the  connection  between 
the  Jews  and  the  quasi-Greek  kingdoms  which 
sprang  out  of  the  divided  empire  of  Alexander, 
reference  should  be  made  to  other  articles. 

The  presence  of  Alexander  himself  at  Jerusalem, 
and  his  respectful  demeanor,  are  described  by  Jose- 
ohus  (Ant.  xi.  8,  §  3);  and  some  Jews  are  even 
laid  t(>  have  joined  him  in  his  expedition  against 
Penis  (Hecat.  ap.  Joseph,  c.  Ajpion.  11.  4),  as  the 


GREECE:  CHEEKS,  ETC 

Samaritans  had  ah^jady  done  in  the  siege  of  Tyn 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  8,  §§  4-6).  In  1  Mace.  xil.  5-23 
(about  B.  c.  380),  and  Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  4,  §  10 
we  have  an  account  of  an  embassy  and  letter  sent 
by  the  Lacedaemonians  to  the  Jews.  [AJtEUS 
Onias.]  The  most  remarkal)le  feature  m  the 
transaction  is  the  claim  which  the  Lacedaemonians 
prefer  to  khidred  with  the  Jews,  and  which  Areua 
professes  to  establish  by  reference  to  a  V)Ook.  It  is 
by  no  means  unlikely  that  two  decUning  nations, 
the  one  crouching  beneath  a  Roman,  the  other  be- 
neiith  a  Gra^co-Syrian  invader,  should  draw  together 
in  face  of  the  common  calamity.  This  may  have 
been  the  case,  or  we  may  with  Jahn  (HeO.  Cwnm. 
ix.  91,  note)  regard  the  affair  as  a  piece  of  jKLipoiu 
trifling  or  idle  curiosity,  at  a  period  when  »•  all  na- 
tions were  curious  to  ascertain  their  origin,  and 
their  x-elationship  to  other  nations." 

The  notices  of  the  Jewish  people  which  occur  ii. 
Greek  writers  have  been  collected  by  Josephus  (c. 
Apion.  i.  22).  The  chief  are  Pythagoras,  Herod- 
otus, Chcerilus,  Aristotle,  Theophrastus,  and  Hec- 
ataeus.  The  main  drift  of  the  argument  of  Jose- 
phus is  to  show  that  the  Greek  authors  derived 
their  materials  from  Jewish  sources,  or  with  more 
or  less  distinctness  referred  to  Jewish  history.  For 
Pythagoi-as,  he  cites  Hermippus's  lifie;  for  Aristotle, 
Clearchus;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that  the 
Neo-Platonism  of  these  authorities  makes  them 
comparatively  worthless;  that  Hermippus  in  par- 
ticular belongs  to  that  Alexandrian  school  which 
made  it  its  business  to  fuse  the  Hebrew  traditions 
with  the  philosophy  of  Greece,  and  propitiated  the 
genius  of  Orientalism  by  denying  the  merit  of  orig- 
inality to  the  great  and  independent  thinkers  of 
the  West.  This  style  of  thought  was  further  de- 
veloped by  lamblichus;  and  a  very  good  specimen 
of  It  may  be  seen  in  Le  Clerc's  notes  on  Grotius, 
de  Verit.  It  has  been  ably  and  vehemently  assall*>d 
by  Ritter,  Hist.  Phil.  b.  i.  c.  3. 

Herodotus  mentions  the  Syrians  of  Palestine  as 
confessing  that  they  deri\ed  the  rite  of  circumcision 
from  the  Egyptians  (ii.  104).  liiilir,  however,  does 
not  think  it  likely  that  Hero<lotus  visited  the  inte- 
rior of  Palestine,  though  he  was  acquainted  with 
the  sea-coast.  (On  the  other  hand  see  Dahlmann, 
pp.  55,  56,  Engl,  transl.)  It  is  almost  impossibl* 
to  suppose  that  Herodotus  could  have  visited  Jeru- 
salem without  giving  us  some  more  detailed  accourt 
of  it  than  the  merely  uicidental  notices  in  ii.  159 
and  iii.  5,  not  to  mention  that  the  site  of  KctSurts 
is  still  a  disputed  question. 

The  victory  of  Pharoah-Necho  over  Josiah  at 
Megiddo  is  recorded  by  Herodotus  (comp.  Herod 
ii.  159  with  2  K.  xxiii/29  fT.,  2  Chr.  xxxv.  20  AT.). 
It  is  singular  that  Josephus  should  have  omitted 
these  references,  and  cited  Herodotus  only  as  men- 
tioning the  rite  of  circumcision. 

The  work  of  Theophrastus  cited  is  not  extant; 
he  enumerates  amongst  other  oaths  that  of  Corbaru 

Chcerilus  is  supposed  by  Josephus  to  describe 
the  Jews  in  a  by  no  means  flattering  portrait  of  a 
people  who  accompanied  Xerxes  in  his  expeciitioD 
against  Greece.  The  chief  points  of  identification 
are,  their  speaking  the  Phoenician  language,  and 
dwelling  in  the  Solymean  mountains,  near  a  broad 
lake,  which  according  to  Josephus  was  the  Dead 
Sea. 

The  Hecataeus  of  Josephus  is  Hecataeus  of  Ab- 
dera,  a  contemporary  of  Alexander  the  Great,  an^ 
Ptolemy  son  of  Lagus.  The  authenticity  of  th< 
History  of  the  Jews  attributed  to  him  by  Jo»» 


GREECE   GREEKS,  ETC 

ihuH  baa  been  called  iu  question  by  Origen  and 
>ihet8. 

After  the  complete  subjugation  of  the  Greeks  by 
the  Romans,  and  the  absorption  into  the  Roman 
empire  of  the  kingdoms  which  were  formed  out  of 
the  douiinions  of  Alexander,  the  political  connection 
between  the  Greek?  and  Jews  as  two  independent 
nations  no  longer  existed. 

The  name  of  the  country,  Greece,  occurs  once  in 
N".  T.,  Acts  XX.  2,  "EWas  =  (ireece,  i.  e.  Greece 
Proper,  as  opposed  to  Macedonia."  In  the  A.  V. 
of  0.  T.  the  word  Greek  is  not  found ;  either  Ja- 
raa^ls  retained,  or,  as  in  Joel  iii.  (i,  the  word  is 
rendered  by  6'reciVm.  In  Maccabees  Greeks  and 
Grecians  seem  to  be  used  indifferently  (comp.  1 
Mace.  i.  10,  vi.  2;  also  2  Mace.  iv.  10,  Greekish). 
In  N.  T.,  on  the  other  hand,  a  distinction  is  ob- 
Berved,  "EAAtji/  being  rendered  Greek^  and  'EA\rjj/- 
{(TT^s  Grecian.  The  difference  of  the  English 
terminations,  however,  is  not  sufficient  to  convey 
the  difference  of  meanings.  "EAAtji'  in  N,  T.  is 
sither  a  Greek  by  race,  as  in  Acts  xvi.  1-3,  xviii. 
17,  Rom.  i.  14;  or  more  frequently  a  Gentile,  as 
opposed  to  a  Jew  (Rom.  ii.  9,  10,  etc.);  so  fem. 
'E\\7]uis,  Mark  vii.  2G,  Acts  xvii.  12.  'EAXrjvKT- 
T-fis  (properly  •'  one  who  speaks  Greek  ")  is  a  foreign 
Jew;  opposed,  therefore,  not  to  'loudaios,  but  to 
'EjSpoioy,  a  home-Jew,  one  who  dwelt  in  Palestine. 
So  Schleusner,  etc.:  according  to  Salmasius,  how- 
ever, the  Hellenists  were  Greek  proselytes,  who  had 


GROVE  967 

become  Christians;  so  Wolf,  Parkhi.rst,  etc.,  argn- 
ing  from  Acts  xi.  20,  where  'EWriyicTTai  are  con- 
trasted with  'louSaTot  in  1!>-  The  question  resolvft 
itself  partly  into  a  textual  one,  Griesbach  having 
adopted  the  reading  "EAAtji/os,  and  so  also  Lach- 
mann.'^  T.  E.  B. 

*  GREEK   LANGUAGE.     [Hellenist; 
Language  of  the  New  Testament.] 

*  GREETING.     [Salutation.] 
GREYHOUND,  the  translation  in  the  text 

of  the  A.  V.  (Prov.  xxx.  31)  of  the  Hebrew 
words  D^jnZS  "1^]f"l^  {zarzir  viothnayim),  i.  e. 
"  one  girt  about  the  loins."  See  margin,  where  it 
is  conjectured  that  the  "horse"  is  the  animal  de- 
noted by  this  expression.  The  Alexandrine  version 
of  the  LXX.  has  the  following  curious  interpreta- 
tion, aAe/fTwp  ifxirepLTvaToiu  eV  OrjAeiais  €v\pvxos, 
i.  e.  "  a  cock  as  it  proudlystruts  amongst  the  hens." 
Somewhat  similar  is  the  Vulgate,  "  gallus  succinc- 
tus  lumbos."  Various  are  the  opinions  as  to  what 
animal  "  comely  in  going  "  is  here  intended.  Some 
think  "a  leopard,"  others  "  an  eagle,"  or  "a  man 
girt  with  armor,"  or  "  a  zebra,"  etc.  Geseniua 
( Thes.  p.  435),  Schultens  ( Comment,  ad  Prov.  1.  c), 
Bochart  (Hieroz.  ii.  684),  Rosenmiiller  (SchoL  ad 
Prov.  1.  c.,  and  Not.  ad  Boch.  1.  c),  Fuller  {Mis- 
cell.  Sac.  V.  12),  are  in  favor  of  a  "  war-horse  girt 
with  trappings  "  being  the  thing  signified.     But, 


Sacred  symbolic  Tree  of  the  Assyrians.     From  Lord  Aberdeen's  Black  Stune. 
(Fergusson's  Nineveh  and  Persepolis,  p.  298.) 


later,  Maurer  {Comment.  Gram,  in  Vet.  Test.  1.  c.) 
decides  unhesitatingly  in  favor  of  a  "  wrestler," 
when  girt  about  the  loins  for  a  contest.  He  refers 
to  Buxtorf  {Lex.  Chald.  Talm.  p.  092)  to  show  that 
zarzir  is  used  in  the  Talmud  to  express  "  a  wrestler," 
and  thus  concludes:  "  Sed  ne  opus  quidem  est  hoc 
loco  quauquam  minime  contemnendo,  quum  accinc- 
tum  esse  in  neminem  magis  cadat  quam  in  lucta- 
torem,  ita  ut  hsec  significatio  certa  sit  per  se." 
There  is  certainly  great  probability  that  Maurer  is 
correct.  The  grace  and  activity  of  the  practiced 
athlete  agrees  well  with  the  notion  conveyed  by  the 
gxpression,  "comely  in  going;  "  and  the  suitable- 
aess  of  the  Hebrew  words,  zarzir  mothnayhn,  is 
obvious  to  every  reader.  W.  H. 


«  *  'EAAas  stands  there  for  the  stricter  'Axata  (see 
icts  xvni.  12.  and  xix.  21).  Wetstein  has  shown  {Nov. 
rest.  ii.  590)  that  Luke  was  justified  la  that  use  of  the 
term.  H. 

b  *  Also,  Tischendorf,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others, 
ldopt'£AAi)i/as,  partly  on  external,  and  partly  on  in- 


*  GRINDERS,  Eccl.  xii.  3.     [Almond.J 
GRINDING.     [Mill.] 
GROVE.   A  word  used  in  the  A.  V.,  with  two 
exceptions,  to  translate  the  mysterious  Hebrew  term 

Asherah  (n"y^;S).  This  term  is  examined  under 
its  own  head  (p.  173),  where  it  is  observed  that 
almost  all  modem  interpreters  agree  that  an  idol 
or  image  of  some  kind  must  be  intended,  and  not 
a  grove,  as  our  translators  render,  following  the 
version  of  the  LXX.  (^Aaos)  and  of  the  Vulgate 
{lucus).  This  is  evident  from  many  passages,  and 
especially  from  2  K.  xxiii.  G,  where  we  find  that 
Josiah  "brought  out  the  Asherah  "  (translated  by 
our  version  "  the  grove  ")  "  from  the  house  of  the 


temal  grcj^ds.  It  is  a  question  of  mixed  evidence 
Without  this  reading  it  is  impossible  to  see  how  the 
sphere  uf  the  preachers  in  ver.  19  differs  from  that  of 
those  ir.  ver.  20.  It  would  have  been  nothing  new  at 
,„is  time  to  preach  to  the  Greek-speaking  Jews ;  see 
e.  g..  Acts  ii.  9,  and  ix.  20.  H 


^68  GIIOVE 

Lord  "  (oomp.  also  Judg.  iii.  7 ;  1  K.  xiv.  23,  xviii. 
1!>).  In  many  passages  the  "  groves  "  are  grouped 
with  molten  and  graven  images  in  a  manner  that 
leaves  no  doubt  that  some  idol  was  intended  (2 
Chr.  xxxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  3,  4;  Is.  xvii.  8).  There 
has  been  much  dispute  as  to  what  the  Asherah  was ; 
hut  in  addition  to  the  views  set  forth  under  Asii- 
KitAH,  we  must  not  omit  to  notice  a  probable  con- 
nection between  this  symbol  or  image  —  whatever 
it  was  —  and  the  sacred  symbolic  tree,  the  repre- 
sentation of  wliich  occurs  so  frequently  on  Assyrian 
sculptures,  and  is  shown  in  the  preceding  woodcut. 
'I'he  connection  is  ingeniously  maintained  by  Mr. 
Fergusson  in  his  Nineveh  and  Persepolis  restored 
(pp.  299-304),  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 

2.  The  two  exceptions  noticed  above  are  Gen.  xxi. 
33  and  1  Sam.  xxii.  6  (margin),  where  "grove  "  is 

employed  to  render  the  word  /  ^'W,  Eslieh  which 
in  the  text  of  tlie  latter  passage,  and  in  1  Sam. 
xxxi.  13,  is  translated  "  tree  "  Professor  Staidey 
(;S.  cj-  P.  §  77;  also  p.  21,  note)  would  have  Kshcl 
to  be  a  tamarisk ;  but  this  is  controverted  by  Bonar 
{Land  of  Prom.),  on  the  ground  of  the  thin  and 
shadeless  nature  of  that  tree.  It  is  now,  however, 
generally  recognized  (amongst  others,  see  Gesen. 
Thes.  p.  50  b;  Stanley,  S.  c/  P.  App.  §  7G,  3, 
p.  142  note,  220  note,  and  j^'t^sim),  that  the  word 

Elon,  p  vM,  which  is  uniformly  rendered  by  the 
A.  V.  "  plain,"  signifies  a  grove  or  plantation. 
Such  were  the  Elon  of  Mamre  (Gen.  xiii.  18,  xiv. 
13,  xviii.  1);  of  Moreh  (Gen.  xii.  G;  Deut.  xi.  30); 
of  Zaanaim  (Judg.  iv.  11),  orZaanannim  (Josh.  xix. 
33);  of  the  pillar  (Judg.  ix.  6);  of  Meonenim 
(Judg.  ix.  37);  and  of  Tabor  (1  Sam.  x.  3).  In 
all  these  cases  the  LXX.  have  dpvs  or  fid\avos'-, 
the  Vulgate  —  which  the  A.  V.  probably  followed 
—  vaUis  or  convallls,  in  the  last  three,  however, 
querciis. 

In  the  religions  of  the  ancient  heathen  world 
groves  play  a  prominent  part.  In  old  times  altars 
only  were  erected  to  the  gods.  It  was  thought 
wrong  to  shut  up  the  gods  within  walls,  and  hence, 
as  Pliny  expressly  tells  us,  trees  were  the  first  tem- 
ples (//.  N.  xii.  2;  Tac.  Germ.  9;  Lucian,  de  Sac- 
rife.  10;  see  Carpzov,  ^/;»/».  Crit.  p.  332),  and  from 
the  earliest  times  groves  are  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  religious  worship  ((Jen.  xii.  6,  7,  xiii.  18; 
Deut.  xi.  30;  A.  V.  "plain;  "  see  above).  Their 
high  antiquity,  refreshing  shade,  solemn  silence, 
and  awe-inspiring  solitude,  as  well  as  the  striking 
illustration  they  afford  of  natural  life,  marked  tliem 
out  as  the  fit  localities,  or  even  the  actual  objects  of 
worship  ("  Lucos  et  in  iis  silentia  ipsa  adoramus," 
I'lin.  xii.  1;  "  Secretum  luci  .  .  .  et  admiratio 
umbrae  fidem  tibi  numinis  facit,"  Sen.  Ap.  xii.; 
"  Quo  posses  viso  dicere  Numen  habet,"  Ov.  Fast. 
iii.  295;  "Sacra  nemus  accubet  umbra,"  Virg. 
Gtcrff.  iii.  334;  Ov.  Met.  viii.  743;  Ez.  vi.  13;  Is. 
vii.  5;  Hos.  iv.  13).  This  last  passage  hints  at 
tnother  and  darker  reason  why  groves  were  oppor- 
bjne  for  the  degraded  services  of  idolatry;  their 
shadow  hid  the  atrocities  and  obscenities  of  hea- 
then worship.  The  groves  were  generally  found 
connected  with  temples,  and  often  had  the  right  of 
affording  an  asylum  (Tac.  Germ.  9,  40;  Herod,  ii. 
138;  Yirg.  yEn.  i.  441,  ii.  512;  Sil.  Ital.  i.  81). 
Borne  have  supposed  that  even  the  Jnvish  Temple 
hsd  a  r^fievos  planted  with  palm  and  cedar  (Ps.  xcii. 
..2,  13)  and  olive  (Ps.  Iii.  8)  as  the  mosque  which 
•Unds  on  its  site  now  has.     This  is  more  than 


GROVE 

doubtful ;  but  we  know  that  a  celebrated  ilk  utooc 
by  the  sanctuary  at  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  2G ;  Juda; 
ix.  6;  Stanley,  S.  <f  P.  p.  142).  We  find  repeateo 
mention  of  groves  consecrated  with  deep  supersti- 
tion to  particular  gods  (Liv.  vii.  25,  xxiv.  3,  xxxv 
51;  Tac.  A7in.  ii.  12,  51,  etc.,  iv.  73,  etc.).  For 
this  reason  they  were  stringently  forbidden  to  the 
Jews  (Ex.  xxxiv.  13;  Jer.  xvii.  2;  Ez.  xx.  28),  and 
Maimonides  even  says  that  it  is  forbidden  to  sit 
under  the  shade  of  any  green  tree  where  an  idol 
statue  was  (Fabric.  BiOL  Antiq.  p.  2i>0).  Yet  we 
find  abundant  indications  that  the  Hebrews  fell 
the  influence  of  groves  on  the  mind  ("  the  spirit  in 
the  woods,"  Wordsworth),  and  therefore  selected 
them  for  solemn  purposes,  such  as  great  national 
meetings  (Judg.  ix.  6,  37)  and  the  bm-ial  of  the 
dead  (Gen.  xxxv.  8;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13).  Those 
connected  with  patriarchal  history  were  peculiarly 
liable  to  superstitious  reverence  (Am.  v.  5,  viii.  14), 
and  we  find  that  the  gi'oves  of  iNIamre  were  long  a 
place  of  worship  (Sozomen,  //.  E.  ii.  4;  Euseb. 
Vit.  Constant.  81;  Keland,  Palcest.  p.  714).  There 
are  in  Scripture  many  memorable  trees ;  e.  g.  Allon- 
bachuth  (Gen.  xxxv.  8),  the  tamarisk  (but  see 
above)  in  Gibeah  (1  Sam.  xxii.  6),  the  terebinth 
in  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  2G,  under  which  the  law 
was  set  up),  the  palm-tree  of  Deborah  (Judg.  iv.  5), 
the  terebinth  of  enchantments  (Judg.  ix.  37),  the 
terebinth  of  wanderers  (Judg.  iv.  11)  and  others 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  2,  x.  3,  sometimes  "plain"  in  A.  V., 
Vulg.  "convallis  "). 

This  observation  of  particular  trees  was  among 
the  heathen  extended  to  a  regular  worship  of  them 
"  Tree-worship  may  be  traced  from  the  interior  of 
Africa,  not  only  into  Egypt  and  Arabia,  but  also 
onward  uninterruptedly  into  Palestine  and  Syria, 
Assyria,  Persia,  India,  Thibet,  Siam,  the  Philip- 
pine Islands,  China,  Japan,  and  Siberia;  also  west- 
ward into  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Italy,  and  other 
countries ;  and  in  most  of  the  countries  here  named 
it  obtains  in  the  present  day,  combined  as  it  has 
been  in  other  parts  with  various  forms  of  idolatry  " 
{(Jen.  of  Earth  ami  Man,  p.  139).  "The  worship 
of  trees  even  goes  back  among  the  Iraunians  to  tlie 
rules  of  Hom,  called  in  the  Zend-Avesta  the  pro- 
mulgator of  the  old  law.  W&  know  from  Herodo- 
tus the  delight  which  Xerxes  took  in  the  great 
plane-tree  in  Lydia,  on  which  he  bestowed  golden 
ornaments,  and  appointed  for  it  a  sentinel  in  the 
)>erson  of  0)ie  of  the  '  immortal  ten  thousand.' 
The  early  veneration  of  trees  was  associated,  by  the 
moist  and  refreshing  canopy  of  foliage,  with  that  of 
sacred  ibuntains.  In  similar  connection  with  the 
early  worship  of  Nature  were  among  the  Hellenic 
nations  the  fame  of  the  great  palm-tree  of  Delos, 
and  of  an  aged  platanus  in  Arcadia.  The  Bud- 
dhists of  Ceylon  venerate  the  colossal  Indian  fig-tree 
of  Anurah-depura.  ...  As  single  trees  thus  l)e- 
came  objects  of  veneration  from  the  beauty  of  theit 
form,  so  did  also  groups  of  trees,  under  the  name 
of  'groves  of  gods.'  Pausanias  (i.  21,  §  9)  is  full 
of  the  praise  of  a  grove  belonging  to  the  teirple  of 
Apollo  at  Grynion  in  J^^olis;  and  the  grove  of 
Colone  is  celebrated  in  the  renowned  chorus  of 
Sophocles"  (Humboldt,  Cosmos,  ii.  96,  Eng.  ed.). 
The  custom  of  adorning  trees  "  with  jewels  and 
mantles  "  was  very  ancient  and  universal  (Herod 
vii.  31;  JEVmn,  V.  II.  ii.  14;  Theocr.  Id.  xviii. 
Ov.  Met.  viii.  723,  745;  Arnob.  adv.  Gentes,  i.  39 
and  even  still  exists  in  the  East. 

The  oracular  trees  oi  antiquity  are  well  knowi 


GUARD 

{^iL  xri  233;  Od.  v.  237;  Soph.  Track.  754;  Virg. 
Gi'org.  ii.  10;  Sil.  Ital.  iii.  11).  Each  god  had 
jome  sacred  tree  (Virg.  Ed.  vii.  61  fF.).  The  Etru- 
rians are  said  to  have  worshipped  a  palm  [a  holm- 
tree,  iiex,  Plin.  //.  N.  xvi.  -l-l,  al.  87].  and  the 
Celts  an  oak  (^lax.  Tyr.  Dhsert.  viii.  8,  in  Godwyn's 
Mas.  ami  Anr.  ii.  4).  On  the  Umidic  veneration 
of  oak-gro\es,  see  I'liny,  //.  N.  xvi.  44  [al.  95]  ;  Tac. 
Ann.  xiv.  30.  In  the  same  way,  according  to  the  mis- 
sionary Oldendorp,  the  Negroes  "have sacred  groves, 
the  abodes  of  a  deity,  which  no  Negro  ventures  to 
enter  except  the  priests  "  (Prichard,  Nat.  Hist,  of 
,\fan,  pp.  52.5-539,  3d  ed.;  Park's  Travels,  p.  65). 
So  too  the  ancient  Egyptians  (Rawlinson's  Herod. 
ii.  298).  Long  after  tlie  introduction  of  Christianity 
it  was  found  necessary  to  forbid  all  abuse  of  trees 
and  groves  to  the  purposes  of  superstition  (Harduin, 
Act.  Concil.  i.  988;  see  OreUi,  ad  Tac.  Germ.  9). 

F.  W.  F. 
GUARD.    The  Hebrew  terms  commonly  used 
had  reference  to  the  special  duties  which  the  body- 
guard of  a  monarch  had  to  perform. 

(1.)  Tabbach  (HSl^)  originally  signified  a 
"  cook,"  and  as  butchering  fell  to  the  lot  of  the 
cook  in  Eastern  countries,  it  gained  the  secondary 
Bense  of  "  executioner,"  and  is  applied  to  the  body- 
guard of  the  kings  of  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxvii.  36),  and 
Babylon  (2  K.  xxv.  8 ;  Jer.  xxxix.  9,  xl.  1 ;  Dan. 
ii.  14).     [Executioner.] 

(2.)  Ralz  (V'')  properly  means  a  "  runner," 
and  is  the  ordinary  term  employed  for  the  attend- 
ants of  the  Jewish  kings,  whose  office  it  was  to  run 
before  the  chariot  (2  Sam.  xv.  1;  1  K.  i.  5),  like 
the  cursores  of  the  Roman  Emperors  (Senec.  Ep. 
87,  126).  That  the  Jewish  "runners  "  superadded 
the  ordinary  duties  of  a  military  guard,  appears 
from  several  passages  (1  Sam.  xxii.  17;  2  K.  x.  25, 
xi.  6;  2  Chr.  xii.  10).  It  was  their  office  also  to 
carry  despatches  (2  Chr.  xxx.  6).  They  had  a 
guard-room  set  apart  for  their  use  in  the  king's 
palace,  in  which  their  arras  were  kept  ready  for  use 
(I  K.  xiv.  28;  2  Chr.  xii.  11).     [Footman.] 

(3.)  The   terms   mishmercih    {rnT^WT^i)   and 

mishmdr  ("n^StTD)  express  properly  the  act  of 
watching,  but  are  occasionally  transferred  to  the 
persons  who  kept  watch  (Neh.  iv.  9,  22,  vii.  3,  xii. 
9 ;  Job  vii.  12).     The  A.  V.  is  probably  correct  in 

substituting  mishmarto  (^rVyi'^ll)  for  the  pres- 
ent reading  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  23,  Benaiah  being 
nppointed  "captain  of  the  guard,"  as  Josephus 
{Ant.  vii.  14,  §  4)  relates,  and  not  privy  councillor: 
the  same  error  has  crept  into  the  text  in  1  Sam. 
xxii.  14,  where  the  words  "  which  goeth  at  thy  bid- 
ding "  may  originally  have  been  "  captain  of  the 
body-guard."  For  the  duties  of  the  captain  of  the 
guard,  see  Captain,  [and  Captain  of  the 
GuAKD,  Amer.  ed.J  W.  L.  B. 

GUDGO'DAH  (with  the  art.  ninSH: 
PaSyaS:    Gadr/ad),  Deut.  x.   7.     [HoR   Hagid- 

OAI).] 

GUEST.     [Hospitality.] 

♦  GUEST-CHAMBER.     [House.] 

♦  GUILTY.  The  phrase  guilty  of  death  " 
A.  V.)  Num.  XXXV.  31;  Tob.  ...  12;  Matt.  xxvi. 
$6 ,  Mark  xiv.  64,  contrary  to  tne  present  idiom  of 
»ur  lansruage,  signifies  "  deserving  the  penalty  of 
leath,"  being  perhaps  an  imitation  of  the  Latin 


GUR,  THE  GOING  UP  TO        9GS 

7-eus  mortis.  "  He  is  guilty "  in  Matt,   xxiii.  1. 

(A.  v.),  is  the  translation  of  the  same  Greek  w(»rc 
i6(pei\€i)  which  in  ver.  10  is  rendered  "he  is  a 
debtor."  A  better  translation  in  both  cases  would 
be,  "  he  is  bound,"  i.  e.  by  his  oath.  A. 

GUL'LOTH  (n"*1  ^2  Ispi-im/,  bubbling$\,  plu- 

ral  of  n^S),  a  Hebrew  term  of  unfrequent  occur- 
rence in  the  Bible,  and  used  only  in  two  passages  — 
and  those  identical  relations  of  the  same  occurrence 
—  to  denote  a  natural  object,  namely,  the  springs 
added  by  the  great  Caleb  to  the  south  land  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Debir,  which  formed  the  dowry  of 
his  daughter  Achsah  (Josh.  xv.  19 ;  .ludg.  i.  15). 
The  springs  were  "  upper  "  and  "  lower  "  —  possi- 
bly one  at  the  top  and  the  other  the  bottom  of  a 
ravine  or  glen;  and  they  may  have  derived  their 
unusual  name  from  their  appearance  being  different 
to  [from]  that  of  the  ordinary  springs  of  the  coun- 
try. The  root  (7^2)  has  the  force  of  rolling  or 
tumbling  over,  and  perhaps  this  may  imply  that 
they  welled  up  in  that  round  or  mushroom  form 
which  is  not  uncommon  here,  though  apparently 
most  rare  in  Palestine.  The  rendering  of  the  Vat. 
LXX.  is  singular.  In  Josh,  it  has  tV  BorOauis 
[so  Rom.;  Vat.  BoeOaueis],  and  tt]v  Tovaiexdv, 
the  latter  doubtless  a  mere  corruption  of  the  He- 
brew. The  Alex.  ISIS.,  as  usual,  is  faithful  to  the 
Hebrew  text  [reading  TuiKaO]-  In  Judges  both 
have  XvTpcccris.  An  attempt  has  been  lately  made 
by  Dr.  Rosen  to  identify  these  springs  with  the 
'Ain  JVim/cur  near  Hebron  (see  Ztltschrift  der  D. 
M.  G.  1857),«  but  the  identification  can  hardly  be 
received  without  fuller  confirmation  (Stanley,  S.  ^ 
P.  App.  §  54).     [Debik.]  G. 

GU'NI  {^y(2.  [sorrowful,  afflicted,  Dieti.]: 
Tuvi  [Vat.  -j/et],  b  Tavvi  [Vat.  -vii\ ;  Alex.  Tcavvi- 
Guni).  1.  A  son  of  Naphtali  ((Jen.  xlvi.  24;  1 
Chr.  vii.  13),  the  founder  of  the  family  of  the  Gu- 
nites  (Num.  xxvi.  48).  Like  several  others  of  the 
early  Israelite  names,  Guni  is  a  patronymic  — 
"Guiute;  "  as  if  already  a  family  at  the  time  of 
its  first  mention  (comp.  Arodi,  Hushim,  etc.). 

2.  [Pouj/t.]  A  descendant  of  Gad;  father  of 
Abdiel,  a  chief  man  in  his  tribe  (1  Chr.  v.  15). 

GU'NITES,  THE  (^3!^2n  [the  Guniie] :  & 
Fauui;  [Vat.  -uei;  Alex,  o  Fcduui:]  Gunitm),  the 
"  family  "  which  sprang  from  Guni,  son  of  Naph- 
tali (Num.  xxvi.  48).  There  is  not  in  the  Hebrew 
any  difference  between  the  two  names,  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  family. 

GUR,  THE  GOING  UP  TO  (l-'ia-nb^.D 
=  the  ascent  or  steep  of  Gur,  or  the  lum's  whelp, 
Ges.  Thes.  p.  275:  eV  tw  aua^aiueiv  rai;  [Comp. 
iu  rfj  avafid<Tei  Tovp:]  ascensus  Gaver),  an  ascent 
or  rising  ground,  at  which  Ahaziah  received  his 
death-blow  while  flying  from  Jehu  after  the  slaugh- 
ter of  Joram  (2  K.  ix.  27).     It  is  described  as  at 

(S)  Ibleam,  and  on  the  way  between  Jezrcel  and 
Beth-hag-gan  (A.  V.  "the  garden-house").  As 
the  latter  is  identified  with  toleralile  probability 
with  the  present  Jenln,  we  may  conclude  that  the 
ascent  of  Gur  was  some  place  mure  than  usually 
steep  on  the  difficult  road  which  leads  from  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon  to  Jtnin.     By  -Josephus  it  is 

a  *  Dr.  Robinson  thinks  that  ^Ain  Nunkur  maj 
nave  some  relation  to  these  springs  {Phys.  (Hogr.  p 


970  GUR-BAAL 

mentionefl  (Anf.  ix.  d,  §  4)  merely  as  "  a  certain 
aacent  "  (^u  rivi  Trpoa^da-ei)'  Neither  it  nor 
[bleani  have  l)een  yet  recovered. 

For  the  dt;tails  of  the  occurrence  see  Jktiu.  For 
other  ascents  sf»»'  AnuM:MiM,  Akrabbim,  Ziz. 

G. 

GUR-BA'AL  (bVS-n^a  [abode  of  Baal] : 
nerpa-  (ivrlr.inl)^  a  place  or  district  in  which  dwelt 
Arabians,  as  recorded  in  2  Chr.  xxvi.  7.  It  ap- 
pears from  the  context,  to  have  been  in  the  country 
lying  between  Palestine  and  the  Arabian  jieninsula; 
but  this,  although  probable,  and  although  the  LXX. 
reading  is  in  favor  of  the  conjecture,  cannot  be 
proved,  no  site  having  been  assigned  to  it.  The 
iVrab  geographers  mention  a  place  called  Baal,  on 
the  Syrian  road,  north  of  El-Medeeneh  {Mar add ^ 

B.  V.  {J^SLi  ).  The  Targum,  as  Winer  (s.  v.)  re- 
marks, reads  nnnn  ^^H^f  ^Sa^y  -  "Arabs 
liA'ing  in  Gerar "  —  suggesting  1")2  instead   of 

"T^  »  but  there  is  no  further  evidence  to  strengthen 
this  supposition.  [See  also  Gkkau.]  The  inge- 
nious conjectures  of  liochart  (Phaleg,  ii.  22)  re- 
specting the  Mehunim,  who  are  mentioned  together 
with  the  "  Arabians  that  dwelt  in  Gur-Baal,"  may 
be  considered  in  reference  to  the  Mehunim,  although 
they  are  far-fetched.      [Mkhumm.]        E.  S.  P. 

*  GUTTER.  This  word  occurs  in  the  difficult 
passage  2  Sam.  v.  (i-M,  translated  in  the  A.  V.  as 
follows:  "  (0.)  And  the  king  and  his  men  went  to 
Jerusalem  unto  the  Jebusitos,  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land ;  which  spake  unto  David,  saying.  Except 
thou  take  away  the  blind  and  the  lame,  thou  shalt 
not  come  in  hither;  thinking,  David  cannot  come 
In  hither.  (7.)  Nevertheless,  David  took  the  strong- 
hold of  Zion ;  the  same  is  the  city  of  David.  (8. ) 
And  David  said  on  that  day.  Whosoever  getteth 
up  to  the  gutter,  and  smiteth  the  Jebusites,  and 
the  lame,  and  the  blind,  (hat  are  hated  of  David's 
Boul,  he  shall  be  chief  and  captain.  Wherefore 
they  said.  The  blind  and  the  lame  shall  not  come 
into  the  house." 

So  long  ago  as  1546,  Sebastian  !Munster  (Hebrew 
Bible,  fol.  ed.,  in  be.)  said  of  this  passage,  "Est 
locus  ille  valde  obscurus."  The  lapse  of  more  than 
300  years  has  not  nmch  mended  the  matter,  and 
the  passage  is  still  "  vakle  obgctirus.''^  Our  Hmits 
here  forbid  a  full  discussion  of  the  points  at  issue.a 
But  without  attempting  to  examine  every  gram- 
matical ditiiculty,  we  may  reach  a  better  translation 
than  the  above,  by  attending  to  the  following 
points:  —  (1.)  The  two  clauses,  "  except  thou  take 
away  the  blind  and  the  lame,"  and  "  thou  shalt 
not  come  in  hither,"  are  improperly  transposed  in 
the  above  version :  and  this  transposition  puts  the 
oext  following  clause  out  of  its  proper  connection. 


a  *  See,  for  the  later  criticism  of  the  passage,  Mau- 
rnr,  Com.  gram.  crit.  vol  i.  p.  180 ;  Thenius,  die  Bii- 
t/wT  Sa7nuels  erkVdrl  (Exeget.  Ilandbucb )  2te  Aufl.  1864 ; 
Berfcheau,  die  Biicher  rln  Ckronik  erklart  (in  the  same 
work)  1854  ;  Bottcher,  in  the  Zeitschrift  der  D.  Morg. 
Gesellschnfl,  1857,  pp.  540-42,  and  Neue  exeget.  krit. 
mhrenlfsp,  Ite  Abth.,  1863,  p.  151;  Keil,  die  Biicher 
Samuels,  18G4.  T.  J.  C. 

6  *  There  is  no  necessity  for  a  change  of  pointing 

'ryT^Drr).     The  Infin.  form  is  the  more  emphatic 
fcpressioii  (Gea.  Heh.  Gram.  §  131,  4).  T.  J.  C. 

e  •  Tn  the  A.  V.  the  after-clause  is  supplied  in  the 
«eril,  "he  shall  -V  rhipf  and  captain,''''  italicized  to 


GUTTER 

and  makes  it  meaningless.     (2.)  The  wordg  itn 

derod  "  except  thou  take  away  the  blind  and  the 
lame,"  should  be  translated,  "  but  the  blind  and 
the  lame  will  turn  tl)ee  away."  ^  (3.)  The  apodosis, 
or  after-clause,  corresponding  to  the  expression, 
"  any  one  that  smites  "  (=  if  any  one  smites),  ia 
not  expressed  in  the  Hebrew.  This  is  a  favorite 
Hebrew  idiom,  where  for  any  reason  it  is  felt  to  be 
unnecessary  to  com])lete  the  construction.  See, 
e.  (J.,  Ex.  xxxii.  32,  in  the  A.  V.  Hero,  the  object 
was  two  -fold :  first,  to  state  what  David  proposed 
to  his  warriors  as  the  means  of  capturing  the  strong- 
hold; and  secondly,  to  account  for  the  proverbial 
saying  that  arose  from  this  occurrence.  Neithor 
of  these  ol>jects  required  the  completion  of  the  sen- 
tence, which  would  reaflily  be  understood  to  be  the 
offer  of  a  reward  for  the  service.  A  daah  should 
therefore  be  put  (as  in  the  A.  V.  Ex.  xxxii.  32) 
after  the  word  "soul"  (omitting  the  words  in  ital- 
if-s),  to  indicate  that  the  sentence  is  inoomplote.c 
(4.)  In  ver.  8  there  is  also,  as  in  ver.  6,  an  im- 
proper transposition  of  two  clauses,  "  whosoever 
getteth  up  to  the  gutter,"  "and  smiteth  the  Jebu- 
sites." (5.)  In  ver.  8,  instead  of  "the  Jebusites 
(plural  with  the  dcf.  art.),  we  should  translate, 
"  a  Jebusite."    (6.)  The  word  translated  "  gutter," 

"H^S^,  is  here  properly  a  tcater-course.  It  is  de- 
rived from  a  verb  which  apparently  expresses  the 
sound  of  rushing  water.  It  occurs  in  only  one 
other  passage,  Ps.  xlii.  8,  and  is  there  applied  to  a 
mountain  torrent,  or  a  cataract  (A.  V.  "  water- 
spouts"). (7.)  The  words,  "the  blind  and  the 
lame,"  may  be  taken  in  the  same  construction  as 
"  a  Jebusite  "  {even  the  blind  and  the  lame);  or, 
a.s  the  sentence  is  manifestly  left  unfinished,  they 
may  be  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  incomplete  con- 
struction, having  no  grammatical  relation  to  the 
preceding  words. 

Thus  without  resorting  to  the  violent  method  of 
conjectural  emendation  of  the  text,  which  Maurer, 
Thenius,  B(ittcher,  and  others,  think  necessary,  or 
to  a  change  of  punctuation  and  an  unauthorized 

sense  of  the  word  "li3V»  pi^posed  by  Ewald  and 
adopted  by  Keil,  we  obtain  the  following  gram- 
matically correct  rendering : 

"  (6.)  And  the  king  and  his  men  went  to  Jeru- 
salem, to  the  Jebusite  inhabiting  the  land.  And 
he  spake  to  David,  sa}-ing,  Thou  shalt  not  come  in 
hither;  but  the  blind  and  the  lame  will  turn  thee 
away,  saying,  David  shall  not  come  in  hither. 

(7.)  And  David  took  the  stronghold  of  Zion:  that 
is,  the  city  of  David.  (8.)  And  David  said  on  that 
day.  Any  one  that  smites  a  .Tebusite,  and  gets  txi 
the  water-course,  and  the  lame  and  the  blind  hat«l 

of  David's  soul .     Therefore  they  say,  Blind 

and  lame  shall  not  come  into  the  house."  (^ 

The  Jebusites,  confident  in  the  strength  of  their 


show  that  they  are  not  in  the  Hebrew  text.  To  thr 
common  reader,  with  nothing  but  the  translation  t<; 
guide  him,  they  seem  to  be  "  clutched  out  of  the  air," 
as  the  Germans  express  it.  But  a  referen.'e  to  1  Chr. 
xi.  6  shows  that  these  words,  though  they  have  no 
right  here,  are  not  a  pure  invention  of  the  translator 
The  reader  of  the  Hebrew  text,  if  those  words  arc  ne- 
cessary to  make  sense  of  the  passage,  was  in  the  sani« 
predicament  as  the  English  reader  of  the  A.  V.  would 
be  without  them  T.  J.  C. 

<f  *  The  above  translation  is  nearly  word  for  word 
the  same  as  that  of  De  Wette  ;  which  is  so  cloee  to  thi 
Hebrew  that  any  literal  rendering  must  be  almost  v«r 
bally  coincident  with  it.  T.  J.  C. 


HAAHASHTARI 

pOBitioii,  which  had  successfully  resisted  repeated 
attempts  to  capture  it,  sneerinj^ly  said  to  Da /id, 
'•the  bli  id  and  the  lame  will  turn  thee  away;" 
needing  only  to  say,  "  David  shall  not  come  in 
hither.'  « 

David  took  this  stronghold  (ver.  7);  and  how 
this  was  effected  is  intimated  in  ver.  8.  If  the 
water-course  could  be  reached,  by  which  water  was 
5up])lied  to  the  besieged,  the  reduction  of  the  strong- 
hold must  soon  follow.  On  the  import  of  the  last 
clause  in  ver.  8,  compare  the  suggestion  in  the  ar- 
ticle Jerusalem,  11.,  fourth  paragraph,  foot-note. 

A  review  of  the  principal  interpretations  of  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  scholars  would  be  interesting  and 
ins!iructive ;  but  there  is  not  space  for  it  here. 

T.  J.  C. 


H. 


HAAHASHTARI  (nntpni^H,  with  the 
article,  =:i/<e  Ahns/ifarite  [perh.  courier,  messenger, 
Fiirst]:  rlv  'AacrO-fip',  [Vat.  A<Tr)pav;]  Alex.  Ao- 
9r]pa-  Ahasihari),  a  man,  or  a  family,  immediately 
descended  from  Ashur,  "father  of  Tekoa"  by  his 
second  wife  Naarah  (1  Chr.  iv.  G).  The  name  does 
not  appear  again,  nor  is  there  any  trace  of  a  place 
of  similar  name. 

HABA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (Hjnq,  inNeh.  H^nn 
[but  MSS.  and  editions  vary  in  both  places;  whom 
J tliQvnh  protects]:  Aafieia,  'E/8ia;  Alex.  O/Sata, 
[E/Seia;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  E^eia,  FA.  Afieia'-]  Hobin, 
Habit).  J5eue-Cha.baijah  were  among  the  sons  of 
the  priests  who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerub- 
babel,  but  whose  genealogy  being  imperfect,  were 
not  allowed  to  serve  (Ezr.  ii.  61;  Neh.  vii.  03). 
It  is  not  clear  from  the  passage  whether  they  were 
among  the  descendants  of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite. 
In  the  lists  of  1  Esdras  the  name  is  given  as 
Obdia  [niarg.  Hobaiah]. 

HABAK'KUK  or  HAB  AKKUK 
(p^pZin  {embracing,  as  a  token  of  love,  Ges., 
Fiirst] :  Jerome,  Prol.  in  Ilab.,  renders  it  by  the 
Greek  TrspiA-qypis]  'Afi^aKovjx'  liabncuc).  Other 
Greek  forms  of  the  name  are  'A$l3a.Kov/x,  which 
Suidas  erroneously  renders  irar^p  iyepcrews, 
'A^aKov/jL  (Georg.  Cedreiuis),  ' Ajx^aKovK,  and 
'A/8/3a/cou/c  (Dorotheus,  Doctr.  2).  The  Latin 
forms  are  Ambacum,  Ambacuc,  and  Ab'icuc. 

1.  Of  the  facts  of  the  prophet's  life  we  have  no 
certain  information,  and  with  regard  to  the  period 
of  his  prophecy  there  is  great  division  of  opinion. 
The  liabbinical  tradition  that  Ilabakkuk  was  the 
.son  of  the  Shunammite  woman  whom  Elisha  re- 
stored to  life  is  repeated  by  Abarbanel  in  his  com- 
mentary, and  has  no  other  foundation  than  a  fanci- 
ful etynology  of  the  prophet's  name,  based  on  the 
expression  in  2  K.  iv.  IG.  Equally  unfounded  is 
the  tradition  that  he  was  the  sentinel  set  by  Isaiah 
to  watch  for  the  destruction  of  Babylon  (corap.  Is. 
xxi.  10  with  Hab.  ii.  1).  In  the  title  of  the  history 
of  Bel  and  the  Dragon,  as  found  in  the  LXX. 
version  in  Origen's  Tttrophi,  the  author  is  called 


HABAKKUK 


971 


a  *  Recent  excavations  on  the  southern  slope  of 
Mount  Zion  show  that  this  vaunting  of  the  Jebusites 
ras  not  without  some  foundation.  "  From  the  posi- 
aon  and  apijcarance  of  this  escarpment  [one  discovered 
here]  it  must  have  formed  pnrt  of  the  defenses  of 
ihfl  old  city,  the  wall  running  along  the  crest ;  .  .  . 
liM  lit  i«  which  lead  down  the  a  alley  of  Ilinnom  could 


"  Habakkuk,  the  son  of  Joshua,  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.' 
Some  have  supposed  this  apocryphal  writer  to  bt 
identical  with  the  prophet  (Jerome,  Prn(e.m.  in 
Dan.).  The  psalm  in  ch.  3  and  its  title  are  thought 
to  favor  the  opinion  that  Habakkuk  was  a  Levite 
(Delit/.sch,  Hibnkuk,  p.  iii.).  Bseudo-Epiphanius 
(vol.  ii.  p.  24:0,  de  Vilis  Prophetarum)  and  Doro- 
theus {Chron.  Pasch.  p.  150)  say  that  he  was  of 
Br]e(oK7}p  or  BrjOiTOvxap  {Bethacni,  Isid.  Hispal. 
c.  47),  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon.  This  may  have 
been  the  same  as  Bethzacharias,  where  Judas  Mac- 
cabseus  was  defeated  by  Antiochus  Eupator  (1  Mace, 
vi.  32,  33).  'I'lie  same  authors  relate  that  when 
Jerusalem  was  sacked  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  Habak- 
kuk fled  to  Osti-acine,  and  remained  there  till  after 
the  Chaldoeans  had  left  the  city,  when  he  returned 
to  his  own  country  and  died  at  his  farm  two  years 
before  the  return  irom  Babylon,  n.  c.  538.  It  was 
during  his  residence  in  Judaea  that  he  is  said  to 
have  carried  food  to  Daniel  in  the  den  of  lions  at 
Babylon.  This  legend  is  given  in  the  history  of 
Bel  and  the  Dragon,  and  is  repeated  by  Eusebius, 
Bar-Hebrasus,  and  Eutychius.  It  is  quoted  from 
Joseph  ben  Gorion  {B.  ./.  xi.  3)  by  Abarbanel 
( Coniin.  on  Flab. ),  and  seriously  refuted  by  him  on 
chronological  grounds.  The  scene  of  the  event  was 
shown  to  mediaeval  travellers  on  the  road  from 
Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem  {Early  Travels  in  Pales- 
tine, p.  2 )).  Habakkuk  is  said  to  have  been  buried 
at  Keilah  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  eight  miles  E. 
of  Eleutheropolis  (Eusel)ius,  Onomasticon).  Rab- 
binical tradition  places  his  tomb  at  Chukkok,  of  the 
tribe  of  Naphtali,  now  called  Jakulc.  In  the  days 
of  Zelienus,  bishop  of  F^leutheropolis,  according  to 
Nicephorus  (//.  A',  xii.  48)  and  Sozomen  {11.  E. 
vii.  28),  the  remains  of  the  prophets  Habakkuk  and 
Micah  were  discovered  at  Keilah. 

2.  The  Kabbinical  traditions  agree  in  placing 
Flabakkuk  with  Joel  and  Nahum  in  the  reign  of 
Manasseh  (cf  Seder  Olain  Rabbn  and  Zu/a,  and 
Tseinach  D  ivid).  This  date  is  adopted  by  Kimchi 
and  Abarbanel  among  the  Kabbis,  and  by  Witsius. 
Kalinsky,  and  Jahn  among  modern  writers.  The 
general  corruption  and  lawlessness  which  prevailed 
in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  are  supposed  to  })e  referred 
to  in  Hab.  i.  2-4.  Both  Kalinsky  and  Jahn  con- 
jecture that  Habakkuk  may  have  been  one  of  the 
prophets  mentioned  in  2  K.  xxi.  10.  Syncellus 
{C/irono(/)-ap}nrf,  pp.  214,  230,  240)  makes  him 
contemporary  with  Ezekiel,  and  extends  the  period 
of  his  prophecy  from  the  time  of  Manasseh  to  that 
of  Daniel  and  Joshua  the  son  of  .losedech.  The 
Chronicon  Paschale  places  him  later,  first  mention 
ing  him  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Josiah 
((Jlymp.  32),  as  contemporary  with  Zephaniah  and 
Nahum ;  and  again  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  Cyrus  (Olymp.  42),  as  contemporary  with  Danid 
and  lilzekiel  in  Persia,  with  Haggai  and  Zecbariah 
in  Judaea,  and  with  Baruch  in  Egypt  Davidson 
{florne's  Intr.  ii.  908),  following  Keil,  decides  in 
favor  of  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Josiah. 
Calmet,  Jaeger,  Ewald,  De  Wette,  Rosenmiiller, 
Knobel,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and  Meier  agree  in  assign- 
ing the  commencement  of  Habakkuk's  prophecy  to 


be  defended  by  a  couple  of  men  against  any  force,  be- 
fore the  invention  of  fi-e-arms.  The  escarpment  was 
probabl".  carried  down  to  the  valley  in  a  succession  of 
terraces  the  large  amount  of  rubbish,  however,  will 
not  allow  anything  to  be  seen  clearly."  (See  Ordnanct 
Survey  of  Jerusalem,  p.  61.  Lond.  1865.)  H. 


372 


HABAKKUK 


the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  though  they  are  divid&^l  as 
to  the  exact  period  to  which  it  is  to  be  referred. 
Knobel  {Der  Prophetism.  d.  Ihhr.)  and  Meier 
{Gesch.  d.  poet.  nat.  Liter,  d.  Hebr.)  are  in  favor 
af  the  commencement  of  the  Chaldaean  era,  after 
the  battle  of  Carchemish  (b.  c.  60G),  when  Judaea 
was  first  threatened  by  the  victors.  But  the  ques- 
tion of  the  date  of  Habakkuk's  prophecy  has  been 
discussed  in  the  most  exhaustive  manner  by 
Dehtzsch  {Der  Prophet  Ilabakuk^  Einl.  §  3),  and 
though  his  arguments  are  rather  ingenious  than 
convincing,  they  are  well  deserving  of  consideration 
as  based  upon  internal  evidence.  The  conclusion 
it  which  he  arrives  is  that  Habakkuk  delivered  his 
orophecy  about  the  12th  or  13th  year  of  Josiah 
T..  c.  030  or  029),  for  reasons  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  summary.  In  Hab.  i.  5  the  expression 
"in  your  days"  shows  that  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prophecy  would  take  place  in  the  lifetime  of  those 
to  whom  it  was  addressed.  The  same  phrase  in 
Jer.  xvi.  9  embraces  a  period  of  at  most  twenty 
years,  while  in  Ez.  xii.  25  it  denotes  about  six 
years,  and  therefore,  reckoning  backwards  from  the 
('haldasan  invasion,  the  date  above  assigned  would 
involve  no  violation  of  probability,  though  the 
argument  does  not  amount  to  a  proof.  From  the 
similarity  of  Hab.  ii.  20  and  Zeph.  i.  7,  Delitzsch 
infers  that  the  latter  is  an  imitation,  the  former 
being  the  original.  He  supports  this  conclusion 
by  many  collateral  arguments.  Now  Zephaniah, 
according  to  the  superscription  of  his  prophecy, 
lived  in  the  time  of  .Josiah,  and  from  iii.  5  must 
have  prophesied  after  the  worship  of  Jehovah  was 
restored,  that  is,  after  the  twelfth  yevir  of  that 
king's  reign.  It  is  probable  that  he  wrote  about 
B.  c.  024.  Between  this  period  therefore  and  the 
12th  year  of  Josiah  (r.  c.  030)  Dehtzsch  places 
Habakkuk.  But  Jeremiah  began  to  prophesy  in 
the  13th  year  of  Josiah,  and  many  passages  are 
borrowed  by  him  from  Habakkuk  (cf.  Hab.  ii.  13 
with  Jer.  Ii.  58,  &c.).  The  latter  therefore  must 
have  written  about  030  or  029  B.  c.  This  view 
receives  some  confirmation  from  the  position  of  his 
prophecy  in  the  O.  T,  Canon. 

3.  Instead  of  looking  upon  the  prophecy  as  an 
organic  whole,  Rosenmiiller  divided  it  into  three 
parts  corresponding  to  the  chapters,  and  assigned 
the  first  chapter  to  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  the 
second  to  that  of  Jehoiachin,  and  the  third  to  that 
of  Zedekiah,  when  Jerusalem  was  besieged  for  the 
third  time  i)y  Nebuchadnezzar.  Kalinsky  (  Vatic. 
Chdbac.  et  Nah.)  makes  four  divisions,  and  refers 
the  prophecy  not  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  to  Esar- 
haddon.  But  in  such  an  arbitrary  arrangement 
he  true  chax-acter  of  the  composition  as  a  perfectly 
developed  poem  is  entirely  lost  sight  of.  The 
prophet  commences  by  announcing  his  office  and 
Important  mission  (i.  1).  He  bewails  the  corruption 
and  social  disorganization  by  which  he  is  sur- 
rounded, and  cries  to  Jehovah  for  help  (i.  2-4). 
Next  follows  the  reply  of  the  Deity,  threatening 
swift  vengeance  (i.  5-11).  The  prophet,  trans- 
ferring himself  to  the  near  future  foreshadowed  in 
the  divine  threatenings,  sees  the  rapacity  and  boast- 
ful impiety  of  the  Chaldoean  bests,  but,  confident 
that  God  has  only  employed  them  as  the  instru- 
ments of  correction,  assumes  (ii.  1)  an  attitude  of 
hopeful  expectancy,  and  waits  to  see  the  issue. 
He  receives  the  divine  command  to  write  in  an 
sndiiring  form  the  vision  of  God's  retributive 
Ufltice,  as  reveale<i  to  his  prophetic  eye  (ii.  2,  3). 
rhe  doom  of  the  Chaldaeans  is  first  foretold  in  gen- 


HABAKKUK 

eral  terms  (ii.  4  0),  and  the  announcement  is  kH 
lowed  by  a  series  of  derumciations  pronounced  up(» 
them  by  the  nations  who  had  suffered  from  theu 
oppression  (ii.  0-20).  The  strophical  arrangement 
of  these  "M'oes"  is  a  remarkable  feature  of  the 
prophecy.  They  are  distributed  in  strophes  of  thi*ee 
verses  eaeh,  characterized  by  a  certain  regularity 
of  structure.  The  first  four  commence  with  a 
"  Woe!  "  and  close  with  a  vei-se  beginning  with 

**3  (for).  The  first  verse  of  each  of  these  contains 
the  character  of  the  sin,  the  second  the  development 
of  the  woe,  while  the  third  is  confirmatory  of  the 
woe  denounced.  The  fifth  strophe  diffei-s  from  the 
others  in  form  in  having  a  verse  introductory  tc 
the  woe.  The  prominent  vices  of  the  Chaldaeans' 
character,  as  delineated  in  i.  5-11,  are  made  the 
subjects  of  separate  denunciations;  their  insatiable 
ambition  (ii.  0-8),  their  covetousness  (ii.  9-11). 
cruelty  (ii.  12-14),  drunkenness  (ii.  15-17),  and 
idolatry  (ii.  18-20).  The  whole  concludes  with 
the  magnificent  psalm  in  chap,  iii.,  "  Habakkuk'? 
Pindaric  ode"  (Ewald),  a  composition  unrivaled 
for  boldness  of  conception,  subhmity  of  thought, 
and  majesty  of  diction.  This  constitutes,  in  De- 
htzseh's  opinion,  "  the  second  grand  division  of  the 
entire  prophecy,  as  the  subjective  reflex  of  the  two 
subdivisions  of  the  first,  and  the  lyrical  recapitula- 
tion of  the  whole."  It  is  the  echo  of  the  feelings 
aroused  in  the  prophet's  mind  by  the  divine  answers 
to  his  appeals ;  fear  in  anticipation  of  the  threatened 
judgments,  and  thankfulness  and  joy  at  the  prom- 
ised retribution.  But,  though  intimately  connected 
with  the  former  part  of  the  prophecy,  it  is  in  itself 
a  perfect  whole,  as  is  sufficiently  evident  from  ita 
lyrical  character,  and  the  musical  arrangement  by 
which  it  wa.s  adapted  for  use  in  the  temple  service. 

In  other  parts  of  the  A.  V.  the  name  is  given  aa 
Haubacuc,  and  Abacuc.  W.  A.  W. 

*  Among  the  few  separate  commentaries  on  this 
prophet  we  have  Der  Prophet  Ilnbakuk;  nusf/elegt, 
by  Franz  Delitzsch  (Leipz.  1843).  This  author 
gives  a  list  in  that  volume  (p.  xxiv.  f.)  of  other 
single  works  of  an  earlier  date,  with  critical  notices 
of  their  value.  Of  these  he  commends  especially 
that  of  G.  F.  L.  Baumlein,  Coinm.  de  Hah.  Vatic. 
(1840).  For  a  list  of  the  still  older  writers,  see 
Keil's  Lehrb.  der  hist.-krit.  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.  p. 
302  (2te  Aufl.).  The  commentaries  on  the  Minoi 
I'rophets.  or  the  Prophets  generally,  contain  of 
course  Habakkuk:  F. Hitzig,  Die  ziciilf  kl.  Prophe 
ten,  pp.  253-277  (1838,  3^  Aufl.  1803);  Ewald,  L>ie 
Propheten  des  A.  B.  i.  373-389  (1840);  Maurer, 
Comm.  Gram.  Hist.  Crit.  in  Proph.  Minares.  ii. 
528  ff. ;  Umbreit,  Prakt.  Comm.  iib.  d.  Proph.  Bd. 
iv.  Th.  i.  (1845);  Keil  and  Delitzsch,  Bibl.  Comm 
iib.  d.  12  kl.  Proph.  (1800);  Henderson,  Minor 
Prophets  (1845,  Amer.  ed.  1800);  G.  R.  Noyes, 
New  Trans,  of  the  Ileb.  Prophets,  3d  ed.  (1800), 
vol.  i. ;  Henry  Cowles,  Minor  Prophets,  icith  Note.'i 
Critical,  Explanatory,  and  Practical  (New  York, 
1800). 

For  the  personal  history  of  the  prophet,  see 
especially  Dehtzsch's  De  JIabacuci  Propliettv  Vita 
atque  yEtate  (2d  ed.  1844),  and  Umbreit's  Ilaba- 
kuk  in  Ilerzog's  Real-Encyk.  v.  435-438.  The 
latter  represents  him  as  "  a  great  prophet  among 
the  minor  prophets,  and  one  of  the  greatest  among 
the  great  prophets."  De  Wette  says  of  his  style  and 
genius:  "  While  in  his  sphere  of  prophetic  repre- 
sentation he  may  be  compared  with  the  best  of  th 
prophets,  a  Joel,  Amos,  Naluim,  Isaiah,  in  the  lyrk 


HABAZINIAH 

passajje  (ch.  iii.)  lie  surpasses  every  thing  which' 
the  poetry  of  the  Hebrews  has  U>  show  in  tliis 
species  of  composition,  lie  exhibits  the  greatest ! 
strength  and  fullness,  an  imagination  capable  of  the 
loftiest  dights,  without  ever  sacriticing  beauty  and 
slearness.  Mis  rhythm  is  at  the  same  time  per- 
fectly free,  and  yet  measured.  His  diction  is  fresh 
and  pure."  (See  his  Eiid.in  dus  A.  Test.,  p.  338, 
5te  Ausg.)  Lovvth  awards  to  him  the  highest  sub- 
limity (Lect.  xxviii.  in  his  Poetry  of  the  He- 
brews). "  The  anthem  "  at  the  close  of  the  book, 
says  Isaac  Taylor,  "  unequaled  in  majesty  and 
splendor  of  language  and  imagery,  gives  expression 
in  terms  the  most  affecting  to  an  intense  spiritual 
feeling;  and,  on  this  ground,  it  so  fully  embodies 
these  religious  sentiments  as  to  satisfy  Christian 
piety,  even  of  the  loftiest  order."  (See  his  Spirit 
of  the  llebreio  Podi^.,  p.  255,  Amer.  ed.)  The 
doctrine  impersonated  in  the  prophet's  experience 
is  that  the  soul,  though  stripped  of  all  outward  pos- 
sessions and  cut  off  from  every  human  resource,  may 
still  be  happy  in  God  alone  as  the  object  of  its 
confidence  and  the  bestower  of  the  ample  spiritual 
consolations  which  that  trust  secures.  (Comp.  2 
Cor.  iv.  8  ff.)  H. 

HABAZINFAH  (HJ^^^q  Q)erh.  light  of 
Jehovah,  Ges. :  collection  by  J  ah,  Fiirst]  :  Xa^aaiu'-, 
[Vat.  FA.  -areiu-]  Ifabsinia),  apparently  the  head 
of  one  of  the  families  of  the  Ki:ciia.bites:  his 
descendant  -Jaazaniali  was  the  chief  man  among 
them  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxv.  3). 

HAB'BACUC  ('A/ii8a/cou;U :  Habacuc),  the 
form  in  which  the  name  of  the  prophet  Habakkuk 
is  given  in  the  Apocrypha  (Bel,  33-39). 

HABERGEON",  a  coat  of  mail  covering  the 
neck  and  breast.     The  Hebrew  terms  are  S"in/^, 

nj"lK7,  and  "J  V^l??.  The  first,  tachdra,  occurs 
only  in  Ex.  xxviii.  32,  xxxix.  23,  and  is  noticed 
incidentally  to  illustrate  the  mode  of  making  the 
aperture  for  the  head  in  the  sacerdotal  meil.  It  was 
probably  similar  to  the  linen  corslet  {XiuoficLpr]^)^ 
worn  l)y  the  Egyptians  (Her.  ii.  182,  iii.  47),  and 
the  Greeks  (//.  ii.  52D,  830).  The  second,  shirydli, 
occurs  only  in  Job  xli.  26,   and  is   regarded    as 

another  form  of  s/(i/-yrtrt  (^nty),  a  "breastplate" 
(Is.  lix.  17);  this  sense  has  been  questioned,  as  the 
context  requires  offensive  rather  than  defensive 
armor;  but  the  objection  may  be  met  by  the  sup- 
position of  an  extended  sense  being  given  to  the 
verb,  according  to  the  grammatical  usage  known 
as  zeiKjjiia.  The  third,  shiryon,  occurs  as  an 
article  of  defensive  armor  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  5,  2  Chr. 
Jtxvi.  14,  and  Neh.  iv.  16.  W.  L.  B. 

HA'BOR  (Tl^n  [perh.  rich  in  vegetation, 
Dietr. ;  but  see  Fiirst] :  'AjSojp,  Xa^wp ;  [Vat.  2 
K.  xviii.  11,  A$ia}p:]  /labor),  the  "river  of 
Gozan  "  (2  K.  xvii.  6,  and  xviii.  11  [also  1  Chr. 
V.  26])  has  been  already  distinguished  from  the 
Chebar  or  Chobar  of  Ezekiel.  [Ciikp.ak.]  It  is 
identified  beyond  all  reasonal)le  doubt  with  the 
famous  affluent  of  the  Euphrates,  which  is  called 
Aborrhas  {'A$6p'pa9)  by  Strabo  (xvi.  1,  §  27)  and 
^rocopius  {BtU.  J'ers.  ii.  5);  Aburas  {  f>.$ovpas) 
ov  Isidore  of  Charax  (p.  4),  Abora  ('Apipa)  by 
?08imus    (iii.   12),  and  Chaboras   {Xal3'J>pas),  by 


*»  For   tlie   "wood"    the  LXX.    have  iv  rrj  xatvp, 
leadinK  W'^'H  for  WlH.     And  so  too  Josephus. 


HACHILAH,  THE  HILL       97b 

Pliny  and  Ptolemy  (v.  18).  The  stream  in  ques- 
tion still  bears  the  name  of  the  Khabour.  It  flowi 
from  several  sources  in  the  mountain-chain,  which 
in  about  the  37th  jjarallel  closes  in  the  valley  of  the 
Tigris  upon  the  south  —  the  Mons  Masius  of  Strabo 
and  Ptolemy,  at  juesent  the  Kharej  iJagh.  The 
chief  source  is  said  to  be  "  a  Uttle  to  the  west  of 
Mardin'"  (Layard,  Nm.  and  Bab.  p.  309,  note); 
but  the  upper  course  of  the  river  is  still  very  im- 
perfectly known.  The  main  stream  was  seen  by 
INlr.  Layard  fiowiiig  from  the  northwest  as  he  stood 
on  the  conical  hill  of  Kouknb  (about  lat.  36°  20', 
long.  41°);  and  here  it  was  joined  by  aii  important 
tributary,  the  Jeriijer,  which  flowed  down  to  U 
from  Nisibis.  Both  streams  were  here  fordable, 
but  the  river  formed  by  their  union  had  to  Iw 
crossed  by  a  raft.  It  flowed  in  a  tortuous  course 
through  rich  meads  covered  with  flowers,  havinr; 
a  general  direction  about  S.  S.  W.  to  its  junction 
with  the  F^uphrates  at  Karkesia,  the  ancient  Cir- 
cesium.  The  country  on  both  sides  of  the  river 
was  covered  with  mounds,  the  remains  of  cities 
belonging  to  the  Assyrian  period. 

The  Khiib(mr  occurs  under  that  name  in  an 
Assyrian  hiscription  of  the  ninth  century  before 
our  era.  G.  R. 

HACHALI'AH  (n^J^^D  {lohom  Jehovah 
afflicts,  Ges.  6te  Aufl.] :  XeA/cta,  'AxaAta;  [Vat. 
XeA/ceta,  Ax^Aia;  Alex.  AxaAia;  F'A.  AxoAta, 
AxeA-ia:]  Hechlia,  Hahelia),  the  father  of  Nehe- 
miah  (Neh.  i.  1;  x.  1). 

HACH'ILAH,     THE     HILL      (^^52 

n^'^pnn  [hill  of  darkness,  Ges.,  or  of  barren- 
ness, Fiirst]  :  o  fiowhs  tov  (and  o  [but  Alex,  rov^ ) 
'ExeAa;  [in  1  Sam.  xxvi.  1,  Vat.  XeX/xaO,  Alex. 
Ax'Aa:]  collis,  and  Gabaa,  Ilachila),  a  hill  appar- 
ently situated  in  a  wood  «  in  the  wilderness  or  waste 

land  ('n3"Tp)  in  the  neighborhood  of  Ziph ;  in  the 
fastnesses,  or  passes,  of  which  David  and  his  six 
hundred  followers  were  lurking  when  the  Ziphitea 
informed  Saul  of  his  whereabouts  (1  Sam.  xxiii. 
19;  comp.  14,  15,  18).  The  special  topographicaJ 
note  is  added,  that  it  was  "on  the  right  (xxiii.  19, 
A.  V.  'south ')  of  the  Jeshimon,"  or,  according  to 
what  may  be  a  second  account  of  the  same  tran- 
saction (xxvi.  1-3),  "facing  the  Jeshimon"  (7^ 

'^'^B,  A.  V.  "before"),  that  is,  the  waste  barren 
district.  As  Saul  approached,  David  drew  down 
from  the  hill  into  the  lower  ground  (xx,vi.  3),  still 
probably  remaining  concealed  by  the  wood  which 
then  covered  the  country.  Saul  advanced  to  the 
hill,  and  bivouacked  there  by  the  side  of  the  road 

(Tyn^I,  A.  V.  "way"),  which  appears  to  have  run 
over  the  hill  or  close  below  it.  It  was  during  this 
nocturnal  halt  that  the  romantic  adventure  of  the 
spear  and  cruse  of  water  took  place.  In  xxiii.  14 
and  xxvi.  13  this  hill  would  seem  (though  this  ia 
not  quite  clear)  to  be  dignified  by  the  title  of  "  the 

mountain  "  (nnn  :  in  the  latter,  the  xV.  V.  has 
"hill  "  and  in  both  the  article  is  missed);  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  same  eminence  appears  to  be 

again  designated  as  "  the  cliff"  (xxiii.  25,  ^^PSH 
A.  V.  "a  rock")  from^  which  David  descended 

b  The  Ileorew  exactly  answers  to  our  cxpreMloii 
"descended  the  cliff"  :  the  "into"  in  the  text  of  Hm 


di^ 


HApHMONI 


Into  tLe  midbav  of  Maon.  Places  learing  the 
aames  of  Ziph  and  Maou  are  still  found  in  the 
south  of  Judah  —  in  all  probabiUty  the  identical 
sites  of  those  ancient  towns.  They  are  sufficiently 
close  to  each  other  for  the  district  between  them  to 
bear  uidisci'iniinately  the  name  of  both.  But  the 
wood  has  vanished,  and  no  trace  of  the  name  Hachi- 
lah  has  yet  been  discovered,  nor  has  the  ground  been 
examined  with  the  view  to  see  if  the  mumte  indi- 
cations of  the  story  can  be  recognized.  By  Euse- 
bius  and  Jerome  {Oiwmasticon)  Echda  is  named 
as  a  village  then  standing;  but  the  situation  — 
seven  miles  from  hLleutheropolis,  i.  e.  on  the  N.  W. 
of  Hebron  —  would  be  too  far  from  Ziph  and  Maon ; 
and  as  Keland  has  pointed  out,  they  probably  con- 
founded it  with  Keilah  (comp.  Onom.  "  Ceeilah  "  ; 
and  lieland,  p.  745).  G. 

HACH'MONI,  SON  OF,  and  THE 
HACH'MONITE  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  22;  xi.  11), 
both  renderings  —  the  former  the  correct  one  —  of 

the  same  Hebrew  words  "^DlDpH"*!?  =son  of  a 
Hacmonite:  vlhs  'Axafidu,  'Axa/^i;  [Vat.  Ax"' 
ixavei,  Axaytie*;  Shi.  in  1  Chr.  xi.,  Axa/J-avvL',] 
Alex.  AxajULaut-  JIachamoni).  Two  of  the  Bene- 
Hacmoni  [sons  of  H.]  are  named  in  these  passages, 
Jehikl,  in  the  former,  and  Jasiioiskam  hi  the  lat- 
ter. Hachmon  or  Hachmoni  >\'as  no  doubt  the 
founder  of  a  family  to  which  these  men  belonged : 
the  actual  father  of  Jashobeam  was  Zabdiel  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  2),  and  he  is  also  said  to  have  belonged  to 
the  Korhites  (1  Chr.  xii.  6),  possibly  the  Levites 
descended  from  Korah.  But  the  name  Hachmon 
nowhere  appears  in  the  genealogies  of  the  Levites. 
In  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8  the  name  is  altered  to  the  Tach- 
cemonite.  [Taciimomtk.]  See  Kennicott,  Diss. 
pp.  72,  82,  who  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
names  given  in  Chronicles  with  Ben  are  in  Sam- 
uel given  without  the  Ben,  but  with  the  definite 
article.  G. 

HA'DAD  (TtJD  [skaiymess,  Gesen.,  power- 
ful, Fiirst]:  'A5a5,*  ["ASep,]  Xovddv'.  Iladad). 
This  name  occurs  frequently  in  the  history  of  the 
Syrian  and  Edoraite  dynasties.  It  was  originally 
the  indigenous  appellation  of  the  sun  among  the 
Syrians  (Macrob.  Saiurnnl.  i.  23;  Phn.  xxxvii.  11), 
and  was  thence  transferred  to  the  king,  as  the 
highest  of  earthly  authorities,  in  the  forms  Hadad, 
Ben-hadad  ("  worshipper  of  Hadad"),  and  Hadad- 
ezer  ("assisted  by  Hadad,"  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  218). 
The  title  appears  to  have  been  an  official  one,  like 
Pharaoh ;  and  perhaps  it  is  so  used  by  Nicolaus  Da- 
mascenus,  as  quoted  by  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  6,  §  2), 
in  reference  to  the  Syrian  king  who  aided  Hadad- 
ezer  (2  Sam.  viii.  5).  Josephus  appears  to  have 
used  the  name  in  the  same  sense,  where  he  substi- 
tutes it  for  Benhadad  {A7it.  ix.  8,  §  7,  compared 
with  2  K.  xiii.  24).  The  name  appeju's  occasionally 
in  the  altered  form  Hadar  (Gen.  xxv.  15,  xxxvi.  39, 
compared  with  1  Chr.  i.  30,  50). 

1-  ["^"jn*  XovSdu,  Alex.  XoSSoS:  JIadnd.] 
The  first  of  the  name«  was  a  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen. 
xxv.  15  [Hadak,  1]:  1  Chr.  i.  30).  His  descend- 
ants probably  occupied  the  western  coast  of  the 
Persian  Gulf,  where  the  names  Attcei  (Ptol.  vi.  7, 
I  15),  Atfene,  and  Chaieni  (Plin.  vi.  32)  bear  af- 
.Inity  to  the  original  name. 


HADAD-RIMMON 

2.  (T'lrT  \brave,  one  who  throws  himst-lf  agidiaj 
the  enemy,  Dietr. :  'ASaS:  Adad].)  The  second 
was  a  king  of  Edom,  who  gained  nn  iipportant 
victory  over  the  Midianites  on  the  field  of  Moab 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  35;  1  Chr.  i.  40):  the  position  of  hii 
territory  is  marked  by  his  capital,  Avith.    [Avrni.] 

3.  (Tjn  ['A5aS:  Adad].)  The  third  was  also 
a  king  of  Edom,  with  Pau  for  his  capital  (1  Chr. 
i.  50).  [Pau.]  He  was  the  last  of  the  khigs: 
the  change  to  the  dukedom  is  pointe<lly  connected 
with  his  death  in  1  Chr.  i.  51.     [Hauak,  2.] 

^-  OtJD  ["ASep:  Adad].)  The  la.st  of  the 
name  was  a  member  of  the  royal  house  of  l^douj 
(1  K.  xi.  14  ff.),  probably  the  grandson  of  the  one 
last  noticed.  (In  ver.  17  it  is  gi\en  in  the  muti- 
lated form  of  TlW.)  In  his  childhood  he  escaped 
the  massacre  under  Joab,  in  which  his  father  ap- 
pears to  have  perished,  and  fled  with  a  band  of 
followers  into  Egypt.  Some  difficulty  arises  in  the 
account  of  his  flight,  from  the  words.  "  they  arose 
out  of  Midian "  (ver.  18).  Thenius  (Comm.  in 
loc.)  surmises  that  the  reading  has  been  corrupted 

from  P^^  to  I^T^j  and  that  the  place  intended 
is  Maon,  i.  e.  the  residence  for  the  time  lieing  of  the 
royal  family.  Other  explanations  are  that  Midian 
was  the  territory  of  some  of  the  Midianitish  tribes 
in  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  or  that  it  is  the  name 
of  a  town,  the  Modiava  of  Ptol.  vi.  7,  §  2:  some 
of  the  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  supply  the  words  ttjs 
TTtJAews  before  MoSto/i.  Pliaraoh,  the  predecessor 
of  Solomon's  father-in-law,  treated  him  kindly,  and 
gave  him  his  sister-in-law  in  marriage.  After  Da- 
vid's death  Hadad  resolved  to  attempt  the  recovery 
of  his  dominion:  Pharaoh  in  vain  discouraged 
him,  and  upon  this  he  left  Egypt  and  returned  to 
his  own  country  (see  the  addition  to  ver.  22  in  the 
LXX.;  the  omission  of  the  clause  in  the  Hebrew 
probably  arose  from  an  error  of  the  transcriber). 
It  does  not  appear  from  the  text  as  it  now  stands, 
how  Hadad  became  subsequently  to  this  an  "  ad- 
versary unto  Solomon  "  (ver.  14),  still  less  how  he 
gained  the  sovereignty  over  Syria  (ver.  25).  The 
LXX.,  however,  refers  the  whole  of  ver.  25  to  him, 

and  substitutes  for  D*^S  (Syria),  'ESw/jl  (Ldom). 
This  reduces  the  whole  to  a  consistent  and  intel- 
ligible narrative.  Hadad,  according  to  this  account, 
succeeded  in  his  attempt,  and  cumed  on  a  border 
warfare  on  the  Israelites  from  his  own  territory. 
Josephus  (Ant.  viii.  7,  §  G)  retains  the  reading 
S}ria,  and  represents  Hadad  as  having  failed  in 
his  attempt  on  Idumaea,  and  then  having  joined 
Kezon,  from  whom  he  i'ecei\ed  a  portion  of  Syria. 
If  the  present  text  is  correct,  the  concluding  words 
of  ver.  25  must  be  referred  to  Pezon,  and  be  con- 
sidered as  a  repetition  in  an  anipUfied  form  of  the 
concluding  words  of  the  previous  verse. 

W.  L.  B. 

HADADE'ZER  (l^^l^n  :  b  'ASpaaCdp, 
in  both  MSS.;  [in  1  K.,  Pom.  'ASaSc^'cp;  Vai. 
AcpaSpaCap ;  Alex.  ASaSelep :  Adarezer] ),  2  Sam. 
viii.  3-12;  1  K.  xi.  23.     [Hadauezkii.] 

HA'DAD-RIM'MON  Cj'^"}  '^7.7  [set 
infra]  :  KOTnrhs  poStvos-  Adadremmon)  is,  accord- 


1.  V  ii  derived  from  ^he  LXX.  eis  and  the  Vulgate 
%d.  See  Jerome's  explanation,  "  ad  petram,  id  est,  ad 
ntlMimuxu  locum,"  in  his  QucBst.  Hebr.  ad  loc. 


a  *  The  initial  letter  is  different  from  that  of  thu 
names  which  follow.  The  projver  distiuctdon  would  In 
Ghadad  aud  Hadad.  B 


HADAR 

Sig  to  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  ''iech.  xii.  11, 
%  place  in  tiie  valley  of  Megiddo,  named  after  two 
Syrian  idols,  where  a  national  lamentation  was  held 
for  the  deatli  of  kint:;  Josiah  in  the  last  of  the  four 
great  battles  (see  Stanley,  ^.  cj-  P.  ix.)  which  have 
made  the  plain  of  Ksdi-aelon  famous  in  Hebrew 
history  (see  2  Iv.  xxiii.  29;  2  Chr.  xxxv.  23;  Jo- 
seph. 'AhL  X.  6,  §  1).  The  LXX.  translate  the 
word  "pomegranate;"  and  the  Greek  conunenta- 
tors,  using  that  version,  see  here  no  reference  to 
.losiah.  Jonathan,  the  Chaldee  interpreter,  fol- 
lowed by  Jarchi,  understands  it  to  be  the  name  of 
the  son  of  king  Tabrimon  who  was  opposed  to 
Ahab  at  liamoth-Gilead.  But  it  has  been  taken 
for  the  place  at  which  Josiah  died  by  most  inter- 
preters since  Jerome,  who  states  {Comm.  in  Zach.) 
that  it  was  the  name  of  a  city  which  was  called  in 
his  time  JMaximianopolis,  and  was  not  far  from 
Jezreel.  Van  de  Velde  (i.  355)  thinks  that  he  has 
identified  the  very  site,  and  that  the  more  ancient 
name  still  lingers  on  the  spot.  There  is  a  treatise 
by  Wichmanshausen,  De  jAanciu  Iladadr.  in  the 
Nuc.  Thes.  Thtol.-phiL  i.  101.  W.  T.  B. 

HA'DAR  (1in  [perh.  chamber']'.  XoUav: 
Haclar),  a  son  of  Islimael  (Gen.  xxv.  15);  written 
in  1  Chr.  i.  30  JIadad  ("Tin  :  Xovddv,  [Alex. 
XoSSaS :]  Ilndad) ;  but  Gesenius  sui)poses  the  for- 
mer to  be  the  true  reading  of  the  name.  It  has 
not  been  identitied,  in  a  satisfactory  way,  with  the 
appellation  of  any  tribe  or  place  in  Arabia,  or  on 
the  Syrian  frontier;  but  names  identical  with,  or 
very  closely  resembling  it,  are  not  uncommon  in 
those  parts,  and  may  contahi  traces  of  the  Ish- 
maelite  tribe  sprung  from  Iladar.  The  mountain 
Hadad,  belonging  to  Teynid  [Tema]  on  the  bor- 
ders of  the  Syrian  desert,  north  of  Kl-Medeeneh^  is 
[)erhaps  the  most  likely  to  be  correctly  identified 
with  the  ancient  dwelhngs  of  this  tribe;  it  stands 
among  a  group  of  names  of  the  sons  of  Ishmael, 
containing  Dumah  {JJoomuh),  Kedar  (Keydur), 
and  Tema  ( Tctjuui).  E.  S.  F. 

2.  ("^"IlT  [pcrh.  ornament^  honor-],  with  a  dif- 
ferent aspirate  to  [from]  the  preceduig :  'Apd8  vlhs 
BapdS,  Alex.  ApaO'-  Adar).  One  of  the  kings  of 
Edom,  successor  of  Baal-hanan  ben-Achbor  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  39),  and,  if  we  may  so  understand  the  state- 
ment of  ver.  31,  about  contemporary  with  Saul. 
The  name  of  his  city,  and  the  name  and  genealogy 
of  his  wife,  are  given.  In  tlie  i)arallel  list  in  1 
Chr.  i.  [50]  he  appears  as  Hai>au.  We  know 
from  another  source  (1  K.  xi.  14,  &c.)  that  Iladad 
was  one  of  the  names  of  the  royal  family  of  Edom. 
Indeed,  it  occurs  in  this  very  list  (Gen.  xxxvi.  35). 
But  perhaps  this  fact  is  in  favor  of  the  form  Iladar 
being  correct  in  the  present  case:  its  isolation  is 
probably  a  proof  that  it  is  a  different  name  from 
the  others,  however  similar. 

HADARE'ZER  (^.^^IIlT  \}<'^iose  help  is 
Hadad,  (ies.] :  'Adpaa(dp{  Alex.  ASpa^ap,  [and 
wgenr.  Aid.  FA.:  Comp.  genr.  'ASaSe^'ep."]  Adar- 
ezer),  son  of  IJehob  (2  Sam.  viii.  3);  the  king  of 
the  Aramite  state  of  Zobah,  who,  while  on  his  way 
M  "establish  his  dominion  "  at  the  ICuphrates,  was 
overtaken  by  David,  defeated  with  great  loss  both 
of  chariots,  horses,  and  men  (1  Chr.  xviii.  3,  4), 
wid  driven  with  the  remnant  of  his  force  to  the 
other  side  of  the  river  (xix.   16).     The  golden 

ireapous  captured  on  this  occasion  (l^S^y^,   A.    V. 


k 


HAD  ASS  AIT  9/t 

"shields  of  gold"),  a  thousand  in  nwrnbcr,  wen 
taken  by  David  to  Jerusalem  (xviii.  7),  and  ded- 
icated to  Jehovah.  The  foreign  arms  were  pre- 
served in  the  Temple,  and  were  long  known  as  king 
David's  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  9;  Cant.  iv.  4).  [Arms; 
IShelet,  p.  162.] 

Not  daunted  by  this  defeat,  Hadarezer  seized  an 
early  opportunity  of  attempting  to  re\cnge  himself; 
and  after  the  first  repulse  of  the  Aninionites  and 
their  Syrian  allies  by  Joab,  he  sent  his  army  to 
the  assistance  of  his  kindred  the  people  of  jMaachah, 
Kehob,  and  Ishtob  (1  Chr.  xix.  16;  2  Sam.  x.  15, 
comp.  8).  The  army  was  a  large  one,  as  is  evident 
from  the  numbers  of  the  slain ;  and  it  was  espe- 
cially strong  in  horse-soldiers  (1  Chr.  xix.  18). 
Under  the  command  of  Shophach,  or  Shobach,  the 

captaua  of  the  host  (Sl2*^n  "Iti?)  they  crossed 
the  Euphrates,  joined  the  other  Syrians,  and  en- 
camped at  a  place  called  IIiCLAiAi.  The  moment 
was  a  critical  one,  and  David  himself  came  from  Je- 
rusalem to  take  the  command  of  the  Israelite  army. 
As  on  the  former  occasion,  the  rout  was  complete: 
seven  hundred  chariots  were  captured,  seven  thou- 
sand charioteers  and  forty  thousand  hoi'se-soldiers 
killed,  the  petty  sovereigns  who  had  before  been 
subject  to  Hadarezer  submitted  themselves  to  Da- 
vid, and  the  great  S}riau  confederacy  was,  for  the 
time,  at  an  end. 

But  one  of  Hadarezer's  more  immediate  retain- 
ers, Rkzon  ben-lQiadah,  made  his  escape  from  the 
army,  and  gathering  round  him  some  fugitixes  hke 
himself,  formed  them  into  one  of  those  marauding 

ravaging  "bands"  ("T^12)  which  found  a  con- 
genial refuge  hi  the  thinly  ijeopled  districts  between 
the  Jordan  and  the  Euphrates  (2  K.  v.  2;  1  Clir. 
V.  18-22).  Making  their  way  to  Damascus,  they 
possessed  themsehes  of  the  city.  Bezon  became 
king,  and  at  once  began  to  avenge  the  loss  of  his 
countrymen  by  the  course  of  "  mischief"  to  Israel 
which  he  pursued  down  to  the  end  of  Solomon's 
reign,  and  which  is  summed  up  in  the  emphatic 
words  "  he  was  an  adversary  (a  '  Satan  ')  to  Isi'ael " 
.   .   .   "he  abhorred  Israel"  (1  K.  xi.  23-25). 

In  the  narrative  of  David's  Syrian  campaign  hi 
2  Sam.  viii.  3-12  this  name  is  given  as  Hadad-ezer, 
and  also  in  1  K.  xi.  23.  But  in  2  Sam.  x.,  and  in 
all  its  other  occurrences  in  the  Hebrew  text  as  well 
as  in  the  LXX.  (both  MSS.),  and  in  Josephus,  the 
form  Hadarezer  is  maintained.  G. 

H AD'ASHAH  (HK^iq  [new,  Ges.] :  'AS- 
aadv,  Alex.  Adaaa'-  llndassa),  one  of  the  towui 
of  Judah,  in  the  Shefetuh  or  maritime  low-country, 
named  between  Zenan  and  Migdal-gad,  in  the  sec- 
ond group  (Josh.  XV.  37  only).  By  Eusebius  it  ia 
spoken  of  as  lying  near  "  Tai)hna,"  i.  e.  Gophna. 
But  if  by  this  Eusebius  intends  the  well-known 
Gophna,  there  must  be  some  error,  as  Gophna  was 
several  miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  near  the  direct 
north  road  to  Nablus.  No  satisfactory  reason  pre- 
sents itself  why  Hadashah  should  not  be  the  Adasa 
of  the  Maccaba^an  history.  Hitherto  it  has  eluded 
discovery  in  modern  times.  G. 

*  HADES.      [Dead,   The  ;    Deep,    The  : 

"E.LL.] 

HADAS'SAH  (nDlH  \myrtle]  :  LXX. 
omit :  Edissa),  a  name,  probably  the  earlier  name^ 
of  Esther  (Esth.  ii  7).  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  366) 
suggests  that  it  is  identical  with  ''Aroaaoi  tbi 
name  of  the  daughter  of  Cyrus. 


^76 


HADATTAH 


HADAT^TAH  (nr^iq  Inew]  :  LXX. 
jniit:  nova).      According  to  the  A.  V.,  one  of  the 

towns  of  Judah  in  the  extreme  south 'Hazor, 

Hadattah,  and  Kerioth,  and  Hezron,"  etc.  (Josh. 
XV.  25);  but  the  jVlasoret  accents  of  the  Hebrew 
connect  the  word  with  that  preceding  it,  as  if  it 
were  Hazor-chadattah,  /.  e.  New  Hazor,  in  distinc- 
tion from  the  place  of  the  same  name  in  ver.  23. 
This  reading  is  expressly  sanctioned  by  Eusebius 
and  Jerome,  who  speak  {Onom.  •' Asor")  of  "  New 
Hazor  "  as  lying  in  their  day  to  the  east  of  and 
near  Ascalon.  (See  also  Keland,  p.  708.)  But 
Ascalon,  as  Kobinson  has  pointed  out  (ii.  34,  note), 
is  hi  the  S/u'/eltih,  and  not  in  the  South,  and  would, 
if  named  in  Joshua  at  all,  be  included  in  the  second 
division  of  the  list,  beginning  at  ver.  33,  instead  of 
where  it  is,  not  far  from  Kedesh.  G. 

*  Mr.  "J'ristram  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  310,  2d  ed.) 
speaks  of  some  ruins  in  the  south  of  Judah,  on  a 
"brow  southeast  of  Wady  Zuweirah,  which  the 
Arabs  said  was  called  Hadadah.'^  He  thinks  it 
possible  that  the  Hadattah  of  Joshua  (xv.  25)  may 
have  been  there.  H. 

HA'DID  (T^^n,  sharp,  possibly  from  its  sit- 
uation on  some  craggy  eminence,  Ges.  Thes.  446 : 
'A5t8  [  V  by  comb,  with  preceding  name,  in  Ezr., 
AoSaSt,  Vat.  Aodapcae,  Alex.  AwSScoi/  AoSaSiS:  in 
Neh.  vii.,  Ao5a5i5,  Vat.  FA.  AoSaSza;  in  Neh.  xi., 
LXX.  omit:]  Iladid),  a  place  named,  with  Lod 
(Lydda)  and  Ono,  only  in  the  later  books  of  the 
history  (Ezr.  ii.  33;  Neh.  vii.  37,  xi.  34),  but  yet 
BO  as  to  imply  its  earlier  existence.  In  the  time 
of  Eusebius  {Onom.  "Adithaim")  a  town  called 
Aditha,  or  Adatha,  existed  to  the  east  of  DiospoUs 
(Lydda).  This  was  probably  Hadid.  The  Adida 
of  the  Maccabiean  history  cannot  be  the  same  place, 
as  it  is  distinctly  si^ecified  as  in  the  maritime  or 
Phihstine  plahi  further  south  —  "  Adida  in  Sephe- 
La  "  (1  iSIacc.  xii.  38)  — with  which  agrees  the  de- 
scription of  Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  6,  §  5).  About 
three  miles  east  of  Ludd  stands  a  village  called  el- 
Jladit/icfi,  marked  in  Van  de  Velde's  map.  This 
is  described  l)y  the  old  Jewish  traveller  ha-Parchi 
as  being  "  on  the  summit  of  a  round  hill,"  and 
identified  by  him,  no  doubt  correctly,  with  Hadid. 
See  Zunz,  in  Asher's  Benj.  of  TudtUt,  ii.  439. 

G. 

HADXAI  [2  syl.]  C'^in  [restmg  or  keepin^j 
holiday]  :  'EASat;  [Vat.  Xoa5;]  Alex.  A5St:  Adnli), 
a  man  of  Ephraim;  father  of  Aniasa,  who  was  one 
of  the  chiefs  of  the  tribe  in  the  reign  of  Pekah 
(2  Chr.  xxviii.  32). 

HADO'HAM  (D'j'TfrT  [possil)ly  fire-ioor- 
ihippers'  see  FiirstJ :  'OSoppci;  [Alex.  la/JoS, 
KeSoupoi/;  Comp.  'Ohoppd[ji,  'iSojpa/iO  Aduram, 
\_Ado'rani\),  the  fifth  sou  of  Joktan  (Gen.  x.  27; 
1  Chr.  i.  21).  His  settlements,  unlike  those  of 
many  of  Joktan's  sons,  have  not  been  identified. 
Bochart  suj^posed  that  the  Adramitae  represented 
Ills  descendants;  but  afterwards  believed,  as  later 
critics  have  also,  that  this  people  was  the  same  as 
the  Chatramotitse,  or  people  of  Hadramawt  {Pha- 
kg  ii.  c.  17).     [Hazakmaveth.]     Fresnel  cites 

a  *  De  Wette's  translation  of  these  rerses  {Die 
HtHige  Schn'ft,  1858),  is  more  literal,  and  certainly 
more  inteliijjible  :  (1)  "Utterance  of  the  word  of  Je- 
hovah against  the  land  Iladrach,  and  upon  Damascus 
t  cjines  down  (for  Jehovah  has  an  eje  upon  men, 
Ukd  all  tb«   tribes  of  Israel) ;    (2)  and  also  against 


HADRACH 

an  Arab  author  who  identifies  Hadoram  with  Jio* 
fiu?n  (4"«  LHtre,  Jimrn.  Asiatique,  iUe  s^rie,  vi. 
220);  but  this  is  highly  improbable;  nor  is  tht 
suggestion  of  Had/ioord,  by  Caussin  {L'ssai,  i.  30) 
more  likely:  the  latter  being  one  of  the  aborigina. 
tribes  of  Arabia,  such  as  'A'd,  Thamood,  etc 
[Arabia.]  E.  S.  P. 

2.  (D'JITn:  'ASovpa/x;  [Vat.  IBovpaafi]  FA 
iSovpa/j.;]  Alex.  Aovpa/j.-  Adorani),  son  of  Tou  or 
Toi  king  of  Hamatli;  his  lather's  ambassador  to 
congratulate  David  on  his  \ictory  over  Hadarezer 
king  of  Zobah  (1  Chr.  xviii.  10),  and  the  bearer  of 
valuable  presents  ui  the  iorm  of  articles  of  antique 
manufacture  (Josei)h.),  in  gold,  silver,  and  brass. 
In  the  parallel  narrative  of  2  Sam.  viii.  the  name 
is  given  as  Joram ;  but  this  being  a  contraction  of 
Jehoram,  which  contains  the  name  of  Jehovah,  is 
peculiarly  an  Israelite  appellation,  and  we  may 
therefore  conclude  that  Hadoram  is  the  genuine 
form  of  the  name.  By  Josephus  {A7d.  vii.  5,  §  4) 
it  is  given  as  'ASctjpafios. 

3.  (□^iri:  d'ABwuipafi;  [Vat. -yet-;]  Alex. 
ABupa/x-  Aduram.)  The  form  assumed  in  Chron- 
icles by  the  name  of  the  intendant  of  taxes  under 
David,  Solomon,  and  Kehoboam,  who  lost  his  life 
in  the  revolt  at  Shechem  after  the  coronation  of  the 
last-named  prince  (2  Chr.  x.  18).  He  was  sent  by 
Kehoboam  to  appease  the  tunmlt,  possil)ly  as  being 
one  of  the  old  and  moderate  party ;  but  the  choice 
of  the  chief  officer  of  the  taxes  was  not  a  happy 
one.  His  interference  was  ineffectual,  and  he  him- 
self fell  a  victim:  "all  Israel  stoned  him  with  stones 
that  he  died."  In  Kings  the  name  is  given  in  the 
longer  form  of  Adoxikam,  but  in  Samuel  (2  Sam. 
XX.  24)  as  Adouam.  By  Josephus,  in  both  the 
first  and  last  case,  he  is  called  'Adwpafxos. 

HATDRACH  Cniin  [see  »//)•«]:  ^eSpdx . 
[Alex.  2e8/JOK;  Aid.  with  13  MSS.  'Adpdx']  ^^('<f- 
vach),  a  country  of  Syria,  mentioned  once  only,  by 
the  prophet  Zechariah,  in  the  following  words: 
"  The  burden  of  the  word  of  Jehovah  in  the  land 
of  Iladrach,  and  Damascus  [shall  be]  the  rest 
thereof:  when  the  eyes  of  man,  as  of  all  the  tribes 
of  Israel,  shall  be  toward  Jehovah.  And  Hamath 
also  shall  border  thereby;  Tyrus  and  Zidon,  though 
it  be  very  wise  "  (ix.  1,  2)."  The  position  of  the 
district,  with  its  borders,  is  here  generally  stated, 
although  it  does  not  appear,  a^j  is  connnonly  as- 
sumed, that  it  was  on  the  east  of  Damascus;  but 
the  name  itself  seems  to  have  wholly  disappeared; 
and  the  ingenuity  of  critics  has  been  exercised  on 
it  without  attaining  any  trustworthy  results.  It 
stdl  remains  unknown.  It  is  true  that  Ii.  Jose  of 
Damascus  identifies  it  with  the  site  of  an  important 
city  east  of  Damascus;  and  Joseph  Abassi  makes 

mention  of  a  place  called  Hadrak   (w\tX^); 

but,  with  Gesenius,  we  may  well  distrust  these 
writers.  The  vague  statement  of  Cyril  Alex,  seems 
to  be  founded  on  no  particular  facts  beyond  those 
contained  in  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah.  Besides 
these  identifications  we  can  point  to  none  that  pos- 
sesses the  smallest  claim  to  acceptance.  Those  of 
Movers  {Phoniz.),^  Bleek,  and  others  are  purejy 


Hamath  which  borders  thereon.  Tyre  and  Sidon ;  toi 
it  is  very  wise  "  (comp.  Ez.  xxviii.  3  IT.).  H. 

^  *  Movers  does  not  propose  any  local  identificatioi 
(if  that  be  meant  here),  but  supposes  Adark,  an  Assyr 
ian  war-god  {Pho/iiz.  i.  478),  to  be  intended.  Fa 
Bleek's  theory,  see  above  B. 


HAGaB 

hyputbetical,  and  the  same  nust  be  said  of  the 
theory  of  Alphens  [Van  Alph-'n],  in  his  monograph 
De  ten'a  f/ndrach  d  D  imn,*co  (Traj.  Rh.  172'J, 
referred  to  by  Winer,  s.  v.).  A  solution  of  the 
difficulties  surrounding  the  name  may  perhaps  be 
found  by  supposing  that  it  is  derived  from  Hadak. 

E.  S.  P. 
*  Another  conjecture  may  be  mentioned,  namely, 
that  Hadrach  is  the  name  of  some  Syrian  king 
otherwise  miknown.  It  was  not  uncommon  for 
heathen  kings  to  bear  the  names  of  their  gods. 
Gesenius  {Thesaur.  i.  44 J)  favors  this  opinion  after 
lileek.  (See  T/wol.  Siiul  u.  Krit.  1852,  p.  268.) 
V'aihinger  argues  for  it,  and  attempts  to  show  that 
tlie  king  in  question  may  have  bi^en  the  one  who 
reigned  between  Benhadad  III.  and  Rezin,  about  the 
time  of  Uzziah  and  Jeroboam  II.  (See  Herz.  Real- 
Encyk.  v.  445. )  The  data  are  insufficient  for  so  defi- 
nite a  conclusion.  Ilengstenberg  adopts  the  Jewish 
symbolic  explanation,  namely,  that  Hadrach  (de- 
rived from  "TH  and  T^"}  =  strong-weak)  denotes 
the  Persian  kingdom  as  destined,  according  to  pro- 
phetic announcement,  notwithstanding  its  power, 
to  be  utterly  overthrown.  Winer  {Blhl.  Renho. 
i.  454)  speaks  of  this  as  not  improbably  correct. 
Hengstenberg  discusses  the  question  at  length  un- 
der the  head  of  "  The  Land  of  Hadrach,"  in  his 
Christoloyy  of  the  0.  T.,  iii.  371  ff.  (trans.  Edinb. 
1858).  '  H. 

HA'GAB  (njn  {locusty.  'Ayd$:  Hnyab). 
Bene-Uagab  [sons  of  Hagab]  were  among  the  Ne- 
thinim  who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerubba- 
bel  (Ezr.  ii.  40).  In  the  parallel  list  in  Nehemiah, 
this  and  the  name  preceding  it  are  omitted.  In 
the  Apocryphal  Esdras  [v.  30]  it  is  given  as 
Agaba. 

HAG'ABA  (>*?5n:  'AyajSci;  [Alex.  A77a- 
)8a:]  Ilagalxi).  Bene-Hagaba  were  among  the 
Nethinim  who  came  back  from  captivity  with 
Zerubbabel  (Neh.  vii.  48).  The  name  is  slightly 
different  in  form  from  — 

HAG'ABAH  (Hnjq  [locusf]  :  "Aya^d  : 
Hagaba),  under  which  it  is  found  in  the  parallel 
list  of  Ezr.  ii.  45.    In  Esdras  it  is  given  as  Graba. 

HA'GAR  ("l^n  [flight]:  "Ayap:  Agar),  an 
Egyptian  woman,  the  handmaid,  or  slave,  of  Sarah 
(Gen.  xvi.  1),  whom  the  latter  gave  as  a  concubine 
to  Abraham,  after  he  had  dwelt  ten  years  in  the 
land  of  Canaan  and  had  no  children  by  Sarah  (xvi. 
2  and  3).  That  she  was  a  bondwoman  is  stated 
both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  the  N.  T.  (in  the  latter 
as  part  of  her  typical  character) ;  and  the  condition 
»f  a  slave  was  one  essential  of  her  position  as  a 
legal  concubine.  It  is  recorded  that  "  when  she 
»aw  that  she  had  conceived,  her  mistress  was  des- 
pised in  her  ejes  "  (4),  and  Sarah,  with  the  anger, 
we  may  suppose,  of  a  free  woman,  rather  than  of  a 
wife,  roproachod  Abraham  for  the  results  of  her 
^n  act :  "  My  \vrong  be  upon  thee :  I  have  given 
.ay  maid  into  thy  bosom ;  and  when  she  saw  that 
she  had  conceived,  I  was  despised  in  her  eyes:  Je- 
hovah judge  between  me  and  thee."  Abraham's 
answer  seems  to  have  been  forced  from  him  by  his 
love  for  the  wife  of  many  years,  who  besides  was  his 
half-sister;  and  with  the  apparent  want  of  purpose 


a  It  seems  to  be  unnecessary  to  assume  (as  Kali.^cli 
ma,  Comment,  on  Genesis)t\vAt  we  have  here  ani^^.iL'r 
<rf  Abraham's  faith.  This  explanation  of  the 
C2 


HAGAR  977 

that  he  before  displayed  in  Egypt,  and  after;rarvljj 
at  the  court  of  Abimelech  «  (in  contrast  to  his  i'rm 
courage  and  constancy  when  directed  by  God),  he 
said,  ''  Behold,  thy  maid  is  in  thy  hand;  do  to  her 
as  it  pleaseth  thee."  This  permission  was  neces- 
sary in  an  eastern  household,  but  it  is  worthy  of 
remark  that  it  is  now  very  rarely  gi\  en ;  nor  win 
we  think,  from  the  unchangeableness  of  eastern  cus- 
toms, and  the  strongly-marked  national  character 
of  tho.se  peoples,  that  it  was  usual  anciently  lo 
allow  a  wife  to  deal  hardly  with  a  slave  in  Hagar's 
position.  Yet  the  truth  and  individuality  of  the 
vivid  narrative  is  enforced  by  this  apparent  depart- 
ure from  usage :  "  And  when  Sarai  dealt  hardly 
with  her,  she  fled  from  her  fiice,'"  turning  her  steps 
towards  her  native  land  through  the  great  wilder- 
ness traversed  by  the  Egyptian  road.  By  the  foun- 
tain in  the  way  to  Shur,  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
found  her,  charged  her  to  return  and  suljmit  herself 
under  the  hands  of  her  mistress,  and  delivered  the 
remarkable  prophecy  respecting  her  unborn  child, 
recorded  in  ver.  10-12.  [Ishmakl.]  "  And  she 
called  the  name  of  the  Lord  that  spake  unto  her, 
Thou  God  art  a  God  of  vision ;  for  she  said.  Have 
I  then  seen  [^.  e.  lived]  after  vision  [of  God]? 
Wherefore  the  well  was  called  Beeh-lahai-I{OI  " 
(13,  14).  On  her  return,  Hagar  gave  birth  to 
Ishmael,  and  Abrahaui  was  then  eighty-six  years 
old. 

Mention  is  not  again  made  of  Hagar  in  the  his- 
tory of  Abraham  until  the  feast  at  the  weaning  of 
Isaac,  when  "  Sarah  saw  the  son  of  Hagar  the 
Egyptian,  which  she  had  borne  unto  Abraham, 
mocking";  and  in  exact  sequence  with  the  first 
flight  of  Hagar,  we  now  read  of  her  expulsion. 
"  Wherefore  she  said  unto  Abraham,  Cast  out  this 
bondwoman  and  her  son ;  for  the  son  of  this  bond- 
woman shall  not  be  heir  with  my  son,  [even]  with 
Isaac "  (xxi.  9,  10).  Abraham,  in  his  grief,  and 
unwillingness  thus  to  act,  was  comforted  by  God, 
with  the  assurance  that  in  Isaac  should  his  seed  be 
called,  and  that  a  nation  should  also  be  raised  of 
the  bondwoman's  son.  In  his  trustful  obedience, 
we  read,  in  the  pathetic  narrative,  "  Abraham  rose 
up  early  in  the  morning,  and  took  bread,  and  a 
bottle  of  water,  and  gave  [it]  unto  Hagar,  putting 
[it]  on  her  shoulder,  and  the  child,  and  sent  her 
away,  and  she  departed  and  wandered  in  the  wil- 
derness of  Beersheba.  And  the  water  was  spent 
in  the  bottle,  and  she  cast  the  child  under  one  of 
the  shrubs.  And  she  went,  and  sat  her  down  over 
against  [him]  a  good  way  off',  as  it  were  a  bow- 
shot ;  for  she  said.  Let  me  not  see  the  death  of  the 
child.  And  she  sat  over  against  [him],  and  lifted 
up  her  voice  and  wept.  And  God  heard  tlie  voice 
of  the  lad,  and  the  angel  of  God  called  to  Hagar 
out  of  heaven,  and  said  unto  her,  What  aileth  thee, 
Hagar?  Eear  not,  for  God  hath  heard  the  voice  of 
the  lad  where  he  [is].  Arise,  lift  up  tlie  lad,  and 
hold  him  in  thine  hand,  for  I  will  make  him  a  great 
nation.  And  God  opened  her  eyes,  and  she  saw  a 
well  of  water,  and  she  went  and  filled  the  bottle  [skin] 
with  water,  and  gave  the  lad  to  drink"  (xxi.  14- 
19).  The  verisimilitude,  oriental  exactness,  and 
simple  beauty  of  this  story  are  internal  evidences 
attesting  its  truth  apart  from  all  other  evidence; 
and  even  Winer  says  (in  alluding  to  the  subterfuge 
of  skepticism  that  Hagar  =  flight  —  would  lead  to 

event  is  not  required,  nor  does  the  narrative  appear  to 
warrant  it,  unless  Abraham  rej?arded  Ilagar's  son  M 
the  heir  of  the  promi«p  :    'omp.  (Jan.  xvii.  18. 


978  HAGAR 

toe  assumption  of  its  being  a  myth).  "  Das  Ereig- 
nisa  iat  so  eiiifach  unci  den  orientalischen  Sitten  so 
angemessen,  das  wir  liier  gewiss  eine  rein  histor- 
ische  Sage  vor  uns  liabeu"  {Realivort.  s.  v. 
"Ilagar  "). 

The  name  of  Hagar  occurs  elsewhere  only  when 
she  takes  a  wife  to  Ishmael  (xxi.  21),  and  in  the 
genealogy  (xxv.  12).  St.  Paul  refers  to  lur  as  the 
type  of  the  old  covenant,  likening  her  to  Mount 
Sinai,  the  Mount  of  the  Law  (Gal.  iv.  22  ti\). 

In    Mohammedan   tradition    Hagar   (^;5».L;C 

Ilajir,  or  Hagir)  is  represented  as  the  wife  of  Abra- 
ham, as  might  be  expected  when  we  remember  that 
Ishmael  is  the  head  of  the  Arab  nation,  and  the 
reputed  ancestor  of  IMohanimed.  In  the  same 
manner  she  is  said  to  have  dwelt  and  been  buried 
at  Mekkeh,  and  the  well  Zemzem  in  the  sacred  in- 
closure  of  the  temple  of  INIekkeh  is  ix)inted  out  by 
the  INIuslims  as  the  well  which  was  miraculously 
formed  for  Ishmael  in  the  wilderness.      E.  S.  P. 

*  The  truthfulness  to  nature  which  is  so  mani- 
fest in  the  incidents  related  of  Hagar  and  Ishmael 
(as  suggested  above),  bears  strong  testimony  to  the 
fidelity  of  the  narrative.  See  especially  Gen.  xvi. 
6;  xxi.  10,  11,  and  U  ff".  Dean  Stanley  very  prop- 
erly calls  attention  to  this  trait  of  the  patriarchal 
history  as  illustrated  in  this  instance,  as  well  as 
others.  {JeivUli  Churchy  i.  40  ff.)  See  also,  on 
this  characteristic  of  these  early  records,  Blunt's 
Veracif}/  of  Hit  Books  of  Moses.  Hess  brings  out 
impressively  this  feature  of  the  Bible  in  his  Ge- 
tchichte  der  Patrinrchen  (2  I3de.  Tubing.  1785).  It 
appears  from  Gal.  iv.  24,  where  Paul  speaks  of  the 
dissensions  in  Aliraham's  family,  that  the  jealousy 
between  Ilagar's  son  and  the  heir  of  promise  pro- 
ceeded much  further  than  the  O.  T.  relates.  Rii- 
etschi  has  a  brief  article  on  "  Hagar"  in  Herzog's 
Renl.Kncyk.  v.  409  f.  Mr.  Williams  {Uohj  City, 
i.  463-408  ^  inserts  an  extended  account  of  the  sup- 
posed discovery  by  Mr.  Rowlands  of  lieer-lahai-roi, 
the  well  in  the  desert,  at  which,  after  her  expulsion 
from  the  house  of  Abraham,  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
appeared  to  Hagar  ((Jen.  xvi.  7  ff.).  It  is  said  to 
be  about  5  hours  from  Kadesh,  on  the  way  from 
Beer-sheba  to  Ivjvpt,  and  is  called  Moilahhi  (more 
correctly  Muweili/i,  says  Riietschi),  the  name  being 
regarded  as  the  same,  except  in  the  first  syllable  the 
change  of  /ieer.  *'  well,"  for  Mol,  "  water."  Near 
it  is  also  found  an  elaborate  excavation  in  the  rocks 
which  the  Arabs  call  Bnt-IIafjnr,  i.  e.  "house 
of  Hagar."  Keil  and  Delitzsch  (in  Gen.  xvi.  14) 
incline  to  adopt  this  identification.  Knobel  {Gen- 
esis, p.  147)  is  less  decided.  Dr.  Robinson's  note 
{Bibl.  Ris.,  2d  ed.  i.  180)  throws  some  discredit  on 
the  accuracy  of  this  report. 

Hagar  occurs  in  Gal.  iv.  25  (T.  R.  &  A.  V.), 
not  as  a  personal  name  (^  "Ayap),  but  as  a  word 
or  local  name  (rb  "Ayap)  appUed  to  Mount  Sinai 
in  Arabia.     The  Arabic 


HAGAREJ^ES 

of  Arabia,  and  as  an  apostle,  had  remained  (hem  a 
long  time."  (See  Gal.  i.  17  f.)  Some  conjectur* 
that  this  name  was  transfeired  to  the  mountain  from 
an  Arabian  town  so  called,  where,  according  to  one 
accoimt,  Hagar  is  said  to  have  l)een  buried^  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  certain  that  rb  "Ayap 
really  belongs  to  the  Greek  text,  though  the  weight 
of  critical  opmion  affirms  it  (see  Meyor,  in  he.). 
The  questions  both  as  to  the  origin  of  the  name 
and  the  genuineness  of  the  reading  are  carefully 
examined  in  Lightfoot's  Comment' iry  on  Galatiam 
(pp.  178,  189  ff  2d  ed.),  tliongh  perhaps  he  un- 
derstates the  testimony  for  rh  " Ay ap.  H. 

HAGARE'NES,  HA'GARITES  (D'"}jn, 

^  *7  l^yj  '  ^Ayapr]yoi,  ^Ayapaioi,  [etc. :]  A(/a 
rem,  Ayarei),  a  people  dwelling  to  the  ej<st  of  Pal 
estine,  with  whom  the  tiilie  of  Reuben  made  waj 
in  the  time  of  Saul,  and  "  who  fell  by  tlieir  hand, 
and  they  dwelt  in  their  tents  throughout  aU  the 
east  [landj  of  Gilead  "  (1  Chr.  v.  10);  and  again, 
in  ver.  18-20,  the  sons  of  Reuben,  and  the  Gadites 
and  half  the  tribe  of  ^Manasseh  "  made  war  with 
the  Hagai-ites,  with  Jetur,  and  Nephish,  and  No- 
dab,  and  they  were  helped  against  them,  and  the 
Hagarites  were  delivered  into  their  hand,  and  aU 
that  were  with  them."  The  spoil  here  recorded  to 
have  been  taken  shows  the  wealth  and  importance 
of  these  tribes ;  and  the  conquest,  at  least  of  the 
territory  occupied  by  them,  was  complete,  for  the 
Israehtes  "  dwelt  in  their  steads  until  the  Captivity  " 
(ver.  22).  The  same  people,  as  confederate  against 
Israel,  are  mentioned  in  Ps.  Ixxxiii. :  "  The  tab- 
ernacles of  Edom  and  the  Ishmaelites;  of  Moab 
and  the  Hagarenes;  Gebal,  Ammon,  and  Amalek; 
the  Philistines  with  the  inhabitants  of  Tyre;  Assur 


«3^,  pronounced   very 

much  like  this  name,  means  a  » stone,"  and  may 
have  been  in  use  in  the  neighborhood  of  Sinai  as 
one  of  its  local  designations.  (See  INIeyer  on  Gal. 
iv.  25).  There  is  no  testimony  that  the  mount 
was  so  called  out  of  this  passage;  but  as  Ewald 
remarks  respecting  this  point  {Nachirag  in  his 
Serulschreibm  iks  Apostels,  p.  493  ff.),  Paul  is  so 
much  the  less  to  be  charged  with  an  error  here, 
basmuch  aa  he  himself  kul  travelled  in  that  part 


also  is  joined  with  them;  they  have  holpen  the 
children  of  Lot  "  (ver.  G-8). 

Who  these  people  were  is  a  question  that  cannot 
readily  be  decided,  though  it  is  generally  believed 
that  they  were  named  after  Hagar.  Their  geo- 
graphical position,  as  inferred  from  the  above  pas- 
sages, was  in  the  "  east  country,"  where  dwelt  the 
descendants  of  Ishmael;  the  occurrence  of  the 
names  of  two  of  his  sons,  .letur  and  Nephish  (1 
Chr.  V.  19),  as  before  quoted,  with  that  of  Nodab, 
whom  Gesenius  supjxtses  to  be  another  son  (though 
he  is  not  found  in  the  genealogical  lists,  and  must 
remain  doubtful  [Nouah]),  seems  to  indicate  that 
these  Hagarenes  were  named  after  Hagar;  but  in 
the  passage  in  Ps.  Ixxxiii.,  the  Ishmaelites  are  ap- 
parently distinguished  iiom  the  Hagarenes  (cf.  Bar. 
iii.  23).  ]May  they  have  been  thus  called  after  a 
town  or  district  na)ned  after  Hagar,  and  not  only 
because  they  were  her  descendants?  It  is  needless 
to  follow  the  suggestion  of  some  writers,  that  Hagar 
may  have  been  the  mother  of  other  children  after 
her  separation  from  Abraham  (as  the  Bil)le  and 
tradition  are  silent  on  the  question),  and  it  is  in 
itself  highly  improbable. 

It  is  also  uncertain  whether  the  important  town 
and  district  of  Herjer  (the  inhabitants  of  which 
\vere  probably  the  same  as  the  Agraji  of  Stralx),  xvi. 
p.  707,  Dionys.  Perieg.  950,  Plin.  vi.  32,  and  Ptol. 
v.  19,  2)  represent  the  ancient  name  and  a  dwell- 
ing  of  the  Hagarenes;  but  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  they  do.  Hejer,  or  Tlejera  (  ^.ivi 
mdeclinable,  accoriing  to  Yakoot,  Mushlmak^  g.  v 

G  ^  ^ 
but  also,  according  to  Kdmoos,  «.^!^j&,  as  ((€0es 


HAGEUITE 

uid  Winer  write  it),  is  the  capital  town  and  also 
%  subdivision  of  tlie  province  of  no-tlieastern 
Arabia  called  El-Bahreyit,  or,  as  some  writers  oay, 
the  name  of  the  province  itself  {.Uuslit'trak  and 
Mardsid,  s.  v.),  on  the  borders  of  the  Persian  Gulf. 
It  is  a  low  and  fertile  country,  frequented  foi  its 
abundant  water  and  pasturage  by  the  wandering 
tribes  of  the  neigliboring  deserts  and  of  the  high 
land  of  Nejd.  For  the  Agrsei,  see  tlie  Diclionavy 
of  Gen<jraphy.  Thei*e  is  another  Jlejer,  a  place 
near  Ei-^Iedeeneh. 

The  district  of  Hajar  (  vBi),  on  the  borders 


I 


of  Desert  Arabia,  north  of  El-Medeeneli,  has  been 
thought  to  possess  a  trace,  in  its  name,  of  the  Ila- 
garenes.  It  is,  at  least,  less  likely  than  Hejer  to 
do  so,  both  from  situation  and  etymology.  The 
tract,  however,  is  curious  from  tlie  caves  that  it  is 
reported  to  contain,  in  which,  say  the  Arabs,  dwelt 
the  old  tribe  of  Thaniood. 

Two  llagarites  are  mentioned  in  the  0.  T. :  see 
MiBiiAu  and  Jaziz.  E.  S.  P. 

HA'GERITE,  THE  0");inrT :  b  'Ayaplrvs; 
[Vat.  TapeiT-qs-]  Afjareus).  Jaziz  the  Hagerite, 
i.  e.  the  descendant  of  Hagar,  had  the  charge  of 

David's  sheep  ("}S^,  A.  V.  "  flocks;  "  1  Chr.  xxvii. 
31).  The  word  appears  in  tiie  other  forms  of  Ha- 
GARiTES  and  Hagakenes. 

HAG'GAI  [2syl.]  (^2(1  [festive]  :'Ayya7os; 
[Sin.  A77eos  in  Hag.,  except  inscription,  and  so 
Alex,  in  the  inscr.  of  l*s.  cxlv.-cxlviii. :]  A(/(jceus), 
the  tenth  in  order  of  the  minor  i)rophets,  and  first 
of  those  who  prophesied  after  the  Cai)tivity.  With 
regard  to  his  tribe  and  parentage  both  history  and 
tradition  are  alike  silent.     Some,  indeed,  taking 

in  its  literal  sense  the  expression  nlH")  "JT^/P 
{malac  y'hvvdh)  in  i.  13,  have  imagined  that  he 
was  an  angel  in  human  shape  (Jerome,  Cvniiii.  in 
loc).  In  the  absence  of  any  direct  evidence  on 
the  point,  it  is  more  tlian  probable  that  he  was  one 
of  the  exiles  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel  and 
Joshua;  and  Ewald  {Die  Proph.  d.  Alt.  B.)  is 
even  tempted  to  infer  from  ii.  3  that  he  may  have 
been  one  of  the  few  survivors  who  had  seen  the  first 
temple  in  its  splendor.  The  rebuilding  of  the 
temple,  which  was  commenced  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus 
(u.  c.  535),  was  suspended  during  the  reigns  of 
his  successors,  Cambyses  and  Pseudo-Smerdis,  in 
consequence  of  the  determined  hostility  of  the  Sa- 
maritans. On  the  accession  of  Darius  llystaspis 
(b.  c.  521),  tlie  prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah 
urged  the  renewal  of  the  undertaking,  and  obtained 
the  permission  and  assistance  of  the  king  (Ezr.  v. 
1,  vi.  14: ;  Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  4).  Animated  by  the 
high  courage  {ningni  spintus,  Jerome)  of  these  de- 
voted men,  the  people  prosecuted  the  work  with 
vigor,  and  the  temple  was  completed  and  dedicated  in 
the  ?:iti.  year  of  Darius  (n.  c.  510).  According  to 
faratatioi:,  Haggai  was  born  in  Babylon,  was  a  young 
man  when  he  came  to  Jerusalem,  and  was  buried 
vfith  honor  near  the  sepulchres  of  the  priests  (Isidor. 
Hispal.  c.  4ii;  Pseudo-Dorotheus,  in  Citron.  Pasch. 
•51  d).  It  has  lience  been  conjectured  that  he  was 
\f  priestly  rank.  Ilaggai,  Zechariah,  and  Malachi, 
iccording  to  the  Jewish  writers,  were  the  men  who 
srere  with  Daniel  when  he  saw  the  vision  related 
n  Dan.  x.  7 ;  and  were  after  the  Captivit}  mem- 
»en  of  the  Groat  Synagogue,  which  consisted  of 
.80  elders  ( Cozn,  iii.  65).     The  Seder  Olam  Zuta 


HAGGAI  979 

places  their  death  in  the  52d  }ear  of  the  Medei 
and  Persians;  while  the  extravagance  of  another 
tradition  makes  Haggai  survive  till  the  entry  of 
Alexander  the  Great  into  Jerusalem,  and  even  till 
the  time  of  our  Saviour  (Carpzov,  Inlrod.).  In 
the  Koman  INIartyrology  Ilosea  and  Ilaggai  are 
joined  in  the  catalogue  of  saints  {Acln  S motor. 
4  Julii).  The  question  of  Haggai's  |)ro!ialile  con- 
nection with  the  authorship  of  the  look  of  Ezra 
will  be  found  fully  discussed  in  the  article  under 
that  head,  pp.  8i.)5,  8U(j. 

The  names  of  Haggai  and  Zechariah  are  asso- 
ciated in  the  LXX.  hi  the  titles  of  Ps.  1'37,  145- 
148;  in  the  Vulgate  hi  tliose  of  Ps.  Ill,  U.'j;  and 
hi  the  Peshito  Syriac  in  those  of  Ps.  12.">,  12i;,  145, 
14G,  147,  148.  it  may  be  that  tradition  assigned 
to  these  prophets  the  arrangenient  of  the  above- 
mentioned  psalms  for  use  in  tlie  temple  service,  just 
as  Ps.  Ixiv.  is  in  the  Vulgate  attributed  to  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  and  the  name  of  tiie  iormer  is 
inscribed  at  the  head  of  Ps.  cxxxvi.  in  the  LXX. 
According  to  Pseudo  ICpiplianius  {de  iV//.s  Proph.), 
Haggai  was  the  first  who  chanted  the  Hallelujah 
in  the  second  temple:  "wherefore,"  he  adds,  "we 
say  '  Hallelujah,  which  is  the  hymn  of  Ilaggai  and 
Zechariah.'  "  Haggai  is  mentioned  in  the  Apoc- 
rypha as  Aggeus,  in  1  Esdr.  vi.  1,  vii.  3;  2  Esdr. 
i.  40;  and  is  alluded  to  in  I'^cclus.  xlix.  11  (cf.  Hag. 
ii.  23)  and  Heb.  xii.  2(>  (Hag.  ii.  G). 

The  style  of  his  writing  is  generally  tame  and 
prosaic,  though  at  times  it  rises  to.  tlie  dignity  of 
severe  invective,  when  the  prophet  reliukes  his 
countrymen  for  their  selfish  indolence  and  neglect 
of  God's  house.  But  the  brevity  of  the  proiihecies 
is  so  great,  and  the  poverty  of  expression  which 
characterizes  them  so  striking,  as  to  give  rise  to  a 
conjecture,  not  witliout  reason,  that  in  their  present 
form  they  are  but  the  outline  or  summary  of  the 
original  discourses.  They  were  delivered  in  the 
second  year  of  Darius  llystaspis  (n.  c.  520),  at 
intervals  from  the  1st  day  of  the  0th  month  to  the 
24th  day  of  the  9th  month  in  the  same  year. 

In  his  first  message  to  the  people  the  prophet 
denounced  the  listlessness  of  the  .Jews,  who  dwelt 
in  their  "  panelled  houses,"  while  the  temple  of 
the  Lord  was  roofless  and  desolate.  The  displeas- 
ure of  God  was  manifest  in  the  failure  of  all  their 
efforts  for  their  own  gratification.  The  heavens 
were  "stayed  from  dew,"  and  the  earth  was 
"stayed  from  her  fruit."  They  had  neglected  that 
which  should  have  been  tlieir  first  care,  and  reaped 
the  due  wages  of  their  selfishness  (i.  4-11).  The 
words  of  the  prophet  sank  deep  into  the  hearts  of 
the  people  and  their  leaders.  They  acknowledged 
the  voice  of  God  speaking  by  his  servant,  and 
obeyed  the  command.  Their  obedience  was  re- 
warded with  the  assurance  of  Gods  presence  (i. 
13),  and  twenty- four  days  after  tlie  building  was 
resumed.  A  month  had  .scarcely  elapsed  when  the 
work  seems  to  have  slackened,  and  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  people  abated.  Tlie  prophet,  ever  ready  to 
rekindle  their  zeal,  encouraged  the  flagging  spirits 
of  the  chiefs  with  the  renewed  assurance  of  God's 
presence,  and  the  fresh  promise  that,  stately  and 
magnificent  as  was  the  temple  of  their  wisest  king, 
the  glory  of  the  latter  house  should  be  greater  than 
the  glory  of  the  former  (ii.  3-i)).  Yet  the  jieopl** 
w^re  still  inactive,  and  two  months  afterwards  we 
hud  him  again  censuring  their  .sluggishness,  whi^h 
rendered  worthless  all  their  ceremonial  oljservances; 
But  the  rebiL3was  accompanied  by  a  repetUion 
of  the  promise  (ii.  10-m^      On  the  same  day,  th* 


980 


IIANGERI 


four-and- twentieth  of  the  ninth  month,  the  prophet 
delivered  his  last  prophecy,  addressed  to  Zerubbabel, 
prince  of  Judah,  the  representative  of  the  royal 
family  of  David,  and  as  such  the  lineal  ancestor  of 
the  jMessiah.  This  closinj;^  prediction  foreshadows 
the  establishment  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  upon 
che  o\erthrow  of  the  thrones  of  the  nations  (ii. 
20-23).  W.  A.  \V. 

*  For  the  later  exegetical  works  on  the  prophets 
which  include  Ilaggai,  see  under  Habakkuk. 
Keil  gives  a  list  of  the  older  conmientaries  or  mon- 
ographs in  his  Lahrh.  der  hist.  hit.  Einl.  in  d. 
A.  T.  p.  308  (2te  Aufl.).  Oehler  treats  of  the 
prophet's  personal  history  in  Ilerzog's  Reai-Encyk. 
V.  471  f.  Bleek  {FAnl  in  das  A.  Test.  p.  549) 
agrees  with  those  (Ewald,  Hiivernick,  Keil)  who 
think  that  Haggai  lived  long  enough  to  see  both 
the  first  and  the  second  temples.  On  the  Mes- 
sianic passage  of  this  prophet  (ii.  G-9),  the  reader 
may  consult,  in  addition  to  the  commentators, 
Hengstenberg,  C/irisiolof/y  of  the  0.  T.  iii.  243- 
271  (Keith's  trans.);  Hasse,  GescJiichte  des  Alten 
8undes,  p.  203  ff.;  Smith,  J.  P.,  Scriptuvt  Tes- 
timony to  the  ]\[essi(th,  i.  283  tf.  (5th  ed.  Lond. 
1859);  and  Tholuck,  Dit  Pm/zheteti  u.  ihre  Weis- 
gagunyen  (2t€r  Abdruck),  p.  156,  a  few  words  only. 

H. 

HAG'GERI  {^^^'0,  I  e.  Hagri,  a  Ihujarite: 
^hyapi;  [Vat.  FA. -pei:]  Alex.  Arapai":  Agarai). 
'*  MiBiiAU  son  of  Haggeri  "  was  one  of  the  mighty 
men  of  David's  guard,  according  to  the  catalogue 
of  1  Chr.  xi.  38.     The  parallel  passage  —  2  Sam. 

xxiii.  36  —  has  "  Bani  the  Gadite  "  (^"Tjn).  This 
Kennicott  decides  to  have  been  the  original,  from 
which   Haggeri   has    been    corrupted   {Dissert,   p. 

214).     The  Targum  has  Bar  Gedd  (S"!?  "la). 

HAG'GI  C^2n  [festive] :  'Aryry,  Alex.  Ar 
yeis;  [in  Num.,  *A77t,  Vat. -7et:]  llaggi,  Afj(ji\ 
second  son  of  Gad  (Gen.  xlvi.  16;  Num.  xxvi.  15), 

founder  of  the  Haggites  ("SHn).  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  name,  thougii  given  as  that  of  an 
individual,  is  really  a  patronymic,  precisely  the  same 
as  of  the  family. 

HAGGl'AH  {'!^'^^r\  [festival  of  Jehovah]  : 
*A77ta;  [Vat.  Afia']  J/aggia),  a  Levite,  one  of 
the  descendants  of  Merari  (1  Chr.  vi.  30). 

HAG'GITES,  THE  C^riT] :  6  'Ayyl  ; 
[Vat.  -y€i'-]  Agitce),  the  family  sprung  from 
Haggt,  second  son  of  Gad  (Num.  xxvi.  15). 

HAG'GITH  {n^^^,  a  dancer:  'AyylO; 
Alex.  ^fvyiO,  AyiO,  [Ayeid,]  Ayyeid;  [Vat.  ^^y- 
yeiO,  Ayyeid;]  .loseph.  'A77t07j:  Ilaggith,  Ag- 
gith),  one  of  David's  wives,  of  whom  nothing  is 
told  us  except  that  she  was  the  mother  of  Adonijah, 
who  is  commonly  designated  as  "  the  son  of  Hag- 
gith"  (2  Sam.  iii.  4;  1  K.  i.  5,  11,  ii.  13;  1  Chr. 
iii.  2).  He  was,  like  Absalom,  renowned  for  his 
handsome  presence.  In  the  first  and  last  of  the 
bove  passages  Ilaggith  is  fourth  in  order  of  men- 
uou  among  the  wives,  Adonijah  being  also  fourth 
imong  the  sons.  His  birth  happened  at  Hebron 
(2  Sam.  iii.  2,  5)  shortly  aftc  that  of  Ab.salom  (1 
K..  i.  6 ;  where  it  will  be  oliserved  that  the  words 
"his  mother"  are  inserted  by  the  translators). 

G. 
HA'GIA  CA7ia  ['A7Jc^,  Bos,  Holmes  &  Par- 
lons]:  Aggia),  1  Esdr.  v.  34.     [Hattil.1 


HAIR 

HA' I  (**Vn  [the  stone-heap^  ox  I'uim.]'.  'A7 
701:  flai).  The  form  in  which  the  well-knowi 
place  Ai  appears  in  the  A.  V.  on  its  first  intro- 
duction (Gen.  xii.  8;  xiii.  3).  It  arises  from  th« 
translators  having  in  these  places,  and  these  only 
recognized  the  definite  article  with  which  Ai  is 
invariably  and  emphatically  accompanied  in  the 
Hebrew.  [More  probably  it  comes  from  the  Vul- 
gate.—  A.].  In  the  Samaritan  Version  of  tlic 
above  two  passages,  the  name  is  given  in  the  first 
Ainah,  and  in  the  second  Cephrah,  as  if  C'EiMfi- 

KAH.  G. 

*HAIL.     [Plaguks,  Thk  Tkn;  Sxow.J 

HAIR.  The  Hebrews  were  fully  alive  to  the 
importance  of  the  hair  as  an  element  of  personal 
beauty,  whether  as  seen  in  the  "  curled  locks,  black 
as  a  raven,"  of  youth  (Cant.  v.  11),  or  in  the 
"crown  of  glory"  that  encircled  the  head  of  old 
age  (Prov.  xvi.  31).  The  cu.stoms  of  ancient  na- 
tions in  regard  to  the  hair  varied  considerably :  the 
Egyptians  allowed  the  women  to  wear  it  long,  but 
kept  the  heads  of  men  closely  sha\ed  from  early 
childhood  (Her.  ii.  36,  iii.  12;  Wilkinson's  Ancitnl 
Egyptians,  ii.  327,  328).      The   Greeks   admired 


Grecian  manner  of  wearing  the  hair.     (Hope's  Cos- 
/>  tunies.) 

long  hair,  whether  in  raen  or  women,  as  is  evi- 
denced in  the  expression  Kap7jKoibL6o}UTfs  'Axaiol, 
and  in  the  representations  of  tlieir  divinities,  es- 
pecially Bacchus  and  Apollo,  whose  long  locks  were 
a  symbol  of  perpetual  youth.  The  Assyrians  also 
wore  it  long  (Her.  i.  195),  the  flowing  curls  being 
gathered  together  in  a  heavy  cluster  on  the  back, 
as  represented  in  the  sculj)tures  of  Nineveh.  The 
Hebrews,  on  the  other  hand,  wiiile  they  encouraged 
the  growth  of  hair,  ob.served  the  natural  dis- 
tinction between  the  .sexes  by  allowing  the  women 
to  wear  it  long  (lAdvC  \ii.  38;  John  xi.  2;  1  Cor. 
xi.  6  AT.),  while  the  men  restrained  theirs  by  fre- 
quent clippings  to  a  moderate  length.  This  differ- 
ence between  the  Hebrews  and  the  surrounding 
nations,  especially  the  l^gyptians,  arose  no  doubt 
partly  from  natural  taste,  but  jiartly  also  from  legal 
enactments.  Clipping  the  hair  in  a  certain  manner 
and  offering  the  locks,  was  in  early  times  cor.nectci 
with  religious  worship.  Many  of  the  Arabians 
practiced  a  peculiar  tonsure  in  honor  of  their  God 
Orotal  (Her.  iii.  8,  K^ipouTai  irepirpoxaXa,  irt- 
pi^vpouuT€s  Tovs  KpoTOLfpous),  and  hence  tlie  He- 
brews were  forbidden  to  "  round  the  comers  (nSQ, 
lit.  the  extremity)  of  their  heads"  (Lev.  xix.  27), 
meaniiig  the  locks  along  the  forehead  and  temples, 
and  behind  the  ears.  This  tonsure  is  described  in 
the  LXX.  by  a  peculiar  expression  a-iaSt]  (=the 
classical  a-Kdcpiov),  probably  derived  from  the  He- 
brew n*^^"^^  (comp.  Bochart,  Can.  i.  6,  p.  379). 
That  the  practice  of  the  Arabians  was  well  known 
to   the    Hebrews,    appears    from    the     Bxpressioi 

nSQ  "^y^l^p,  rounded  as  to  the  locks,  by  wh^tl 


HAIK 

ttiey  are  described  (Jer.  ix.  26;  xxv.  23:  xlix.  32: 
lee  marc^inal  translation  of  the  A.  V.)-  The  pro- 
hihition  against  cutting  off  the  hair  on  the  death 
of  a  relative  (Deut.  xiv.  1^  was  pibbably  grounded 
on  a  similar  reason.  In  addition  to  these  regida- 
tions,  the  Hebrews  dreaded  baldness,  as  it  was  fre- 
quently the  result  of  leprosy  (Lev.  xiii.  40  fF. ),  and 
hence  formed  one  of  the  disqriahfications  for  the 
priesthood  (Lev.  xxi.  20,  LXX.).  [Baldness.] 
The  nde  imposed  upon  the  priests,  and  probably 
followed  by  the  rest  of  the  community,  was  that 

the  hair  should  be  j^olkd  (D0|,  Ez.  xliv.  20), 
neither  being  shaved,  nor  allowed  to  grow  too  long 
(Lev  xxi.  5;  Ez.  I.  c).  \yhat  was  the  precise 
length  usually  worn,  we  have  no  means  of  ascer- 
taining;   but   from   various   expressions,   such   as 

tt/S"!  '3'y^,  lit.  to  let  loose  the  head  or  the  hair 
(=  solvere  Cfines,  Virg.  A'Jn.  iii.  65,  xi.  35 ;  demis- 
Sds  luf/eniis  more  cnpillos,  Ov.  Lp.  x.  137)  by  un- 
binding the  head-band  and  letting  it  go  disheveled 
(Lev.  X.  6,  A.  V.  '■'■  uncover  your  heads  "),  which 
was  done   in   mourning   (cf.   Ez.  xxiv.   17);    and 

again  ]tS  n^2,  to  uncover  the  ear,  previous  to 

making  any  communication  of  importance  (1  Sam. 
tx.  2,  12,  xxii.  8,  A.  V.,  margin),  as  though  the 
hair  fell  over  the  ear,  we  may  conclude  that  men 
wore  their  hair  somewhat  longer  than  is  usual  with 

as.  The  word  !S7~l5,  used  as  =  hair  (Xum.  vi.  5 ; 
Ez.  xliv.  20),  is  especially  indicative  of  its  free 
yrowtli  (cf.  Knobel,  Coinm.  in  Lev.  xxi.  10).  lx>ug 
hair  was  admired  in  the  case  of  young  men ;  it  is 
especially  noticed  in  the  description  of  Absalom's 
person  (2  Sam.  xiv.  26),  the  inconceivable  weight 
of  whose  hair,  as  given  in  the  text  (200  shekels), 
has  led  to  a  variety  of  explanations  (comp.  Har- 
mer's   Observatkms,  iv.   321),  the  more  probable 

being  that  the  numeral  2  (20)  has  been  turned  into 

1  (200):  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  8,  §  5)  adds,  that  it 
was  cut  every  eighth  day.  The  hair  was  also  worn 
long  by  the  body-guard  of  Solomon,  according  to  the 
Bame  authority  {Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3,  yUTj/fiVra?  Kadei- 
fiteVot  x**'"''"^)*  ^'^^  *^*^®  requisite  to  keep  the  hair 
in  order  in  such  cases  must  have  been  very  great, 
and  hence  the  practice  of  wearing  long  hair  was 
unusual,  and  only  resorted  to  as  an  act  of  religious 
observance,  in  which  case  it  was  a  "  sign  of  humil- 
iation and  self-denial,  and  of  a  certain  religious 
slovenliness  "  (Lightfoot,  Kxercit.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  14), 
and  was  practiced  by  the  Nazarites  (Num.  vi.  5 ; 
Judg.  xiii.  6,  xvi.  17;  1  Sam.  i.  11),  and  occa- 
sionally by  others  in  token  of  special  mercies  (Acts 
xviii.  18);  it  was  not  unusual  among  the  Egyptians 
when  on  a  journey  (Diod.  i.  18).  [Nazakite.] 
In  times  of  affliction  the  hair  was  altogether  cut  off 
(Is.  iii.  17,  24,  xv.  2,  xxii.  12;  Jer.  vii.  29,  xlviii. 
37;  Am.  viii.  10;  Joseph.  B.  J.  u.  15,  §  1),  the 
pr.ictice  of  the  Hebrews  being  in  this  respect  the 
reverse  of  that  of  the  Egyptians,  who  let  their  hair 
^row  long  in  time  of  mourning  (Herod,  ii.  36), 
having  their  heads  when  the  term  was  ov^t  (Gen. 
rli.  14);  but  resembling  that  of  the  Greeks,  as  fre- 
quently noticed  by  classical  writers  (e.  y.  Soph.  Aj. 
ri74;  Eurip.  Electr.  143,  241).  Tearing  the  hair 
Ezr.  ix.  3)  and  letting  it  gu  disheveled,  as  already 
wticed,  were  similar  tokens  of  grief.  TMourising.] 
Tbe  practice  of  the  modern  Arabs  in  regard  to  the 
length  of  their  hair  varies ;  generally  the  men  allow 
t  to  grow  its  Datural  length,  the  tresses  hanging 


HAIR  981 

down  to  the  breast  and  sometimes  to  the  wal?t,  Af- 
fording substantial  protection  to  the  head  and  neck 
against  the  violence  of  the  sun's  rays  (Hiu'ckhardt's 
Nohs,  i.  49;  Wellsted's  Travels,  i.  33,  53,  73). 
The  modern  Egyptians  retain  the  practices  of  their 
ancestors,  shaving  the  heads  of  the  men,  but  suffer- 
ing the  women's  hair  to  grow  long  (Lane's  Mod. 
Egypt,  i.  52,  71).  Wigs  were  commonly  usod  by 
the  latter  -people  (Wilkinson,  ii.  324),  but  not  by 
the  Hebrews:  Josepluis  (  177.  §11)  notices  an  in- 
stance of  false  hair  {irepiOiTi)  K6^'r])  being  used  for 
the  purpose  of  disguise.  Whether  the  ample  ring- 
lets of  the  Assyrian  monarchs,  as  represented  in 
the  sculptures  of  Nineveh,  were  real  or  artificial,  is 
doubtful  (Layard's  Nineveh,  ii.  328).  Among  the 
iMedes  the  wig  was  worn  by  the  upper  classes  (Xen. 
Cijrop.  i.  3,  §  2). 


Egyptian  Wigs.     (Wilkinson.) 

The  usual  and  favorite  color  of  the  hair  was  black 
(Cant.  V.  11),  as  is  indicated  in  the  comparisons  to 
a  "flock  of  goats"  and  the  "tents  of  Kedar" 
(Cant.  iv.  1,  L  5):  a  similar  hue  is  probably  in- 
tended by  the  2>urjde  of  Cant.  vii.  5,  the  term  i^eing 
broadly  used  (as  the  Greek  -Kopcpvp^os  in  a  sinular 
application  =  ^e'Aaj,  Anacr.  28).  A  fictitious  hue 
was  occasionally  obtained  by  sprinkling  gold-dust 
on  the  hair  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  3).  It  does 
not  appear  that  dyes  were  ordinarily  used;  the 
"Carmel"    of  Cant.  vii.  5   has  been  understood 

as  =  b'^p~l3  (A.  V.  "crimson,"  margin)  with- 
out good  reason,  though  the  similarity  of  the  words 
may  have  suggested  the  subsequent  reference  to 
piu-ple.  Herod  is  said  to  have  dyed  his  gray  hair 
for  the  purpose  of  concealing  his  age  {Ant.  xvi.  8, 
§  1),  but  the  practice  may  have  been  borrowed  from 
the  Greeks  or  Komans,  among  whom  it  was  com- 
mon (Aristoph.  Eccles.  736;  Martial,  Ep.  iii.  43; 
Propert.  ii.  18,  24,  26):  from  Matt.  v.  36,  we  may 
infer  that  it  was  not  usual  among  the  Hebrews. 
The  approach  of  age  was  marked  by  a  spiinkling 

(p^f ,  Hos.  vii.  9 ;  comp.  a  similar  use  of  spargere, 
I'ropert.  iii.  4,  24)  of  gray  hairs,  which  soon  over- 
spread the  whole  head  (Gen.  xiii.  38,  xliv.  29 ;  1 
K.  ii.  6,  9;  Prov.  xvi.  31,  xx.  29).  The  reference 
to  the  almond  in  Eccl.  xii.  5,  has  been  explained 
of  the  white  blossoms  of  that  tree,  as  emblematic 
of  old  age :  it  may  be  observed,  however,  that  the 
color  of  the  flower  is  pink  rather  than  white,  and 
that  the  verb  in  that  passage,  according  to  high 
authorities  (Gesen.  and  Hitzig),  does  not  bear  the 
sense  of  blossoming  at  all.  Pure  white  hair  was 
deemed  characteristic  of  the  Divine  Majesty  (Uan. 
vii.  9;  Rev.  i.  14). 

The  chief  beauty  of  the  hair  consisted  in  curls, 
whet'ner  of  a  natural  or  artificial  character.  The 
Hebrew  terms  are  highly  expressive:  to  omit  the 

.  worci  n^y,  —  rendered  "locks"  in  Cant.  iv.  1, 

I  T    -  '  ' 

I  3,  VT.  7,  and  Is.  xlvii.  2,  but  more  probably  mean- 
ing a  veil, — we  have  C^vj^vri  (Cant.  v.  11), 
'  properly  pendulous  flexible  boughs  (according  id 


982  HAIK 

'Jie  liXX  ,  ixdrai  the  shoots  of  the  palm-iiee^ 
which  supplied  an  image  of  the  coma  pendula  ; 

tll^^l^  (Y^.  viii.  3),  a  sinnlar  image  borrowed  from 

the  curve  of  a  blossom:  p3p  (Cant.  iv.  9),  a  lock 
falling  over  the  shoulders  like  a  chain  of  ear-pendants 
{in  uno  crine  colli  hd,  Vulg.,  which  is  better  than 

the  A.  v.,  "  with  one  chain  of  thy  neck  ") ;  C^t^m 
(Cant.  Wi.  6,  A.  V.  "galleries"),  properly  the 
channels  by  which  water  was  l)rought  to  the  flocks, 
which  supplied  an  image  either  of  the  coma  Jlueits, 
or  of  the  regularity  in  which  the  locks  were  ar- 
ranged; n*-"T'  (Cant.  vii.  5),  again  an  expression 
for  coma  jH'ndula,  borrowed  from  the  threads  hang- 
ing down   from   an   unfinished   woof;   and   lastly 

nii^P?^  nt^"'5?^  (is.  iU.  24,  a.  v.  »  well  set 
hair  "),  properly  plaited  wcn-h^  i.  e.  gracefully  cuned 
locks.  With  regard  to  the  mode  of  dressing  the 
hair,  we  have  no  very  precise  information  ;  the 
terms  used  are  of  a  general  character,  as  of  Jezebel 

(2  K.  ix.  30),  litD'^ri,  i.  e.  she  adorned  her  head; 
of  Judith  (x.  3),  SieVa^e,  i.  e.  arranged  (the  A.  V. 
has  "  braided,"  and  the  Vulg.  discriminaiit^  here 
used  in  a  technical  sense  in  the  reference  to  the 
discnminalt  or  hair-pin);  of  Herod  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xiv.  9,  §  4),  KeKoa-fjLrjfMfvos  ttj  crupdiaei  rrjs  k6ixt}Si 
and  of  those  who  adopted  feminine  fashions  {B.  J. 
iv.  9,  §  10),  K6fxa'i  awdeTiC6iui.€voi.  The  terms 
used  in  the  N.  T.  {ir^eyfjLaaiy,  I  Tim.  ii.  9; 
ifnr\oKris  rpixcov,  1  I'et.  iii.  3)  are  also  of  a  gen- 
eral character;  Schleusner  {Lex.  s.  v.)  understands 
them  of  curlinrj  rather  than  plaiting.  The  arrange- 
ment of  Samson's  bail-  into  seven  locks,  or  more 

^vo^vly  braids  (niD/riD,  from  ^7^?  to  inter- 


Eeyptian  Wigs.     (Wilkinson.) 
sUftW^e;  (Tfipal,  LXX.;  Judg.  xvi.  13,  19),  in- 
fiAnm  the   i,ractice  of  plaiting,  which    was   also 


HAKKATAN 

familiar  to  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  ii  335)  and 
Greeks  (llom.  //.  xiv.  17G).  The  locks  were  prob- 
ably kept  in  their  place  by  a  fillet,  as  in  EgypI 
(Wilkinson,  /.  c). 

Ornaments  were  worked  into  the  hair,  as  prac- 
ticed by  the  modern  Egyptians,  who  "  add  to  eacli 
braid  three  black  silk  cords  with  little  ornanicnt? 
of  gold"  (Lane,  i.  71):  the  LXX.  understands  the 

term  C^D^n**"  (Is.  iii.  18,  A.  V.  "cauls"),  a* 
applying  to  such  ornaments  {iairXoKia)',  Schroedei 
(c/e  Vest.  Mul.  Ileb.  cap.  2)  approves  of  this,  and 
conjectures  that  they  were  sun-sluqjed,  i.  e.  circular, 
as  distinct  from  the  "round  tires  like  the  mocn,' 
i.  e.  the  crescent-shaped  ornaments  used  for  neck 
laces.  The  Arabian  women  attach  small  bells  to 
the  tresses  of  their  hair  (Niebuhr,  Voyaf/e,  i.  133). 
Other  terms,  sometimes  understood  as  applying 
to  the  hair,    are   of  doubtful   signification,   e.  g. 

□*'^'^"]n    (Is.   iii.   22:    acus :    "crisping-pins"), 

more  probably  purses,  as  in  2  K.  v.  23;  D'^'lli^i? 
(Is.  iii.  20,  "head-bands"),  bridal  girdles,  accord- 
ing to  Schroeder  and  other  authorities;  D'*'^S5 
(Is.  iii.  20,  disci-iminalla,  Vulg.  i.  e.  pins  used  foi 
keeping  the  hair  parted ;  cf.  Jerome  in  Riijin.  iii. 
cap.  ult.),  more  prol)ably  turbms.  Combs  and 
hair-pins  are  mentioned  in  the  Talmud :  the  Egyp- 
tian combs  were  made  of  wood  and  dculile,  one  side 
having  large,  and  the  other  small  teeth  (Wilkinson, 
ii.  343);  from  the  ornamental  devices  worked  on 
them  M-e  may  infer  that  they  were  worn  in  the  hair. 
With  regard  to  other  ornaments  worn  about  the 
head,  see  Head-phkss.  The  Hebrews,  like  other 
nations  of  antiquity,  anointed  the  hair  profusely 
with  ointments,  which  were  generally  compounded 
of  various  aromatic  ingredients  (Huth  iii.  3;  2  Sam. 
xiv.  2;  Ps.  xxiii.  5,  xiv.  7,  xcii.  10;  Eccl.  ix.  8; 
Is.  iii.  24);  more  especially  on  occasion  of  festivities 
or  hospitality  (Matt.  vi.  17,  xxvi.  7;  Luke  vii.  46; 
cf.  Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  4,  §  1,  xpt<Ta./xfvos  /xvpois 
T^v  Kf<pa\-f)v,  &)j  anh  avvovalas)-  It  is  perhaps 
in  reference  to  the  glossy  appearance  so  imparted 
to  it  that  the  hair  is  described  as  purple  (Cant. 
vii.  5). 

It  appears  to  have  been  the  custom  of  the  JewH 
in  our  Saviour's  time  to  swear  by  the  hair  (Matt. 
V.  30),  much  as  the  ICgyptian  women  still  swear  by 
the  side- lock,  and  the  men  by  their  beards  (Lane, 
1.52,  71,  notes). 

Hair  was  employed  by  the  Hebrews  as  an  iruage 
of  what  was  least  valuable  in  man's  person  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  45;  2  Sam.  xiv.  11;  1  K.  i.  52;  Matt.  x.  .?0; 
Luke  xii.  7,  xxi.  18;  Acts  xxvii.  34);  as  well  ?m 
of  what  was  innumerable  (Ps.  xl.  12,  Ixix.  4);  or 
particularly /«e  (Judg.  xx.  IG).  In  Is.  vii.  2v\  it 
represents  the  various  productions  of  the  fitld,  tre."*, 
crops,  etc. ;  like  vpos  K^KOfx'r)fxivov  v\r)  of  Callim 
Dian.  41,  or  the  Inimus  comans  of  Stat.  Jlieb.  ▼. 
502.  Hair  "  as  the  hair  of  women  "  (liev.  ix.  8}, 
means  long  and  undressed  hair,  whicli  in  latex 
times  was  regarded  as  an  image  of  barlaric  nide- 
ness  (Hengstenberg,  Comm.  in  be). 

W.  L.  B. 

HAK'KATAN"  (1^1^^  ['/'f  small  ov  young] : 
^AKKurdu;  [Vat.  AKaraV-]  Kccetan).  .lohaiian, 
Bon  of  Hakkatan,  was  the  chief  of  the  Bone-Azg»>! 
[sons  of  A.]  who  returned  from  Haltylon  with  Ezii 
(Ezr.  viii.  12).  The  name  is  probably  Ratan,  witi 
the  definite  article  prefixed.  In  the  Apocrypha. 
F^dras  it  is  Acatan. 


HAKKOZ 

HAK'KOZ  (Vp'^  ['/'«  '/'O'"^]  '  ^  K«s; 
[Comp.]  Alex.  'Akkws'-  Accos),  a  priest,  the  chief 
3f  the  seventh  course  in  the  service  of  the  sanctuary, 
as  appointed  by  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  10).  In  Ezr. 
li.  61  the  name  occurs  again  as  that  of  a  family  of 
priests;  though  here  the  prefix  is  taken  by  our 
translators  —  and  no  doabt  correctly  —  as  the 
definite  article,  and  the  name  appears  as  Koz. 
The  same  thing  also  occurs  in  Neh.  iii.  4,  21.  In 
Esdras  Accoz. 

H AKU'PHA  (Sp^pn  Ibent,  crooked,  Ges. ; 
iwdtcnunt,  Fiirst]  :  'AKovcpd,  'Ax'^e^  >  [Vat. 
\<beiKa,  Ax^Kpa;  EA.  in  Neh.,  A«ei^a:]  ffncii- 
pna),  Bene-Chakupha  [sons  of  C]  were  among 
the  families  of  Nethinim  who  returned  from  Baby- 
lon with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  51;  Neh.  vii.  53). 
In  Esdras  (1  Esdr.  v.  31)  the  name  is  given  as 
ACIPIIA. 

HAXAH  (nbq  :  'AAa€,  Xaax;  [Alex.  AA- 
\ae,  AAae,  XaAa:]  Jfrda,  [Lahela])  is  probably  a 
different  place  from  the  Caluh  of  Gen.  x.  11.  [See 
Calah.]  It  may  with  some  confidence  be  identi- 
fied with  the  Chalcitis  (XaKKlris)  of  Ptolemy  (v. 
18).  which  he  places  between  Anthemusia  (cf.  Strab. 
xvi.  1,  §  27)  and  Gauzanitis.''  The  name  is  thought 
to  remain  in  the  modern  Gla,  a  large  mound  on 
the  upper  Khnboiir,  above  its  junction  with  the 
Jerujtr  (Layard,  Nia.  and  Bub.  p.  312,  note;  2 
K.  [xvii.  G,]  xviii.  11;  1  Chr.  v.  26).        G.  K. 

HA'LAK,  THE  MOUI^T  (with  the  article, 
\)^'r\T\  '^T\'n  =  the  smooth  mountain :  6pos  tov 
XeAxci;  [Vat.  in  Josh,  xi.,  AAe«;]  Alex.  AAaw, 
or  A\oK'  pcirs  montis),  a  mountain  twice,  and 
twice  only,  named  as  the  southern  limit  of  Joshua's 
conquests  —  "  the  Mount  Halak  which  goeth  up  to 
Seir  "  (.Josh.  xi.  17,  xii.  7),  but  which  has  not  yet 
been  identified  —  has  not  apparently  been  sought 
for  —  by  travellers.  Keil  suggests  the  line  of  chalk 
cliffs  which  cross  the  valley  of  the  Ghor  at  about  6 
miles  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  form  at  once  the 
southern  limit  of  the  Ghoi'  and  the  northern  limit 
of  the  Arabah.  [Arabah,  p.  135  a.]  And  this 
suggestion  would  be  plausible  enough,  if  there  were 
any  example  of  the  word  har,  "mountain,"  being 
applied  to  such  a  vertical  cliff  as  this,  which  rather 
answers  to  what  we  suppose  was  intended  by  the 
term  Sda.  The  word  which  is  at  the  root  of  the 
name  (supposing  it  to  be  Hebrew),  and  which  has 
the  force  of  smoothness  or  baldness,  has  ramified 
into  other  terms,  as  Helkah,  an  even  plot  of  ground, 
like  those  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19)  or  Naboth  (2 
K.  ix.  25),  or  that  which  gave  its  name  to  llelkath 
hat-tzurim,  the  "  field  of  the  strong "  (Stanley, 
'Vpp.  §  20).  G. 

•HALE  (Luke  xii.  58;  Acts  viii.  3)  is  the 
original  form  of  "haul,"  sometimes  still  used  in 
formal  discourse.  In  both  the  above  passages  it 
-neans  to  drag  men  by  force  before  magistrates. 
That  is  the  import  also  of  the  Greek  tenns  (/cara- 
<rvpr)  and  cvpcav)-  H. 

HAL'HUL  (bnn^n  Ifull  of  hollows, 
Fiirst]:  AlXova'-,  [Vat.  'AAoua;]  Alex.  A\ov}.'. 
flalhul),  a  town  of  Judah  in  the  mountain  district, 
ne  of  the  group  containing  Beth-zu'   ind  Gedor 


i 


a  ♦  Fiirst  says  (Hebr.  Lex.  s.  v.)  that  the  Talmud 
luderstands  the  place  to  be  Holiojin,  a  five  days' 
loomey  ^-om  Ba(;dad.  11. 


HALL 

(Josh.  XV.  58).  Jerome,  in  the  Ouomasticon  (undcf 
Elul),  reports  the  existence  of  a  hamlet  {villula) 
named  "  Alula,"  near  Hebron.''  The  name  still 
remains  unaltered,  attached  to  a  conspicuous  hill 
a  mile  to  the  left  of  the  road  from  .Jerusalem  to 
Hebron,  between  3  and  4  miles  from  the  latter. 
Opposite  it,  on  the  other  side  of  the  road,  is  Bdt- 
sih;  the  modem  representative  of  Beth-zur,  and  a 
Uttle  further  to  the  north  is  Jedi'ir,  the  ancient 
Gedor.  [Betii-zuu.]  The  site  is  marked  by  the 
ruins  of  walls  and  foundations,  amongst  which 
stands  a  dilapidated  mosk  bearing  the  name  ol 
Neby  Yunus  —  the  prophet  Jonah  (Kob.  i.  216). 
In  a  Jewish  tradition  quoted  by  Hottinger  ( Cippi 
Hebraici,  p.  32)  it  is  said  to  be  the  burial-place  of 
Gad,  David's  seer.  See  also  the  citations  of  Zunz 
in  Aslier's  Benj.  of  Tudda  (ii.  437,  note).      G. 

HA'LI  C^vn  [necUace]  :  'AAe<^;  Alex.  OoAet: 
Chnli),  a  town  on  the  boundary  of  Asher,  named 
between  Helkath  and  Beten  (Josh.  xix.  25).  Noth- 
ing is  known  of  its  situation.  Schwarz  (p.  lUl) 
compares  the  name  with  Chelmon,  the  equivalent 
in  the  Latin  of  Cya:mon  in  the  Greek  of  Jud. 
vii.  3.  G. 

HALICARNAS'SUS  i'AKiKdpuairaos)  in 
Caria,  a  city  of  great  renown,  as  being  the  birth- 
place of  Herodotus  and  of  the  later  historian  Diony- 
sius,  and  as  embellished  by  the  Alausoleum  erected 
by  Artemisia,  but  of  no  Biblical  interest  except  as 
the  residence  of  a  Jewish  population  in  the  periods 
between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  histories.  In 
1  Mace.  XV.  23,  this  city  is  specified  as  containing 
such  a  population.  The  decree  in  Joseph.  Ant.  xiv. 
10,  §  23,  where  the  Romans  direct  that  the  Jews 
of  Halicarnassus  shall  be  allowed  ras  npoa-evx^s 
TTOieTadai  irphs  rfj  daAaaar)  Karh.  rh  irdrpiov  tdos, 
is  interesting  when  compared  with  Acts  xvi.  13. 
This  city  was  celebrated  for  its  harbor  and  for  the 
strength  of  its  fortifications ;  but  it  never  recovered 
the  damage  which  it  suffered  after  Alexander's 
siege.  A  plan  of  the  site  is  given  in  Ross,  Reisen 
aif  den  Griech.  Inseln.  (See  vol.  iv.  p.  30.)  The 
sculptures  of  the  Mausoleum  are  the  subject  of  a 
paper  by  Mr.  Newton  in  the  Classicd  Museum^ 
and  many  of  them  are  now  in  the  British  Museum. 
The  modern  name  of  the  place  is  Budn'im. 

J.  S.  II 

*  See  particularly  on  Halicarnassus  the  impor- 
tant work  of  Mr.  Newton,  IJidory  of  Discoveries  at 
flalicarnassus,  Cnldus,  ami  Branchidce,  2  vols, 
text  and  1  vol.  plates,  London,  1862-63.  A. 

HALLELU'JAH.     [Alleluia.] 

HALL  {aifX-fi-  atrium),  used  of  the  court  of 
the  high-priest's  house  (Luke  xxii.  55).  AvA-f)  ia 
in  A.  V.  Matt.  xxvi.  69,  Mark  xiv.  6(1,  John  xviii. 
15,  "palace;"  Vulg.  atrium;  irpoavhiov,  Mark 
xiv.  68,  "  porch ;"  Vulg.  ante  atrium..  In  Matt 
xxvii.  27  and  Mark  xv.  16,  owAtj  is  syn.  with 
TrpaiTcipiou,  which  in  John  xviii.  28  is  in  A.  V. 
"judgment-hall."       Av\^   is   the   equivalent   foi 

n^n,  an  inclosed  or  fortified  space  (Ges.  p.  512) 
in  many  places  in  O.  T.  where  Vulg.  and  A.  V. 
have  respectively  villa  or  vie  alas,  "  village,"  o« 
atrium,  "court,"  chiefly  of  the  tabernacle  or  temple. 
The  hall  or  court  of  a  house  or  palace  would  prob- 
ably be  an  inclosed  but  uncovered  space,  impluviwn, 

b  It  is  not  unworthy  of  notice  that,  though  so  &i 
from  Jerusalem,  .Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  "  in  b*  fir 
trict  of  iE'H." 


984  HALLOHESH 

Ml  a  lower  level  than  the  ai^artments  of  the  lowest 
Boor  which  looked  into  it.  The  irpoavkiov  was  the 
restibule  leiiding  to  it,  called  also,  Matt,  xxvi  71, 
vvKwV'     [Couirr,  Anler.^  ed. ;  Housk.] 

H.  W.  P. 

HALLO'HESH  (ITnSVn  [the  wldsperer, 
enchanter]:  'AAwrjs;  Alex.  A5w:  AloJies)^  one  oi 
the  "  chief  of  the  people  "  who  sealed  the  covenant 
with  Neheniiah  (Neh.  x.  24).  The  name  is  Lochesh, 
with  the  definite  article  prefixed.  That  it  is  the 
name  of  a  family,  and  not  of  an  individual,  appears 
probable  from  another  passage  in  which  it  is  given 
ill  the  A.  V.  as 

HALO'HESH  (tTn^Vn  [as  above]:  'A\- 
A.aJ7}s;  [Vat.  FA.  HAem:]  Alohes).  ShaJlum,  son 
of  Hal-lochesh,  was  "ruler  of  the  half  part  of 
Jerusalem  "  at  the  time  of  the  repair  of  the  wall 
by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  iii.  12).  According  to  the 
Hebrew  spelling,  the  name  is  identical  with  Hal- 
LOHE^^f.  [The  A.  V.  ed.  1611,  following  the 
Genevan  version,  spells  the  name  falsely  Hjilloesh. 
-A.] 

HAM  (on  [swnrihy]:  Xa/x:  Cham).  1.  The 
Dame  of  one  of  the  three  sons  of  Noah,  apparently 
the  second  in  age.     It  is  probably  derived  from 

DDH,  "to  be  warm,"  and  signifies  "wann"  or 
"  hot."  This  meaning  seems  to  be  confirmed  by 
that  of  the  Egyptian  word  Kkm  (Egypt),  which 
we  believe  to  be  the  Egyptian  equivalent  of  Ham, 
and  which,  as  an  adjective,  signifies  "black,"  prob- 
ably implying  warmth  as  well  as  blackness. 
[Egypt.J  If  the  Hebrew  and  P^.gyptian  words  be 
the  same.  Ham  must  mean  the  swarthy  or  sun- 
burnt, like  Aidio\p,  which  has  been  derived  from 
the  Coptic  name  of  Ethiopia,  GOCUCDj  but 
which  we  should  be  inclined  to  trace  to  OOCU ,  "a 
boundary,"  unless  the  Sahidic   GOCWCU    may  be 

derived  from  Keesh  (Cush).  It  is  observable  that 
the  names  of  Noah  and  his  sons  appear  to  have 
had  prophetic  significations.  This  is  stated  in  the 
case  of  Noah  (Gen.  v.  29),  and  implied  in  that  of 
Japheth  (ix.  27),  and  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted 
that  the  same  must  be  concluded  as  to  Shem. 
Ham  may  therefore  have  been  so  named  as  pro- 
genitor of  the  sunburnt  Egyptians  and  Cushites. 

Of  the  history  of  Ham  nothing  is  related  except 
his  irreverence  to  his  father,  and  the  curse  which 
that  patriarch  proiiounced  —  the  fulfillment  of  which 
is  evident  in  the  history  of  the  Hamites. 

The  sons  of  Ham  are  stated  to  have  been  "  Cush 
and  Mizraim  and  Phut  and  Canaan"  (Gen.  x.  6; 
comp.  1  Chr.  i.  8).  It  is  remarkable  that  a  dual 
form  (Mizraim)  should  occur  in  the  first  generation, 
mdicating  a  country,  and  not  a  person  or  a  tribe, 
and  we  are  therefore  inclined  to  suppose  that  the 

gentile  noun  in  the  plural  □'^"I'HTp,  differing  alone 

in  the  pointing  from  Q'^^T'?)  originally  stood 
here,  which  would  be  quite  consistent  with  the 
plural  forms  of  the  names  of  the  IMizraite  tribes 
which  follow,  and  analogous  to  the  singular  forms 
of  the  names  of  the  Canaanite  tribes,  except  the 
Sidonians,  who  are  mentioned  not  as  a  nation,  but 
ander  the  name  of  (heir  forefather  Sidon. 

The  name  of  Ham  alone,  of  the  three  sons  of 
N^oah,  if  our  identification  be  correct,  is  known  to 
iare  been  given  to  a  country.    Egypt  is  recognized 


HAM 

as  the  "  land  of  Ham  "  in  the  Bible  (Pg.  tpTift 
51,  cv.  23,  cvi.  22),  and  this,  though  it  does  not 
prove  the  identity  of  the  Egyptian  name  with  that 
of  the  patriarch,  certainly  favors  it,  and  establishej 
the  historical  fact  that  Egypt,  settled  by  the  de- 
scendants of  Ham,  was  jieculiarly  his  territory. 
The  name  Mizraim  we  believe  to  confirm  this.  The 
restriction  of  Ham  to  Egypt,  milike  the  case,  if  we 
may  reason  inferentially,  of  his  brethren,  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  very  early  civilization  of  thia 
part  of  the  Hamite  territory,  while  much  of  the 
rest  was  comparatively  barl^arous.  Egypt  may  also 
have  been  the  first  settlement  of  the  Hamites 
whence  colonies  went  forth,  as  we  know  to  have 
been  the  case  with  the  Philistines.    [Capiitor.] 

The  settlements  of  the  descendants  of  (Jush  have 
occasioned  tlie  greatest  difficulty  to  critics.  The 
main  question  upon  which  everything  turns  is 
whether  there  was  an  eastern  and  a  western  Cush, 
like  the  eastern  and  western  Ethiopians  of  the 
Greeks.  This  has  been  usually  decided  on  the 
Biblical  evidence  as  to  the  land  of  Cush  and  the 
Cushites,  without  reference  to  that  as  to  the  several 
names  designating  in  Gen.  x.  his  progeny,  or,  ex- 
cept in  Nimrod's  case,  the  territories  held  by  it,  or 
both.  By  a  more  inductive  method  we  have  been 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  settlements  of  Cush  ex- 
tended from  Babylonia  along  the  shores  of  the 
Indian  Ocean  to  Ethiopia  above  Egypt,  and  to  the 
supposition  that  there  was  an  eastern  as  well  as  a 
western  Cush :  historically  the  latter  inference  must 
be  correct;  geographically  it  may  be  less  certain 
of  the  postdiluvian  world.  The  ancient  Egyptians 
applied  the  name  Kkesh,  or  Kksh,  which  is 
obviously  the  same  as  Cush,  to  Ethiopia  above 
Egypt.  The  sons  of  Cush  are  stated  to  have  been 
Seba,  Havilah,  Sabtah,  Raamah,  and  Sabtechah :  it 
is  added  that  the  sons  of  Raamah  were  Sheba  and 
Dedan,  and  that  "  Cush  begat  Nimrod."  Certain 
of  these  names  recur  in  the  lists  of  the  descendants 
of  Joktan  and  of  Abraham  by  Keturah,  a  circimi- 
stance  which  must  be  explained,  in  most  cases,  as 
historical  evidence  tends  to  show,  by  the  settlement 
of  Cushites,  Joktanites,  and  Abrahamites  in  the 
same  regions.  [Arabia.]  Seba  is  generally  identi- 
fied with  Meroti,  and  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt 
that  at  the  time  of  Solomon  the  chief  kingdom  of 
Ethiopia  above  P>gypt  was  that  of  Seba.  [Seka.] 
The  postdiluvian  Havilah  seems  to  be  restricted  to 
Arabia.  [Havilah.]  Sabtah  and  Sabtechah  are 
probably  Arabian  names :  this  is  certainly  the  case 
with  Raamah,  Sheba,  and  Dedan,  which  are  rec- 
ognized on  the  Persian  Gulf.  [Sabtah;  Sab- 
techah; Raamah;  Sheba;  Dedan.]  Nimrod 
is  a  descendant  of  Cush,  but  it  is  not  certain  that 
he  is  a  son,  and  his  is  the  only  name  which  ia 
positively  personal  and  not  territorial  in  the  list  of 
the  descendants  of  Cush.  The  account  of  his  first 
kingdom  in  Babylonia,  and  of  the  extension  of  hio 
rule  into  Assyria,  and  the  foundation  of  Nineveh  -  ^ 
for  this  we  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  Gen.  x.  11^ 
12  —  indicates  a  spread  of  Hamite  colonists  along 
the  Euphrates  and  Tigris  northwards.     [Cush.] 

If,  as  we  suppose,  Alizraim  in  the  lists  of  Gen.  x 
and  1  Chr.  i.  stand  for  Mizrim,  we  should  take  thf 
singular  Mazor  to  be  the  name  of  the  progenitoi 
of  the  Egyptian  tribes.  It  is  remarkable  that  Mazoi 
appears  to  be  identical  in  signification  with  Ham 
so  that  it  may  be  but  another  name  of  the  patri 
arch.  [Egyit.]  In  this  case  the  mention  of  Mia 
raim  (or  Mizrim)  would  be  geographical,  ani  do 
indicative  of  a  Maaor,  son  of  Ham. 


HAINI 

The  MizraitCA,  like  the  descendants  of  Ham, 
Koup}  a  territory  wider  than  that  beaiing  the  name 
){  iMi/jainu  We  may,  hcwever,  suppose  that  Miz- 
:aim  included  all  the  first  settlements,  and  that  in 
remote  times  other  triber  besides  the  Philistines 
migratetl,  or  extended  their  territox'ies.  This  we 
may  infer  to  have  been  tlie  case  witn  the  Lehabim 
(Lubim)  or  Libyans,  for  Alanetho  speaks  of  them 
as  in  the  remotest  period  of  Egyptian  history  sub- 
ject to  the  I'haraohs.  He  tells  us  that  under  the 
first  king  of  the  Third  Dynasty,  of  Memphites, 
Necherophes,  or  Necherochis,  "  the  Libyans  re- 
.olted  from  the  Egyptians,  but,  on  account  of  a 
>vonderfu]  increase  of  the  moon,  submitted  through 
Tear"  «  (Cory's  Am.  Ft'cuj.  2d  ed.  pp.  100,  101). 
It  is  unlikely  that  at  this  very  early  time  the 
Memphite  kingdom  ruled  far,  if  at  aU,  beyond  the 
western  boundary  of  Egypt. 

The  Ludim  appear  to  have  been  beyond  Egypt 
to  the  west,  so  probably  the  Anamim,  and  certainly 
the  Lehabim.  [Ludim  ;  Anamim  ;  Lemabim.] 
The  Naphtuhim  seem  to  have  been  just  beyond  the 
western  border.  [Naphtuhi.m.]  The  I'athrusim 
and  Caphtorim  were  in  PLgypt,  and  probably  the 
Casluhim  also.  [Patiikos;  Capiitok:  Casli;- 
HiM.]  The  Philistim  are  the  only  Mizraite  tribe 
that  we  know  to  have  passed  into  Asia :  their  first 
establishment  was  in  Egypt,  for  they  came  out  of 
Caphtor.    [Capiitok.] 

Phut  has  been  always  placed  in  Africa.  In  the 
Bible,  Phut  occurs  as  an  ally  or  supporter  of  Egyp- 
tian Thebes,  mentioned  with  Cush  and  Lul)im 
(Nah.  iii.  9),  with  Cush  and  Ludim  (the  iNIizraite 
Ludim?),  as  supplying  part  of  the  army  of  Piia- 
raoh-Necho  (Jer.  xlvi.  9),  as  involved  in  the  calam- 
ities of  Egypt  together  with  Cush,  Lud,  and  Chub 
[Chub]  (Ez.  xxx.  5),  as  furnishing,  with  Persia, 
Lud,  and  other  lands  or  trites,  mercenaries  for  the 
service  of  Tyre  (xxvii.  10),  and  with  Persia  and 
Cush  as  supplying  part  of  the  army  of  Gog  (xxxviii. 
5).  There  can  therefore  be  little  doubt  that  Phut 
is  to  be  placed  in  Africa,  where  we  find,  in  the 
Egyptian  inscriptions,  a  great  nomadic  people  cor- 
responding to  it.     [Phut.] 

Respecting  the  geographical  position  of  the 
(!!anaanites  there  is  no  dispute,  although  all  the 
names  are  not  identified.  The  Hamathites  alone 
of  those  identified  were  settled  in  early  times  wholly 
beyond  the  land  of  Canaan.  Perhaps  there  was  a 
primeval  extension  of  the  Canaanite  tribes  after 
their  first  establishment  in  the  land  called  after 
their  ancestor,  for  before  the  specification  of  its 
limits  as  tliose  of  their  settlements  it  is  stated 
"  afterward  were  the  families  of  the  Canaanites 
pread  abroad  "  (Gen.  x.  18,  19).  One  of  their 
.jost  important  extensions  was  to  the  northeast, 
where  was  a  great  branch  of  the  llittite  nation  in 
the  valley  of  the  Orontes,  constantly  mentioned  in 
i/he  wars  of  the  Pharaohs  [Egypt],  and  in  those 
of  ttie  kings  of  Assyria.  Two  passages  which  have 
occasioned  much  controversy  may  be  here  noticed. 
[n  the  account  of  Abraham's  entrance  into  Pales- 
tine it  is  said.  "  And  the  Canaanite  [was]  then  in 
the  land"  (xii.  6);  aiid  as  to  a  somewhat  later 
ime,  that  of  the  separation  of  Abraham  and  Lot, 
ve  read  that  "the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzi^e 
dwelled  then  in  the  land  "  (xiii.  7 ).  These  pas- 
sages have  been  supposed  either  to  be  late  glosses. 


alt  has  been  supposed  that  some  or  all  of  the 
lotices  of  events  in  Manetho's  li;«cs  were  inserted  by 
•opyiflttf      This  cauaot,  we  think,  have  been  the  case 


HAM  r85 

or  to  indicate  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  \\,  a 
late  period.  A  comparison  of  all  the  passages  re- 
ferring to  the  primitive  history  of  Palestine  and 
Idumaea  shows  that  there  was  an  earlier  jxjpulation 
expelled  by  the  Hamite  and  Abrahaniite  settlers. 
This  population  was  important  in  the  time  of  the 
war  of  Chedorlaoraer ;  but  at  the  I'lxodus,  more 
than  four  hundred  years  afterwards,  there  was  but 
a  remnant  of  it.  It  is  most  natural  therefore  to 
infer  that  the  two  passages  under  consideration 
mean  that  the  Canaanite  settlers  were  already  in 
the  land,  not  that  they  were'still  there. 

Philologers  are  not  agreed  as  to  a  Hamitic  class 
of  languages.  Recently  Bunsen  has  applied  the 
t«rin  "  Hamitism."  or  as  he  writes  it  Chamitisra, 
to  the  Egyptian  language,  or  rather  family.  He 
places  it  at  the  head  of  tlie  "  Semitic  stock,"  to 
which  he  considers  it  as  but  partially  belonging, 
and  thus  describes  it:  —  "  Chamitism,  or  ante-his- 
torical Semitism:  the  Chamitic  deposit  in  Egypt; 
its  daughter,  the  Demotic  Egyptian ;  and  its  end 
the  Coptic"  {Outlines,  v(51.  i.  p.  183).  Sir  H.  Raw- 
linson  has  applied  the  term  Cushite  to  tli^  prin)itive 
laiiguage  of  Babylonia,  and  the  same  term  has  been 
used  for  the  ancient  language  of  the  soutliern  coast 
of  Arabia.  This  terminology  depends,  in  every  in- 
stance, upon  the  race  of  the  nation  speaking  the 
language,  and  not  upon  any  theory  of  a  Hamitic 
class.  There  is  evidence  which,  at  the  first  view, 
would  incline  us  to  consider  that  the  term  Semitic, 
as  applied  to  the  Syro-Arabic  class,  should  be 
changed  to  Hamitic ;  but  on  a  more  careful  exami- 
nation it  becomes  evident  that  any  absolute  classi- 
fication of  languages  into  groups  corresponding  to 
the  three  great  Noachian  families  is  not  tenable. 
The  Biblical  evidence  seems,  at  first  sight,  in  favor 
of  Hebrew  being  classed  as  a  Hamitic  rather  than 
a  Semitic  form  of  speech.     It  is  called  in  the  Bible 

"  the  language  of  Canaan,"  "j^5-?  ■»^?^  (Is-  xix. 
18),  although  those  speaking  it  are  elsewhere  said 
to  speak  H'^'l^n';,  Judaich  (2  K.  xviii.  26,  28; 
Is.  xxxvi.  11,  13;  Neh.  xiii.  24).  But  the  one 
term,  as  Gesenius  remarks  (Gram.  Iiitrod.),  indi 
cates  the  country  where  the  language  was  spoken, 
the  other  as  evidently  indicates  a  people  by  whom 
it  was  spoken:  thus  the  question  of  its  being  a 
Hamitic  or  Semitic  language  is  not  touched ;  for 
the  circumstance  that  it  was  the  language  of  Ca- 
naan is  agreeable  with  its  being  either  indigenous 
(and  therefore  either  Canaanite  or  Kephaite),  or 
adopted  (and  therefore  perhaps  Semitic).  The 
names  of  Canaanite  persons  and  places,  as  Gese- 
nius has  observed  (l.  c),  conclusively  show  that  the 
Canaanites  spoke  what  we  call  Hebrew.  Elsewhere 
we  might  find  evidence  of  the  use  of  a  so-called 
Semitic  language  by  nations  either  partly  or  wholly 
of  Hamite  origin.  This  evidence  would  favor  the 
theory  that  Hebrew  was  Hamitic ;  but  on  the  other 
hand  we  should  be  unable  to  dissociate  Semitic 
languages  from  Semitic  peoples.  The  Egyptian 
language  would  also  offer  great  diflSculties,  unless  if 
were  held  to  be  but  partly  of  Hamitic  origin,  since 
it  is  mainly  of  an  entirely  different  class  to  [from] 
the  Semitic.  It  is  mainly  Nigritian,  but  it  also 
contains  Semitic  elements.  We  are  of  opinion  that 
the  irroundwork  is  Nigritian,  and  that  the  Semitic 
part  is  a  layer  added  to  a  complete  Nigritian  lan- 


witD  most  0/ 
./nasties. 


'hose  notices  that  occur  in  the  old»>r 


986 


HAM 


pu^e.  The  two  elements  are  mixed,  but  not  fused. 
This  opinion  those  Semitic  scholars  who  liave 
studied  the  subject  share  with  us.  Some  Iranian 
scholars  hold  that  the  two  elements  are  mixed,  and 
that  the  ancient  Egyptian  represents  the  transition 
from  Turanian  to  Semitic.  The  only  solution  of 
the  difficulty  seems  to  be,  that  what  we  call  Semitic 
is  early  Noachian. 

An  inquiry  ii.to  the  history  of  the  Hamite  na- 
tions presents  considerable  difficulties,  since  it  can- 
not be  det3r:iiined  in  the  cases  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  those  commonly  held  to  be  Hamite  that 
they  were  purely  of  that  stock.  It  is  certahi  that 
Ihe  thi'ee  most  illustrious  Hamite  nations  —  the 
Cushites,  the  PlKenieians,  and  the  Egyptians  — 
were  greatly  mixetl  with  foreign  ijeoples.  In  Baby- 
lonia the  Hamite  element  seems  to  have  been  ab- 
sorbed by  the  Shemite,  but  not  in  the  earliest  times. 
There  are  some  common  characteristics,  however, 
which  appear  to  connect  the  different  branches  of 
the  Hamite  family,  and  to  distinguish  them  from 
the  childreu  of  Japheth  and  Shem.  Their  archi- 
tecture haS  a  solid  grandeur  that  we  look  for  in 
vain  elsewhere.  Egypt,  Babylonia,  and  Southern 
Arabia  alike  afford  proofs  of  this,  and  the  few  re- 
maining monuments  of  the  Phoenicians  are  of  the 
same  class.  What  is  very  important  as  indicating 
the  purely  Hamite  character  of  the  monumeiits  to 
which  we  refer  is  that  the  earliest  in  Egypt  are  the 
most  characteristic,  while  the  earlier  in  Babylonia 
do  not  yield  in  this  respect  to  the  later.  The  na- 
tional mind  seems  in  all  these  cases  to  have  been 
[represented  in?]  these  material  fonns.  The  early 
history  of  each  of  the  chief  Hamite  nations  shows 
great  power  of  organizing  an  extensive  kingdom,  of 
acquiring  material  greatness,  and  checking  the  in- 
roads of  neighlwring  nomadic  j^eoples.  The  Philis- 
tines afford  a  xemarkable  instance  of  these  qualities. 
In  every  case,  however,  the  more  energetic  sons  of 
Shem  or  Japheth  have  at  last  fallen  upon  the  rich 
Hamite  territories  and  despoiled  them.  Egypt, 
favored  by  a  position  fenced  round  with  nearly  im- 
passable barriers  —  on  the  north  an  almost  haven- 
less  coast,  on  the  east  and  west  sterile  deserts,  held 
its  freedom  far  longer  than  the  rest;  yet  even  in 
the  days  of  Solon)on  the  throne  was  filled  by  for- 
eigners, who,  if  Hamites,  were  Shemite  enough  in 
their  belief  to  revolutionize  the  religion  of  the  coun- 
try. In  Babylonia  the  Medes  had  already  captured 
Nimrod's  city  more  than  2000  years  before  the 
Christian  era.  The  Hamites  of  Soutiiern  Arabia 
were  so  early  overthrown  by  the  Joktanites  that 
the  scanty  remains  of  their  history  are  alone  known 
to  us  through  tradition.  Yet  the  story  of  the  mag- 
nificence of  the  ancient  kings  of  Yemen  is  so  per- 
fectly in  accordance  with  all  we  know  of  the  Ham- 
ites that  it  is  almost  enough  of  itself  to  prove  what 
other  evidence  has  so  well  established.  The  history 
r>f  the  Canaanites  is  similar;  and  if  that  of  the 
Phoenicians  be  an  exception,  it  must  be  recollected 
that  they  became  a  merchant  class,  as  Ezekiel's 
famous  description  of  Tyre  shows  (chap,  xxvii).  In 
speaking  of  Hamite  characteristics  we  do  not  in- 
tend it  to  be  inferred  that  they  were  necessarily 
altogether  of  Hamite  origin,  and  not  at  least  partly 
X)rrowed.  R.  S.  P. 

2.  (Dn  \multitude,  pec^le,  FUrst],  Gen.  si  v.  5; 

Sam.  on,  Cham)  According  to  the  Masoretic 
text,  Chedorlaomer  and  his  alhes  smote  tlie  Zuzim 
d  a  place  called  Ham.     If,  as  seems  lilcely,  the 


HA MATH 

Zuziir  be  the  siuie  as  the  Zamzummim,  Wtjk. 
must  be  placed  in  what  was  afterwards  the  Ammo- 
nite territory.  Hence  it  has  been  conjectured  bj 
Tuch,  that  Ham  is  but  another  form  of  the  nam« 
of  the  chief  stronghold  of  the  children  of  Aiimnjn. 
Kabbah,  now  ylm-man.  ITie  LXX.  and  Vulg^ 
however,  throw  some  doubt  upon  tlie  Masoreti< 
iea<lhig:    the   former   has,   as   tl:3   rendering    of 

Cn?  □^'r-1-Tn-nt^'l :  ^a\  idy-n  l<rx^'pa  'dfm  air 
To7s]  and  the  latter,  ei  Zuzim  cum  eis,  which 
shows  that  they  read  DnSl :  but  the  Mas.  ren- 
dering seems  the  more  hkely,  as  each  clause  men  - 
tions  a  nation,  and  its  capital  or  stronghold ;  al- 
though it  must  be  allowed  that  if  the  Zuzim  h:ui 
gone  to  the  assistance  of  the  liephaim,  a  deviation 
would  have  been  necessary.    The  Samaritan  Version 

has  nW^^,LishaJi,  perhaps  intending  the  Lasha 
of  Gen.  X.  19,  which  by  some  is  identified  with 
Calliriioe  on  the  N.  E.  quarter  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
The   Targums   of  Onkelos   and    Pseudojon.    have 

MPl?pn,  Ilemta.  Schwarz  (217)  suggests  Humei- 
math  (in  Van  de  Velde's  map  Ilumeitat),  one  mile 
above  Mabba,  the  ancient  Ar-Moab,  on  the  lioman 
road.     [Zuzim  s.] 

3.  In  the  account  of  a  migration  of  the  Simeon- 
ites  to  the  valley  of  Gedor,  and  their  destroying  the 
pastoral  inhabitants,  the  latter,  or  jwssibly  their 
predecessors,  are  said  to  have   been   "  of  Ham " 

(Cn"]Z2  :  e'/c  ruv  viav  Xd/x'-  de  stirpe  Cham,  1 
Chr.  iv.  40).  This  may  indicate  that  a  Hamite 
tril>e  was  settled  here,  or,  more  precisely,  that  there 
was  an  Egyptian  settlement.  'J'lie  connection  of 
Egypt  with  this  part  of  Palestine  will  be  noticed 
under  Zekah.  Ham  may,  however,  here 'be  in  no 
way  connected  with  the  patriarch  or  with  Egypt. 

HA'MAN  O^n  [celebrated  (Pers.),  or  = 
Mercury  (Sansk.),  Fiirst]  :  A.jxd.v-  Avian),  the  chief 
minister  or  vizier  of  king  Ahasuerus  (Esth.  iii.  1). 
After  the  failure  of  his  attempt  to  cut  off  all  the 
Jews  in  the  I'ersian  empire,  he  was  hanged  on  the 
gallows  which  he  had  erected  for  Mordecai.  IVIost 
probably  he  is  the  same  Aman  who  is  mentioned 
as  the  oppresjsor  of  Achiacharus  (Tob.  xiv.  10). 
The  Targum  and  Josephus  {Ant.  xi.  G,  §  5)  inter- 
pret the  description  of  him  —  the  Agagite  —  as 
signifying  that  he  was  of  Amalekitish  descent;  but 
he  is  called  a  Macedonian  by  the  LXX.  in  Esth. 
ix.  24  (cf.  iii.  1),  and  a  Persian  by  Sulpicius  Seve 
rus.  Prideaux  {Connexion,  anno  45-3)  computes 
the  sum  which  he  offered  to  pay  into  the  royal 
treasury  at  more  than  £2,000,000  sterling.  Mod- 
ern Jews  aie  said  to  be  in  the  habit  of  designating 
any  Christian  enemy  by  his  name  (Eisenmenger, 
Ent.  Jud.  i.  721).  [See  addition  mider  EsxHEii, 
Book  of.]  W.  T.  B. 

HA'MATH  (HT^n  \_fortress,  citadel]  : 
'H/xdO,  ^Ufide,  AlfidO:  Ematli)  appears  to  have 
been  the  principal  city  of  Upper  Syria  from  the 
time  of  the  Exodus  to  that  of  the  prophet  Amos. 
It  was  situated  in  the  valley  of  the  Orontes,  about 
half-way  between  its  soiu-ce  near  Baalbek,  and  the 
bend  which  it  makes  at  Jisr-hadid.  It  thus  natu- 
rally commanded  the  whole  of  the  Orontes  valley 
from  the  low  screen  of  hills  which  forms  the  wat^ 
shed  between  the  Orontes  and  the  LiU'iny  —the 
"entrance  of  Hamath,"  as  it  is  called  in  Scripture 
(Num.  xxxiv.  8;  Josh.  xiii.  5,  &c.)  —  to  the  defik 


HAMATH 


HAMArH 


9'S7 


jf  Daphne  below  Antioch    aii(i  tliis  ti-uot  appears    following  reasons:   (1.)  The  northern  loundary  of 
to  have  formed  the  kingdom  of  Hamath,  during   the  Israelites  was  certainly  north  of  Kiblali,  for  die 


ihe  time  of  its  independence. 

The  Haraathites  were  a  Hamitic  race  and  are 
included  among  the  descendants  of  Canaan  (Gen. 
i.  18).  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  witn  Mr. 
Kenrick  (P/iaeiiicin,  p.  60),  that  they  were  ever  in 
any  sense  Phoenicians.  We  must  regard  them  as 
closely  akin  to  the  Ilittites  on  whom  they  bordered, 
and  with  whom  they  were  generally  in  alliance. 
Nothing  appears  of  the  power  of  Hamath,  beyond 
the  geographical  notices  which  show  it  to  be  a  well- 
known  place  (Num.  xiii.  21,  xxxiv.  8;  Josh.  xiii. 
5 ;  &c  ),  until  the  time  of  David,  when  we  hear 
that  Toi,  king  of  Hamath,  had  "  had  wars  "  with 
lladadezer,  king  of  Zobah,  and  on  the  defeat  of 
the  latter  by  David,  sent  his  son  to  congratulate 
the  Jewish  monarch  (2  Sam.  viii.  10),  and  (appa- 
rently) to  put  Hamath  under  his  protection.  Ha- 
math seems  clearly  to  have  been  included  in  the 
dominions  of  Solomon  (1  K.  iv.  21-4);  and  its  king 
was  no  doubt  one  of  those  many  princes  over  whovn 
that  monarch  ruled,  who  "  brought  presents  and 
served  Solomon  all  the  days  of  his  life."  The 
"store-cities,"  which  Solomon  "  built  in  Hamath  " 


east  border  descends  from  Hazar-enan  to  Shephara, 
and  from  Shepham  to  liibkih.  Itiblah  is  still 
known  by  its  ancient  name,  and  is  found  south  of 
Hums  Lake  about  six  or  eight  hours.  The  "  en- 
trance "  must  theref(,'re  lie  north  of  this  town.  (2.) 
It  must  lie  east  of  Mount  Hor.  Now,  if  Blount 
Hor  be,  as  it  probably  is,  the  range  of  Lebanon, 
the  question  is  readily  solved  by  a  reference  to  the 
physical  geography  of  the  region.  The  ranges  of 
Lebanon  and  Anti-Lebanon  terminate  opposite 
Hums  Lake  by  bold  and  decided  declivities.  There 
is  then  a  rolling  country  for  a  distance  of  about 
ten  miles  north  of  the  Lebanon  chain,  after  which 
rises  the  lower  range  of  the  Nusairiyeh  mountains 
A  wider  space  of  plain  intervenes  between  Ar  ti 
Lebanon  and  the  low  hills  which  lie  eastward  of 
Llamath.  The  city  of  Hums  lies  at  the  intersec- 
tion of  the  arms  of  the  cross  thus  formed,  and 
toward  each  of  the  cardinal  points  of  the  compass 
there  is  an  "  entering  in  "  between  the  hills. 
Thus  northward  the  pass  leads  to  Hamath;  west- 
ward to  Kiddt  el-flusn  and  the  JNIediterranean : 
eastward  to  the  great  plain  of  tlie  Syrian  desert; 
and  southward  toward  Baal-gad  in  Ccele-Syria. 
This  will  appear  at  a  glance  from  the  accompany- 


k 


(2  Chr.  viii.  4),  were  perhaps  staples  for  trade,  the 
importance  of  the  Orontes  valley  as  a  line  of  traffic 

being  always  great.  On  the  death  of  Solomon  and  |  ing  plan  of  the  country,  in  which  it  will  be 
the  separation  of  the  two  kingdoms,  Flamath 
seems  to  have  regahied  its  independence.  In 
tlie  Assyrian  inscriptions  of  the  time  of  Ahab 
(b.  c.  900)  it  appears  as  a  separate  power,  in 
alliance  with  the  Syrians  of  Damascus,  the 
Hittites,  and  the  Phoenicians.  About  three- 
quarters  of  a  century  later  Jeroboam  the  sec- 
ond "recovei-ed  Hamath"  (2  K.  xiv.  28);  he 
seems  to  have  dismantled  the  place,  whence 
the  prophet  Amos,  who  wrote  in  his  reign 
(Am.  i.  1),  couples  "Hamath  the  great" 
with  Gath,  as  an  instance  of  desolation  {ib.  vi. 
2).  Soon  afterwards  the  Assyrians  took  it  (2 
K.  xviii.  34,  xix.  13,  &c.),  and  from  this  time 
it  ceased  to  be  a  place  of  much  importance. 
Antiochus  Kpiphanes  appears  to  liave  changed 
its  name  to  Epiphaneia,  an  appellation  under 
which  it  was  known  to  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
from  his  time  to  that  of  St.  Jerome  ( Com- 
ment, in  Kzek.  xlvii.  16),  and  possibly  later. 
The  natives,  however,  called  it  Hamath,  even 
in  St.  Jerome's  time:  and  its  present  name, 
Hamnh,  is  but  very  slightly  altered  from  the 
ancient  form. 

Burckhardt  visited  Ilamah  in   1812.     He 
describes  it  as  situated  on  both  sides  of  the 
Orontes,   partly  on  the  declivity   of  a   hill, 
partly  in  the  plain,  and  as  divided   into  four 
quarters  —  Iladhei;  El  Djisi\  El  Ahij  U,  and   y^^ 
El  Metline,  the  last  being  the  quarter  of  the  //jj  ' 
Christians.       The   population,   according   to  | 
him,  was  at  that  time  30,000.     The  town 
possessed  few  antiquities,  and  was  chiefly  re- 
markal)le  for  its  huge  water-wheels,  whereby   j^^^j^  around  Hums,  showing  the  "  entrance  to  Hamath.'* 
the  gardens  and  the  houses  in  the  upper  town 

R-ere  supplied  from  the  Orontes.  The  neighboring  that  the  plain  of  Hums  opens  to  the  four  points  of 
territory  he  calls  "  the  granary  of  Northern  Syria"  the  compass.  Especially  to  one  journeying  from 
\  Travels  in  Syria,  pp.  146-147.  See  also  Pococke,  |  the  south  or  the  west  would  this  locality  be  appro- 
Travels  in  the  East,  vol.  i.;  Irby  and  Mangles,  ;  priately  described  as  an  mtrnnce.  (o.)  It  is  im- 
Travds,  p.  244;  and  Stamcy,  S.  (f  P.  pp.  406,  i  probable  that  the  lands  of  Hamath  ever  extended 
407).  G.  R.        as  far  south  as  the  height  of  land  between  ths 

*  llie  «  entrance  of  Hamath  "  is  not  as  stated,  '  Leontes  and  the  Orontes,  or  in  fact  into  the  south- 
it  tho  water-shed  between  the  Litany  and  ♦•he  ern  division  of  Coele-Syria  at  all.  Hums  would 
iMmtea,  which  would  place  it  too  far  south,  for  the  have  teen  its  natural  limit  from  the  sea,  to  oa« 


•^88 


HAMATHITE,  THE 


journeyinc;  along  the  coast  from  Tripoli  to  La- 
lakia.  I^b.inon  and  the  Xusairiyeh  range  are  seen 
41  profile,  with  the  gap  between  them.  A  similar 
view  is  presented  from  the  remaining  cardinal 
points  G.  E.  P. 


HAMxMER 

HA'MATHITE,  THE  (^^^^U  :  d'A^a 

0i:  Anidi/ums,  Ilcanathceus),  one  of  the  familiei 
descended  from  Cansian,  named  last  in  the  ligl 
(Gen.  X.  18;  1  Chr.  i.  16).  The  place  of  their  set- 
tlement was  doubtless  11a3LA.tu. 


MiiBaJriyeh  Mts 


Entrance  to  Ilamath  from  the  W. 


HA'MATH-zo'BAH      {'nn'^y'min : 

Baia-coHoi;  [Alex.  Aifiad  2aj)8a:]  Kmaih-Suba)  h 
said  to  have  been  attacked  and  conquered  by  Sol- 
omon (2  Chr.  viii.  3).  It  has  been  conjectured  to 
be  the  same  as  Hamath,  here  regarded  as  included 
in  Aram-Zoltah  —  a  geographical  expression  which 
has  usually  a  narrower  meaning.  J3ut  the  name 
Hamath-Zobnh  would  seem  rather  suited  to  an- 
other Hamath  which  was  distinguished  from  the 
"Great  Hamath,"  by  the  suffix  "  Zobah."  Com- 
pare Kan)oth-0V/efl(7,  which  is  thus  distinguished 
from  Kamah  in  Benjamin.  G.  K. 

*  HAMI'TAL,  2  K.  xxiii.  31,  is  the  readmg 
of  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611  for  Hamutal.  A. 

HAM'M  ATH  (n?2n  [zm;-m  sy;Wn^]  :  'n/ta^- 
<5oK60  —  the  last  two  syllables  a  corruption  of  the 
jame  followhig;  [Alex.  Ayua0  ;  [Aid.  A^/ia^:] 
^maih),  one  of  the  fortified  cities  in  the  territory 
lllotted  to  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix.  35).  It  is  not 
V)ssible  from  this  list  to  determine  its  position, 
but  the  notices  of  the  Talmudists,  collected  by 
Lightfoot  in  his  Choiographical  Century,  and 
Ckor.  Decad,  leave  no  doubt  that  it  was  near  Ti- 
berias, one  mile  distant  —  in  fact  that  it  had  its 
name,  Cbammath,  "  hot  baths,"  because  it  con- 
tained those  of  Tiberias.  In  accordance  with  this 
are  the  slight  notices  of  Josephus,  who  mentions  it 
under  the  name  of  Emmaus  as  a  "  village  not  far 
indlifir}  .  .  .  ouK  &Tr(i}deu)  from  Tiberias "  (Ant. 
xviii.  2,  §  3),  and  as  where  Vespasian  had  en- 
camped "  before  (irp6)  Tiberias  "  (B.  J.  iv.  1,  §  3). 
Remains  of  the  wall  of  this  encampment  were  rec- 
ognized by  Irby  and  Mangles  (p.  89  b).  In  both 
3ases  Josephus  names  the  hot  springs  or  baths,  add- 
ng  in  tlie  latter,  that  such  is  the  interpretation  of 
he  name  'Aixjxaovs,  and  that  the  waters  are  me- 
'icinal.  The  Hammani,  at  present  three «  in 
lumber,  still  send  up  their  hot  and  sulphureous 
waters,  at  a  spot  rather  more  than  a  mile  south  of 
the  modern  town,  at  the  extremity  of  the  ruins  of 
the  ancient  city  (Rob.  ii.  383,  384 ;  Van  de  Velde, 
u.  399). 

It  is  difficult,  however,  to  reconcile  with  this 
position  other  observations  of  the  Talmudists, 
quoted  on  the  same  place,  by  Lightfoot,  to  the 
effect  that  Chammath  was  called  also  the  "  wells 
of  Gadara,"  from  its  proximity  to  that  place,  and 
%l80  that  half  tlie  t<nvn  was  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Jordan  and  lialf  on  the  west,  witli  a  bridge  between 
JierQ  —  the  fact  lieing  that  the  ancient  Tiberias 


was  at  least  4  miles,  and  the  Hammam  2^,  from 
the  present  embouchure  of  the  Jordan.  The  same 
difficulty  besets  the  account  of  Parchi  (in  Zunz's 
Appendix  to  Benjamin  of  Tudela,  ii.  403).  He 
places  the  wells  entirely  on  the  east  of  Jordan. 

In  the  Hst  of  Levitical  cities  given  out  of  Naph- 
taU  (Josh.  xxi.  32),  the  name  of  this  place  seems 
to  be  given  as  Hammoth-doh,  and  in  1  Chr.  vi. 
76  it  is  further  altered  to  Hajimon.  G. 

HAMMEDA'THA  (Sni^n  :  'A/xaSddos; 
[Alex.  Ava/nadaSos,  AfiadaSos  '•]  Ainadathus), 
father  of  the  infamous  Hainan,  and  commonly  des- 
ignated as  "the  Agagite"  (Esth.  iii.  1,  10;  viii. 
6;  ix.  24),  though  also  without  that  title  (ix.  10). 
By  Gesenius  {Lex.  1855,  p.  539)  the  name  is  taken 
to  be  Medatha,  preceded  by  the  definite  article. 
For  other  explanations,  see  Fiirst,  Ilandwb.  [Zend, 
=^  given  by  Ilaomo,  an  Ized],  and  Simonis,  Ono- 
mnsticun,  p.  586.  The  latter  derives  it  froni  a  Per- 
sian word  meaning  "  double."  For  the  termination 
compare  Aridatiia. 

HAMME'LECH  ("nb^n  Ithe  ling]:  roZ 
fiaa-iXecos-  Amelech),  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  as 
a  proper  name  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26;  xxxviii.  6);  but 
there  is  no  apparent  reason  for  supposing  it  to  be 
anytliing  but  the  ordinary  Hebrew  word  for  "  the 
king,"  i.  e.  in  the  first  case  Jehoiakim,  and  in  the 
ktter  Zedekiah.  If  this  is  so,  it  enables  us  to  con- 
nect with  the  royal  family  of  Judah  two  pei-sons, 
Jerachmeel  and  INIalciah,  who  do  not  appear  in  the 
A.  V.  as  members  thereof.  G. 

HAMMER.  The  Hebrew  language  has  sev- 
eral names  for  this  indispensable  tool.     (1.)  Pattlsh 

{W^XS}^,  connected  etymologically  with  TraTcto-o-w, 
to  strike),  which  was  used  by  the  gold-beater  (Is. 
xU.  7,  A.  V.  "carpenter")  to  overlay  with  silver 
and  "smooth"  the  surface  of  the  image;  as  well 
as  by  the  quarry-man  (Jer.  xxiii.  29).     (2.)  Mnk- 

kdbah  (n^fvp  [and  Hlliv.P]),  properly  a  tool  for 
hollowing,  hence  a  stone-cutter's  mallet  (1  K.  vi. 
7),  and  generally  any  workman's  hammer  (Judg. 
iv.  21;    Is.  xliv.   12;'    Jer.   x.  4).      (3.)  Ilalmuth 

(n^tt7n).  used  only  in  Judg.  v.  26,  and  thee 
with  the  addition  of  the  word  "workmen's"  bj 
way  of  explanation.      (4.)  A   kind   of  hammar 

named  mappetz  (V  D^),  Jer.  Ii.  20  (A.  V.  "  battle- 
axe  "),  or  mepliitz  {y^tT2),  Prov.  xxv.  18  (A.  V 


«  *Wr.   I'orter  (Handb.  for   Si/r.    ^  Pal.   ii.   422)    and  three  others  a  few  paces  further  south  (see  alw 
d1  iouv  springs :  one  under  the  old  bath-house,  I  Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  iii.  259).  H. 


HAMMOLEKEIH 

•i  fnaul " ),  was  used  as  a  weapon  of  war.  "  Ham- 
Iter"  is  used  figu-ativelv  for  any  overwhelming 
power,  whetlier  worldly  (^Jer.  1.  23),  or  soiri+ual 
(Jer.  xxiii.  21)  [comp.  Heb.  iv.  12J).     W.  L.  B. 

*  From  n^p^  comes  Maccabaeus  or  Maccabee 
[Maccabees,  the].  The  hammer  used  by  Jael 
(Judg.  V.  2G)  was  not  of  iron,  but  a  wooden  mal- 
let, such  as  the  Arabs  use  now  for  driving  down 
their  tent-pins.  (See  'J'homson's  Land  and  Book, 
ii.  149.)  In  the  Hebrew,  it  is  spoken  of  as  "//ie 
hammer,"  as  being  the  one  kept  for  that  purpose. 
The  nail  driven  through  Sisera's  temples  was  also 
one  of  the  wooden  tent-pins.  This  particularity 
points  to  a  scene  drawn  from  actual  life.  It  is  said 
in  1  Iv.  vi.  7  that  no  sound  of  hammer,  or  axe,  or 
any  iron  tool,  was  heard  in  building  the  Temple, 
because  it  "  was  built  of  stone  made  ready  "  at  the 
quarry.  The  immense  cavern  under  Jerusalem, 
where  undoubtedly  most  of  the  building  material 
of  the  ancient  city  was  obtained,  furnishes  inci- 
dental confirmation  of  this  statement.  "  The  heaps 
of  chippings  which  lie  about  show  that  the  stone 
was  dressed  on  the.  spot.  .  .  .  There  are  no  other 
quarries  of  any  great  size  near  the  city,  and  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon  this  quarry,  in  its  whole  extent, 
was  without  the  Umits  of  the  city  "  (Barclay's  City 
of  the  Great  King,  p.  468,  1st  ed.  (1865)).  See 
also  the  account  of  this  subterranean  gallery  in  the 
Ordnance  Survey  of  Jerusalem,  pp.  63,  64.     H. 

HAMMOLE'KETH  (n^V^n,  with  the 
article  = //^e  Queen:  r]  MaXexfO-  Regina),  a 
woman  introduced  in  the  genealogies  of  IManasseh 
as  daughter  of  Machirand  sister  of  Gilead  (1  Chr. 
vii.  17,  18),  and  as  having  among  her  children 
Abi-ezer,  from  whose  family  sprang  the  great 
judge  Gideon.     The  Targum  translates  the  name 

by  np^P  "^=>,tc/«o  reigned.  The  Jewish  tra- 
dition, as  preserved  by  Kimchi  in  his  commentary 
on  the  passage,  is  that  "  she  used  to  reign  over  a 
portion  of  the  land  which  belonged  to  Gilead," 
and  that  for  that  reason  her  lineage  has  been  pre- 
served. 

HAM'MON  iV^r}  [hot  or  sunny] :  ['E^ue- 
fiacov',]  Alex.  Aficav'-  Hamon).  1.  A  city  in 
Asher  (Josh.  xix.  28),  apparently  not  far  from  Zi- 
don-rabbah,  or  "  Great  Zidon."  Dr.  Schultz  sug- 
gested its  identification  with  the  modern  village  of 
Hamid,  near  the  coast,  about  10  miles  below  Tyre 
(Rob.  iii.  66),  but  this  is  doubtful  both  in  etymology 
and  position. 

2.  [Xa/xdO;  Alex.  Xa/ucau.]  A  city  allotted 
3ut  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  to  the  Levites  (1  Chr. 
vi.  76),  and  answering  to  the  somewhat  similar 
names  Ham  math  and  Ham  moth-dor  in  Joshua. 

G. 

HAM'MOTH-DOR'  (IS'T  nbn  [tvarm 
sj)rings,  abode]:  Ne^/ici0;  Alex.  E/xaOdcvp:  Anv- 
moih  Dor),  a  city  of  Naphtali,  allotted  with  its 
suburbs  to  the  Gershonite  Levites,  antl  for  a  city 
of  refuge  (Josh.  xxi.  32).  Unless  ther*^  were  two 
places  of  the  same  or  very  similar  name  in  Xnph- 
tali,  this  is  identical  with  Hammath.  \V'iy  the 
fiifflx  Dor  is  addf^d  it  is  hard  to  tell,  unless  toe  WDrd 
efers  in  some  way  to  the  situation  of  the  piace  on 
ihe  coast,  in  which  fact  oidy  had  it  (^as  far  a«  we 
Know)  any  resemblance  to  Dor,  on  the  shore  of  the 
Mediterranean  In  1  Chr.  vl.  76  the  name  is  cou- 
»r»cfced  to  Hammon.  G. 


HAMULITES,  THE 


989 


HAMO'NAH  (njIDH  Itumult,  im»e  of  a 
muHilude]:  UoXvdvSpiov-  Amonn),  the  name  of 
a  city  mentioned  in  a  highly  obscure  passage  of 
Ezekiel  (xxxix.  16);  apparently  that  of  the  place 
in  or  near  which  the  multitudes  of  Gog  should  be 
buried  after  their  great  slaughter  by  God,  and  which 
is  to  derive  its  name — "multitude" — from  that 
circumstance.  G. 

HAMON-GOG',   THE    VALLEY   OF 

(!l12l  P^n  S^3l  =  rnrtne  of  Gog's  multitude: 
Ya\  rh  TvoKvdvhpLov  rev  Twy-  vallis  vmltitiidinis 
Gog),  the  name  to  be  bestowed  on  a  ravine  or  glen, 
previously  known  as  "  the  ravine  of  the  passengers 
on  the  east  of  the  sea,"  after  the  burial  there  of 
"  Gog  and  all  his  multitude  "  (Ez.  xxxix.  11,  15). 

HA'MOE,  (Tl^n,  i.  e.  in  Hebrew  a  large  he  • 
ass,  the  figure  employed  by  Jacob  for  Issachar: 
' E/uLfMcap :  Hemor),  a  Hivite  (or  according  to  the 
Alex.  LXX.  a  Horite),  who  at  the  time  of  the  en- 
trance of  Jacob  on  Palestine  was  prince  {Nasi)  of 
the  land  and  city  of  Shechem,  and  father  of  the 
impetuous  young  man  of  the  latter  name  whose  ill 
treatment  of  Dinah  brought  desti-uction  on  himself, 
his  father,  and  the  whole  of  their  city  (Gen.  xxxiiu 
19;  xxxiv.  2,  4,  6,  8,  13,  18,  20,  24,  26).  Ilamor 
would  seem  to  have  been  a  person  of  great  influ 
ence,  because,  though  alive  at  the  time,  the  men  of 
his  tribe  are  called  after  him  Bene-IIamor,  and  he 
himself,  in  records  narrating  events  long  subsequent 
to  this,  is  styled  Hamor-Abi- Shecem  (Josh.  xxiv. 
32:  «  Judg.  ix.  28;  Acts  vii.  16).  In  the  second 
of  these  passages  his  name  is  used  as  a  signal  of 
re\olt,  when  the  remnant  of  the  ancient  Hivites 
attempted  to  rise  against  Abimelech  son  of  Gideon. 
[Shechem.]  For  the  title  Abi-Shecem,  "  father 
of  Shechem,"  compare  "fiither  of  Bethlehem," 
"father  of  Tekoah,"  and  others  in  the  early  lists 
of  1  Chr.  ii.,  iv.  In  Acts  vii.  16  the  name  is  given 
in  the  Greek  form  of  Emmor,  and  Abraham  ia 
said  to  have  bought  his  sepulchre  from  the  "  sons 
of  Emmor." 

HAMU'EL  (bS^^n  [see  infra],  i.  e.  Ilam- 
muel:  'AfiovfjA'  Amuel),  a  man  of  Simeon;  son 
of  Mishma,  of  the  family  of  Shaul  (1  Chr.  iv.  26), 
from  whom,  if  we  follow  the  records  of  this  pas- 
sage, it  would  seem  the  whole  tribe  of  Simeon 
located  in  Palestine  were  derived.  In  many  He- 
brew MSS.  the  name  is  given  as  ChammCiel. 

*  The  latter  form  exchanges  the  soft  guttural  fox 
the  hard.  It  signifies  "heat"  and  hence  "anger 
of  God"  (Gesen.),  or  "God  is  a  sun"  (Fiirst). 

H. 

HA'MUL    (b^Dn    [pitied,  spared]  :    Sam. 

vSIDn  :  'UnoirfiXf  'laiJ,ovv;  [Alex,  in  Num., 
la/xouTjA ;  Comp.  ' A^uouA.,  Xa/xowA :]  JTamul\  the 
younger  son  of  Pharez,  Judah's  son  by  Tamar 
(Gren.  \lvi.  12;  1  Chr.  ii.  5).  Hamul  was  head  of 
the  family  of  the  Hamulites  (Num.  xxvi.  21),  but 
none  of  the  genealogy  of  his  descendants  is  pre- 
served in  the  lists  of  1  Chronicles,  though  those  of 
the  descendants  of  Zerah  are  fully  given. 

HA'MULITES,  THE  0^=^!2nrT  [set 
above]:  ' la/xovj/ 1,  Alex.  lafjLOvrjKi;   [Comp. 'i.^ov- 

a  The  LXX.  have  here  read  the  word  without  iti 
initia?  guttural,  and  rendered  it  napa  rSiy  'Ajxoppai»» 
"  from  the  Amoiitea.  ' 


990 


HAMUTAL 


M:]  Hamulitoe),  the  family  (HnQt?'^)  of  the 
preceding  (Num.  xxvi.  21). 

HAMU'TAL  (b^^!:n=perh.  kin  to  the 
detv:  'A/itTctA.;  [Vat.  A.fi(:iTai,  Mtrar;  Alex.  A/xi- 
TaK  -raO ;]  in  Jer.  'A/xeiTdaX  [Alex,  -/xi-]  :  Ami- 
tol),  daughter  of  Jeremiah  of  Libnah;  one  of  the 
wives  of  king  Josiah,  and  mother  of  the  unfor- 
tunate princes  Jehoahaz  (2  K.  xxiii.  31),  and  Mat- 
taniah  or  Zedekiah  (2  K.  xxiv.  18;  Jer.  Hi.  1). 
In  the  two  last  passages  the  name  is  given  in  the 

original  text  as  ^^'^^H,  Chamital,  a  reading 
which  the  LXX.  follow  throughout. 

*  Curiously  enough,  in  the  first  passage,  but 
in  neither  of  the  two  last,  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611  reads 
Hamjtal.  A. 

HANAM''EEL  [properly  Hanamel,  in  3 
3yl]  (bwp^n  [perh.  bS3Dn  who7n  God  has 
(jiren,  Gesen.] :  'Ai/a/xe^A:  Hanameel),  son  of 
Shallum,  and  cousin  of  Jeremiah.  When  Judaea 
was  occupied  by  the  Chaldaeans,  Jerusalem  be- 
leaguered, and  Jeremiah  in  prison,  the  prophet 
bought  a  field  of  Hanameel  in  token  of  his  assur- 
ance that  a  time  was  to  come  when  land  should  be 
once  more  a  secure  possession  (Jer.  xxxii.  7,  8,  9, 
12;  and  comp  44).  The  suburban  fields  belong- 
ing to  the  tribe  of  Levi  could  not  be  sold  (Lev. 
XXV.  34) ;  but  possibly  Hanameel  may  have  inher- 
ited property  from  his  mother.  Compare  the  case 
of  Barnabas,  who  also  was  a  Levite ;  and  the  note 
of  Grotius  on  Acts  iv.  37.  Henderson  (on  Jer. 
xxxii.  7)  supposes  that  a  portion  of  the  Levitical 
sstates  might  be  sold  within  the  tribe. 

W.  T.  B. 

HAINAN  ("J3n  {gracious,  merciful]:  'Avdv. 
Uanan).  1.  One  of  the  chief  people  of  the  tribe 
I  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  viii.  23). 

2.  The  last  of  the  six  sons  of  Azel,  a  descend- 
ant of  Saul  (1  Chr.  viii.  38;  ix.  44). 

3.  [FA.  Auvav.]  "  Son  of  Maachah,"  i.  e. 
possibly  a  Syrian  of  Aram-Maachah,  one  of  the 
heroes  of  David's  guard,  according  to  the  extended 
ist  of  1  Chr.  xi.  43. 

4.  [FA.  Vavav.]  Bene-Chanan  [sons  of  C] 
were  among  the  Nethinim  who  returned  from  Bab- 

'lon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  46;  Neh.  vii.  49). 
ji  the  parallel  list,  1  Esdr.  v.  30,  the  name  is  given 
as  Anan. 

5.  (LXX.  omits  [Rom.  and  Alex,  in  Neh.  x.  10 
read  Kvav,  but  Vat.  and  FA.'  omit].)  One  of  the 
I^evites  who  assisted  Ezra  in  his  public  exposition 
■»f  the  law  (Neh.  viii.  7).  The  same  person  is 
:)robal)ly  mentioned  in  x.  10  as  sealing  the  cov- 
enant, since  several  of  the  same  names  occur  in 
both  passages. 

6.  [Vat.  omits.]     One  of  the  "heads"  of  the 
people,"  that  is  of  the  laymen,  who  also  sealed 

the  covenant  (x.  22). 

7.  {Pdv6.v\  [FA.  Atj/tt.])  Another  of  the  chief 
laymen  on  the  same  occasion  (x.  26). 

8.  [FA.  Aavav.]  Son  of  Zaccur,  son  of  Mat- 
vniah,  whom  Nehemiah  made  one  of  the  store- 
keepers of  the  provisions  collected  'as  tithes  (Neh. 
xiii.  13).  He  was  probably  a  layman,  in  which 
lase  the  four  storekeepers  represented  the  four  chief 
classes  of  the  people  —  priests,  scribes,  Levites,  and 
Kymen. 

9.  Son  of  Igdaliahu  "  the  man  of  God  "  (Jer. 
Btrv.  4).     TTie  sons  of  Hanan  had  a  chamber  in 


HANANIAH 

the  Temple.  The  Vat.  LXX.  gives  the  name  twioi 
—  'Icovav  viov  ^Avavlov  [FA.  Avvav  vinv  A  v 
vavwv]- 

HANAN^EEL  {properly  Kananel.  in  3  syl. 
THE  TOWER  OF  (bspDQ  b?5D :  n^ipyoi 
^Auajj-e^K  '•  turris  Hananeel),  a  tower  which  formed 
part  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  1,  xii.  39). 
From  these  two  passages,  particularly  from  tlie 
former,  it  might  almost  be  inferred  that  Hananeel 
was   but   another  name   for  the  Tower  of  Meah 

(71^1^71  =  the  hundred):  at  any  rate  they  were 
close  together,  and  stood  between  the  sheep-gate 
and  the  fish-gate.  This  tower  is  further  mentioned 
in  Jer.  xxxi.  38,  where  the  reference  appears  to  be 
to  an  extensive  breach  in  the  wall,  reaching  from 
that  spot  to  the  "  gate  of  the  corner  "  (comp.  Neh. 
iii.  24,  32),  and  which  the  prophet  is  announcing 
shall  be  "  rebuilt  to  Jehovah  "  and  "  not  be  thrown 
down  any  more  for  ever."  The  remaining  pa.ssage 
in  which  it  is  named  (Zech.  xiv.  10)  also  connects 
this  tower  with  the  "  comer  gate,"  which  lay  on 
the  other  side  of  the  sheep-gate.  This  verse  is  ren- 
dered by  Ewald  with  a  different  punctuation  to 
[from]  the  A.  V.  —  "  from  the  gate  of  Benjamin, 
on  to  the  place  of  the  first  (or  early)  gate,  on  to 
the  corner-gate  and  Tower  Hananeel,  on  to  the 
king's  wine-presses."     [Jehusalem.] 

HANA'NI  C'Djn  [gracious]:  [Rom.  Avav, 
Avavias'-  Alex.]  Avaui'.  Hanani).  1.  One  of  the 
sons  of  Hem  an,  David's  Seer,  who  were  separated 
for  song  in  the  house  of  the  lx)rd,  and  head  of  the 
18th  course  of  the  service  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4,  25). 

2.  [^Avavl;  Vat.  -vn,  once  -fi^i;  Alex.  1  K. 
xvi.  7,  Avavia-]  A  Seer  who  rebuked  (u.  c.  941) 
Asa,  king  of  Judah,  for  his  want  of  faith  in  God, 
which  he  had  showed  by  buying  off  the  hostility 
of  Benhadad  L  king  of  Syria  (2  Chr.  xvi.  7).  For 
this  he  was  imprisoned  by  Asa  (10).  He  (or  another 
Hanani)  was  the  father  of  Jehu  the  Seer,  who  testi- 
fied against  Baasha  (1  K.  xvi.  1,  7),  and  Jehosh- 
aphat  (2  Chr.  xix.  2,  xx.  34). 

3.  [Ayoj/i;  Vat.  FA.  -j/et;  Alex.  Avavia]  One 
of  the  priests  who  in  the  time  of  Ezra  were  con- 
nected with  strange  wives  (l^zr.  x.  20).  In  I^draa 
the  name  is  Anamas. 

4.  [^Avavi,  Avaviw,  FA.  in  i.  2,  Avav-]  A 
brother  of  Nehemiah,  who  returned  b.  c.  446  from 
Jerusalem  to  Susa  (Neh.  i.  2);  and  was  afterwards 
made  governor  of  .Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah 
(vii.  2.) 

5.  {lAvavi',  Vat.  Alex.  FAi  omit.]  A  priest 
mentioned  in  Neh.  xii.  36.  W.  T.  B. 

HANANTAH  {T^'^'Wi,  and  ^n^lp^Q  [whom 
Jehovah  has  given]:  'Avavia;  ['Avavias']  Ana- 
nias, [Hanania,]  and  Ilananias.  In  New  Test. 
^Avavias'  Ananias). 

1.  One  of  the  14  sons  of  Heman  the  singer,  and 
chief  of  the  sixteenth  out  of  the  24  courses  or  wards 
into  which  the  288  musicians  of  the  l^evites  were 
divided  by  king  David.  The  sons  of  Heman  were 
especially  employed  to  blow  the  horns  (1  Chr.  xxv. 
4,  5,  23). 

2.  One  of  the  chief  captains  of  the  army  of  king 
Uzziah  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 

3.  Father  of  Zed<  kiah,  one  of  the  nrinces  in  th« 
reign  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah  (Jei.  xxxvi.  12) 

4.  Son  of  Azur,  a  Benjamite  of  Gibeon  and  a 
false  prophet  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah 
In  the  4th  year  of  his  reign,  b.  c.  595,  HauanisI 


HANANIAH 

withstood  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  and  pubhcly 
prophesied  in  the  temple  that  within  two  years 
Jeconiah  and  all  his  fellow-captives,  with  the  vessels 
of  the  Lord's  house  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had 
taken  away  to  Babylon,  should  be  brought  back  to 
Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxviii.):  an  indication  that  treach- 
erous negotiations  were  already  secretly  opened  with 
I'haraoh-Hophra  (who  had  just  succeeded  Psam- 
rnis  on  the  Egyptian  throne"),  and  that  strong 
hopes  were  entertained  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Babylonian  power  by  him.  The  preceding  chapter 
(xxvii.  3)  shows  further  that  a  league  was  already 
in  progress  between  Judah  and  tlie  neighboring 
nations  of  Edom,  Ammon,  Moab,  Tyre,  and  Zidon, 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  resistance  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, in  combination  no  doubt  with  the  pro- 
jected movement?  of  Pharaoh-Hophra.  llananiah 
corroborated  his  prophecy  by  taking  from  off  the 
neck  of  Jeremiah  the  yoke  which  he  wore  by  Di- 
vine command  (Jer.  xxvii.,  in  token  of  the  subjec- 
tion of  Judaea  and  the  neighboring  countries  to  the 
Babylonian  empire),  and  breaking  it,  adding,  "Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  Even  so  will  I  break  the  yoke  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  from  the  neck  of 
all  nations  within  the  space  of  two  full  years."  But 
Jeremiah  was  bid  to  go  and  tell  Hananiah  that  for 
the  wooden  yokes  which  he  had  broken  he  should 
make  yokes  of  iron,  so  firm  was  the  dominion  of 
Babylon  destined  to  be  for  seventy  years.  The 
prophet  Jeremiah  added  this  rebuke  and  prediction 
of  Hananiah's  death,  the  fulfillment  of  which  closes 
the  history  of  this  false  prophet.  "  Hear  now, 
llananiah;  Jehovah  hath  not  sent  thee;  but  thou 
makest  this  people  to  trust  in  a  He.  Therefore  thus 
saith  -Jehovah,  Behold  I  will  cast  thee  from  off  the 
face  of  the  earth :  this  year  thou  shalt  die,  because 
thou  hast  taught  rebellion  against  Jehovah.  So 
llananiah  the  prophet  died  the  same  year,  in  the 
seventh  month  "  (Jer.  xxviii.).  The  above  history 
of  llananiah  is  of  great  interest,  as  throwing  much 
light  upon  the  Jewish  politics  of  that  eventful  time, 
divided  as  parties  were  into  the  partizans  of  Baby- 
lon on  one  hand,  and  Egypt  on  the  other.  It  also 
exhibits  the  machinery  of  false  prophecies,  by  which 
the  irreligious  party  sought  to  promote  their  own 
poUcy,  in  a  very  distinct  form.  At  the  same  time 
too  that  it  explains  in  general  the  sort  of  political 
calculation  on  which  such  false  prophecies  were 
hazarded,  it  supplies  an  important  clew  in  partic- 
ular by  which  to  judge  of  the  date  of  Pharaoh- 
Hophra's  (or  Apries')  accession  to  the  Egyptian 
throne,  and  the  commencement  of  his  ineffectual 
effort  to  restore  the  power  of  Egypt  (which  had 
been  prostrate  since  Necho's  overthrow,  Jer.  xlvi. 
2)  upon  the  ruins  of  the  Babylonian  empire.  The 
leaning  to  Egypt,  indicated  by  Hananiah's  prophecy 
as  having  begun  hi  the  fourth  of  Zedekiah,  had  in 
the  sixth  of  his  reign  issued  in  open  defection  from 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  in  the  guilt  of  perjury,  which 
cost  Zedekiah  his  crown  and  his  life,  as  we  learn 
from  Ez.  xvii.  12-20;  the  date  being  fixed  by  a 
comparison  of  Ez.  viii.  1  with  xx.  1.  The  tem- 
porary success  of  the  intrigue  which  is  described 
in  Jer.  xxxvii.  was  speedily  followed  by  the  return 
of  the  Chaldaeans  and  the  destruction  of  the  city, 
iccording  to  the  prediction  of  Jeremiah.  This  his- 
/)ry  of  Hananiah  also  illustrates  the  majner  in 
thich  the  false  prophets  hindered  the  mission,  and 
•bstructed  the  bereficent  eifects  of  the  ministry,  of 

«  Pharaoh-Hophra  succeeded  Psammla,  B.  o.  595. 
fkt  4«Mi  of  the  Egyptian  reigns  from  Psammetichxu 


HANANIAH 


991 


the  true  prophets,  and  affords  a  remarkaltle  example 
of  the  way  in  which  they  prophesied  smooth  things, 
and  said  peace  when  there  was  no  peace  (comp.  1 
K.  xxii.  11,  24,  25). 

5.  Grandfather  of  Irijah,  the  captain  of  the  ward 
at  the  gate  of  Benjamin  who  arrested  Jeremiah  on 
a  charge  of  deserting  to  the  Chaldaans  (Jer.  xxxvii. 
13). 

6.  Head  of  a  Benjamite  house  (1  Chr.  viii.  24). 

7.  The  Hebrew  name  of  Shadrach.  [Suad- 
RACii.]  He  was  of  the  house  of  Uavid,  according 
to  Jewish  tradition  (Dan.  i.  3,  6,  7,  11, 19;  ii.  17). 
[Anai^ias.] 

8.  Son  of  Zerubbabel,  ]  Chr.  iii.  19,  from  whom 
Cheist  derived  his  descent.  He  is  the  same  person 
who  is  by  St.  Luke  called  ''Iwauyas,  Joanna,  and 
who,  when  Khesa  is  discarded,  appears  there  also 
as  Zerubbabel's  son  [Genealogy  of  Christ.] 
The  identity  of  the  two  names  Hananiah  and 
Joanna  is  apparent  immediately  we  compare  them 

in  Hebrew.     n"^35Cl  (Hananiah)  is  comix)unded 

of  "JSn  and  the  Divine  name,  which  always  takes 

the  form  H'',  or  ^H^,  at  the  end  of  compounded 
names  (as  in  Jerem-iah,  Shephet-iah,  Nehem-iah, 
Azar-iah,  etc.).     It  meant  grat'wsh  dedit  Dominus. 

Joanna  (pHV)  is  compounded  of  the  Divine 
name,  which  at  the  beginning  of  compound  names 
takes  the  form  V,  or  ^^^^  (as  in  Jeho-shua,  Jeho- 

shaphat,  Jo-zadak,  etc.),  and  the  same  word,  ^217, 
and  means  Dominus  graiiose  dedit.  Examples  of  a 
similar  transposition  of  the  elements  of  a  compound 
name   in    speaking  of    the   same   individual,    are 

n^DlD)*,  Jecon-iah,  and  "J "^3^111%  Jeho-jachin, 
of  the  same  king  of  Judah ;  Ahaz-iah  and  Jeho- 
ahaz  of  the  same  son  of  Jehoram ;  Eli-am,  and 
Ammi-el,  of  the  father  of  Bath-sheba;  and  El-asah 
for  Asah-el,  and  Ishma-el,  for  Eli-shama,  in  some 
MSS.  of  Ezr.  X.  15  and  2  K.  xxv.  25.  This  iden- 
tification is  of  great  importance,  as  bringing  St. 
Luke's  genealogy  into  harmony  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    Nothing  more  is  known  of  Hananiah. 

9.  The  two  names  Hananiah  and  Jehohanan 
stand  side  by  side,  Ezr.  x.  28,  as  sons  of  Bebai,  who 
returned  with  Ezra  from  Babylon. 

10.  A  priest,  one  of  the  "  apothecaries  "  (which 
see)  or  makers  of  the  sacred  ointments  and  incense 
(Ex.  XXX.  22-38, 1  Chr.  ix.  30),  who  built  a  portion 
of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Nehennah 
(Neh.  iii.  8).  He  may  be  the  same  as  is  mentioned 
in  ver.  30  as  having  repaired  another  portion.  If 
so,  he  was  son  of  Shelemiah ;  perhaps  the  sair  e  a.s 
is  mentioned  xii.  41. 

11.  Head  of  the  priestly  course  of  Jeremiah  ir 
the  days  of  Joiakim  the  high-priest,  Neh.  xii.  lii.. 

12.  Ruler  of  the  palace  (HH^Sn  'W)  at 
Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah.  He  is  described  a» 
<'  a  faithful  man,  and  one  who  feared  God  al)ov« 
many.''  His  office  seems  to  have  been  one  of 
authority  and  trust,  and  perhaps  the  same  as  that, 
of  Eliakim,  who  was  "  over  the  house '"  in  the  reign 

I  of  Hezekiah.  [Eliakim.]  The  arrangements  for 
I  guarding  the  gates  of  Jerusalem  were  intrusted  tc 
nim  with  Hanani,  the  Tirshatha's  brother.  Prideaux 
thinks  that  the  appointment  of  Hanani  and  Hananiah 


are  fixed  by  that  of  thf  sonquest  of  BfCypt  by  Oua 

byses. 


992  HAKDICRAFT 

Indicates  that  at  this  time  Nehemiah  returned  to 
Persia,  but  witliout  sufficient  ground.  Nehemiah 
seems  to  have  been  continuously  at  Jerusalem  for 
some  time  after  the  completion  of  the  wall  (vii.  5, 

65,  viii.  9,  x.  1).  If,  too,  the  term  (nn>2n 
means,  as  Gesenius  supposes,  and  as  the  use  of  it 
in  Neh.  ii.  8  makes  not  improbable,  not  the  palace, 
but  the  fortress  of  the  Temple,  called  by  Josephus 
fidpis  —  there  is  still  less  reason  to  imagine  Nehe- 
miah's  absence.  In  this  case  Hananiah  would  be 
a  priest,  perhaps  of  *he  same  family  as  the  preced- 
ing. The  rendering  moreover  of  Neh.  vii.  2,  3, 
should  probably  be,  "  And  I  enjoined  (or  gave 
orders  to)  Hanani  .  •  and  Hananiah  the  captains 
of  the  fortress  ....  concerning  Jerusalem,  and 
said,  Let  not  the  gates,"  etc.    1'here  is  no  authority 

for  rendering  /3?  by  •'  over  "  —  "  He  gave  such 
an  one  charge  ovei'  Jerusalem."  The  pa.ssages 
quoted  by  Gesenius  are  not  one  of  them  to  tne 
point. 

13.  An  Israelite,  Neh.  x.  23  (Hebr.  24).  [Ana- 
nias.] 

14.  Other  Ilananiahs  will  be  found  under  Ana- 
nias, the  Greek  form  of  the  name.        A.  C.  H. 

HANDICRAFT  {r^xvn,  ipyaaia-  ars, 
artificium,  Acts  xviii.  3,  xix.  25;  Kev.  xviii.  22). 
Although  the  extent  cannot  be  ascertained  to  which 
those  arts  were  carried  on  whose  invention  is  as- 
cribed to  Tubal- Cain,  it  is  probable  that  this  was 
proportionate  to  the  nomadic  or  settled  habits  of 
the  antediluvian  races.  Among  nomad  races,  as 
the  Bedouin  Arabs,  or  the  tribes  of  Northern  and 
Central  Asia  and  of  America,  the  wants  of  life,  as 
well  as  the  arts  whicli  supply  them,  are  few;  and 
it  is  only  among  the  city-dwellers  that  both  of 
them  are  multiplied  and  make  progi-ess.  This  sub- 
ject cannot,  of  course,  be  followed  out  here ;  in  the 
present  article  brief  notices  can  only  be  given  of 
Buch  handicraft  trades  as  are  mentioned  in  Scrip- 
ture. 

1.  The  preparation  of  iron  for  use  either  in  war, 
in  agriculture,  or  for  domestic  purposes,  was  doubt- 
less one  of  the  earliest  applications  of  labor;  and, 
together  with  iron,  working  in  brass,  or  rather  cop- 
per alloyed  with  tin,  bronze  (nVTl?,  Gesen.  p. 
875),  is  mentioned  in  the  same  passage  as  practiced 
In  antediluvian  times  (Gen.  iv.  22).  The  use  of 
this  last  is  usually  considered  as  an  art  of  higher 
antiquity  even  than  that  of  iron  (Hesiod.  Works 
and  Bays,  150;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Ey.  ii.  p.  152, 
abridg.),  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  metal, 
whether  iron  or  bronze,  must  have  been  largely 
used,  either  in  material  or  m  tools,  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  Ark  (Gen.  vi.  14,  16).  Whether 
the  weapons  for  war  or  chase  used  by  the  early 
warriors  of  Syria  and  Assyria,  or  the  arrow-heads 
of  the  archer  Ishuiael  were  of  bronze  or  iron,  cannot 
1)6  Ascertained;  but  we  know  that  iron  was  used 
fov  warlike  purposes  by  the  Assyrians  (Layard, 
Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  194),  and  on  the  other  hand  that 
stone- tipped  arrows,  as  was  the  case  also  in  Mexico, 
were  used  ir  the  earlier  times  by  the  Egyptians  as 
well  as  the  Persians  and  Greeks,  and  that  stone  or 
flint  knives  continued  to  be  used  by  them,  and  by 
.he  inhabitants  of  the  desert,  and  also  by  the  Jews, 
■  tor  religious  purposes  after  the  introduction  of  iron 
uato  general  use  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg.  i.  353,  354, 
,i.  163;  Prescott,  Mexico,  i.  118;  Ex.  iv.  25, 
Joflh.  V.  2;  Is*^  Ecypt.  room,  Brit.  Mus.  case  36, 
37)     111  the  construction  of  the  Taberuiicle.  co))per, 


HANDICRAFT' 

but  no  iron,  appears  to  have  been  used,  though  the 
use  of  iron  was  at  the  same  period  well  known  to 
the  Jews,  both  from  their  own  use  of  it  and  fron' 
their  Egyptian  education,  whilst  the  Canaanite 
inhabitants  of  Palestine  and  Syria  were  in  full  pos- 
session of  its  use  Ijoth  for  warlike  and  domestic 
purposes  (Ex.  xx.  25,  xxv.  3,  xxvii.  19;  Xum 
XXXV.  16;  Deut.  iii.  11,  iv.  20,  viii.  9;  Josh.  \iii. 
31,  xvii.  16,  18).     After  the  establishment  of  the 

Jews  in  Canaan,  the  occupation  of  a  smith  (I?  "^P) 
became  recognized  as  a  distinct  employment  (1 
Sam.  xiii.  19).     The  designer  of  a  higher  order 

appears  to  have  been  called  specially  ~f^T  (Ges. 
p.  531;  Ex.  XXXV.  30,  35;  2  Chr.  xxvi.  15: 
Saalschiitz,  Arch.  Ilehr.  c.  14,  §  16).  The  smith"^ 
work  and  its  results  are  often  mentioned  in  Scrip 
ture  (2  Sam.  xii.  31;  1  K.  vi.  7;  2  Chr.  xxvi.  14: 
Is.  xliv.  12,  liv.  16).  Among  the  captives  taken 
to  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar  were  1000  "crafts- 
men "  and  smiths,  who  were  probably  of  the 
superior  kind  (2  K.  xxiv.  16;  Jer.  xxix.  2). 

The  worker  in  gold  and  silver  (^"7.*^-*  •  ap7ypo- 
K6iros,  xwf'^'^'JS  •  nrgentarim,  aurifex)  nmst 
have  found  employment  both  among  the  Hebrews 
and  the  neighboring  nations  in  very  early  times, 
as  appears  from  the  ornaments  sefat  by  Abi-aham 
to  Kebekah  (Gen.  xxiv.  22,  53,  xxxv.  4,  xxxviii.  18; 
Deut.  vii.  25).  But  whatever  skill  the  Hebrews 
possessed,  it  is  quite  clear  that  they  must  have 
learned  much  from  Egypt  and  its  "  iron -furnaces," 
both  in  metal  work  and  in  the  arts  of  setting  and 
polishing  precious  stones;  arts  which  were  turned 
to  account  both  in  the  construction  of  the  Taber- 
nacle and  the  making  of  the  priests'  ornaments, 
and  also  in  the  casting  of  the  golden  calf  as  well 
as  its  destruction  by  Moses,  probably,  as  suggested 
by  Goguet,  by  a  method  which  he  had  leanit  in 
Egypt  (Gen.  xli.  42;  Ex.  iii.  22,  xii.  35,  xxxi.  4, 
5,  xxxii.  2,  4,  20,  24,  xxxvii.  17,  24,  xxxviii.  4,  8, 
24,  25,  xxxix.  6,  39;  Neh.  iii.  8;  Is.  xliv.  12). 
Various  processes  of  the  goldsmiths'  work  (No. 
1 )  are  illustrated  by  Egyptian  monuments  (Wilkin- 
son, Anc.  Egypt  ii.  136,  152,  162). 

After  the  conquest  frequent  notices  are  found 
both  of  moulded  and  wrought  metal,  including 
soldering,  which  last  had  long  been  known  in 
Egypt;  but  the  Phoenicians  appear  to  have  pos- 
sessed greater  skill  than  the  Jews  in  these  arts,  at 
least  in  Solomon's  time  (Judg.  viii.  24,  27,  xvii. 
4;  1   K.  vii.  13,  45,  46;  Is.  xU.  7;  Wisd.  xv  4: 


Egyptian  Blow-pipe,  and  small  fire-place  with  cbe«k« 
to  confine  and  reflect  the  heat.     (Wilkinson.) 

Eoclus.  xxxviii.  28;  Bar.  vi.  50,  55,  57  [or  Kpist. 
of  Jer.  vi.  50,  55,  57]  ;  Wilkinson,  ii.  162).  [Zarb- 
phath.]  Even  in  the  desert,  mention  is  made 
of  beating  gold  into  plates,  cutting  it  into  wire,  an* 


HANDICRAFT 

kIm)  of  setting  precious  stones  in  gold  (Ex.  xxxix. 
3,  6,  Ac;  Beckmann,  Hist,  of  Inv.  ii,  414;  Ges. 
p.  1229). 

Among  the  tools  of  the  smith  are  mentioned  — 

tongs  (D^nfJ^^,   Xaplsy  forceps,  Ges.  p.  761, 


HANDICRAFT  998 

Is.  vi.  6),  hammer  (^7*^155,  a<pvpdf  maUem,  Gek 
p.  1101),  anvU  (D?75,  Ges.  p.  1118),  bellowi 
(nQ^,  (pvariT'fipf  sufflatorium,  Ges.  p.  896;  Ii^ 


k 


ju.  7;  Jer.  vi.  29;  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  28;  Wilkinson, 
U.  318). 

In  N.  T.  Alexander  "  the  coppersmith  "  {6  x<^- 
Ktis)  of  Ephesus  is  mentioned,  where  also  was 
earried  on  that  trade  in  "silver  shrines"  (t/ao\ 
iuyyvpo7),  which  was  represented  by  Demetrius  the 


silversmith  (apyvpoKSiros)  as  being  in  danger  from 
the  spread  of  Christianity  (Acts  xix.  24,  28;  3 
Tim.  iv.  14).     [See  also  Smith.] 

2.  The  work  of  the  carpenter  {U^'^V  Wyi^ 
r4KTC0y,  artifex  UgnaHui)  is  often  mantioned  in 


994 


HANDICRAFT 


Scripture  (e.  g.  Gen.  vi.  14;  Ex.  xxxvii.;  Is.  xliv. 
13).  In  the  palace  built  by  David  for  himself  the 
workmen  employed  were  chiefly  Phoenicians  sent 
by  Hiram  (2  Sam.  v.  11;  1  Chr.  xiv.  1),  as  most 


Tools  of  an  Kgj  pti.m  Carpenter.     (Wilkinson.) 
Figs.  1,  2,  3,  4.  Chisels  and  drills.  Fig.  9.  Horn  of  oil. 

6.  Part  of  drill.  10.  Mallet. 

6.  Nut  of  wood  belonging  to  drill.  11.   IJasket  of  nails. 

7,  8.  Saws.  12.  Basket  which  held  them,  carpenter  {rfKTwv)  is  mentioned 

in  connection  with  Joseph  the 


HANDICRAFr 

the  rebuilding  under  Zerubbabel,  no  mmtioa  ll 
made  of  foreign  workmen,  though  in  the  latter 
case  the  timber  is  expressly  said  to  have  bewi 
brought  by  sea  to  Joppa  by  Zidonians  (2  K.  xlL 
11;  2  Chr.  xxiv.  12;  Ezra  iii.  7). 
That  the  Jewish  carpenters  must 
ha\e  been  able  to  carve  with 
some  skill  is  evident  from  Is.  xli. 
7,  xliv.  13,  in  which  last  passage 
some  of  the  implements  used  in 
the  trade  are  mei  tioned :   the 

rule  ("TT??^\  fierpov,  norma, 
possibly  a  chalk  pencil,  Gca.  p. 
1337),  measuring-Une  Op,  Gea 
p.  1201),  compass  (H^^np, 
irapaypacpis,  circtnus,  Ges. 
p.    450),   plane,    or   smoothing 

instrument  (n^^l^p?^,  K6\\ay 
inmcinn,  Ges.  pp.  1228,  1338), 

axe   Q^"J|,    Ges.    p.    302,    or 

d^'lp,,  Ges.  p.  1236,  h^(m, 
securis). 

The  process  of  the  work,  and 
the  tools  used  by  Egyptian  car- 
penters, and  also  coopers  and 
wheelwrights,  are  displayed  in 
Egyptian  monuments  and  relics; 
the  former,  including  dovetailing, 
veneering,  drillmg,  glueing,  var- 
nishing, and  inlaying,  may  be 
seen  in  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt. 
ii.  1 1 1-1 19.  Of  the  latter  many 
s|>eciniens,  including  saws,  hatch- 
ets, knives,  awls,  nails,  a  hone, 
and  a  drill,  also  turned  objects 
in  bone,  exist  in  the  British 
Museum,  1st  Egj'ptian  room, 
case  42-43,  Nos.  6046-6188. 
See  also  Wilkinson,  ii.  p.  113 
fig.  395. 

In  N.  T.  the  occupation  of 


probably  were  those,  or  at  least  the  principal  of 
those  who  were  employed  by  Solomon  in  his  works 
(1  K.  V.  6).  But  in  the  repairs  of  the  Temple, 
executed  under  Joash  king  of  Judah,  and  also  in 


husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  ascribed  to  our 
Lord  himself  by  way  of  reproach  (Mark  vi.  3; 


Matt. 
88). 


xiii.  55;  and  Just.  Mart.  Died.  c.  Tryph.  e. 


1  2 

Veneering  and  the  use  of  glue.     (Wilkinson.) 
%ft  piece  of  dark  wood  applied  to  one  of  ordinary  quality,  6.     c,  adze,  fixed  into  a  blcsk  of  wood  of  the  same  color  at 
e,  a  ruler  ;  and/,  a  square,  similar  to  those  used  by  our  carpenters,     g-,  a  box.     Fig    2  is  grinding  something 
<,  glue-pot  on  the  fire,    j,  a  piece  of  glue.     Fig.  3  applying  the  glue  with  a  brush,  f . 


8.  The  masons  (C'^'^'T'!'.,  wall-builders,  Ges.  p. 
269)  employed  by  David  and  Solomon,  at  least  the 
d^ef  of  tbem.  were  Phoenicians,  as  is  implied  also 


in  the  word  D'^/^S,  men  of  Gebal,  Jebafl,  Byb- 
lus  (Ges.  p.  •-'•)«:  1  K.  v.  18;  Ez.  xxvii.  &; 
Burckhardt,  ^yria,  p.  179).     Among  their  irople- 


HANDICRAFT 

vents  are  mentioned  the  saw  (n^rip, 
plumb-Une  (ITJS,  Ges.  p.  125),  the 
reed   (n^n,  KaKafios,  calamtis,    Ges. 


HANDICRAFT 


996 


/     \  ii,p '  represented  on  Egyptian  monuments  ("WilkinsMi, 
irplcav),  tne  ,  ^^^  ^.^^^^  ..   g^^^  ^^^^^  ^^  preserved  in  the  Brit- 
measuring-  j  ish  Museum  (1st  Egyptian  room,  Nos.  6114,  6038) 
I  The  large  stones  used  in  Solomon's  Temple  are 
p.    1221).  j  gaid  by  Josephus  to  have  been  fitted  together  exactlj 
Seme  of  these,  and  also  the  chisel  and  mallet,  are  |  without  either  mortar  or  cramps,  but  the  '"' — "' 


Hon  stones  to  have  been  fastened  with  lead  (Joseph. 
Ant  viii.  3,  §  2;  xv.  11,  §  3).    For  ordinary  buUd- 

og     mortar,    "I'"'*''    (Ges.   p.    1328)    was   used; 
■onietimes,  perhaps,  bitumen,  a*  was  the  case  at 


Babylon  (Gen.  xi.  3).  The  lime,  clay,  and  straw 
of  which  mortar  is  generally  composed  in  the  East, 
requires  to  be  very  carefully  mixed  and  united  so 
as  to  resist  wet  (Lane,  Mocl.  Egypt,  i.  27;  Shaw, 
Trav.^.  206).     The  wall  "daubed  with  untem 


996 


HANDICRAFT 


Carpenters.     (WilklnBon.) 
drills  a  hole  in  the  seat  of  a  chair,  s.    t  t,  legs  of  chair,    u  u, 
»,  •  square.     u>,  man  planing  or  polishing  the  leg  of  a  chair, 


Masons.     (Wilkinscm.) 
Put  1.  leyelling,  and  Part  2  squaring  a 


An  Egyptian  loom.     (Wilkinson.) 

i  b  a  fliiittle,  not  thrown,  but  put  in  with  the  hand.     It  had  a 

hook  at  each  end. 


HANDICRAFT 

pered  mortar"  of  Ezekid  («iO 

10)  was  perhaps  a  sort  oi'  cofa- 
wall   of  mud  or  clay  without 

lime  (ben,  Ges.  p.  1516). 
which  would  give  way  under 
heavy  rain.  The  use  of  white- 
wash on  tombs  is  remarked  by 
our  Lord  (Matt,  xxiii.  27.  See 
also  Mishna,  Mnaser  Sheni,  v. 
1).  Houses  infected  with  leprosy 
were  required  by  the  Law  to  be 
re-plastered  (Lev.  xiv.  40-45). 

4.  Akin  to  the  craft  of  the 
carpenter  is  that  of  ship  and 
boat-building,  which  must  have 
been  exercised  to  some  extent 
for  the  fishing-vessels  on  the 
lake  of  Gennesaret  (Matt.  viiL 
23,  ix.  1;  John  xxi.  3,  8). 
Solomon  built,  at  Ezion-Geber, 
ships  for  his  foreign  trade,  which 
were  manned  by  Phoenician 
crews,  an  experiment  which  Je- 
hoshaphat  endeavored  in  vain  to 
renew  (1  K.  ix.  26, 27,  xxii.  48; 
2  Chr.  XX.  36,  37). 

5.  The  perfumes  used  in  the 
religious  services,  and  in  later 
times  in  the  funeral  rites  of 
monarchs,  imply  knowledge  and 
practice    in    the    art    of    the 

"  apothecaries  "  (CPp^, 
fjLvp€y\/ol,  pigmentarii),  who  ap- 
pear to  have  firmed  a  guild  or 
association  (Ex.  xxx.  25,  35; 
Neh.  iu.  8;  2  Chr.  xvi.  14; 
Eccles.  vii.  1,  x.  1;  Eccluj^ 
xxxviii.  8). 

6.  The  arts  of  spinning  and 
weaving  both  wool  and  linen 
were  carried  on  in  early  times, 
as  they  are  still  usually  among 
the  Bedouins,  by  women.  The 
women  spun  and  wove  goat's 
hair  and  flax  for  the  Tabernacle, 
as  in  later  times  their  skill  was 
employed  in  like  manner  for 
idolatrous  purposes.  One  of  the 
excellences  attributed  to  the  good 
house-wife  is  her  skill  and  in- 
dustry in  these  arts  (Ex.  xxxv. 
25,  26;  Lev.  xix.  19;  Deu\ 
xxii.  11 ;  2  K.  xxiii.  7 ;  Ez.  xvi. 
16;  Prov.  xxxi.  13,  24;  Burck- 
hardt,  Notes  on  Bed.  i.  65; 
comp.  Horn.  //.  i.  123;  Od.  L 
356,  ii.  104).     Tbe  loom,  with 

its  beam  (TlDp,  /xfadiniov, 
liciaiorium,    1    Sam.    xvii.  7  ; 

Ges.  p.  883),  pin,  HtT, 
irda-ffoXos,  clavus,  Judg.  xvi. 
14;  Ges.  p.  643),  and  shuttle 

(2T}^»  5ponevs,  Job  vii.  6; 
Ges.  p.  146)  was,  ^lerhaps,  in- 
troduced later,  but  as  early  a« 
David's  time  (1  Sam.  xvii.  7), 
and  worked  by  men,  as  was  tha 
case  in  Egypt,  contrary  to  the 
practice  of  other  nations.  Thii 
trade  also  appears  to  have  beca 


HANDKERCHIEF 

pnctioed  hereditarily  (1  Chr.  iv.  21 ;  Herod,  ii.  35 ; 
Soph.  (Ed.  Col.  339). 

Together  with  weavir^  we  read  also  of  em- 
broidery, in  which  gold  and  silver  threads  were 
interwoven  with  the  body  of  the  stuff,  sometimes 
in  figure  patterns,  or  with  precious  stones  set  in  the 
needlework  (Ex.  xxvi.  1,  xxviii.  4,  xxxix.  6-13). 

7.  Besides  these  arts,  those  of  dyeing  and  of 
dressing  cloth  were  practiced  in  Palestine,  and 
those  also  of  tanning  and  dressing  leather  (Josh. 
ii.  15-18;  2  K.  i.  8;  Matt.  ui.  4;  Acts  ix.  43; 
Mishn.  Megill.  iii.  2).  Shoe-makers,  barbers,  and 
tailors  are  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  (Pesach.  iv. 

6):  the  barber  (2 v|,  Koupevs,  Ges.  p.  283),  or 
his  occupation,  by  Ezekiel  (v.  1 ;  Lev.  xiv.  8 ;  Num. 
n.  5;  Josephus,  Ant.  xvi.  11,  §  5;  B.  J.  i.  27, 
§  5;  Mishn.  Shabb.  i.  2),  and  the  tailor  (i.  3), 
plasterers,  glaziers,  and  glass  vessels,  painters,  and 
goldworkers  are  mentioned  in  Mishn.  (Chel.  viii. 
9,  xxix.  3,  4,  XXX.  1). 

Tent-makers  {,(TKi)voirotoi)  are  noticed  in  the  Acts 
(xviii.  3),  and  frequent  allusion  is  made  to  the  trade 
of  the  potters. 

8.  Bakers  (D"^5S,  Ges.  p.  136)  are  noticed  in 
Scripture  as  carrying  on  their  trade  (Jer.  xxxvii. 
21;  Hos.  vii.  4;  Mishn.  Chel.  xv.  2);  and  the  well- 
known  valley  Tyropoeon  probably  derived  its  name 
from  the  occupation  of  the  cheese-makers,  its  in- 
habitants (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  4,  1).  Butchers,  not 
Jewish,  are  spoken  of  1  Cor.  x.  25. 

Trade  in  all  its  branches  was  much  developed 
after  the  Captivity;  and  for  a  father  to  teach  his 
son  a  trade  was  reckoned  not  only  honorable  but 
indispensable  (Mishn.  Pirke  Ab.  ii.  2;  Kiddush. 
iv.  14).  Some  trades,  however,  were  regarded  as 
less  honorable  (Jahn,  BM.  Arch.  §  84). 

Some,  if  not  all  trades,  had  special  localities,  as 
was  tlie  case  formerly  in  European,  and  is  now  in 
Eastern  cities  (Jer.  xxxvii.  21 ;  1  Cor.  x.  25 ;  Jo- 
seph. B.  J.  v.  4,  §  1,  and  8,  §  1;  Mishn.  Beaw. 
V.  1 ;  Russell,  Aleppo,  i.  20  ;  Chardin,  Voyages, 
vii.  274,  394;  Lane,  Mod.  Egyp.  ii.  145). 

One  feature,  distinguishing  Jewish  from  other 
workmen,  deserves  peculiar  notice,  namely,  that 
they  were  not  slaves,  nor  were  their  trades  neces- 
sarily hereditary,  as  was  and  is  so  often  the  case 
among  other,  especially  heathen  nations  (Jahn,  BM. 
Antiq.  c.  v.  §  81-84;  Saalschiitz,  Hebr.  Arch.  c. 
14;   Winer,   s.  v.    Handwtrke).     [Musical    In- 

STKUMKNTS;    POTTERY;    GlASS;    LEATHER.] 

H.  W.  p. 
HANDKERCHIEF,  NAPKIN,  APRON. 

The  two  former  of  these  terms,  as  used  in  the  A.  V. 
=^  aovdcipiou,  the  laiter  =  a L/juKivOiou:  they  are 
classed  together,  inasmuch  as  they  refer  to  objects 
■>f  a  very  similar  character.  Both  words  are  of 
.^tin  origin:  a-ou^dpiou ^=  sudariwri  from  sudo, 
"to  sweat;''  the  Lutheran  translation  preserves 
the  reference  to  its  etymology  in  its  rendering, 
schivelsstuch ;  aiiu.LKivdiov  =  se7nicinctium,  i.  e.  "a 
half  girdle."  Neither  is  much  used  by  classical 
writers;  the  sud'iriam  is  referred  to  as  used  for 
^ping  the  face  ("  candido  frontem  sudario  tergeret," 
^uintil.  \\.  3),  or  hands  ("sudario  manus  tergens, 
jUod  in  coUo  habebat,"  Petron.  infragm.  Trugur. 
c.  67 ) ;  and  also  as  worn  ovei.  the  face  for  the  pur- 
Dose  of  concealment  (Sueton.  in  Neron.  c.  48);  the 
word  was  introduced  by  the  Romans  int/i  Palestine, 
frhere  it  was  adopted  oy  the  Jews,  in  the  fjrm 

S"ni  J  ag  :=  nn^t::^,  in  Ruth  iu.  15.    ^3 


HANES  Wt 

sudarium  is  noticed  in  the  N.  T.  as  a  wrapper  to 

fold  up  money  (Luke  xix.  20)  — as  a  cloth  bound 
about  the  head  of  a  corpse  (John  xi.  44,  xx.  7), 
bemg  probably  brought  from  the  crown  of  the  head 
under  the  chin  —  and  lastly  as  an  article  of  dress 
that  could  be  easily  removed  (Acts  xix.  12),  proba- 
ably  a  handkerchief  worn  on  the  head  hke  the  keffieh 
of  the  Bedouins.  The  semicinctium  is  noticed  by 
Martial  xiv.  Epigr.  153,  and  by  Petron.  in  Satyr. 
c.  94.  The  distinction  between  the  ductus  and  the 
semicinctium  consisted  in  its  width  (Isidor.  Grig. 
xix.  33) :  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  aifit- 
Khdiou,  the  only  inference  from  the  passage  in 
which  it  occurs  (Acts  xix.  12)  is  that  it  was  easily 
removed  from  the  person,  and  probably  was  worn 
next  to  the  skin.  According  to  Suidas  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  sudarium  and  the  semicinctium 
was  very  small,  for  he  explains  the  latter  by  the 
former,  (nfiiKiudiou'  (paKiSXiov  ^  (rouZdpiou,  the 
(paKi6\iov  being  a  species  of  head-dress :  Hesychius 
likewise  explains  ai^iiKiveiov  by  (paKi6\iov.  Ac- 
cording to  the  scholiast  (in  Cod.  Sieph.),  as  quoted 
by  Schleusner  (Lex.  s.  v.  crovSdpLou),  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  terms  is  that  tlie  sudarium 
was  worn  on  the  head,  and  the  semicinctium  used 
as  a  handkerchief.  The  difference  was  probably 
not  in  the  shape,  but  in  the  use  of  the  article ;  we 
may  conceive  them  to  have  been  bands  of  linen  of 
greater  or  less  size,  which  might  be  adapted  to 
many  purposes,  like  the  article  now  called  lungi 
among  the  Arabs,  which  is  applied  sometimes  as  a 
girdle,  at  other  times  as  a  turban  (Wellsted,  Trav- 
els, i.  321).  W.  L.  B. 

*  HAND-MAID.     [Concubine;  Slave.] 

*  HAND-MILL.     [Mill.] 

*  HAND-STAVE.     [Staff.] 
HA'NES  (DDn  :  Hanes),  a  place  in  Egypt 

only  mentioned  in  Is.  xxx.  4:  "For  his  princes 
were  at  Zoan,  and  his  messengers  came  to  Hanes." 
The  LXX.  has  "Ort  ilalv  eV  Tctj/ei  a.pxnyol  &YYe- 
\oi  TTovripoij  evidently  following  an  entirely  differ- 
ent reading.  Hanes  has  been  supposed  by  Vit- 
ringa,  MichaeUs,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Gesenius,  to  be 
the  same  as  Heracleopolis  Magna  in  the  Heptano- 

mis,  Copt,  egiiec,  gJiec,  gxiHC. 

This  identification  depends  wholly  upon  the  simi- 
larity  of  the  two  names :  a  consideration  of  the 
sense  of  the  passage  in  which  Hanes  occurs  shows 
its  great  improbability.  The  prophecy  is  a  reproof 
of  the  Jews  for  trusting  in  Egypt ;  and  according 
to  the  Masoretic  text,  mention  is  made  of  an  em- 
bassy, perhaps  from  Hoshea,  or  else  from  Ahaz,  or 
possibly  Hezekiah,  to  a  Pharaoh.  As  the  king 
whose  assistance  is  asked  is  called  Pharaoh,  he  is 
probably  not  an  Ethiopian  of  the  XXVth  dynasty, 
for  the  kings  of  that  line  are  mentioned  by  name  — 
So,  Tirhakah  —  but  a  sovereign  of  the  XXIlId  dy- 
nasty, which,  according  to  Manetho,  was  of  Tanite 
kings.  It  is  supposed  that  the  last  king  of  the 
latter  dynasty,  Manetho's  Zet,  is  the  Sethos  of 
Herodotus,  the  king  in  whose  time  Sennacherib's 
army  perished,  and  who  appears  to  have  been  men- 
tioned under  the  title  of  Pharaoh  by  Rabshakeh 
(Is.  xxxvi.  6;  2  K.  xviii.  21),  though  it  is  just 
possible  that  Tirhakah  may  have  been  intended 
If  the  reference  be  to  an  embassy  to  Zet,  Zoan  wai 
probably  his  capital,  and  in  any  case  then  the  most 
important  city  of  the  eastern  part  of  Lovrtr  Egypt» 
Hanes  was  most  probably  iu  its  neighborh  kkI;  and 


^98  HANGINCI 

ire  are  disposed  to  think  that  the  Chald.  Paraphr. 
■  right  in  identifying  it  with  CinD^Piil,  or 
DTOCnrn,  once  written,  if  the  Kethibh  be  cor- 
rect, in  the  form  DpSnri,  Daphnae,  a  fortified 
town  on  the  eastern  frontier.  [Tahpanhks.] 
Gesenius  remarks,  as  a  kind  of  apology  for  the 
identification  of  Hanes  with  Heracleopolis  Magna, 
that  the  latter  was  formerly  a  royal  city.  It  is  true 
that  5 a  Manetho's  list  the  IXth  and  Xth  dynasties 
are  said  to  have  been  of  Heracleopolite  kings ;  but 
it  lias  been  lately  suggested,  on  strong  grounds,  by 
Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson,  that  this  is  a  mistake  in 
the  case  of  the  IXth  dynasty  for  Hermonthites 
{Herod,  ed.  Kawlinson,  vol.  ii.  p.  348).  If  this 
supposition  be  correct  as  to  the  IXth  dynasty,  it 
must  also  be  so  as  to  the  Xth ;  but  the  circum- 
stance whether  Heracleopolis  was  a  royal  city  or 
not,  a  thousand  years  before  Isaiah's  time,  is  obvi- 
ously of  no  consequence  here.  li.  S.  P. 

*  HANGING.     [Punishment.] 

HANGING;  HANGINGS.  These  terms 
represent  both  different  words  in  the  original,  and 
different  articles  in  the  furniture  of  the  Temple. 

(l.)The  "hanging"  (IJ??  ^  inia-n-aarpoy:  ten- 
torium) was  a  curtain  or  "  covering  "  (as  the  word 
radically  means)  to  close  an  entrance ;  one  was  placed 
before  the  door  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex.  xxvi.  36, 
37,  xxxix.  38);  it  was  made  of  variegated  stuff 
wrought  with  needlework,  and  was  hung  on  five 
pillars  of  acacia  wood ;  another  was  placed  before 
the  entrance  of  the  court  (Ex.  xxvii.  16,  xxxviii. 
18;  Num.  iv.  26);  the  term  is  also  applied  to  the 
vail  that  concealed  the  Holy  of  UoUes,  in  the  full 
expression  "  vail  of  the  covering  "  (Ex.  xxxv.  12, 
xxxix.  34,  xl.  21 ;  Num.  iv.  5).     [Cuktains,  2.] 

(2.)  The  » hangings "(C^V^I?:  itnia:  tentoria) 
were  used  for  covering  the  walls  of  the  court  of  the 
Tabernacle,  just  as  tapestry  was  in  modei-n  times 
(Ex.  xxvii.  9,  xxxv.  17,  xxxviii.  9;  Num.  iii.  26,  iv. 
26).  The  rendering  in  the  LXX.  implies  that  they 
were  made  of  the  same  substance  as  the  sails  of  a 
ship,  i.  e.  (as  explained  by  Rashi)  "meshy,  not 
woven:  "  this  ophiion  is,  however,  incorrect,  as  the 
material  of  which  they  were  constructed  was  "  fine 
twined  linen."  The  hangings  were  carried  only 
five  cubits  high,  or  half  the  height  of  the  walls  of 
the  court  (Ex.  xxvii.  18;  comp.  xxvi.  16).  [Tab- 
ernacle.] 

In  2  K.  xxiii.  7,  the  term  6o«m,  DT;  2l, 
strictly  "  houses,"  A.  V.  "  hangings,"  is  probably 
intended  to  describe  tents  used  as  portable  sanctu- 
aries. W.  L.  B. 

HAN'IEL  (bS'^an,  i.  e.  Channiel  [grace  of 
God] :  'Avi^A.  [Vat.  -vei-]  '•  IJaniel),  one  of  the 
sons  of  UUa,  a  chief  prince,  and  a  choice  hero  in 
the  tribe  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  39).     [Hanniel.] 

HAN 'N AH  (nan,  grace, or  jn-ayer:  "Avva: 
Anna),  one  of  the  wives  of  Elkanah,  and  mother 
of  Samuel  (1  Sain.  i.  ii.);  a  prophetess  of  consid- 
erable repute,  though  her  claim  to  that  title  is  based 
upon  one  production  only,  namely,  the  hymn  of 
•.hanksgiving  for  the  birth  of  her  son.  This  hymn 
«  in  the  highest  order  of  prophetic  poetry ;  its  re- 
•emblance  to  that  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (comp.  1 
Sam.  ii.  1-10  with  Luke  i.  46-55;  see  also  Ps. 
adii.^  has  been  noticed  by  the  commentators;  and 


HARA 

it  is  specially  remarkable  as  containing  the  first 
designation  of  the  Messiah  under  that  name.  Id 
the  Targum  it  has  been  subjected  to  a  process  of 
magniloquent  dilution,  for  which  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  a  parallel  even  in  the  pompous  vagariei 
of  that  paraphrase  (Eichhora,  £inl.  ii.  p.  68) 
[Samuel.]  T.  E.  B. 

HAN'NATHON  (Yn^Tl  [graceful,  or  gra- 
ciously  disposed}:  'Afidd;  Alex.  Euvadwd:  liana- 
thon),  one  of  the  cities  of  Zebulun,  a  point  appa- 
rently on  the  northern  boundary  (Josh.  xix.  14) 
It  has  not  yet  been  identified.  G. 

HAN'NIEL  (bS^an:  'Ai.i/;\:  Hanniel), 
son  of  Ephod;  as  prince  (Nasi)  of  Manasseh  he 
assisted  in  the  division  of  the  Promised  l^nd 
(Num.  xxxiv.  23).  The  name  is  the  same  as 
Haniel. 

HA'NOCH  (Tf"5q  [see  on  Enoch]  :  'Evdx- 
Henoch).  1.  The  third  in  order  of  the  children 
of  INIidian,  and  therefore  descended  from  Abraliam 
by  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  4).  In  the  parallel  list  of 
1  Chr.  i.  33,  the  name  is  given  m  the  A.  V.  as 
Henoch. 

2.  (Tfiar]:  'Evdl>x'  Henoch),  eldest  son  of 
Reuben  (Gen.  xlvi.  9;  Ex.  vi.  14;  Num.  xxvi.  5; 
1  Chr.  V.  3),  and  founder  of  the  family  of 

HA'NOCHITES,  THE  C'^bnn  :  Srj^^os 
Tov  'Ey(i>x'  f^"^^^  Henochitarum),  Num.  xxvi. 
5. 

*  The  Hebrew  of  Hanoch  is  the  same  as  that  of 
Enoch,  and  belongs  to  two  other  persons  [Enoch]. 
There  is  no  good  reason  for  this  twofold  orthogra- 
phy. H. 

HA'NUN  (1^2n  [gracious]:  'Aypcav,  ['Avav, 
etc. :]  Hanon).  1.  Son  of  Nahash  (2  Sam.  x.  1, 
2;  1  Chr.  xix.  1,  2),  king  of  Ammon  about  b.  c. 
1037,  who  dishonored  the  ambassadors  of  David 
(2  Sam.  X.  4),  and  involved  the  Ammonites  in  a 
disastrous  war  (2  Sam.  xii.  31;  1  Chr.  xix.  6). 

W.  T.  B. 

2.  ['Apovv:  Hanun.]  A  man  who,  with  the 
people  of  Zanoah,  repaired  the  ravine-gate  ui  the 
wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  13). 

3.  ['Avcofj.]  Vat.  FA.  Avovfx;  Comp.  'Avwv: 
Hanun.]  A  man  specified  as  "the  6th  son  of 
Zalaph,"  who  also  assisted  in  the  repair  of  the 
wall,  apparently  on  the  east  side  (Neh.  iii.  30). 

*  HAPHARA'IM,  so  A.  V.  ed.  1611,  and 
other  early  editions,  also  the  Bishops'  Bible;  in 
many  later  editions,  less  con-ectly, 

HAPHRA'IM  (D^"]5q,  t.  c.  Chapharaim: 
^Ayiv\  [Vat.  A7€t»';]  Alex.  Atpfpatifi'-  HapharO' 
'ini),  a  city  of  Issachar,  mentioned  next  to  Shunem 
(Josh.  xix.  19).  The  name  possibly  signifies  "two 
pits."  In  the  Onomasticon  ("Aphraim")  it  ia 
spoken  as  still  known  under  the  name  of  Aflarea 
(Eus.  ^Acppai/j.),  and  as  standing  six  miles  north 
of  Legio.  About  that  distance  northeast  of  Lejj'un, 
and  two  miles  west  of  Solum  (the  ancient  Shunem)^ 

stands  the  village  of  ePAfukh  (  HJ^JiXJ  I  ),  which 

may  be  the  representative  of  Chapharaim,  the  gut- 
tural  Ain  having  taken  the  place  of  the  Hebrew 
CheOi.  G. 

HA'RA  (M'^n    [mmintain-latid,  Ges.] :  Ara) 
which  appears  only  in  1  Chr.  v.  26,  and  even  t*»«t 


HARADAH 

M  omitted  by  the  LXX..  is  eitner  a  place  rtterly 

•  anknown,  or"  it  must  be  regarded  as  identical  with 
Haran  or  Charran  ("I'jn))  the  Mesopotamian  city 
to  which  Abraham  came  from  Ur.  The  names  in 
Chronicles  often  vary  from  those  elsewhere  used  in 
Scripture,  being  later  forms  ;  and  Ilura  would 
nearly  correspond  to  C'arrlice,  which  we  know  from 
Strabo  and  Ptolemy  to  have  been  the  appellation 
by  which  Haran  was  known  to  the  Greeks.  We 
may  assume  then  the  author  of  Chronicles  to  mean, 
that  a  portion  of  the  Israelites  earned  off  by  Pul 
and  Tiglath-inieser  were  settled  in  Ilarran  on  the 
Belik,  while  the  greater  number  were  conveyed  to 
the  Chabaur.  (Compare  1  Chr.  v.  26  with  2  K. 
Kvii.  6,  xviii.  11,  and  xix.  12;  and  see  articles  on 
*HAKRAN  and  Habok.)  G.  R. 

HAR'ADAH  (H'l'jnn,  with  the  article 
[the  tremblmy]:  XapaddB--  'Arada),  a  desert  sta- 
tion of  the  Israelites,  Num.  xxxiii.  2i,  25;  its 
position  is  uncertain.  H.  H. 

HA'RAN.  1.  d"^"^  [«  strong  one,  FUrst: 
prob.  montanus,  mountaineer,  Gesen.] :  "Appdul 
Jos.  'ApduT]s'  Aran).  The  third  son  of  Terah, 
and  therefoi-e  youngest  brother  of  Abram  (Gen. 
xi.  26).  Three  children  are  ascribed  to  him  — 
Lot  (27,  31),  and  two  daughters,  namely,  Milcah, 
who  married  her  uncle  Nahor  (29),  and  Iscah  C29), 
of  whom  we  merely  possess  her  name,  though  bv 
gome  (e.  (/.  Josephus)  she  is  held  to  be  identical 
with  Sarah.  Haran  was  born  in  Ur  of  the  Chal- 
dees,  and  he  died  there  while  his  father  was  still 
living  (28).  His  sepulchre  was  still  shown  there 
when  Josephus  wrote  his  history  (Ant.  i.  6,  §  5). 
The  ancient  Jewish  tradition  is  that  Haran  was 
burnt  in  the  furnace  of  Nimrod  for  his  wavering 
conduct  during  the  fiery  trial  of  Abraham.  (See 
the  Targum  Fs.  Jonathan ;  Jerome's  Qitcest.  in  Ge- 
nesim,  and  the  notes  thereto  in  the  edit,  of  Migne. ) 
This  tradition  seems  to  have  originated  in  a  trans- 
lation of  the  word  Ur,  which  in  Hebrew  signifies 
"  fire."  It  will  be  observed  that  although  this 
name  and  that  of  the  country  appear  the  same  in 
the  A.  v.,  there  is  in  the  original  a  certain  differ- 
ence between  them;  the  latter  commencing  with 
the  harsh  guttural  Cheth. 

2.  (Aaj/;  Alex.  Apav:  Aran.)  A  Gershonite 
Levite  in  the  time  of  David,  one  of  the  family  of 
Shimei  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  9).  G. 

HA'RAN  (i:^n,  i.e.Charan:  'Apdfi;  [Vat.] 
Alex.  Appav'  Haran),  a  son  of  the  great  Caleb  by 
his  concubine  Ephah  (1  Chr.  ii.  46).  He  himself 
had  a  son  named  Gazez. 

HA'RAN   (]"^n  [scorched,  arid,  Gesen.;    a 

noble,  freeman,    Furst] :    Xappdv,    Strab.,    Ptol. 

Kdppai '  Haran),  is  the  name  of  the  place  whither 

Abraham  migrated  with  his  family  from  Ur  of  the 

Chaldees,  and  where  the  descendants  of  his  brother 

^ahor  established  themselves.     Haran  is  therefore 

tilled  "  the  city  of  Nahor"   (comp.  Gen.  xxiv.  10 

—  rith  xxvii.  43).     It  is  said  to  be  in  Mesopotamia 

m  yGen.  xxiv.  10),  or  more  definitely,  in  Padan-Aram 

B  ,xxv.  20),  which  is  the  "  cultivated  district  at  the 

m         toot  of  the  hills  "  (Stanley's  S.  cf  P.,  p.  129  note), 

m  name  well  applying  to  the  beautiful  stretch  of 

m         country  which  lies  below  Mount  Masius  between 

■'         the  Khabour  and  the  Euphrates.   [Padak-aram.] 

■  Here,  about  midway  m  this  district,  is  a  town  stiL 

■  saued  Harrdn,  which  really  seems  never  to  have 
K         jhuiged  its  appellation,  and  beyond  any  reasonable 

L 


HARAN  999 

doubt  is  the  Haran  or  Chan-an  of  Scriptnre 
(Bochart's  Phaleg,  i.  14;  Ewald's  Geschichte,  i. 
384).  It  is  remarkable  that  the  people  of  Harrdn 
retained  to  a  late  time  the  Chaldaean  language  and 
the  worship  of  Chaldaean  deities  (Asseman.  Bibl. 
Or.  i.  327 ;  Chwolsohn's  Ssabier  und  der  Ssnbis- 
mns,  ii.  39).  Harrdn  lies  upon  the  Belilk  (ancient 
Bilichus),  a  small  affluent  of  the  Euphrates,  which 
falls  into  it  nearly  in  long.  39°.  It  was  famous 
among  the  Romans  for  being  near  the  scene  of  the 
defeat  of  Crassus  (Plin.  H.  N.  v.  24).  About  the 
time  of  the  Christian  era  it  appears  to  have  been 
included  in  the  kingdom  of  Edessa  (Mos.  Chor.  ii. 
32),  which  was  ruled  by  Agbarus.  Afterwards  it 
passed  with  that  kingdom  under  the  dominion  of 
the  Romans,  and  appears  as  a  Roman  city  in  the 
wars  of  Caracalla  (Mos.  Chor.  ii.  72)  and  Juhan 
(Jo.  Malal.  p.  329).  It  is  now  a  small  village  in- 
habited by  a  few  families  of  Arabs. 

In  the  A.  V.  of  the  New  Test,  the  name  follows 
the  Greek  form,  and  is  given  as  Charran  (Acta 
vii.  2,  4.  G.  R. 

*  A  controversy  has  recently  sprung  up  respecting 
the  situation  of  the  patriarchal  Haran  which  re- 
quires notice  here.  Within  a  few  years  a  little 
village  known  as  Hdrdn-el-Awamad  has  been  dis- 
covered, about  four  hours  east  of  Damascus,  on  the 
borders  of  the  lake  into  which  the  Barada  (Abana) 
flows.  Dr.  Beke  {Otiyines  Biblicce,  Lond.  1834) 
had  thrown  out  the  idea  that  the  Scripture  Haran 
was  not,  as  generally  supposed,  in  Mesopotamia,  but 
must  have  been  near  Damascus.  He  now  main- 
tains that  this  Hdrdn,  so  unexpectedly  brought  to 
light  between  "  Abana  and  Pharpar,  rivers  of  Da- 
mascus," must  be  the  identical  Haran  (or  Charran) 
of  the  13ible  in  Aram-naharaim,  t.  e.  Aram  of  the 
two  rivers.  In  1861  Dr.  Beke  made  a  journey  to 
Palestine,  with  special  reference  to  this  question. 
The  argument  on  which  he  mainly  relies  is  the 
fact  that  Laban,  in  his  pursuit  of  Jacob,  appears  to 
have  travelled  from  Haran  to  Gilead  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan  in  7  days  (Gen.  xxxi.  23),  whereas 
the  actual  distance  of  Haran  from  Gilead  is  about 
300  geographical  miles,  and  would  make  in  that 
country  an  ordinary  journey  of  15  or  20  days.  An 
Arab  tribe  on  its  ordinary  migrations  moves  from 
12  to  15  miles  a  day,  and  a  caravan  from  20  to  23 
miles  a  day.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  a  little 
remarkable  that  Dr.  Beke  himself  went  over  the 
ground,  step  by  step,  between  Hdrdn-el-Awamdd 
and  Gilead,  and  found  the  time  to  be  five  days, 
hence  very  nearly  the  time  that  Laban  was  on  the 
way  before  he  overtook  Jacob  in  Gilead. 

It  must  be  owned  that  this  rapidity  of  Laban's 
pursuit  of  Jacob  from  Haran  is  not  a  slight  diffi- 
culty. For  its  removal  we  can  only  resort  to  cer- 
tain suppositions  in  the  case,  which  of  course  we 
are  at  liberty  to  make  if  the  Scripture  text  does  not 
exclude  them,  and  if  they  are  justified  by  the  known 
customs  of  the  country  and  the  age. 

First,  we  may  assume  that  Laban,  taking  with 
him  only  some  of  his  sons  or  other  near  kinsmen 
("his  brothers,"  see  Gen.  xxxi.  23),  was  unin 
cumbered  with  baggage  or  women  and  children 
and  hence  moved  with  all  the  despatch  of  which 
eastern  travelling  admits.  One  party  was  fleeing 
an(f  the  other  pursuing.  The  chase  was  a  close 
one,  as  all  tha  language  indicates.  Jacob  com- 
plains thai  Laban  had  "  followed  hotly  "  after  him. 
The  swift  dromedaries  would  be  brought  into 
requisition  if  the  ordinary  camels  were  nr^t  swift 
enough.     The  speed  of  these  animals  i^  such,  aaji 


1000  HARAN 

Sir  Henry  Eawlinson  (who  has  seen  bc  much  of  the 
East),  that  they  "  consume  but  8  days  in  crossing 
the  desert  from  Damascus  to  Baghdad,  a  distance 
of  nearly  500  miles."  He  thinks  it  unquestionable 
that  Laban  could  have  "  traversed  the  entire  dis- 
tance from  Haran  to  Gilead  in  7  days  "  {Athenaeum^ 
April  19,  18G2).  For  examples  of  the  capacity  of 
such  camels  for  making  long  and  rapid  journeys, 
see  the  Penny  Cyclopcedia,  vi.  191. 

Secondly,  the  expression  (which  is  entirely  correct 
for  the  Hebrew)  that  Laban's  journey  before  com- 
ing up  with  Jacob  was  a  "seven  days'  journey," 
is  indefinite,  and  may  include  8  or  9  days  as  well 
as  7.  "Seven,"  as  Gesenius  states,  "is  a  round 
number,  and  stands  in  the  Hebrew  for  any  number 
less  than  10."  A  week's  time,  in  this  wider  sense, 
would  bring  the  distance  still  more  easily  within 
an  expeditious  traveller's  reach. 

But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  possibility 
of  Laban' 3  making  such  a  journey  in  such  time, 
the  difficulty  in  the  case  of  Jacob  would  seem  to  be 
still  greater;  suice,  accompanied  as  he  was  with 
flocks  and  herds  and  women  and  children,  he  must 
have  travelled  much  more  slowly.  To  this  it 
may  be  replied  that  the  narrative  does  not  restrict 
us  to  the  three  days  which  passed  before  Laban 
became  aware  of  Jacob's  departure  added  to  the 
seven  days  which  passed  before  he  overtook  Jacob 
in  Gilead.  It  is  very  possible  that  Laban,  on  hear- 
ing so  suddenly  that  Jacob  had  fled,  was  not  in  a 
situation  to  follow  at  once,  but  had  preparations  to 
make  which  would  consume  three  or  four  days 
more;  so  as  in  reality  to  give  Jacob  the  advantage 
of  five  or  six  days  before  he  finally  started  hi  pur- 
suit. It  is  altogether  probable  too  that  the  wary 
Jacob  adopted  measures  before  setting  out  which 
would  greatly  accelerate  his  flight.  (See  Gen.  xxxi. 
20. )  Mr.  Porter,  who  is  so  familiar  with  Eastern 
life,  has  drawn  out  this  suggestion  in  a  form  that 
appeal's  not  unreasonable.  Jacob  could  quietly 
move  his  flocks  down  to  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates 
and  send  them  across  the  river,  without  exciting 
suspicion ;  since  then,  as  now,  the  flocks  of  the  great 
proprietors  roamed  over  a  wide  ^egion  (Gen.  xxxi. 
1-3).  In  hke  manner  before  starting  himself  he 
could  have  sent  his  wives  and  children  across  the 
river,  and  hurried  them  forward  with  all  the  des- 
patch which  at  this  day  characterizes  an  Arab  tribe 
fleeing  before  an  enemy  (vers.  17,  18).  All  this 
might  take  place  before  Laban  was  aware  of  Jacob's 
purpose;  and  they  were  then  at  least  3  days'  dis- 
tant from  each  other  (vers.  19-22).  The  inter- 
vening region  between  the  Euphrates  and  Gilead, 
a  distance  of  250  miles,  is  a  vast  plain,  with  only 
one  ridge  of  hills ;  and  thus  Jacob  "  could  march 
forward  straight  as  an  arrow."  If,  as  supposed, 
his  flocks  and  family  were  already  in  advance,  he 
jould  travel  for  the  first  two  or  three  days  at  a  very 
rapid  pace.  "  Now,  I  maintain  "  (says  this  writer), 
'  that  any  of  the  tribes  of  the  desert  would  at  this 
noment,  under  similar  circumstances,  accomphsh 
rhe  distance  in  10  days,  which  is  the  shortest  pe- 
riod we  can,  according  to  the  Scripture  account, 
assign  to  the  journey  (vers.  22,  23).  We  must  not 
judge  of  the  capabilities  of  Arab  women  and  chil- 
dren, flocks  and  herds,  according  to  our  Western 
ideas  and  experience."  (See  Atheiioeum,  May  24, 
1862.) 

Dr.  Beke's  other  incidental  confirmations  of  his 
heory  ars  ess  important.  It  is  urged  that  unless 
A.braliam  was  living  near  Damascus,  he  could  not 
uve  had  a  servant  in  his  household  who  was  called 


HAKAN 

"  Eliezer  of  Damascus "  (Gen.  xv.  2).  Tlw 
answer  to  this  is  that  the  servant  himself  may  po» 
sibly  have  been  born  there  and  have  wandered  to 
the  further  East  before  Abraham's  migration :  cr 
more  probably,  may  have  sprung  from  a  family  that 
belonged  originally  to  Damascus.  Mr.  Porter  sayg 
"  I  knew  well  in  Damascus  two  men,  one  called 
Ibrahim  el-Haleby, '  Abraham  of  Aleppo  ' ;  and  the 
other  Elias  el-Akkawy,  '  EUas  of  Akka,'  neither  of 
whom  had  ever  been  in  the  town  wliose  name  he 
bore.  Their  ancestors  had  come  from  those  towns . 
and  that  is  all  such  expressions  usually  signify  in 
the  East"     {Athenoeum.^  December  7,  1861.) 

The  coincidence  of  the  name  proves  nothing  as 
to  the  identification  in  question.  The  name  (if  it 
be  Arabic)  means  'arid,'  'scorched,'  and  refers  no 
doubt  to  the  Syrian  Haran  as  being  on  the  im- 
mediate confines  of  the  desert.  The  affix  Awamad^ 
"columns,"  comes  from  five  Ionic  pillars,  forty  feet 
high,  which  appear  among  the  mud-houses  of  the 
village.  (See  Porter's  Handb.  of  Syr.  and  Pal. 
ii.  497.) 

Again,  the  inference  from  Acts  vii.  2,  that  Ste- 
phen opposes  Charran  to  Mesopotamia  in  such  a 
way  as  to  imply  that  Charran  lay  outside  the  latter, 
is  unnecessary,  to  say  the  least;  for  he  may  mean 
equally  as  well  that  Abraham  was  called  twice  in 
Mesopotamia,  i.  e.  not  only  in  the  part  of  that  prov- 
ince where  Charran  was  known  to  be,  but  still  ear- 
lier in  the  more  northern  part  of  it  known  as  "  the 
land  of  the  Chaldees,"  the  original  home  and  seat 
of  the  Abrahamic  race.  Not  only  so,  but  the  latter 
must  be  Stephen's  meaning,  unless  he  differed  irom 
the  Jews  of  his  time,  since  both  Philo  {de  Abr.  ii. 
pp.  11, 14,  ed.  Mang.)  and  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  7,  §  1) 
relate  that  Abraham  was  called  thus  twice  in  the 
land  of  his  nativity  and  kindred,  and  in  this  view 
they  follow  the  manifest  implication  of  the  O.  T., 
as  we  see  from  Gen.  xv.  7  and  Neh.  ix.  7  (comp. 
Gen.  xii.  1-4). 

Dr.  Beke  found  "  flocks  of  sheep,  and  maidens 
drawing  water,"  at  Ildrdn-et^Awnmdd,  and  felt  that 
he  saw  the  Scripture  scene  of  Jacob's  arrival,  and 
of  the  presence  of  Rachel  with  "  her  father's  sheep 
which  she  kept,"  reenacted  before  his  eyes.  But 
that  is  an  occurrence  so  common  in  eastern  villages 
at  the  present  day,  especially  along  the  skirts  of  the 
desert,  that  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  distinguish  one 
place  from  another. 

But  the  reasons  for  the  traditional  opinion  en- 
tirely outweigh  those  against  it.  (1.)  The  city  of 
Nahor  or  Haran  (Gen.  xxiv.  10)  is  certainly  in 
Aram-naharaim,  i.  e.  "  Syria  of  the  two  rivers  " 
(in  the  A.  V.  "Mesopotamia").  This  expression 
occurs  also  in  Deut.  xxiii.  4  and  Judg.  iii.  8,  and 
implies  a  historic  notoriety  which  answers  perfectly 
to  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  but  not  to  rivers  of 
such  hmited  local  importance  as  the  Abana  and 
Pharpar,  streams  of  Damascus.  (2.)  Aram-Dam- 
mesek  (the  -'Syria  Damascena"  of  Pliny)  is  the 
appellation  of  Southern  Syria  (see  2  Sam.  \m.  6 
and  Is.  vii.  8),  and  is  a  diff'erent  region  ^  )m  Aram- 
naharaim  where  Haran  was.  (3.)  Jacob  in  going 
to  Haran  went  to  "the  land  of  the  people  of  the 
East"  (Gen.  xxix.  1),  which  is  not  appropriate  to 
so  near  a  region  as  that  of  Damascus,  and  one 
almost  north  of  Palestine,  but  is  so  to  that  beyond 
the  Euphrates.  In  accordance  with  this,  Balaam, 
who  came  from  Aram-naharaim,  fjx'aks  of  himself 
as  having  been  brought  "  out  of  the  mountains  f/ 
the  East''  (Deut.  xxiii.  5:  Num.  xxiii.  7).  (4 
The  iriver  which  Jacob  crossed  in  his  flight  froo 


HARARITE,  THE 

tAixAD  is  termed  "in2n,  i.  e.  ♦•  vhe  river,"  as  the 
Euphrates  is  so  often  termed  by  way  of  eminence 
(Gen.  xxxi.  21;  Fjc.  xxiii.  33;  Josh.  xxiv.  2,  3,  &c.). 
(5.)  The  ancient  versions  (the  Targums,  the  Syriac 
and  the  Arabic  Pentateuch)  actually  insert  Eu- 
phrates in  Gen.  xxxi.  21,  and  thus  show  how  famihar 
the  authors  were  with  the  pecuUar  Hebrew  mode 
of  designating  that  river.  (6.)  The  places  associ- 
ated with  Haran,  as  Gozan,  Kezeph,  Eden  (2  Kings 
six.  12;  Is.  xxxvi.  12),  and  Canneh  (Ez.  xxvii.  23), 
point  to  the  region  of  the  Euphrates  as  the  seat  of 
this  entire  group  of  cities.  (7.)  Incidental  allusions 
(as  in  Gen.  xxiv.  4-8;  xxviii.  20,  21)  show  that 
Haran  was  very  far  distant  from  Canaan,  whereas 
Damascus  is  upon  its  very  border.  So,  too,  Josephus 
(Ant.  i.  16,  §  1)  not  only  places  Haran  in  Mesopo- 
tamia, but  (referring  to  Abraham's  sending  Eliezer 
to  procure  a  wife  for  Isaac)  sets  forth  its  great  dis- 
tance from  Canaan,  as  making  the  journey  thither 
formidable  and  tedious  in  the  highest  degree.  (8.) 
The  Uving  traditions  connect  Abraham's  life  in 
Haran  with  Mesopotamia  and  not  with  Damascus. 
Ainsworth,  who  visited  Ildrdn,  says  that  the  people 
there  preserve  the  memory  of  the  patriarch's  history ; 
they  tell  where  he  encamped,  where  he  crossed  the 
Euphrates,  and  how  he  and  his  herds  found  a 
resting-place  at  Beroea,  now  Aleppo  {Researches 
in  Assyria,  etc.,  p.  152  f.).  H. 

HA'RARITE,  THE  (^"]';ir!'I^»  perhaps  = 
the  mountaineer,  Ges.  Thes.  p.  392 :  de  Arari,  or 
Oroii,  Arariies),  the  designation  of  three  men 
connected  with  David's  guard. 

1.  {6  'hpovxouos'  {de  Arari.])  «  Agee,  a 
Hararite"  (there  is  no  article  here  in  the  Hebrew), 
father  of  Shammah,  the  third  of  the  three  chiefs 
of  the  heroes  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  11).  In  the  parallel 
passage,  1  Chr.  xi.,  the  name  of  this  warrior  is 
entirely  omitted. 

2.  ('ApcoSiTTjs;  [Vat.  Alex. -Set-:  de  Orori.']) 
»  Shammah  the  Hararite  "  is  named  as  one  of  the 
thirty  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  33.  In  1  Chr.  xi.  34 
[Apapi;  Vat.i  Apaxet,  2.  m.  Apapei:  Ararites] 
the  name  is  altered  to  Shage.  Kennicott's  con- 
clusion, from  a  minute  investigation,  is  that  the 
passage  should  stand  in  both,  "  Jonathan  son  of 
Shammah  the  Hararite  "  —  Shammah  being  iden- 
tical with  Shimei,  David's  brother. 

3.  {'XapaovpirriSi  6  ^Apapi  [Vat.  -pet-,  -pei' 
Arorites,  Ararites.'])  "  Sharar  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
?{3)  or  Sacar  (1  Chr.  xi.  35)  the  Hararite  "  was 
the  father  of  Ahiam,  another  member  of  the  guard. 
Kennicott  inclines  to  take  Sacar  as  the  correct 
name. 

HARBO'NA  (W3'in"in  [prob.  Pers.  ass- 
driver,  Ges.]  :  @dp^a,  Alex,  bape^wa ;  [Comp.  Xap- 
Pwvd']  Harbona),  the  third  of  the  seven  chamber- 
lains, or  eunuchs,  who  served  king  Ahasuerus  (Esth. 
i.  10),  and  who  suggested  Haman's  being  hung  on 
his  own  gallows  (vii.  9).  In  the  latter  passage  the 
name  is 

HARBO'NAH  (njin^n  [see  above]: 
^ooyaddv 'i  [FA.i  BovyaBa',  Corap.  Xap^avoL'^ 
Harbona).  [Written  thus  in  Esth.  vii.  9,  but  the 
lame  name  as  the  foregoing.  —  H.] 

HARE  (n5?.'?W,  arnebeth:  Sa<r{/irajs:  lepua) 
dccurs  only  in  Lev.'xi.  6  and  Deut.  xiv.  7,  amongst 
jhe  animals  disallowed  as  food  by  the  Mosaic  law. 
rhcre  \%  no  doubt  at  all  that  arnebeth  ienotes  a 
'  han't      9nd  in  all  probability  the  sp6ciea  Lepus 


HARE 


1001 


Sinaiticus,  which  Ehrenberg  and  Hemprich  {Symb. 
Phys.)  mention  as  occurring  in  the  valleys  of 
Arabia  Petrsea  and  Mount  Sinai,  and  L.  Syriacus^ 
which  the  same  authors  state  is  found  in  the  Leb- 
anon, are  those  which  were  best  known  to  the 
ancient  Hebrews ;  though  there  are  other  kinds  of 
Leparidce,  as  the  L.  ^yyptius  and  the  L.  ^Jthiqpi- 
cus,  if  a  distinct  species  from  L.  ISinaiticus,  which 
are  found  in  the  J3ible  lands.     The  hare  is  at  this 

day  called  arneb  (>_^\l)  by  the  Arabs  m  Pales- 
tine and  Syria  (see  Russell's  Nat.  Hist,  of  Aleppo, 
ii  154,  2d  ed.).    The  SatrvTrowy,  i.  e.  "  rough  foot," 


Hare  of  Mount  Sinai. 

is  identical  with  Kaydos,  and  is  the  term  which 
Aristotle  generally  applies  to  the  hare:  indeed,  he 
only  uses  the  latter  word  once  in  his  History  of 
Animals  (viii.  27,  §  4).  We  are  of  opinion,  as  we 
have  elsewhere  stated  [Coxey],  that  the  rabbit 
(L.  cuniculus)  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  He- 
brews, at  any  rate  in  its  wild  state;  nor  does  it 
appear  to  be  at  present  known  in  Syria  or  Palestine 
as  a  native.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Aristotle  was 
acquainted  with  the  rabbit,  as  he  never  alludes  to 
any  burrowing  Xaydos  or  SaTUTrous;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  see  the  passage  in  vi.  28,  §  3,  where 
the  young  of  the  Saainrovs  are  said  to  be  "  bom 


Hare  of  Mount  Lebanon. 

blind,"  which  will  apply  to  the  rabbit  alone.  Pliny 
(N.  h  riii.  55),  expressly  notices  rabbits  (cuniculi), 
which  jccur  in  such  numbers  in  the  Balearic  Islands 
as  to  destroy  the  harvests      He  also  notices  th« 


1002 


HAREL 


practice  of  ferreting  these  animals,  and  thus  driving 
them  out  of  their  burrows.  In  confirmation  of 
Pliny's  remarks,  we  may  observe  that  there  is  a 
small  island  of  the  Balearic  group  called  Conejera, 
i.  c.  in  Spanish  a  "  rabbit-warren,"  which  at  this 
day  is  abundantly  stocked  with  these  animals.  The 
hare  was  erroneously  thought  by  the  ancient  Jews 
to  have  chewed  the  cud,  who  were  no  doubt  misled, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  shdphan  (JJyrax),  by  the  habit 
these  animals  have  of  moving  the  jaw  about. 

"  Hares  are  so  plentiful  in  the  environs  of  Aleppo," 
Bays  Dr.  Russell  (p.  158),  "that  it  was  no  uncom- 
mon thing  to  see  the  gentlemen  who  went  out  a 
sporting  twice  a  week  return  with  four  or  five  brace 
hung  in  triumph  at  the  girths  of  the  servants' 
horses."  The  Turks  and  the  natives,  he  adds,  do 
not  eat  the  hare;  but  the  Arabs,  who  have  a  peculiar 
mode  of  dressing  it,  are  fond  of  its  flesh.  Hares 
•re  hunted  in  Syria  with  grevhound  and  falcon. 

W.  H. 

HAR'EL  (with  the  def.  art.  bwnnn :  rb 
h.pii]K'  Ariel).  In  the  marghi  of  Ez.  xUii.  15  the 
word  rendered  "  altar  "  in  the  text  is  given  "  Harel, 
t.  e.  the  mountain  of  God."  The  LXX.,  Vulg., 
and  Arab,  evidently  regarded  it  as  the  same  with 
"Ariel  "in  the  same  verse.  Our  translators  fol- 
lowed the  Targum  of  Jonathan  in  translating  it 
"altar."  Junius  explains  it  of  the  iax<i-pa  or 
hearth  of  the  altar  of  burnt  offering,  covered  by  the 
network  on  which  the  sacrifices  were  placed  over 
the  burning  wood.  This  explanation  Gesenius 
adopts,  and  brings  forward  as  a  parallel  the  Arab. 

8*1,  ireh,  «'  a  hearth  or  fireplace,"  akin  to  the 

Heb.  "I^M,  Hr,  "Ught,  flame."     Furst   {Handw. 

8.  V.)  derives  it  from  an  unused  root  ^"ij^l^'  ^^^^i 
"  to  glow,  burn,"  with  the  termination  -el;  but  the 
puly  authority  for  the  root  is  its  presumed  existence 
in  the  word  Harel.  Ewald  {Die  Propheten  des  A. 
B.  ii.  373)  identifies  Harel  and  Ariel,  and  refers 

them  both  to  a  root  rT^S,  drdh^  akin  to  I^S,  ur. 

W.  A.  W. 
HAIIEPH  (n":?n  Iplucking  off]:  'Apifi] 
[Vat.  Apetju;]  Alex.  Apei;  [Comp.  'Ap^<|):]  ffd- 
riph),  a  name  occurring  in  the  genealogies  of  Judah, 
as  a  son  of  Caleb,  and  as  "father  of  Beth-gader  " 
(1  Chr.  ii.  51,  only).  In  the  lists  of  Ezr.  ii.  and 
Neh.  vii.  the  similar  name  Hariph  is  found;  but 
nothing  appears  to  establish  a  connection  between 
the  two. 

HA'RETH,  THE   FOREST   OF    OVl 

rinn  :  h  ir6\eL «  in  both  MSS.  —  readmg  "T^2? 

for  "12?'^  — 2o/)i/c;  [Vat.  2opei/c;]  Alex.  'ApidO; 
[Comp.  Xap-fjd-]  in  saltum  Haret),  in  which  David 
took  refuge,  after,  at  the  instigation  of  the  prophet 
Gad,  he  had  quitted  the  "  hold  "  or  fastness  of  the 
cave  of  AduUam  —  if  indeed  it  was  AduUam  and 
not  Mizpeh  of  Moab,  which  is  not  quite  clear  (1 
Sam.  xxii.  5).  Nothing  appears  in  the  narrative 
by  which  the  position  of  this  forest,  which  has  long 
Binoe  disappeared,  can  be  ascertained,  except  the 
rery  general  remark  that  it  was  in  the  "  land  of 
Judah,"  i.  e.  according  to  Josephus,  the  inheritance 
proper  of  that  tribe,  r^v  KX-qpovx^o^v  rrjs  <pv\ri5. 


o  The  same  leading  is  found  in  Josephus  {Ant.  vi. 
a,  §  4).    Tills  is  one  of  three  instances  in  tiiis  chapter 


HARIPH 

as  opposed  to  the  "  desert,"  t^v  iprj/xiau,  in  wiu^ 
he  had  before  been  lurking  {Anl.  vi.  12,  §  4).  W« 
might  take  it  to  be  tlie  "wood"  in  the  "wilder- 
ness of  Ziph  "  in  which  he  was  subsequently  hidden 
(xxiii.  15, 19),  but  that  the  Hebrew  tenn  is  different 
{choresh  instead  of  yaar).  In  the  Onomasticoriy 
"  Arith "  is  said  to  have  then  existed  west  of 
Jerusalem. 

HARHA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (Hl^q^in  [Jehovah 
is  angry]  :  'Apax'ias  ;  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit:] 
Araia).  Uzziel  son  of  Charhaiah,  of  the  goldsmiths, 
assisted  in  the  repair  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem 
under  Nehemiah  (Neh.  iii.  8).     [Some  MSS.  read 

Tl^TTl^  =  Jehovah  is  a  protection,  Fiirst.] 

HAR'HAS  (Dnnn:  'Apcis;  [Vat.  Apoos:] 
Araas),  an  ancestor  of  Shallum  the  husband  of 
Htddah,  the  prophetess  in  the  time  of  Josiah  (2 
K.  xxii.  14).  In  the  parallel  passage  in  Chronicles 
the  name  is  given  as  HAbRAH. 

HAR'HUR  ("l^n-^n  [root  TTH,  to  hum, 
shine :  hence  distinction,  Fiirst :  but  Ges.,  inflam- 
mation] :  'Apovp;  [in  Neh.,  Vat.  FA.  Apoi;/x:]  Har- 
hw).  Bene-Charchur  were  among  the  Nethinim 
Mho  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr. 
ii.  51 ;  Neh.  vii.  53).  In  the  Apocryphal  Esdraa 
the  name  has  become  AssuR,  Pharacim. 

HA'RIM  (Dnn  [flat^osed]).  1.  (Xapi$; 
[Comp.]  Alex.  Xap-fjix'  Hanm),  a  priest  who  had 
charge  of  the  third  division  in  the  house  of  God 
(1  Chr.  xxiv.  8). 

2.  ('Hp6>,  ['Hpci/i;  in  Neh.  x.  5,  'Ip{{/i,  Vat. 
Et/jOju;]  Alex.  'Wpdjx'  [Haiini,  Harem,  Arem.]) 
Bene-Harim,  probably  descendants  of  the  above,  to 
the  number  of  1017,  came  up  from  Babylon  with 
Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  39;  Neh.  vii.  42).  [Carme.] 
The  name,  probably  as  representing  the  family,  is 
mentioned  amongst  those  who  sealed  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  5);  and  amongst  the 
priests  who  had  to  put  away  their  foreign  wives 
were  five  of  the  sons  of  Harim  (l'>zr.  x.  21).  In  the 
parallel  to  this  latter  passage  in  Esdras  the  name 
is  given  Annas. 

3.  ('Ape;  [Vat.  Alex.  FAi  omit:  Haram.])  It 
further  occurs  in  a  list  of  the  families  of  priests 
"who  went  up  with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua,"  and 
of  those  who  were  their  descendants  in  the  next 
generation  —  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  the  son  of 
Jeshua  (Neh.  xii.  15).     In  the  former  list  (xii.  3) 

the  name  is  changed  to  Keiium  (Cnpl  to  Cm) 
by  a  not  unfrequent  transposition  of  letters. 
[Rehum.] 

4.  ['Hoci/i,  exc.  Ezr.  ii.  32,  Rom.  'HAtf/*;  Neh. 
X.  27,  Ala.  Alex.  'Peoii/i:  Ilanm,  Hereni,  Harem, 
Haran.]  Another  family  of  Bene-Harim  [sons  of 
H.],  three  hundred  and  twenty  in  number,  came 
from  the  Captivity  in  the  same  caravan  (Ezr.  ii. 
32;  Neh.  vii.  35).  These  were  laymen,  and  seem 
to  have  taken  their  name  from  a  place,  at  least  the 
contiguous  names  in  the  list  are  certainly  those  of 
places.  These  also  appear  among  those  who  had 
married  foreign  wives  (Ezr.  x.  31),  as  well  as  those 
who  sealed  the  covenant  (Neh.  x.  27).  [Eanes.] 

HA'RIPH  (n"^*!^  \autumnal  rain,  Ges.;  but 
Fiirst,  one  early-born,  strong]  :  'Apl<p ;  [Vat.  Ape* ;] 


alone  in  which  the  reading  of  Josephus  departs 
the  Hebrew  text,  and  agroes  with  the  LXX 


HARLOT 

Mw  Aptiji,  [Api(p;  FA.  A/)ti0,  Apei-]  Hareph) 
khuidred  and  twelve  of  the  Bene-Chariph  [sons 
3f  C]  returned  from  the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel 
(Neh.  vii.  2-4).  The  name  occurs  again  among  the 
"heads  of  the  people''  who  sealed  the  covenant 
(x.  19  [20  in  llebr.]).  In  the  lists  of  Ezra  and 
Esdras,  Hariph  appears  as  Jorah  «  and  Azei'h- 
URITH   respectively.     An  almost  identical   name, 

Hareph  L^nn,  a  plucking  offl^  appears  in  the 
lists  of  Judah  [1  Chr.  ii.  51]  as  the  father  of  Beth- 
gader  [comp.  Haruphite]. 

HARLOT  (n^Sr,  often  with  HtS^N,  ^*P^^, 

TlWyif).  That  this  condition  of  persons  existed 
in  the  earliest  states  of  society  is  clear  from  Gen. 
xxxviii.  15.  So  Kahab  (Josh.  ii.  1),  who  is  said 
by  the  Chaldee  paraph,  {ad  he),  to  have  been  an 
innkeeper,''  but  if  there  were  such  persons,  consider- 
ing what  we  know  of  Canaanitish  morals  (Lev. 
xviii.  27),  we  may  conclude  that  they  would,  if 
women,  have  been  of  this  class.  The  law  forbids 
(xix.  29)  the  father's  compelling  his  daughter  to 
sin,  but  does  not  mention  it  as  a  voluntary  mode 
of  life  on  her  part  without  his  complicity.  It  could 
indeed  hardly  be  so.  The  isolated  act  which  is  the 
subject  of  Deut.  xxii.  28,  29,  is  not  to  the  purpose. 
Male  relatives  ^  were  probably  allowed  a  practically 
unlimited  discretion  in  punishing  family  dishonor 
incurred  by  their  women's  unchastity  (Gen.  xxxviii. 
24 ).  The  provision  of  I^v.  xxi.  9,  regarding  the 
priest's  daughter,  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  of 
his  home  being  less  guarded  owing  to  his  absence 
when  ministering,  as  well  as  from  the  scandal  to 
sanctity  so  involved.  Perhaps  such  abominations 
might,  if  not  thus  severely  marked,  lead  the  way 
to  the  excesses  of  Gentile  ritualistic  fornication,  to 
vhich  indeed,  when  so  near  the  sanctuary,  they 
Taight  be  viewed  as  approximating  (Michaelis,  Laws 
f  Moses,  art.  268).  Yet  it  seems  to  be  assumed 
that  the  harlot  class  would  exist,  and  the  prohibi- 
tion of  Deut.  xxiii.  18,  forbidding  offerings  from 
the  wages  of  such  sin,  is  perhaps  due  to  the  con- 
tagion of  heathen  example,  in  whose  worship  prac- 
tices abounded  which  the  Israelites  were  taught  to 

abhor.  The  term  HK'^i?  (meaning  properly  "con- 
secrated") points  to  one  description  of  persons, 
and  nj")?3  ("strange  woman")  to  another,  of 
whom  this  class  mostly  consisted.  The  first  term 
refers  to  the  impure  worship  of  the  Syrian  ^  Astarte 
(Num.  XXV.  1;  comp.  Herod,  i.  199;  Justin,  xviii. 
5 ;  Strabo,  viii.  p.  378,  xii.  p.  559 ;  Val.  Max.  ii.  6, 
15;  August,  de  Civ.  Dei,  iv.  4),  whose  votaries,  as 
idolatry  progressed,  would  be  recruited  from  the 
daughters  of  Israel;  hence  the  common  mention 
of  both  these  sins  in  the  Prophets,  the  one  indeed 
being  a  metaphor  of  the  other  (Is.  i.  21,  Ivii.  8; 
Jsr.  ii.  20;  comp.  Ex.  xxxiv.  15,  16;  Jer.  iii.  1,  2, 
6,  Ez.  xvi.  xxiii.;  Hos.  i.  2,  ii.  4,  5,  iv.  11,  13,  14, 
15,  V.  3).  The  latter  class  would  grow  up  with 
the  growth  of  great  cities  and  of  foreign  intercourse, 

a  *  Jorah  (H'!  V,  first  or  early  rain)  is  simply  = 
Hariph,  if  the  latter  means  (see  above)  the  early  rain 
which  begins  to  fall  in  Palestine  about  the  middL  o*" 
Dctober.  i_ 

6  D^vling,  Observ.  Sacf  M.  476,  Wn^TS'^Q;  «• 
»av3o#cevTpia. 

<?  Philo  {Lib.  de  spec.  Legib.  6,  7)  contends  that 
vkoredom  was  pimished  under  the  Mosaic  law  with 


HAROD,  THE  WELL  OP    1008 

and  hardly  could  enter  into  the  view  of  the  Mosaio 
institutes.  As  regards  the  fashions  involved  in  the 
practice,  similar  outward  marks  seem  to  have  at- 
tended its  earliest  forms  to  those  which  we  trace  in 
tlie  classical  writers,  e.  g.  a  distinctive  dress  and  a 
seat  by  the  way-side  (Gen.  xxxviii.  14;  comp.  Ez. 
xvi.  16,  25;  Bar.  vi.  43  [or  Epist.  of  Jer.  43];* 
Petron.  Arb.  Sat.  xvi.;  Juv.  vi.  118  foil.;  Dougtaei 
Analect.  Sacr.  Exc.  xxiv.).  Public  singing  in  the 
streets  occurs  also  (Is.  xxiii.  16;  Ecclus.  ix.  4). 
Those  who  thus  published  their  infamy  were  of  the 
worst  repute,  others  had  houses  of  resort,  and  both 
classes  seem  to  have  been  known  among  the  Jews 
(Prov.  vii.  8-12,  xxiii.  28;  Ecclus.  ix.  7,  8);  the 
two  women,  1  K.  iii.  16,  lived  as  Greek  hetaerse 
sometimes  did,  in  a  house  together  (Diet.  Gr.  and 
Rom.  Ant.  s.  v.  Ihtmra).  The  baneful  fascination 
ascribed  to  them  in  Prov.  vii.  21-23  may  be  com- 
pared with  what  Chardin  says  of  similar  effects 
among  the  young  nobility  of  Persia  (  Voyages  en 
Ptrse,  i.  163,  ed.  1711),  as  also  may  Luke  xv.  30, 
for  the  sums  lavished  on  them  {10.  162).  In  earlier 
times  the  price  of  a  kid  is  mentioned  (Gen.  xxxviii.), 
and  great  wealth  doubtless  sometimes  accrued  to 
them  (Ez.  xvi.  33,  39,  xxiii.  26).  But  lust,  as  dis- 
tinct from  gain,  appears  as  the  inducement  in  Prov. 
vii.  14, 15  (see  Dougtaei  Anal.  Sacr.  ad  loc),  where 
the  victim  is  further  allured  by  a  promised  sacri- 
ficial banquet  (comp.  Ter.  J^un.  iii.  3).  The  "har- 
lots" are  classed  with  "publicans,"  as  those  who 
lay  under  the  ban  of  society  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt 
xxi.  32).  No  doubt  they  multiplied  with  the  in- 
crease of  polygamy,  and  consequently  lowered  the 
estimate  of  marriage.  The  corrupt  i)ractices  im- 
ported by  Gentile  converts  into  the  Church  occasicm 
most  of  the  other  passages  in  which  allusions  to  the 
subject  there  occur,  1  Cor.  v.  1,  9,  11 ;  2  Cor.  xii. 
21;  1  Thess.  iv.  3;  1  Tim.  i.  10.  The  decree, 
Acts  XV.  29,  has  occasioned  doubts  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  iropi/eia  there,  chiefly  from  its  context,  which 
may  be  seen  discussed  at  length  in  Deyling's  Observ. 
Sacr.  ii.  470,  foil.;  Schoettgen,  ffor.  Ihbr.  i.  468; 
Spencer  and  Hammond,  ad  loc.  The  simplest 
sense  however  seems  the  most  probable.  The  chil- 
dren of  such  persons  were  held  in  contempt,  and 
could  not  exercise  privileges  nor  inherit  (John  viii. 
41;  Deut.  xxiii.  2;  Judg.  xi.  1,  2).  On  the  gen- 
eral subject  Michaehs's  Laws  of  Moses,  bk.  v.  art. 
268;  Selden,  de  Ux.  Ileb.  i.  16,  iii.  12,  and  de  Jur. 
Natur.  V.  4,  together  with  Schoettgen,  and  the 
authorities  there  quoted,  may  be  consulted. 

The  words  -l!^!!";  ri'l^-Vn"),  A.  V.  "and  they 
washed  his  armor  "  (1  K.  xxii.*38)  should  be  "and 
the  harlots  washed,"  which  is  not  only  the  natural 
rendering,  but  in  accordance  with  the  LXX.  and 
JosC'phus.  H.  H. 

HARNETHER  (''^5'^n  [etym.  uncer- 
tain]:  'Apua(pdp;  [Vat.  corrupt:]  Ifarnapker), 
one  of  the  sons  of  Zophah,  of  the  tribe  of  Asher 
(1  Chr.  vii.  36). 

HA'ROD,  THE   WELL   OF   (accur.  the 


stoning  ;  but  this  is,  by  Selden  {de  Ux.  Heb.  iii.  18), 
shown  to  be  unfounded. 

rf  So  at  Corinth  were  1000  lepoSovKot  dedicated  to 
Aphrodite  and  the  gross  sins  of  her  worsliip,  and  sim 
ilarly  at  Comana,  in  Armenia  (Strabo,  //.  c). 

8  Aurai  ai  yvuaiKes  eK  tijs  oSov  toi»s  napiovraf 
fvvapTrd^ovo-i  (Theophr.  Char,  xxviii.).  So  Catnlliu 
(Carm.  xxxvii.  16)  speaks  convergel}  of  semitnrit 
\  maclii. 


1004 


HAEODITE,  THE 


^artng  of  Charod  [i.  e.  of  trembling]^  "^"^H  ^''3?: 
irT/7^  'A^efS,  Alex,  ttjv  ynv  loep :  y<wM  2«<i  "^oca- 
tur  ffarad),  a  spring  by  (v^)  which  Gideon  and 
his  great  army  encamped  on  the  morning  of  the  day 
which  ended  in  the  rout  of  the  Midianites  (Judg. 
vii.  1),  and  where  the  trial  of  the  people  by  their 
mode  of  drinking  apparently  took  place.  The  word, 
Blightly  altered,  recurs  in  the  proclamation  to  the 

host :  "  Whosoever  is  fearful  and  trembling  ("T7"7' 
chared)  let  him  return"  (ver.  3):  but  it  is  impos- 
Bible  to  decide  whether  the  name  Charod  was,  as  Prof. 
Stanley  proposes,  bestowed  on  account  of  the  trem- 
bling, or  whether  the  mention  of  the  trembling  was 
suggested  by  the  previously  existing  name  of  the 
fountain :  either  would  suit  the  paronomastic  vein 
in  which  these  ancient  records  so  delight.  The 
word  chared  (A.  V.  "was  afraid")  recurs  in  the 
description  of  another  event  which  took  place  in 
this  neighborhood,  possibly  at  this  very  spot  — 
Saul's  last  encounter  with  the  PhiUstines  —  when 
he  "  was  afraid,  and  his  heart  trembled  greatly," 
at  the  sight  of  their  fierce  hosts  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  5). 
The  ^Ain  Jali'id,  with  which  Prof.  Stanley  would 
identify  llarod  {S.  if  P.)  is  very  suitable  to  the 
circumstances,  as  being  at  present  the  largest  spring 
in  the  neighborhood,  and  as  forming  a  pool  of  con- 
siderable size,  at  which  great  numbers  might  drink 
(Rob.  ii.  323).  But  if  at  that  time  so  copious, 
would  it  not  have  been  seized  by  the  Midianites 
before  Gideon's  arrival  ?  However,  if  the  ^Ain  Ja- 
lud  be  not  this  spring,  we  are  very  much  in  the 
dark,  since  the  "hill  of  Moreh,"  the  only  land- 
mark afforded  us  (vii.  1),  has  not  been  recognized. 
The  only  hill  of  Moreh  of  which  we  have  any  certain 
knowledge  was  by  Shechem,  25  miles  to  the  south. 
If  Mm  Jalud  be  Harod,  then  Jebd  Duhy  must  be 
Moreh. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  name  Jalud  is  a 
corruption  of  Harod.  In  that  case  it  is  a  good 
example  of  the  manner  in  which  local  names  ac- 
quire a  new  meaning  in  passing  from  one  language 
to  another.  Harod  itself  probably  underwent  a 
similar  process  after  the  arrival  of  the  Hebrews  in 
Canaan,  and  the  paronomastic  turn  given  to  Gid- 
eon's speech,  as  above,  may  be  an  indication  of  the 
change.  G. 

HA'RODITE,  THE  C^l'^Dn  [patronym., 
see  below]:  &  ''Povhaios'i  Alex,  o  ApovSaios,  [o 
Apudaios :]  de  Ilarodi),  the  designation  of  two  of 
the  thirty-seven  warriors  of  David's  guard,  Sham- 
MAH  and  Elika  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  25),  doubtless  de- 
rived from  a  place  named  Harod,  either  that  just 
spoken  of  or  some  other.  In  the  parallel  passage 
of  Chronicles  by  a  change  of  letter  the  name  ap- 
pears as  Harorite. 

HARO'EH  (nS'nn,  l  e.  ha-Roeh  =  the 
teer:  'Apad  [Vat.  corrupt]),  a  name  occurring  in 
the  genealogical  lists  of  Judah  as  one  of  the  sons 
of  "  Shobal,  father  of  Kirjath-jearim  "  (1  Chr.  ii. 
52).  The  Vulg.  translates  this  and  the  following 
words,  ''qui  videbat  dimidium  requietionum."  A 
somewhat  similar  name  —  Reaiah  —  is  given  in 
V.  2  as  the  son  of  Shobal,  but  there  is  nothing  to 
t«tablish  the  identity  of  the  two. 

HA'RORITE,  THE  (*'T"inn  [see  Ha- 
bodite]:  6  'Apwpf;  [Vat.  FA.  o  ASt;]  Alex. 
9aSt:  Aroriies),  the  title  given  to  Shammoth, 
MM  of  the  warriors  of  David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  27) 


HAROSHETH 

"We  have  here  an  example  of  the  minute  di«!re*i 
ancies  which  exist  between  these  two  parallel  lista 
In  this  case  it  appears  to  have  arisen  from  an  ex- 
change of  "T,  D,  for  "1,  R,  and  that  at  a  very  earlj 
date,  since  the  LXX.  is  in  agreement  with  the 
present  Hebrew  text.  But  there  are  other  differ' 
ences,  for  which  see  Shammah. 

HARO'SHETH  (ritt?"^D,  Chardsheth 
[tcorking  in  wood,  stone,  etc.,  Ges. ;  or  city  of 
crofts,  of  artificial  work,  FuT&t]:  'Apiadcd;  [Vat 
Aoeic-coe;  Alex.  AaeipwO,  in  ver.  16,  Spv/xov-} 
liaroseth),  or  rather  "  Harosheth  of  the  Gentiles," 
as  it  was  called  (probably  for  the  same  reason  that 
Galilee  was  afterwards),  from  the  mixed  races  Ihat 
inhabited  it,  a  city  in  the  north  of  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, supposed  to  have  stood  on  the  west  coast  of 
the  lake  Merom  (el-IIuleh),  from  which  the  Jordan 
issues  forth  in  one  unbroken  stream,  and  in  the 
portion  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali.  It  was  the  res- 
idence of  Sisera,  captain  of  Jabin,  king  of  Canaan 
(Judg.  iv.  2),  whose  capital,  Hazor,  one  of  the 
fenced  cities  assigned  to  the  children  of  Naphtali 
(Josh.  xix.  36),  lay  to  the  northwest  of  it;  and  it 
was  the  point  to  which  the  victorious  Israelites 
under  Barak  pursued  the  discomfited  host  and 
chariots  of  the  second  potentate  of  that  name 
(Judg.  iv.  16).  Probably  from  intermarriage  with 
the  conquered  Canaanites.  the  name  of  Sisera  be- 
came afterwards  a  family  name  (Ezr.  ii.  53). 
Neither  is  it  irrelevant  to  allude  to  this  coincidence 
in  connection  with  the  moral  effects  of  this  deci- 
sive victory ;  for  Hazor,  once  "  the  head  of  all  those 
kingdoms  "  (Josh.  xi.  6,  10),  had  been  taken  and 
burnt  by  Joshua;  its  king,  Jabin  I.,  put  to  the 
sword ;  and  the  whole  confederation  of  the  Canaan- 
ites of  the  north  broken  and  slaughtered  in  the 
celebrated  battle  of  the  waters  of  Merom  (Josh.  xi. 
5-14)  —  the  first  time  that  "  chariots  and  horses  " 
appear  in  array  against  the  invading  host,  and  are 
so  summarily  disposed  of,  according  to  Divine 
command,  under  Joshua ;  but  which  subsequently 
the  children  of  Joseph  feared  to  face  in  the  valley 
of  Jezreel  (Josh.  xvii.  16-18);  and  which  Judah 
actually  failed  before  in  the  Philistine  plain  (Judg. 
i.  19).  Herein  was  the  great  diflSculty  of  subdu- 
ing plains,  similar  to  that  of  the  Jordan,  beside 
which  Harosheth  stood.  It  was  not  till  the  Israel- 
ites had  asked  for  and  obtained  a  king,  that  they 
began  "  to  multiply  chariots  and  horses  "  to  them- 
selves, contrary  to  the  express  words  of  the  law 
(Deut.  xvii.  16),  as  it  were  to  fight  the  enemy  with 
his  own  weapons.  (The  first  instance  occurs  2 
Sam.  viii.  4,  comp.  1  Chr.  xviii.  4;  next  in  the 
histories  of  Absalom,  2  Sam.  xv.  1,  and  of  Adoni- 
jah,  1  K.  i.  5;  while  the  climax  was  reached  under 
Solomon,  1  K.  iv.  26.)  And  then  it  was  that 
their  decadence  set  in!  They  were  strong  in 
faith  when  they  hamstrung  the  horses  and  burned 
the  chariots  with  fire  of  the  kings  of  Hazor,  of 
Madon,  of  Shimron,  and  of  Achshaph  (Josh.  xi.  1). 
And  yet  so  rapidly  did  they  decline  when  their 
illustrious  leader  was  no  more,  that  the  city  of 
Hazor  had  risen  from  its  ruins;  and  in  contrast  to 
the  kings  of  Mesopotamia  and  of  Moab  (Judg.  iii.), 
who  were  both  of  them  foreign  potentates,  another 
Jabin,  the  territory  of  whose  ancestors  hail  been 
assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  claimed  the  dia 
tinction  of  being  the  first  to  revolt  against  and 
shake  off  the  dominion  of  Israel  in  his  newlj 
acquired  inheritance.      But  the  nctory  won   bT 


HARP 

Deborah  and  Barak  was  well  worthy  of  the  song  of 
triumph  which  it  inspired  (Judg.  v.),  and  of  the 
proverbial  celebrity  which  ever  afterwards  attached 
to  it  (1*8.  kxxiii.  9,  10).  The  whole  territory  was 
gradually  won  back,  to  be  held  permanently,  as  it 
would  seem  (Judg.  iv.  24) ;  at  all  events  we  hear 
nothing  more  of  Hazor,  Harosheth,  or  the  Canaan- 
ites  of  the  north,  in  the  succeeding  wars. 

The  site  of  Harosheth  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  identified  by  any  modern  traveller. 

E.  S.  Ff. 

*  Dr.  Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  ii.  143)  sup- 
poses Harosheth  to  be  the  high  Tell  called  JIaro- 
thiehy  near  the  base  of  Carmel,  where  the  ELishon 
flows  along  toward  the  sea.  "  I  have  no  doubt," 
he  says,  "  of  this  identification."  A  castle  there 
would  guard  the  pass  along  the  Kishon  into  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon,  and  the  ruins  still  found  on  this 
"  enormous  double  mound  "  show  that  a  strong  for- 
tress must  have  stood  here  in  former  times.  A  village 
of  the  same  name  occurs  higher  up  on  the  other 
side  of  the  river,  and  hence  somewhat  nearer  the 
scene  of  the  Ueborah-Barak  battle.  This  writer  says 
that  I/aruthieh  is  the  Arabic  form  of  the  Hebrew 
Harosheth,  and  (according  to  his  view  of  the  di- 
rection of  the  flight)  Ues  directly  in  the  way  of  the 
retreat  of  Sisera's  forces.  It  is  about  eight  miles 
from  Megiddo,  and  in  the  neighborhood  of  Accho 
CAkka),  and  hence  exactly  in  the  region  where  the 
Gentile  "  nations,"  to  which  Harosheth  belonged, 
Btill  dwelt  and  were  powerful ;  for  we  learn  from 
Judg.  i.  31  that  the  Hebrews  had  been  unable  to 
drive  them  out  from  that  part  of  the  country. 

En-dor  is  mentioned  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.  10)  as  a  place 
of  slaughter  on  this  occasion.  Hence,  Stanley,  in 
his  graphic  sketch  (Jewish  Church,  i.  359),  repre- 
sents the  Canaanites  as  escaping  in  the  opposite 
direction,  through  the  eastern  branch  of  the  plain, 
and  thence  onward  to  Harosheth,  supposed  by  him 
to  be  among  the  northern  hills  of  Galilee.  En-dor 
was  not  far  from  Tabor  (the  modeni  village  is  dis- 
tinctly visible  from  its  top),  and  in  that  passage  of 
the  Psalmist  it  may  be  named  as  a  vague  designa- 
tion of  the  battle-field,  while  possbly  those  who 
"perished  at  En-dor"  were  some  of  the  fugitives 
driven  in  that  direction,  about  whose  destruction 
there  was  something  remarkable,  as  known  by  some 
tradition  not  otherwise  preserved.  H. 

HARP  ("T^S?,  Kinnor),  in  Greek  Kivvvpa. 
or  Kiv6pa,  from  the  Hebrew  word,  the  sound  of 
which  corresponds  with  the  thing  signified,  Uke  the 
Grerman  knarren,  "to  produce  a  shrill  tone" 
(Liddell  and   Scott).      Gesenius   incHnes   to   the 

opinion  that  T)3!3  is  derived  from  "^33,  « an 
unused  onomatopoetic  root,  which  means  to  give 
forth  a  tremulous  and  stridulous  sound,  like  that 
of  a  string  when  touched."  The  kinnor  was  the 
national  instrument  of  the  Hebrews,  and  was  well 
known  throughout  Asia.  There  can  be  Uttle  doubt 
that  it  was  the  earliest  instrument  with  which  man 
was  acquainted,  as  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch 
BSgigus  its  invention,  together  with  that   of   the 

^3'1^,  Ugab,  incorrectly  translated  "  organ "  in 
the  A.  v.,  tx)  the  antediluvian  period  (Gen.  iv.  21). 
Dr.  Kaliseh  {Hist,  and  Crit.  Com.  on  the  Old  Test.) 
eonsiders  Kinnor  to  stand  for  the  whole  class  of 
itringed  instruments  {Neginoth),  as  Ugah,  says 
he,  "  is  the  type  of  all  wind  instruments."  Writers 
irho  connect  the  Kiuvpa  with  Ku/up6s  (wailing), 
Ktrioofiai  (I  lament),  conjecture  that  this  instru- 


HARP  10()6 

ment  was  only  employed  by  the  Greeks  on  occa- 
sions of  sorrow  and  distress.  K  this  were  the  case 
with  the  Greeks  it  was  far  diflferent  with  the  He- 
brews, amongst  whom  the  kinnor  served  as  an  ac- 
companiment to  songs  of  cheerfulness  and  mirth 
as  well  as  of  praise  and  thanksgiving  to  the  Su- 
preme Being  (Gen.  xxxi.  27;  1  Sam.  xvi.  23;  2 
Chr  XX.  28;  Ps    xxxiii.  2),  and  was  very  rarely 


Egyptian  harp.     (ChampoUion.) 

used,  if  ever,  in  times  of  private  or  national  afflic- 
tion. The  Jewish  bard  finds  no  employment  for 
the  kinnor  during  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  but 
describes  it  as  put  aside  or  suspended  on  the  wil- 
lows (Ps.  cxxxvii.  2);  and  in  hke  manner  Job's 
harp  "  is  changed  into  mourning  "  (xxx.  31 ),  whilst 
the  hand  of  grief  pressed  heavily  upon  him.  The 
passage  "my  bowels  shall  sound  like  a  harp  for 


Assyrian  harps.     (Nineveh  marbles.) 

Moab"  (Is.  xvi.  11)  has  impressed  some  BiblicaJ 
critics  with  the  idea  that  the  kinnor  had  a  lugu- 
brious sound;  but  this  is  an  error,  since  HID 33 

yt2iT\**  refers  to  the  vibration  of  the  chords  and 
not  to  the  sound  of  the  instrument  (Gesen.  and 
Hitzig,  in  Comment.). 

Touching  the  shape  of  the  kinnor  a  great  differ- 
ence of  opinion  prevails.  The  author  of  Shilte 
Haggihborim  describes  it  as  resembling  the  modem 
harp ;  Pfeiffer  gives  it  the  form  of  a  guitar ;  and 
St.  Jerome  declares  it  to  have  resembled  in  shap* 


1006 


HARROW 


khe  Greek  letter  delta;  and  this  last  new  is  sup- 
ported by  Hieronymus,  quoted  by  Joel  Brill  in  the 
preface  to  Mendelssohn's  Psalms.  Joseplius  re- 
cords {Antiq.  vii.  12,  §  3)  that  the  kinnor  had  ten 
strings,  and  ♦Jiat  it  was  played  on  with  the  plec- 
trum ;  otherb  assign  to  it  twenty-four,  and  in  the 
ShilLe  IJ(uj<jibborim  it  is  said  to  have  had  forty- 
seven.  Josephus's  statement,  however,  ought  not 
to  be  received  as  conclusive,  as  it  is  in  open  contra- 
diction to  what  is  set  forth  in  the  1st  book  of 
Samuel  (xvi.  23,  xviii.  10),  that  Uavid  played  on 
the  kinmn'  with  his  hand.  As  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  there  was  a  smaller  and  a  largei'  Hn- 
nor,  inasmuch  as  it  was  sometimes  played  by  the 
Israelites  whilst  walkmg  (1  Sam.  x.  5),  the  opinion 
of  Munk  —  "  on  jouait  peut-etre  des  deux  manieres, 
wivant  les  dimensions  de  I'uistrument "  —  is  well 


Egyptian  harps.     (From  the  tomb  at  Tnebes,  called 

Belzoni's.) 
entitled  to  consideration.  The  Talmud  {Moss. 
Btracoih)  has  preserved  a  curious  tradition  to  the 
effect  that  over  the  bed  of  David,  facing  the  north, 
a  kinnor  was  suspended,  and  that  when  at  midnight 
the  north  wind  touched  the  chords  they  vibrated 
and  produced  musical  sounds. 

The  n"^2'^r3tt;n  b^  "T13D  — "Imrp  on  the 
Sheminith"  (1  Chr.  xv.  21)  —  was  so  called  from 
,ts  eight  strings.  Many  learned  writers,  including 
the  author  of  Shilte  IIag<jibbwiin,  identify  the  word 
"  Sheminith  "  with  the  octave;  but  it  would  indeed 
be  rash  to  conclude  that  the  ancient  Hebrews  un- 
derstood the  octave  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  em- 
ployed in  modern  times.  [Siieminitii.]  The 
skill  of  the  .Jews  on  the  kinnor  appears  to  have 
reached  its  highest  point  of  perfection  in  the  age 
of  David,  the  effect  of  whose  performances,  as  well 
as  of  those  by  the  members  of  the  "  Schools  of 
the  Prophets,"  are  described  as  truly  marvelous 
(oomp.  1  Sam.  x.  5,  xvi.  23,  and  xix.  20). 

D.  W.  M. 

HARROW.     The  word  so  rendered  2  Sam. 

xU.  31, 1  Chr.  XX.  3  (V^"]^)  is  probably  a  thresh- 
ing-machine, the  verb  rendered  "to  harrow" 
(Tib),  Is.  xxviii.  24;  Job  xxxix.  10;  Hos.  x.  11, 
expresses  apparently  the  breaking  of  the  clods,  and 
is  so  far  analogous  to  our  harrowing,  but  whether 
done  by  any  such  machine  as  we  call  "a  harrow" 
'«  very  doubtfiil.  In  modern  Palestine,  oxen  are 
■cmetimes  turned  in  to  trample  the  clods,  and  in 
•ome  parts  of  Asia  a  bush  of  thorns  is  dragged 
owr  Ui«  Burfacft,  but  all  these  processes,  if  used, 


HART 

occur  (not  after,  but)  before  the  seed  is  committod 
to  the  soil.     [See  Agricultuke.]  H.  II. 

HAR'SHA  (Str-in  \deaf,  Ges.  Gte  Aufl.; 
see  Fiirst]  :  'Apad;  ['ASacdv;  in  Ezr.,  Vat.  Aprr- 
aa']  Ilarsa).  Bene-Charsha  [sons  of  C]  were 
among  the  families  of  Nethinim  who  came  back 
from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  52;  Neh. 
vii.  54).     In  the  parallel  list  in  Esdras  the  name  is 

CllAREA. 

HART  (bjS:  ixacpos-  cervus).  The  hart 
is  reckoned  among  the  clean  animals  (Deut.  xii. 
15,  xiv.  5,  XV.  22),  and  seems,  from  the  passages 
quoted  as  well  as  from  1  K.  iv.  23,  to  have  been 
commonly  killed  for  food.  Its  activity  furnishes 
an  apt  comparison  in  Is.  xxxv.  6,  though  in  this 
respect  the  hind  was  more  commonly  selected  by 
the  sacred  writers.  In  Ps.  xlii.  1  the  feminine  ter- 
mination of  the  verb  renders  an  emendation  neces- 
sary: we  must  therefore  substitute  the  hind;  and 

again  in  Lam.  i.  6  the  true  reading  is  Q^^'^S, 
"  rams  "  (as  given  in  the  J^XX.  and  ViJg.).  The 
proper  name  Ajalon  is  derived  from  ayyal^  and  im- 
plies that  harts  were  numerous  in  the  neighbor- 
hood. W.  L.  B. 

The  Heb.  masc.  noun  ayyal  ( /'*S),  which  is  al- 
ways rendered  e\a(po9  by  the  EXX.,  denotes,  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  some  species  of  Cervidce  (deer 
tribe),  either  the  Damn  i-ult/ai-is,  fallow-deer,  or 
the  Cervus  Barbarus,  the  Barbary  deer,  the  south- 
em  representative  of  the  European  stag  (C.  ela- 
phus),  which  occurs  in  Tunis  and  the  coast  of 
IBarbary.  We  have,  however,  no  evidence  to  show 
that  the  Barbary  deer  ever  inhabited  Palestine, 
though  there  is  no  reason  why  it  may  not  have 
done  so  in  primitive  times.     Hasselquist  {Trav. 


Barbary  deer. 

p.  211)  observed  the  fallow-deer  on  Mount  Tabor. 
Sir  G.  Wilkinson  says  (Anc.  Egypt,  p.  227,  8vo 
ed.),  "The  stag  with  branching  horns  figured  at 
Beni  Hassan  is  also  unknown  in  the  valley  of  the 


HARUM 

mis;  but  it  is  still  seen  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Na- 
tron lakes,  as  about  Tunis,  though  not  in  the  des- 
ert between  the  river  and  the  Ked  Sea."  This  is 
doubtless  the  Cei-vus  Barharus. 

Most  of  the  deer  tribe  are  careful  to  conceal  their 
3alves  after  birth  for  a  time.  IMay  there  not  be 
Bome  allusion  to  this  circumstance  in  Job  xxxix.  1, 
»  Canst  thou  mark  when  the  hinds  do  calve?  "  etc. 
Perhaps,  as  the  LXX.  uniformly  renders  ayyal  by 
iKa(pos,  we  may  incline  to  the  belief  that  the  Cer- 
vus  Barbarus  is  the  deer  denoted.     The  feminine 

noun  n  v^S,  ayydldh,  occurs  frequently  in  the 
O.  T.  For  the  Scriptural  allusions  see  under 
Hind.  W.  H. 

*  The  word  Jol  in  Arabic  is  not  confined  to 

any  particular  species,  but  is  as  general  as  our  word 
deer.     It  in  fact  applies  as  well  to  the  mountain 


HASHABNAH 


1007 


G.  E.  P. 


goat  J»^^. 

HA'RUM  Conn  [elevated,  hfty]:  'lapiv, 
[Vat.]  Alex,  lapei/j.'  Arum).  A  name  occurring 
in  one  of  the  most  ooscure  portions  of  the  geneal- 
ogies of  Judah,  in  which  Coz  is  said  to  have  begot- 
ten "the  families  of  Aharhel  son  of  Harum"  (1 
Chr.  iv.  8). 

HARU'MAPH  (^'^^""11  [sUt-nosed,  Ges.] : 
'Epcofidcj);  [Vat.  Epwfiad:]  Ilaromaph),  father  or 
ancestor  of  Jedaiah,  who  assisted  in  the  repair  of 
the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  10). 

HARU'PHITE,  THE  C^Cnnrin  [patro- 
aym.,  see  Hnriph]  :  6  Xapai(piri\  ;  [Vat.  FA. 
-<f)€irjK;  Aid.]  Alex.  'KpovcpU  [Ilarupkiies]),  the 
designation  of  Shephatiahu,  one  of  tiie  Korhites 
who  repaired  to  David  at  Ziklag  when  he  was  in 
distress  (1  Chr.  xii.  5).     The  Masorets  read  the 

word  Hariphite,  and  point  it  accordingly,  '^D'^'ir]. 

HA'RUZ  (V*"^"1'7  I'^^^^i  active']:  'ApoCs: 
/laitis),  a  nian  of  Jotbah,  father  of  MeshuUemeth, 
queen  of  Manasseb,  and  mother  of  Amon  king  oi 
fudah  (2  K.  xxi.  19). 

HARVEST.     [Agriculture.] 

HASADI'AH  (n^lOn  [whom  Jehovah 
brves]:  'AtraSia:  Hasadia),  one  o^  a  group  of  five 
persons  among  the  descendants  of  tha  royal  line  of 
Judah  (1  Chr.  iii.  20),  apparently  sons  of  Zerub- 
babel,  the  leader  of  the  retui'n  from  Babylon.  It 
b-^s  been  conjectured  that  this  latter  half  of  the 
family  was  born  after  the  restoration,  since  some 
of  the  names,  and  amongst  them  this  one  —  "  be- 
loved of  Jehovah,"  appear  to  embody  the  hopeful 
feeling  of  that  time.     [Asadias.] 

HASENU'AH  (nS^Sn,  i.  e,  has-Sennuah 
[the  hated];  ^Aaivod;  [Vat.  Aava(]  Alex.  Aca- 
t/oua'  Asana),  a  Benjamite,  of  one  of  the  chief 
iiamilies  in  the  tribe  (1  Chr.  ix.  7).  The  name  is 
■really  Senuah,  with  the  definite  article  prefixed. 

HASHABI'AH  (n^^t^'Q,  and  with  final «; 

"inptt^n?    'Ao-ajSios,     ['Ao-ajSto,      AcejSias,] 
KtrtBlut  [etc.:]  Hasabias,  [Hasabia,  Hasebias,] 


ffasebia),  a  name  signifying  "  regarded  of  Jeho- 
vah," much  in  request  among  the  I^evites,  espd- 
cially  at  the  date  of  the  return  from  Babylon. 

1.  A  Merarite  Levito,  son  of  Amaziah,  in  the 
line  of  Ethan  the  singer  (1  Chr.  vi.  45;  Heb.  30) 

2.  Another  Merarite  Levite  (1  Chr.  ix.  14). 

3.  Chashabia'iiu:  another  Levite,  the  fourth 
of  the  six  sons  of  Jeduthun  (the  sixth  is  omitted 
here,  but  is  supplied  in  ver.  17),  who  played  the 
harp  in  the  service  of  the  house  of  God  under 
David's  order  (1  Chr.  xxv.  3),  and  had  charge  of 
the  twelfth  course  (19). 

4.  Chashabia'hu:  one  of  the  Ilebronites,  i.  e. 
descendants  of  Hebron  the  son  of  Kohath,  one  of 
the  chief  families  of  the  Levites  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  30) 
He  and  the  1,700  men  of  his  kindred  had  supei  • 
intendence  for  King  David  over  business  both 
sacred  and  secular  on  the  west «  of  Jordan.  Pos- 
sibly this  is  the  same  person  as 

5.  The   son   of   Kemuel,   who   was   "prince" 

(")C^)  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  in  the  time  of  David 
(1  Chr.  xxvii.  17). 

6.  Chashabia'hu  :  another  Levite,  one  of  the 

"chiefs"  O^P)  of  his  tribe,  who  officiated  for 
King  Josiah  at  his  great  passover-feast  (2  Chr. 
XXXV.  9).  In  the  parallel  account  of  1  Esdras  the 
name  appears  as  Ass  a  bias. 

7.  A  Merarite  Levite  who  accompanied  Ezra 
from  Babylon  (Ezr.  viii.  19).  In  1  Esdras  the 
name  is  Asebia. 

8.  One  of  the  chiefs  of  the  priests  (and  there- 
fore of  the  famil}  of  Kohath)  who  formed  part  of 
the  same  caravan  (Ezr.  viii.  24).  In  1  Esdras  the 
name  is  Assanias. 

9.  "  Ruler  "  (~lti?)  of  half  the  cu-cuit  or  envi- 
rons (Tfr?Q)  of  Keilah;  he  repaired  a  portion  of 
the  wall  of  Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah  (Neh.  iii. 
17). 

10.  One  of  the  Levites  who  sealed  the  covenant 
of  reformation  after  the  return  from  the  Captivity 
(Neh.  X.  11).     Probably  this  is  the  person  named 

as  one  of  the  "  chiefs  "  (**t^'Sl'^)  of  the  Levites  in 
the  times  immediately  subsequent  to  the  return 
from  Babylon  (xii.  24;  comp.  2G). 

11.  Another  Levite,  son  of  Bunni  (Neh.  xi.  15). 
Notwithstanding  the  remarkable  correspondence 
between  the  lists  in  this  chapter  and  those  in  1 
Chr.  ix.  —  and  in  none  more  than  in  this  verse 
compared  with  1  Chr.  ix.  14  —  it  does  not  appeal 
that  they  can  be  identical,  inasmuch  as  this  relates 
to  the  times  after  the  Captivity,  while  that  in  Chron- 
icles refers  to  the  original  establishment  of  the  ark 
at  Jerusalem  by  David,  and  of  the  tabernacle  (comp 
19,  21,  and  the  mention  of  Gibeon,  where  the 
tabernacle  was  au  this  time,  in  ver.  35).  But  see 
Nehemiah. 

12.  Another  Levite  in  the  same  list  cf  attend- 
ants on  the  Temple ;  son  of  Mattaniah  (Neh.  xi. 
22). 

13.  A  priest  of  the  family  of  Hilkiah  in  the 
days  of  Joiakim  son  of  Jeshua,  that  is  in  the  gen- 
eration after  the  return  from  the  Captivity  (Neh. 
xii  21;  comp.  1,  10,26). 

HASHAB'NAH  (n^^trq  [see  mpra]: 
['Effffafiavoi',  Alex.  Ecra^av'a,  and  so  Vat.  FA., 


a  This  is  one  of  the  mstances  in  which  the  word 
tim  (beyond)  is  used  for  the  west  side  of  Jordan.     To 


remove  the  anomaly,  our  translators  have  tendHend  ■ 
"  on  this  side." 


1008  HASHABNIAH 

8XC.  the  wrong  division  of  words :]  Hasebna),  one 
of  the  chief  ("heads  ")  of  the  "people  "  (i.  c.  the 
laymen)  who  sealed  the  covenant  at  the  same  time 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x  25). 

HASHAENFAH  (n;?ntt'q  [wTimnJeho. 
mh  rer/arth]:  ' Kaa^avia;  [Vat. "  AtraiSaj/ea^;] 
Alex.  Aa-/3ai/m;  [FA.  AtriSei/ea/i:]  Hasebonia). 
1.  Father  of  Hattush,  who  repaired  part  of  the 
wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  10). 

2.  [^Hasebnia.']  A  Levite  who  was  among  those 
who  officiated  at  the  great  fast  under  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  when  the  covenant  was  sealed  (Neh.  ix. 
5 ).  This  and  several  other  names  are  omitted  in 
both  MSS.  of  the  LXX. 

HASHBAD'ANA  (nj^^Stril  [intelligence 
in  judging^  Gesen.]  :  'A(Ta/8a5/xo;  [Tat.  FA.i 
omit;  Alex.  Aca/Saayuo :]  Ilasbadana),  one  of  the 
men  (probably  Levites)  who  stood  on  Ezra's  left 
hand  while  he  read  the  law  to  the  people  in  Jeru- 
Balem  (Neh.  viii.  4). 

HA'SHEM  (Dt?;;!  [perh.  fat,  rich,  Ges.] : 
'Ao-Oju;  [Vat.  FA.  corrupt:  Assem]).  The  sons 
of  Hashem  the  Gizonite  are  named  amongst  the 
members  of  David's  guard  in  the  catalogue  of  1 
Chr.  (xi.  34.)  In  the  parallel  hst  of  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
we  find  "  of  the  sons  of  Jashen,  Jonathan."  After 
a  lengthened  examination,  Kennicott  decides  that 
the  text  of  both  passages  originally  stood  "  of  the 
Bons  of  Hashem,  Guni"  {Dissertation^  pp.  198- 
203). 

HASHMAN'NIM  vC^2»t?'n  :  irpia fiats' 
legati).  This  word  occurs  only  in  the  Hebrew  of 
Ps.  Ixviii.  31:  "  Hashmannim  (A.  V.  "princes") 
shaU  come  out  of  Egypt,  Cush  shall  make  her  hands 
to  hasten  to  God."  In  order  to  render  this  word 
"princes,"  or  the  hke,  modern  Hebraists  have  had 
recourse  to  extremely  improbable  derivations  from 
tlie  Arabic.  The  old  derivation  from  the  civil  name 
of  Hermopolis  Magna  in  the  Heptanomis,  preserved 

in  the  modern  Arabic   ^^w^j«„^*CCi!,   "the   two 

Ashmoons,"  seems  to  us  more  reasonable.  The 
ancient  Egyptian  name  is  Ha-shmen  or  Ha-shmoon, 
the  abode  of  eight;  the  sound  of  the  signs  for  eight, 
\iowever,  we  take  alone  from  the  Coptic,  and  Brugsch 
leads  them  Sesennu  {Geog.  Inschr.  i.  pp.  219,  220), 
but  not,  as  we  think,  on  conclusive  grounds.  The 
Coptic  form  is  CyJULOVil  S,  "the  two 
Shmoons,"  like  the  Arabic.  If  we  suppose  that 
Hashmannim  is  a  proper  name  and  signifies  Her- 
mopolites,  the  mention  might  be  explained  by  the 
circumstance  that  Hermopolis  Magna  was  the  great 
city  of  the  Egyptian  Hermes,  Thoth,  the  god  of 
irisdom ;  and  the  meaning  might  therefore  be  that 
even  the  wisest  Egyptians  should  come  to  the  tem- 
ple, as  well  as  the  distant  Cushites.         R.  S.  P. 

HASHMO'NAH  (HDbipn  [fmitfulness-] : 
SeAjWcom;  Alex.  Ao-e\fiQ}va'-  Jffesmona),  a  station 
of  the  IsraeUtes,  mentioned  Num.  xxxiii.  29,  as  next 
before  Moseroth,  which,  from  xx.  28  and  Deut.  x. 
6,  was  near  Mount  Hor;  this  tends  to  indicate  the 
.ocalitj'  of  Hashmonah.  H.  H. 

HA'SHUB  {'y\*^^T2, 1  e.  Chasshub  [associate, 
friend,  or  intelligent^ :  'A<tov$  :  Asub).  The  re- 
luplication  of  the  Sh  has  been  overlooked  in  the 
A.  v.,  and  the  name  is  identical  with  that  else- 
vherd  correctly  given  as  Hasshub. 


HATACH 

1.  A  son  of  Pahath-Moab  who  asaiated  in  the 

repair  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  23). 

2.  Another  man  who  assisted  in  the  same  work 
but  at  another  part  of  the  wall  (Neh.  iii.  11). 

3.  [Vat.  FA.  AffovO.]  The  name  is  mentioned 
again  among  the  heads  of  the  "  people  "  (that  is 
the  laymen)  who  sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehe- 
miah (Neh.  X.  23).  It  may  belong  to  eithei  of  the 
foregoing. 

4.  [Kom.  omits;  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  Ao-ou/S.]  A 
Merarite  Levite  (Neh.  xi.  15).  In  1  Chr.  ix.  14 
he  appears  again  as  Hasshub. 

HASHU'BAH  (n^tpq  [esteemed,  or  asso- 
ciated]: 'Ao-oujSe';  Alex.  Affefia'-  JJasaba),  th« 
first  of  a  group  of  five  men,  apparently  the  latter 
half  of  the  family  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr.  iii.  20). 
For  a  suggestion  concerning  these  persons,  see 
Hasa'diah. 

HA'SHUM  (Dtrn  [rich,  distinguished]: 
^Aaoifi,  'Aardfi  [etc. :  '  Ha  sum,  Hasom,  Hasem] ). 

1.  Bene-Chashum,  two  hundred  and  twenty-three 
in  number,  came  back  from  Babylon  with  Zerub- 
babel (Ezr.  ii.  19;  Neh.  vii.  22).  Seven  men  of 
them  had  married  foreign  wives  from  whom  they 
had  to  separate  (Ezr.  x.  33).  The  chief  man  of 
the  fjimily  was  among  those  who  sealed  the  cove- 
nant with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  18).  [In  1  Esdr. 
ix.  33  the  name  is  Asom.] 

2.  CAa-dofJL',  [Vat.  FA.i  omit:]  Asnm.)  The 
name  occurs  amongst  the  priests  or  Levites  who 
stood  on  Ezra's  left  hand  while  he  read  the  law  to 
the  congregation  (Neh.  viii.  4).  In  1  Esdr.  ix.  44 
the  name  is  given  corruptly  as  Lothasubus. 

HASHU'PHA  {^tWr\  [uncovered]:  'A<r- 
(pd;  [Alex.  FA.  Aa-ft<pa'-  Hasupha]),  one  of  the 
families  of  Nethinim  who  returned  from  captivity 
in  the  first  caravan  (Neh.  vii.  46).  The  name  is 
accurately  Hasupha,  as  in  Ezr.  ii.  43.    [Asipha.] 

HAS'RAH  (nnpn  [perh.  sjilendor,  Furst] : 
'Apis'i  [Vat.  XeAAi7s;]  Alex.  Ea(repv\Hasi'a), 
the  form  in  which  the  name  Harhas  is  given  iu 
2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22  (comp.  2  K.  xxii.  14). 

HASSENA'AH  (nSjrpn  [the  thoi-n-hedge, 
Fiirst]:  'Acavd;  [Vat.  Aaav;  FA.  Aaavaa:] 
Asnaa).  The  Bene-has-senaah  [sons  of  Hassenaah] 
rebuilt  the  fish-gate  in  the  repair  of  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  3).  The  name  is  doubtlesa 
that  of  the  place  mentioned  in  Ezr.  ii.  35,  and  Neh. 
vii.  38  —  Senaah,  with  the  addition  of  the  defi- 
nite article.  Perhaps  it  has  some  connection  with 
the  rock  or  cUfF  Sekeh  (1  Sam.  xiv.  4). 

HAS'SHUB  (:i^t2?n  [intelligent,  knowing 
Ges.]  :  'A<rc6i3  :  Hasmb),  a  Merarite  Invite  (1 
Chr.  ix.  14).  He  appears  to  be  mentioned  again 
in  Neh.  xi.  15,  in  what  may  be  a  repetition  of  the 
same  genealogy;  but  here  the  A.  V.  have  given  ths 
name  as  Hashub. 

HASUTHA  (S^^irn  [uncovered,  naTced]: 
'A<Tov<pd  ;  [Vat.  A<Tov(p€  :]  Hasupha).  Bene 
Chasftpha  [sons  of  C]  were  among  the  Nethinin 
who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr. 
ii.  43).  In  Nehemiah  the  name  is  uiaccuratelj 
given  in  the  A.  V.  [as  in  the  Genevan  version^ 
Hashupha  ;  in  Esdi-as  it  is  Asipha. 

HAT.    [Head-dress,  at  the  end  ot  the  art.J 

HA'TACH  C?|nq  [Pers.  eunuch,  Geeen.j 
'Axpaflatos;   Alex.  [ver.  5,]   Axpoefos;    [wr.  9 


HATHATH 

•rith  FA.l,  Ax^pa^atos;  Conip.  'A0axO  Athach), 
one  of  the  eunuchs  (A.  V.  "chamberlains")  in  the 
court  of  Ahasuerus,  in  immediate  attendance  on 
Esther  (Esth.  iv.  5,  6,  9,  10).  The  LXX.  alter 
ver.  5  to  rhv  ^huovxov  auTTjs. 

HA'THATH  (nHQ  U'earfuC]-.  'AOdd:  Hn- 
that),  a  man  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah;  one  of 
the  sons  of  Othniel  the  Kenazite,  the  well-known 
judge  of  Israel  (1  Chr.  iv.  13). 

HATITHA  (WD^'t^n  [seized,  captivt]  : 
'ATOv<pa,  'Art^a;  [in  Ezr.,  Alex.  Kricpa;  in 
Neh.,  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  ATe«/)o:]  Hatipha).  Bene- 
Chatipha  [sons  of  C]  were  among  the  Nethinim 
v*ho  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerubbabel  (Ezr. 
ii.  54;  Neh.  vii.  56).     [Atii'HA.] 

HATI'TA  (ST^^tS'I^  [dlf/ffiriff,  explming]: 
'hrird;  [in  Ezr.,  Vat.  ArTyra;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  FA. 
Ai  etra:]  Halita).  Bene-Chatita  [sons  of  C]  were 
among  the  "  porters  "  or  "  children  of  the  porters  " 

(□"^n^t^n,  ;.  e.  the  gate-keepers),  a  division  of 
the  Invites  who  returned  from  the  Captivity  with 
Zerubbabel  (Ezr.  ii.  42;  Neh.  vii.  45).  In  Esdras 
the  name  is  abbreviated  to  Teta. 

HAT'TIL  (b"'I2in  {wavering,  or  decaying] : 
'AtiA,  'Ett^A;  Alex.  AttiA,  [EtttjX;  in  Ezr., 
Vat.  Areta;  in  Neh.,  Vat.  FA.  E77)A:]  HntU). 
llene-Chattil  [sons  of  C]  were  among  the  "  chil- 
dren of  Solomon's  slaves  "  who  came  back  from 
captivity  with  Zerubbabel  (l^^r.  ii.  67 ;  Neh.  vii. 
59).     [Hagia.] 

HAT'TUSH  (tr^tSn  [prob.  assembled,  Ges. ; 
contender,  Fiirst]  :  Xarrovs,  ' A.TTovi,  [etc.:]  II it- 
tus).  1.  A  descendant  of  the  kings  of  Judah, 
apparently  one  of  the  "sons  of  Shechaniah  "  (1 
Chr.  iii.  22),  in  the  fourth  or  fifth  generation  from 
Zerubbabel.  A  person  of  the  same  name,  expressly 
specified  as  one  of  the  "sons  of  David  of  the  sons 
of  Shechaniah,"  accompanied  Ezra  on  his  journey 
from  Babylon  to  .Terusalem  (Ezr.  viii.  2),  whither 
Zerubbabel  himself  had  also  come  only  seventy  or 
eighty  years  before  (I^r.  ii.  1,  2).  Indeed,  in 
another  statement  Hattush  is  said  to  have  actually 
returned  with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  2).  At  any 
rate  he  took  part  in  the  seahng  of  the  covenant 
with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  4).  To  obviate  the  dis- 
crepancy between  these  last-mentioned  statements 
and  the  interval  between  Hattush  and  Zerubbabel 
in  1  Chr.  iii.,  Lord  A.  Hervey  proposes  to  read  the 
genealogy  in  that  chapter  as  if  he  were  the  nephew 
if  Zerubbabel,  Shemaiah  in  ver.  22  being  taken  as 
dentinal  with  Shimei  in  ver.  19.  For  these  pro- 
»)Osals  the  reader  is  referred  to  Lord  Hei-vey's 
(Jeneaiogies,  pp.  103,  307,  322.  &c.  [Lkttus; 
Sjiechakiah.] 

2.  {"AttovO  [Vat.  FA.  AtovO;  Alex,  uvtovs' 
Comp.  'Attovs-]  )  Son  of  Hashabniah ;  one  of  those 
jvho  assisted  Nehemiah  in  the  repair  of  the  wall  of 
Jeiiisalem  (Neh.  iii.  10). 

HAU'RAN   O^p   [see  infra]:  AypavTr/s: 

.    tt" 

Auran:  Arab.  ..»i\«-^.),  a  province  of  Palesthie 

twice  mentioned  by  Ezekiel  in  defining  the  north- 
eastern border  of  the  Promised  Land  (xlvii.  16, 18). 
Had  we  no  other  data  for  determining  its  situation 
we  should  conclude  from  his  words  that  it  lay  north 
of  Damascus.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  however, 
that  it  is  identical  with  the  well-known  Gre>  k  prov- 


HAVILAH 


1009 


ince  of  Auranitis,  and  the  modem  VaurAn.  Tlie 
name  is  probably  derived  from  the  word  H^n,  Ilur, 
■'  a  hole  or  cave;  "  the  region  still  abounds  in  caves 
which  the  old  inhabitants  excavated  partly  io  aerve 
as  cisterns  for  the  collection  of  water,  and  partly 
for  granaries  in  which  to  secure  their  grain  from 
plunderers.  .Tosephus  frequently  mentions  Auran- 
itis  in  connection  with  Trachonitis,  Batana;a,  and 
Gaulanitis,  which  with  it  constituted  the  ancient 
kingdom  of  Bashan  {B.  J.  i.  20,  §  4;  ii.  17,  §  4^. 
It  formed  part  of  that  Tpax(^viri5os  X'*>P°-  referred 
to  by  Luke  (iii.  1)  as  suiycct  to  Philip  the  tetrarch 
(comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  11,  §  4).  It  is  bounded 
on  the  west  by  Gaulanitis,  on  the  north  by  the 
wild  and  rocky  district  of  Trachonitis,  on  the  east 
by  the  mountainous  region  of  Batansea,  and  on  the 
south  by  the  great  plain  of  Moab  (Jer.  xlviii.  21). 
The  surface  is  perfectly  flat  and  the  soil  is  among 
the  richest  in  Syria.  Not  a  stone  is  to  be  .Heen  save 
on  the  few  low  volcanic  tells  that  rise  up  here  and 
there,  like  islands  in  a  sea.  It  contains  upwards 
of  a  hundred  towns  and  villages,  most  of  them  now 
deserted,  though  not  ruined.  The  buildings  in 
many  of  these  are  remarkable,  the  walls  are  of  great 
thickness,  and  the  roofs  and  doors  are  of  stone, 
evidently  of  remote  antiquity  (see  Porter's  Five 
Years  in  Damascus,  vol.  ii.  [also  liis  Giant  Cities 
of  Bashan  ;  Wetzstein's  Beisebericht  iib.  TIauran 
n.  die  Trachonen  (Berlin,  1861)]).  Some  Arab 
geographers  have  described  the  JIauran  as  much 
more  extensive  than  here  stated  (l^haed.  Vit.  Sal. 
ed.  Schult.  p.  70;  Abulfed.  Tab.  Syr.  s.  v.);  and 
at  the  present  day  the  name  is  apphed  by  those  at 
a  distance  to  the  whole  country  east  of  Jaulan ; 
but  the  inhabitants  themselves  define  it  as  above. 

J.  L.  P. 
*  HAVENS,  FAIR.    [Fair  Havens.] 
HAVI'LAH  (nVin  \circle,district,Tnmt] 
Ei'tAa,  EwetAa:  Hevila).     1.  A  son  of  Cush  (Ger 
X.  7);  and  — 

2.  A  son  of  Joktan  (x.  29).  Various  theories 
have  been  advanced  respecting  these  obscure  peoples. 
It  ap])ears  to  be  most  probable  that  both  stocks 
settled  in  the  same  country,  and  there  intermairied ; 
thus  receiving  one  name,  and  forming  one  race, 
with  a  common  descent.  It  is  innnaterial  to  the 
argument  to  decide  whether  in  such  instances  the 
settlements  were  contemporaneous,  or  whether  new 
inmiigrants  took  the  name  of  the  older  settlers.  In 
the  case  of  Havilah,  it  seems  that  the  Cushite 
people  of  this  name  fonned  the  westernmost  colony 
of  ( 'ush  along  the  south  of  Arabia,  and  that  the 
Joktanites  were  an  earlier  colonization.  It  is  com- 
monly   thought    that    the    district    of    Khawkic 

(..tj)*-^),  in  the  Yemen,  preserves  the  trace 
of  this  ancient  people;  and  the  similarity  of  name 
(^  being  interchangeable  with  H,  and  the  ter- 
mination being  redundant),  and  the  group  of  Jok- 
tanite  names  in  the  Yemen,  render  the  identifica- 
tion probable.  Niebuhr  states  that  there  are  two 
Kliiiwli'ms  (Descr.  270,  280 j,  and  it  has  hence  been 
argued  by  some  that  we  have  thus  the  Cushite  and 
the  Joktanite  Havilah.  The  second  Khawlan,  how- 
ever, is  a  tf)wn,  and  not  a  laige  and  weU-knowii 
district  like  the  first,  or  more  northern  one;  and 
the  hyiwtliesis  based  on  Niebuhr's  assertion  is  un- 
necessary, if  the  theory  o*"  a  doulile  settlement  b« 


1010  HAVILAH 

•dopted.    There  is  also  another  town  in  the  Yemen 

sailed   llawlan  {^"^yS*). 

Tlie  district  of  Khiiwlan  lies  between  the  city  of 
San'ii  and  the  Hijaz,  i.  e.  in  the  northwestern 
lX)rtioi)  of  the  Yemen.  It  took  its  name,  according 
to  the  Arabs,  from  Khiiwlan,  a  descendant  of  Kahtan 
[.Ioktan]  (Mardsi(f,  s.  v.),  or,  as  some  say,  of 
Kahlan,  brother  of  Himyer  (Caussin,  /ksv//,  i.  ]13, 
and  tab.  ii.).  This  geiiealo<];y  says  little  more  than 
that  the  name  was  -loktanite;  and  the  difference 
between  Kahtan  and  Kahlan  may  be  neglected, 
b<^th  behig  descendants  of  the  first  Joktanite  settler, 
and  the  whole  of  these  early  traditions  pointing  to 
a  Joktanite  settlement,  without  perhaps  a  distinct 
presei'vation  of  Joktan's  name,  and  certainly  none 
of  a  conect  genealogy  from  him  downwards. 

Khawlan  is  a  fertile  territory,  embracing  a  large 
part  of  myrrhiferous  Arai)ia;  mountainous;  with 
plenty  of  water;  and  su])porting  a  large  population. 
It  is  a  tract  of  Arabia  better  known  to  both  ancients 
and  moderns  than  the  rest  of  the  Yemen,  and  the 
eastern  and  central  provinces.  It  adjoins  Nejran 
(the  district  and  town  of  that  name),  mentioned  in 
the  account  of  the  expedition  of  yl'lius  (iallus,  and 
the  scene  of  great  {KJisecutions  of  tl.e  ( christians  by 
Dhu-Nuwjis,  the  last  of  the  l'ubl)ajis  before  the 
Abyssinian  conquest  of  Arabia,  in  the  year  523  ol 
our  era  (cf.  Caussin,  K^a/ti,  i.  1*21  ff.).  For  the 
Chaulanitae,  see  the  Dictiirtmry  of  (j!eo(/rr>/)iaj. 

An  argument  against  the  identity  of  Ivhawhin 
and  Havilah  has  been  foiuid  in  the  mentions  of  a 
Ilavilah  on  the  border  of  the  Ishmaehtes,  "  as  thou 
goest  to  Assyria"  (Cen.  xxv.  18),  and  also  on  that 
of  the  Amalekites  (1  Sam.  xv.  7).  It  is  not  how- 
ever necessary  that  these  passages  should  refer  to  1 
or  2 :  the  place  named  may  be  a  town  or  country 
called  after  them ;  or  it  may  ha\  e  some  reference 
to  the  Havilah  named  in  the  description  of  the 
rivers  of  the  garden  of  Kden;  and  the  LXX.  render 
it,  following  apparently  the  last  supposition,  EwtAciT 
in  both  instances,  according  to  their  si>elling  of  the 
Havilah  of  Gen.  ii.  11. 

Those  who  separate  the  Cushite  and  Joktanite 
Havilah  either  place  them  in  Niebuhr's  two  Khjiw- 
ians  (as  already  stated),  or  they  place  2  on  the 
north  of  the  peninsida,  following  the  supposed 
argument  derived  from  Gen.  xxv.  18,  and  1  Sam. 
XV.  7,  and  finding  the  name  in  that  of  the  Xav\o- 
ra7oi  (Eratosth.  oj).  Strabo,  xvi.  767),  between  the 
Nabata-i  and  the  Agr«i,  and  in  that  of  the  town 

of  ILOa.^-  on  the  Persian  Gulf  (Niebuhr,  Dtscr. 

342).  A  Joktanite  settlement  so  far  north  is  how- 
ever very  improbable.  They  discover  1  in  the  Avahtae 
on  the  African  coast  (Ptol.  iv.  7;  Arrian,  Ptripl. 
263,  ed.  Midler),  the  modern  name  of  the  shore  of 
the  Sinus  Avalatis  being,  says  Gesenius,  Zeylah  = 
Zuweylah  =  Ilavilah,  and  Saadiah  having  three 
times  in  Gen.  WTitten  Zeylah  for  Havilah.  But 
Gesenius  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  true  orthog- 
raphy of  the  name  of  the  modern  country,  which 

is  not  icoV,  but  /^-OV,  with  a  final  letter  very 
rarely  added  to  the  Hebrew.  E.  S.  P. 

HAVFLAH  ([EufAar;  Alex.  EuetAor:  Hev- 
Hath]  Gen.  ii.  11).     [Edkn,  p.  657.] 

HA'VOTH-JAaR  ("!''S;  n^r,  I  e.  Chav- 
roth  Jair  [yiUayes  of  Jair,  i.  e.   of  the  enlight- 


HAWK 

ener]:  ^iravK^is  and  Kui^jiai  'latp,  0aiici;9  [  Iaij», 
etc. :]  vicus,  Ifavoth  Jair,  iriculus  Jair,  [etc.]) 
certain  villages  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  in  Gilead  M 
Bashan.  The  word  Chavvali,  which  occurs  in  the 
Bible  in  this  connection  only,  is  perhaps  best  ex- 
plaine<l  by  the  similar  term  in  modern  Arabic, 
which  denotes  a  small  collection  of  huts  or  hovel? 
in  a  country  place  (see  the  citations  in  Gesenius, 
Thes.  451;  and  Stanley,  S.  (f  P.  App.  §  84). 

(1.)  The  earliest  notice  of  the  Havoth-jair  is  in 
Num.  xxxii.  41,  in  the  account  of  the  settlement 
of  the  Transjordanic  country,  where  Jair,  son  of 
INIanasseh,  is  stated  to  have  taken  some  ullages 
(A.  V.  "the  small  tovras;  "  but  there  is  no  article 
in  the  Hebrew)  of  Gilead  —  which  was  allotted  to 
his  tribe  —  and  to  have  named  them  after  himself, 
Havvoth-jair.  (2.)  In  Deut.  iii.  14  it  is  said  that 
Jair  "  took  all  the  tract  of  Argob,  unto  the  bound- 
ary of  the  Geshurite  and  the  Maacathite,  and  called 
them  after  his  own  name,  Bashan-havoth  jair." 
Here  tlie  villages  are  referred  to,  but  there  must  l^e 
a  hiatus  after  the  word  "  Maacathite,"  in  which 
they  were  mentioned,  or  else  there  is  nothing  to 
justify  the  plural  "them."  (3.)  In  the  records 
of  Manasseh  in  Josh.  xiii.  30  and  1  Chr.  ii.  23 
(A.  v.,  in  both  "towns  of  Jair"),  the  HavToth- 
jair  are  reckoned  with  other  districts  as  making  up 

sixty  "cities"  (U^'^V).  In  1  K.  iv.  13  they  are 
named  as  part  of  the  conuuissariat  district  of  Ben- 
geber,  next  in  order  to  the  "sixty  great  cities"  of 
Argob.  There  is  apparently  some  confusion  iu 
these  different  statements  :us  to  what  the  sixty  cities 
really  consisted  of,  and  if  the  interpretation  of 
Chavvah  given  above  be  correct,  the  application  of 
tlie  word  "  city "  to  such  transient  erections  ia 
remarkable  atid  puzzling.  Perhaps  the  remoteness 
and  inaccessibility  of  the  Transjordanic  district  in 
which  they  lay  may  explain  the  one,  and  our  igno- 
rance of  the  real  force  of  the  Hebrew  word  Ir,  ren- 
dered "city,"  the  other.  Or  perhaps,  though 
retaining  their  ancient  name,  they  had  changed 
their  original  condition,  and  had  become  more  im- 
jx)rtant,  as  has  been  the  case  in  our  OMn  country 
with  more  than  one  place  still  designated  as  a 
"hamlet,"  though  long  since  a  popukms  town. 
(4.)  No  less  doubtful  is  tlie  number  of  tlie  Havoth- 
jair.  In  1  Chr.  ii.  22  they  are  specified  as  twenty- 
three,  but  in  Judg.  x.  4,  as  thirty.  In  the  latter 
passage,  however,  the  allusion  is  to  a  second  Jair, 
by  whose  thirty  sons  they  were  governed,  and  for 
whom  the  original  number  may  have  been  increased. 

The  word  D'^'l^V,  "  cities,"  is  perhaps  employed 
here  for  the  sake  of  the  play  which  it  aflbrds  with 
^■^^3^,  "ass-colts."  [Jaik;  Bashan-havotii- 
JAIR.]  G. 

HAWK  (V5'  ^'«'  (Vpa|:  «c«)/?7e?'),  the  trans- 
lation of  the  above-named  Heb.  term,  which  occurs 
in  lev.  xi.  16  and  Deut.  xiv.  15  as  one  of  the  un- 
clean birds,  and  in  Job  xxxix.  26,  where  it  is  asked, 
"  Doth  the  nets  fly  by  thy  wisdom  and  stretch  her 
wings  towards  the  south  ?  "  The  word  is  doubtless 
generic,  as  appears  from  the  expression  in  Deut. 
and  Lev.  "  after  his  kind,"  and  includes  varioua 
species  of  the  Falconidce,  with  more  esp^-cial  allusion 
perhaps  to  the  small  diurnal  birds,  such  as  the 
kestrel  {Folco  tinnuncvlus),  fhe  hoi  by  {HypO' 
trinirhis  stMuteo),  the  gregarious  lesser  kestrel 
{Tinmmcnlus  cenc/nis),  common  about  the  ruin* 
in  the  plain  districts  of  Palestine,  all  of  irhich  w«« 


HAWK 

probably  known  to  the  ancient  Hebrews.  With 
respect  to  the  passajje  in  .lob  (/.  c),  which  appears 
to  allude  to  the  mii^ratory  habits  of  hawks,  it  is 
curious  to  observe  that  of  tlie  ten  or  twelve  lesser 
raptors  of  Tulestine,  nearly  all  are  summer  migrants. 
The  kestrel  remains  all  the  year,  but  T.  cenchris, 
Micronisus  oabar,  Hyp.  e.leonoiw,  and  F.  mehmnp- 
tertts,  are  all  migrants  from  the  south.  Besides 
the  above-named  smaller  hawks,  the  two  magnificent 
species,   F.  Snker  and   F.   lanarius,  are  summer 


FaUo  Saker. 

visitors  to  Palestine.  » On  one  occasion,"  says 
Mr.  Tristram,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  much 
information  on  the  subject  of  the  birds  of  Palestine, 
"while  riding  with  an  Arab  guide  I  observed  a 
falcon  of  large  size  rise  close  to  us.  The  guide, 
when  I  pointed  it  out  to  him,  exclaimed,  '  Ta'ir 
(SVrg'r.'  «  Tair,  the  Arabic  for  '  bird,'  is  universally 
throughout  N.  Africa  and  the  East  applied  to  those 
falcons  which  are  capable  of  being  trained  for  hunt- 
ing, i.  e.  '  the  bird,'  pnr  excellence.'"  These  two 
species  of  fiilcons,  and  perhaps  the  hobby  and 
goshawk  (Aslitr  pulwubarius)  are  employed  by  the 
Arabs  in  Syria  and  Palestine  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  partridges,  sand-grouse,  quails,  herons, 
gazelles,  hares,  etc.  Dr.  Russell  {NaL  [list,  of 
Aleppo,  ii.  p.  190,  2d  ed.)  has  ijlven  the  Arabic 
names  of  sevend  falcons,  but  it  is  probable  that 
some  at  least  of  these  names  apply  rather  to  the 
ditlerent  sexes  than  to  distinct  species.  See  a  very 
graphic  description  of  the  sport  of  falconry,  as  pur- 
Mind  by  the  Aral)s  of  N.  Africa,  in  the  Ibis,  i.  p. 
*28  J :  and  comp.  Thomson,  The  Land  and  the  Book, 
p.  208  (i.  30i)-yil,  Am.  ed.). 

Whether  falconry  was  pursued  by  the  ancient 
Orientals  or  not,  is  a  question  we  have  been  unaWe 
o  determine  decisively.  No  representation  of  such 
a  sport  occurs  on  the  monuments  of  ancient  Egypt 
(see  Wilkinson,  Anc.  A'//,  i.  p.  221),  neither  is  there 
»ny  definite  allusion  to  falconry  in  the  Bible.  With 
regard,  however,  to  the  negative  evidence  supplied 


o  *  The  word  Sa^V,  wiLo,  is  the  name  of  all  the 

9ptor«s,  of  the  filcons,  hawks,  and  kites. 

G.  E.  P. 


HA\  1011 

by  the  monuments  of  Eg}^)!,  we  xa\^si  be  careAi 
ere  we  draw  a  conclusion ;  for  the  eamel  is  not  rej>. 
resented,  though  we  have  Biblical  evidence  to  show 
that  this  animal  was  used  by  the  Egyptians  as 
early  as  the  time  of  Abraham ;  still,  as  instances 
of  various  modes  of  capturing  fish,  gurae,  and  wild 
animals,  are  not  unfrequent  on  the  raonuments,  it 
seems  probable  the  art  was  not  known  to  the  Egyp- 
tians. Nothing  definite  can  be  learnt  from  the 
passage  in  J  Sum.  xxvi.  20,  which  speaks  of  "a 
partridge  hunted  on  the  mountains,"  as  this  raaj 
allude  to  the  method  of  taking  these  birds  by 
"  throw-sticks,"  etc.  [Pakthidgk.]  'Hie  hind  or 
hart  "panting  after  the  water-brooks  "  (Ps.  xlii.  1) 
may  appear  at  firet  sight  to  refer  to  the  mode  at 
present  adopted  in  the  East  of  taking  gazelles,  deer, 
and  bustards,  with  the  united  aid  of  falcon  and 
greyhound:  but,  as  Hengstenberg  (Coiument.  on 
Ps.  1.  c.)  has  arguetl,  it  seems  pretty  clear  that  the 
exhaustion  spoken  of  is  to  be  understtxHl  as  arising 
not  from  pursuit,  but  from  some  prevailing  drought, 
as  in  Ps.  Ixiii.  1,  "  My  soul  tliirsteth  lor  thee  In  a 
dry  land.'''  (See  also  Joel  i.  20.)  The  poetical 
version  of  Brady  and  Tate  — 

"  As  pants  the  hart  for  cooliuij  streams 
AVhen  heated  in  the  chase," 

has  therefore  somewhat  prejudged  the  matter.  FoT 
the  question  as  to  whether  falconry  was  known  to 
the  ancient  Greeks,  see  Beckmann,  HUtory  of  L%~ 
ventions  (i.  198-205,  Bohn's  ed.).  W.  "li. 

HAY  (T^l'n,  chatzir:  iv  Ted  ireSiev  x^^pos^ 
X^pros'.  prrda,  tierba),  the  rendering  of  the  A.  V. 
in  Prov.  xxvii.  25,  and  Is.  xv.  6,  of  the  above-namet^ 
Heb.  term,  which  occurs  fret]uently  in  the  O.  T., 
and  denotes  "grass"  of  any  kind,  fmm  an  unuse<i 
root,  "to  be  green."  [Gkass.]  In  Num.  xi.  5, 
this  word  is  properly  translated  "  leeks."  [Lkkk.] 
Harmer  {Observnt.  i.  425,  ed.  17!)7),  quoting  from 
a  IMS.  paper  of  Sir  J.  Chardin,  states  that  hay  is 
not  made  anywhere  in  the  East,  and  that  the 
fenum  of  the  Vulg.  (aliis  locis)  and  the  "  hay  '* 
of  the  A.  V.  are  therefore  errors  of  translation.  It 
is  quite  probable  that  the  modern  Orientals  do  not 
make  hay  in  our  sense  of  the  term ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  the  ancients  did  mow  their  gKiss,  and  probably 
made  use  of  the  dry  material.     See  Ps.  xxxvii.  2, 

"  They  shall  soon  be  cut  down  (^^^^),  and  wither 
as  the  green  herb; "  Ps.  Ixxii.  6,  "  Like  rain  upon 
the  mown  gniss  "   C*"?^.    See  also  Am.  vii.  1,  "  The 

king's  mowings"  (Tf^^H  "'^TS) :  and  Ps.,cxxix. 
7,  where  of  the  "grass  upon  the  housetops  "  (Poa 
iinnua  ?)  it  is  said  (hat  "the  mower  (*1^1p) 
filleth  not  his  hand  "  with  it,  "  nor  he  that  bindeth 
sheaves  his  bosom."  AVe  do  not  see,  therefore, 
with  the  author  of  Fragments  in  Continuation  of 
Calmet  (No.  clxxviii.),  any  gross  impropriety  in  our 
version  of  Prov.  xxvii.  25,  or  in  that  of  Is.  xv.  6. 
"  Certainly,"  sjiys  this  writer,  "  if  the  tender  gi'ass  * 
is  but  just  beginning  to  show  itself,  the  hay,  which 
is  grass  cut  and  dried  after  it  has  arri\e(J  at  ma- 
turity, ought  by  no  means  to  be  associated  with  it, 
stil!  less  ought  it  to  be  placed  before  it."  But 
where   is   the   impropriety  V     ITie    tender   yras* 

(St?^jT)  may  refer  to  the  springing  nfler-grasi^ 


ft  "  The  hay  appeareth,  and  the  tender  grass  shewetk 
itself,  and  herbs  of  the  mixiutains  are  gathered  " 


1012 


HAZAEL 


Mid  the  "  hay  "  to  the  hay-<jrass.  However,  m  tne 
two  passages  in  question,  where  alone  the  A.  V. 
renders  didtzir  by  "  hay,"  the  word  would  certainly 
be  better  translated  by  "grass."  We  may  remark 
that  there  is  an  express  Hebrew  term  for  "  dry 
grass"  or  "hay,"  namely,  chashosfi,^  which,  ap- 
parently from  an  unused  root  signifying  "  to  be 
dry,"  f'  is  rendered  in  the  only  two  places  where 
the  word  occurs  (Is.  v.  2-i,  xxxiii.  11)  "chaff"  in 
the  Authorized  Version.  We  do  not,  however, 
mean  to  assert  that  the  chashash  of  the  Orientals 
represents  our  modern  English  hay.  Doubtless  the 
"  dry  grass  "  was  not  stacked,  but  only  cut  in  small 
quantities,  and  then  consumed.    The  grass  of  "  the 

latter  growth"  (Am.  vii.  1)  (ITp,^),  perhaps  hke 
our  after-grass^  denotes  the  mown  grass  as  it  grows 
afiesh  after  the  harvest ;  like  the  Chordum  foRnum 
of  I'liny  {H.  N.  viii.  28).  W.  II. 

HAZ'AEL  (bSjn  IKl  (God)  is  seeing,  Furst, 
Ges.]  :  'A^a^A  :  Hazael)  was  a  king  of  Damascus, 
who  reigned  from  about  b.  c.  886  to  n.  c.  840. 
He  appears  to  have  been  previously  a  i)erson  in  a 
high  position  at  the  court  of  lien-hadad,  and  was 
sent  by  his  master  to  Elisha,  when  that  prophet 
visited  Damascus,  to  inquire  if  he  would  recover 
from  the  malady  under  which  he  was  suffering. 
Klisha's  answer  that  lien-hadad  might  recover,  but 
wimld  die,  and  his  announcement  to  Hazael  that 
he  would  one  day  te  king  of  Syria,  which  seems 
to  have  been  the  fulfillment  of  the  commission  given 
to  Elijah  (1  K.  xix.  15)  to  apix)int  Hazael  kuig  — 
led  to  the  murder  of  IJen-hadad  by  his  ambitious 
servant,  who  forthwith  mounted  the  throne  (2  K. 
viii.  7-15).  He  was  soon  engaged  in  hostilities 
with  Ahaziah  king  of  Judah,  and  Jehoram  king  of 
Israel,  for  the  possession  of  the  city  of  IJamoth- 
(jilead  {ibid.  viii.  28).  The  Assyrian  inscriptions 
show  that  aV)out  this  time  a  bloody  and  destructive 
war  was  being  waged  between  the  Assyrians  on  the 
one  side,  and  the  Syrians,  Hittites,  Hamathites, 
ai  d  Vftft-nicians  on  the  other.  [See  Damascus.] 
lieii-hatlad  had  recently  suffered  several  severe  defeats 
at  the  hands  of  the  Assyrian  king;  and  upon  the 
accession  of  Hazael  the  war  was  speedily  renewed. 
Hazael  ♦^'^lok  up  a  {wsition  in  the  fastnesses  of  the 
Anti-LibaiiUs,  but  was  there  attacked  by  the  As- 
«yrians,  who  defeatetl  him  with  great  loss,  killing 
16,000  of  his  warriors,  and  capturing  more  than 
1100  chariots.  Three  years  later  the  Assyrians 
once  more  entered  Syria  in  force;  but  on  this 
occasion  Hazael  submitted  and  helped  to  furnish 
the  invaders  with  supplies.  After  this,  internal 
troubles  appear  to  have  occupied  the  attention  of 
the  Assyrians,  who  ma<le  no  more  expeditions  into 
tliese  parts  for  al)out  a  century.  The  Syrians 
rai'idly  recovered  their  losses ;  and  towards  the  close 
of  the  reign  of  Jehu,  Hazael  led  them  against  the 
Israelites  (alx)ut  b.  c.  860),  whom  he  "smote  in 
all  their  coasts"  (2  K.  x.  32),  thus  accomplishing 
the  prophecy  of  Elislia  (ibid.  viii.  12).  His  main 
attack  fell  upon  the  eastern  provinces,  where  he 
ravaged  "  all  the  land  of  Gilead,  the  Gadites,  and 


a    WWn,     allied    to    the    Arabic 


^c/i€sAlsh),    which    Freytag    thus   explains,    "  Herba, 
verul.  siccior :    scit.    Pabulum    giccum,    foenum    (ut 

-  y^-.  \   viride  et  recens." 

•  "  Tlifi    irabs  of  tho  desert  always  lall  the  dry 


HAZARMAVETH 

the  Keubenites,  and  the  Manassites,  from  Aroer, 
which  is  by  the  river  Amon,  even  Gilead  and 
Bashiin  "  (ibid.  x.  33).  After  this  he  seems  to 
have  held  the  kingdom  of  Israel  in  a  species  of  sub- 
jection {ibid.  xiii.  3-7,  and  22);  and  towards  the 
close  of  his  life  he  even  threatened  the  kingdom  of 
Judah.  Having  taken  Gath  {ibid.  xii.  17;  conip. 
Am.  vi.  2),  he  proceeded  to  attack  Jerusalem,  de- 
feated the  Jews  in  an  engagement  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  24), 
and  was  about  to  assault  the  city,  when  Joash 
induced  him  to  retire  by  presenting  him  with  "  all 
the  gold  that  was  found  in  the  treasures  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  king's  house  "  (2  K. 
xii.  18).  Hazael  appears  to  have  died  about  the 
year  b.  c.  840  {ibid.  xiii.  24),  having  reigneil  4<> 
years.  He  left  his  crown  to  his  son  Ben-hadad 
{ibid.).  G.   l{. 

*  The  true  import  of  HazaePs  answer  to  the 
prophet  on  being  informed  of  his  future  destuiy 
(2  K.  viii.  13),  does  not  appear  in  the  A.  V.: 
"  But  what,  is  thy  servant  a  dog,  that  he  should 
do  this  great  thing?  "  This  is  the  language  of  a 
proud  and  self-approving  spirit,  spurning  an  unde- 
served imputation :  "  Thy  servant  is  not  a  dog 
that  he  should  do  this  great  thing."  It  is  ob- 
vious, moreover,  that  in  this  form  the  terms  of  the 
question  are  incongruous.  If  he  had  said.  Is  thy 
servant  a  dog,  that  he  should  do  so  base  a  thing, 
the  question  would  have  been  consistent  with  it- 
self. But  the  incongruity  disappears,  and  the  per- 
tinency of  the  illustration  is  obvious,  when  we 
render  according  to  the  Hebrew:  "What  is  thy 
servant,  the  dog,  that  he  should  do  this  great 
thing?"  The  use  of  the  definite  article  in  the 
Hebrew,  as  well  as  the  congruity  of  the  expression, 
requires  this  rendering.*'     [Doc]  T.  J,  C. 

*  HAZ'AEL,  HOUSE  OF  (Am.  i.  4). 
probably  some  well-known  edifice  or  palace,  which 
this  king  had  built  at  Damascus,  and  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  prophet,  the  fire  (God's  in.strument  of 
punishment)  was  destined  to  bum  up.  Some  under- 
stood by  "  the  house"  Damascus  itself,  and  others 
Hazael's  family  or  [jersonal  descendants.  But  the 
clause  which  follows  —  "  the  palaces  of  Ben-hadad  " 
—  as  Baur  {/kr  Prophet  Amos,  p.  217)  points  out, 
favors  the  other  explanation.  H. 

HAZA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (n;^q  :  [Jehai^ah  de- 
cides ov  vie  US']'.  'oO'a:  [Vat.  FA.  O^fa:]  Hnzia\ 
a  man  of  Judah  of  the  family  of  the  Shilonitei 
A.  V.  "Shiloni"),  or  descendants  of  Shelaii 
(Neh.  xi.  5). 
HA'ZAR-AD'DAR,  ete.  [Hazer.] 
HAZARMA'VETH  (n;}pn'_  r^  :  [in  Gen.,} 
:S.apii.u>d;  [Alex.-  A(rapfjLu>e\  in  1  Chr.,  Horn.  \at 
omit,  Alex.  ApafioDO'-]  Js'innoth;  the  court  o; 
death,  Ges.),  the  third,  in  order,  of  the  sons  o 
Joktan  (Gen.  x.  26).  The  name  is  present d 
almost     literally,     in     the     Arabic    Hadratnavi 

(  O^-'OwO.^  )  and  Ihtdrumawt  {  ■^ii.'a  .^-...vig^  ), 


juiceless  herbage  of  the  Sahara,  which  i«  re.ady  mad* 
hay  while  it  is  growing:,  cliesh's/i,  in  contradistinction 
from  the  fresh  grass  of  better  soils."  —  [H.  B.  Tristram. 
c  *  Gesenius  ( T/us.  p.  685) :  "  Quis  eniui  sum  servus 
tuus  cani.'»,  ut  tantani  rem  perficiam  ?  "  Keil  {Bilcht^ 
der  KlJni^e):  "Was  i*it  dcin  Knecht.  der  Hund  {d.  k- 
ein  so  veri'chtlicher  Kerl  .)  da.ss  er  so  groM* 

Dinge   thun  sollte?"'     Theuius  {Biicher  der  Konigi) 
"  Dein  Knecht,  der  llund  !  "  T.  J.  0. 


HAZAZON-TAMAB 

and  the  appellation  of  a  province  and  an  ancient 
people  of  .Southern  Arabia.  This  identification  of 
the  settlement  of  Hazarniaveth  is  accepted  by  Bil)- 
lical  scholars  its  not  admitting  of  dispute.  It 
rests  not  only  on  the  occurrence  of  the  name,  but 
is  sui)ported  by  the  proved  fact  that  Joktan  settled 
in  the  Yemen,  along  the  south  coast  of  Arabia,  by 
the  physical  characteristics  of  the  inhabitants  of 
this  region,  and  by  the  identification  of  the  names 
of  several  otliers  of  the  sons  of  Joktan.  The 
pi'ivince  of  Hadramiiwt  is  situate  east  of  the 
viodein  Yemen  (anciently,  as  shown  in  Arauia, 
the  limits  of  the  latter  province  embraced  almost 
(he  whole  of  the  south  of  the  peninsula),  extend- 
uig  to  the  districts  of  Shihr  and  Makreh.  Its  cap- 
ital is  Shibam,  a  very  ancient  city,  of  which  the 
native  writers  give  curious  accounts,  and  its  chief 
ports  are  Mirbat,  Zafari  [Sepiiak],  and  Kisheem, 
from  whence  a  great  trade  was  carried  on  in  an- 
cient times  with  India  and  Africa.  Hadramiiwt 
itself  is  generally  cultivated,  in  contrast  to  the  con- 
tiguous sandy  deserts  (called  El-Ahkaf,  where  lived 
the  gigantic  race  of  'A'd),  is  partly  mountainous, 
with  watered  valleys,  and  is  still  celebrated  for  its 
frankincense  (El-Idreesee,  ed.  Joniard,  i.  p.  54; 
Niebuhr,  Descr.  p.  245),  exporting  also  gum-arabic, 
myrrh,  dragon's  blood,  and  aloes,  the  latter,  how- 
ever, being  chiefly  from  Socotra,  which  is  under 
the  rule  of  the  sheykh  of  Kesheem  (Niebuhr,  /.  c. 
e.t  stq.).  The  early  kings  of  Hadramawt  were 
Joktanites,  distinct  from  the  descendants  of  Yaa- 
rub,  the  progenitor  of  the  Joktanite  Arabs  gener- 
ally ;  and  it  is  hence  to  be  inferred  that  they  were 
separately  descended  from  Hazarmaveth.  They 
mahitained  their  independence  against  the  p(5wer- 
ful  kings  of  Himyer,  until  the  latter  were  subdued 
at  the  Abyssinian  invasion  (Ibn-Khaldoon,  ap. 
Caussin,  Essai^  i.  135  ff.)-  The  Greeks  and 
Romans  call  the  people  of  Hadramawt.  variously, 
Chatramotitse,  Chatrammitse,  etc.;  and  there  is 
little  doubt  that  they  were  the  same  as  the  Adra- 
mitai,  etc.  (the  latter  not  applying  to  the  descend- 
ants of  Hadouam,  as  some  have  suggested);  while 
the  native  appellation  of  an  inhabitant,  lladramee, 
comes  very  near  Adramitae  in  sound.  Tlie  mod- 
ern people,  although  mixed  with  other  races,  are 
strongly  characterized  by  fierce,  fanatical,  and  rest- 
less dispositions.  They  are  enterprising  mercliants, 
well  known  for  their  trading  and  travelling  pro- 
pensities. E.  S.  1*. 

HAZ'AZON-TA'MAR,  2  Chr.  xx.  2.  [TTa- 
kezon-Tamar.] 

HAZEL  (T^b).  The  Hebrew  term  luz  occurs 
only  in  Gen.  xxx.  37,  where  it  is  coupled  with  tlie 
'  poplar  "  and  "  chestnut,"  as  one  of  the  trees  from 
which  Jacob  cut  the  rods,  which  he  afterwards 
peeled.  Authorities  are  divided  between  the  hazel 
and  the  almond-tree,  as  representing  the  Uiz ;  in 
favor  of  the  former  we  have  Kimchi,  Hashi,  Lu- 
ther, and  others;  while  the  Vulgate,  Saadins,  and 
Gesenius  adopt  the  latter  view.  The  rendering  in 
Ihe  LXX.,  Kap'ovi  is  equally  applicable  to  either. 
We  think  the  latter  most  probably  correct,  both 
because  the  Arabic  word  luz  is  undoubtedly  the 
"almond-tree,"  and  because  there  is  another  vrord 

n  the  Hebrew  language    eyuz  (T1DS),  whicli   is 


a  lo  2  K.  XX  4,  the  Masorets  {Keri)  have  substi- 
•^  n!^n  (A.  V.  "court ")  for  the  H^OT  of  the 


HAZER  1018 

applicable  to  the  hazel.  The  strongest  argument 
on  the  other  side  arises  from  the  circumstance  <A 

another  word,  shdked  {l^}^)-,  having  reference  tc 
tlie  almond;  it  is  supposed,  howe\er,  that  the  lat- 
ter applies  to  the  fruit  exclusively,  and  the  word 
imder  discussion  to  the  tree:  Kosenmiiller  identi- 
fies the  shdked  with  the  cultivated,  and  luz  with 
the  wild  almond-tree.  For  a  description  of  the 
ahilond-tree,  see  the  article  on  that  subject.  The 
Hebrew  term  appears  as  a  proper  name  in  Luz,  the 
old  appellation  of  Bethel.  W.  L.  B. 

HAZELELPO'NI  (^^Ssb^'^H :  'Eo-ryAe/S- 

ficou;  Alex.EaTi\\e\(p(av'-  Asilelphuni),  ihe  sister 
of  the  sons  of  Etam  in  the  genealogies  of  Judah 
(1  Chr.  iv.  3).  The  name  has  the  definite  article 
prefixed,  and  is  accurately  "  the  Tzelelponite,"  a? 
of  a  family  rather  than  an  individual. 

*  That  the  name  is  genealogical  rather  than  in- 
dividual appears  also  from  the  appended  "^"7  (see 
Ges.  Lehryeb.  der  ITebr.  Sprac/ie,  p.  514).  It  is 
variously  explained  :  pi-otection  of  ihe  presence 
(Fiirst);  or,  shade  coming  upon  me  (Ges.).  Ewald 
makes  the  name  still  more  expressive:  Give  shade 
thou  who  seest  me,  i.  e.  God  (Lehrbuch,  p.  502). 
This  gives  a  different  force  to  the  ending.        H. 

HA'ZER  ("l:?n,  i.  e.  Chatzer,  from  •"^'P, 
to  suiTound  or  inclose),  a  word  which  is  of  not  un- 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Bible  in  the  sense  of  a 
"  court  "  or  quadrangle  to  a  palace"  or  other  build- 
ing, but  which  topographically  seems  generally  em- 
ployed for  the  "  villages  "  of  people  in  a  roving  and 
unsettled  life,  the  semi-permanent  collections  of 
dwellings  which  are  described  by  travellers  among 
the  modem  Arabs  to  consist  of  rough  stone  walls 
covered  with  the  tent  cloths,  and  thus  holding  a 
middle  position  between  the  tent  of  the  wanderer 
—  so  transitory  as  to  furnish  an  image  of  the  sud- 
den termination  of  life  (Is.  xxxviii.  12)  —  and  the 
settled,  permanent,  town. 

As  a  proper  name  it  appears  in  the  A.  V.  — 

1.  In  the  plural,  Hazekim,  and  Hazeroth, 
for  which  see  below. 

2.  In  the  slightly  different  form  of  Hazor. 

3.  In  composition  with  other  words,  giving  a 
speci.al  designation  to  the  particular  "  village  "  in- 
tended. When  thus  in  union  with  another  word 
the  name  is  Hazar  (Chatzar).  The  following  are 
the  places  so  named,  and  it  should  not  be  over- 
looked that  they  are  all  in  the  wilderness  itself,  or 
else  quite  on  the  confines  of  civilized  country:  — 

1.  Ha'zar-ad'dar  C^";TS-l!fn:  ^TrawAts 
'Apa5,  2,dpaBa:  Alex.  Addapa:  Villa  nomine  Adai\ 
Addar),  a  place  named  as  one  of  the  landmarks  on 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  land  promised  to 
Israel  between  Kadesh-barnea  and  Azmon  (Num. 
xxxiv.  4).  In  the  specification  of  the  south  boun- 
dary of  the  country  actually  possessed  (Josh.  xv. 
3),  tlie  name  appears  in  the  shorter  form  of  Addar 
(A.  V.  Ai^AU),  and  an  additional  place  is  named 
on  each  side  of  it.  The  site  of  Hazar-addar  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  encountered  in  modern 
times. 

The  LXX.  reading  might  lead  to  the  belief  that 
Hazar  addar  was  identical  with  Arad,  a  Canaan- 


original  text.     The  same  change  should  piobably 
made  in  Jer.  xli.  7.     [See  Ishsiaki..  6.] 


1014  H4ZER 

te  city  which  lay  in  this  direction,  but  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Aln  in  the  latter  name  forbids  such  an 
Inference. 

2.  Ha'zak-e'nan    OTV  n^n    [in    Ezek. 

rivii.  17,  ]'^2'^V  1'^n]=viUaffe  of  spi-inr/s: 
Aoa-evaiu,  [ai/A-rj  tov  Aifdv,  av.  r.  AiKd/j.';  Vat.  in 
Num.,  Aptre.-aetjLt:]  Alex.  Aaepuaiv,  ayA.17  tou 
Aiuav:  VUbi  A'nun,  Atrium  Enon,  \_A.  Ennn\), 
the  place  at  which  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
land  promised  to  the  children  of  Israel  was  to  ter- 
minate (Num.  xxxiv.  9),  and  the  eastern  boundary 
commence  (10).  It  is  again  mentioned  in  TLze- 
kiel's  prophecy  (xlvii.  17.  xlviii.  1)  of  what  the  ul- 
timate extent  of  the  land  will  be.  These  bounda- 
lies  are  traced  by  Mr.  Porter,  who  would  identify 
llazar-enan  with  Ku7-yeiein  =  ^nhe  two  cities,"  a 
village  more  than  sixty  miles  E.  N.  E.  of  Damas- 
cus, the  chief  ground  for  the  identification  appa- 
rently being  the  presence  at  Kuryeldn  of  «'  large 
fountains,"  the  only  ones  in  that  "  vast  region,"  a 
circumstance  with  which  1  he  name  of  Hazar  enan 
well  agrees  (Porter,  Damascus^  i,  252,  ii.  358). 
The  great  distance  from  I)an)ascus  and  the  body 
of  Palestine  is  the  main  nnpediment  to  the  recep- 
tion of  this  identification. 

3.  Ha'zak-gad'dah  (iT^S  "^^0  [village  of 
Gaddah  or  fortum:  Rom.  Se/)^,  Vat.  Sepej/t;] 
Alex.  Acepyoi^Za'  Aser-Gaclda),  one  of  (he  towns 
in  the  soutliern  district  of  Judah  (Josh.  x\.  27), 
named  between  JMoladah  and  Heshmon.  No  trace 
of  the  situation  of  this  place  appears  in  the  Oiio- 
masticon^  or  in  any  of  the  modern  travellers.  In 
Van  de  Velde's  map  a  site  named  Jurrah  is  marked 
as  close  to  ]\Iulada  (el-.]fll/i),  but  it  is  perhaps  too 
much  to  Hs.suiue  that  (iaddali  has  taken  this  form 
by  the  change  so  frequent  in  the  East  of  D  to  R. 

4.  HA'>CAI{-ItAT-TI''CON  (pD'^rin  "^Vn   [the 

middle  villa f/t]:  Au\^  tov  :^avvdu;  [Alex,  cor- 
rupt:] Dinnns  Tirlion)^  a  place  named  in  I'^^ekiel's 
prophecy  of  tlie  ultimate  boundaries  of  the  land  (I^z. 
xlvii.  1(3),  and  specified  as  being  on  the  boundary 

(  ADS^   7M)  of  Hauran.     It  is  not  yet  known. 

5.  Ha'zah-shu'al  (br^tt?  -irn  =  /ox-«7- 
Inge:  XaAao-ewAo,  'AfKTwAa,  'Ecre/xrouoA;  Alex. 
A<rap<rou\a,  [2ep(roi»Aa,  etc. :J  /J((seisual,  Hasar- 
6u/wl),  a  town  in  the  southern  district  of  Judah, 
lying  Iwjtween  Ilazar-gaddah  and  IJeer-sheba  (Josh. 
XV.  28,  xix.  3;  1  Chr.  iv.  28).  It  is  mentioned  in 
the  same  connection  after  the  return  from  the  Cap- 
tivity (Nell.  xi.  27).  The  site  has  not  yet  l)een 
conclusi\ely  recovered;  but  in  Van  de  Velde's  map 
(1858)  a  site,  Sawt/i,  is  marked  at  about  the  right 
Bpot,  wliicli  may  be  a  corruption  of  the  original 
name.  This  district  has  been  only  very  slightly 
explored ;  when  it  is  so  we  may  look  for  most  in- 
teresting infonnation. 

6.11a  '/a  II.  su^sAH  (nOO  n Y n  =  /wrse-vH- 
l(ige:  2ap<rov<riv  [V^at.  -cretj'] ;  Alex.  Acrepa-ovaifi'. 
yiustrsiisd])^  one  of  the  "cities"  allotted  to 
Simeon  in  the  extreme  south  of  the  territory  of 
\\i\xh.  (Josh.  xix.  5).  Neither  it  nor  its  com- 
panion Bktii-;makcaboth,  the  "house  of  char- 
lots,"  arc  named  in  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Judah 
lu  chap.  XV.,  but  iTiey  are  included  in  those  of 


The  translators  of  the  A.  V.  have  curiously  rp- 
i\w  *T>o  variations  of  the  name.     In  G«nosis, 


HAZEZON-TAIMAR 

Simeon  in  1  Chr.  iv.  31,  with  the  express  «Ut» 
ment  that  they  existed  before  and  up  to  the  tim€ 
of  David.  This  appears  to  invalidate  Professor 
Stanley's  suggestion  (^'.  ^  P.  p.  160)  that  thej 
were  the  depots  for  the  trade  witli  Egypt  in  char- 
iots and  horses,  which  commenced  iti  tlie  reign  of 
Solomon.  Still,  it  is  difficult  to  know  to  what 
else  to  ascribe  the  names  of  places  situated,  as 
these  were,  in  the  Bedouin  coimtry,  where  a  chariot 
must  have  been  unknown,  and  where  even  horses 
seem  carefully  excluded  from  the  possessions  of  the 
inhabitants  —  "  camels,  sheep,  oxen,  and  a-sses  " 
(1  Sam.  xxvii.  D).  In  truth  the  difficulty  arises 
only  on  the  assumption  that  the  names  are  lie- 
brew,  and  that  they  are  to  l)e  interpreted  accord- 
ingly. It  would  cease  if  we  could  believe  them  to 
be  in  the  former  language  of  the  coimtr3-,  adopted 
by  the  Hebrews,  and  so  altered  as  to  liear  a  mean- 
ing in  Hebrew.  This  is  exactly  the  process  which 
the  Hebrew  names  have  in  their  turn  undergone 
from  the  Arabs,  and  is  in  fact  one  which  is  well 
known  to  ha\e  occurred  in  all  languages,  though 
not  yet  recognized  in  the  particular  case  of  the 
early  local  names  of  Palestine. 

7.  Ha'zak-su'sim  (Q^P^D  "^"Hj  village    of 

horses :  'Hfxia-ouaecorrlv,  as  if  "**'  H  ;  [Vat.  H/t<- 
<rwy  ecus  Opafj.;  Alex.  Ufiiau  Ewa-i/j.:]  Hasarsu- 
si/n),  the  form  imder  which  the  preceding  name 
appears  in  the  list  of  the  towns  of  Simeon  in  3 
Chr.  iv.  31.  G. 

HAZE'RIM.  The  Avi:m.s,  or  more  accu- 
rately the  Avvim,  a  tribe  commemorated  in  a  frag- 
ment of  very  ancient  history,  as  the  early  inhabi- 
tants of  the  southwestern  portion  of  Palestine,  are 
therein  said  to  have  lived  "  in  the  villages  (A.  V. 

"  Hazerim,"  C^'^rnS  ['Aa-nZwO;  Alex.  Actj- 
pwd:  If'seriiu]),  as  '  far  as  Gaza  "  (Dent.  ii.  23), 
before  their  expulsion  by  the  Caphtorim.  The 
word  is  the  plural  of  IIazkh,  noticed  above,  and 
as  far  as  we  can  now  appreciate  the  significance  of 
the  term,  it  implies  that  the  Avvim  were  a  wan- 
dering tribe  who  had  retained  in  their  new  locality 
the  transitory  form  of  encampment  of  their  origina 
desert-life.  G. 

HAZE'ROTH  (nSn';n  [stations,  camping 
grounds]:  'Aa-ppcoO;  [in  Dent.,  Ahxdiv'  Hose- 
roth  ;]  Num.  xi.  35,  xii.  16,  xxxiii.  17,  Deut.  i.  1), 
a  station  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  mentioned 
next  to  Ivibroth-Hattaavah,  and  [jcrhaps  recogniz- 
able in  the  Arabic  jwCL.^,  Ifudhera  (Robinson, 

i.  151 ;  Stanley,  S.  <f  P.  pp.  81,  82),  which  lies  alx)ut 
eighteen  hours'  distance  from  Sinai  on  the  ruad  to 
the  Akabah.  The  word  ap|)ears  to  mean  the  son 
of  uninclosed  villages  in  whicli  the  liedoains  an 
found  to  congregate.     [Ha/.kh.]  II.  II. 

HAZ'EZON-TA'MAR,and  HAZ  AZOJS^ 

TA'MAR     (-l^ri  I't^r.n,"    but    in     a.roi;. 

n  ]^VVn  [prob.  wet  place  of  palms,  palm- 
marsh,  Dietr. ;  roics  of  pains,  palm-foi-es1,  FiirstJ* 
'Aa-aa-ouOafidp,  or  ^Aoraaau  Qafxdp;  [Alex.  Aaa- 
(Tav  @.,  Auaa-av  0.;  Vat.  in  2  Chr.,  Ao-a/t  ea- 
fiapa.:]  Asns<mtham'ir),  the  name  under  which,  al 
a  very  early  period  of  the  history  of  Palestine,  and 


where  the  Hebrew  is  Hazazon,  t'aey  have  Ilaaeson,  •&< 
thb  opposite  in  Chronicles 


HAZIEL 

jj  a  document  believed  by  manj  to  be  the  oldest 
of  all  these  early  records,  we  first  hear  of  the  place 
which  afterwards  became  En-gedi.  The  Amor- 
ites  were  dwelling  at  Ilazayon-Tamar  when  the  four 
kings  made  their  incursion,  and  fought  their  suc- 
cessful battle  with  the  five  (Gen.  xiv.  7).  The 
name  occurs  only  once  again  —  in  the  records  of 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xx.  2)  —  when  he  is 
warned  of  the  approach  of  the  horde  of  Ammon- 
ites, Moabites,  Mehunim,  and  men  of  Blount  Seir. 
whom  he  afterwards  so  completely  destroyed,  and 
who  were  no  doubt  pursuing  thus  far  exactly  the 
same  route  as  the  Assyrians  had  done  a  thousand 
years  before  them.  Here  the  explanation,  "  which 
is  En-gedi,"  is  added.  The  existence  of  the  ear- 
lier appellation,  after  En-gedi  had  been  so  long  in 
use,  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  tenacity  of 
these  old  oriental  names,  of  which  more  modern 
instances  are  frequent.  See  Acciio,  Bethsaida, 
etc. 

Hazazon-tamar  is  interpreted  in  Hebrew  to  mean 
the  "pruning  or  felling  of  the  palm"  (Gesen. 
Thes.  p.  512).  Jerome  (Qimst.  in  Gen.)  renders 
it  urbs  pnlinarum.  This  interpretation  of  tlie  name 
is  borne  out  by  the  ancient  reputation  of  the  palms 
of  En-gedi  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  14,  and  the  citations  from 
Pliny,  given  under  that  name).     The  Samaritan 

Version  has  **"T3  3.lbD  =  the  Valley  of  Cadi, 
possibly  a  corruption  of  En-gedi.  The  Targums 
have  En-gedi. 

Perhaps  this  w;ia  the  "city  of  palm  trees  "  (//• 
kat-temanin)  out  of  which  the  Kenites,  the  tribe 
of  Moses'  father-in-law,  went  up  into  the  wilder- 
ness of  .ludah,  after  the  conquest  of  the  country 
(Judg.  i.  l(j).  If  this  were  so,  the  allusion  of 
Balaam  to  the  Ivenite  (Num.  xxiv.  21)  is  at  once 
explained.  Standing  as  he  was  on  one  of  tlie  lofty 
points  of  the  liighlands  opposite  Jericho,  the  west- 
ern shore  of  the  Dead  Sea  as  far  as  I'^n-gedi  woidd 
be  before  him,  and  the  cliff,  in  the  clefts  of  which 
the  Kenites  had  fixed  their  secure  "nest,"  would 
be  a  prominent  object  in  the  view.  This  has  been 
already  alluded  to  by  Professor  Stanley  {S.  tf  P., 
p.  225,  n.  4).  '  G. 

HA'ZIEL  (bsnn  [ATs  (God's)  beholdinfj']  : 
'l6i^\;  [Vat.  EieiTjM]  Alex.  A^jtjA:  Ilosltl),  a 
Levite  in  the  time  of  king  David,  of  the  family  of 
Shimei  or  Shimi,  the  younger  branch  of  the  Ger- 
shonites  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  9). 

HA'ZO  OTH  [/ooAi,  tm6i%,  Furst] :  'A^aD: 
Azmi),  a  son  of  Nahor,  by  Milcah  his  wife  (Gen. 
uii.  22):  perhaps,  says  Gesenius,  for  niTrT,  "a 
nsion."  The  name  is  unknown,  and  the  settle- 
ments of  tlie  descendants  of  Hazo  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained. Tlie  only  clew  is  to  be  found  in  the  iden- 
ttficati)n  of  Chescd,  and  the  other  sons  of  Nahor; 
and  hence  lie  must,  in  all  likeUhood,  be  placed  in 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  or  the  adjacent  countries. 
Dunsen  (Bibc/iuerk^  i.  pt.  2,  p.  49)  suggests  Cha- 
lene  by  the  Euphrates,  hi  Mesopotamia,  or  the 
Chazene  in  Assyria  (Strabo,  xvi.  p.  736). 

E.  S.  P. 

HA^ZOll  ("T^^n  [indnsure,  ensile]'.  ^Aacip; 
[Alex,  in  1  K.  ix.  15,  Aaep:]  Asor.,  [Tlasor]). 
I.  A  fortified  city,  which  on  tlie  occupation  of  the 
jountry  was  allotted  to  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix.  36) 
Its  positioti  was  apparently  between  Hamah  and 
Kedeih  {ibid.  xii.  19).  on  the  high  grouna  over- 
ooking  the  l^ke  of  Merom  {birepKaTat.  t7]s  Se^e 


HAZOR 


101£ 


XooviTiSos  \ifJLvr]s,  Joseph.  AnL  v.  5,  §  1 ).  There  if 
no  reason  for  supposing  it  a  different  place  from 
that  of  which  Jabin  was  king  (Josh.  xi.  1),  both 
when  Joshua  gained  his  signal  victory  over  the 
northern  confederation,  and  when  Deborah  and 
Barak  routed  his  general  Sisera  (Judg.  iv.  2,  17 
1  Sam.  xii.  9).  It  was  the  principal  city  of  the 
whole  of  the  North  Palestine,  "the  head  of  all 
those  kingdoms  "  (Josh.  xi.  10,  and  see  Onomasti- 
con,  Asor).     Like  the  other  strong  places  of  that 

part,  it  stood  on  an  eminence  ( /i^,  Josh.  xi.  13 
A.  V.  "strength  "),  but  the  district  around  must 
have  been  on  the  whole  flat,  and  suitable  for  the 
manoeuvres  of  the  "  very  many "  chariots  and 
horses  which  formed  part  of  the  forces  of  the  king 
of  Hazor  and  his  confederates  (Josh.  xi.  4,  U,  9: 
.Judg.  iv.  3).  Ilazcr  was  the  only  one  of  those 
northern  cities  which  was  burnt  by  Joshua;  doubt- 
less it  was  too  strong  and  important  to  leave  stand- 
ing in  his  rear,  ^^'^hether  it  was  rebuilt  by  the 
men  of  Naphtali,  or  by  the  second  Jabin  (Judg. 
iv.),  we  are  not  told,  but  Solomon  did  not  overlook 
so  important  a  post,  and  the  fortification  of  Hazor, 
Megiddo,  and  Gezer,  the  points  of  defense  for  the 
entrance  from  Syria  and  Assyria,  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  and  the  great  maritime  lowland  respec- 
tively, was  one  of  tlie  chief  pretexts  for  his  levy  of 
taxes  (1  K.  ix.  15).  Later  still  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  hst  of  the  towns  and  districts  whose  inhabi- 
tants were  carried  off  to  Assyria  by  Tiglath-Pileser 
(2  K.  XV.  29;  Joseph.  Ant.  ix.  11,  §  1).  We  en- 
counter it  once  more  in  1  Mace.  xi.  67,  where  Jon- 
athan, after  encamping  for  the  night  at  the  "  water 
of  Genesar,"  advances  to  the  "plain  of  Asor" 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  5,  §  7;  the  Greek  text  of  the 
Maccabees  has  prefixed  an  n  from  the  preceding 
word  TreStov:  A.  V.  Nasor)  to  meet  Demetrius, 
who  was  in  possession  of  Kadesh  (xi.  63;  Joseph. 
as  above).     [Nasou.] 

Several  places  beai-ing  names  probably  derived 
from  ancient  llazors  have  been  discovered  in  this 
district.  A  list  will  he  found  in  Rob.  iii.  366,  note 
(and  compare  also  Van  de  Velde,  Sijr.  and  P(d.  ii. 
178;  Porter.  D.iniascus/i.  304).  But  none  of  these 
answer  to  the  requirements  of  this  Hazor.  The 
nearest  is  the  site  suggested  by  Dr.  Robinson, 
namely,  Tfll  Kliuvaibth,  "  the  ruins,"  which, 
though  without  any  direct  evidence  of  name  or 
tradition  in  its  favor,  is  so  suitable,  in  its  situa- 
tion on  a  rocky  eminence,  and  in  its  proximity 
both  to  Kedesh  and  the  Lake  HUeh,  that  we  may 
accept  it  until  a  better  is  discovered  (Rob.  iii.  364, 
365). 

*  The  ruins  of  a  large  city  of  very  ancient  date 
have  recently  been  found  about  two  miles  southeast 
of  Kedes  (Kkdksh,  3),  on  an  isolated  hill  called 
Tell  llnrnh.  The  walls  of  the  citadel  and  a  por- 
tion of  the  city  walls  are  distinctly  traceable. 
Captain  Wilson,  of  the  I'alestine  Exploring  Expe- 
dition, inclines  to  regard  this  place  as  the  site  of 
the  Bihle  Hazor  (Josh.  xix.  36),  instead  of  Tell 
Khuraibeh.  {See. foam,  of  Sacr.  IJterature,  April, 
1866,  p.  245.)  It  is  not  said  that  the  ancient  name, 
or  any  ainilar  one,  still  adheres  to  the  locality 
Thomson  t)ropose3  IJazere  or  Ilazevy  as  the  site  of 
this  Hazor,  northwest  of  the  TIMeh  (Merom),  and 
in  the  centre  of  the  mountainous  region  which  over- 
hangs tliat  lake:  the  ruins  are  very  extensive  as 
well  as  an'^ient,  and  a  living  tradition  among  the 
Arabs  suppnts  this  claim  (.see  Land  and  Buofo,  i 
439).    Robinson  objects  to  this  identification  that  it 


lOlC) 


HEAD-BANDS 


is  too  remote  from  the  IluMi^  and  is  within  the  limits 
of  Asher,  and  not  in  those  of  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix. 
82,  36 ).  Yut  Hitter's  view  that  this  Hazor  is  a  IJa- 
tury  on  the  rocky  slopes  above  Banins  (Cfesarea 
Philippi),  first  heard  of  by  Burckhardt  in  that 
quarter,  see  his  (leofjr.  of  Palestine^  Gajje's  trans., 
ii.  22 1-225.  Robinson  states  that  the  few  remains 
on  a  knoll  there  which  bears  this  name  are  wholly 
unimportant,  and  indicate  nothing  more  than  a 
Mtzra.ah,  or  goat  village  {Later  Res.  iii.  402).  It 
is  not  surprising  that  a  name  which  signifies 
'^-  stronghold,"  or  "  fortification,"  should  belong 
to  various  places,  both  ancient  and  modern.     H.      j 

2.  C Aaopiojpyai'u^  including  the  following  name: 
Alex,  omits :  Asor.)  One  of  the  "  cities  "  of  Judah 
in  the  extreme  south,  named  next  in  order  to  Ke-  | 
desh  (Josh  xv.  2-i).  It  is  mentioned  nowhere  else, 
nor  has  it  yet  been  identified  (see  Rob.  ii.  34.  note). 
The  Vatican  LXX.  unites  Ilazor  with  the  name 
following  it,  Ithnan;  which  causes  Keland  to  main- 
tahi  that  they  form  but  one  {Pal.  pp.  144,  708): 
but  the  LXX.  text  of  this  list  is  so  corrupt,  that  it 
Beems  impossible  to  argue  h-om  it.  In  the  Alex. 
MS.  Hazor  is  entirely  omitted,  while  Ithnan  again 
is  joined  to  Ziph. 

3.  (LXX.  omits;  [Cod.  Sarrav.  Aaoip  rrfv  Kai- 
vt)v\  Comp.  hlaalap  t))v  Kaivi]v:^  Asor  nova.) 
Ilazor-IIadattah,  =  "  new  Hazor,"  jwssibly  contra- 
distinguished from  that  just  mentioned;  another 
of  the  southern  towns  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  25). 
The  words  arc  improperly  separated  in  the  A.  V. 

4.  CAaepdoy,  aurrj  'Arrtip;  Alex.  [Aa-epu/j., 
ouTTj]  Aawpafia/x'  Tlesron,  Itcec  est  Asor.)  "  Hez- 
ron  which  is  Ilazor"  (Josh.  xv.  25);  but  whether 
it  be  intended  that  it  is  the  same  Hazor  as  either 
of  those  named  before,  or  that  the  name  was  orig- 
inally Hazor,  and  had  been  changed  to  Hezron,  we 
cannot  now  decide. 

5.  ([\'at.  Alex.  FA.i  omit  ;  Comp.  FA.=^] 
'Acrcip'  Asor.)  A  place  in  which  the  Benjamites 
resided  after  their  return  from  the  Captivity  (Neh. 
jci.  3.3).  From  the  places  mentioned  with  it,  as 
Anathoth,  Nob,  Ramah,  etc.,  it  would  seem  to  have 
lain  north  of  Jerusalem,  and  at  no  great  distance 
therefrom.  But  it  has  not  yet  been  discovered. 
The  above  conditions  are  not  against  its  being  the 
same  place  with  Baai^Hazoh,  though  there  is  no 
positive  evidence  beyond  the  name  in  favor  of  such 
an  identification. 

The  word  appears  in  combination  —  with  ]5aal 
in  Baai^Haz(M{,  with  Ain  in  En-Hazok.     G. 

*6.  {'q  avA-f]:  Asor.)  In  Jer.  xlix.  28-33,  Ha- 
Eor  appears  lo  denote  a  region  of  Arabia  under  the 
government  of  several  sheiks  (see  ver.  38,  "  king- 
doms of  Hazor"),  whose  desolation  is  pi-edicted  by 
.he  prophet  in  connection  with  that  of  Kedak. 
The  inhabitants  are  described  (ver.  31)  as  a  nation 
dwelling  "  without  gates  or  bars,"  i.  e.  not  in  cities, 

but  in  unwalled  villages,  D'^'I^'H  (comp.  Ezek. 
ixxviii.  11,  and  see  Hazeu,  Hazehim),  from 
which  circumstance  some  would  derive  the  name 
(see  Hitzig  on  Jer.  xlix.  28;  Winer,  Realic,  art. 
flazor.1  4;  and  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Porter,  art.  Hazor, 
t,  in  Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit,  3d  ed.).  A. 

*  HEAD-BANDS  (Is.  iii.  20),  probably  an 
ncorrect  translation ;  see  Girdle.  H. 

HEAD-DRESS.  The  Hebrews  do  not  ap- 
pear to  have  regarded  a  covering  for  the  head  as 
Ml  essential  article  of  dress.  The  earliest  notice 
we  have  of  such  a  thing  is  in  comiectiou  with  the 


HEAD-DRESS 

sacerdotal  vestments,  and  in  this  case  it  is  descrilNatf 
as  an  ornamental  appendage  "for  glory  and  foi 
beauty"  (Ex.  xxviii.  40).  The  absence  of  anj 
allusion  to  a  head-dress  in  passages  where  we  should 
expect  to  meet  with  it,  as  in  the  trial  of  jealousy 
(Num.  v.  18),  and  the  regidations  regarding  the 
lei:)er  (Lev.  xiii.  45),  in  both  of  which  the  "uncov- 
ering of  the  head  "  refers  undoubtedly  to  the  hair, 
leads  to  the  inference  that  it  was  not  ordinarily 
worn  in  the  Mosaic  age;  and  this  is  confirmed  by 
the  practice,  frequently  alluded  to,  of  covering  the 
head  with  the  mantle.  I'^ven  in  after  times  it  seems 
to  have  been   reserved  especially  for  purposes  of 

ornament  :  thus  the  tzdmph  (y\^y^)  is  noticed 
as  being  worn  by  nobles  (Job  xxix.  14),  ladies  (Is 
iii.   23),  and  kings   (Is.  Ixii.   3),  while  the  peer 

(~1S5)  was  an  article  of  holiday  dress  (Is.  bd.  3, 
A.  V.  "  beauty; "  Ez.  xxiv.  17,  23),  and  was  worn 
at  weddings  (Is.  Ixi.  10):  the  use  of  the  fiirpa  was 
restricted  to  similar  occasions  (Jud.  xvi.  8;  Bai".  v. 
2).  The  former  of  these  terms  undoubtedly  de- 
scribes a  kind  of  turban :  its  primary  sense  (^3^*? 
"to  roll  around")  expresses  the  folds  of  linen 
icound  rouml  the  head,  and  its  form  probably  re- 
sembled that  of  the  high-priest's  mitznephtth  (a 
word  derived  from  the  same  root,  and  identical  in 
meaning,  for  in  Zech.  iii.  5,  tzdmph  =  mitznepheth), 
as  described  by  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  7,  §  3).  The 
renderings  of  the  term  in  the  A.  V.,  "  hood  "  (Is. 
iii.  23),  "diadem"  (Job  xxix.  14;  Is.  Ixii.  3), 
"  mitre  "  (Zech.  iii.  5),  do  not  convey  the  right  idea 
of  its  meaning.  The  other  tenn,  peer,  primarily 
means  an  oiimment,  and  is  so  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
(Is.  Ixi.  10;  see  also  ver.  3,  "beauty"),  and  is 
specifically  applied  to  the  head-dress  from  its  orna- 
mental character.  It  is  uncertain  what  the  terra 
properly  describes :  the  modern  turban  consists  ol 
two  parts,  the  kaook,  a  stiflf",  round  cap  occasionally 
rising  to  a  considerable  height,  and  the  shosh,  a 
long  piece  of  muslin  wound  about  it  (Russell,  Alep- 
po, i.  104) :  Josephus'  account  of  the  high-priest's 


Modem  Syrian  and  Egyptian  Head-drcMea. 

head-dress  implies  a  similar  construction;  for  hi 
says  that  it  was  made  of  thick  bands  of  linen  dou- 
bled round  many  times,  and  se^vn  together:  th« 
whole  covered  by  a  piece  of  fine  linon  to  conoett 
the  aeania.     SaaJschiitz  {Archceol.  i.  27,  note.)  sag- 


HEAD-DRESS 

gests  that  the  tzaniph  and  the  peer  rspresent  the 
shash  and  tlie  kaook,  the  latter  rising  high  above 
the  other,  and  so  the  most  prominent  and  striking 
feature.  In  favor  of  this  explanation  it  may  be 
remarked  that  the  peer  is  more  particularly  con- 
nected with  the  miybaah,  the  high  cap  of  the  or- 
dinary priests,  in  Ex.  xxxix.  28,  while  the  tzdnip/i, 
as  we  have  seen,  resembled  the  high-priest's  mitre, 
in  wliich  the  cap  was  concealed  by  the  linen  folds. 
Tlie  objection,  however,  to  this  explanation  is  that 
the  etymological  force  of  pee/-  is  not  brought  out : 
may  not  that  term  have  applied  to  the  jewels  and 
I'ther  ornaments  with  which  the  turban  is  frequently 
decorated  (Russell,  i.  lOG),  some  of  which  are  rep- 
resented iu  the  accompanying  illustration  bor- 
rowed from  Lane's  Mod.  Eyypt.  Append.  A.  The 
term  used  for  putting  on  either  the  tzaniph  or  the 


Modern  Egyptian  Head-dresses.     (Lane.) 

peer  is  ^"'5^,  "  to  bind  round "  (Ex.  xxix.  9 ; 
Lev.  viii.  13):  hence  the  words  in  ¥j..  xvi.  10,  "I 
girded  thee  about  with  fine  linen,"  are  to  be  un- 
derstood of  the  turban ;  and  by  the  use  of  the  same 
term  Jonah  (ii.  5)  represents  the  weeds  wrapi)ed  as 
a  turban  round  his  head.  The  turban  as  now  worn 
in  the  East  varies  very  much  in  shape;  the  most 
prevalent  forms  are  shown  in  Kussell's  Aleppo,  i. 
102. 

If  the  tzaniph  and  the  peer  were  reserved  for 
holiday  attire,  it  remains  for  us  to  inquire  whether 
any  and  what  covering  was  ordinarily  worn  over 
the  head.  It  appears  that  frequently  the  robes 
supplied  the  place  of  a  head-dress,  being  so  ample 
that  they  might  be  thrown  over  the  head  at  pleas- 
ure: the  rddid  and  the  tsdlph  at  all  events  were 
%o  used  [Dress],  and  the  veil  served  a  similar  pur- 
pose. [Veil.]  The  ordinary  head-dress  of  the 
Hedouin  consists  of  the  kej/iyeh,  a  square  handker- 
chiif,  generally  of  red  and  yellow  cotton,  or  cotton 
and  silk,  folded  so  that  three  of  the  comers  hang 
down  over  the  back  and  shoulders,  leaving  the  face 
exposed,  and  bound  round  the  head  by  a  cord 
(Burckhardt,  Notes,  i.  48).  It  is  not  improbable 
that  a  similar  covering  was  used  by  the  Hebrews 
»n  certair.  occasions:  the  "kerchief"  in  Iu.  xiii. 
18,  has  been  so  understood  by  some  writers  (Har- 
dier, Ohservntions,  ii.  393),  though  the  word  more 
frobably  refers  to  a  species  of  veil :  and  the  a-ifxi- 
xiy'diQv  (Acts  xix.  12,  A    V.  "apron"),  as  ex- 


HEARTH  1017 

plained  by  Suidas  {rh  rr\s  Ke<pa\rjs  <p6p7}fjia\  WM 
applicable  to  the  purposes  of  a  head-dress.  [Hani>- 
KERCiUEK.]  Neither  of  these  cases,  however,  sup- 
plies positive  evidence  on  the  point,  and  the  general 
absence  of  allusions  leads  to  the  inference  that  the 
head  was  ususdly  uncovered,  as  is  still  the  case  in 
many  parts  of  Arabia  (^^'ellsted,  Travels,  i.  7<J)- 
The  introduction  of  the  Greek  hat  {ir^Taaos)  by 
Jason,  as  an  article  of  dress  adapted  to  the  </ymnn- 
sium,  was  regarded  as  a  national  dishonor  (2  iMacc. 
iv.  12):  in  shape  and  material  the  petasus  very 
much  resembled  the  common  felt  hats  of  this  coun- 
try {Diet,  oj'  Ant.  art.  Pikus). 


Bedouin  Ilead-dress  :  the  Kefflyeh. 
The  Assyrian  head-dress  is  described  in  Ez.  xxiii. 
15  under  the  terms  D**7^D^  '^n^"ip,  "  exceed- 
ing in  dyed  attire;"  it  is  doubtful,  however, 
whether  ttbulim  describes  the  colored  material  of 
the  head-dress  {tiarce  a  coloribus  quibus  tincta 
sint) ;  another  sense  has  been  assigned  to  it  more 
appropriate  to  the  description  of  a  turban  {fasciis 
obvolvit,   Ges.  Thes.  p.    542).    Tlie   term   s'ruche 

["^n^np]  expresses  the  flowing  character  of  the 
Eastern  head-dress,  as  it  falls  down  over  the  back 
(Layard,  Nineveh,  ii.  308).     The  word  rendered 

"  hats  "  in  Dan.  iii.  21  (SvSnS)  properly  applies 
to  a  cloak.  ^  '    '  W.  L.  B. 

HEARTH.  1.  nS:  iaxdpa:  arula  (Ges 
69),  a  pot  or  brazier  for  containing  fire.  2.  1)7.^^ 
m.  and  mp*!^ /. :  Kavarpa,  Kaixris- incemlitm 
(Ges.  p.  620).    3.  1''3,  or  "iVS  (Zech.  xii.  6). 

Sa\6s'  can  anus ;  in  dual,  D^"?^?  (Lev.  xi.  35): 
XvTp6iTo^es  ■  chytropodes ;  A.  V.  "  ranges  for  pots  " 
(Ges.  p.  672). 

One  way  of  baking,  much  practiced  in  the  East, 
is  to  place  the  dough  on  an  iron  plate,  either  laid 
on,  or  supported  on  legs  above  the  vessel  sunk  in 
the  ground,  which  forms  the  oven.     This  plate  oi 

"hearth"  is  in  Arabic  ..w^LlO,  tajen ;  a  word 

which  has  probably  passed  into  Greek  in  r-ffyavov. 
The  cakes  baked  "on  the  hearth"  (Gen.  xviii.  6 
iyKpvcpias,  snbcinericios  pines)  were  probably 
baked  in  the  existing  Bedouin  manner,  on  hot 
stones  covered  with  ashes.  The  "  hearth  "  of  king 
Jehoiakim's  winter  palace,  Jer.  xxxvi.  23,  was  pos- 
sibly a  pan  or  brazier  of  charcoal.  (Burckhardt, 
Notes  on  Bed.  i.  58;  V.  della  Valle,  llaf/t/t,  i.  437; 
Harmer,  Oi5/.s.  i.  p.  477,and  note;  HauwolflT,  TraveU. 
ap.  Ray,  ii.  163 ;  Shaw,  frnvels,  p.  231 ;  Niehuhr. 


k 


1018  HEATH 

Lescr.  dt  l" Arable,  p.  45;  Schleusner,  Lex    Vet. 
Test.  T-nyayop;  Ges.  s.  v.  nj;%  p.  997.)  [Fiitii.] 

H.  W.  P. 
HEATH  OV^')V,,  ^dro^Sr,  and  "117^V, 
^ar'ar  :  «  rj  aypiOfxvpiKr],  6vos  6,ypios  '  myiica). 
The  prophet  eleremiah  compares  the  man  "  who 
niaketh  Hash  his  arm,  and  whose  heart  departeth 
from  the  Lord,"  to  the  \ir'dr  in  the  desert  (xvii. 
B).  Again,  in  the  judgment  of  INIoab  (xlviii.  G), 
to  her  inhabitants  it  is  said,  "  Flee,  save  your  lives, 
and  be  like  the  ^droer  in  the  wilderness,"  where 
the  margin  has  "a  naked  tree."  There  seems  no 
mison  to  doubt  Celsius'  conclusion  {Ilitrob.  ii.  195), 

that  the  ''ar''ar  is  identical  with  the  ^ar^ar  {y£.y£.) 

oi  Arabic  writers,  which  is  some  species  of  juniper. 
IkObinson  (Bib.  lies.  ii.  125,  6)  states  that  when 
he  was  in  the  pass  of  Nemela  he  observed  junijier 
trees  (Arab,  'ar'ar)  on  the  porphyry  rocks  above. 
The  berries,  he  adds,  have  the  appearance  and  taste 
of  the  common  juniper,  except  that  there  is  more 
of  the  aroma  of  the  pine.  '•  These  trees  were  ten 
or  fifteen  feet  in  height,  and  hung  upon  the  rocks 
even  to  the  summits  of  the  clifls  and  needles." 
This  appears  to  be  the  Juniperus  Snbiiia,  or  savin, 
with  small  scale-like  leaves,  which  are  pressed  close 
to  the  stem,  and  which  is  descrilied  as  being  a 
gloomy-looking  bush  inhaljiting  the  most  sterile 
soil  (see  En(jlisli  CycL  N.  Hist.  iii.  311);  a  charac- 
ter which  is  obviously  well  suited  to  the  naked  or 
dtstilute  tree  spoken  of  by  the  prophet.  IJosen- 
miilier's  explanation  of  the  Hebrew  word,  which  is 
also  adopted  by  Maurer,  "  qui  destitutus  versatur  " 
(Schol.  (id  Jer.  xvii.  6),  is  very  unsatisfactory. 
Not  to  mention  the  lameness  of  the  comparison,  it 
is  evidently  contradicted  by  the  antithesis  in  ver.  8: 
Cursed  is  he  that  trusteth  in  man  ...  he  shall 
be  like  the  juniper  that  grows  on  the  bare  rocks  of 
the  desert:  Blessed  is  the  man  that  trusteth  in 
the  Lord  ...  he  shall  be  as  a  tree  planted  by  the 
waters.  The  contrast  between  the  shrub  of  the 
arid  desert  and  the  tree  growing  by  the  waters  is 
very  striking;  but  Kosenmiiller's  interpretation  ap- 
pears to  us  to  spoil  the  whole.  Even  more  unsatis- 
factory is  Michaelis  {Svpp.  Lex.  Jfeb.  p.  1971), 
who  thinks  "  guinea  hens "  {Numida  meleagris) 
are  intended!  Gesenius  {Tlies.  p.  107.3,  4)  under- 
stands these  two  Heb.  terms  to  denote  "  parietinae, 
sedificia  eversa"  (ruins);  but  it  is  more  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Scriptural  passages  to  suppose  that 
some  tree  is  intended,  which  explanation,  moreover, 
has  the  sanction  of  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate,  and 
of  the  modern  use  of  a  kindred  Arabic  word. 

W.  H. 

HEATHEN.  The  Hebrew  words  '^'lll,  D';'l2, 
g6i.,  goyiin,  together  with  their  Greek  equivalents 
l^j/oy,  €0*'i7,  h«'*^ve  been  somewhat  arbitrarily  ren- 
dered "nations,"  "gentiles,"  and  "heathen"  in 
the  A.  V.  It  will  be  interesting  to  trace  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  term,  primarily  and  essentially  gen- 
ei'al  in  its  signiiication,  acquired  that  more  restricted 
gense  which  was  afterwards  attached  to  it.  Its 
deve'opni'^nt  is  parallel  with  that  of  the  Hebrew 
people,  and  its  meaning  at  any  period  may  be  taken 
as  significant  of  their  relative  position  with  regard 
to  the  surroundmg  nations. 


HEATHEN 

I      1.  While  as  yet  the  Jewish  nation  hiul  no  pdlti 

cal  existence,  f/oyim  denoted  generally  the  nationi 
of  the  world,  especially  including  the  immediate 
descendants  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xviii.  18;  comp. 
Gal.  t!i.  Hi).  The  latter,  as  they  grew  in  nuDiben 
and  imjK>rtunce,  were  distinguished  in  a  most 
marked  maimer  from  the  nations  by  whom  thev 
were  surrounded,  and  were  provided  with  a  code  a' 
laws  and  a  religious  ritual,  which  made  the  dis- 
tinction still  more  pecuhar.  They  were  essentially 
a  separate  people  (Lev.  xx.  23);  separate  hi  habits, 
morals,  and  religion,  and  bound  to  maintain  their 
separate  character  by  denunciations  of  the  most 
terrible  judgments  (Uv.  xxvi.  14-38;  Deut.  xx\iii.). 
On  their  march  through  the  desert  they  encountered 
the  most  obstinate  resistance  from  Amalek,  "  chief 
of  the  goyiin  "  (Num.  xxiv.  20),  in  whose  sight  tic 
deliverance  from  Egypt  was  achieved  (l>ev.  xxvi. 
45).  During  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and  the  sul>- 
sequent  wars  of  extermination,  which  the  IsraeUtes 
for  several  generations  carried  on  against  their 
enemies,  the  seven  nations  of  the  Canaanites, 
Amorites,  Hittites,  Hivites,  Jebusites,  Perizzites, 
and  Girgashites  (Ex.  xxxiv.  24),  together  with  the 
remnants  of  them  who  were  left  to  prove  Israel 
(Josh,  xxiii.  13;  Judg.  iii.  1;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  55),  and 
teach  them  war  (Judg.  iii.  2),  received  the  especial 
appellation  of  fjoyim.  With  these  the  Israelites 
were  forbidden  to  associate  (Josh,  xxiii.  7);  inter- 
marriages were  prohil)ited  (Josh,  xxiii.  12;  1  K. 
xi.  2);  and  as  a  warning  against  disobedience  the 
fate  of  the  nations  of  Canaan  was  kept  constantly 
before  their  eyes  (Lev.  xviii.  24,  25;  Deut.  xviii. 
12).  They  are  ever  associated  with  the  worship 
of  false  gods,  and  the  foul  practices  of  idolaters 
(I^v.  xviii.  XX.),  and  these  constituted  their  chief 
distinctions,  as  ydy'un,  from  the  worsliipi)ere  of  the 
one  God,  the  people  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xv.  41; 
Deut.  xxviii.  10).  This  distinction  was  maintained 
in  its  full  force  during  the  early  times  of  the  mon- 
archy (2  Sam.  vii.  23;  1  K.  xi.  4-8,  xiv.  24;  Ps. 
cvi.  35).  It  was  from  among  the  f/oyim,  the  de- 
graded tribes  who  submitted  to  their  arms,  that 
the  Israelites  were  permitted  to  purchase  their 
bond  servants  (l.ev.  xxv.  44,  45),  and  this  special 
enactment  seems  to  have  had  the  effect  of  giving 
to  a  national  tradition  the  force  and  sanction  of  a 
law  (comp.  Gen.  xxxi.  15).  In  later  times  this 
regulation  was  strictly  adhered  to.  To  the  words 
of  Eccl.  ii.  7  "I  bought  men-servants  and  maid- 
servants," the  Targuni  adds,  "  of  the  children  of 
Ham,  and  the  rest  of  the  foreign  nations." 

And  not  only  were  the  Israelites  forbidden  to 
intermarry  with  these  goyim,  but  the  latter  were 
virtually  excluded  from  the  possibility  of  becoming 
naturalized.  An  Ammonite  or  INIoabite  was  shut 
out  from  the  congregation  of  Jehovah  even  to  the 
tenth  generation  (Deut.  xxiii.  3),  while  an  Momile 
or  Egyptian  was  admitted  in  the  third  (vers.  7,  8). 
The  necessity  of  maintaining  a  separation  so  broadly 
marked  is  ever  more  and  more  manifest  as  we 
follow  the  Israelites  through  their  history,  and  oIh 
serve  their  constantly  recurring  tendency  to  idolatry. 
Offense  and  punishment  followed  each  other  with 
all  the  regularity  of  cause  and  effect  (Judg.  ii.  12, 
iii.  G-8,  &c.). 

2.  But,  even  in  early  Jewish  times,  the  tenu 
ffoyim  received  by  anticipation  a  significajice  of 


a  From  the  root  "11^,  "  to  be  naked,"  in  allusion 
0  th*  bare  nature  of  the  rocks  on  which  the  Juniperus 


Sabina  often   grows.     Comp.   Ps.   cii.    17,  H^Cip 
"i^npn  « the  prayer  of  the  destitute  »  (or  lU  e)m^ 


HEATHEN 

wider  range  than  the  national  experience  (F-ev.  xxvi. 
33,  38;  Deut.  xxx.  1),  anc'  as  the  latter  was  grad- 
ually developed  during  the  prosperous  times  of  the 
monarcfcy,  tlie  ffoi/im  were  the  surrounding  nations 
generally,  with  whom  the  Israelites  were  brought 
into  contact  by  the  extension  of  their  commerce, 
and  whose  idolatrous  practices  they  readily  adopted 
(Ez.  xxiii.  30;  Am.  v.  26).  Later  still,  it  is  a])- 
plied  to  the  Babylonians  who  took  Jerusalem  (Neh. 
V.  8;  Vs.  Ixxix.  1,  6,  10),  to  tlie  destroyers  of  Moab 
(Is.  xvi.  8),  and  to  the  several  nations  among 
whom  the  Jews  were  scattered  during  the  Captivity 
(Ps.  cvi.  47;  Jer.  xlvi.  28;  Lam.  i.  3,  &c.),  the 
practice  of  idolatry  still  being  their  characteristic 
distinction  (Is.  xxxvi.  18;  Jer.  x.  2,  3,  xiv.  22). 
This  signification  it  retained  after  the  return  from 
Babylon,  though  it  was  used  in  a  more  limited 
sense  as  denoting  the  mixed  race  of  colonists  who 
settled  in  Palestine  during  the  Captivity  (Neh.  v. 
17),  and  who  are  described  as  fearing  Jehovah, 
while  serving  their  own  gods  (2  K.  xvii.  29-33; 
Kzr.  vi.  21). 

Tracing  the  synonymous  term  ^dvr)  through  the 
Ai>ocryphal  writings,  we  find  that  it  is  applied  to 
the  nations  around  I'alestine  (1  Mace.  i.  11),  in- 
cluding the  Syrians  and  Philistines  of  the  army  of 
Gorgias  (1  ISJacc.  iii.  41,  iv.  7,  11,  14),  as  well  as 
the  people  of  Ptolemais,  Tyre,  and  Sidon  (1  Mace. 
V.  9,  10,  15).  They  were  image-worshippei*s  (1 
Mace.  iii.  48;  AVisd.  xv.  15),  whose  customs  and 
fashions  the  Jews  seem  still  to  have  had  an  uncon- 
querable propensity  to  imitate,  but  on  whom  they 
were  bound  by  national  tradition  to  take  vengeance 
(1  Mace.  ii.  68;  1  Esdr.  viii.  85).  Following  the 
customs  of  the  f/oyiin  at  this  period  denoted  the 
neglect  or  concealment  of  circumcision  (1  jNIacc.  i. 
15),  disregard  of  sacrifices,  profanation  of  the  Sab- 
bath, eating  of  swine's  flesh  and  meat  offered  to 
idols  (2  Mace.  vi.  6-9,  18,  xv.  1,  2),  and  adoption 
of  the  Creek  national  games  (2  Mace.  iv.  12,  14). 
In  all  points  Judaism  and  heathenism  are  strongly 
contrasted.  The  "  barbarous  multitude "  in  2 
Mace.  ii.  21  are  opposed  to  those  who  played  the 
man  for  Judaism,  and  the  distinction  now  becomes 
an  ecclesiastical  one  (comp.  Matt,  xviii.  17).  In 
2  Esdr.  iii.  33,  34,  the  "gentes"  are  defined  as 
those  "qui  habitant  in  seculo"  (comp.  Matt.  vi. 
32;  Luke  xii.  30). 

As  the  Greek  influence  became  more  extensively 
felt  in  Asia  Minor,  and  the  Greek  language  was 
generally  used,  Hellenism  and  heathenism  became 
convertible  terms,  and  a  Greek  was  synonymous 
with  a  foreigner  of  any  nation.  This  is  singularly 
evident  in  the  Syriac  of  2  Mace.  v.  9,  10,  13 ;  cf. 
John  vii.  35 ;  1  Cor.  x.  32 ;  2  Mace.  xi.  2. 

In  the  N.  T.  again  we  find  various  shades  of 
meaning  attached  to  ^Out).  In  its  narrowest  sense 
it  is  opposed  to  "  those  of  the  circumcision  "  (Acts 
X.  45;  cf.  Esth.  xiv.  15,  where  hKK6Tpio%  =  atrepi- 
TfxrjTos),  and  is  contrasted  with  Israel,  the  people 
of  Jehovah  (Luke  ii.  32),   thus  representing  the 

Hebrew  D"^/12  at  one  stage  of  its  history.  But,  like 
yoyim,  it  also  denotes  the  people  of  the  earth  gen- 
erally (Acts  xvii.  26 ;  Gal.  iii.  14).  In  Matt.  vi.  7 
^^vl^^.6s  is  applied  to  an  idolater. 

lV.it,  in  addition  to  its  significance  as  an  etnno- 
iraphical  term,  ynjlm  had  a  moral  sei'«e  wnich 
must  not  be  overlooked.  In  Ps.  ix.  5,  15,  i7  (comp. 
Ez.  vii.  21)  the  word  stands  in  parallelism  with 

S7tt7n,  i^ha^  the  wicked,  as  dialinguisJ-^^  by  his 


HEAVEN  1019 

moral  obliquity  (see  Hupfeld  on  I's.  i.  1);  ;iu«i  in 
ver.  17  the  people  thus  designated  are  desciil>Ml  aa 
"  fo7 getters  of  God,"  that  know  not  Jehovah  (.Jer. 
X.  25).     Again  in  Ps.  lix.  5  it  is  to  some  extent 

commensurate  in  meaning  with  'J.'jS  ''^liSi,  f/'t/Je 
dven,  "iniquitous  transgressors;  "  and  in  these  ikis- 
sages,  as  well  ss  in  Ps.  x.  16,  it  has  a  deejk  v  siir- 
nificance  than  that  of  a  merely  national  distinction, 
although  the  latter  idea  is  never  entirely  lost  sight 
of. 

In  later  Jewish  literature  a  technical  dtllnition 
of  the  word  is  laid  down  which  is  certainly  not  of 
universal  application.  I'^lias  Levita  (quoted  by 
Eisenmenger,  Entdecktes  Juckntkwn,  i.  665)  ex- 
plains the  sing,  (joi  as  denoting  one  who  is  n4)t  of 
Israelitish  birth,  lliis  can  only  have  reference  to 
its  after  signification ;  in  the  O.  T.  the  singular  is 
never  used  of  an  individual,  but  is  a  collective  tenn, 
applied  equally  to  the  Israelites  (Josh.  iii.  17)  as  to 
the  nations  of  Canaan  (Lev.  xx.  23),  and  denotes 
simply  a  body  politic.    Another  distinction,  equally 

unsupported,  is  made  between  D^13,  yoyim.  and 

D^^S,  nmimm,  the  former  being  defined  as  the 
nations  who  had  served  Israel,  while  the  latter  were 
those  who  had  not  {Jalkut  Chadush,  fol.  2 ).  no. 
20;  Eisenmenger,  i.  667).  Abarbanel  on  .I<;el  iii, 
2  applies  the  former  to  both  Christians  and  I'nrks, 
or  Islnnaelites,  while  in  Scpher  Jucli(tsm  (fol.  148, 
col.  2)  the  Christians  alone  are  distinguishtvl  by 
this  appellation.  Eisenmenger  gives  some  cm-ious 
examples  of  the  disabilities  under  which  a  f/6i 
laboi-ed.  One  who  kept  sabbaths  was  judged  de- 
serving of  death  (ii.  206),  and  the  study  of  the  lav» 
was  pi-ohibited  to  him  under  the  same  jjen.ilty; 
but  on  the  latter  point  the  doctors  are  at  is.sue  (ii. 
209).  \V.  A.   W. 

HEAVEN.  There  are  four  Hebrew  worda 
thus  renderetl  in  the  O.  T.,  which  we  ma}-  briefly 

notice.  1.  ^"^(7"^  (arepecoua'- Jirmftmentwii :  Luth. 

Veste),  a  solid  expanse,  from  ^rZ"*,  "  to  beat  f)ut ;  " 
a  woi-d  used  primarily  of  the  hammering  out  of 
metal   (Ex.  xxxix,  3,  Num.  xvi.  38).     Tlie  fuller 

expression  is    D")^?^!!    V^\T1  (Gen.   i.    14    {.;. 

That  INIoses  understood  it  to  mean  a  solid  exjianse 
is  clear  from  his  representing  it  as  the  barrier  be- 
tween the  upper  and  lower  waters  (Gen.  i.  6  f.), 
^.  e.  as  separating  the  reservoir  of  the  celestial  ocean 
(Ps.  civ.  3,  xxix.  3)  from  the  waters  of  the  earth, 
or  those  on  which  the  earth  was  supjwsed  to  float 

(Ps.  cxxxvi.  6).  Through  its  opeji  lattices  (HIS^pM 
Gen.  vii.  11;  2  K.  vii.  2,  19;  comp.  k6(tki.voV) 
Aristoph.  Nvb.  373)  or  doors  (C^il^^)  I's-  Ixiviii. 

23)  the  dew  and  snow  and  hail  are  poured  upon 
the  earth  (Job  xxxviii.  23,  37,  where  we  have  the 
curious  expression  "bottles  of  heaven,"  "utres 
cceli").  This  firm  vault,  which  Job  describes  as 
being  "strong  as  a  molten  looking-glass  "  (xxxvii. 
i  18),  is  transparent,  like  pellucid  sappliire,  and 
splendid  as  crystal  (Dan.  xii.  3;  Ex.  xxiv.  10;  Ez. 
..  22;  Rev.  iv.  6),  over  which  rests  the  throne  of 
God  (Is.  Ixvi.  1;  Ez.  i.  26),  and  which  is  opened 
for  the  descent  of  angels,  or  for  prophetic  visions 
(Gen.  xxviii.  17;  Ez.  i.  1;  Acts  vii.  56,  x.  11).  la 
it,  like  gems  or  golden  lamps,  the  stars  are  fixed  to 
give  light  to  the  earth,  and  regulate  the  season! 
(Gen.  i.  14-19);  and  the  whole  magnificent,  im« 


1020 


HEAVEN 


measurable  structure  (Jer.  xxxi.  37)  is  supported 
by  the  mountains  as  its  pillars,  or  strong  founda- 
tious  (Ps.  xviii.  7;  2  Sam.  xxii.  8;  Job  xxvi.  11). 
Similarly  the  Greeks  believed  in  an  ovpavhs 
^■oKvxaKKos  (Ilom.  Jl.  v.  504),  or  aihiipios  (Horn. 
Od.  XV.  328),  or  a^aixcwTos  (Orph.  Hymm.  ad 
Cceluui)^  which  the  philosophers  called  aTip^fxviov, 
or  Kova-TaWoeiScs  (Emi^ed.  ap.  Plvi.  dt  Pldl. 
Plac.  ii.  11 ;  Artemid.  np.  Sen  Nat.  Quasi,  vii. 
13;  quoted  by  Gesenius,  s.  v.)  It  is  clear  that 
very  many  of  the  above  notions  were  mere  meta- 
phors resulting  from  the  simple  primitive  concep- 
tion, and  that  later  writers  among  the  Hebrews 
had  arrived  at  more  scientific  views,  although  of 
course  they  retained  nmch  of  the  old  phraseology, 
and  are  fluctuating  and  undecided  in  their  terms. 
KIsewhere,  for  instance,  the  heavens  are  likened  to 
a  curtain  (Ps.  civ.  2;  Is.  xl.  22).  In  A.  V. 
"heaven  "  and  "heavens"  are  used  to  render  not 

only     ^^7^,     but    also     D^^tJ\    Ch"ia,    and 

D*^f7nt£7,  for  which  reason  we  have  thrown  to- 
getlier  under  the  former  word  the  chief  features 
ascribed  by  the  Jewish  writers  to  this  {wrtion  of 
the  universe.     [Fikjiamkm-,  Amer.  ed.j 

2.  W^^\r  is  derived  from  nDt^\  "to  be 
Ligh."  This  is  the  word  used  in  the  expression 
"  the  heaven  and  the  earth,"  or  "  the  upper  and 
lower  regions  "  (Gen.  i.  1),  which  was  a  periphra- 
sis to  supply  the  want  of  a  single  word  for  the 
Cosmos  (Ueut.  xxxii.  1;  Is.  i.  2;  Ps.  cxlviii.  13). 
"  Heaven  of  heavens  "  is  their  expression  of  in- 
finity (Neh.  ix.  6;  Ecclus.  xvi.  18). 

3.  DT^^,  used  for  heaven  in  Ps.  xviii.  16;  Jer. 
XXV.  30 ;  Is.  xxiv.  18.  Properly  speaking  it  means 
a  mountain,  as  in  Ps.  cii.  19,  Ez.  xvii.  23.  It 
must  not,  however,  be  supposed  for  a  moment  that 
the  Hebrews  had  any  notion  of  a  "  Mountiun  of 
Meeting,"  like  Albordsh,  the  northern  hill  of  Baby- 
lonish mythology  (Is.  xiv.  13),  or  the  Greek  Olym- 
pus, or  tiie  Hindoo  Meru,  the  Chinese  Kiienlun.,  or 
the  Arabian  Caf  (see  Kalisch,  Gen.  p.  24,  and 
the  authorities  there  quoted),  since  such  a  fancy  is 
incompatible  with  the  pure  monotheism  of  the  Old 
Testament. 

4.  □'^)7ntZ7,  "expanses,"  with  reference  to  the 
extent  of  heaven,  as  the  last  two  words  were  de- 
rived fronj  its  height;   hence  this  word  is  often 

used  together  with  C^^tT,  as  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  26 ; 
Job  XXXV.  5.  In  the  A.  V.  it  b  sometimes  ren- 
deied  chvils,  for  which  the  ftxller  term  is  ^ZTD 
C^r^n^  (Ps.  xviii.  12).  The  word  pHtT 
means  first  "  to  pound,"  and  then  "  to  wear  out." 
So  that,  according  to  some,  "  clouds  "  (from  the 
notion  of  dusl)  is  the  oriyincd  meaning  of  the  word. 
Grcsenius.  however,  rejects  this  opinion  (  Thes.  s.  v.). 
In  the  N.  T.  we  frequently  have  the  word  ovpa 
»(,',  which  some  consider  to  be  a  Hebraism,  or  a 
Dluial  of  excellence  (Schleusner,  Lex.  Nov.  Test., 
%.  v.).  St.  Paul's  expression  eajy  rpirov  ovpauov 
(2  Cor.  xii.  2^  has  led  to  much  conjecture.  Gro- 
i'iu<i  said  that  the  Jews  divided  the  heaven  into 
three  parts,  namely,  fl.)  Nubiferum,  the  air  or  at- 
tti<)sj»liere,  where  clouds  gather.  (2.)  Astriferuni,  the 
firmament,  in  which  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars  are 
fixed.  (3.)  Empyreum,  or  Angeliferum,  the  upper 
be&veu,  the  abode  of  God  and  his  angels,  i.  t.  1. 


o.EBEiR 

bcir?  nh^v  (or  i?^■7n) ;  2.  f i^n'^n  obts 

(or    D^22tt7);    and    3.    "iVbVil    Ub^V    (or 

"  heaven  of  heavens,"  U'T^W  ^'T^W),  This  cu- 
riously explicit  statement  is  entirely  unsupported 
by  Kabbinic  authority,  but  it  is  hardly  fair  of 
jNIeyer  to  call  it  a  fiction,  for  it  may  be  supposed 
to  rest  on  some  vague  Biblical  evidence  (cf.  Dan. 
iv.  12,  <-the  fowls  of  the  heaven;  "  Gen.  xxii.  17, 
"the  stars  of  the  heaven;"  Ps.  ii.  4,  "he  that 
sitteth  in  the  heavens,"  etc.).  The  Kal)bis  spoke 
of  two  heavens  (cf.  Deut.  x.  14,  "  the  heaven  and 
the  heaven  of  heavens"),  or  seven  (eTrra  ovpauovs 
ous  riv(s  apid/jLovari  /car'  €iraya.fia<riu,  Clem. 
Alex.  Strom,  iv.  7,  p.  636).  "  Kesch  Lakisch  dixit 
septem  esse  coelos,  quorum  nomina  sunt,  1.  velum; 
2.  expansum;  3.  nubes;  4.  habitaculum;  5.  hab- 
itatio;  6.  sedes  fixa;  7.  Araboth,"  or  sometimes 
"the  treasury."  At  the  sin  of  Adam,  God  as- 
cended into  the  first;  at  the  sin  of  Cain  into  the 
second;  during  the  generation  of  Enoch  into  the 
third,  etc. ;  afterwards  God  descended  downwards 
into  the  sixth  at  the  time  of  Abraham,  into  the 
fifth  during  the  life  of  Isaac,  and  so  on  down  to 
the  time  of  Moses,  when  He  redescended  into  the 
first  (see  many  passages  quoted  by  Wetstein,  ad  2 
Cor.  xii.  2).  Of  all  these  definitions  and  deduc- 
tions we  may  remark  simply  with  Origen,  eTrro  5f 
ovpavovs  ^  oKws  irepicopKrfievov  api6fi6u  avTwv  al 
(pepdfJLeuai  4i/  rais  iKK\r]crlais  tov  ©eoO  ovK 
airayyeWovai  ypatpal  (c.  CeU.  vi^  c.  21,  p.  289) 
[i.  e.  "  of  seven  heavens,  or  any  definite  number 
of  heavens,  the  Scriptures  received  in  the  churches 
of  God  do  not  inform  us  "]. 

If  nothing  has  here  been  said  on  the  secondary 
senses  attached  to  the  word  "  heaven,"  the  omis- 
sion is  intentional.  The  object  of  this  Dictionary 
is  not  practical,  but  exegetical ;  not  theological,  but 
critical  and  explanatory.  A  treatise  on  the  nature 
and  conditions  of  future  beatitude  would  here  be 
wholly  out  of  place.  We  may,  howe\er,  remark 
that  as  heaven  was  used  metaphorically  to  signify 
the  alx)de  of  Jehovah,  it  is  constantly  employed  in 
the  N.  T.  to  signify  the  al)ode  of  the  spirits  of  the 
just.  (See  for  example  Matt.  v.  12,  vi,  20;  Luke 
X.  20,  xii.  33;  2  Cor.  v.  1;  Col.  i.  5.) 

F.  W.  F. 

*  HEAVE-OFFERING.     [Sacrifice.] 
HE'BER.     The   Heb.  'inV  and  "nn  aw 

more  forcibly  distinguished  than  the  English  Eber 
and  Heber.  In  its  use,  however,  of  this  merely 
aspirate  distinction  the  A.  V.  of  the  O.  T.  is  con- 
sistent: Eber  always  =  "^^r?'  ^i^d  Heber  "l^rT' 
In  Luke  iii.  35,  Heber  =  Ei)er,  'E$€p;  the  distino 
tion  so  carefully  observed  in  the  O.  T.  having  been 
neglected  by  the  ti-anslators  of  the  N.  T. 

The  LXX.  has  a  similar  distinction,  though  not 

consistently  carried  out.  It  expnjsses  ^5??  ^J 
"Efiep  (Gen.  x.  21),  "Effep  (1  Chr.  i.  25),  'E&pai- 
0V5  (Num.  xxiv.  24);  while  "I^C?  is  variously 
given  as  Xo&6p,  Xa^ep,  'A$<ip,  or  'A$ep.  In 
these  words,  however,  we  can  clearly  perceive  two 
distinct  groups  of  equivalents,  suggested  by  the 
efi!brt  to  express  two  radically  different  forms.  T^- 
transition  from  Xo$6p  through  Xa&fp  to  'A/Scp  -• 
sufficiently  obvious. 

The  Vulg.  expresses  both  indiflferentl}  liy  Heber 
except  in  Judg.  iv.  11  ff.,  where  Haber  is  prubablj 


HEBRP]W  LANGUAGE 

»iigg(9ted  by  the  LXX.  Xa^ff,:  and  Num.  xxiv. 
24,  JJeirr<JBOs,  evidently  after  the  LXX.  'E^paiovs. 
pjtcluding  Luke  iii.  35,  where  Heber  =  Eber,  we 
have  in  the  O.  T.  six  of  the  name. 

1.  Grandson  of  the  Patriarch  Asher  (Gen.  xlvi. 
17;  1  Clir.  vii.  31;  Num.  xxvi.  45). 

2.  Of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Ch.-.  iv.  18). 

3.  ['n)87}5;  Alex.  IwjSrjS;  Comp.  'Efie>:    He- 
ber.]    A  Gadite  (1  Chr.  v.  13). 

4.  A  Benjamite  (1  Chr.  viii.  17). 

5.  ['n3V)5;  Vat.  nySSn;  Aid.  'A)3e>:  Heber.] 
Another  Benjamite  (1  Chr.  viii.  22). 

6.  Heber,  the  Kenite,  the  husband  of  Jael 
(Judg.  iv.  11-17,  V.  24).  It  is  a  question  how  he 
could  be  a  Kenite,  and  yet  trace  his  descent  from 
Uobab,  or  Jetliro,  who  was  priest  of  Midian.  The 
solution  is  probably  to  be  sought  in  the  nomadic 
habits  of  the  tribe,  as  shown  in  the  case  of  Heber 
himself,  of  the  family  to  which  he  belonged  (Judg. 
i.  16),  and  of  the  Kenites  generally  (in  1  Sam.  xv. 
6,  they  appear  among  the  Amalekites)-  It  should 
he  observed  that  Jethro  is  never  called  a  Midian- 
ite,  but  expressly  a  Kenite  (Judg.  i.  IG);  that  the 
expression  "  priest  of  Midian,"  may  merely  serve 
to  indicate  the  country  in  which  Jethro  resided ; 
lastly,  that  there  would  seem  to  have  been  two 
successive  migrations  of  the  Kenites  into  Palestine, 
one  under  the  sanction  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  at 
the  time  of  the  original  occupation,  and  attributed 
to  Jethro's  descendants  generally  (Judg.  i.  10); 
the  other  a  special,  nomadic  expedition  of  Heber' s 
family,  which  led  them  to  Kedesh  in  Naphtali,  at 
that  time  the  debatable  ground  between  the  north- 
ern tribes,  and  Jabin,  King  of  Canaan.  We  are 
not  to  infer  that  this  was  the  final  settlement  of 
Heber :  a  tent  seems  to  have  been  his  sole  habita- 
tion when  his  wife  smote  Sisera  (Judg.  iv.  21). 

7.  CEjSep:  Heber.)  The  form  in  which  the 
name  of  the  patriarch  Eber  is  given  in  the  ge- 
nealogy. Luke  iii.  35.  T.  E.  B. 

HE'BERITES,  THE  ^"^POn  :  6  Xo0epi 
[Yat.  -pel] :  Jleberitce).  Descendants  of  Heber, 
a  branch  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (Num.  xxvi.  45). 

W.  A.  W. 

*  HEBREW  LANGUAGE.  See  Shemitic 
Languages,  §§  6-13. 

FE'BREW,  HE'BREWS.  This  word  first 
occurs  as  applied  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  13):  it 
was  afterwards  given  as  a  name  to  his  descendants. 

Four  derivations  have  been  proposed :  — 

I.  Patronymic  from  Abram. 

II.  Appellative  from  "l^V* 

III.  Appellative  from  ^5^. 

IV.  Patronymic  from  Eber. 

I.  From  Abram,  Abrcei,  and  by  euphony  Ile- 
Irmi  (August.,  Ambrose).  Displaying,  as  it  does, 
the  utmost  ignorance  of  the  language,  this  deriva- 
tion was  never  extensively  adopted,  and  was  even 
retracted  by  Augustine  {Retract.  16).  The  eu- 
phony alleged  by  Ambrose  is  quite  imperceptible, 
and  there  is  no  parallel  in  the  Lat.  meridie  =t.  me- 
didie. 

II.  "^"IIIlV,  from  1537=  crossed  Dver,  ■  ap- 
plied by  the  Canatnites  tc  Abraham  upon  hii 
-Tossing  the  Euphiates  ((ien.  xiv.  13,  where  LXX. 
xepdrrti  ■=transitor\  This  derivation  is  open  to 
he  strong  objection  that  Hebrew  nouns  ending  in 

Me  eitbor  patronymics,  or  gentilic  nouns  (Bux- 


HEBREW 


1021 


torf,  Leugden).  This  is  a  technical  objectktt 
which,  though  fatal  to  the  -Kepdrris,  or  apj}eltntivt 
derivation  as  traced   back   to  the  verb,  does  not 

apply  to  the  same  as  referred  to  the  noun  "13!S7, 
Th'  analogy  of  Galli,  Angli,  Hispani  derived  from 
Gallia,  Anglia,  Hispania  (Leusd.),  is  a  coniplet* 
blunder  in  ethnography ;  and  at  any  rate  it  would 
confirm  rather  than  destroy  the  derivation  from  the 
noun. 

HI.  This  latter  comes  next  in  review,  and  is  es- 
sentially the  same  with  II. ;  since  both  rest  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  Abraham  and  his  posterity 
were  called  Hebrews  in  order  to  express  a  distino- 
tion  between  the  races  E.  and  W.  of  the  Euphrates. 
The  question  of  fact  is  not  essential  whether  Abra- 
ham was  the  first  person  to  whom  the  word  was 
applied,  his  posterity  as  such  inheriting  the  name; 
or  whether  his  posterity  equally  with  himself  were 
by  the  Canaanites  regarded  as  men  from  "  the  other 
side  "  of  the  river.  The  real  question  at  issue  is 
whether  the  Hebrews  were  so  called  from  %  pro- 
genitor Eber  (which  is  the  fourth  and  last  derivs- 
tion),  or  from  a  country  which  had  been  the 
cradle  of  their  race,  and  from  which  they  had 
emigrated  westward  into  Palestine  ;  in  short, 
whether  the  word  Hebrew  is  a  patronymic,  or  a 
gentile  noun. 

IV.  The  latter  opinion  in  one  or  other  of  its 
phases  indicated  above  is  that  suggested  by  the 
LXX.,  and  maintained  by  Jerome,  Theodor.,  (Jri- 
gen,  Chrysost.,  Arias  Montanus,  R.  Bechai,  Paid 
Burg.,  Miinster,  Grotius,  Scaliger,  Selden,  liosenm., 
Gesen.,  Eichhom ;  the  former  is  supported  by  Jo- 
seph., Suidas,  Bochart,  Vatablus,  Drusius,  Vossius!, 
Buxtorf,  Hottinger,  Leusden,  Whiston,  Bauer.     As 

regards  the  derivation  from  "^^V,  the  noun  (or 
according  to  others  the  prep.),  Leusden  himself, 
the  great  supporter  of  the  Buxtorfian  theory,  indi- 
cates the  obvious  analogy  of  Transmarini,  Tran- 
sylvani,  Transalpini,  words  which  from  the  de- 
scription of  a  fixed  and  local  relation  attained  in 
process  of  time  to  the  independence  and  mobility 
of  a  gentile  name.  So  natural  indeed  is  it  to 
suppose  that  Eber  (trans,  on  the  other  side)  was 
the  term  used  by  a  Canaan ite  to  denote  the  coun- 
try E.  of  the  Euphrates,  and  Hebrew  the  name 
which  he  applied  to  the  inhabitants  of  that  coun- 
try, that  Leusden  is  driven  to  stake  the  entire 
issue  as  between  derivations  III.  and  IV.  upon  a 
challenge  to  produce  any  passage  of  the  O.  T.  in 

which  "inr  =  "1573^?  "^???-  If  we  accept  Hu- 
senm.  Sc'hol.  on  Num.  xxiv.  24,  according  to  which 
Eber  by  parallelism  with  Asshur=  Trans-Euphia- 
tian,  this  challenge  is  met.  But  if  not,  the  fa- 
cility of  the  abbreviation  is  suflacient  to  create  a 
presumption  in  its  favor;  while  the  derivation  with 
which  it  is  associated  harmonizes  more  perfectlj 
than  any  other  with  the  later  usage  of  the  word 
Hebrew,  and  is  confirmed  by  negative  arguments 
of  the  strongest  kind.  In  fact  it  seeuis  almost 
impossible  for  the  defenders  of  the  patronymic 
Eber  theory  to  get  over  the  difficulty  arising  from 
the  circumstance  that  no  special  prominence  is  io 
the  genealogy  assigned  to  PLber,  such  as  might  en- 
title him  to  the  position  of  head  or  founder  of  the 
race.  From  the  genealogical  scheme  in  Gen.  xi. 
10-26,  it  does  not  apjiear  that  the  Jews  thought 
of  Eber  as  a  source  primary,  or  even  secondary,  of 
the  national  descent.  The  genealogy  neither  starts 
from  him,  nor  in  its  uniform  sequence  does  it  real 


1022  HEBREW 

upon  him  with  any  emphasis.  There  is  nothing  to 
distiiiijuish  Eber  above  Arphaxad,  Peleg,  or  Senig. 
Like  them  he  is  but  a  link  in  the  chain  by  which 
Sheni  is  connected  with  Abraham.  Indeed  the 
tendency  of  the  Israelitish  retrospect  is  to  stop  at 
Jacob.  It  is  with  Jacob  that  their  history  as  a 
nation  begins :  beyond  Jacob  they  held  their  an- 
cestry in  common  with  the  Edomites;  beyond  Isaac 
they  were  in  danger  of  being  confounded  with  the 
Ishii-aelites.  The  predominant  figure  of  the  em- 
phatically Hebrew  Abraham  might  tempt  them 
be_\(ind  those  points  of  affinity  with  other  races,  so 
distasteful,  so  anti-national;  but  it  is  almost  incon- 
ceivable that  they  would  voluntarily  originate,  and 
peipetuate  an  appellation  of  themselves  which 
landed  them  on  a  platform  of  ancestry  where  they 
met  the  whole  population  of  Arabia  (Gen.  x.  25, 
30). 

As  might  have  been  expected,  an  attempt  has 
been  made  to  show  that  the  position  which  Eber 
occupies  in  the  genealogy  is  one  of  no  ordinary 
kind,  and  that  the  Hebrews  stood  in  a  relation  to 
him  which  was  held  by  none  other  of  his  descend- 
ants, and  might  therefore  be  called  par  excellence 
"  the  childrcn  of  Eber." 

There  is,  however,  only  one  passage  in  which  it 
Is  possible  to  imagine  any  peculiar  resting-point  as 
connected  with  the  name  of  Eber.  In  Gen.  x.  21 
Shem  is  called  "  the  father  of  all  the  children  of 
Eber."  But  the  passage  is  apparently  not  so  much 
genealogical  as  ethnographical ;  and  in  this  view  it 
seems  evident  that  the  words  are  intended  to  con- 
trast Shem  with  Ham  and  Japheth,  and  especially 
with  the  former.  Now  Babel  is  plainly  fixed  as 
the  extreme  V..  limit  of  the  posterity  of  Ham  (ver. 
10),  from  whose  land  Nimrod  went  out  into  As- 
syria (ver.  11,  margin  of  A.  V.):  in  the  next 
place,  Egypt  (ver.  13)  is  mentioned  as  the  W.  limit 
of  the  same  great  rnce;  and  these  two  extremes 
having  been  ascertained,  the  historian  proceeds 
(ver.  15-li))  to  fill  up  his  ethnographic  sketch 
with  the  intermediate  tribes  of  the  Canaanites. 
In  short,  in  ver.  G-20,  we  have  indications  of  three 
geographical  points  which  distinguish  the  posterity 
of  Ham,  namely,  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Babylon. 
At  the  last-mentioned  city,  at  the  river  Euphrates, 
their  proper  occupancy,  unaffected  by  the  excep- 
tional movement  of  Asshur,  terminated,  and  at  the 
same  point  that  of  the  descendants  of  Shem  began. 
Accordingly,  the  sharpest  contrast  that  could  be 
devised  is  obtained  by  generally  classing  these  lat- 
ter nations  as  those  beyond  the  river  Euphrates; 
and  the  words  "  father  of  all  the  children  of  Eber," 
i.  e.  father  of  the  nations  to  the  east  of  the  Eu- 
phrates, find  an  intelligible  place  in  the  context. 

But  a  more  tangible  ground  for  the  specialty 
implied  in  the  derivation  of  Hebrew  from  Eber  is 
Bouglit  in  the  supposititious  fact  that  Eber  was  the 
only  descendant  of  Noah  who  preserved  the  one 
niinieval  language;  and  it  is  maintained  that  this 
janguage  transmitted  by  Eber  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
to  them  alone  of  all  his  des.^ndants,  constitutes  a  pe- 
juliarand  si)ecial  relation  (Theodor.,  Voss.,  Leusd.). 

It  is  obvious  to  remark  that  this  theory  rests 
upon  three  entirely  gi-atuitous  assumptions :  first, 
that  the  primeval  language  has  been  preserved ; 
next,  that  Eber  alone  preserved  it;  lastly,  that 
having  so  preserved  it,  he  comnnmicated  it  to  his 
50ti  Peleg,  but  not  to  his  son  Joktan. 

The  fin;t  assumption  is  utterly  at  variance  with 
the  most  certain  results  of  ethnology:  the  two 
/there  are  grossly  improbable.     The  Hebrew  of  the 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

0.  T.  was  not  the  language  of  Abraham  when  h« 
first  entered  Palestine:  whether  he  inherited  hii 
language  from  Eber  or  not,  decidedly  the  language 
which  he  did  speak  must  have  been  Chaldee  (comp 
Gen.  xxxi.  47),  and  not  Hebrew  (Eichhorn).  This 
supposed  primeval  language  was  in  fJact  the  Ian 
guage  of  the  Canaanites,  assumed  by  Abraham  aa 
more  or  less  akin  to  that  in  which  he  had  been 
brought  up,  and  could  not  possibly  have  been 
transmitted  to  him  by  Eber. 

The  appellative  {irepd.T7]s)  derivation  is  stronglj 
confirmed  by  the  historical  use  of  the  word  Thbrexc. 
A  patronymic  would  naturally  be  in  use  only  among 
the  people  themselves,  while  the  appellative  which 
had  been  originally  applied  to  them  as  strangers  in 
a  strange  land  would  probably  continue  to  desig- 
nate them  in  their  relations  to  neighboring  tril)es, 
and  would  be  their  current  name  among  foreign 
nations.  This  is  precisely  the  case  with  the  terms 
Israelite  and  Hebrew  respectively.  The  former 
was  used  by  the  Jews  of  themselves  among  them- 
selves, the  latter  was  the  name  by  which  they  were 
known  to  foreigners.  It  is  used  either  when  for- 
eigners are  introduced  as  speaking  (Gen.  xxxix.  14, 
17,  xli.  12;  Ex.  i.  16,  ii.  G:  1  Sam.  iv.  6,  9,  xiii. 
19,  xiv.  11,  xxix.  3),  or  where  they  are  opposed  to 
foreign  nations  (Gen.  xhii.  32;  Ex.  i.  15,  ii.  11; 
Deut.  XV.  12;  1  Sam.  xiii.  3,  7).  So  in  Greek 
and  Roman  writers  we  find  the  name  Hebrews^  or, 
in  later  times,  Jews  (Pausan.  v.  5,  §  2,  vi.  24,  §  6; 
Pint.  Sympos.  iv.  6,  1 ;  Tac.  Hist.  v.  1 ;  Joseph. 
passim).  In  N.  T.  we  find  the  same  contrast  be- 
tween Hebrews  and  foreigners  (Acts  vi.  1;  Phil, 
iii.  5);  the  Hebrew  language  is  distinguished  from 
all  others  (Luke  xxiii.  38;  John  v.  2,  xix.  13; 
Acts  xxi.  40,  xxvi.  14;  Rev.  ix.  11);  while  in  2 
Cor.  xi.  22,  the  word  is  used  as  only  second  to  I»- 
raelite  in  the  expression  of  national  peculiarity. 

Gesenius  has  successfiilly  controverted  the  opin- 
ion that  the  term  Israelite  was  a  sacred  name,  and 
Hebrew  the  common  api^ellation. 

Briefly,  M'e  suppose  that  Hebrew  was  originally  a 
Cis-Euphratian  word  applied  to  Trans-Euphratian 
immigrants;  it  was  accepted  by  these  immigrants 
in  their  external  relations ;  and  after  the  general 
substitution  of  the  word  ./e?p,  it  still  found  a  place 
in  that  marked  and  special  feature  of  national  con- 
tradistinction, the  language  (Joseph.  Ant.  i.  6,  §4; 
Suidas,  s.  v.  'E^patoi;  Euseb.  de  Prcep.  Evang. 
ii.  4;  Ambrose,  Comment,  in  Phil.  iii.  5;  August. 
Qucest.  in  Gen.  24;  Consens.  Evany.  14;  comp. 
Retract.  16;  Grot.  Annot.  ad  Gen.  xiv.  13;  Voss. 
Etym.  s.  V.  sujn'a ;  Bochart,  Plialeg,  ii.  14 ;  Buxt. 
Diss,  de  Ling.  Ileb.  C'onserr.  31;  Hottinger,  Thes. 
i.  1,  2;  Leusden,  Phil.  Heb.  Diss.  21,  1;  Bauer. 
Entwui'f^  etc.,  §  xi. ;  Rosenm.  Schvl.  ad  Gen.  x. 
21,  xiv.  13,  and  Num.  xxiv.  24;  Eichhora,  Einktt, 
i.  p.  60;  Gesen.  Lex.,  and  Gesch.  d.  Ileb.  Spr.  1], 
12).  T.  E.  B. 

HE'BREWESS  (HJ-ID^ :  'E^pcda:  He 
brcea).     A  Hebrew  woman  (Jer.  xxxiv.  9). 

W.  A.  W. 
HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE.     Tht 

principal  questions  which  have  been  raised,  and  tht 
opinions  which  are  current  respecting  this  epistif 
may  be  considered  under  the  following  heads: 

I.  Its  canonical  authority. 

II.  Its  author. 

III.  To  whom  was  it  addressed  ? 

IV.  AVhere  and  when  was  it  written? 

V.  In  what  language  was  it  written  ? 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


1023 


TI.  Condition  of  the  Hebrews,  and  scope  of  the 
iplrtle. 

VII.  Literature  connected  with  it. 

I.  The  moat  important  question  that  can  be  en- 
tertauied  in  connection  with  tliis  epistle  touches 
Its  canonical «  authority. 

I'he  universal  Church,  by  allowing  it  a  place 
among  the  Holy  Scriptures,  acknowledges  that  there 
is  nothing  in  its  contents  inconsistent  with  the  rest 
of  the  Bible.  But  the  peculiar  position  which  is 
assigned  to  it  among  the  epistles  shows  a  trace  of 
doubts  as  to  its  authorship  or  canonical  authority, 
two  points  which  were  blended  together  in  primi- 
tive times.  Has  it  then  a  just  claim  to  be  received 
by  us  as  a  portion  of  that  Bible  which  contains  the 
rule  of  our  faith  and  the  rule  of  our  practice,  laid 
down  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles?  Was  it  re- 
garded as  such  by  the  Primitive  Church,  to  whose 
clearly-expressed  judgment  in  this  matter  all  later 
generations  of  Christians  agree  to  defer  ? 

Of  course,  if  we  possessed  a  declaration  by  an 
inspired  apostle  that  this  epistle  is  canonical,  all 
discussion  would  be  superfluous.  But  the  inter- 
pretation (by  F.  Spanheim  and  later  writers)  of 
2  Pet.  iii.  15  as  a  distinct  reference  to  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  seems  scarcely  tenable. 
For,  if  the  "you"  whom  St.  Peter  addresses  be 
all  Christians  (see  2  Pet.  i.  2),  the  reference  must 
not  be  limited  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  or  if 
it  include  only  (see  2  Pet.  iii.  1)  the  Jews  named 
in  1  Pet.  i.  1,  there  may  be  special  reference  to  the 
Galatians  (vi.  7-9)  and  Ephesians  (ii.  3-5),  but 
not  to  the  Ilelirews. 

Was  it  then  received  and  transmitted  as  canon- 
ical by  the  immediate  successors  of  the  Apostles  ? 
The  most  Important  witness  among  these,  Clement 
(a.  u.  7U  or  US),  refers  to  this  epistle  in  the  same 
way  as,  and  more  frequently  than,  to  any  other 
canonical  book.  It  seems  to  have  been  "  wholly 
transfused,"  says  ^Ir.  Westcott  {On  the  C<(non^  p. 
32),  into  Clement's  mind.  Little  stress  can  be  laid 
n\K>n  the  few  possible  allusions  to  it  in  Barnabas, 
Hennas,  Polycarp,  and  Ignatius.  But  among  the 
extant  authorities  of  orthodox  Christianity  during 
the  first  century  after  the  epistle  was  written,  there 
is  not  one  dissentient  voice,  whilst  it  Is  received  as 


a  The  Rev.  J.  Jones,  in  his  Metkml  of  settling  the 
Canonical  Authority  of  the  N.  T.,  indicates  the  way  in 
which  an  inquiry  into  this  subject  should  be  con- 
ducted ;  and  Dr.  N.  Lardner's  Credihitity  of  the  Gos- 
nel  History  is  a  storehouse  of  ancient  authorities. 
But  both  these  great  works  are  nearly  superseded  for 
ordinary  pur{>oses  by  the  invaluable  compendium  of 
the  Rev.  B.  F.  Westcott,  On  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Tes'ameni,  to  which  the  first  part  of  this  article  is 
greatly  indebted.  [There  is  a  2d  edition  of  this  work, 
Lend.  1886.] 

ft  Lardner's  remark,  that  it  was  not  the  method  of 
Justin  to  use  allusions  so  often  as  other  authors  have 
done,  may  supply  us  with  something  like  a  middle 
point  between  the  conflicting  declarations  of  two  liv- 
ing writers,  both  entitled  to  be  heard  with  attention. 
Tb**  index  of  Otto's  edition  of  Justin  contains  more 
than  50  references  by  Justin  to  the  epistles  of  St. 
Paul;  while  Prof.  Jowett  (On  the  Thessa'onians,  etc., 
Iflt  ed.  i.  345)  puts  forth  in  England  the  statement 
kat  Justin  was  unacquainted  with  St.  Paul  and  his 
writings. 

*  This  statement  is  modified  in  the  2d  edIMon  of 
Prof.  Jowetfs  work  (Lond.  1859).  lie  there  says  (i. 
444'  that  "Justin  refers  to  the  Twelve  in  several  pas- 
■mexa,  but  nowhere  in  his  genuine  writings  mentions 
It    r»ul.     And  when  gpvaking  of  th*i  books  read  in 


canonical  by  Clement  writing  from  Rome;  by  Jug- 
tin  Martyr,ft  famiUar  with  the  traditions  of  Italj 
and  Asia;  by  his  contemporaries,  Pinytus  (?)  the 
Cretan  bishop,  and  the  predecessors  of  Clement  and 
Origen  at  Alexandria;  and  by  the  compilers  of  the 
Peshito  version  of  the  New  Testament.  Among 
the  writers  of  this  period  who  make  no  reference  to 
it,  there  is  not  one  whose  subject  necessarily  leads 
us  to  expect  him  to  refer  to  it.  Two  heretical 
teachers,  Basilides  at  Alexandria  and  ISIarcion  at 
Rome,  are  recorded  as  distinctly  rejecting  the 
epistle. 

But  at  the  close  of  that  period,  in  the  Ncrth 
African  church,  where  first  the  Gospel  found  utter- 
ance in  the  I^atin  tongue,  orthodox  Christianity 
first  doubted  the  canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  The  Gospel,  spreading  from  Je- 
rusalem along  the  northern  and  southern  shores  of 
the  jNIediterranean,  does  not  appear  to  have  borne 
fruit  in  North  Africa  until  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  had  curtailed  intercourse  with  Palestine 
And  it  came  thither  not  on  the  lips  of  an  inspired 
apostle,  but  shorn  of  much  of  that  oral  tradition  io 
which,  with  many  other  facts,  was  embodied  the 
ground  of  the  eastern  belief  in  the  canonical  au- 
thority and  authorship  of  this  anonymous  epistle. 
To  the  old  Latin  version  of  the  Scriptures,  which 
was  completed  probably  about  A.  d.  170,  this  epis- 
tle seems  to  have  been  added  as  a  composition  of 
Barnabas,  and  as  destitute  of  canonical  authority. 
The  opinion  or  tradition  thus  embodied  in  that  age 
and  country  cannot  be  traced  further  back.  About 
that  time  the  Roman  Church  also  began  to  speak 
Latin;  and  even  its  latest  (ireek  writers  gave  up, 
we  know  not  why,  the  full  faith  of  the  Eastern 
Church  in  the  canonical  authority  of  this  epistle. 

During  the  next  two  centuries  the  extant  fathers 
of  the  Roman  and  North  African  churches  regard 
the  epistle  as  a  book  of  no  canonical  authority. 
TertuUian,  if  he  quotes  it,  disclaims  its  authority 
and  speaks  of  it  as  a  good  kind  of  apocryphal  book 
written  by  Barnabas.  Cyprian  leaves  it  out  of  the 
number  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  and,  even  in  his 
books  of  Scripture  Testimonies  against  the  Jews, 
never  makes  the  slightest  reference  to  it.  Irenseus, 
who  came  in  his  youth  to  Gaul,  defending  in  his 


the  Christian  assemblie.i,  he  names  only  the  Gospels 
and  the  Prophets.  {A/ioL  i.  67.)  ...  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  true  that  in  numerous  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament,  Justin  appears  to  follow  St. 
Paul."  The  statement  that  "  the  index  of  Otto's  edi- 
tion of  Justin  contains  more  than  50  references  by 
Justin  to  the  epistles  of  St  Paul  '  is  net  correct,  if 
his  index  to  Justin's  unrlisfnitfc/  Vi^rks  is  mtended,  the 
number  being  only  S9  (exclusive  of  6  to  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews),  and  16  of  these  being  to  quotations 
from  or  allusions  to  the  Old  Testament  common  tc 
Justin  and  St.  Paul.  In  most  of  the  remainder,  the 
correspondence  in  language  between  Justin  and  the 
epistles  of  St.  Pau.  is  not  close.  Still  the  evidence 
that  Justin  was  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the 
great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  appears  to  be  satisfac- 
tory. See  particularly  on  this  point  the  articles  of 
Otto  in  lUgen's  Zeilschr.  f.  d.  hist.  T/ieo'.,  1842,  Heft 
2,  pp.  41-54,  and  1843,  Heft  1,  pp.  34-43.  In  such 
works  as  the  two  Apologies  and  the  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  r/yo:atiotis  from  St.  Paul  were  not  to  be  ex- 
pected. That  Justin  was  acquainted  with  the  Epistlo 
to  the  Hebrews  is  also  probable,  but  that  he  regarded 
it  as  "  canonical  "  can  hardly  be  proved  or  disproved 
See  the  careful  and  judicious  remarks  of  Mr.  Wm^ 
cott.  Canon  of  the  New  Test.,  2d  ed.,  p.  146  ff. 


1024 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


(treat  work  tlie  Divinity  of  Christ,  never  quotes, 
scarcely  refers  to  the  lq)istle  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
Muratorian  Fragment  on  the  Canon  leaves  it  out 
uf  the  list  of  8t.  Paul's  epistles.  So  did  Caius 
xnd  Hippolytus,  who  wrote  at  Rome  in  Greek;  and 
80  did  Victorinus  of  Pannonia.  But  hi  the  fourth 
century  its  authority  began  to  revive;  it  was  re- 
ceived by  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Lucifer  and  Faustinus 
of  Cagliari,  Fabius  and  Victorinus  of  Rome,  Am- 
nrose  of  Milan,  and  Philaster  (V)  and  Gaudentius 
of  Brescia.  At  the  end  of  the  fourth  century, 
Jerome,  the  most  learned  and  critical  of  the  Latin 
Fathers,  reviewed  the  conflicting  opinions  as  to  the 
authority  of  this  epistle.  He  considered  that  the 
prevailing,  though  not  universal  view  of  the  Latin 
churches,  was  of  less  weight  than  the  view,  not 
only  of  ancient  writers,  but  also  of  all  the  (ireek 
and  all  the  Eastern  churches,  where  the  epistle 
was  received  as  canonical  and  read  daily;  and  he 
pronounced  a  decided  opinion  in  favor  of  its  au- 
thority. The  great  contemporary  light  of  North 
Africa,  St.  Augustine,  held  a  similar  opinion.  And 
after  the  declaration  of  these  two  eminent  men,  the 
Latin  churches  united  with  the  East  in  receiving 
the  epistle.  The  3d  Council  of  Carthage,  A.  D. 
397,  and  a  decretal  of  Pope  Innocent,  A.  D.  416, 
gave  a  final  confirmation  to  their  decision. 

Such  was  the  course  and  the  end  of  the  only 
considerable  opposition  which  has  been  made  to  the 
canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Its  origin  has  not  been  ascertained.  Some  critics 
have  conjectured  that  the  INIontanist  or  the  Nova- 
tian  controversy  instigated,  and  that  the  Arian 
controversy  dissipated,  so  much  opposition  as  pro- 
ceeded from  ortliodox  Christians.  The  references 
M  St.  i'aul  in  the  Clementine  Homilies  have  led 
other  critics  to  the  startfmg  theory  that  orthodox 
Christians  at  Rome,  in  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  commonly  regarded  and  described  St. 
Paul  as  an  enemy  of  the  Faith;  —  a  theory  which, 
if  it  were  established,  would  be  a  much  stranger 
fact  than  the  rejection  of  the  least  accredited  of 
the  epistles  which  bear  the  Apostle's  name.  But 
perhaps  it  is  more  probable  that  that  jealous  care, 
with  which  the  (jhurch  everywhere,  in  the  second 
century,  had  learned  to  scrutinize  all  books  claim- 
ing canonical  authority,  misled,  in  this  instance, 
the  churches  of  North  Africa  and  Rome.  For  to 
them  this  epistle  was  an  anonymous  writing,  un- 
like an  epistle  in  its  opening,  unlike  a  treatise  in 
its  end,  differing  in  its  style  from  every  ajwstolic 
epistle,  abounding  in  arguments  and  appealing  to 
sentiments  which  were  always  foreign  to  the  Gen- 
tile, and  growing  less  familiar  to  the  Jewish  mind. 
So  they  went  a  step  beyond  the  church  of  Alexan- 
dria, which,  while  doubting  the  authorship  of  this 
epistle,  always  acknowledged  its  authority.  The 
;hurch  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  original  receiver  of 
the  epistle,  was  the  depository  of  that  oral  testi- 
mony on  which  both  its  authorship  and  canonical 
authority  rested,  and  was  the  fountain-head  of  in- 
formation which  satisfied  the  Eastern  and  Greek 
churches.  But  the  church  of  Jerusalem  was  early 
hidden  in  exile  and  obscurity.  And  Palestine, 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  became  unknown 
;round  to  that  class  of  "  dwellers  in  Libya  about 
Cyrene,  and  strangers  of  Rome,"  who  once  main- 
tsiiiied  close  religious  intercourse  with  it.    All  these 


a  The  'Vatican  Codex  (B),  a.  d.  850,  bears  traces  of 
Ui  earlier  asElgumeut  of  the  fifth  place  to  the  Ep.  to 
'Jm  Hebrews      [See  Bi««:,  p.  306  t,  Amer,  ed.] 


considerations  may  help  to  account  for  the  fiwjt  that 
the  Latin  churches  hesitated  to  receive  an  epistle, 
the  credentials  of  which,  from  peculiar  circum- 
stances, were  originally  imperfect,  and  had  become 
inaccessible  to  them  when  their  version  of  Scrip- 
ture was  in  process  of  formation,  until  religious' 
intercourse  betweeen  East  and  West  again  grew 
frequent  and  intimate  in  the  fourth  century. 

But  such  doubts  were  confined  to  the  Latin 
churches  from  the  middle  of  the  second  to  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century.  All  the  rest  of  ortho- 
dox Christendom  from  the  beginning  was  agreed 
upon  the  canonical  authority  of  this  epistle.  No 
Greek  or  Syriac  writer  ever  expressed  a  doubt.  It 
was  acknowledged  in  various  public  documents; 
received  by  the  framers  of  the  Apostolical  Consti- 
tutions (about  A.  1).  250,  Beveridge);  quoted  in 
the  epistle  of  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  269; 
appealed  to  by  the  debaters  in  the  first  Council  of 
Nice ;  included  in  that  catalogue  of  canonical  books 
which  was  added  (perhaps  afterwards)  to  the  canons 
of  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  365;  and  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Quinisextine  Coimcil  at  Constanti- 
nople, A.  D.  692. 

Cardinal  Cajetan,  the  opponent  of  Luther,  was* 
the  first  to  disturb  the  tradition  of  a  thousand 
years,  and  to  deny  the  authority  of  this  epistle. 
Erasmus,  Calvin,  and  Beza  questioned  only  its  au- 
thorship. The  bolder  spirit  of  Luther,  unable  to 
perceive  its  agreement  with  St.  Paul's  doctrine, 
pronounced  it  to  be  the  work  of  some  disciple  of 
the  AiX)stle,  who  had  built  not  only  gold,  silver,  and 
precious  stones,  but  also  wood,  hay,  and  stubble 
upon  his  master's  foundation.  And  whereas  the 
Greek  Church  in  the  fom-th  century  gave  it  some- 
times the  tenth  «  place,  or  at  other  times,  aa  it  now 
does,  and  as  the  Syrian,  Roman,  and  English 
ohurches  do,  the  fourteenth  place  among  the  epis- 
tles of  St.  Paul,  Luther,  when  he  printed  his  ver- 
sion of  the  Bible,  separated  this  book  from  St. 
Paul's  epistles,  and  placed  it  with  the  epistles  of 
St.  James  and  St.  Jude,  next  before  the  Reveiar 
tion ;  indicating  by  this  change  of  order  his  opin- 
ion that  the  four  relegated  books  are  of  less  im- 
portance and  less  authority  *»  than  the  rest  of  the 
New  Testament.  His  opinion  found  some  promo 
ters ;  but  it  has  not  been  adopted  in  any  confession 
of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  canonical  authority  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  is  then  secure,  so  far  as  it  can  be  estab- 
lished by  the  tradition  of  Christian  churches.  The 
doubts  which  affected  it  were  admitted  in  remote 
places,  or  in  the  failure  of  knowledge,  or  under  the 
pressure  of  times  of  intellectual  excitement;  and 
they  have  disappeared  before  full  information  and 
calm  judgment. 

II.  Who  tons  the  author  of  the  Epistle?  —  This 
question  is  of  less  practical  importance  than  the 
last;  for  many  books  are  received  as  canonical, 
whilst  little  or  nothing  is  known  of  their  writer*. 
In  this  epistle  the  superscription,  the  ordinary 
source  of  information,  is  wanting.  Its  omission 
has  been  accounted  for,  since  the  days  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria  (apud  F.useb.  II.  E.  vi.  14)  and 
Chrysostom,  by  supposing  that  St.  Paul  withheld 
his  name,  lest  the  sight  of  it  should  repel  any  Jew- 
ish  Christians  who  might  still  regard  him  rather 
aa  an  enemy  of  the  law  (Acts  xxi.  21 )  than  aa  a 
benefactor  to  their  nation  (Acts  xxiv.  17).     And 


h  See  Bleek,  i.  pp.  217  and  447. 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


1025 


Pantnnus,  or  some  other  predecessor  of  Clement, 
adds  that  St.  Paul  would  not  write  to  the  Jews  as 
an  Apostle  because  he  regarded  the  Lord  himself 
as  their  Apostle  (see  the  remarkable  expression, 
Heb.  iii.  1,  twice  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr,  Apul. 
i.  12,  63). 

It  was  the  custom  of  the  earliest  fathers  to  quote 
passages  of  Scripture  without  naming  the  writer 
or  the  book  which  supplied  them.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  at  first,  everywhere,  except  in 
North  Africa,  St.  Paid  was  regarded  as  the  author. 
'  Among  the  Greek  fathers,"  says  Olshausen  ( Ojms- 
cu/a,  p.  95),  no  one  is  named  either  in  Egypt,  or 
in  Syria,  Palestine,  Asia,  or  Greece,  who  is  opposed 
to  the  opinion  that  this  epistle  proceeds  from  St. 
i'aul."  The  Alexandrian  fathers,  whether  guided 
by  tradition  or  by  critical  discernment,  are  the  ear- 
liest to  note  the  discrepancy  of  style  between  this 
epistle  and  the  other  thirteen.  And  they  received 
it  in  the  same  sense  that  the  speech  in  Acts  xxii. 
i-21  is  received  as  St.  Paul's.  Clement  ascribed 
to  St.  Luke  the  translation  of  the  epistle  into 
Greek  from  a  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Paul.  Ori- 
gen,  embracing  the  opinion  of  those  who,  he  says, 
preceded  him,  believed  that  the  thoughts  were  St. 
Paul's,  the  language  and  composition  St.  Luke"s 
or  Clement's  of  Rome.  Tertullian,  knowing  noth- 
ing of  any  connection  of  St.  Paul  with  the  epis- 
tle, names  Barnabas  as  the  reputed  author  accord- 
ing to  the  North  African  tradition,  which  in  the 
time  of  Augustine  had  taken  the  less  definite  shape 
of  a  denial  by  some  that  the  epistle  was  St.  Paul's, 
and  in  the  time  of  Isidore  of  Seville  appears  as  a 
Latin  opinion  (founded  on  the  dissonance  of  style) 
that  it  was  written  by  Barnabas  or  Clement.  At 
Kome  Clement  was  silent  as  to  the  author  of  this 
as  of  the  other  epistles  which  he  quotes ;  and  the 


a  Professor  Blunt,  On  the  Right  Use  of  the  Early 
Fathers,  pp.  439^444,  gives  a  complete  view  of  the  evi- 
dence of  Clemeut,  Origen,  and  Eusebius  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  epistle. 

b  In  this  sense  may  be  fairly  understood  the  indi- 
rect declaration  that  this  epistle  is  St.  Paul's,  which 
the  Church  of  England  puts  into  the  mouth  of  her 
ministers  in  the  Offices  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick 
and  the  Solemnization  of  Matrimony. 

c  Bishop  Pearson  {De  succeisione  priorum  Romcp, 
episcoporum,  ch.  viii.  §  8)  says  that  the  way  in  which 
Timothy  is  mentioned  (xiii.  23)  seems  to  him  a  suffi- 
cient proof  that  St.  Paul  was  the  author  of  this  epistle. 
For  another  view  of  this  passage  see  Bleek,  i.  273. 

d  *lt  has  been  asserted  by  some  German  critics,  as 
Soiiulz  and  Seyffarth,  that  an  unusually  large  propor- 
tion of  aira|  Keyofxeva,  or  peculiar  words,  is  found  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  compared  with  other 
epistles  of  Paul.  This  is  denied  by  Prof  Stuart,  who 
institutes  an  elaborate  comparison  between  this  epistle 
and  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  in  reference  to 
Hiis  point.  (Sae  his  Comm.  on  Hebrews,  2d  ed.,  p. 
217  .f..  223  ff.)  As  the  result  of  this  examination,  he 
finda  in  1  Cor.  230  words  which  occur  nowhere  else 
in  the  writings  of  Paul ;  while  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ilebre'.vs,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  SeyfFarth, 
there  are  only  118  words  of  this  class.  Taking  into 
account  the  comparative  length  of  the  two  epistles, 
the  number  of  peculiar  words  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews as  compared  with  that  in  1  Ci/r.  is,  according  to 
Prof  Stuart,  in  the  proportion  of  1  to  Ij.  Hence  he 
argues,  that  "  if  the  number  of  xtto^  keyofxeva  in  our 
epistle  proves  that  it  was  not  from  the  hand  of  Paul, 
\t  must  be  more  abundantly  evident  that  Paul  cannot 
have  been  the  author  ef  the  First  Epis'le  to  the  Cor- 
inthians." 

The  fiwits  in  the  case,  however,  are  very  diiferent 
(^ 


writers  who  follow  him,  down  to  the  middle  of  the 
fourth  century,  only  touch  on  the  point  to  deny 
that  the  epistle  is  St.  Paul's. 

riie  view  of  the  Alexandrian  fathers,  a  middle 
point  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  traditions, 
won  its  way  in  the  Church.  It  was  adopted  as  the 
most  probable  opinion  by  lilusebius ; «  and  its  grad- 
ual reception  may  have  led  to  the  silent  transfer 
which  was  made  about  his  time,  of  this  epistle 
from  the  tenth  place  in  the  Greek  Canon  to  the 
fourteenth,  at  the  end  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  and 
before  those  of  other  Apostles.  This  place  it  held 
everywhere  till  the  time  of  Luther;  as  if  to  indi- 
cate the  deliberate  and  final  acquiescence  of  th 
universal  church  in  the  opinion  that  it  is  one  of 
the  works  of  St.  Paul,  but  not  in  the  same  full 
sense ''  as  the  other  ten  [nine]  epistles,  addressed  to 
particular  churches,  are  his. 

In  the  last  three  centuries  every  word  and  phrase 
in  the  epistle  has  been  scrutinized  with  the  most 
exact  care  for  historical  and  grammatical  evidence 
as  to  the  authorship.  The  conclusions  of  Individ  • 
ual  inquirers  are  very  diverse;  but  tlie  result  has 
not  been  any  considerable  disttirliance  of  the  an 
cient  tradition.^"  No  new  kind  of  difficulty  has 
been  discovered:  no  hypothesis  open  to  fewer  ob- 
jections than  the  tradition  has  been  devised.  The 
laborious  work  of  the  Rev.  ('.  Forster  {The  Apos- 
tolical  Authority  of  the  Kpidle  to  the  Hebreios), 
which  is  a  storehouse  of  grammatical  evidence,  ad- 
vocates the  opinion  that  St.  Paul  was  the  author 
of  the  language,  as  well  as  the  thoughts  of  the 
epistle.  Professor  Stuart,  in  the  Introduction  to 
his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
discusses  the  internal  evidence  at  great  length,  and 
agrees  in  opinion  with  Mr.  Forster. «'  Dr.  C. 
Wordsworth,   On   the   Canon   of  the   Scriptures^ 

from  what  Prof.  Stuart  supposes.  In  the  first  place, 
20  of  his  ttTraf  keyoiLeva  in  1st  Corinthians  are  found 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which,  to  make  the 
comparison  tolerably  fair,  should  be  assumed  as  Pau- 
line ;  5  others  are  found  only  in  quotations ;  and  13 
more  do  not  properly  belong  in  the  list,  while  25  should 
be  added  to  it.  Correcting  these  errors,  we  find  the 
number  of  peculiar  words  in  1  Cor.  to  be  about  217 
On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of  aTra^  Keyojxiva  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  not  reckoning,  of  course, 
those  in  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  instead 
of  being  only  118,  as  Prof.  Stuart  assumes,  is  about 
800.  (The  precise  numbers  vary  a  little  according  to 
the  text  of  the  Greek  Testament  adopted  as  the  basis 
of  comparison.)  Leaving  out  of  account  quotations 
from  the  Old  Testament,  the  number  of  lines  in  the 
1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  Knapp's  edition  ot 
the  Greek  Testament,  is  922  ;  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  640.  We  have  then  the  proportion  —  640 
922  :  :  300  :  432  ;  showing  that  if  the  number  of  pecu 
liar  words  was  as  great  in  1  Corinthians  in  proportion 
to  its  length  as  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we 
should  find  there  432  instead  of  about  217.  In  other 
words,  the  number  of  aTra^  Aryojuteva  in  Hebrews 
exceeds  that  in  1  Corinthians  in  nearly  the  propor- 
tion of  2  to  1.  No  judicious  critic  would  rest  an  ar 
gument  in  such  a  case  on  the  were  number  of  pecu 
liar  words  ;  but  if  this  matter  is  to  be  discussed  at  all, 
it  is  desirable  that  the  facts  should  be  correctly  pi-e- 
sented.  There  is  much  that  is  erroneous  or  fallacious 
in  Professor  Stuart's  other  remarks  on  the  internal  evi- 
dence. The  work  of  Mr.  Forster  in  relation  to  this 
subject  (mentioned  above),  displays  the  same  intellect 
ual  characteristics  as  his  treatise  on  the  Himyaritlo 
Inscriptions,  his  One  Primeval  Language,  and  his  Neio 
P'ea  for  the  Authfnticity  of  the  Text  of  the  Three  Hea^' 
enlv  Witnesses  (1  John  V.  7),  recently  published     A 


1026 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


Lect.  ix.,  Jeans  to  the  same  conclusion.  Dr.  S. 
Davidson,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, gives  a  very  careful  and  minute  summary  of 
the  arguments  of  all  the  principal  modern  critics 
who  reason  upon  the  internal  evidence,  and  con- 
cludes, in  substantial  agreement  with  the  Alexan- 
drian tradition,  that  St.  Paul  was  the  author  of  the 
epistle,  and  that,  as  regards  its  phraseology  and  style, 
St.  Luke  coiiperated  with  him  in  making  it  what  it 
now  appears.  The  tendency  of  opinion  in  Ger- 
many has  been  to  ascribe  the  epistle  to  some  other 
author  than  St.  Paul.  Luther's  conjecture,  that 
Apollos  was  the  author,  has  been  widely  adopted 
by  I-ie  Clerc,  iJleek,  De  Wette,  Tholuck,  Bunsen, 
and  others."  [Apollos,  Amer.  ed.]  Barnabas 
has  been  named  by  Wieseler,  Thiersch,  and  others,^ 
Luke  by  Grotius,  Silas  by  others.  Neander  attri- 
butes it  to  some  apostolic  man  of  the  Pauline 
school,  whose  training  and  method  of  stating  doc- 
trinal truth  differed  from  St.  Paul's.-  The  distin- 
guished name  of  H.  Ewald  has  been  given  recently 
to  the  hypothesis  (partly  anticipated  by  Wetstein), 
that  it  was  written  neither  by  St.  Paul,  nor  to  the 
Hebrews,  but  by  some  Jewish  teacher  residing  at 
Jerusalem  to  a  church  in  some  important  Italian 
tOT\7i,  which  is  supposed  to  have  sent  a  deputation 
to  Palestine.  Most  of  these  guesses  are  quite  des- 
titute of  historical  evidence,  and  require  the  sup- 
port of  imaginary  facts  to  place  them  on  a  seeming 
equality  with  tlie  traditionary  account.  They  can- 
not be  said  to  rise  out  of  tlie  region  of  possibility 
into  that  of  probability ;  but  they  are  such  as  any 
man  of  leisure  and  learning  might  multiply  till 
they  include  every  name  in  the  limited  list  that  we 
possess  of  St.  Paul's  contemporaries. 

The  tradition  of  the  Alexandrian  fathers  is  not 
without  some  difficulties.  It  is  truly  said  that  the 
style  of  reasoning  is  different  from  that  which  St. 
Paul  uses  in  his  acknowledged  epistles.  But  it 
may  be  replied,  —  Is  the  adoption  of  a  different 
style  of  reasoning  inconsistent  with  the  versatility 
of  that  mind  which  could  express  itself  in  writings 
so  diverse  as  the  Pastoral  Epistles  and  the  preced- 
ing nine  ?  or  in  speeches  so  diverse  as  those  which 
are  severally  addressed  to  pagans  at  Athens  and 
Lycaonia,  to  Jews  at  Pisidian  Antioch,  to  Christian 
elders  at  Miletus?  Is  not  such  diversity  just  what 
might  be  expected  from  the  man  who  in  Syrian 
Antioch  resisted  circumcision  and  St.  Peter,  but  in 
Jenisalem  kept  tlie  Nazarite  vow,  and  made  con- 
cessions to  Hebrew  Christians;  who  professed  to 
become  "all  thhigs  to  all  men"  (1  Cor.  ix.  22); 
whose  education  qualified  him  to  express  his 
thoughts  in  the  idiom  of  either  Syria  or  Greece, 
and  to  vindicate  to  Christianity  whatever  of  eter- 
pal  truth  was  known  in  tlie  world,  whether  it  had 
become  current  in  Alexandrian  philosophy,  or  in 
Itabbinical  tradition '? 

If  it  be  asked  to  what  extent,  and  by  whom  was 
St.  Paul  assisted  in  the  composition  of  this  epistle, 


a  Among  those  must  now  be  placed  Dean  Alford, 
who  in  the  fourth  volume  of  his  Greek  Testmnent  (pub- 
lished since  the  above  article  was  in  type),  discusses 
the  question  with  great  care  and  candor,  and  concludes 
that  the  epistle  wiu«  written  by  Apollos  to  the  Romans, 
»bout  A.  D.  69.  from  Kphesus. 

*>  Among  these  are  some,  who,  unlike  Origen,  deny 
toat  Barnabas  is  the  author  of  the  epistle  which  bears 
bis  name.  If  it  be  granted  that  we  have  no  specimen 
of  his  style,  the  hypotliesis  which  connects  him  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ihibrews  becomes  less  improbable. 
Many  circumstances  show  thi.t  he  possessed  some  qual- 


the  reply  must  be  in  the  words  of  OrigiMi,  "  Wic 
wrote  \i.  e.  as  in  Kom.  xvi.  22,  wrote  from  the  aa- 
thor's  dictation  c]  this  epistle,  only  God  knows.'' 
The  style  is  not  quite  like  that  of  Clement  of 
Rome,  lioth  style  and  sentiment  are  quite  unlike 
those  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas 
Of  the  three  apostolic  men  named  by  African 
fathers,  St.  Luke  is  the  most  likely  to  have  shared  in 
the  composition  of  this  epistle.  The  similarity  ir 
phraseology  which  exists  between  the  acknowledgf  d 
writings  of  St.  Luke-and  this  epistle;  his  constai  t 
companionship  with  St.  Paul,  and  his  habit  of  liu- 
tening  to  and  recording  the  Apostle's  argumei'te 
form  a  strong  presumption  in  his  favor. 

But  if  St.  Luke  were  joint-author  with  St.  Paul, 
what  share  in  the  composition  is  to  be  assigned  to 
him '?  This  question  has  I>een  i.sked  by  those  who 
regard  joint-authorship  as  an  impossibility,  and 
ascribe  the  epistle  to  some  other  writer  than  St. 
Paul;  Perhaps  it  is  not  easy,  certainly  it  is  not 
necessary,  to  find  an  answer  which  would  satisfy  or 
silence  persons  who  pursue  an  historical  inquiry 
into  the  region  of  conjecture.  Who  shall  define 
the  exact  responsibility  of  Timothy  or  Silvanus,  or 
Sosthenes  in  those  seven  epistles  which  St.  Paul 
inscribes  with  some  of  their  names  conjointly  with 
his  own  ?  To  what  extent  does  St.  Mark's  lan- 
guage clothe  the  inspired  recollections  of  St.  Peter, 
which,  according  to  ancient  tradition,  are  recorded 
in  the  second  Gospel?  Or,  to  take  the  acknowl- 
edged writings  of  St.  Luke  himself, — what  is  the 
share  of  the  "eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word  "  (Luke  i.  2),  or  what  is  the  share  of  St.  Paul 
himself  in  that  Gospel,  which  some  persons,  not 
without  countenance  from  tradition,  conjecture  that 
St.  Luke  wrote  under  his  master's  eye,  in  the  prison 
atCaesarea;  or  who  shall  assign  to  the  follower  and 
the  master  their  portions  respectively  in  those  seven 
characteristic  speeches  at  Antioch,  Lystra,  Athens, 
Miletus,  Jerusalem,  and  Caesarea?  If  St.  Luke 
wrote  down  St.  Paul's  Gospel,  and  condensed  his 
missionary  speeches,  may  he  not  have  taken  after- 
wards a  more  important  share  in  the  composition 
of  this  epistle? 

III.  To  whom  was  the  Kpistle  sent  f  —  This  ques- 
tion was  agitated  as  early  as  the  time  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  who  replies  —  to  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  and 
Palestine.  The  ancient  tradition  preserved  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  it  was  originally  writ- 
ten in  Hebrew  by  St.  Paul,  points  to  the  same 
quarter.  The  unfaltering  tenacity  with  which  the 
Eastern  Church  from  the  beginning  maintained  the 
authority  of  this  epistle  leads  to  the  inference  that 
it  was  sent  thither  with  sufficient  credentials  in  the 
first  instance.  Like  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  .John 
it  has  no  inscription  embodied  in  its  text,  and  yet 
it  differs  from  a  treatise  by  containing  several  direct 
personal  appeals,  and  from  a  homily,  by  closing 
with  messages  and  salutations.  Its  present  title, 
which,  though  ancient,  cannot  be  proved  to  have 


ifications  for  writing  such  an  epistle  ;  such  as  his  Le« 
vitical  descent,  his  priestly  education,  his  reputation 
at  Jerusalem,  his  acqu.aintance  with  Gentile  churches, 
his  company  with  St.  Paul,  the  tradition  of  TertuUian, 
etc. 

c  Liinemann,  followed  by  Dean  Alford,  argues  that 
Origen  must  have  meant  here,  as  he  confessedly  doet 
a  few  lines  further  on,  to  iudicjite  an  author,  not  a 
scribe,  by  6  ypd\l/a<; ;  but  he  acknowledges  thatOIshav 
sen,  Stcngleiu,  and  Delitzsch,  do  not  allow  the  luvm 
sity 


been  inscribed  by  the  writer  of  the  epistle,  niiglit 
have  been  given  to  it,  in  accordance  with  the  use 
3f  the  term  Hebrews  in  the  N.  T.,  if  it  had  been 
addressed  either  to  Jews  who  hved  at  Jerusalem, 
and  spoke  Aramaic  (Acts  vi.  1),  or  to  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham  generally  (2  Cor.  xi.  22;  Phil, 
iii.  5). 

But  the  argument  of  the  epistle  is  such  as  could 
be  used  with  most  effect  to  a  church  consisting 
exclusively  of  Jews  by  birth,  personally  familiar 
vvith,«  and  attached  to,  the  Temple-sei-vice.  And 
such  a  community  (as  Bleek,  Ihbider,  i.  31,  argues) 
could  be  found  only  in  Jerusalem  and  its  neighbor- 
hood. And  if  the  church  at  Jerusalem  retained  its 
fonner  distinction  of  including  a  great  company  of 
priests  (Acts  vi.  7)  —  a  class  professionally  familiar 
with  the  songs  of  the  Temple,  accustomed  to  dis- 
cuss the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  acquainted 
with  the  prevailing  Alexandrian  philosophy  —  such 
a  church  would  be  peculiarly  fit  to  appreciate  this 
epistle.  For  it  takes  from  the  l^ok  of  l^salms  the 
remarkable  proportion  of  sixteen  out  of  thirty-two 
quotations  from  the  0.  T.,  which  it  contains.  It 
relies  so  much  on  deductions  from  Scripture  that 
tills  circumstance  has  been  pointed  out  as  incon- 
sistent with  the  tone  of  independent  apostolic  au- 
thority, which  characterizes  the  undoubted  epistles 
of  St.  Paul.  And  so  frequent  is  the  use  of  Alex- 
andrian philosophy  and  exegesis  that  it  has  sug- 
gested to  some  critics  ApoUos  as  the  writer,  to 
others  the  Alexandrian  church  as  the  primary  re- 
cipient of  the  epistle.''  If  certain  members  of  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  possessed  goods  (Ileb.  x.  34), 
and  the  means  of  ministering  to  distress  (vi.  10), 
this  fact  is  not  irreconcilable,  as  has  been  sup- 
posed, with  the  deep  poverty  of  other  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem  (Rom.  xv.  20,  &c.);  but  it  agrees 
exactly  with  the  condition  of  that  church  thirty 
years  previously  (Acts  ii.  45,  and  iv.  34),  and  with 
the  historical  estimate  of  the  material  prosperity 
of  the  Jews  at  this  time  (Merivale,  History  of  the 
Romans  under  the  Empire,  vi.  531,  ch.  lix.).  If 
St.  Paul  quotes  to  Hebrews  the  LXX.  without  cor- 
recting it  where  it  differs  from  the  Hebrew,  this 
agrees  with  his  practice  in  other  epistles,  and  with 
the  fact  that,  as  elsewhere  so  in  .lerusalem,  Hebrew 
^as  a  dead  language,  acquired  only  mth  much  pains 
)y  the  learned.  The  Scriptures  were  popularly 
known  in  Aramaic  or  Greek :  quotations  were  made 
ftom  memory,  and  verified  by  memory.  Probably 
Prof.  Jowett  is  correct  in  his  inference  (1st  edit.  i. 
16 1),  that  St.  Paul  did  not  familin-hj  know  the 
Hebrew  original,  while  he  possessed  a  minute  knowl- 
etlgeof  the  LXX. 

Ebrard  limits  the  primary  circle  of  readers  even 
to  a  section  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  Consid- 
ving  such  passages  as  v.  12,  vi.  10,  x.  32,  as  prob- 
liWy  inapplicable  to  tlie  whole  of  that  church,  he 
sonjectures  that  St.  Paul  wrote  to  some  neophytes 
«rhose  conversion,  though  not  mentioned  in  the 
A-Cts,  may  have  been  partly  due  to  the  Apostle's 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE  1027 

influence  in  the  time  of  his  last  recorded  sojourn  in 
Jerusalem  (Acts  xxi.  22). 

Some  critics  have  maintained  that  this  epistle 
was  addressed  directly  to  Jewish  believers  every- 
where ;  others  have  restricted  it  to  those  who  dwelt 
in  Asia  and  Greece.  Almost  every  city  in  which 
St.  Paul  labored  has  been  selected  by  some  critic 
as  the  place  to  which  it  was  originally  sent.  Not 
only  Home  and  CiEsarea,  where  St.  Paul  was  long 
imprisoned,  but,  amid  the  profound  silence  of  its 
early  Fathers,  Alexandria  also,  which  he  never  saw, 
have  each  found  their  advocates.  And  one  con- 
jecture connects  this  epistle  specially  with  the 
Gentile  Christians  of  P^phesus.  These  guesses  agree 
in  being  entirely  unsupported  by  historical  evidence; 
and  each  of  them  has  some  special  plausibility  com- 
bined with  difficulties  peculiar  to  itself. 

IV.  Where  and  witen  was  it  2C>-itten  ?  —  Eastern 
traditions  of  the  fourth  century,  in  connection  with 
the  opinion  that  St.  Paul  is  the  writer,  name  Italy 
and  Pome,  or  Athens,  as  the  place  from  whence 
the  epistle  was  M'ritten.  Either  place  would  agree 
with,  perhaps  was  suggested  by,  the  mention  of 
Timothy  in  the  last  chapter.  An  inference  in  favor 
of  Rome  may  be  drawn  from  the  Apostle's  long 
captivity  there  in  company  with  Timothy  and  Luke, 
(^ssarea  is  open  to  a  similar  inference;  and  it  has 
been  conjecturally  named  as  the  place  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Epp.  to  the  Colossians,  Ephesians, 
and  Philippians:  but  it  is  not  supported  by  any 
tradition.  From  the  expression  "  they  of  (d7r(i) 
Italy,"  xiii.  24,  it  has  been  inferred  that  the  writer 
could  not  have  been  in  Italy;  but  Winer  (Gram- 
mafifc,  §  06,  0),  denies  that  the  preposition  neces- 
sarily has  that  force. 

The  epistle  was  evidently  WTitten  before  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  i).  70.  The  whole 
argument,  and  specially  the  passages  viii.  4  and  ff., 
ix.  0  and  ff.  (where  the  present  tenses  of  the  Greek 
are  unaccountably  changed  into  past  in  the  English 
version),  and  xiii.  10  and  fF.  imply  that  the  Temple 
was  standing,  and  that  its  usuai  course  of  Divine 
service  was  carried  on  without  interruption.  A 
Christian  reader,  keenly  watching  in  the  doomed  « 
city  for  the  fulfillment  of  liis  Lord's  prediction, 
would  at  once  understand  the  ominous  references 
to  •'  that  which  beareth  thorns  and  briers,  and  is 
rejected,  and  is  nigh  unto  cursing,  whose  end  is  to 
be  burned;"  "that  which  decayeth  and  waxetb 
old,  and  is  ready  to  vanish  away;  "  and  the  coming 
of  the  expected  "  Day,"  and  the  removing  of  those 
things  that  are  shaken,  vi.  8,  viii.  13,  x.  25,  37,  xii. 
27.  But  these  forebodings  seem  less  distinct  and 
circumstantial  than  they  might  have  been  if  uttered 
immedi'ttely  before  the  catastrophe.  'I'he  references 
to  former  teachers  xiii.  7,  and  earlier  instruction  v. 
12,  and  x.  32,  might  .suit  any  time  after  the  first 
years  of  the  church;  but  it  would  be  interesting  to 
cormect  the  first  reference  with  the  martyrdom  ** 
of  St.  James  at  the  Passover  A.  T>.  02."  Modem 
criticism  has  not  destroyed,  though  it  has  weakened. 


I 


a  For  an  explanation  of  the  alleged  ignorance  of  the 
Author  of  Ileh.  ix.  as  to  the  furniture  of  the  Temple, 
gee  BbrardV  Coinmentarii  on  the  passage,  or  Professor 
Stuart's  Emirs, IS,  xvi.  and  xvii. 

*>  The  ititiuMiice  of  fhe  Alexandrian  school  did  not 
begin  with  I'hiio,  and  was  not  confined  to  Alexandria. 
[ALEXAxniUA.]  The  means  and  the  evidence  of  its 
progress  may  he  traced  in  the  writings  of  the  son  of 
Mrach  (Mail rice's  Mura'  ami  Mf/ap/u/sirnl  Philnsnphy. 

§  8,  p.  2.^).  tlie  author  of  the  Book  of  Wisdom 
Ewald,  (xfic/iirhu:  iv.  548),  Aristobulus,  Bzekiel,  Philo. 


and  Theodotus  (Ewald,  iv.  297) ;  in  the  phrastKjIogy 
of  St.  John  (Prof.  Jowett,  On  the  T/ifssnlomnns,  etc 
1st  edit.  i.  408),  and  the  arguments  of  St.  Paul  {ibid 
p.  3)1) ;  in  the  establishment  of  an  .\Iexandrian  syn 
agogue  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.  9),  and  the  existence  of 
schools  of  ."scriptural  interpretation  there  (Ewald,  Ge 
sckidile,  V.  (53,  and  vi.  2fSD. 

c  See  Josephus,  B.  J.  vi.  5,  ^  3. 

fl  See  Josephus,  Ant.  xx  9,"  §  1 ;  Euseb.  H.  M  H 
23  ;  and  Rccogu.  Clement,  i   70,  jip.  Cot*ler.  i  509 


1028 


HEBEEWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


Jm  connection  of  this  epistle  with  St.  Paul's 
Roman  captivity  (a.  d.  61-63)  by  substituting  the 
reading  toIs  8e(rfi.iois,  "the  prisoners,"  for  ro7s 
Seo-yuoij  fxav  (A.  V.  "me  in  my  bonds),"  x.  34; 
by  proposing  to  interpret  aTroAcAu^fVoj/,  xiii  23,  as 
•'sent  away,"  rather  than  "set  athberty;"  and 
bv  urging  that  the  condition  of  the  writer,  as  por- 
trayed in  xiii.  ]8,  19,  23,  is  not  necessarily  that 
of  a  prisoner,  and  that  there  may  possibly  be  no 
allusion  to  it  in  xiii.  3.  On  the  whole,  the  date 
which  best  agrees  with  the  traditionary  account  of 
the  authorship  and  destination  of  the  epistle  is 
A.  D.  63,  about  the  end  of  St.  Paul's  imprisonment 
at  Rome,  or  a  year  after  Albinua  succeeded  Festus 
as  procurator. 

V.  Jn  lohat  language  was  it  tci'iiten  ?  —  Like 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
has  afforded  ground  for  much  unimportant  contro- 
versy respecting  the  language  in  which  it  was 
originally  written.  The  earliest  statement  is  that 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (preserved  hi  Euseb.  //. 
/,\  vi.  14),  to  the  effect  that  it  was  written  by  St. 
Paul  in  Hebrew,  and  translated  by  St.  Luke  into 
Greek ;  and  hence,  as  Clement  observes,  arises  the 
identity  of  the  style  of  the  epistle  and  that  of  the 
Acts.  This  statement  is  repeated,  after  a  long 
interval,  by  Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Jerome,  and  sev- 
eral later  fathers:  but  it  is  not  noticed  by  the 
majority.  Nothing  is  said  to  lead  us  to  regard  it 
as  a  tradition,  rather  than  a  conjecture  suggested 
by  the  style  of  the  epistle.  No  person  is  said  to 
have  used  or  seen  a  Hebrew  original.  The  Aramaic 
copy,  included  in  the  Peshito,  has  never  been  re- 
garded otherwise  than  as  a  translation.  Among 
the  few  modern  supporters  of  an  Aramaic  original 
the  most  distinguished  are  Joseph  Hallet,  an  Eng- 
lish wiiter  in  1727  (whose  able  essay  is  most  easily 
accessible  in  a  Latin  translation  in  Wolfs  Curce 
Philobgicce,  iv.  806-837),  and  J.  D.  MichaeHs, 
Erhldr.  des  Briefes  an  die  Jhbrder.  Bleek  (i. 
6-23),  argues  in  support  of  a  Greek  original,  on 
the  grounds  of  (1)  the  purity  and  easy  flow  of  the 
Greek;  (2)  the  use  of  Greek  words  which  could 
not  be  adequately  expressed  in  Hebrew  without 
long  periphrase  ;  (3)  the  use  of  paronomasia  — 
under  which  head  he  disallows  the  inference  against 
an  Aramaic  original  which  has  been  drawn  from 
the  double  sense  given  to  Siad-fiKT],  ix.  15;  and 
(4)  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  in  quotations  and 
references  which  do  not  correspond  with  the  He- 
brew text. 

VL  Condition  of  the  Hebrews,  and  scope  of  the 
Epistle.  —  The  numerous  Christian  churches  scat- 
tered throughout  Judaea  (Acts  ix.  31 ;  Gal.  i.  22) 
were  continually  exposed  to  persecution  from  the 
Jews  (1  Thess.  ii.  14),  which  would  become  more 
searching  and  extensive  as  churches  multiphed,  and 
as  the  growing  turbulence  of  the  nation  ripened 
into  the  insurrection  of  a.  d.  66.  Personal  ^•iolence, 
spoliation  of  property,  exclusion  from  the  synagogue, 
and  domestic  strife  were  the  universal  forms  of  per- 
secution. But  in  Jerusalem  there  was  one  addi- 
tional weapon  in  the  bands  of  the  predominant 
oppressors  of  the  Christians.  Their  magnificent 
national  Temple,  hallowed  to  every  Jew  by  ancient 
historical  and  by  gentler  personal  recollections,  with 
Ita  LrTt.5istible  attractions,  its  soothing  strains,  and 
Waysterious  ceremonies,  might  be  shut  against  the 


o  See  the  ingenious,  but  perhaps  cverstrained,  in- 
lopratation  of  Heb.  xi.  in  Thiersch's  ilommentatio 
ffaUtnce  de  Z^stola  ad  Hebrceos- 


Hebrew  Christian.     And  even  if,  amid  the  ficnt 

factions  and  frequent  oscillations  of  authority  u 
Jerusalem,  this  affliction  were  not  often  laid  upon 
him,  yet  there  was  a  secret  burden  which  evwy 
Hebrew  Christian  bore  within  him  —  the  knowledge 
that  the  end  of  all  the  beauty  and  awfulness  of 
Zion  was  rapidly  approaching.  Paralyzed,  perhaps, 
by  this  consciousness,  and  enfeebled  by  their  attach- 
ment to  a  lower  form  of  Christianity,  they  became 
stationary  in  knowledge,  weak  in  faith,  void  of 
energy,  and  even  in  danger  of  apostasy  from  Chridt. 
For,  as  afflictions  multiplied  round  them,  and  nvdde 
them  feel  more  keenly  their  dependence  on  God. 
and  their  need  of  near  and  frequent  and  associated 
approach  to  Him,  they  seemed,  in  consequence  of 
their  Christianity,  to  be  receding  from  the  Gwl  o' 
their  fathers,  and  losing  that  means  of  communiou 
with  Hiin  which  they  used  to  enjoy.  Angels,  Moses 
and  the  High-priest  —  their  intercessors  in  heaven 
in  the  grave,  and  on  earth  —  became  of  less  im- 
portance in  the  creed  of  the  Jewish  Christian ;  theii 
glory  waned  as  he  grew  in  Christian  experience 
Already  he  felt  that  the  Lord's  day  was  superseding 
the  Sabbath,  the  New  Covenant  the  Old.  What 
could  take  the  place  of  the  Temple,  and  that  which 
was  behind  the  veil,  and  the  Levitical  sacrifices, 
and  the  Holy  City,  when  they  should  cease  to  exist ; 
What  compensation  could  Christianity  offer  him 
for  the  loss  which  was  pressing"  the  Hebrew 
Christian  more  and  more. 

James,  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  had  just  left  hia 
place  vacant  by  a  martyr's  death.  Neither  tc 
Cephas  at  Babylon,  nor  to  John  at  Ephesus,  the 
third  pillar  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  was  it  given 
to  understand  all  the  greatness  of  his  want,  and  to 
speak  to  him  the  word  in  season.  But  there  came 
tu  him  from  Rome  the  voice  of  one  who  had  been 
the  foremost  in  sounding  the  depth  and  breadth  of 
that  love  of  Christ  which  was  all  but  incompre- 
hensible to  the  Jew,  one  who  feeling  more  than  any 
other  Apostle  the  weight  of  the  care  of  all  the 
churches,  yet  clung  to  his  own  people  Mith  a  love 
ever  ready  to  break  out  in  impassioned  words,  and 
unsought  and  ill-requited  deeds  of  kindness.  He 
whom  Jerusalem  had  sent  away  in  chains  to  Rome 
again  lifted  up  his  voice  in  the  hallowed  city  among 
his  countrymen;  but  with  words  and  arguments 
suited  to  their  capacity,  with  a  strange,  borrowed 
accent,  and  a  tone  in  which  reigned  no  apostolic 
authority,  and  a  face  veiled  in  very  love  from  way- 
ward children  who  might  refuse  to  hear  divine  and 
saving  truth,  when  it  fell  from  the  hps  of  Paul. 

He  meets  the  Hebrew  Christians  on  their  own 
ground.  His  answer  is  —  "  Your  new  faith  gives 
you  Christ,  and,  in  Christ,  all  you  seek,  all  your 
fathers  sought.  In  Christ  the  Son  of  God  you 
have  an  all-sufficient  Mediator,  nearer  than  angi^ls 
to  the  Father,  eminent  above  Moses  as  a  benefactor, 
more  sympathizing  and  more  prevailing  than  the 
high-priest  as  an  intercessor:  His  sabbath  awaits 
you  in  heaven;  to  His  covenant  the  old  M'as  in- 
tended to  be  subservient;  His  atonement  is  the 
eternal  reality^  of  which  sacrifices  are  but  tht 
passing  shadow;  His  city  heavenly,  not  made  with 
hands.  Having  Him,  believe  in  Him  with  all  your 
heart,  with  a  faith  in  the  unseen  future,  strong  aa 
that  of  the  saints  of  old,  patient  under  present,  and 
prepared  for  coming  woe,  full  of  energy,  and  hope 
and  holiness,  and  love." 

Such  was  the  teaching  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He 


b  Se«  Bishop  Butler's  Analogy^  ii.  5,  }  6. 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


1029 


brews.  We  do  not  possess  the  means  of  tracing 
Dut  step  by  step  its  effect  upon  tlieni :  but  we  know 
that  the  result  at  which  it  aimed  was  achieved. 
I'he  church  at  Jerusalem  did  not  apostatize.  It 
migrated  to  Pella  (Eusebiua  H.  E.  iii.  5);  and 
there,  no  longer  dwindled  und3r  the  cold  shadow 
of  overhanging  Judaism,  it  followed  the  Hebrew 
Christians  of  the  Dispersion  in  gradually  entering 
on  the  possession  of  the  full  liberty  which  the  law 
of  Christ  allows  to  all. 

And  this  great  epistle  remains  to  after  times,  a 
keystone  binding  together  that  succession  of  inspired 
WAV.  which  spans  over  the  ages  between  jMoses  and 
St.  John.  It  teaches  the  Christian  student  the  sub- 
stantial identity  of  the  revelation  of  God,  whether 
given  thix>ugh  the  Prophets,  or  through  the  Son; 
for  it  shows  that  God's  purposes  are  unchangeable, 
however  diversely  in  different  ages  they  have  been 
"  reflected  in  broken  and  fitful  rays,  glancing  back 
from  the  troubled  waters  of  the  human  soul."  It 
is  a  source  of  inexhaustible  comfort  to  every  Chris- 
tian sufferer  in  inward  perplexity,  or  amid  "re- 
proaches and  afflictions."  It  is  a  pattern  to  every 
Christian  teacher  of  the  method  in  which  larger 
views  should  be  imparted,  gently,  re\erently,  and 
seasonably,  to  feeble  spirits  prone  to  cling  to  ancient 
forms,  and  to  rest  in  accustomed  feelings. 

VII.  Literature  connected  with  the  Epistle.- — 
In  addition  to  the  books  already  referred  to,  four 
commentaries  may  be  selected  as  the  best  repre- 
Bentati\es  of  distinct  lines  of  thought ;  —  those  of 
Chrysostom,  Calvin,  Estius,  and  Bleek.  Liinemann 
(1855  [3d  ed.  18G7]),  and  Delitzsch  (1858)  have 
recently  added  valuable  commentaries  to  those 
already  in  existence. 

The  conmientaries  accessible  to  the  English 
reader  are  those  of  Professor  Stuart  (of  Andover, 
U.  S.  [2d  ed.,  1833,  abridged  by  Prof.  li.  D.  C. 
Bobbins,  Andover,  I860]),  and  of  Ebrard,  trans- 
lated by  the  Rev.  J.  Fulton  [in  vol.  vi.  of  Olshausen's 
Bibl.  Comm.,  Amer.  ed.].  Dr.  Owen's  Exercita- 
tions  on  the  Hebrews  are  not  chiefly  valuable  as  an 
attempt  at  exegesis.  The  Paraphrase  and  Notes 
of  Peirce  [2d  ed.  Ix)nd.  1734]  are  praised  by  Dr. 
Doddridge.  Among  the  well-known  collections  of 
English  notes  on  the  Greek  text  or  English  version 
of  the  N.  T.,  those  of  Hanmiond,  Fell,  Whitby, 
Macknight,  Wordsworth,  and  Alford  may  be  par- 
ticularly mentioned.  In  Prof.  Stanley's  Sermons 
and  Essays  on  the  Apostolical  Age  there  is  a 
thoughtful  and  eloquent  sermon  on  this  epistle; 
and  it  is  the  subject  of  three  Warburtonian  Lec- 
tures, by  the  Rev.  F.  D.  Maurice  [Lond.  1846]. 

A  tolerably  complete  list  of  commentaries  on 
this  epistle  may  be  found  in  Bleek,  vol.  ii.  pp.  10- 
IP,  and  a  comprehensive  but  shorter  list  at  the  end 
if  Ebrard's  Commentary.  W.  T.  B. 

*  The  opinion  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
was  not  written  by  Paul  has  found  favor  with  many 
besides  those  whose  names  have  been  mentioned. 
Among  these  are  Ullmann  {Stiul.  u.  Krit.  1828,  p. 
^8  ff.),  Schott  {lsa(jo(je,  1830,  §§  79-87),  Schleier- 
.racher  {Einl.  ins  N.  t.  p.  439),  I.^hler  {Das  Apost. 
Zeitalt  p.  159  f.),  Wiesder  {Chron.  d.  Apost. 
Zeitnlt  p.  504  f.),  and  in  a  separate  treatise  {Un- 
^rsuchung  iiber  den  IIebr^erbrieJ\  Kiel,  1861), 
Pwesten  {Dof/matik,  4te  Aufl.,  i.  95,  and  in  Piper's 
Emnijel.  Kalender  fo-  1858,  p.  43  f.),  Kostlin  (in 
Baur  and  Zeller's  Theol  Jahrb.  1854,  p.  425  ), 
Dredner  (Gesch.  des  Neulest.  Koaon,  edited  .-v 
rolkmar,  p.  161),  Schmid  {Bibl.  Thtol.  des  N.  T. 

72),  iieiws  {Gesch.  des  N.  T.  4te  Ausg.),  Weiss 


{Stud.  u.  Krit.  1859  p.  142)  Schaeckeiibui]g«r 
{Beitrdge,  and  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1859,  p.  283  f.), 
Hase  {kirchengesch.  7te  Aufl.  §  39,  p.  636  of  the 
Amer.  ti-ans.),  Lange  {Das  Ajx)st.  Zeitalter,  i 
185  f.),  Ritschl  {Stud.  u.  Krit.  1866,  p.  89), 
Liinemann  {llandb.  p.  1  f.,  3te  Aufl.  1867,  13th 
pt.  of  Meyer's  Komm.  ilb.  d.  N.  T.),  Von  Gerlacb 
{Das  N.  T.  etc.,  Einl.  p.  xxxiv.),  Messner  {Die 
Lehre  der  Apostel,  p.  293  ff.),  Riehm  {Lehrbegr. 
des  Hebrder-Br.,  neue  Ausg.  1867),  Moll  (in 
Lange's  Bibelwerk),  Holtzmann  (in  IJunsen's  Bibel- 
iverk,  viii.  512  ff.\  the  Roman  Catholics  Feilmoser 
{Einl.  ins  N.  T.  p.  359),  Lutterbeck  {Neutest. 
Lehrbegr.  ii.  245),  Maier  {Comm.  iib.  d.  Brie/ an 
die  Hebj-der,  1861),  and  among  writers  in  English, 
Norton  (in  the  Christian  Exam.  1827  to  1829), 
Palfrey  {Relation  between  Jtulaism  and  Christianity^ 
pp.  311-331),  Tregelles  (in  Home's  Jniroduction, 
10th  ed.,  iv.  585),  Schaff  ( J/>o*'/!o/ic'  Church,  p.  641 
f.),  Conybeare  and  Howson,  Life  and  Epp.  of  St. 
Paul,  new  ed.  chap,  xxviii.),  Westcott  {Canon  oj 
N.  T.  2d  ed.  p.  314),  and  others.  In  justice  to  this 
opinion,  the  chief  arguments  urged  in  its  support 
may  be  more  particularly  stated.  Those  furnished 
by  the  epistle  itself  may  be  classified  according  to 
their  general  nature  as  formal,  doctrinal,  personal : 
I.  To  the  first  class  belong,  (1.)  Tlie  absence  of  a 
salutation.,  and  in  general  the  treatise-like  charac- 
ter of  the  epistle.  The  explanation  of  Pantaenus  ( ?) 
is  inadequate,  for  Paul  might  ha\e  sent  a  salutation 
without  styling  himself  "apostle"  (cf.  Epp.  to 
Phil.  Thess.  Philem.);  the  supposition  of  Clement 
of  Alexandria  attributes  to  the  Apostle  a  procedure 
which,  even  if  quite  worthy  of  him,  was  hardly 
practicable,  certainly  hazardous,  and  plainly  at 
variance  with  the  indications  that  the  author  was 
known  to  his  readers  (cf.  xiii.  18,  19,  22  f.);  the 
assumption  that  Paul  in  this  epistle  abandoned  his 
ordinary  manner  of  composition  for  some  unlcnown 
reason,  admits  the  facts,  but  adopts  what,  in  view 
of  the  thirteen  extant  specimens  of  his  epistolary 
?tyle,  is  the  less  probalile  explanation  of  them.  (2.) 
The  peculiaiities  relative  to  the  employment  of  the 
0.  T.  Paul  quotes  the  O.  T.  freely,  in  the  epistle 
it  is  quoted  with  punctilious  accuracy;  Paul  very 
often  gives  evidence  of  having  the  Hebrew  in  mind, 
the  epistle  almost  (if  not  quite)  uniformly  repro- 
duces the  LXX.  version,  and  that,  too,  in  a  form  of 
the  text  (Cod.  Alex.)  differing  generally  from  the 
LXX.  text  employed  by  the  Apostle  (Cod.  Vat.), 
Paul  commonly  introduces  his  quotations  as  "  Scrip- 
ture," often  gives  the  name  of  the  Imman  author, 
but  in  the  epistle  the  quotations,  with  but  a  single 
exception  (ii.  6),  are  attributed  more  or  less  directly 
to  God.  (3.)  The  characteristics  of  expression. 
(a.)  The  epistle  is  destitute  of  many  of  Paul's 
favorite  expressions  —  expressions  which,  being  of  a 
general  nature  and  pertinent  in  any  epistle,  betray 
the  Apostle's  habits  of  thought.  For  instance,  the 
phrase  e^  XpiaTw,  which  occurs  78  times  in  the 
acknowledged  epistles  of  Paul  (being  found  in  all 
except  the  short  Epistle  to  Titus),  does  not  occur 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  although  this  epistle, 
quotations  excluded,  is  rather  more  than  one 
seventh  ag  long  as  the  aggregate  length  of  the 
other  thirteen;  the  phrase  6  Kvpios  ^Irjaovs  XpiCT6i 
(variously  modified  as  respects  arrangement  and 
pronouns),  which  occurs  in  every  one  of  Paul's 
epistles,  and  more  than  80  times  in  all,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  the  word 
^vayyiKiov.  though  used  GO  times  by  Paul,  and 
in  all  his  epistles  except  that  to  Titus,  is  not  met 


1030 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 


irith  in  this  epistle;  iiie  teim  var-fip,  applied  to 
God  36  tinr.es  by  Paul  (exclusive  of  G  instances  in 
which  God  is  called  the  lather  of  Christ),  and 
occurring  in  every  one  of  his  epistles,  is  so  used 
but  once  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Heorews,  and  then 
Dy  way  of  antithesis  (Heb.  xii.  9).  (b.)  It  sub- 
stitutes certain  synonymous  words  and  constructions 
in  plaoe  of  those  usual  with  Paul:  ex.  gr.  jjucr- 
OairoSoaia  for  the  simple  jxiadSs  employed  by  Paul ; 
fifToxou  elvai,  etc.,  instead  of  Pauls  koiucoj/Su 
etc. ;  the  intransitive  use  of  Kadi^co  in  the  plirase 
KaOiCca  iv  5e|ia  rod  dead,  where  Paul  uses  the  verb 
transitively ;  the  expression  5ia7rauT6s,  ds  rh  irav- 
re\es,  eh  rh  5n}V€Kes  instead  of  Paul's  Traj/rore. 
(c)  It  exhibits  noticeable  pecuUarities  of  expres- 
sion; the  phrase  els  rh  SirjueKcs  belongs  to  this 
class  also ;  other  specimens  are  the  use  of  oaou  .  .  . 

KOTO     TOCrOVTO    OT     OVTW,    TO<TOVT(f)    .     .     .     OffOJ,    Or 

So-oi'aVone,  and  of  Tropo  and  uTrep  in  expressing 
comparison;  connectives,  like  iduTrep  (three  times), 
Sdev  (six  times),  which  are  never  used  by  Paul, 
(d.)  And  in  general  its  language  and  style  differ 
from  Paul's  —  its  language,  in  being  less  He- 
braistic, more  literary,  more  idiomatic  in  construc- 
tion; its  style,  in  being  less  impassioned,  more 
regular,  more  rhythmical  and  euphonious.  These 
differences  have  been  generally  conceded  from  the 
first,  and  by  such  judges  as  Clement  of  Alexandria 
and  Origen,  to  whom  Greek  was  vernacular.  They 
are  not  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  supposing  a 
considerable  interval  of  time  to  have  elapsed  be- 
tween the  composition  of  the  other  epistles  and 
this  —  for  so  far  as  we  are  acquainted  with  the 
Apostle's  history  we  can  find  no  room  for  such  an 
interval,  and  his  style  as  exhibited  in  the  other 
epistles  shows  no  tendency  towards  the  required 
transformation ;  nor  by  assuming  that  Paul  elabo 
rated  his  style  because  writing  to  Jews  —  for  the 
Jews  were  not  accustomed  to  finished  Greek,  and 
he  who  '  to  the  Jews  became  as  a  Jew '  did  not 
trouble  himself  to  polish  his  style  on  occasions 
when  such  labor  might  have  been  appreciated  (cf 
2  Cor.  xi.  G);  nor  by  attributing  the  literary 
elegance  of  the  epistle  to  its  amanuensis  —  for  the 
other  epistles  were  dictated  to  different  persons, 
yet  exhibit  evident  marks  of  a  common  author. 

II.  The  doctrinal  indications  at  variance  with  the 
theory  of  its  PauUne  authorship  do  not  amount  to 
a  conflict  in  any  particular  with  the  presentations  of 
truth  matle  by  the  Apostle ;  nor  are  its  divergencies 
from  the  Pauline  type  of  doctrine  so  marked  as 
those  of  James  and  John.  Still,  it  has  pocuharities 
which  are  distinctive :  Paul  delights  to  present  the 
Gospel  as  justification  before  God  though  faith  in 
the  Crucified  One;  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  represented  as  consummated 
Judaism.  In  accordance  with  this  fundamental 
difference,  the  epistle  defines  and  illustrates  iaith 
in  a  generic  sense,  as  trust  in  God's  assurances  and 
as  antithetic  to  sight;  whereas  with  Paul  faith  is 
specific  —  a  sinner's  trust  in  Christ  —  and  antithetic 
/generally)  to  works:  it  sets  forth  the  eternal  high- 
priesthood  of  the  Messiah,  while  Paul  dwells  ujwn 
Christ's  triumphant  resurrection:  in  it  the  seed  of 
Abraham  are  believing  Jews,  while  Paul  everywhere 
makes  Gentiles  joint-heirs  with  Jews  of  the  grace 
of  life:  it  is  conspicuous,  too,  among  the  N.  T. 
imtings  for  its  spiritualizing,  at  times  half-mystical, 
mode  of  interpreting  the  0.  T.  Further,  these 
iifferent  presentations  of  the  Christian  doctrine  are 
jD  general  made  to  rest  upon  different  grounds: 
PkjI  speaks  as  the  messenger  of  God,  often  referring, 


indeed,  to  the  0.  T.,  but  still  oftenei  quietly  a«iim> 
ing  plenary  authority  to  declare  truta  not  revealed 
to  holy  men  of  old ;  but  the  writer  to  the  Hebrew! 
rests  his  teaching  upon  Biblical  statements  almoh* 
exclusively. 

III.  Among  the  matters  personal  which  seem  ^ 
conflict  with  the  opinion  that  the  epistle  is  Paul's, 
are  enumerated,  (1.)  The  circumstance  that  it  is 
addressed  to  Jewish  readers: -if  Paul  wrote  it,  he 
departed,  in  doing  so,  from  his  orduiary  province 
of  labor  (cf.  Gal.  ii.  9;  Kom.  xv.  20).  (2.)  The 
omission  of  any  justification  of  his  apostohc  course 
relative  to  Judaism;  and,  assuming  the  epistle  to 
have  been  destined  for  believers  at  Jerusalem,  his 
use  of  language  imi)lying  affectionate  intimacy  witli 
them  (xiii.  19,  etc.;  cf.  Acts  xxi.  17  f.).  (3.)  Thi 
cool,  historic  style  in  which  reference  is  made  to 
the  early  persecutions  and  martyrdoms  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem  (xiii.  7,  xii.  4).  In  these  Paul  had 
been  a  prominent  actor;  and  such  passages  as  1 
Cor.  XV.  9 ;  1  Tim.  i.  12  f.,  show  how  he  was  ac- 
customed to  allude  to  them,  even  in  writing  to 
third  parties.  (4.)  The  intimation  (ii.  3)  that  the 
writer,  like  his  readers,  received  the  Gospel  indirectly, 
through  those  who  had  been  the  personal  disciples 
of  (,'hrist.  Paul,  on  the  contrary,  uniformly  insists 
that  he  did  not  receive  the  Gospel  through  any 
human  channel,  but  by  direct  revelation ;  and  he  ac- 
cordingly claims  coequality  with  the  other  Apostles 
(Gal.  i.  1,  11,  12,  15,  IG;  ii.  6;  1  Cor.  ix.  1;  xi. 
2-3;  Eph.  iii.  2,  3;  2  Cor.  xi.  5).  The  reply,  that 
the  writer  here  uses  the  plural  comnjunicatively  and, 
strictly  sjjeaking,  does  not  mean  to  include  himself, 
is  unsatisfactory.  For  he  does  not  quietly  drop  a 
distinction  out  of  sight;  he  expressly  designates 
three  separate  classes,  namely,  "  the  Lord,"  "them 
that  heard,"  and  "we,"  and,  in  the  face  of  this 
explicit  distinction,  includes  himself  in  the  third 
class  —  this  he  does,  although  his  argument  would 
have  been  strengthened  had  he  been  able  (like  Paul) 
to  appeal  to  a  direct  re\elation  from  heaven. 

These  internal  arguments  are  not  offset  by  the 
evidence  from  tradition.  KespLcthig  that  evidence, 
statements  like  Olshausen's  give  an  impression  not 
altogether  con-ect.  For,  not  to  mention  that  F^use- 
bius,  although  often  citing  the  epistle  as  Paul's, 
elsewhere  admits  (as  Origen  had  virtually  done 
before  him,  Euseb.  //.  £.  vi.  25)  that  its  apostolic 
origin  was  not  wholly  unquestioned  by  the  oriental 
churches  (//.  Ji.  iii.  3),  and  in  another  passage 
(//.  £.  vi.  13)  even  classes  it  himself  among  the 
ant'degomtna,  it  is  noticeable  that  the  Alexandrian 
testimony  from  the  very  first  gi\es  evidence  that 
the  epi.«tle  was  felt  to  possess  characteristics  at 
vaiiance  with  Pauline  authorship.  The  statement 
of  Clement  that  the  epistle  was  translated  from  the 
Hebrew,  is  now  almost  unanimously  regarded  as 
incorrect ;  how  then  can  we  be  assured  of  the  truth 
of  the  accompanying  assertion  —  or  rather,  the  other 
half  of  the  same  statement  —  that  it  was  written 
by  Paul?  Further,  in  the  conflict  of  testimony 
between  the  East  and  the  West,  it  is  not  altogether 
clear  that  the  probabilities  favor  the  East.  Haifa 
century  before  we  find  the  epistle  mentioned  ui  the 
FLast,  and  hardly  thirty  years  after  it  was  written,  it 
was  known  and  prized  at  Konie  by  a  man  anciently 
believed  to  have  been  a  fellow-laborer  with  the 
Apostle.  It  seems  hardly  possible  that,  had  Pan 
keen  its  author,  Clement  should  have  been  ignoraS^ 
of  the  fact;  or  that,  the  fact  once  known,  knowl 
edge  of  it  should  have  died  out  while  the  epistb 
itself  survived.    And  yet  in  all  parts  of  the  Wwt  — 


HEBREWS,  EPISTLE  TO  THE 

a  Gaul,  Italy,  Africa  —  the  epistle  was  regarded 
ts  un-Pauline. 

The  theory  that  Paul  was  mediately  or  indirectly 
the  author,  has  been  adopted  by  Hug  {Einl.  ii. 
422  f.),  Ebrard  (in  OLshausen's  Com.  on  N.  T.,  vi. 
320,  Kendrick's  ed.),  Guericke  {Gesamtnfyesch.  des 
N.  T.  p.  419  f.),  Davidson  {Introiluction  to  the 
iV.  T.  iii.  256  f.),  Delitzsch  (in  Kudelbach  and 
Guericke's  Zeitschr.  for  1849,  trans,  in  the  EvdiKjel. 
Rev.  Mercersburg,  Oct.  1850,  p.  184  fF.,  and  in 
his  Cum.  p.  707),  Bloomfield  {(Jr.  Test.,  9th  ed., 
ii.  574  tf.),  Roberts  {Discussions  on  the  Gospels,  pt. 
i.  chap,  vi.),  and  others,  who  tliink  Luke  to  have 
given  the  epistle  its  present  form ;  by  Thiersch  (in 
the  I'rogr.  named  above,  and  in  Die  Kirche  ini 
Ajjost.  Zeitalt.  p.  197  f.),  Conybeare  (as  above),  and 
otliers,  who  make  Barnabas  chiefly  responsible  for 
its  style;  by  Olshausen  {Opusc.  p.  118  fF.),  who 
supposes  that  sundry  presbyters  were  concerned  in 
its  origin;  and  by  many  who  regai-d  the  Apostle's 
assistant  as  unknown.  Now  respecting  the  theory 
of  mediate  authorship  it  may  be  remarked :  If  Paul 
dictated  the  epistle,  and  Luke  or  some  other  scribe 
merely  penned  it,  l*aul  remains  its  sole  author; 
this  was  his  usual  mode  of  composing;  this  mode 
of  composition  does  not  occasion  any  perceptible 
diversity  in  his  style;  hence,  this  form  of  the 
hypothesis  is  useless  as  an  explanation  of  the 
epistle's  peculiarities.  Again,  if  the  epistle  is 
assumed  to  he  the  joint  production  of  Paul  and  some 
friend  or  friends,  the  assumption  is  unnatural,  with- 
out evidence,  without  unequivocal  analogy  in  the 
origin  of  any  other  inspired  epiytle,  and  insufficient 
to  remove  the  diflficulties  in  the  case.  Once  more, 
if  we  suppose  the  ideas  to  be  in  the  main  Paul's, 
but  their  present  form  to  be  due  to  some  one  else, 
then  Paul,  not  having  participated  actively  in  the 
work  of  com^x^smg  the  epistle,  cannot  according  to 
the  ordinary  use  of  language  be  called  its  author. 
Whatever  be  the  capacity  in  which  Paul  associates 
Timothy,  Silvanus,  and  Sosthenes  with  himself  in 
the  salutation  prefixed  to  some  of  his  epistles,  —  and 
it  is  noteworthy  that  he  does  not  on  this  account 
hesitate  to  continue  in  the  1st  pers.  sing,  (see  Phil, 
i.  3),  or  to  use  the  3d  pers.  of  his  associate  at  the 
very  next  mention  of  him  (ii.  19),  —  the  assumption 
of  some  similar  associate  in  composing  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  even  if  it  had  historic  warrant, 
would  not  answer  the  purpose  designed.  For  the 
gtyle  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which 
Sosthenes  is  conjoined  with  Paul,  bears  the  Apostle's 
in)  press  as  unmistakably  as  does  the  style  of  the 
2d  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  where  Timothy  writes 
in  tlie  salutation.  And  in  both,  the  individuality 
of  Ihe  Apostle  is  as  sharply  defined  as  it  is  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans.  (The  philological  evidence 
thought  by  DeUtzsch  to  show  Luke's  hand  in  the 
composition,  has  been  collected  and  examined  by 
Liinemann,  as  above,  §  1.) 

The  opinion  that  Paul  was  the  proper  and  sole 
luthor  (besides  the  modern  advocates  of  it  already 
aamed),  has  been  defended  by  Gelpke  (Vimlicice. 
•ilc),  a  writer  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilf/rims  for 
.828  and  1829  (in  reply  to  Prof.  Norton),  Gurney 
;in  the  Bihl.  Repos.  for  1832,  p.  409  ff.,  e^tracteid 
from  Biblical  Notes  and  Dissertations,  Lond.  1830), 
Btier  {Der  Brief  an  die  Ilebrder,  ii.  p.  42i„  Lewin 
life  and  Ej>p.  of  St.  Paid,  ii.  832-899;,  writers 
:  the  .foiirnal  of  Sacred  Lit.  for  1860,  pp.  10^  ff., 
193  ff.,  Hofmann  {Schriftbeweis,  ii.  2,  2te  A"^. 
3.  378,  of.  p.  105),  Bobbins  (in  the  Bihi  Sacra  for 
1861,  p.  469  ff.),  cf.  Tobler  (in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr. 


HEBRON 


1031 


for  1864,  p.  353  ff.);  Wordsworth  (Gr.  Ttti.  ii. 
(1.)  361  ff.) ;  Stowe  ( Onyin  and  Hist,  of  the  Books 
of  the  Bible,  1867,  p.  379  ff.).  Pond  (in  the  Cong, 
Review  for  Jan.  1868,  p.  29  ff. ) ;  —  see  a  review  of 
the  evidence  in  favor  of,  and  against,  the  Pauline 
authorship,  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1867. 

The  opinion  that  the  epistle  was  destined  orig- 
inally for  Alexandrian  readers  (in  opposition  to 
which  see  LUnem.  Haiulb.  Einl.  §  2),  has  been 
adopted  by  KtJstlin  (as  above,  p.  388  ff. ),  Wieseler 
(as  above,  and  in  the  Stud.  u.  Krit.  for  1867,  p. 
665  ff.),  Conybeare  and  Howson  (as  above),  Bunsen 
{Hippol.  and  his  Aye,  ii.  140,  Germ.  ed.  i.  365), 
Hilgenfeld  {Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  TheoL,  1858,  p.  103), 
Ritschl  (as  above),  and  seems  to  be  favored  by 
Muratori's  Fragment  (see  Westcott,  Canon  of  the 
N.  T.  2d  ed.  p.  480,  cf.  p.  190).  Rome  as  its 
destination  has  been  advocated  fully  by  Holtzmaim 
in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrif't  for  1867,  pp.  1-35. 

The  date  of  the  epistle  is  fixed  by  Ebrard  at 
A.  D.  62;  by  Lardner,  Davidson,  Schaff,  Lindsay, 
and  others  at  63;  by  Lange  (in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encyk.  xi.  245)  towards  64;  by  Stuart,  Tholuck,  and 
others  about  64 ;  by  Wieseler  in  the  year  64  "be- 
tween spring  and  July";  by  Riehra,  Hilgenfeld  (aa 
above)  64-66 ;  De  Wette,  Liinemann,  and  others  65- 
67;  Ewald  '•  summer  of  66";  Bunsen  67;  Cony- 
beare and  Howson,  Bleek  {Einl.  ins  N.  T.  p.  533) 
68-9;  Alford  68-70. 

The  doctrine  of  the  epistle  has  been  specially 
discussed  by  Neander  {Plantiny,  etc.  bk.  vi.  chap, 
ii.  Robinson's  ed.  p.  487  f.),  Kcisthn  {Johan.  Lehr- 
beyr.  p.  387  ff.),  Reuss  {Uistoire  de  la  Theoloyie 
Chretienne,  tom.  ii.),  Messner  (as  above),  most 
fully  by  Riehni  (as  above) ;  its  Christology  by  Moll 
(in  a  series  of  programs,  1854  ff.),  A.  Sarrus  {Jesm 
Christ  d'apres  Vauteur  de  VEp.  avx  Ilebr.,  Strasb. 
1861),  and  Beyschlag  ( Christoloyie  des  N.  T.,  1866, 
p.  176  ff.).  The  JMelchisedec  priesthood  is  treated  of 
by  Auberlen  {Stud.  u.  Krit.  for  1857,  p.  453  ff.). 

Its  mode  of  employing  the  O.  T.  has  been  con- 
sidered by  De  Wette  (  Theol.  Zeitschr.  by  Schleierm., 
De  Wette  and  Lucke,  3te  Heft,  p.  1  ff.),  Tholuck 
{Beilaye  i.  to  his  Com.,  also  published  separately 
with  the  title  Das  alte  Test,  im  N.  7'.,  5te  Aufl. 
1861),  and  Fairbairn  {Typohyy  of  Script,  bk.  ii. 
Append.  B,  vi.,  Amer.  ed.  vol.  i.  p.  362  ff.).« 

To  the  recent  commentators  already  named  may 
be  added:  Turner  (revised  and  corrected  edition 
N.  Y.  1855),  Sampson  (edited  by  Dabney  from  the 
author's  MS.  notes,  N.  Y.  1856),  A.  S.  Patterson 
(Edin.  1856),  the  Translation  with  Notes  published  ^ 

by  the  American  Bible  Union  (N.  Y.  1857,  4to),  R. 
E.  Pattison  (Bost.  1859),  Stuart  (edited  and  revised 
by  Prof.  Robbins,  4th  ed-.  Andover,  1800),  Moll  (in 
Lange's  Bibelwerk,  1861),  Maier  (Rom.  Cath. 
1861),  Reuss  (in  French,  1862),  Brown  (edited  by 
D.  Smith,  D.  D.,  2  vols.  Edin.  and  Lond.  1862), 
Lindsay  (2  vols.  Phil,  title-page  edition,  1867), 
The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  compared  with  the 

0.  T.,  5th  ed.,  by  Mrs.  A.  L.  Newton,  N.  Y.  1867  (of 
a  devotional  cast),  Longking  (N.  Y.  1867),  Ripley 
(in  press,  Boston,  .Jan.  1868).  J.  H.  T. 

HE'BRON  (l""^^5n  [unim,  alliance]:  X*- 
$pd!)v;  [Rom.  in  1  Chr.  xv.  9,  Xe^puifx-]  Hebron). 

1.  The  third  son  of  Kohath,  who  was  the  (leconj 
son  of  Levi ;  the  younger  brother  of  Amram,  father 

a  *  See  also  Norton,  in  the  Christian  Exaininer 
1828,  V.  37-70,  and  a  trans,  of  the  3d  ed  of  Tlioluck'i 
Das  A.  T.  im  N.  T.  by  Rev.  C  A.  Aiken,  in  the  BM 
.Sana  for  July,  1864.  A 


1032  HEBRON 

tt  Moses  and  Aaron  (Ex.  vi.  18;  Num.  iii.  19;  1 
Chr.  vi.  2,  18,  xxiii.  12).  The  immediate  children 
of  Hebron  are  not  mentioned  by  name  (comp.  Kx. 
li.  21,  22),  but  he  was  the  founder  of  a  "  family  " 
{Alishpachah)  of  Ilebronites  (Num.  iii.  27,  xxvi. 
58;  1  Chr.  xxvi.  23,  30,  31)  or  Bene-Ilebron  (1 
Chr.  XV.  9,  xxiii.  19),  who  are  often  mentioned  in 
the  enumerations  of  the  Levites  in  the  passages 
above  cited.  Jkiuah  was  the  head  of  the  family 
in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  19,  xxvi.  31, 
Kxiv.  23 :  in  the  last  of  these  passages  the  name  of 
Hebron  does  not  now  exist  in  the  Hebrew,  but  has 
been  supplied  in  the  A.  V.  from  the  other  lists). 
In  the  last  year  of  David's  reign  we  find  them 
settled  at  Jazer  in  Gilead  (a  place  not  elsewhere 
named  as  a  l^evitical  city),  "  mighty  men  of  valor  " 

(7^n  ''.^S),  2,700  in  number,  who  were  superin- 
tendents for  the  king  over  the  two  and  a  half  tribes 
in  regard  to  all  matters  sacred  and  secular  (1  Chr. 
xxvi.  31,  32).  At  the  same  time  1700  of  the  family 
under  Hasiiabiah  held  the  same  office  on  the  west" 
of  Jordan  (ver.  30). 

2.  This  name  appears  in  the  genealogical  lists 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  -12,  43),  where 
Mareshah  is  said  to  have  been  the  "  father  of 
Hebron,"  Avho  again  had  four  sons,  one  of  whom 
was  Tappuach.  The  three  names  just  mentioned 
are  those  of  places,  as  are  also  many  others  in  the 
subsequent  branches  of  this  genealogy  —  Ziph, 
Maon,  Beth-zur,  etc.  But  it  is  imj^ossible  at  present 
to  say  whether  these  names  are  intended  to  be 
those  of  the  places  themselves  or  of  persons  who 
founded  them.  G. 

HE'BRON  (V'^'^^n  [see  «?//??•«]:  X^fipdofx 
and  XejSpcoj/."   [Hebron;  1  Mace.  v.  65,  Chebi'on :] 

Arab.  ^y^^iL*  =^  the  friend),  a  city  of  Judah 
(Josh.  XV.  54)  ;  situated  among  the  mountains 
(Josh.  XX.  7),  20  Roman  miles  south  of  Jerusalem, 
and  the  same  distance  north  of  ]3eer-sheba  ( Onom. 
8.  V.  'ApKci))-  Hebron  is  one  of  the  most  ancient 
cities  in  the  world  still  existing;  and  in  this  re- 
spect it  is  the  rival  of  Damascus.  It  was  built, 
says  a  sacred  writer,  "  seven  years  before  Zoan  in 
Egypt "  (Num.  xiii.  22).  But  when  was  Zoan 
built?  It  is  well  we  can  prove  the  high  antiquity 
of  Hebron  independently  of  l^gypfs  mystic  annals. 
It  was  a  well-known  town  when  Abraham  entered 
Canaan  3780  years  ago  (Gen.  xiii.  18).    Its  original 

uame  was  Kirjath-Arba  (^2"lW-n^"1|7  :  LXX., 
Kipiad-apfioK(T€(j)ep,  Judg.  i.  10),  "  the  city  of 
Arba;"  so  called  from  Arba,  the  father  of  Anak, 
and  progenitor  of  the  giant  Anakim  (Josh.  xxi.  11, 
XV.  13,  14).  It  was  sometimes  called  Mamre, 
doubtless  from  Abraham's  friend  and  ally,  IMamre 
tho  Amorite  (Gen.  xxiii.  19,  xxxv.  27);  but  the 
"  oak  of  Mamre,"  where  the  Patriarch  so  often 
pitched  his  tent,  appears  to  have  been  not  in,  but 
near  Hebron.  [Mamke.]  The  chief  interest  of  this 
city  arises  from  its  having  been  the  scene  of  some 
of  the  most  remarkable  events  in  the  lives  of  the 


a  The  expression  here  is  literally  "  were  superin- 
«ndents  of  Israel  beyond  ("1D17Xi)  Jordan  for  the 

"««it  (nS"!''"^)  in  all  the  business,''  etc  "  Be- 
fond  J  )rdan  "  generally  means  '<  on  ^ne  east,"  but 
■er«,  induced  probably  by  the  word  loUowing,  "  west- 
%»rd,"  our  translators  have  rendered  it  "  on  this  side  " 
toms-  I^ut.  i.  1,  5,  Josh,  ix    1,  &c.).     May  not  the 


HEBRON 

patriarchs.     Sarah  died  at  Hebnin ;  and  Abrahaa 

then  bought  from  Ephron  the  Hittite  ilie  field  and 
cave  of  Machpelah,  to  serve  as  a  family  tomb  (Gen. 
xxiii.  2-20).  The  cave  is  still  there;  and  the  mas- 
sive walls  of  the  Ilaram  or  mosque,  within  which  it 
lies,  form  the  most  remarkable  object  in  the  whole 
city.  [Machpelah.]  ^  Abraham  is  called  by 
Mohammedans  el-Khulil,  "  the  Friend,"  i  *..  of 
God,  and  this  is  the  modern  name  of  Hebron. 
When  the  Israelites  entered  Palestine  Hebion  was 
taken  by  Joshua  from  the  descendants  of  Anak, 
and  given  to  Caleb  (Josh.  x.  36,  xiv.  6-15,  xv.  13, 
14).  It  was  assigned  to  the  Levites,  and  made  "  a 
city  of  refuge"  (Josh.  xxi.  11-13).  Here  David 
first  established  the  seat  of  his  government,  and 
dwelt  during  the  seven  years  and  a  half  he  reigned 
over  Judah  (2  Sam.  v.  5).  Hebron  was  rebuilt 
after  the  Captivity ;  but  it  soon  fell  mto  the  hands 
of  the  Edomites,  from  whom  it  was  rescued  by 
Judas  Maccaba;us  (Neh.  xi.  25;  1  Mace  v.  65; 
Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  8,  §  6).  A  short  tmie  before  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  Hebron  was  burned  by  an 
ofKcer  of  Vespasian  (Joseph.  B.  J.  iv.  9,  §  9). 
About  the  beginning  of  the  12th  century  it  was 
captured  by  the  Crusaders.  It  subsequently  lay  for 
a  time  in  ruins  (Albert  Aq.  vii.  15;  Ssewulf  in 
h'arlfj  Travels  in  Pal.,  p.  45);  but  in  A.  D.  1167 
it  was  made  the  seat  of  a  Latin  bishopric  (WilL 
Tyr.  XX.  3).  In  1187  it  reverted  to  the  Muslems, 
and  has  ever  since  remained  in  their  hands. 

Hebron  now  contains  about  5000  inhabitants, 
of  whom  some  50  families  are  Jews.  It  is  pictur- 
esquely situated  in  a  narrow  valley,  sun-ounded  by 
rocky  hills.  This,  in  all  probability,  is  that  "  valley 
of  I^shcol,"  whence  the  Jewish  spies  got  the  great 
bunch  of  grapes  (Num.  xiii.  23).  Its  sides  are  still 
clothed  with  luxuriant  vineyards,  and  its  grapes  are 
considered  the  finest  in  Southern  Palestine.  Groves 
of  gray  olives,  and  some  other  fruitr-trees,  give 
variety  to  the  scene.  The  valley  runs  from  north 
to  south ;  and  the  main  quarter  of  the  town,  sur- 
mounted by  the  lofty  walls  of  the  veneralJe  Ilaram, 
lies  partly  on  the  eastern  slope  (Gen.  xxxvii.  14; 
comp.  xxiii.  19).  [Eshcol.]  The  houses  are  all 
of  stone,  solidly  built,  flat-roofed,  each  having  one 
or  two  small  cupolas.  The  town  has  no  walls,  but 
the  main  streets  opening  on  the  principal  roads 
have  gates.  In  the  bottom  of  the  valley  south  of 
the  town  is  a  large  tank,  130  ft.  square,  by  50  deep; 
the  sides  are  solidly  built  with  hewn  stones.  At 
the  northern  end  of  the  principal  quarter  is  another, 
measuring  85  ft.  long,  by  55  broad.  Both  are  of 
high  antiquity;  and  one  of  them,  probably  the 
former,  is  that  over  which  David  hanged  the  mur- 
derers of  Ish-bosheth  (2  Sam.  iv.  12).  Al)0utamile 
from  the  town,  up  the  valley,  is  one  of  the  largest 
oak-trees  in  Palestine.  It  stands  quite  alone  in  the 
midst  of  the  vineyards.  It  is  23  ft.  in  girth,  and 
its  branches  cover  a  space  90  ft.  in  diameter.  This, 
say  some,  is  the  very  tree  beneath  which  Abraham 
pitched  his  tent ;  but,  however  this  may  be,  it  still 
bears  the  name  of  the  patriarch.  (Porter's  ff'Lnd- 
booh,  p.  67  ff.;  Eob.  ii.  73  K)  J.  L.  f 


meaning  be  that  Hashabiah  and  his  brethren  wer» 
settled  on  the  western  side  of  the  Transjoi-danic 
country  ? 

b  *  The  visit  of  the  Prince  of  Wales  to  Hebron  wai 
made  after  this  article  on  Hebron  was  Vritten.  Th» 
results  of  the  attempt  on  that  occasion  to  oiplore  tht 
celebrated  Mosque  there,  will  be  stated  ander  Mac9 
PELAH  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 


HEBRON 

a.  (V-)?r,  and  ihn?^  :  'EA^:^!/,  Alex.  Ax" 
3av''  Achj-nn,  later  editions  Abran).-  One  of  the 
towns  in  the  territory  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  28),  on 
Lh<!  boundary  of  the  tribe.     It  is  named  next  to 


HEBRON 


1038 


Rehob,  and  is  apparently  in  the  ticighboitiood  of 
Zidon.  By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  it  is  merely  men- 
tioned {Onomast.  Achran),  and  no  one  in  nioderr 
times  has  discovered  its  site.  It  will  be  observed 
that  the  name  in  the  original  is  quite  different  from 


that  of  Hebron,  the  well-known  city  of  Judah  (No 
1),  although  in  the  A.  V.  they  are  the  same,  our 
translators  having  represented  the  ain  by  H,  instead 
rf  by  G,  or  by  the  vowel  only,  as  is  their  usual 
sustom.  But,  in  addition,  it  is  not  certain  whether 
lie  name  should  not  rather  be  Ebdon  or  Abdon 

"inSlS?),  gince  that  form  is  found  in  many  MSS. 


(Davidson,  Hebr.  Text;  Ges.  Thes.  p.  980),  and 
since  an  Abdon  is  named  amongst  the  Levitical 
cities  of  Asher  in  other  lists,  which  otherwise  would 
be  unmentioned  here.  On  the  other  hand,  the  old 
versions  (excepting  only  the  Vat.  LXX.,  which  ia 
obviously    corrupt)    unanimously   retain    the   K. 

[AUDON.]  G. 

*  Ki^ath  Arba  does  not  appear  to  bare  been  tlw 


1034 


HEBRONITES,  THE 


orifjinal  name  of  Hebron;  but  simply  the  name 
Immediately  prior  to  the  Israelitish  occupancy.  For 
we  are  told  that  it  was  so  called  from  Arba,  the 
father  of  Anak  (Josh.  xv.  13, 14);  and  the  children 
of  Anak  were  the  occupants  when  Caleb  took  it,  as 
we  learn  from  the  same  passage.  But  in  Abraham's 
time  there  was  a  different  occupant,  Mamre  the 
ally  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  13,  24):  and  the  place 
was  then  called  by  his  name  (Gen.  xxiii.  19,  xxxv. 
27).  This  appellation,  then,  preceded  that  of  Kir- 
jath  Arba.  But  as  the  place  was  a  very  ancient 
one  (Num.  xiii.  22),  and  as  Mamre  was  Abraham's 
contemporary,  it  had  some  name  older  than  either 
of  these  two.  What  was  that  previous  name? 
The  first  mention  of  the  place  (Gen.  xiii.  18)  would 
obviously  indicate  Hebron  as  the  previous  and 
original  name  —  subsequently  displaced  (in  part  at 
least)  by  Mamre,  afterwards  by  Arba,  but  restored 
to  its  ancient  and  time-honored  rights  when  Arba's 
descendants,  the  Anakim,  were  driven  out  by  the 
descendants  of  Abraham.  S.  C.  B. 

HE'BRONITES,  THE  ("^21^50:  S  Xe- 
fipdcv,  6  Xe^puvi  [Vat.  -vei]  :  Hebvoni,  JIebronit<e). 
A  family  of  Kohathite  Levites,  descendants  of  He- 
bron the  son  of  Kohath  (Num.  iii.  27,  xxvi.  58; 
1  Chr.  xxvi.  23).  In  the  reign  of  David  the  chief 
t)f  the  family  west  of  the  Jordan  was  Hashabiah; 
while  on  the  east  in  the  land  of  Gilead  were  Jerijah 
and  his  brethren,  "  men  of  valor,"  over  the  Reuben- 
ites,  the  Gadites,  and  the  half-tribe  of  IManasseh 
(1  Chr.  xxvi.  30,  31,  32).  W.  A.  W. 

HEDGE    ("11|,    n:j?l,    nni5;    U'^^O'D, 

HD^ti^D  :  (ppa-yfi6s)-  The  first  three  words  thus 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.,  as  well  as  their  Greek  equiv- 
alent, denote  simply  that  which  surrounds  or  in- 
closes, whether  it  be  a  stone  wall  ("1^2,  geder, 
Prov.  xxiv.  31;  Ez.  xiii.  10),  or  a  fence  of  other 

materials.  "^^2.  gader,  and  n"n^2,  g\Urah,  are 
used  of  the  hedge  of  a  vineyard  (Num.  xxii.  24; 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  40;  1  Chr.  iv.  23),  and  the  latter  is 
employed  to  describe  the  wide  walls  of  stone,  or 
fences  of  thorn,  which  served  as  a  shelter  for  sheep 
in  winter  and  sunnner  (Num.  xxxii.  16).  The 
stone  walls  which  surround  the  sheepfolds  of  modern 
Palestine  are  frequently  crowned  with  sharp  thorns 
(Thomson,  iMiid  and  Book,  i.  299),  a  custom  at 
least  as  ancient  as  the  time  of  Homer  ( Od.  xiv.  10), 
when  a  kind  of  prickly  pear  (ax^p^os)  was  used 
for  that  purpose,  as  well  as  for  the  fences  of  corn- 
fields at  a  later  period  (Arist.  Fed.  355).  In  order 
to  protect  the  vineyards  from  the  ravages  of  wild 
beasts  (Ps.  Ixxx.  12)  it  was  customary  to  surround 
them  with  a  wall  of  loose  stones  or  mud  (Matt.  xxi. 
33;  Mark  xii.  1),  which  was  a  favorite  haunt  of 
'erpents  (Eccl.  x.  8).  and  a  retreat  for  locusts  from 
je  cold  (Nah.  iii.  17).  Such  walls  are  described 
..  y  Maundrell  as  sun-ounding  the  gardens  of  Damai?- 
cus.  "  They  are  built  of  great  pieces  of  earth,  made 
in  the  fashion  of  brick  and  hardened  in  the  sun. 
In  their  dimensions  they  are  each  two  yards  long 
and  somewhat  more  than  one  broad,  and  half  a 
yard  thick.  Two  rows  of  these,  placed  one  upon 
•nether,  make  a  cheap,  expeditious,  and,  in  this 
dry  country,  a  durable  wall  "  {Early  Trnv.  in  Pal. 
p.  487).  A  wall  or  fence  of  this  kind  is  clearly 
distinguished  in  Is.  v.  5  from  the  tangled  hedge, 

n2^i27P,  m'sucah  (nS^r)!^,  Mic.  vii.  4),  which 

«M  planted  as  an  additional  safeguard  to  the  \-ine- 


HEIll 

yard  (rf.  Ecclus.  xxviii.  24),  and  was  composed  of 
the  thorny  shrubs  with  which  Palestine  aboundt 
The  prickly  pear,  a  species  of  cactus,  so  frequentlj 
employed  for  this  purpose  in  the  East  at  present,  ii 
believed  to  be  of  comparatively  modern  introduction 
The  aptness  of  the  comparison  of  a  tangled  hedge 
of  thorn  to  the  difficulties  which  a  slothful  man 
conjures  up  as  an  excuse  for  his  inactivity,  will  be 
at  once  recognized  (Prov.  xv.  19;  cf.  Hos.  ii.  6). 
The  narrow  paths  between  the  hedges  of  the  vine- 
yards and  gardens,  "  with  a  fence  on  this  side  and 
a  fence  on  that  side"  (Num.  xxii.  24),  are  distin- 
guished from  the  "  highways,"  or  more  frequented 
tracks,  in  Luke  xiv.  23.  W.  A.  W. 

HE'GAI  [2  syl.]  (^2n  [Persian  name,  Ges.]: 
Td'c:  Jigeus),  one  of  the  eunuchs  (A.  V.  "  cham- 
berlains "  of  the  court  of  Ahasuerus,  who  had  spe- 
cial charge  of  the  women  of  the  harem  (Esth.  ii. 
8,  15).  -Accoi-ding  to  the  Helirew  text  he  was  a 
distinct  person  from  the  "  keeper  of  the  concubines  '" 
—  Shaashgaz  (14),  but  the  LXX.  have  the  sama 
name  in  14  as  in  8,  while  in  15  they  omit  it  alto- 
gether. In  verse  3  the  name  is  given  under  the 
different  form  of — 

HE'GE  (S2n  :  Egem\  probably  a  Persian 
name.  Aja  signifies  eunuch  in  Sanskrit,  in  accord- 
ance with  which  the  LXX.  have  t<5  evvovx(f. 
Hegias,  'H7/as,  is  mentioned  by  Ctesias  as  one  of 
the  people  about  Xerxes,  Gesenius,  Thts.  Addenda, 
p.  83  b. 

HEIFER  (nb^^,  n~5:  U^xaXis:  vacca). 
The  Hebrew  language  has  no  expression  that  ex- 
actly corresponds  to  our  heifer;  for  both  eglah  and 
pnrah  are  applied  to  cows  that  have  calved  (1  Sam. 
vi.  7-12;  Job  xxi.  10;  Is.  vii.  21):  indeed  eglah 
means  a  young  animal  of  any  species,  the  full  ex- 
pression being  egl<di  bakar,  "  heifer  of  kine " 
(Deut.  xxi.  3;  1  Sam.  xvi.  2;  Is.  vii.  21).  The 
heifer  or  young  cow  was  not  commonly  used  for 
ploughing,  but  only  for  treading  out  the  com  (Hos. 
X.  11;  but  see  Judg.  xiv.  18),«  when  it  ran  about 
without  any  headstall  (Deut.  xxv.  4);  hence  the 
expression  an  "unbroken  heifer"  (Hos.  iv.  16; 
A.  V.  "  backsliding  "),  to  which  Israel  is  compared. 
A  similar  sense  has  been  attached  to  the  expression 
"  calf  of  three  years  old,"  i.  e.,  vnsubdued,  in  Is. 
XV.  5,  Jer.  xlviii.  34 ;  but  it  is  much  more  probably 
to  be  taken  as  a  proper  name,  Kglath  Shelishiyah, 
such  names  being  not  uncommon.  The  sense  of 
"dissolute"  is  conveyed  undoubtedly  in  Am.  iv.  1. 
The  comparison  of  Egypt  to  a  "fair  heifer"  (Jer. 
xlvi.  20)  may  be  an  allusion  to  the  well-known  form 
under  which  Apis  was  worshipped  (to  which  we 
may  also  refer  the  words  in  ver.  15,  as  understood 
in  the  LXX.,  "  Why  is  the  bullock,  ix6axos  €k- 
\€Kt6s,  swept  away?  "),  the  "  destruction  "  threat- 
ened being  the  bite  of  the  gad-fly,  to  which  the 
word  kerefz  would  fitly  apply.  "  To  plough  with 
another  man's  heifer"  (Judg.  xiv.  18)  imphes  that 
an  advantage  has  been  gained  by  tmfair  means. 
The  proper  names  Eglah,  En-eglaim,  and  "arah, 
are  derived  from  the  Hebrew  terms  at  the  head  of 
this  article.  W.  L.  B. 

HEIR.  The  Hebrew  institutions  relative  tt 
inheritance  were  of  a  very  simple  character.  Under 
the  patriarchal   system   the  property  was  divided 


a  *  Ploughing  with  heifers,  as  implied  In  tJiat  pa* 
sage,  is  sometimes  practiced  in  Palestine  at  preeeot 
(See  lUustr.  of  Scripture,  p.  163.)  II 


HEIR 

unong  the  sons  of  the  legitimate  wives  (Gen.  xxi. 
10,  xxiv.  36,  XXV.  5),  a  larger  portion  being  assigned 
to  one,  generally  the  eldest,  on  whom  devolved  the 
duty  of  maintaining  the  females  of  the  fdmily. 
[BiuTHRiGHT.]  The  sons  of  concubines  were 
portioned  off  with  presents  (Gen.  xxv.  6):  occa- 
sionally they  were  placed  on  a  par  with  the  legiti- 
mate sons  (Gren.  xlix.  1  ff.),  but  this  may  have  been 
restricted  to  cases  where  the  children  had  been 
adopted  by  the  legitimate  wife  (Gen.  xxx.  3).  At 
a  later  period  the  exclusion  of  the  sons  of  concu- 
bines was  ligidly  enforced  (Judg.  xi.  1  ff. ).  Daugh- 
ters had  no  share  in  the  patrimony  (Gen.  xxxi.  14), 
but  received  a  marriage  portion,  consisting  of  a 
maid-servant  (Gen.  xxix.  24,  29),  or  some  other 
property.  As  a  matter  of  special  favor  they  some- 
times took  part  with  the  sons  (Job  xlii.  15).  The 
Mosaic  law  regulated  the  succession  to  real  prop- 
erty thus :  it  was  to  be  divided  among  the  sons, 
the  eldest  receiving  a  double  portion  (Deut.  xxi. 
17),  the  others  equal  shares:  if  there  were  no  sons, 
it  went  to  the  daughters  (Num.  xxvii.  8),  on  the 
tondition  that  they  did  not  marry  out  of  their  own 
tribe  (Num.  xxxvi.  6  ff.;  Tob.  vi.  12,  vii.  13), 
otherwise  the  patrimony  was  forfeited  (Joseph.  Ant. 
iv.  7,  §  5).  If  there  were  no  daughters,  it  went  to 
the  brother  of  the  deceased ;  if  no  brother,  to  the 
paternal  uncle;  and,  failing  these,  to  the  next  of 
kin  (Xum.  xxvii.  9-j1).  In  the  case  of  a  widow 
being  left  without  children,  the  nearest  of  kin  on 
her  husband's  side  had  the  right  of  marrying  her, 
and  in  the  event  of  his  refusal  the  next  of  kin 
(Ruth  iii.  12,  13):  with  him  rested  the  obligation 
of  redeeming  the  property  of  the  widow  (Ruth  iv. 
1  ff. ),  if  it  had  been  either  sold  or  mortgaged :  this 

obligation  was  termed  n--S2n  t^^^tt'^  ("the 
right  of  inheritance''),  and  was  exercised  in  other 
cases  besides  that  of  marriage  (Jer.  xxxii.  7  ff.). 
If  none  stepped  forward  to  marry  the  widow,  the 
inheritance  remained  with  her  until  her  death,  and 
then  reverted  to  the  next  of  kin.  The  object  of 
these  regulations  evidently  was  to  prevent  the  alien- 
ation of  the  land,  and  to  retain  it  in  the  same 
family :  the  Mosaic  law  enforced,  in  short,  a  strict 
entail.  Even  the  assignment  of  the  double  por- 
tion, which  under  the  patriarchal  reghiie  had  been 
at  the  di^jjosal  of  the  father  (Gen.  xlviii.  22),  was 
by  the  Mosaic  law  limited  to  the  eldest  son  (Deut. 
xxi.  15-17).  The  case  of  Achsah,  to  whom  Caleb 
presented  a  field  (Josh.  xv.  18,  19;  Judg.  i.  15),  is 
ar,  exception:  but  perhaps  even  in  that  instance 
the  land  reverted  to  Caleb's  descendants  either  at 
the  death  of  Achsah  or  in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  The 
land  being  thus  so  strictly  tied  up,  the  notion  of 
fieirsli'p^a^we  understand  it,  was  hardly  known  to 
the  Jews:  succession  was  a  matter  of  right,  and 
not  of  favor  —  a  state  of  things  which  is  eml)otlied 

in  Iho  Hebrew  language  itself,  for  the  word   tT^T^ 

sal  -T 

(A.  V.  "  to  inherit")  implies  possession,  and  very 


HELAM 


1036 


a  *  It  has  been  suggested  that  in  Gal.  iv.  2  Paul 
may  have  referred  to  a  peculiar  testamentary  law 
among  the  Galatians  (see  Ge-ius,  Instil ittiones,  i.  §  55) 
conferring  on  the  father  a  right  to  determine  the  time 
of  the  son's  majority,  instead  of  its  being  fixed  by 
itatute.  In  that  case  we  should  have  an  instance  of 
t\e  facility  with  which  Paul  could  avail  himself  of  his 
Knowledge  of  minute  local  regulations  in  the  lands 
lehirh  he  visited.  (See  Baumg.-Crusius,  Comm.  iiber 
Pn  Britf  an  die  Galater,  p.  91.)  But  that  passage  in 
3aiu3,  wh«a  moi3  closely  examined,  proves  not  to  be 


often /orctWe  possession  (Deut.  ii.  12;  Judg.  i.  29, 
xi.  24),  and  a  similar  idea  lies  at  the  root  of  the 

words  n*TnS  and  HvnD,  generally  translatec 
"  inheritance."  Testamentary  dispositions  were  of 
course  superfluous:  the  nearest  approach  to  the 
idea  is  the  blessinr/,  which  in  early  times  conveyed 
temporal  as  well  as  spiritual  benefits  (Gen.  xxvii. 
19,  37;  Josh.  xv.  19).  The  references  to  wills  in 
St.  Paul's  writings  are  borrowed  from  the  usages 
of  Greece  and  Rome  (Heb.  ix.  17),  whence  the 
custom  was  introduced  into  Judfta :  «  several  wills 
are  noticed  by  Josephus  in  connection  with  thf 
Herods  {Ant.  xiii.  16,  §  1,  xvii.  3,  §  2;  B.  J.  ii.  2 
§3). 

With  regard  to  persond  property,  it  may  be  pre 
sumed  that  the  owner  had  some  authority  over  it, 
at  all  events  during  his  lifetime.  The  admission 
of  a  slave  to  a  portion  of  the  inheritance  with  the 
sons  (Prov.  xvii.  2)  probably  applies  only  to  the 
personalty.  A  presentation  of  half  the  personalty 
formed  the  marriage  portion  of  Tobit's  wife  (Tob. 
viii.  21).  A  distribution  of  goods  during  the  father's 
life-time  is  implied  in  Luke  xv,  11-13:  a  distinc- 
tion may  be  noted  between  ovaia,  a  general  term 
applicable  to  personalty,  and  K\7}povoixia,  the  landed 
property,  which  could  only  be  divided  after  the 
father's  death  (Luke  xii.  13). 

There  is  a  striking  resemblance  between  the  He- 
brew and  Athenian  customs  of  heirship,  particularly 
as  regards  heiresses  {iTriKkrfpoi),  who  were,  in  both 
nations,  bound  to  marry  their  nearest  relation :  the 
property  did  not  vest  in  the  husband  even  for  his 
lifetime,  but  devolved  upon  the  son  of  the  heiress 
as  soon  as  he  was  of  age,  who  also  bore  the  name, 
not  of  his  father,  but  of  his  maternal  grandfather. 
The  object  in  both  countries  was  the  same,  namely, 
to  preserve  the  name  and  property  of  every  family 
{Diet,  of  Ant.  art.  'EwiKXrjpos)-  W.  L.  B. 

HEX  AH  (nsbr^  [rmi]:  ^Acvdd]  Alex. 
AXaa-  ffnlan),  one  of  the  two  wives  of  Ashur, 
father  of  Tekoa  (1  Chr.  iv.  5).  Her  three  children 
are  enumerated  in  ver.  7.  In  the  LXX.  the  pas- 
sage is  very  nuich  confused,  the  sons  being  ascribed 
to  different  wives  from  what  they  are  in  the  Hebrpw 
text. 

HE'LAM  ("  v"^n  [perh.  power  of  the  people, 
Ges.]:  AlxdjUL'-  Thlam),  a  place  east  of  the  Jor- 
dan, but  west  of  the  Euphrates  ("the  river  "),  at 
which  the  iSyrians  were  collected  by  Hadarezer,  and 
at  which  David  met  and  defeated  them  (2  Sam.  x. 
16,  17).     In  the  latter  verse  the  name  appears  as» 

Chelamah  (H^Sbn),  but  the  final  syllable  is 
probably  only  the  particle  of  motion.  This  longer 
form,  XaAainoLK,  the  present  text''  of  the  LXX. 
inserts  in  ver.  16  as  if  the  name  of  the  river  [bnf 
Alex,  and  Comp.  omit  it] ;  while  in  the  two  other 
places  it  has  Alxdfi,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew 
text.     By  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  6,  §  3)  the  name  ia 


decisive  as  to  the  existence  of  such  a  righ  t  among  the 
Galatians  (see  Ligbtfoot's  St.  PauPs  Epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latians, p.  164,  2d  ed.).  The  Apostle,  in  arguing  hii 
point  (Gal.  if  2),  may  have  framed  a  case  of  this  na 
ture  for  the  sake  of  illustration,  or  have  had  in  mind 
a  certain  discretionary  power  which  the  Roman  laws 
granted  to  the  fx^htr.  H. 

b  This  is  probably  a  late  addition,  since  in  the  LXX 
text  as  it  stooi  in  Origin's  H>aapla,  XaAa/u,dit  w«i 
omitted  after  Trorafj-oj  (sje  Bahrdt,  a  /  Lc). 


1036  HELBAH 

given  as  Xa>  a/xd,  and  aa  being  that  of  the  king  of 
the  Syrians  beyond  Euphrates  —  irphs  Xa\afi^i 
rhv  ruu  irtpav  Eixppdr  w  'Zvptnv  fiaaiXea. 

In  the  Vulgate  no  name  is  inserted  after  fluvium  ; 
but  in  ver.  16,  for  "came  to  Helam,"  we  find  acl- 

duxit  ixercitum  eorum,  reading  Dv'^H,  "their 
army."  This  too  is  the  rendering  of  the  old  trans- 
lator Aquila  —  iv  5uudfj.ei  aurcou  —  of  whose  ver- 
sion v;i.  36  has  survived.  In  17  the  Vulgate 
agrees  with  the  A.  V. 

jMauy  conjectures  have  been  made  as  to  the  lo- 
cality of  J/eln?n;  but  to  none  of  them  does  any 
certainty  attach.  Ilie  most  feasible  perhaps  is  that 
it  is  identical  witli  Alamatha,  a  to^vn  named  by 
Ptolemy,  and  located  by  him  on  the  west  of  the 
Luphrates  near  Nicephorium.  G. 

HEL'BAH  (n|lbr7  [faQiXefiBd;  [Alex. 
2xe5iai/  (ace);  Comp.  'E\)8c£:]  /hlba),  a  town 
of  Asher,  probably  on  the  plain  of  Phoenicia,  not 
far  from  Sidon  (Judg.  i.  31).  J.  L.  P. 

HEL'BON  Cj'lS^n  [fat,  I  e.  fruitful]: 
X€\fi(av;  [Alex.  Xe^pwj/]),  a  place  only  mentioned 
once  in  Scripture.  Ezekiel,  in  describing  the  wealth 
and  commerce  of  Tyre,  says,  "  Damascus  was  thy 
merchant  in  the  wine  of  Helbon  [xxvii.  18]."  The 
Vulgate  translates  these  words  in  vino  pin(jui ;  and 
some  other  ancient  versions  also  make  the  word 
descriptive  of  the  quality  of  tlie  wine.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  however,  that  Helbon  is  a  proper  name. 
Strabo  speaks  of  the  wine  of  Chalybon  (ohov  ck 
ISvpias  rhv  XoKv^mviov)  from  Syria  as  among  the 
luxuries  in  which  the  kings  of  Persia  indulged 
(xv.  p.  735);  and  Atlienaeus  assigns  it  to  Damas- 
cus (i.  22).  Geographers  have  hitherto  represented 
Helbon  as  identical  with  the  city  of  Aleppo,  called 

Hdleh  (v^/J,^.)  by  the  Arabs;  but  there  are 
strong  reasons  against  this.  The  whole  force  and 
l)eauty  of  the  description  in  Ezekiel  consists  in  this, 
that  in  the  great  market  of  Tyre  every  kingdom 
and  city  found  ample  demand  for  its  own  staple 
products.  Why,  therefore,  should  the  Damascenes 
supply  wine  of  Aleppo,  conveying  it  a  long  and 
difficult  journey  overland  ?  If  strange  merchants 
had  engaged  in  this  trade,  we  should  naturally  ex- 
pect them  to  be  some  maritime  people  who  could 
carry  it  cheaply  along  the  coast  from  the  port  of 
Aleppo. 

A  few  years  ago  the  writer  directed  attention  to 
a  village  and  district  within  a  few  miles  of  Damas- 
cus, still  bearing  the  ancient  name  Helbon  (the 

Arabic  ^yjiXs-  corresponds  exactly  to  the  He- 
brew P2l  yn),  and  still  celebrated  sa  producing 
the  finest  grapes  in  the  country.  (See  Journal  of 
Sac.  Lit.  July  1853,  p.  2G0;  Fire  Years  in  Da- 
mascus, ii.  330  fF.).  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that 
this  village,  and  not  Aleppo,  is  the  Helbon  of  Eze- 
kiel and  Strabo.  The  village  is  situated  in  a  wild 
glen,  high  up  in  Antilehanon.  The  remains  of 
lome  large  and  beautiful  structures  are  strewii 
Around  it.  The  bottom  and  sides  of  the  glen  are 
tov?red  with  terraced  vineyards;  and  the  whole 
juirounding  country  is  rich  in  vines  and  fig-trees 
[Handb.  fm-  Sijr.  and  Pal,  pp.  495-6). 

J.  L.  P. 
*  The  discovery  of  this  Helbon  is  one  of  the  re- 
•olte  of  missionary  labor  in  that  part  of  the  East. 


HELEM 

Mr.  Ptirter,  who  wn'tx?a  the  article  above,  was  for 
merly  connected  with  the  mission  at  Damaacna 
Dr.  Robinson  accepts  the  proposed  identification 
as  unquestionably  correct.  The  name  alone  if 
not  decisive,  for  Hakb  (Aleppo)  may  answer  to 
Helbon;  but  Aleppo  "produces  no  wine  of  any 
reputation;  nor  is  Damascus  the  natural  chan- 
nel of  commerce  between  Aleppo  and  Tyre"  (Later 
Res.  iii.  472).  Fairbairn  {Ezekiel  and  the  Book 
of  his  Prophecy,  p.  301,  2d  ed.)  follows  the  old 
opinion.  Klietschi  (Herzog's  Real.-Encyk.  v.  698) 
makes  P^ekiel's  Helbon  and  this  one  near  Damas- 
cus the  same,  but  thinks  Ptolemy's  Chalybon  (see 
above)  too  far  north  to  be  identical  with  them. 

H. 

HELCHFAH  (XcA/c/as;  [Vat. -xet-.J  HeU 
das),  1  Esdr.  viii.  1.     [Hilkiah.] 

HELCHFAS  (Helcias)  the  same  person  aa 
the  preceding,  2  Esdr.  i.  1.     [Hilki/^h.] 

HEL'DAI  [2  syl.]  {^I^ri  [wai^klfv,  tran- 
sient']: XoXdla;  [Vat.  Xo\5eia:]  Alex.  XoASaT: 
Iluldai).  1.  The  twelfth  captain  of  the  monthly 
courses  for  the  temple  service  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  15). 
He  is  specified  as  "  the  Netophathite,"  and  as  a 
descendant  of  Othniel. 

2.  An  Israelite  who  seems  to  have  returned  from 
the  Captivity;  for  whom,  with  others,  Zechariah 
was  commanded  to  make  certain  crowns  as  memo- 
rials (Zech.  vi.  10).  In  ver.  14  the  name  appears 
to  be  changed  to  Helem.  The  LXX.  translate 
iraph.  Twv  apx^VTUJV. 

HE'LEB  (3^n  [milk]:  Vat.  omits;  Alex. 
A\oA;  [Comp.  'EAdE)3:]  Tided),  son  of  liaanah, 
the  Netophathite,  one  of  the  heroes  of  king  Da- 
vid's guard  (.2  Sam.  xxiii.  29).  In  the  parallel  list 
the  name  is  given  as  — 

HE'LED  ("r^n:  x0aJ5;  [FA.XoaoS;]  Alex. 
EAo5 :  Heled),  1  Chr.  xi.  30  [where  he  is  mentioned 
as  one  of  •'  the  valiant  men  "  of  David's  army]. 

HE'LEK  (^Ipn  [j)art,  portiem]:  Xe\ey, 
Alex.  XeAe/c;  [in  Josh.,  KeAeX>  Alex.  4>€AeK:] 
Helec),  one  of  the  descendants  of  Manasseh,  the 
second  son  of  Gilead  (Num.  xxvi.  30),  and  founder 
of  the  family  of  the  Helekites.  The  Bene- 
Chelek  [sons  of  C]  are  mentioned  in  Josh.  xvii.  2 
as  of  much  importance  in  their  tribe.  The  name 
has  not  however  survived,  at  least  it  has  not  yet 
been  met  with. 

HE'LEKITES,  THE  OI^^OlT,  i.  e.  the 
Chelkite:  6  Xe\eyi  [Vat.  -^ej],*  Alex.  XeAewi: 
faviilia  Ilelecitarum),  the  family  descended  from 
the  foregoing  (Num.  xxvi.  30). 

HE'LEM  (Obn  {hammer  or  bloid]:  [Rom. 
'Ravi]iXdfi',  Vat.  BaAao/x;  Alex.]  EAo/i:  Hderi). 
A  man  named  among  the  descendants  of  Asher,  ir 
a  passage  evidently  much  disordered  (1  Chr.  vii 
35).  If  it  be  intended  that  he  wa«  the  brother  of 
Shamer,  then  he  may  be  identical  with  Hotham,  ir 
ver.  32,  the  name  having  been  altered  in  copying 
but  this  is  mere  conjecture.  Burrington  (i.  265 
quotes  two  Hebrew  MSS.,  in  which  the  name 

written  Obll,  Cheles. 

2.  [LXX.  ToTs  uTTO/xeVouo-t.]  A  man  men- 
tioned only  in  Zech.  vi.  14.  Apparently  the  iaxM 
who  is  given  as  Heldai  in  ver.  10  (Ewald,  l'r(Jfk 
eten,  ii.  536,  note). 


HELEPH 

IlEXEPH  (^^n  [exchange,  instead  o/]: 
MiiAdju;  Alex.  MeAe^  —  both  inchule  the  prep- 
osition prefixed:  Beleph),  the  pkice  from  which  the 
boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  started  (Josh. 
six.  'iS),  but  where  situated,  or  on  which  quarter, 
cannot  be  ascertained  from  the  text.  Van  de  Velde 
(Memoir,  p.  320)  proposes  to  identify  it  with  Beit- 
iij\  an  ancient  site,  nearly  due  east  of  the  lias 
Afiyad,  and  west  of  Kades,  on  the  edge  of  a  very 
marked  ravine,  which  probably  formed  part  of  the 
boundary  between  Naphtali  and  Asher  (Van  de 
Velde,  Syria,  i.  233 ;  and  see  his  map,  1858).   G. 

HE'LEZ  (V!?D  [perh.  bins,  thiyh,  Gesen.]: 
S,eW-i]s  —  the  initial  5  is  probably  from  the  end 
of  the  preceding  word,  [XeAATjy;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  10 
Vat.  XeaA-Tjs;]  Alex.  EA.A.r;s,  XcAAtjs:  Heks,  Htl- 
les).  1.  One  of  "the  thirty"  of  David's  guard 
(2  Sam.  xxiii.  26 ;  1  Chr.  xi.  27 :  in  the  latter, 

^  vH),  an  Ephraimite,  and  captain  of  the  seventh 
monthly  course  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  10).  In  both  these 
passages  of  Chronicles  he  is  called  "  the  Pelouite," 
of  which  Kennicott  decides  that  "the  I'altite  "  of 
Samuel  is  a  corruption  (Dissertation,  etc.,  pp.  183- 
184).      [Paltite.] 

2.  [XeAA-i]?:  Helles.]  A  man  of  Judah,  son 
of  Azariah  (1  Chr.  ii.  39);  a  descendant  of  Jerah- 
nieel,  of  the  great  family  of  Hezron. 

HE'LI  ('HAi,  'U\ei:  Heli),  the  father  of  Jo- 
seph, the  husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary  (Luke  iii. 
23);  maintained  by  Ix)rd  A.  Hervey,  the  latest  in- 
vestigator of  the  genealogy  of  Christ,  to  have  been 
the  real  brother  of  Jacob  the  father  of  the  Virgin 
herself.  (Hervey,  Genealogies,  pp.  130,  138.)  The 
name,  as  we  possess  it,  is  the  same  as  that  employed 
by  the  LXX.  in  the  O.  T.  to  render  the  Hebrew 

*^/V,  Eli  the  high-priest. 

2.  The  third  of  three  names  inserted  between 
AcjaTOB  and  Aim  A  ui  AS  in  the  genealogy  of  Ezra, 
in'^^lsdr.  i.  2  (compare  Ezr.  vii.  2,  3). 
HELI'AS,  2  Esdr.  vii.  39.  [Elijah.] 
HELIODO'RUS  ('H\i6Boopos  [gift  of  the 
sun]),  the  treasurer  (6  eVi  tuv  TrpaypLaruu)  of 
Seleucus  Philopator,  who  was  commissioned  by  the 
king,  at  the  instigation  of  ApoUonius  [Apol- 
LONius]  to  carry  away  the  private  treasures  depos- 
ited in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem.  According  to 
the  narrative  in  2  Mace.  iii.  9  ff.,  he  was  stayed 
from  the  execution  of  his  design  by  a  "  great  ap- 
parition "  (iiricpdvcia),  in  consequence  of  which  he 
fell  down  "compassed  with  great  darkness,"  and 
speechless.  •  He  was  afterwards  restored  at  the  in- 
tercession of  the  high-priest  Onias,  and  bore  wit- 
ness to  the  king  of  the  inviolable  majesty  of  the 
Temple  (2  Mace.  iii.).  The  full  details  of  the  nar- 
rative are  not  supported  by  any  other  evidence. 
Josephus,  who  was  unacquainted  with  2  Mace, 
akes  no  notice  of  it;  and  the  author  of  the  so- 
tilled  iv.  Mace,  attributes  the  attempt  to  plunder 
the  Temple  to  ApoUonius,  and  differs  hi  his  account 
of  the  miraculous  interposition,  though  he  distinctly 
recognizes  it  (de  Mace.  4  oupavSOev  ^cpiinroi  irpov- 
pdviqaau  ayy^Koi  .  .  .  KaTaTreo-cbi'  Se  rjfxiBavr^s 
h  AiroWwuios  .  .  .)•  Heliodonw  xfterwards 
murdered  Seleucus,  and  mar'.e  an  unsuccessful 
attempt  to  seize  the  Syrian  crown  b.  c.  175  (App. 
Syr.  p.  4.5).  Cf.  Wernsdorf,  De  fide  Lib.  Mace. 
\  liv.  Hanhael's  gra,id  picture  of  "  Heliodorus  " 
idll  be  kn<'wn  to  most  by  copies  and  enirravings,  if 
Kt  by  the  orijiinal.  B.  F.  W. 


HELL  1087 

HEL'KAI  [2  syl.]  C^fjbn  [whose  porOcm  it 
Jehovah]'.  'EA/cai';  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit:]  Helci\ 
a  priest  of  the  family  of  Meraioth  (or  INIeremoth, 
see  ver.  3),  who  was  living  in  the  days  of  Joiakim 
the  high-priest,  i.  e.  in  the  generation  following  the 
return  from  Babylon  under  Jeshua  and  Zerubbabel 
(Neh.  xu.  15;  comp.  10,  12). 

HEL^KATH  {np}?0  ifield]:  'EleAeKed, 
[XeA/cc^r;]  Alex.  XeAwa^,  [GeAKa^:]  JIalcath, 
and  lltlcath),  the  town  named  as  the  starting-point 
for  the  boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix. 
25),  and  allotted  with  its  "suburbs"  to  the  Ger- 
shonite  Levites  (xxi.  31).  The  enumeration  of  the 
boundary  seems  to  proceed  from  south  to  norths 
but  nothing  absolutely  certain  can  be  said  thereoo, 
nor  has  any  traveller  recovered  the  site  of  Helkath. 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  report  the  name  much  cor- 
rupted (Onom.  Ethae),  but  evidently  knew  nothing 
of  the  place.  Schwarz  (p.  191)  suggests  the  village 
Yerka,  which  lies  about  8  miles  east  of  Akka  (see 
Van  de  Velde' s  map);  but  this  requires  furthef 
examination. 

In  the  list  of  I^evitical  cities  in  1  Chr.  vi.  Hu- 
KOK  is  substituted  for  Helkath.  G. 

HEL'KATH      HAZ'ZURIM      (nf^bll 


C^n'^n  [field  of  the  sharp  edges,  Keil;  but  see 
infra]:  jxepls  tuu  eVtjSouAajj/  — perhaps  reading 

S"^"!^ ;  Aquila,  KArjpos  tmv  arepecau  •  Ager 
vobustorum),  a  smooth  piece  of  ground,  apparently 
close  to  the  pool  of  Gibeon,  where  the  combat  took 
place  between  the  two  parties  of  Joab's  men  and 
Abner's  men,  which  ended  in  the  death  of  the 
whole  of  the  combatants,  and  brought  en  a  general 
battle  (2  Sam.  ii.  16).  [Gibeon;  J<»ab.]  Va- 
rious interpretations  are  given  of  the  name.  In 
addition  to  those  given  above,  Gesenius  ( Thes.  p. 
485  a)  renders  it  "the  field  of  swords."  The 
margin  of  the  A.  V.  has  "  the  field  of  strong  men," 
agreeing  with  Aquila  and  the  Vulgate;  Ewald 
(Gesch.  iii.  147),  "  das  Feld  der  Tiickischen."   G. 

*  The  field  received  its  name  from  the  bloody 
duel  fought  there,  as  expressly  said  (2  Sam.  ii.  16). 
The  Scripture  words  put  before  us  the  horrible  scene* 
"  And  they  caught  every  one  his  fellow  l)y  the  head 
and  thrust  his  sword  in  his  fellow's  side;  so  they 
fell  down  together:  wherefore  that  place  was  called 
Helkath-hazzurim."  The  name  may  be  =="  field 
of  the  rocks,"  i.  e.  of  the  strong  men,  firm  as  rock» 
(see  Wordsworth,  i?i  he).  H. 

HELKI'AS  (XeA/ctas;  [Vat.  XeAwems:] 
Vulg.  omits).  A  fourth  variation  of  the  name  of 
Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  1  Esdr.  i.  8.     [Hilkiah.] 

HELL.  This  is  the  word  generally  and  unfor- 
tunately used  by  our  translators  to  render  the  He- 
brew Shed  (biStr,  or  VSK7  :  "AzStj?,  and  once 
Qavaros,  2  Sam.*  xxii.  6:  Jnftri  or  Inferno,  oi 
sometimes  Mors).     We  say  unfortunately,  because 

—  although,  as  St.  Augustine  truly  asserts,  Shcol, 
with  its  equivalents  fnferi  and  Hades,  are  never 
used  in  a  good  sense  (De  Gen.  ad  Lit.  xii.  33),  yet 

—  the  English  word  Hell  is  mixed  up  with  num- 
berless associations  entirely  foreign  to  the  minds  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews.  It  would  perhaps  have  been 
bet<^er  tr  retain  the  Hebrew  word  Sheol,  or  elae 
render  it  always  by  "  the  grave  "  or  "  the  pit." 
Ewald  accepts  Luther's  word  Mile;  even  Utiten 
icet,  which  is  su<;gested  by  De  ^Vette,  involves  oo» 
ceptions  too  human  for  the  purpose. 


1038 


HELL 


Passing  over  the  derivations  suggested  by  older 
writers,  it  is  now  generally  agreed  that  the  word 

eomes  from  the  root  vSti7,  "to  make  hollow" 
(conip.  Germ.  Ilolle,  "heU,''  with  Hohle,  "a  hol- 
low "),  and  therefore  means  the  vast  hollow  subter- 
raiiean  restiiiij-place  which  is  the  common  receptacle 
of  the  dead  (Ges.  TItts.  p.  1348;  13 i  ttcher,  de  Jn- 
ferls,  c.  iv.  p.  137  ff.;  Ewald,  ad  Ps.  p.  42).  It 
is  deep  (Job  xi.  8)  and  dark  (Job  x.  21,  22),  in  the 
centre  of  the  earth  (Num.  xvi.  30;  Deut.  xxxii.  22), 
having  within  it  depths  on  depths  (Prov.  ix.  18), 
and  fastened  with  gates  (Is.  xxxviii.  10)  and  bars 
(Job  xvii.  16).  Some  have  fancied  (as  Jahn,  Arch. 
Bibl.  §  203,  Eng.  ed.)  that  the  Jews,  like  the 
Greeks,  believed  in  infernal  rivers:  thus  Clemens 
Alex,  defines  Gehenna  as  "  a  river  of  fire  "  {Fraym. 
38 ),  and  expressly  compares  it  to  the  fiery  rivers  of 
Tartarus  {Strom,  v.  14,  92);  and  Tertullian  says 
that  it  was  supposed  to  resemble  Pyriphlegethon 
{Apohtj.  cap.  xlvii.).  The  notion,  however,  is  not 
found  in  Scripture,  for  Ps.  xviii.  5  is  a  mere  met- 
aphor. In  this  cavernous  realm  are  the  souls  of 
dead  men,  the  Pephaim  and  ill-spirits  (Ps.  lxxx\d. 
13,  Ixxxix.  48;  Prov.  xxiii.  14;  Ez.  xxxi.  17,  xxxii. 
21).  It  is  all-devouring  (Prov.  i.  12,  xxx.  16),  in- 
satiable (Is.  v.  14),  and  remorseless  (Cant.  viii.  6). 
The  shadows,  not  of  men  only,  but  even  of  trees 
and  kingdoms,  are  placed  in  Sheol  (Is.  xiv.  9-20; 
Ez.  xxxi.  14-18,  xxxii.  passim). 

It  is  clear  that  in  many  passages  of  the  0.  T. 
Sheol  can  only  mean  "the  grave,"  and  is  so  ren- 
dered in  the  A.  V.  (see,  for  example.  Gen.  xxxvii. 
35,  xlii.  38;  1  Sam.  ii.  6;  Job  xiv.  13).  In  other 
passages,  however,  it  seems  to  involve  a  notion  of 
punishment,  and  is  therefore  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
by  the  word  "  Hell."  Put  in  many  cases  this 
translation  misleads  the  reader.  It  is  obvious,  for 
instance,  that  Job  xi.  8;  Ps.  cxxxix.  8;  Am.  ix. 
2  (where  "hell"  is  used  as  the  antithesis  of 
"heaven"),  merely  illustrate  the  Jewish  notions 
of  the  locality  of  ISheol  in  the  bowels  of  the  earth. 
Even  Ps.  ix.  17,  Prov.  xv.  24,  v.  5,  ix.  18,  seem  to 
refer  rather  to  the  danger  of  terrible  and  precipitate 
death  than  co  a  place  of  infernal  anguish.  An 
attentive  examination  of  all  the  pjissages  in  which 
the  word  occurs  will  show  that  the  Hei)rew  notions 
respecting  Sheol  were  of  a  vague  description.  The 
rewards  and  punishments  of  the  Mosaic  law  were 
teniDoral,  and  it  was  only  gradually  and  slowly  that 
3ud  revealed  to  his  chosen  people  a  knowledge  of 
future  rewards  and  punishments.  Generally  speak- 
ing, the  Hebrews  i-egarded  the  grave  as  the  final 
end  of  all  .sentient  and  intelligent  existence,  "  the 
land  where  "//  things  are  Jhrgoften"  (Ps.  Ixxxviii. 
10-12;  Is.  xxxviii.  9-20:  Ps.  vi.  5:  Eccl.  ix.  10: 
Ixclus.  xvii.  27,  28).  Even  the  righteous  Hezekiah 
trembled  lest,  "  when  his  eyes  closed  upon  the  cheru- 
tim  and  the  mercy  seat,"  he  should  no  longer  "see 
the  Lord,  even  the  Lord  in  the  land  of  the  living." 

In  the  X.  T.  the  word  Hades  (like  Sheol)  some- 
times means  merely  "the  grave"  (Rev.  xx.  13; 
Acts  ii.  31;  1  Cor.  xv.  55),  or  in  general  ''the 
unseen  world."  It  is  in  this  sense  that  the  creeds 
lay  of  our  Lord  Karr\\e^v  iv  oSr?  or  ds  a^ov,  de- 
cendit  ad  inferos,  or  in/erna,  meaning  "  the  state 
jf  the  dead  in  general,  without  any  restriction  of 
lappiness  or  misery"  (Heveridge  on  Art.  iii.),  a 
doctrine  certainly,  though  only  virtually,  expressed 
In  Scripture  (Eph.  iv.  9;  Acts  ii.  25-31).  Sim- 
ilarly J  jsephus  uses  Hades  as  the  name  of  the  place 
Irfafliioe  the  soul  of  Samuel  was  evoked  {Anl.  vi.  14, 


HELL 

§  2).  Elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.  Hades  is  used  of  • 
place  of  torment  (Luke  xvi.  23;  2  Vet.  ii.  4;  MatL 
xi.  23,  &c.).  Consequently  it  has  been  the  prev- 
alent, almost  the  universal,  notion  that  Hades  is 
an  intermediate  state  between  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, divided  into  two  parts,  one  the  abode  of  the 
blessed  and  the  other  of  the  lost.  This  was  the 
belief  of  the  Jews  after  the  exile,  who  gave  to  the 
places  the  names  of  Paradise  and  Gehenna  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  3;  cf.  Otho,  Lex.  Rabb.  s.  vv.),  of 
the  Fathers  generally  (Tert.  de  Anima,  c.  Iv. ;  Je- 
rome in  Eccl.  iii.;  Just.  Mart.  Dial.  c.  Tryph. 
§  105,  &c. ;  see  Pearson  on  Greedy  Art.  \.)  and  of 
many  moderns  (Trench  on  the  Parables  p.  467; 
Alford  on  Luke  xvi.  23).  In  holding  .his  view, 
main  reliance  is  placed  on  the  parable  of  Dives  and 
Lazarus;  but  it  is  impossible  to  ground  the  proof 
of  an  important  theological  doctrine  on  a  passage 
which  confessedly  abounds  iu  Jewish  metaphors. 
"  Theologia  parabolica  non  est  demonstrativa  "  is  a 
rule  too  valuable  to  be  forgotten ;  and  if  we  are  to 
turn  rhetoric  into  logic,  and  build  a  dogma  on 
every  metaphor,  our  belief  will  be  of  a  vague  and 
contradictory  character.  "  Abraham's  bosom," 
says  Dean  Trench,  "  is  not  heaven,  though  it  wiU 
issue  in  heaven,  so  neither  is  Hades  hell,  though  to 
issue  in  it,  when  death  and  Hades  shall  be  cast  into 
the  lake  of  fire  which  is  the  proper  hell.  It  is  the 
place  of  painful  restraint  {(pv\aK-fi,  1  Pet.  iii.  19; 
&0ua(ros,  Luke  viii.  31),  where  the  souls  of  the 
wicked  are  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  great 
day."  But  respecting  the  condition  of  the  dead 
whether  before  or  aft-ur  the  resurrection  we  know 
very  little  indeed;  nor  shall  we  know  anything 
certain  until  the  awful  curtains  of  mortality  are 
drawn  aside.  Dogmatism  on  this  topic  appears  to 
be  peculiarly  misplaced.      [See  Pajjadise.] 

The  word  most  frequently  used  in  the  N.  T.  for 
the  place  of  future  punishment  is  Gehenna  {yt- 
evva),  or  Gehenna  of  Jire  (rj  y.  rod  vvp6s),  and 
this  word  we  must  notice  only  so  far  as  our  purpose 
requires;  for  further  information  see  Gkhenna 
and  HIXN03I.  The  valley  of  Hinnom,  for  which 
Gehenna  is  the  Greek  representative,  once  pleasant 
with  the  waters  of  Siloa  ("  irrigua  et  nemorosa, 
plenaque  deliciis,"  Hieron.  ad  Jer.  vii.  19,  31; 
Matt.  v.  22),  and  which  afterwards  regained  its  old 
appearance  ("  hodieque  hortorum  praebens  delicias," 
id.),  was  with  its  horrible  associations  of  ]Moloch- 
worship  (Jer.  vii.  31,  xix.  2-6;  2  K.  xxiii.  10)  so 
abhorrent  to  Jewish  feeling  that  they  adopted  the 
word  as  a  symbol  of  disgust  and  torment.  The 
feeling  was  kept  up  by  the  pollution  which  the  val- 
ley underwent  at  the  hands  of  Josiah,  after  which 
it  was  made  the  common  sink  of  all  the  filth  and 
corruption  in  the  city,  ghastly  fires  being  kept 
burning  (according  to  R.  Kimchi)  to  preserve  it 
from  absolute  putrefaction  (see  authorities  quoted 
in  Otho,  Lex.  Rabb.  s.  v.  Hinnom,  etc.).  The 
fire  and  the  worm  were  fit  emblems  of  anguish, 
and  as  such  had  seized  hold  of  the  Jewish  iraag- 
hiation  (Is.  Ixvi.  24;  Jud.  xvi.  17;  Ecclus.  vii.  17); 
hence  the  application  of  the  word  Gehenna  and  its 
accessories  in  Matt.  v.  22,  29,  30 :  Luke  xii.  5. 

A  part  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom  was  named 
Tophet  (2  K.  xxiii  10 ;  for  its  history  and  deriva- 
tion .see  Tophet),  a  word  used  for  what  is  defiled 
and  abominable  (Jer.  vii.  31,  32,  xix.  6-13).  It 
was  apphed  by  the  Rabbis  to  a  place  of  future  tor- 
ment (Targ.  on  Is.  xxx.  33;  Talm.  Endnn,  f.  19 
1;  Rittcher,  pp.  80,  85),  but  does  not  occur  in  thi 
N.  T:     In  the  vivid  picture  of  Isaiah  (xxx.  33 


HELL 

Nrhlch  is  full  ^f  fine  irony  against  the  enemy,  the 
Dame  is  applied  to  purposes  of  threatening  (with  a 
probable  allusion  to  the  recent  acts  of  Hezekiali,  see 
iiosenmiiller,  ad  loc).  IJesides  the  authorities 
quoted,  see  Hochart  (Plialey,  p.  528),  Ewald  {Proph. 
ii.  55),  Selden  {de  Dils  <S?//is,  p.  172  ff.),  Wilson 
{Lmids  of  the  Bible,  i.  41)9),  etc. 

The  subject  of  the  punisliment  of  the  wicked, 
and  of  Hell  as  a  place  of  torment,  belongs  to  a 
Theological  rather  than  a  Biblical  Dictionary. 

F.  W.  F. 

*  Some  of  the  positions  in  the  previous  article 
cannot  be  viewed  as  well  established.  That  "  gen- 
erally speaking,  the  Hebrews  regarded  the  grave 
as  the  final  end  of  all .  sentient  and  intelligent 
existence  "  is  a  statement  opposed  to  the  results 
of  the  best  scholarship.  Against  it  stand  such 
considerations  as  these:  a  four  hundred  years' 
residence  of  the  Israelites  among  a  people  proved 
to  have  held  the  doctrine  of  a  future  life;  the  He- 
brew doctrine  of  the  nature  of  the  soul ;  the  trans- 
lation of  Enoch  and  Elijah ;  the  prevalent  views  of 
uecronianey,  or  conjuring  by  the  spirits  of  the  dead, 
(a  practice  prohibited  by  law,  and  yet  resorted  to 
by  a  monarch  of  Israel);  the  constant  assertion 
that  the  dead  were  gathered  to  their  fathers,  though 
buried  fai  away ;  the  explicit  and  deliberate  utter- 
ances of  many  passages,  e.  g.,  the  16th,  17th,  49th, 
72d  Psalms,  Eccles.  xii.  13,  14,  Daniel  xii.  2,  3 ; 
and  the  known  fact  that  the  doctrine  of  immortality 
existed  among  the  Jews  (excepting  the  small  sect 
of  Sadducees)  at  the  time  of  Christ.  The  utterances 
about  the  silence  and  inactivity  of  the  grave  must 
therefore  be  understood  from  the  present  point  of 
view,  and  as  having  reference  to  the  activities  of 
this  life. 

The  statements  of  Gesenius  and  very  many  others 
about  the  gates  and  bars  of  Hades  simply  convert 
rhetoric  into  logic,  and  might  with  equal  propriety 
invest  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  with  "  keys."  The 
theory  so  prevalent,  that  Hades  was  the  common 
province  of  departed  spirits,  divided,  however,  into 
two  compartments.  Paradise  and  Gehenna,  seems  to 
have  been  founded  more  upon  the  classical  writers 
and  the  Rabbins  —  to  whom  it  appeals  so  largely  — 
than  upon  the  Bible.  It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that 
under  the  older  economy  the  whole  subject  was 
much  less  distinct  than  under  the  new,  and  the 
H'.ides  of  the  N".  T.  expresses  more  than  the  Sheol 
of  the  0.  T.  (See  Fairbairn,  Jlermeneut.  Manual, 
p.  230  ft'. )  Sheol  was,  no  doubt,  the  unseen  world, 
the  state  of  the  dead  generally.  So  in  modern 
times  we  often  intentionally  limit  our  views,  and 
speak  of  the  other  world,  the  invisible  world,  the 
undiscovered  country,  the  grave,  the  spirit  land, 
etc.  But  vagueness  of  designation  is  not  to  be  con- 
founded with  comnmnity  of  lot  or  identity  of  abode 
or  condition. 

Sheul,  the  unknown  region  into  which  the  dying 
disappeared,  was  naturally  and  always  invested  with 
gloom  to  a  sinful  race.  But  the  vague  term  was 
capable  of  becoming  more  or  less  definite  according 
o  the  writer's  thought.  JNIost  commonly  it  was 
simply  the  grave,  as  we  use  the  phrase ;  sometimes 
the  state  of  death  in  general;  sometimes  a  dismal 
place  opposed  to  heaven,  e.  </.,  Job  xi.  8,  Ps. 
cxrxix.  8,  Xm.  ix.  2 ;  sometimes  a  place  of  extreme 
»uftering,  Ps.  ixxxvi.  13,  ix.  17,  P^'^v.  xxiii.  14.  (See 
BUjL  Sacra,  xiii.  155  fF.)  No  passage  of  the  O. 
v.,  we  believe,  implies  that  the  spirits  of  the  good 
ind  bad  were  there  brought  together.  The  often 
jited   passage   (ta.  xiv.   9)  implies  the  contrary, 


HELLENIST 


1089 


showing  us  only  the  heathen  kings  meeting  anotbec 
king  in  mockery. 

To  translate  this  Hebrew  term,  the  LXX, 
adopted  the  nearest  Greek  word.  Hades,  which  bj' 
derivation,  signifies  the  invisible  world.  But  the 
Greek  word  could  not  carry  Greek  notions  into 
Hebrew  theology. 

When  Christ  and  his  Apostles  came,  they  nat- 
urally laid  hold  of  this  Greek  word  already  intro- 
duced into  religious  use.  But,  of  course,  they  em- 
ployed it  from  their  own  stand -point.  And  as  it 
was  the  purpose  of  their  mission  to  make  more 
distinct  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  and  as  under 
their  teachings  death  became  still  more  terrible  to 
the  natural  man,  so  throughout  the  N.  T.  Hades 
seems  invariably  viewed  as  the  enemy  of  man,  and 
from  its  alliance  with  sin  and  its  doom,  as  hostile 
to  Christ  and  his  church.  In  many  mstances  it  is 
with  strict  propriety  translated  "  hell."  Even  in 
Acts  ii.  27,  31,  quoted  from  the  0.  T.,  Hades  is 
the  abode  of  the  wicked  dead.  In  Luke  xvi.  23  it 
certainly  is  the  place  of  torment.  In  Matt.  xvi.  18 
it  is  the  abode  and  centre  of  those  powers  that  were 
arrayed  against  (Christ  and  his  church.  In  Luke 
x.  15,  Matt.  xi.  23,  it  is  the  opposite  of  heaven. 
The  word  occurs,  according  to  the  Received  Text, 
in  1  Cor.  xv.  55 ;  but  the  reading  is  not  supported 
by  the  older  MSS.  The  only  remaining  instances 
are  the  four  that  occur  in  Rev.  i.  18,  vi.  8,  xx.  13, 
14,  where,  though  in  three  of  these  cases  personified, 
it  is  still  viewed  as  a  terror  to  man  and  a  foe  to 
Christ  and  his  kingdom,  over  which  at  length  he 
has  gained  the  victory.  While  therefore  Gehenna 
is  the  term  which  most  distinctly  designates  the 
place  of  future  punishment,  Hades  also  repeatedly 
is  nearly  its  equivalent ;  and,  notwithstanding  the 
greater  vagueness  of  the  terms,  it  remains  true,  as 
Augustin  asserts,  that  neither  Hades  nor  Sheol  are 
ever  used  in  a  good  sense,  or  (we  may  add)  in  any 
other  than  a  sense  that  carries  the  notion  of  terror, 

S.  C.  B. 

*  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  terms  and  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  relating  to  this  subject,  con- 
sult Bottcher,  De  Inferis  Rebusque  post  Mortem 
futuris  ex  Hebrceorum  et  Grcecorum  Opinionibits^ 
Dresd.  1846,  and  for  a  view  of  the  literature  per- 
taining to  it,  see  the  bibliographical  Appendix  to 
Alger's  Critical  Hist,  of  the  Doctrine  of  a  Future 
Life  (4th  ed.  New  York,  1866),  Nos.  1734-1863. 
See  also  the  art.  of  Oehler,  Uns',erbUdikeit,  Lehre 
des  A.  Test.,  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyTc.  xxi.  409 
428 ;  and  Havernick's  Vorlesuntjen  uber  die  The- 
olofjie  des  A.  T.,  pp.  105-111.  A. 

HELLENIST  {'EKK'nvKTr'hs  :  Grcecus  ;  cf. 
''K\Ky]vi(Tfx6s,  2  Mace,  iv  13).  In  one  of  tli« 
earliest  notices  of  the  first  Christian  Church  at 
Jerusalem  (Acts  vi.  1),  two  distinct  parties  art 
recognized  among  its  members,  "  Hebrews "  and 
"  Hellenists  "  (Grecians),  who  appear  to  stand  to- 
wards one  another  in  some  degree  in  a  relation  of 
jealous  rivalry.  So  again,  when  St.  Paul  first  visitetl 
Jerusalem  after  his  conversion,  he  "  spake  and  dis 
puted  with  the  Hellenists"  (Acts  ix.  29),  as  if 
expecting  to  find  more  sympathy  among  them  than 
with  the  rulers  of  the  Jews.  The  term  Hellenist 
occurs  once  again  in  the  N.  T.  according  to  the 
common  text,  in  the  account  of  the  foundation  of 
the  church  at  Antioch  (Acts  xi.  20),a  but  there 
the  context,  as  weh  as  the  form  of  the  sentence 

a  *  un  that  passage  see  the  note  under  Gauci; 
Qkeees  (Amer.  ed.).  Q- 


1040 


HELLENIST 


[kuI  vphs  Tovs  'E.,  though  the  koI  is  doubtful), 
leercs  to  require  the  other  reading  "  Greeks " 
C'EAArjj/es),  which  is  supported  by  great  external 
evidence,  as  the  true  antithesis  to  "  Jews " 
i'louSaiois,  not  'E.Bpaiois,  v.  19). 

The  name,  according  to  its  derivation,  whether 
the  original  verb  ('EAAtji/jXco)  be  taken,  according 
to  the  common  analogy  of  similar  forms  (M7jSt^a>, 
'AttiklCco,  ^iAnnri(ca),  in  the  general  sense  of 
adopting  the  spirit  and  character  of  (ireeks,  or,  in 
the  more  limited  sense  of  using  the  Greek  language 
(Xen.  An'tb.  vii.  3,  §  25),  marks  a  class  distin- 
guished by  peculiar  habits,  and  not  by  descent, 
rims  the  Hellenists  as  a  body  included  not  only 
the  proselytes  of  Greek  (or  foreign)  parentage  (oi 
(r€fi6jULe}/0L"EA\'nv€S,  Acts  xvii.  4  ( ?) ;  ot  (re^S/x^voi 
irpocTTjAvToi,  Acts  xiii.  43;  oi  (Tifiojx^voii  Acts 
xvii.  17),  but  also  those  Jews  who,  by  settling  in 
foreign  countries,  had  adopted  the  prevalent  form 
of  the  current  Greek  civilization,  and  with  it  the 
use  of  the  common  Greek  dialect,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  Aramaic,  which  was  the  national  representa- 
tive of  the  ancient  Hebrew.  Hellenism  was  thus 
a  type  of  hfe,  and  not  an  indication  of  origin. 
Hellenists  might  be  Greeks,  but  when  the  latter 
term  is  used  ("EAATjves,  John  xii.  20),  the  point 
of  race  and  not  of  creed  is  that  which  is  foremost 
in  the  mind  of  the  writer. 

The  general  influence  of  the  (ireek  conquests  in 
the  East,  the  rise  and  spre<ad  of  the  Jewish  Dis- 
perslon,  and  the  essential  antagonism  of  Jew  and 
Greek,  have  been  noticed  in  other  articles  [Alkx- 

ANDKIl  THE  (iHEAT;  AlEXANDUIA  ;  DlSPEKSION  ; 

Antiochus  IV.  Epiphanes],  and  it  remains  only 
to  characterize  briefly  the  elements  which  the  Hel- 
lenists contributed  to  the  language  of  the  N.  T., 
and  the  immediate  effects  which  they  produced 
upon  the  Apostolic  teaching:  — 

1.  The  flexibility  of  the  Greek  language  gained 
for  it  in  ancient  time  a  general  currency  similar  to 
that  which  French  enjoys  in  modern  Europe;  but 
with  this  important  difference,  that  Greek  was  not 
only  the  language  of  educated  men,  but  also  the 
language  of  the  masses  in  the  great  centres  of  com- 
merce. The  colonies  of  Alexander  and  his  succes- 
Bors  originally  established  what  has  been  called  the 
Macedonian  dialect  throughout  the  East ;  but  even 
in  this  the  prevailing  power  of  Attic  literature 
made  itself  distinctly  felt.  PecuHar  words  and 
forms  adopted  at  Alexandria  were  undoubtedly  of 
Macedonian  origin,  but  the  later  Attic  may  1)€ 
justly  regarded  as  the  real  basis  of  Oriental  Greek. 
This  first  type  was,  however,  soon  modified,  at  least 
in  conmion  use,  by  contact  with  other  languages. 
The  vocabulary  was  enriched  by  the  addition  of 
foreign  words,  and  the  syntax  was  modified  by  new 
constructions.  In  this  way  a  variety  of  local  dialects 
must  have  arisen,  the  specific  characters  of  which 
vrere  determined  in  the  first  instance  by  the  con- 
ditions under  which  they  were  formed,  and  which 
afterwards  passed  away  with  the  circumstances 
ivhich  had  produced  them.  But  one  of  these  dialects 
has  been  preserved  after  the  ruin  of  the  people 
among  whom  it  arose,  by  being  consecrated  to  the 
noblest  service  which  language  has  yet  fulfilled.  In 
other  cases  the  dialects  perished  together  with  the 
communities  who  used  tliem  in  the  common  inter- 
course of  life,  but  in  that  of  the  Jews  the  Alexan- 
drine version  of  the  O.  T.,  acting  in  this  respect 
like  the  great  vernacular  versions  of  England  and 
Gennany,  gave  a  definiteness  and  fixity  to  the 
popular  language  which  could  not  have  been  gained 


HELLENIST 

without  the  existence  of  some  recognized  staudiinL 
The  style  of  the  LXX.  itsel!  is,  indeed,  different  in 
different  parts,  but  the  same  general  character  runs 
through  the  whole,  and  the  variations  which  it 
presents  are  not  greater  than  those  which  exist  in 
the  different  books  of  tlie  N.  T. 

The  functions  which  this  Jewish-Greek  had  to 
discharge  were  of  the  widest  appHcation,  and  the 
language  itself  combined  the  most  opposite  features. 
It  was  essentially  a  fusion  of  Eastern  aiid  Western 
thought.  For  disregarding  peculiarities  of  inflexion 
and  novel  words,  the  characteristic  of  the  Hellenistic 
dialect  is  the  combination  of  a  Hebrew  spii-it  with 
a  Greek  body,  of  a  Hebrew  form  with  (ireek  words. 
The  conception  belongs  to  one  race,  and  the  expics- 
sion  to  another.  Nor  is  it  too  much  to  say  tl  at 
this  combination  was  one  of  the  most  impoitaut 
preparations  for  the  reception  of  (Jhristianity,  and 
one  of  the  most  important  aids  for  the  adequate 
expression  of  its  teaching.  On  the  one  hand,  by 
the  spread  of  the  Hellenistic  Greek,  the  deep,  the- 
ocratic aspect  of  the  world  and  life,  which  distin- 
guishes Jewish  thought,  was  placed  before  men  at 
large;  and  on  the  other,  the  subtle  truths,  which 
philosophy  had  gained  from  the  analysis  of  mind 
and  action,  and  enshrined  in  words,  were  transferred 
to  the  service  of  revelation.  In  the  fullness  of  time, 
when  the  great  message  came,  a  language  was  pre- 
pared to  convey  it;  and  thus  the  very  dialect  of  the 
N.  T.  forms  a  great  lesson  in  the  true  philosophy 
of  history  and  becomes  in  itself  a  monument  of  the 
providential  government  of  mankind. 

This  view  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect  will  at  once 
remove  one  of  the  commonest  misconceptions  relat- 
ing to  it.  For  it  >\ill  follow  that  its  deviationa 
from  the  ordinary  laws  of  classic  Greek  are  them- 
selves bound  by  some  common  law,  and  that  irreg- 
ularities of  construction  and  altered  usages  of  words 
are  to  be  traced  to  their  first  source,  and  inter- 
preted strictly  according  to  the  original  conception 
out  of  which  they  sprang.  A  popular,  and  even  a 
corrupt,  dialect  is  not  less  precise,  or,  in  other 
words,  is  not  less  human  than  a  polished  one, 
though  its  interpretiition  may  often  be  more  diffi-. 
cult  from  the  want  of  materials  for  analysis.  But 
in  the  case  of  the  N.  T.,  the  books  themselves 
furnish  an  ample  store  for  the  critic,  and  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  when  compared  with  the  Hebrew  text, 
provides  him  with  the  history  of  the  language  which 
he  has  to  study. 

2.  The  adoption  of  a  strange  language  was  essen- 
tially characteristic  of  the  true  nature  of  Hellenism. 
The  purely  outward  elements  of  the  national  life 
were  laid  aside  with  a  facility  of  which  history  offers 
few  examples,  while  the  inner  character  of  the  people 
remained  unchanged.  In  every  respect  the  thought, 
so  to  speak,  was  clothed  in  a  new  dress.  Hellenism 
was,  as  it  were,  a  fresh  incorporation  of  Judaism 
according  to  altered  laws  of  life  and  worship.  But 
as  the  Hebrew  spirit  made  itself  distinctly  visibta 
in  the  new  dialect,  so  it  remained  undestroyed  by 
the  new  conditions  which  regulated  its  action. 
While  the  Hellenistic  Jews  followed  their  natural 
instinct  for  trade,  which  was  originally  curbed  by 
the  Mosaic  Law,  and  gained  a  deeper  insight  into 
foreign  character,  and  with  this  a  tnier  sympathy, 
or  at  least  a  wider  tolerance  towards  foreign  opin- 
ions, they  found  means  at  the  same  time  to  extend 
the  knowledge  of  the  principles  of  their  divine  faith, 
and  to  gain  respect  and  attention  even  from  those 
who  did  not  openly  embrace  their  religion.  Hel- 
lenism accomplished  for  the  outer  world  what  tin 


HELLENIST 

Return  [Cyrus]  accomplished  for  the  Palestinian 
Jevss:  it  wad  the  necessary  step  between  a  religion 
of  form  and  a  reUijion  of  spirit:  it  witnessed  against 
Judaism  as  final  and  luiiversal,  and  it  witnessed 
for  it,  as  the  foundation  of  a  spiritual  religion  wliich 
should  be  bound  by  no  local  restrictions.  Under 
the  influence  of  this  wider  instruction  a  Greelt  body 
grew  up  around  tlie  Synagogue,  not  admitted  into 
ihe  Jewish  Church,  and  yet  holding  a  recognized 
position  with  regard  to  it,  which  was  al)le  to  appre- 
hend the  Apostolic  teaching,  and  ready  to  receive 
it.  The  Hellenists  themselves  were  at  once  mis- 
sionaries to  the  heathen,  and  prophets  to  their  own 
countrymen.  Their  lives  were  an  abiding  protest 
against  polytheism  and  pantheism,  and  they  re- 
tained with  unshaken  zeal  the  sum  of  their  ancient 
creed,  when  the  preacher  had  popularly  occupied 
tlie  place  of  the  priest,  and  a  service  of  prayer  and 
praise  and  exhortation  had  succeeded  in  daily  life 
to  tlie  elaborate  ritual  of  the  Temple.  Yet  this  new 
development  of  Judaism  was  obtained  without  the 
sacrifice  of  national  ties.  The  connection  of  the 
Hellenists  with  the  Temple  was  not  broken,  except 
in  the  case  of  some  of  the  Egyptian  Jews.  [The 
DisPKKSiON.]  Unity  coexisted  with  dispersion; 
and  the  organization  of  a  catholic  church  was 
foreshadowed,  not  only  in  the  widening  breadth  of 
ioctrine,  but  even  externally  in  the  scattered  com- 
Miunities  which  looked  to  Jerusalem  as  their  com- 
jiou  centre. 

In  another  aspect  Hellenism  served  as  the  prep- 
iration  for  a  catholic  creed.  As  it  furnished  the 
language  of  Christianity,  it  supplied  also  that 
literary  instinct  which  counteracted  the  traditional 
reserve  of  the  Palestinian  Jews.  The  writings  of 
the  N.  T.,  and  all  the  writings  of  the  Apostolic  age, 
with  the  exception  of  the  original  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew,  were,  as  far  as  we  know,  Greek;  and 
Greek  seems  to  have  remained  the  sole  vehicle  of 
Christian  literature,  and  the  principal  medium  of 
Christian  worship,  tiU  the  Church  of  North  Africa 
rose  into  importance  in  the  time  of  Teitullian. 
The  Canon  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  the  early 
Creeds,  and  the  Liturgies,  are  the  memorials  of  this 
Hellenistic  predonnnance  in  the  Church,  and  the 
types  of  its  working ;  and  if  in  later  times  the  Greek 
spirit  descended  to  the  investigation  of  painful  subtle- 
ties, it  may  be  questioned  whether  the  fullness 
of  Christian  truth  could  have  been  developed  with- 
out the  power  of  Greek  thought  tempered  by  He- 
brew discipline. 

The  general  relations  of  Hellenism  to  Judaism 
are  well  treated  in  the  histories  of  Ewald  and  Jost; 
but  the  Hellenistic  language  is  as  yet,  critically 
speaking,  almost  unexplored.  Winer's  Grammar 
{Gramm.  d.  N.  T.  Sprac/ddioms,  6te  Aufl.  1855 
[7e  Aufl.  by  Liinemann,  1867])  has  done  great 
service  in  establishing  the  idea  of  law  in  N.  T. 
language,  which  was  obliterated  by  earlier  inter- 
preters, but  even  \N'^iner  does  not  investigate  the 
origin  of  the  peculiarities  of  the  Hellenistic  dialect. 
Tlie  idioms  of  the  N.  T.  camiot  be  discussed  apart 
from  those  of  the  LXX. ;  and  no  explanation  can 
be  considered  perfect  which  does  not  take  into 
account  the  origin  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
idioms.  Tor  this  work  even  the  materials  are  as 
yet  deficient.  The  text  of  the  LXX.  is  stC  in  a 
most  unsatisfactory  condition ;  and  while  Bruder's 
Concordance  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired  for  the 
vocabulary  of  the  N.  T.,  Trommius's  Concordance 
to  the  LXX.,  however  useful,  is  quite  untrustworthy 
lor  critical  purposes.  [See  Lakguage  of  the, 
66 


HEM  OF  GARMENT        1041 

New  Testament,  Amer.  ed.;  also  New  Testa- 
ment, IV.]  B.  F.  W. 

HELMET.     [Arms,  p.  161.] 

HE'LON  (|bn  [strong, power/til]:  Xai\dju: 
Helon),  father  of  Eliab,  who  was  the  chief  man  of 
the  tribe  of  Zebulun,  when  the  census  was  taken  in 
the  wilderness  of  Sinai  (Num.  i.  9,  ii.  7,  vii.  24, 
•29,  X.  16). 

*  HELPS.  ITiis  is  the  term  used  in  the 
autliorized  English  Version,  and  in  the  Rheima 
N.  T.  for  auTiAiiypeis,  1  Cor.  xii.  28.  The  Vulgate 
translates,  (piiulationes ;  Wycliffe,  helpynyu  (help- 
ings); Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Geneva  Bible, 
helpers;  Luther,  Heifer.  The  noun  occur;  only 
once  in  the  N.  T.,  but  the  verb  avTi\a/j.^a.yoiJiai, 
i.  e.  to  take  in  turn,  to  lay  hold  qf\  to  help,  also  to 
take  part  in,  occurs  three  times,  Luke  i.  54  ("  hath 
holpen  his  servant  Israel  "),  Acts  xx.  35  ("to  sup- 
port the  weak"),  1  Tim.  vi.  2  {ol  rrjs  evepyecias 
avTiXajx^auSfxevoi,  "partakers  of  the  benefit"). 
With  the  classics  a.vTi\T)y\/is  signifies  a  taking  in 
turn,  seizure ;  receipt ;  lierception,  but  with  the 
later  writers  and  in  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha  (2  Mace, 
viii.  19;  3  Mace.  v.  50;  Ecclus.  xi.  12;  li.  7;  1 
Esdr.  viii.  27  al. )  also  aid,  support.  This  must  be 
the  meaning  of  the  word  in  1  Cor.  xii.,  and  it  is  so 
understood  by  nearly  all  the  commentators  from 
Chrysostom  {avTex^a-Oai  rSiU  aaOeu&v)  down  to 
De  Wette,  Meyer,  Alford,  Wordsworth,  and  Kling 
(in  Lange's  Bibelicerk).  It  coiTesponds  with  the 
meaning  of  the  verb  in  Luke  i.  54  and  Acts  xx.  35, 
and  suits  the  connection.  Paul  enumerates  the 
auri\r)\peis  among  the  charismata,  and  puts  them 
between  the  miracidous  powers  {Suudpeis  and 
Xctpia/jLara  lajxaToov)  which  were  not  confined  to 
any  particular  oflice,  and  the  gifts  of  government 
and  administration  (Kv^epv-fjceis)  which  belonged 
especially  to  the  presbyter-bishops,  and  in  the 
highest  degree  to  the  Apostles  as  the  gubernatwea 
ecdesice.  'AuTi\r]\peLs  doubtless  comprehends  the 
various  duties  of  the  deacons  and  deaconesses  of 
the  Apostles'  church,  especially  the  care  of  the  poor 
and  the  sick.  We  may  take  it,  however,  in  a  more 
comprehensive  sense  for  Christian  charity  and  phi- 
lanthropy. The  plural  indicates  the  diversity  of 
the  gift  in  its  practical  operation  and  application ; 
comp.  SiaKoviai,  1  Cor.  xii.  5.  These  helps  or 
helpings  are  represented  here  as  a  gift  of  the  Spirit. 
The  duty  is  based  on  the  possession  of  the  gift,  but 
the  gift  is  not  confined  to  the  deacons  or  any  class 
of  church  officers.  It  is  found  also  among  the  laity, 
especially  the  female  portion,  in  all  ages  and  all 
branches  of  Christendom.  But  from  time  to  time 
God  raises  up  heroes  of  Christian  charity  and  angels 
of  mercy  whom  He  endows,  in  an  extraordinary 
measure,  with  the  charisma  of  auTiArjypis.,  SiaKoyia, 
and  aydir-n  for  the  benefit  of  suflfering  humanity. 

P.  S. 

*  HELPS,  Acts  xxvii.  17  {^o-hO^iai).  See 
Shirs,  Undergirding. 

HEM  OF  GARMENT  (n^^^:  Kpdciri- 
hov-  fmbria).  The  importance  which  the  later 
Jews,  especially  the  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii.  5), 
attached  to  the  hem  or  fringe  of  their  garments 
was  founded  upon  the  regulation  in  Num.  xv.  38, 
39,  which  attached  a  symbolical  meaning  to  it. 
We  must  not,  however,  conclude  that  the  fringe 
owed  its  origin  to  that  passage:  it  was  in  the  firet 
instance  the  ordinary  mode  of  finishing  the  robe, 
tht»  ends  of  the  threads  compo'ing  the  woof 


1042  HEMAM 

left  in  order  to  preve)it  the  cloth  from  unraveling, 
just  aa  in  the  Egyptian  caladris  (Her.  ii.  81; 
Wilkinson's  Ancient  Kyypt'wiu,  ii.  90),  and  in  the 
Assyrian  robes  as  represented  in  the  bas-reUefs  of 
Nineveh,  the  blue  ribbon  being  added  to  strengthen 
the  border.  The  Hebrew  word  tzizUli  is  expressive 
of  this  fretted  edge:  the  Greek  Kpiair^ha  (the 
etymology  of  which  is  uncertain,  being  variously 
traced  to  KpoacrSs,  &Kpos  neSou,  and  Kpriiris)  ap- 
plies to  the  ed(/e  of  a  river  or  mountain  (Xen.  Hist. 
Gr.  iii.  2,  §  IG,  iv.  6  §  8),  and  is  explained  by 
Hesychius  as  ra  iv  t&J  UKpu  rov  ifMariov  Ke/cAoxr- 
jLieW  pd/x/uLara  kol  rb  &Kpov  aurov.  The  be(^ed 
or  outer  robe  was  a  simple  quadrangular  piece  of 
cloth,  and  generally  so  worn  that  two  of  the  corners 
hung  down  in  front :  these  corners  were  ornamented 
with  a  "  ribbon  of  blue,"  or  rather  dnrk  violet,  the 
ribbon  itself  being,  as  we  may  conclude  from  the 

word  used,  v"^inQ,  as  narrow  as  a  thread  or  piece 
of  string.  The  Jews  attached  great  sanctity  to  this 
fringe  (Matt.  ix.  20,  xiv.  30 ;  Luke  viii.  44),  and 
the  Pharisees  made  it  more  prominent  than  it  was 
originally  designed  to  be,  enlarging  both  the  fringe 
and  the  ribbon  to  an  undue  width  (Matt,  xxiii.  5). 
Directions  were  given  as  to  the  number  of  threads 
of  which  it  ought  to  be  composed,  and  other  par- 
ticulars, to  each  of  which  a  symbolical  meaning 
was  attached  (Carpzov,  Apparnt.  p.  398).  It  was 
appended  in  later  times  to  the  talith  more  especially, 
as  being  the  robe  usually  worn  at  devotions :  whence 
the  proverbial  saying  quoted  by  Lightfoot  {Exerdt. 
on  Matt.  v.  40),  "  He  that  takes  care  of  his  fringes 
deserves  a  good  coat."  W.  L.  B. 

HE'MAM  (CD**!!  [exterminnting,  or  rag- 
ing'\:  AI/jlolv:  Heman).  Hori  {i.  e.  Horite)  and 
Hemam  were  sons  (A.  V.  "  cliildren,"  but  the 
word  is  Bene)  of  Lotan,  the  eldest  son  of  Seir  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  22).  In  the  list  in  1  Chr.  i.  the  name  ap- 
pears as  HoMAM,  which  is  probably  the  correct 
form. 

HE'MAN  Ofy'll  [true,  reliable] :  [Alfiovdv, 
Aivdu'i  Alex.]  Ai/nav,  [Huoi/:  Kman,  Hemari]). 
1.  Son  of  Zerah,  1  Chr.  ii'.  6;  1  K.  iv.  31.  See 
following  article. 

2.  lAifxdv,  Vat.  1  Chr.  xxv.  6,  Ai/xavei,  2  Clu-. 
xxix.  14,  Q.uaifj.av;  Alex.  Ps.  Ixxxviii.  1,  AiOa/x- 
Hemam,  Heman,  Eman.]  Son  of  Joel,  and  grand- 
son of  Samuel  the  prophet,  a  Kohathite.     He  is 

called  "the  singer"  (TlltZ^^n),  rather,  the  mu- 
sician, 1  Chr.  vi.  33,  and  was' the  first  of  the  three 
chief  Levites  to  whom  was  committed  the  vocal  and 
instrumental  music  of  the  temple-service  in  the 
reign  of  David,  as  we  read  1  Chr.  xv.  lG-22,  Asaph 
and  Ethan,  or  rather,  according  to  xxv.  1,  3,  Jedu- 
£hun,«  being  his  colleagues.  [Jeduthun.]  The 
genealogy  of  Heman  is  given  in  1  Chr.  vi.  33-38 
(A.  v.),  but  the  generations  between  Assir,  the 
son  of  Korah,  and  Samuel  are  somewhat  confused, 
owing  to  two  collateral  lines  having  got  mixed.  A 
rectification  of  this  genealogy  will  be  found  at  p. 
214  of  t/ie  Genealogies  of'  our  Loi-d,  where  it  is 
shown  that  Heman  is  14th  in  descent  from  I^vi. 
A  further  account  of  Heman  is  given  1  Chr.  xxv., 
where  he  is  called  (ver.  5)  "  the  king's  sr^r  in  the 

tnatiers  of  God,"  the  word  HTn,  "  seer,"  which 


HEMAN 

in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  15  is  applied  to  Jedulhun,  and  ia 
xxix.  ZO  to  Asaph,  being  probably  used  in  the 


sense  as  is  MSD,  '<  prophesied,"  of  Asaph  and  Jeda- 
thun  in  xxv.  1-3.  We  there  learn  that  Heman 
had  fourteen  sons,  and  three  daughters  [Hana- 
NiAH  I.],  of  which  the  sons  all  assisted  in  the 
music  under  their  father,  and  each  of  whom  was 
head  of  one  of  the  twenty-four  wards  of  Invites, 
who  "  were  instructed  in  the  songs  of  th^  Lord," 
or  rather,  in  sacred  music.  Whether  or  no  thii! 
Heman  is  the  person  to  whom  the  88th  Psalm  ia 
ascribed  is  doubtful.  The  chief  reason  for  supjjos- 
ing  him  to  be  the  same  is,  that  as  other  Psalms  ari- 
ascribed  to  Asaph  and  Jeduthun,  so  it  la  Ukely  that 
this  one  should  be  to  Heman  the  singer.  But  on 
the  other  hand  he  is  there  called  *  the  Ezrahite;  " 
and  the  89th  Psalm  is  ascribed  to  "  Ethan  the 
lizrahite."  '^  But  since  Heman  and  Ethan  are 
described  in  1  Chr.  ii.  G,  as  "  sons  of  Zerah,"  it  ia 
in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  Ezrahite  means 
"of  the  family  of  Zerah,"  and  consequently  that 
Heman  of  the  88th  Psalm  is  different  from  Heman 
the  singer,  the  Kohathite.  In  1  K.  iv.  31  again 
(Heb.  V.  11),  we  have  mention,  as  of  the  wisest  of 
mankind,  of  Ethan  the  l<2zrahite,  Heman,  Chalcol, 
and  Darda,  the  sons  of  INIahol,  a  list  corresponding 
with  the  names  of  the  sons  of  Zerah,  in  1  Chr.  ii. 
6.  The  inference  from  which  is  that  there  was  a 
Heman,  different  from  Henian  the  singer,  of  the 
family  of  Zerah  the  son  of  Judah,  and  that  he  is 
distinguished  from  Heman  the  singer,  the  Invite, 
by  being  called  the  LIzrahite.  As  regards  the  age 
when  Heman  the  Ezrahite  lived,  the  only  thing 
that  can  be  asserted  is  that  he  lived  belbre  Solomon, 
who  was  said  to  be  "  wiser  than  Heman,"  and  after 
Zerah  the  son  of  Judah.  His  being  called  "son 
of  Zerah  "  in  1  Chr.  ii.  6  indicates  nothing  as  to 
the  precise  age  when  he  and  his  brother  lived. 
They  are  probably  mentioned  in  this  abridged 
genealogy,  only  as  having  been  illustrious  persons 
of  their  family.  Nor  is  anything  kno^vn  of  Mahol 
their  father.  It  is  of  course  uncertain  whether  the 
tradition  which  ascribed  the  88th  Psalm  to  Heman's 
authorship  is  trustworthy.  Nor  is  there  anything 
in  the  Psalm  itself  which  clearly  marks  the  time 
of  its  composition.  The  89th  Psalm,  ascribed  to 
Ethan,  seems  to  be  subsequent  to  the  overthrow  of 
the  kingdom  of  Judah,  unless  possibly  the  calami- 
ties described  in  the  latter  part  of  the  Psalm  may 
be  understood  of  David's  flight  at  Absalom's  rebel- 
lion, in  which  case  ver.  41  would  allude  to  Shimei 
the  son  of  Gera. 

If  Heman  the  Kohathite,  or  his  father,  had  mar- 
ried an  heiress  of  the  house  of  Zerah,  as  the  sons  of 
Hakkoz  did  of  the  house  of  BarziUai,  and  was  so 
reckoned  in  the  genealogy  of  Zerah,  then  all  the 
notices  of  Heman  might  point  to  the  same  person, 
and  the  musical  skill  of  David's  chief  musician, 
and  the  wisdom  of  David's  seer,  and  the  genius  of 
the  author  of  the  88th  Psalm,  concurring  in  the 
same  individual,  would  make  him  fit  to  be  joined 
with  those  other  worthies  whose  wisdom  was  only 
exceeded  by  that  of  Solomon.  Put  it  is  impossible 
to  assert  that  this  was  the  case. 

Rosenm.  Proleg.  in  Psalm,  p.  xvii. ;  J.  Olshai* 
sen,  on  Psalms,  Einleit.  p.  22  {Kurzgef.  Exe^ 
Handb.).  A.  C  H. 


«  ^rT'M  and  prrn*^  are  probably  only  clerical 
miations.     See  also  2  Chr.  xxix.  13,  14. 
fc  St.  Augusline'B  copy  read,  with  the  LXX.,  Israel- 


ite, for  Ezrahite,  in  the  titles  to  the  88th  and  89ti 
Psalms.  His  explanation  of  the  title  of  Ps.  Ixxx^iM 
is  a  curious  specimen  of  spiritualizing  interpretation 


HEMATH 

HE'MATH  (n^n  [fortress,  citaatq-.  At- 
%ad;  [Vat.]  AleK.  E^a0:  hmath\  Anotner  form 
—  not  warranted  by  the  Hebrew  —  of  the  well- 
known  name  Hajiath  (Am.  vi.  14). 

HE'MATH  (ri^n  i.  e.  Hammath  [heat, 
warm  spriny]:  AlfxdO;  [Vat.  MecrTj/xa:]  Vulg. 
translates  de  cnlore),  a  person,  or  a  place,  named 
in  the  genealogical  hsts  of  Judah,  as  the  origin  of 
the  Kenites,  and  the  "  father  "  of  the  house  of 
Rechab  (1  Chr.  ii.  55). 

HEM'DAN  (I^PD  [pleasant  one,  Fiirst]  : 
Pi.ixa^a'-  Aindam  or  Ilanidam,  some  copies  Ham- 
dan),  the  eldest  son  of  Dishon,  son  of  Anah  the 
liorite  (Gen.  xxxvi.  26).  In  the  parallel  list  of 
1  Chr.   (i.  41)  the  name  is  changed  to  Ilamran 

(^npn),  which  in  the  A.  V.  is  given  as  AmrA]m, 
probably  following  the  Vulgate  Hamram,  in  the 
earliest  MSS.  A  mar  an. 

The  name  Heradan  is  by  Knobel  {Genesis,  p. 
256)  compared  with  those  of  Humeidy  and  Ham- 
ady,  two  of  the  five  families  of  the  tribe  of  Omran 
or  Amran,  who  are  located  to  the  E.  and  S.  E.  of 
Akaba.  Also  with  the  Bene-Hamyde,  who  are 
found  a  short  distance  S.  of  Kerek  (S.  E.  corner 
of  the  Dead  Sea);  and  from  thence  to  et-Busaireh, 
probably  the  ancient  B(JZKAH,  on  the  road  to 
Petra.  (See  Burckhardt,  Syna,  etc.,  pp.  695, 
407.) 

HEMXOCK.     [Gall.] 

HEN  ("|n  [favor,  grace']  :  Hem).  According 
to  the  rendering  of  the  passage  (Zech.  vi.  14) 
adopted  in  the  A.  V.  Hen  (or  accurately  Chen)  is 
the  name  of  a  son  of  Zephaniah,  and  apparently 
the  same  who  is  called  Josiah  in  ver.  10.  But  by 
the  LXX.  (;^a/jts),  Ewald  {Gunst),  and  other  in- 
terpreters, the  words  are  taken  to  mean  "  for  the 
favor  of  the  son  of  Zephaniah." 

HEN.  The  hen  is  nowhere  noticed  in  the  Bible 
I  xcept  in  the  passages  (Matt,  xxiii.  37 ;  Luke  xiii. 
o4)  where  our  Saviour  touchingly  compares  His 
anxiety  to  save  Jerusalem  to  the  tender  care  of  a 
hen  '•  gathering  her  chickens  under  her  wings." 
The  word  employed  is  opvis,  which  is  used  in  the 
same  specific  sense  in  classical  Greek  (Aristoph. 
Av.  102,  Vesj).  811).  That  a  bird,  so  intimately 
connected  with  the  household,  and  so  common  in 
Palestine,  as  we  know  from  Kabbinical  sources, 
should  receive  such  slight  notice,  is  certainly  sin- 
gular; it  is  almost  equally  singular  that  it  is  no- 
where represented  in  the  paintings  of  ancient  Egypt 
(Wilkinson,  i.  2:34 ).«  W.  L.  B. 

HE'NA  (^3n  [depressim,  low  land,  Fiirst]: 
'Ai/a;  [in  2  K.  xix..  Vat.  Aves,  Alex.  Atvo;  in  Is., 
by  confusion  with  next  word,  Rom.  ' l>i.vayovyo.ua. 
Vat.  Sin.  Avayouyaua'-]  Ana)  seems  to  have  been 
one  of  the  chief  cities  of  a  monarchical  state  which 
the  Assyrian  kings  had  reduced  shortly  before  the 
time  of  Sennacherib  (2  K  [xviii.  34,]  xix.  13;  Is. 
rxxvii.  13).  Its  connection  with  Sepharvaim,  or 
Sippara,  would  lead  us  to  place  it  in  Babylonia,  or 
at  any  rate  on  the  Euphrates.  Here,  at  no  great 
listance  from  Sippara  (now  Mosaib),  .  an  accient 
Vcwn  calleil  Ana  or  Anah,  which  seems  to  have  been 


o  *  The  common  barn-door  fowl  are  met  with  tsrer^- 
Kti«re  in  S>ria  at  the  present  day.  The  peasants  rely 
>o  them,  and  the  eggs  from  them,  as  one  of  their  cnief 
of  gubgistence  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  ii. 


HEPHBR  1043 

in  former  times  a  place  of  considerable  ir.iportancA 
It  is  mentioned  by  Abulfeda,  by  William  of  Tyre, 
and  others  (see  Asseman.  BiU.  Or.  vol.  iii.  pt.  iL 
p.  560,  and  p.  717).  The  conjecture  by  some  (see 
Winer's  Rtalworierbuch,  s.  v.)  that  this  may  be 
Hena,  is  probable,  and  deserves  acceptance.  A 
further  conjecture  identifies  Ana  with  a  town  called 

Anat  (n  is  merely  the  feminine  termination), 
which  is  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  as 
situated  on  an  island  in  the  Euphrates  (iox  Tal- 
bot's Assyrian  Texts,  21 ;  Layard's  Nineveh  and 
Babylon,  355)  at  some  distance  below  its  junction 
with  the  Chabour ;  and  which  appears  as  Anatho 
CAuaOu))  in  Isidore  of  Charax  {Mans.  Parth.  p.  4). 
The  modern  Anat  is  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
stream,  while  the  name  also  attaches  to  some  ruins 
a  little  lower  down  u^wn  the  left  bank ;  but  between 
them  is  "  a  string  of  islands"  (Chesney's  Euphrates 
Expedition,  i.  53),  on  one  or  more  of  which  the  an- 
cient city  may  have  been  situated.  G.  R. 

HEN'ADAD  ("f^^H  [favor  of  Hadad, 
Fiirst,  Ges.]  :  'HwSciS,  [etc.  :]  Henadad,  Ena- 
dad),  the  head  of  a  family  of  Levites  who  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple 
under  Jeshua  (Ezr.  iii.  9).  Bavai  and  Binnui 
(Neh.  iii.  18,  24),  who  assisted  hi  the  repair  of  the 
wall  of  the  city,  probably  belonged  to  the  same 
family.  The  latter  also  represented  his  family  at 
the  signing  of  the  covenant  (Neh.  x.  9). 

HE'NOCH  Cn^iO:  'Evc^x:  H^'noch).  L 
The  form  in  which  the  well-known  name  Enoch  is 
given  in  the  A.  V.  of  1  Chr.  i.  3.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  the  same  both  here  and  in  Genesis,  namely, 
Chanoc.  Perhaps  in  the  present  case  our  transla- 
tors followed  the  Vulgate. 

2.  So  they  appear  also  to  have  done  in  1  Chr. 
i.  33  with  a  name  which  in  Gen.  xxv.  4  is  more 
accurately  given  as  Hanoch. 

HE'PHER  ("l^n  [a  well]:  '0<^6>:  Hepher). 
1.  A  descendant  of  jManasseh.  The  youngest  of 
the  sons  of  Gilead  (Num.  xxvi.  32),  and  head  of 
the  family  of  the  Hepheritks.  Hepher  was 
father  of  Zelophkhad  (xxvi.  33,  xxvii.  1;  [Josh, 
xvii.  2,  3]),  whose  daughters  first  mised  the  ques-. 
tion  of  the  right  of  a  woman  having  no  brother, 
to  hold  the  property  of  her  father. 

2.  {''HcpaA-  Ilepher.)  The  second  son  of  Naa- 
rah,  one  of  the  two  wives  of  Ashur,  the  "  father  of 
Tekoa"  (1  Chr.  iv.  6),  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah. 

3.  [Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  corrupted  by  false  di- 
vision of  the  words ;  Comp.  ^A<pap ;  Aid.  ' A(^€p.] 
The  Mecherathite,  one  of  the  heroes  of  David's 
guard,  according  to  the  list  of  1  Chr.  xi.  36.  In 
the  catalogue  of  2  Samuel  this  name  does  not 
exist  (see  xxiii.  34);  and  the  conclusion  of  Kenni- 
cott,  after  a  full  investigation  of  the  {iJissages,  is 
that  the  names  in  Samuel  are  the  originals,  and 
that  Hepher  is  a  mere  corruption  of  them. 

HETHER  OSn  [a  well]:  '0<pip;  [Vat, 
in  1  K.  corrupt;  Comp.  'E^ep'J  Opher),  a  place 
in  ancient  Canaan,  which,  though  not  mentioned  in 
the  history  of  the  conquest,  occurs  in  the  list  of 
conquered  kings  (Josh.  xii.  17).  It  was  on  the  west 
of  Jordan  (comp.  7).     So  was  also  the  "  land  of 


552).  The  eggs  of  the  hen  are  no  doubt  meant  in  thi 
Saviour's  illustration  (Luke  xi.  12),  which  impliev  alM 
that  they  were  very  abundant.  fl 


1044        HEPHEKITES,  THE 

Hepher  "  (H  V")^j  terra  Epher\  which  is  named 
mth  Soc<jh  as  one  of  Solomon's  commissariat  dis- 
tricts (1  K.  iv.  10).  To  judge  from  this  catalogue 
it  l:iy  towards  the  south  of  central  Palestme,  at 
an}'  rate  below  Dor.  so  that  there  cannot  be  any 
connection  between  it  and  Gath-hepher,  which 
was  'uv  Zebulun  near  Sepphoris. 

HETHERITES,  THE  0*l?rin  [patro- 
nym.,  see  above],  i.  e.  the  Ilepherite:  6  '0</)ept 
[Vat.  -pec-] :  familia  Htpheritarum.\  the  family 
of  Ilepher  the  son  of  Gilead  (Num.  xxvi.  32). 

HEPH'ZIBAH  (nn-'^'^pri :  Qixy^^a  ifi6v: 
tolunifts  niea  in  ea).  1.  A  name  signifying  My 
delight  in  her,  which  is  to  be  borne  by  the  restored 
Jerusalem  (Is.  Ixii.  4).  The  succeeding  sentence 
contains  a  play  on  the  word  —  "  for  Jehovah  de- 

lighteth  (V?n,  chaphttz)  hi  thee." 

2.  ('Ai//i/3a;  [Vat.i  OifetySa:]  Alex.  O^xrt/So; 
Joseph.  Ax^^o.'  Haphsiba).  It  was  actually  the 
name  of  the  queen  of  King  Hezekiah,  and  the 
mother  of  Manasseh  (2  K.  xxi.  1).  In  the  par- 
allel account  (2  Chr.  xxxiii.  1)  her  name  is  omitted. 
No  clue  is  given  us  to  the  character  of  this  queen. 
But  if  she  was  an  adherent  of  Jehovah  —  and  this 
the  wife  of  Hezekiah  could  not  fail  to  be  —  it  is 
not  imix)ssible  that  the  words  of  Is.  Ixii.  4  may 
contaiji  a  complimentary  allusion  to  her. 

HERALD  (Hn"l3  [from  the  Pers.,  aier, 
caller,  Dietr.] ).  The  only  notice  of  this  officer  in 
the  O.  T.  occurs  in  Dan.  iii.  4;  the  term  there 
used  is  connected  etymologically  with  the  Greek 
Kripi(r(rco  and  Kpd^u,  and  with  our  "  cry."  There 
is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  office  of  the  herald  in 
the  expressions  Kr]pvc(rci),  K-npv^,  and  K-fipvyfia, 
which  are  frequent  in  the  N.  1 .,  and  which  are  but 
inadequately  rendered  by  "  preach,"  etc.  The 
term  "  herald  "  might  be  substituted  in  1  Tim.  ii. 
T;  2  Tim.  i.  11;  2  Pet.  ii.  5.  W.  L.  B. 

HER'CULES  ('HoaKKrjs  [Hera's  fflory]),  the 
I  ame  commonly  appliea  by  the  western  nations  to 
fciie  tutelary  deity  of  Tyre,  whose  national  title  was 

Melkr(ri «  (mp  btt,  i.  c.  Hip  "^b^,  (he  kim/ 
of  the  city  =  ttoKiovxos,  MeAi/cooos,  Phil.  Bybl. 
ap.  Euseb.  Prmp.  Ev.  i.  10).  The  identification 
was  based  ujjou  a  similarity  of  the  legends  and  at- 
tributes referred  to  tlie  two  deities,  but  Herodotus 
(ii.  44)  recognized  their  distinctness,  and  dwells  on 
the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  Tyrian  rite  (Herod. 
l.  c. ;  cf.  Stralx),  xvi.  p.  757 ;  Arr.  Alex.  ii.  16 ;  Jo- 
seph. Ant.  viii.  5,  §  3;  c.  Apion.  i.  18).  The  wor- 
ship of  Melkait  was  spread  throughout  the  Tyrian 
colonies,  and  was  especially  established  at  Carthage 
(cf.  H&milcar),  where  it  was  celebrated  even  with 
auman  sacrifices  (Plin.  If.  N.  xxxvi.  4  (5);  cf. 
Jer.  xix.  5).  Mention  is  made  of  public  embassies 
lent  from  the  colonies  to  the  mother  state  to  honor 
the  national  God  (Arr.  Alex.  ii.  24;  Q.  Curt.  iv. 
8;  Polyb.  xxxi.  20),  and  this  fact  places  in  a  clearer 


a  This  identification  is  dlBtinctly  made  in  a  Maltese 
Inscnptiou  quoted  by  Gesenius  (Erscii  and  Gruber's 

Encyklop.  e.   v.   Bel.,  and    Tlusatirus,  s.   v.   v37l2), 
•  Here  n!2   V^m  mp  VX2  answers  to  'UpeucKeZ  ap- 

6  Thttse  were  common,  and  are  frequently  alluded 
tt.    The  sxprcstaon  "IpS'jI'^Str,  2  Sam.  xvii.  29 


HERD 

light  the  offense  of  Jason  in  sending  esiToyi  (#cv 

povs)  to  his  festival  (2  Mace.  iv.  19  ff.). 

There  can  be  little  doubt  but  that  Melkart  is  the 

proper  name  of  the  Baal  —  the  Prince  (v^21l'/ 
—  mentioned  in  the  later  history  of  the  0.  T.  The 
worship  of  "  Baal "  was  introduced  from  Tyre  (1 
K.  xvi.  31;  cf.  2  K.  xi.  18)  after  the  earlier  Ca- 
naanitish  idolatry  had  been  put  down  (1  Sam.  vii. 
4;  cf.  1  K.  xi.  5-8),  and  Melkart  (Hercules)  and 
Astarte  apj^ear  in  the  same  close  relation  (Joseph. 
A7it.  1.  c.)  as  Baal  and  Astarte.  The  objections 
which  are  urged  against  the  identification  apjjear 
to  have  little  weight;  but  the  supposed  connecli^uB 
between  Melkart  and  other  gods  (Moloch,  et. 
which  have  been  suggested  (Pauly,  Real-KncycL 
s.  v.  Melan-ih)  appear  less  likely  (cf.  Gesenius,  / 
c.  ,•  Movers,  Phonizier,  i.  176  ff.,  385  ff.).  [Baal.] 
The  direct  derivation  of  the  word  Hercules  from 

Phoenician  roots,  either  as  V^'^H,  circuitor,  the 
traveller,  ui  reference  to  the  course  of  the  sun,  with 
whom  he  was  identified,  or  to  the  journeys  of  the 

hero,  or  agam  as  VIDIS  {' Apxa.\evs,  Etym.  J/.), 
the  strong  conquers,  has  little  probability. 

B.  F.  W. 

HERD,  HERDSMAN.  The  herd  wa8 
greatly  regarded  both  in  the  patriarchal  and  Mo- 
saic period.  Its  nmltiplying  was  considered  as  a 
blessing,  and  its  decrease  as  a  curse  (Gen.  xiii.  2; 
Dent.  vii.  14,  xxviii.  4;  Ps.  cvii.  38,  cxliv.  14;  Jer. 
Ii.  23).  The  ox  was  the  most  precious  stock  next 
to  horse  and  mule,  and  (since  those  were  rare)  the 
thing  of  greatest  value  which  was  commonly  ix)s- 
sesscd  (1  K.  xviii.  5).  Hence  we  see  the  force  of 
Saul's  threat  (1  Sam.  xi.  7).  llie  herd  yielded  the 
most  esteemed  sacrifice  (Num.  vii.  3 ;  Ps.  Ixix.  01 
Is  Ixvi.  3);  also  flesh-meat  and  milk,  chiefly  con- 
veited,  probably,  into  butter  and  cheese  (Deut 
xxxii.  14;  2  Sam.  xvii.  29),  which  such  milk  yields 
more  copiously  than  that  of  small  cattle  ^  (Arist 
Hist.  Aiiim.  iii.  20).  The  full-grown  ox  is  hardly 
ever  slaughtered  in  Syria ;  but,  both  for  sacrificial 
and  convivial  purposes,  tlie  young  animal  was  pre- 
ferred (Ex.  xxix.  1)  —  perhaps  three  years  might 
be  the  age  up  to  which  it  was  so  regarded  (Gen.  xv. 
9)  —  and  is  spoken  of  as  a  special  dainty  (Gen. 
xviii.  8;  Am.  vi.  4;  Luke  xv.  23).  The  case  of 
Gideon's  sacrifice  was  one  of  exigency  (Judg.  vi. 
25)  and  exceptional.  So  that  of  the  people  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  32)  was  an  act  of  wanton  excess.  The  agri- 
cultund  and  general  usefulness  of  tlie  ox,  hi  plough- 
ing, threshuig  [Agriculturk],  aiid  as  a  beast  of 
burden  (1  Chr.  xii.  40;  Is.  xlvi.  1\  made  such  a 
slaughtering  seem  wasteful;  nor,  owing  to  diffi- 
culties of  grazing,  fattening,  etc.,  is  beef  the  prod- 
uct of  an  eastern  climate.  The  animal  was  broken 
to  service  probably  in  his  third  year  (Is.  xv.  5;  Jet. 
xlviii.  34;  comp.  Plin.  H.  N.  viii.  70,  ed.  Par.), 
[n  the  moist  season,  when  grass  abounded  hi  the 
waste   lands,  especially  in   the  "  south "   region, 


means  cheese  of  cows'  milk ;  HS^P?  ^^^-  '  |  '^i 
Gen.  xviii.  8,  Is.  vii.  15,  2  Sam.  xvii.  29,  Job  xx.  17, 
Judg.  y.  25,  Prov.  xxx.  33,  is  properly  rendered  "  bulr 
ter"  (which  Gesenius,  «.  r.,  is  mistaken  in  declaring 
to  be  "hardly  known  to  the  Orientals,  except  a<  a 

medicine  ").    The  word  H^'^IlS,  Job  x.  10,  is  the  aaaa» 


. ,  applied  by  the  Bedoiiins  to  I 


as  the  Arab 


.goats '-milk  cheese.     [D(nT£K;  Ch££8S.] 


HERD 


HERD 


1045 


Egyptian  farm-yard.     (Wilkinson.) 


herds  grazed  there ;  e.  g.  in  Carmel  on  the  W.  side 
Df  the  Dead  Sea  (1  Sam.  xxv.  2;  2  Chr.  xxvi.  10). 
Dothan  also.  Mishor.  and  Sharon  CGen.  xxxvii.  17; 
;omp.  Kobinson,  ill.  122;  Stanley,  S.  (f  P.  pp. 
247,  260,  484,  48.^;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  29;  Is.  Ixv.  10) 
were  favorite  pastures.  For  such  purposes  Uzziah 
built  towers  ni  the  wilderness  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  10). 
Not  only  grass,"  but  foliage,  is  acceptable  to  the 
ox,  and  the  hills  and  woods  of  Bashan  and  Gilead 
afforded  both  abundantly;  on  such  upland  (Ps.  1. 
10;  ixv.  12)  pastures  cattle  might  graze,  as  also, 
of  course,  by  river  sides,  when  driven  by  the 
heat  from  the  regions  of  the  "wilderness."  Es- 
pecially was  the  eastern  table-land  (Ez.  xxxix.  18; 
Num.  xxxii.  4)  "a  place  for  cattle,"  and  the  pas- 
toral tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  INIanasseh 
who  settled  there,  retained  something  of  the  no- 
madic character  and  handed  down  some  image  of 
the  patriarchal  life  (Stanley,  S.  <f  P.  pp.  324-5). 
Herdsmen,  etc.,  in  Egypt  were  a  low,  perhaps  the 
lowest,  caste;  hence  as  Joseph's  kindred,  through 
his  position,  were  brought  into  contact  with  the 
highest  castes,  they  are  described  as  '•  an  abomina- 
tion;" but  of  the  abundance  of  cattle  in  Egypt, 
and  of  the  care  there  bestowed  on  them,  there  is 
no  doubt  (Gen.  xlvii.  6, 17;  Ex.  ix.  4,  20).  Brands 
were  used  to  distinguish  the  owner's  herds  (Wil- 
kinson, iii.  8,  195;  iv.  125-131).  So  the  plague 
of  hail  was  sent  to  smite  especially  the  cattle  (I's. 
Ixxviii.  48),  the  first-bom  of  which  also  were  smitten 
(Ex.  xii.  29).  The  Israelites  departing  stipulated  for 
(Ex.  x.  26)  and  took  "  much  cattle  "  with  them  (xii. 
38).     [Wilderness  of  Wandering.]     Cattle 


A.  deformed  oxherd,  so  represented  to  mark  contempt 

K)nned  thus  one  of  the  traditions  of  the  Israelitish 
pation  in  its  greatest  period,  and  became  almost  a 
•art  of  that  greatness.     They  are  the  object  of 


a  In  Num.  xxii.  4,  the  word  p"!*;,  In  A.  V.  "  grass," 
wally  includes  all  vegetation.  C^r'p.  Ex.  x.  15,  Is. 
ixxvii.  27 ;  Cato,  de  R.  R.  c.  20;  Varro,  de  R.  R.  i. 

15,  and  if  6.      "^^^n.  Job  viii.  12,  xl.  15,  seems  use  W 
In  a  signification  equally  wide.     [Grass.] 

ft  Rabbis  differ  on  the  question  whetUer  the  owner 
jC  the  animal  was  under  this  enactment  liable  or  not 


providential  care  and  legislative  ordinance  (Ex.  xx 
10,  xxi.  28,'>  xxxiv.  19 ;  I^v.  xix.  19,  xxv.  7 ;  Deut. 
xi.  15,  xxii.  1,  4,  10,  xxv.  4;  Vs.  civ.  14;  Is.  xxx. 
23;  Jon.  iv.  11),  and  even  the  Levites,  though  not 
holding  land,  were  allowed  cattle  (Num.  xxxv.  2, 
3).      When  pasture  failed,  a  mixture  of  various 

grains  (called.  Job  vi.  5,  v'^V?,  rendered  "fodder" 
in  the  A.  V.,  and.  Is.  xxx.' 24,  "  provender ;"  c 
comp.  the  Roman /hrra^/o  and  ocyimun,  Rlin.  xviii. 

10  and  42)  was  used,  as  also  15^^?  "chopped 
straw"  (Gen.  xxiv.  25;  Is.  xi.  7,  Ixv.  25),  which 
was  torn  in  pieces  by  the  threshing-machine  and 
used  probably  for  feeding  in  stalls.  These  last 
formed  an  important  adjunct  to  cattle-keeping,  be- 
ing indispensable  for  shelter  at  certain  seasons  (Ex. 
ix.  6,  19).  The  herd,  after  its  harvest-duty  was 
done,  which  probalily  caused  it  to  be  in  high  con- 
dition, was  specially  worth  caring  for;  at  the  same 
time  most  open  pastures  would  have  failed  because 
of  the  heat.  It  was  then  probably  stalled,  and 
would  continue  so  until  vegetation  returned.  Hence 
the  failure  of  "the  herd"  from  "the  stalls"  is 
mentioned  as  a  feature  of  scarcity  (Hab.  iii.  17). 
"Calves  of  the  stall"  (Mai.  iv.  2;  Prov.  xv.  17) 
are  the  objects  of  watchful  care.  The  Reubenites, 
etc.,  bestowed  their  cattle  "  in  cities  "  when  they 
passed  the  Jordan  to  share  the  toils  of  conquest 
(Deut.  iii.  19),  i.  e.  probably  in  some  pastures 
closely  adjoining,  like  the  "suburbs"  appointed  for 
the  cattle  of  the  Invites  (Num.  xxxv.  2,  3;  Josh, 
xxi.  2).  Cattle  were  ordinarily  allowed  as  a  prey 
in  war  to  the  captor  (Deut.  xx.  14;  Josh.  viii. 
2),  and  the  case  of  Amalek  is  ex- 
ceptional, probably  to  mark  the 
extreme  curse  to  which  that  people 
was  devoted  (Ex.  xvii.  14;  1  Sara. 
XV.  3).  The  occupation  of  herds- 
man was  honorable  in  early  times 
(Gen.  xlvii.  6;  1  Sam.  xi.  5:  1  Chr. 
xxvii.  29,  xxviii.  1).  Saul  himself 
assumed  it  in  the  interval  of  hia 
cares  as  king;  also  Doeg  was  cer- 
tainly high  in  his  confidence  (1  Sam. 
xxi.  7).  Pharaoh  made  some  of 
Joseph's  brethren  "rulers  over  hia 
cattle."  David's  herd-masters  were 
among  his  chief  officers  of  state.  In 
Solomon's  time  the  relative  import- 
ance of  the  pursuit  declined  as  commerce  grew,  but 
It  was  still  extensive  (Eccl.  ii.  7;  1  K.  iv.  23).  It 
must  have  greatly  suffered  from  the  mroads  of  th#» 


(Wilkinson.) 


liable.  See  de  Re  Rust.  Yeterum  Hebrceorum,  c.  il.; 
Ugolini,  xxix. 

c  The  word  seems  to  be  derived  from  V  v2,  to  mtx. 

-T  ' 

The  passage  in  Isaiah  probably  means  that  in  thfl 
abundant  yield  of  the  crops  the  cattle  should  eat  af 
the  best,  such  as  was  usually  consumed  by  man. 


1046 


HERES 


nemies  to  which  the  country  under  the  later  kings 
af  Judah  and  Israel  was  exposed.  Uzziah,  however, 
(2  Chr.  xxvi.  10),  and  Hezekiah  (xxxii.  28,  29), 
resuming  command  of  the  open  country,  revived  it. 
Josiah  also  seems  to  have  been  rich  in  herds  (xxxv. 
7-9).  The  prophet  Amos  at  first  followed  this 
occupation  (Am.  i.  1,  vii.  14).     A  goad  was  used 

(Judg.  iii.  31;  1  Sam.  xiii.  21,  ^^^P,  I?"??), 
being,  as  mostly,  a  staff  armed  with  a  spike.  For 
the  word  Herd  as  applied  to  swine,  see  Sw^ine; 
and  on  the  general  subject,  Ugolini,  xxix.,  de  R.  R. 
vett.  Hebr.  c.  ii.,  which  will  be  found  nearly  ex- 
haustive of  it.  H.  H. 

HE'RES  (Is.  xix.  18;  A.  V.  "destruction  "  or 
*•  the  sun  " ).     See  Ir-ha-heres. 

HE'RESH  {^"yQr^ artificer:  'Ap^s;  [Vat. 
PapatTjA;]  Alex.  Apes'  carpentarius),  a  Levite; 
one  of  the  staff  attached  to  the  tabernacle  (1  Chr. 
Ix.  15). 

HER'MAS  CEp/iSs,  from  'Epjxrjs,  the  "  Greek 
god  of  gain,"  or  Mercury),  the  name  of  a  person 
to  whom  St.  Paul  sends  greeting  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Eomans  (xvi.  14),  and  consequently  then  resi- 
dent in  Rome,  and  a  Christian :  and  yet  the  origin 
of  the  name,  like  that  of  the  other  four  mentioned 
in  the  same  verse,  is  Greek.  However,  in  those 
days,  even  a  Jew,  like  St.  Paul  himself,  might  ac- 
quire Koman  citizenship.  Irenaeus,  TertuUian,  and 
Origen,  agree  in  attributing  to  him  the  work  called 
the  Shepherd:  which,  from  the  name  of  Clement 
occurring  in  it,  is  sujiposed  to  have  been  written  in 
the  pontificate  of  Clement  I.;  while  others  affirm 
it  to  have  been  the  work  of  a  namesake  in  the  fol- 
lowing age,  and  brother  to  Pius  I.;  others  again 
have  argued  a<;ainst  its  genuineness.  (Cave,  Hist. 
Lit.  s.  V. ;  Bull,  lUfens.  Fid.  Nic.  i.  2,  3-6 ;  Din- 
dorf,  Prcef.  ml  Hermoe  Past.)  From  internal 
evidence,  its  author,  whoever  he  was,  appears  to 
have  been  a  married  man  and  father  of  a  family : 
a  deep  mystic,  l)ut  without  ecclesiastical  rank. 
Further,  the  work  in  question  is  supposed  to  have 
been  originally  written  in  Greek  —  in  which  lan- 
guage it  is  frequently  cited  by  the  Greek  Fathers  — 
though  it  now  only  exists  entire  in  a  Latin  version." 
It  was  never  received  into  the  canon ;  but  yet  was 
generally  cited  with  respect  only  second  to  that 
which  was  paid  to  the  authoritative  books  of  the 
N.  T.,  and  was  held  to  be  in  some  sense  inspired 
(Caillau's  Potres,  tom.  i.  p.  17).  It  may  be  styled 
the  Pilgrim'' a  Progress  of  ante-Nicene  times:  and 
is  divided  into  three  parts:  the  first  containing 
four  visions,  the  second  twelve  moral  and  spiritual 
precepts,  and  the  third  ten  similitudes,  each  in- 
tended to  shadow  forth  some  verity  (Caillau,  ihid.). 
Every  man,  according  to  this  writer,  is  attended  by 
a  good  and  bad  angel,  who  are  continually  attempt- 
ing to  affect  his  course  through  life;  a  doctrhie 
which  forcibly  recalls  the  fable  of  Prodicus  respect- 
ng  Ihe  choice  of  Hercules  (Xenoph.  Mem.  ii.  1). 

The  Hennas  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  is 
celebrated  as  a  saint  in  the  Roman  calendar  on 
Way  9  (Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  May  9). 

E.  S.  Ff. 


n  •  Nearly  the  whole  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Sfiep- 
hcrJ  has  now  been  recovered  from  a  manuscript  found 
fct  Mount  A  thos  by  Constantine  Simonides,  and  a  con- 
nderable  p(»rtion  of  the  work  is  preserved  in  the  Codex 
6inaitiryu!t  published  by  Tischendorf  in  1862.  The 
flxsek  text  was  first  published  by  Anger  and  Dindorf 


HERMON 

HER^MES  ('Epfirjs),  the  name  of  a  maii  luaa- 
tioned  in  the  same  epistle  with  the  preceding  (Hem. 
xvi.  14).  "According  to  the  (Jreeks,"  says  Calmel 
(Diet.  s.  v.),  "  he  was  one  of  the  Seventy  disciples 
and  afterwards  Bishop  of  Dalmatia."  His  festiva 
occurs  in  their  calendar  ujwn  April  8  (Neale,  East- 
em  Church.,  ii.  774).  E.  S.  Fl. 

*  HER'MES,  Acts  xiv.  12.  [MKRrrRy.] 
HERMOG'ENES  {'Epfi(,y4v7]s)  [tevn  (f 
Hermes'\,  a  person  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  the 
latest  of  all  his  epistles  (2  Tim.  i.  15:  see  Alford'ft 
Proleg.  c.  vii.  §  ;J6),  when  "all  hi  Asia"  (t.  c. 
those  whom  he  had  left  there)  "  had  turned  away 
from  him,"  a):d  among  tlieir  number  "  Phygelhis 
and  Hermogenes."  It  dtK's  not  appear  whether 
they  had  merely  forsaken  iiis  cause,  jk  w  that  he 
was  in  l)onds,  through  fear,  like  those  of  whom  St. 
Cyprian  treats  in  his  celebrated  work  JJe  Lapsis; 
or  whether,  like  Hymena-us  and  Philetus  (ibid.  eh. 
ii.  18),  they  had  embraced  false  doctrine.  It  is 
just  possible  that  there  may  be  a  contrast  intended 
between  tliese  two  sets  of  deserters.  According  to 
the  legendary  history,  bearing  the  name  of  Abdiaa 
(Faitricii  Cod.  Apocryiih.  N.  T.  p.  517),  Hermog- 
enes  had  been  a  magician,  and  was,  with  Philetus, 
converted  by  St.  James  the  Great,  who  destroyed 
the  charm  of  his  spells.  Neither  the  Hermogenes, 
who  suffei-ed  in  the  reign  of  Domitian  (Hofraann, 
Lex.  Univ.  s.  v.;  Alford  on  2  Tim.  i.  ]5),  nor  the 
Hermogenes  against  whom  TertuUian  wTote  —  still 
less  the  martyrs  of  the  (Jreek  calendar  (Neale, 
Eastern  Church,  ii.  p.  770,  January  24,  and  p. 
781,  September  1)  —  are  to  be  confounded  with  the 
person  now  under  notice,  of  whom  nothing  more 
is  knov^Ti.  E.  S.  Ff. 

HER'MON  ('i^^"]^  iprominent,  lofty]: 
^Aep/iclov'.  [ffermon']),  a  mountain  on  the  north- 
eastern bonier  of  Palestine  (Deut.  iii.  8 ;  Josh.  xii. 
1),  over  against  Lebanon  (Josh.  xi.  17),  adjoining 
the  plateau  of  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v.  23).  Its  situa^ 
tion  being  thus  clearly  defined  in  ^Scripture,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  as  to  its  identity.  It  stands  at 
the  southern  end,  and  is  the  culminating  point  of 
the  Anti-Lil)anus  range;  it  towers  high  above  the 
ancient  border-city  of  Dan  and  the  fountains  of  the 
Jordan,  and  is  the  niost  conspicuous  and  beautiful 
mountain  in  Palestine  or  Syria.  The  name  Her- 
mon  was  doubtless  suggested  by  its  appearance  — 
"  a    lofty   prominent    peak,"   visible    from     afar 

(^"^Din  has  the  same   meaning  as  the  Arabic 

j»w^j;  just  as  Lebanon  was  suggested  by  the 

white  character  of  its  limestone  strata.  Other 
names  were  also  given  to  Hermon,  each  iu  lice 
manner  descriptive  of  some  striking  feature.     The 

Sidonians  called  it  Siiion  Cj  V'lP",  from  nnr\ 

"to  glitter"),  and  the  Amorites  Senir  ('^'^Dti?, 

from  "^5^  "  to  clatter  "),  both  signifying  *'  'nreaat- 
plate,"  and  suggested  by  its  rounde<I  glittering  top, 
when  the  sun's  rays  were  reflected  by  the  snow  that 
covers  it  (Deut.  iii.  9;  Cant.  iv.  8;  I'z.  xxvii.  5). 


at  Leipsic  in  1866,  better  by  Tischendorf  in  Drcsserf 
^atres  Apostolia\  Lips.  1857  (2d  ed.  with  the  rcadingi 
of  the  Cod.  Sin.  1863);  but  the  best  edition  is  that  of 
Hilgenfeld,  Fasc.  iii.  of  his  Novum  Tisiamentum  eactn 
Canonem  receptiim,  Lips.  186G.  A. 


HERMON 

[t  fnw  also  named  Sion,  •«  the  elevated  "  ("JW'ti?) 
towering  over  all  its  compeers  (Deut.  iv.  48).  S^* 
now,  at  the  present  day,  it  is  callea  Jebel  esh-Sheikh 

( ^sA^mJ I  J^^ ),  "the  chief  mountain  "  —  a 
name  it  well  deserves  ;  and  Jebd  eth-ThelJ 
(^«Ajui    ;J»a:^J,  "snowy  mountain,"  which 

every  man  who  sees  it  will  say  is  peculiarly  appro- 
priate. When  the  whole  country  is  parched  with 
the  summer-sun,  white  lines  of  snow  streak  the 
head  of  Hermon.  This  mountain  was  the  great 
landmark  of  the  Israelites.  It  was  associated  with 
their  northern  border  almost  as  intimately  as  the 

sea  was  with  the  western  (see  D*^  in  Ex.  xxvii. 
12,  A.  V.  "  west;  "  Josh.  viii.  9).  They  conquered 
all  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan,  "  from  the  river 
Ai'non  unto  Mount  Hermon  "  (Deut.  iii.  8,  iv.  48; 
Josh.  xi.  17).  15aal-gad,  the  border-city  before 
Dan  became  historic,  is  described  as  "  under  Mount 
Hermon"  (Josh.  xiii.  5,  xi.  17);  and  when  the 
half-tribe  of  IManasseh  conquered  their  whole  al- 
lotted ten-itory,  they  are  said  to  have  "  increased 
from  Bashan  unto  Baal-hermon  and  Senir,  and 
unto  Mount  Hermon"  (1  Chr.  v.  23).  In  one 
passage  Hermon  would  ahnost  seem  to  be  used  to 

signify  "north,"  as  the  wurd  "sea"  (C**)  is  for 
"west" — "the  north  and  the  south  Thou  hast 
created  them ;  Tabor  and  Hermon  shall  rejoice  in 
thy  name"  (Ps.  Lxxxix.  12).  The  reason  of  this 
is  obvious.  From  whatever  part  of  Palestine  the 
Israelite  turned  his  eyes  northward,  Hermon  was 
there,  terminating  the  view.  From  the  plain  along 
tlie  coast,  from  the  mountains  of  Samaria,  from 
the  Jordan  valley,  from  the  heights  of  iMoab  and 
Gilead,  from  the  plateau  of  Bashan,  that  pale-blue, 
snow-capped  cone  forms  the  one  feature  on  the 
northern  horizon.  The  "  dew  of  Hermon  "  is  once 
referred  to  in  a  passage  which  has  long  been  con- 
sidered a  geograjjhical  puzzle  —  "As  the  dew  of 
Hermon,  tlae  dew  that  descended  on  the  mountains 

of  Zion "  (Ps.  cxxxiu.  3).  Zion  {)y$)  is  prob- 
ably used  here  for  Sion  ("jW''t£7),  one  of  the  old 
names  of  Hermon  (Deut.  iv.  48). «  The  snow  on 
the  summit  of  this  mountain  condenses  the  vapors 
that  float  during  the  summer  in  the  higher  regions 
of  the  atmosphere,  causing  light  clouds  to  hover 
around  it,  and  abundant  dew  to  descend  on  it, 
while  the  whole  country  elsewhere  is  parched,  and 
the  whole  heaven  elsewhere  cloudless. 

Hermon  has  three  summits,  situated  like  the 
angles  of  a  triangle,  and  about  a  quarter  of  a  mile 
from  each  other.  They  do  not  differ  much  in  ele- 
vation. This  may  account  for  the  expression  in 
Pa.  xlii.  7  (6),  "  I  will  remember  thee  from  the  land 

ftf  the  Jordan  and  the  Ilermons  (□"^J1Q"}n)  — 
perhaps  also  for  the  three  appellations  in  1  Chr.  v. 
'«'3.  On  one  of  the  summits  are  curious  and  inter- 
esting ruins.  Pound  a  rock  wliich  forms  the  crest 
af  the  peak  are  the  foundations  of  a  ruoe  circular 
•fall,  composed  of  massive  stones;  and  \v»»-hin  the 
lircle  is  a  large  heap  of  hewn  stones,  suTOunding 


a  *  It  is  against  this  equivalence  that  the  consonants 
Are  different  (see  above)  and  that  the  meanings  are  dif 
(brent  (lofty  :  sunnj/y  briskt).  Besides,  to  make  the  de\» 
af  Hwiuon  fiall  upon  itself  renders  what  follovT-a  irrel 


HERMON  1047 

the  remains  of  a  small  and  very  ancient  temple. 
This  is  evidently  one  of  those  "  high  places,"  which 
the  old  inhabitants  of  Palestine,  and  the  Jews  fre- 
quently in  imitation  of  them,  set  up  "  upon  every 
high  mountain  and  upon  every  hill "  (Deut.  xii.  2; 
2  K.  xvii.  10,  11).     In  two  passages  of  Scripture 

this     mountain     is    called    Baal-hermon    (v^3 

flD"}!!,  Judg.  iii.  3;  1  Chr.  v.  23);  and  the 
only  reason  that  can  be  assigned  for  it  is  that  Baal 
was  there  worshipped.  Jerome  says  of  it,  "dici- 
turque  in  vtrtice  cjioi  imiyne  (em/dum,  quod  ab 
ethnicis  cultui  habetur  e  regione  Paneadis  et  Li- 
bani  "  —  reference  must  here  l)e  made  to  the  build- 
ing whose  ruins  are  still  seen  {Onuni.  s.  v.  Hermon), 
It  is  remarkable  that  Hermon  was  anciently  en- 
compassed by  a  circle  of  temples,  oil  facing  the 
summit.  Can  it  be  that  this  mountain  was  the 
great  sanctuary  of  Baal,  and  that  it  was  to  the 
old  Syrians  what  Jerusalem  was  to  the  Jews,  and 
what  Mekkah  is  to  the  Muslems?  (See  Handb. 
for  Syr.  and  Pal.  454,  457 ;  lieland.  Pal.  p.  323 
ff.) 

The  height  of  Hermon  has  never  been  measured, 
though  it  has  been  often  estimated.  It  is  unques- 
tionably the  second  mountain  in  Syria,  ranking 
next  to  the  summit  of  Lebanon  near  the  Cedars, 
and  only  a  few  hundred  feet  lower  than  it.  It 
may  safely  be  estimated  at  10,000  feet.  It  rises 
up  an  obtuse  truncated  cone,  from  2000  to  3000 
feet  above  the  ridges  that  radiate  from  it  —  thus 
having  a  more  commanding  aspect  than  any  other 
mountain  in  Syria.  The  cone  is  entirely  naked. 
A  coating  of  disintegrated  limestone  covers  the 
surface,  rendering  it  smooth  and  bleak.  The  snow 
never  disappears  from  its  summit.  In  spring  and 
early  summer  the  top  is  entirely  covered.  As  sum- 
mer advances  the  snow  gradually  melts  from  the 
tops  of  the  ridges,  but  remains  in  long  glittering 
streaks  in  the  ravines  that  radiate  from  the  centre, 
looking  in  the  distance  like  the  white  locks  that 
scantily  cover  the  head  of  old  age.  (See  Five 
Years  in  Damascus,  vol.  i.) 

A  tradition,  originating  apparently  about  the 
time  of  Jerome  (Keland,  p.  32G),  gave  the  name 
Hermon  to  the  range  of  Jebd  ed-Duhy  near  Tabor, 
the  better  to  explain  Ps.  lxxxix.  12.  The  name 
still  continues  in  the  monasteries  of  Palestine,  and 
has  thus  crept  into  books  of  travel.  [Gilboa, 
note.']  J.  L.  P. 

*  But  few  of  the  travellers  in  Syria  have  gone  io 
the  top  of  Hermon,  and  the  view  from  it  has  net 
been  often  described.  AVe  are  indebted  to  Mr. 
Tristram  for  the  following  sketch  {Land  of  Israel^ 
p.  614,  2ded.):  — 

"  We  were  at  last  on  Hermon,  whose  snowy  head 
had  been  a  sort  of  pole-star  for  the  last  six  months. 
We  had  looked  at  him  from  Sidon,  from  Tyre, 
from  Carmel,  from  Gerizim,  from  the  bills  about 
Jerusalem,  from  the  Dead  Sea,  from  Gilead,  and 
from  Nebo;  and  now  we  were  looking  down  on 
them  all,  as  they  stood  out  from  the  embossed  map 
that  lay  spread  at  our  feet.  The  only  drawback  was 
a  light  fleecy  cloud  which  stretched  from  Carmel's 
top  all  along  tb°  I^banon,  till  it  rested  upon  Jebel 
Sunnin,  close  to  Baal-bee.    But  it  lifted  sufBciently 

evant ;  for  we  can  refer  the  blessing  and  the  spiritual 
life  spoken  of  only  to  Zion,  the  sar  "ed  mount.  Sm 
under  HLermojj,  the  Dew  of.  H. 


1048 


HERMON 


to  give  us  a  peep  of  the  jMediterranean  in  three 
places,  and  amongst  them  of  Tyre.  There  was  a 
haze,  too,  over  the  Giior  so  that  we  could  only 
see  as  far  as  Jebel  Ajlun  and  Gilead ;  but  Lakes 
Huleh  and  Gennesaret,  sunk  in  the  depths  beneath 
us,  and  reflecting  the  sunlignt,  were  magnificent. 
We  could  scarcely  realize  that  at  one  glance  we 
were  taking  in  the  whole  of  the  land  through  which, 
for  more  than  six  months,  we  had  been  incessantly 
wandering.  Not  less  striking  were  the  views  to 
the  north  and  east,  with  the  head  waters  of  the 
Aw(tj  (Pharpar)  rising  beneath  us,  and  the  Bitrada 
(Ahana),  in  the  far  distance,  both  rivers  marking 
the  courses  of  their  fertilizing  streams  by  the  deep 
green  lines  of  verdure,  till  the  eye  rested  on  the 
brightness  of  Damascus,  and  then  turned  up  the 
wide  opening  of  Ccele-Syria,  until  shut  in  by  Leb- 
anon. 

"  A  ruined  temple  of  Baal,  constructed  of  squared 
stones  arranged  nearly  in  a  circle,  crowns  the  high- 
est of  the  three  peaks  of  Hermon,  all  very  close 
together.  We  spent  a  great  part  of  the  day  on 
the  summit,  but  were  before  long  painfully  affected 
ny  the  rarity  of  the  atmosphere.  The  sun  had 
sunk  behind  Lebanon  before  we  descended  to  our 
tents,  but  long  after  we  had  lost  him  he  continued 
to  paint  and  gild  Hermon  with  a  beautiful  ming- 
ling of  Alpine  and  desert  hues." 

Mr.  Porter,  author  of  Five  Years  in  Damascus, 
ascended  Hermon  in  1852.  For  an  extended  ac- 
count of  the  incidents  and  results  of  the  exijloration, 
see  BiOL  Sacra,  xi.  41-5G.  See  the  notices,  also, 
in  Mr.  Porter's  Handbook,  ii.  453  fF.  Thomson 
{Land  and  Booh,  ii.  438)  speaks  of  his  surprise  at 
unding  that  from  the  shores  of  the  Dead  Sea  he 
had  a  distinct  view  of  "  Mount  Hermon  towering 
to  the  sky  far,  for  up  the  Ghor  to  the  north."  It 
was  a  new  evidence,  he  adds,  that  Moses  also  could 
have  seen  Hermon  (Deut.  xxxiv.  1  fF.)  from  the 
mountains  of  Moab  [Neuo,  Amer.  ed.]. 

Sirion  or  Shirion,  the  Sidonian  name  of  Hermon, 
signifies  a  "breast-plate,"  or  "coat  of  mail;  "  and 


if  (as  assumed  above),  it  be  derived  from 
"to  glitter,"  «  it  refers,  naturally,  not  to  any  sup- 
posed resemblance  of  figure  or  shape,  but  to  the 
shining  appearance  of  that  piece  of  armor.  Her- 
mon answers  remarkably  to  that  description.  As 
Been  at  a  distance  through  the  transparent  atmos- 
phere, with  the  snow  on  its  summit  and  stretching 
m  long  lines  down  its  declivities,  it  glows  and 
•iparkles  under  the  rays  of  the  sun  aa  if  robed  in  a 
vesture  of  silver. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  Saviour's  trans- 
•iguration  took  place  on  some  one  of  the  heights 
af  Hermon.  The  Evangelists  relate  the  occurrence 
ji  connection  with  the  Saviour's  visit  to  Ceesarea 
Philippi,  which  was  in  that  neighborhood.  Hence 
also  the  healing  of  the  lunatic  boy  (Luke  ix.  37) 
took  place  at  the  foot  of  Hermon.  Dean  Alford 
assumes  {Greek  Test.  i.  1G8)  that  Jesus  had  been 
journeying  southward  from  Caesarea  Philippi  dur- 
ing the  six  or  eight  days  which  immediately 
preceded  the  transfiguration,  and  hence  infers  that 
the  high  mountain  which  he  ascended  must  be 
■ought  near  Capernaum.  But  that  is  not  the  more 
obvious  view.    Neither  of  the  Evangelists  says  that 


a  •  So  Oesenius  in  Hofftnann's  ed.  1847  ;  but  accord- 
tag.  to  Dietrich  and  Fiirst,  from  H"?^'',  ^o  wmve  to- 

— »  '  T    T  ' 

ftther^  JcMen,  as  in  making  a  shield.  H. 


HEROD 

Jesus  was  journeying  southward  during  these  dayi 
but,  on  the  contrary,  having  stated  just  before  that 
Jesus  came  into  "  the  parts "  (Matt.  xvi.  13)  d 
•'  the  villages  '"  (Mark  viii.  27)  of  Caesarea  Philippi, 
they  leave  us  to  understand  that  he  preached  dui 
ing  the  time  mentioned,  in  that  region,  and  thee 
came  to  the  mountain  there  on  which  he  was  trans- 
figured.     [Tabok.]  H. 

*  HERMON,  DEW  OF.  The  dew  on  this 
mountain  is  proverbially  excellent  and  abundant 
(see  Ps.  cxxxiii.  3).  "  More  copious  dew,"  says  Tris- 
tram {Land  of  Israel,  p.  008  f.  2d  ed. ),  "  we  never 
experienced  than  that  on  Hermon.  Everything 
was  drenched  with  it,  and  the  tents  were  smjjl  pro- 
tection. The  under  sides  of  our  macintosh  sheets 
were  in  water,  our  guns  were  rusted,  dew-drops 

were  lianging  everywhere The  hot  air  in 

the  daytime  comes  streaming  up  the  Ghor  from  the 
liuleh,  while  Hermon  arrests  all  the  moisture,  and 
dejwsits  it  congealed  at  nights."  As  !Mr.  Porter 
states,  "  one  of  its  hills  is  appropriately  called  Tell 
Abu  Nedy,  i.  e.  '  Father  of  the  Dew,'  for  the  clouds 
seem  to  cling  with  i^eculiar  fondness  round  its 
wooded  top  and  the  little  Wely  of  Sheikh  Abu 
Nedy,  which  crowns  it "  {Handbook,  ii.  463). 
Van  de  Velde  {Syr.  and  Pal.  i.  12G)  testifies  to 
this  peculiarity  of  Hermon. 

It  has  |)erplexed  commentators  not  a  little  to  ex- 
plain how  the  Psalmist  (cxxxiii.  3)  could  3peak  of 
the  dew  of  Hermon  in  the  north  of  Palestine  as 
falling  on  Zion  in  Jerusalem.  The  A.  V.  does  not 
show  the  difficulty;  for  the  words  "and  the  dew" 
being  interpolated  between  the  clauses,  the  dew  of 
Hermon  appeai-s  there  as  locally  different  from  that 
which  descended  on  Mount  Zion.  But  the  He- 
brew sentence  will  not  bear  that  construction  (see 
Hupfeld,  Die  Psalnien,  iv.  320).  Nor,  where  the 
places  are  so  far  apart  from  each  other,  can  we  think 
of  the  dew  as  carried  in  the  atmosphere  from  one 
place  to  the  other.  Hupfeld  (iv.  322)  suggests  that 
perhaps  "as  the  dew  of  Hermon  "  may  be  a  for- 
mula of  blessing  (comp.  the  curse  on  Gilboa,  2  Sam. 
i.  21 ),  and  as  applied  here  may  represent  Zion  as 
realizing  the  idea  of  that  blessing,  both  spiritual 
and  natural,  in  the  highest  degree.  Blttcher 
{Aehrenlese  zum  A.  T.,  p.  58)  assumes  an  appel- 
lative sense  of  ^'^!2"in,  t".  e.  dew  (not  of  any  par- 
ticular mountain  of  that  name),  but  of  lofty  heiglt* 
generally,  which  would  include  Zion.  Hengst£:> 
berg's  explanation  is  not  essentially  different  from 
this  {Die  Psalmen,  iv.  83),  except  that  with  him 
the  generalized  idea  would  be  :=  Hermon-dew,  in- 
stead of  =  Dew  of  Hermons.  H 

HER'MONITES,  THE  (D^3^^"]rj :  'Ep- 
fxayifi/jL'  Hei'moniim)  [in  the  A.  V.].  Properly 
the  "  Hermons,"  with  reference  to  the  three  [of 
two  ?]  summits  of  INIount  Hermon  (Ps.  xlii.  6  [7] ) 
[Hermon,  p.  1047.]  W.  A.  W. 

*HER'MONS  (according  to  the  Hebrew) 
Ps.  xlii.  7  (6).  Only  one  mountain  is  known  ir 
the  Bible  as  Hermon ;  the  plural  name  refers,  n« 
doubt,  to  the  difl^erent  summits  for  which  this  waa 
noted.  [Hermon.]  See  also  Kob.  Phys.  Geogr, 
p.  347.  H. 

HER'OD  ('HptoSTjs,  I.  c.  Hero'des).  Tire 
Herodian  Family  The  history  of  the  Hero- 
dian  family  presents  pne  side  of  the  last  de\elop- 
ment  of  the  Jewish  nation.  The  evils  which  had 
existed  in  the  hierarchy  which  grew  up  after  tht 
Return,  found  an  unexpected  embodiment  ir  thi 


HEROD 

kTranny  of  a  foreign  usurper.  Religion  was  adopted 
M  a  policy ;  and  the  Hellenizing  designs  of  Anti- 
ochus  Epiphanes  were  carried  out,  at  least  in  their 
ipirit,  by  men  who  professed  to  observe  the  Law. 
Side  by  side  with  the  spiritual  "kingdom  of  God," 
proclaimed  by  John  the  Baptist,  and  founded  by 
the  Lord,  a  kingdom  of  the  world  was  established, 
which  in  its  external  splendor  recalled  the  tradi- 
tional magnificence  of  Solomon.  The  simultaneous 
realization  of  the  two  principles,  national  and  spir- 
itual, which  had  long  variously  influenced  the  Jews, 
in  the  estabhshment  of  a  dynasty  and  a  church,  is 
a  fact  pregnant  with  instruction.  In  the  fullness 
of  time  a  descendant  of  Esau  established  a  false 
counterpart  of  the  promised  glories  of  Messiah. 

Various  accounts  are  given  of  the  ancestry  of  the 
.Heroda;  but  neglecting  the  exaggerated  statements 
of  friends  and  enemies,"  it  seems  certain  that  they 
were  of  Idumsean  descent  (Jos.  Ant.  xiv.  1,  3),  a 
fact  which  is  indicated  by  the  forms  of  some  of  the 
names  which  were  retained  in  the  family  (Ewald, 
Geschichte,  iv.  477,  7ioie).  But  though  aliens  by 
race,  the  Herods  were  Jews  in  faith.  The  Idu- 
maeans  had  been  conquered  and  brought  over  to 
Judaism  by  John  Hyrcanus  (b.  c.  130,  Jos.  Ant. 
xiii.  9,  §  1);  and  from  the  time  of  their  conversion 
they  remained  constant  to  their  new  religion,  look- 
ing upon  Jerusalem  as  their  mother  city  and  claim- 
ing for  themselves  the  name  of  Jews  (Joseph.  Aid. 
XX.  7,  §  7;  5.  J.  i.  10,  §  4,  iv.  4,  §  4). 

The  general  policy  of  the  whole  Herodian  family, 
though  modified  by  the  personal  characteristics  of 
the  successive  rulers,  was  the  same.  It  centred  in 
the  endeavor  to  found  a  great  and  independent 
kingdom,  in  which  the  power  of  Judaism  should 
subserve  to  the  consolidation  of  a  state.  The  pro- 
tection of  Rome  was  in  the  first  instance  a  neces- 
sity, but  the  designs  of  Herod  I.  and  Agrippa  I. 
point  to  an  independent  eastern  empire  as  their 
end,  and  not  to  a  mere  subject  monarchy.  Such  a 
consummation  of  the  .Jewish  hopes  seems  to  have 
found  some  measure  of  acceptance  at  first  [He- 
RODiANs] ;  and  by  a  natural  reaction  the  temporal 
dominion  of  the  Herods  opened  the  way  to  the 
destruction  of  the  Jewish  nationality.  The  religion 
which  was  degraded  into  the  instrument  of  unscru- 
pulous ambition  lost  its  power  to  quicken  a  united 
people.  The  high-priests  were  appointed  and  de- 
posed by  Herod  I.  and  his  successors  with  such  a 
reckless  disregard  for  the  character  of  their  office 
(Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Judentliums,  i.  322,  325,  421), 
that  the  oflfice  itself  was  deprived  of  its  sacred  dig- 
nity (comp.  Acts  xxiii.  2  ff. ;  .Tost,  430,  &c.).  The 
nation  was  divided,  and  amidst  the  conflict  of  sects 
a  universal  faith  arose,  which  more  than  fulfilled 
the  nobler  hopes  that  found  no  satisfaction  in  the 
treacherous  grandeur  of  a  court. 

The  family  relations  of  the  Herods  are  singularly 
complicated  from  the  frequent  recurrence  of  the 
•«ame  names,  and  the  several  accounts  of  Josephus 
are  not  consistent  in  every  detail.  The  following 
table,  however,  seems  to  offer  a  satisfactory  sum- 


k 


a  The  Jewish  partisans  of  Herod  (Nicolaus  Damaj- 
•enus,  ap.  Jos.  Ant.  xiv.  1,  3)  sought  to  raise  him  to 
the  dignity  of  a  descent  from  one  of  the  noble  fami- 
lies which  returned  from  Babylon  ;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  early  Christian  writers  represented  his  origin  as 
tterly  mean  and  servile.  Africanus  has  preserved  a 
Tadition  (Routh,  Retl.  Sacr.  ii.  p.  235),  on  the  authority 
of  "  the  natural  kinsmen  of  the  Saviour,"  which  makes 
iatipater,  the  father  of  Herod,  the  son  of  one  Herod, 


HEROD  1(^49 

mary  of  his  statements.  The  members  jf  the 
Herodian  family  who  are  mentioned  in  the  N.  T 
are  distinguished  by  capitals. 

Josephus  is  the  one  great  authority  for  the  hi». 
tory  of  the  Herodian  iamily.  The  scanty  notices 
which  occur  in  Hei)rew  and  classic  writers  throw 
\ety  little  additional  light  upon  the  events  which 
he  narrates.  Of  modern  writers  Ewald  has  treated 
the  whole  subject  with  the  widest  and  clearest  view. 
Jost  in  his  several  works  has  added  to  the  records 
of  Josephus  gleanings  from  later  Jewish  writers. 
NVhere  the  original  sources  are  so  accessible,  mono- 
graphs are  of  little  use.  The  following  are  quoted 
by  Winer:  Noldii  Hi^..  Idumeea  .  .  .  Eraneq. 
1660;  E.  Spanhemii  Stevima  .  .  .  Herodis  M.j 
which  are  reprinted  in  Havercamp's  Josephui  (ii. 
331  ff".;  402  ff".). 

1.  Hkkod  the  Great  ('HpcoSy/s)  was  the  sec- 
ond son  of  Antipater,  who  was  appointed  procurator 
of  Judoea  by  JuUus  Caesar,  b.  c.  47,  and  (Jypros, 
an  Arabian  of  noble  descent  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  7, 
§3).  At  the  time  of  his  father's  elevation,  though 
only  fifteen  ^  years  old,  he  received  the  government 
of  Galilee  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  9,  §  2),  and  shortly 
afterwards  that  of  Ccele-Syria.  When  Antony 
came  to  Syria,  b.  c.  41,  he  appohited  Herod  and 
his  elder  brother  Phasael  tetrarchs  of  Judsea  (Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xiv.  13,  §  1).  Herod  was  forced  to 
abandon  Judaea  next  year  by  an  invasion  of  the 
Parthians,  who  supported  the  claims  of  Antigonus, 
the  representative  of  the  Asmonsean  dynasty,  and 
fled  to  Rome  (b.  c.  40).  At  Rome  he  was  well 
received  by  Antony  and  Octavian,  and  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  senate  king  of  Judaea  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  Hasmonsean  hne  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  14, 
§  4;  App.  Bdl.  C.  39).  In  the  course  of  a  few 
years,  by  the  help  of  the  Romans,  he  took  Jerusalem 
(b.  c.  37),  and  completely  estabhshed  his  authority 
throughout  his  dominions.  An  expedition  which 
he  was  forced  to  make  against  Arabia  saved  him 
from  taking  an  active  part  in  the  civil  war,  though 
he  was  devoted  to  the  cause  of  Antony.  After  the 
battle  of  Actium  he  visited  Octavian  at  Rhodes, 
and  his  noble  bearing  won  for  him  the  favor  of  the 
conqueror,  who  confirmed  him  in  the  possession  of 
the  kingdom,  b.  c.  31,  and  in  the  next  yea.  la- 
creased  it  by  the  addition  of  several  important 
cities  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  10,  §  1  flf.),  and  afterwards 
gave  him  the  province  of  Trachonitis  and  the  dis- 
trict of  Paneas  (.Joseph.  Ant.  1.  c).  The  remainder 
of  the  reign  of  Herod  was  undisturbed  by  external 
troubles,  but  his  domestic  life  was  embittered  by 
an  almost  uninterrupted  series  of  injuries  and  cruel 
acts  of  vengeance.  Hyrcanus,  the  grandfather  of 
his  wife  Mariamne,  was  put  to  death  shortly  before 
his  visit  to  Augustus.  Mariamne  herself,  to  whom 
he  was  passionately  devoted,  was  next  sacrificed  to 
his  jealousy.  One  execution  followed  another,  till 
at  last,  in  b.  c.  6,  he  was  persuaded  to  put  to  death 
the  two  sons  of  Mariamne,  Alexander  and  Aristo- 
l)ulus,  in  whom  the  chief  hope  of  the  ijeople  lay. 
Two  years  afterwards  he  condemned  to  death  An- 


a  slave  attached  to  the  service  of  a  temple  of  Apollo  at 
Ascalon,  who  was  taken  prisoner  by  Idumsean  robben, 
and  kept  by  them,  as  his  father  could  not  pay  his  ran- 
som. The  locality  (of.  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Caium,  §  30) 
no  less  than  the  office,  was  calculated  to  fix  a  heavy 
reproach  upon  the  name  (cf.  llouth,  nd  loc).  This 
story  is  repeated  with  great  inaccuracy  by  Epipbaniiis 

{HrPT.  XX.). 

b  *  Dindorf  s  ed.  of  Jcsephus  (/.  c.)  reads  twenty -five.  A. 


1050 


HEBOD 


-n 


J 


Q^ 


I 


-^1- 


H 


-i:  .Q 


j8  «Q, 


-1- 

II 

-4 

g 

d 

•B 

^fl 

-8  — 

~H 

Ph 

^ 

§ 

"v 

y-^m 

-I          ^1 

y 

p^ 

e-  g 

g 

-^f 

-g- 

5 

5 

11 

s 

y-V 

c? 

g 

-oS 

•c 

g 

(» 

H„ 

rt. 

-ill 

1 

Ji 

S 

jm 

—'o^''^ii 

C!K®M 

-ti-al, 

ffl 

<o/-voa 

II -d 

1f 

eo  C.B  h 

s 

^"^tl 

s 

a       II  " 

2  ID  II 


i 


-^7 


3 


■>  S        Moo 

II 

I  .III 

■g  5;  01  a)  Oi 


^1 


-       I 


H         t 


*J 


4! 

I 


I 


5- 

"m  X  M 


ml 

2§gl 


^rf 

:si 

Sdgf 

• 

HM-J 

fj 

« 

1 

1 

.| 

s 

HEROU 

tipater,  hia  eldest  son,  who  had  been  their  most  ] 
Mtive  accuser,  and  the  order  for  his  execution  was 
among  the  last  acts  of  Herod's  life,  for  he  died 
himself  five  days  after  the  death  of  his  son,  B.  c. 
4,  in  the  same  yeur  which  marks  the  true  date  of 
the  Nativity.     [Jesus  Christ.] 

These  terrible  acts  of  bloodshed  which  Herod 
peri)etrated  in  his  own  family  were  accompanied  by 
others  among  his  subjects  equally  terrible,  from  the 
numbers  who  fell  victims  to  them.  The  infirmities 
of  his  later  years  exasperated  him  to  yet  greater 
cruelty;  and,  according  to  the  well-known  story, 
he  ordered  the  nobles  whom  he  had  called  to  him 
in  his  last  moments  to  be  executed  immediately 
after  his  decease,  that  so  at  least  his  death  might 
be  attended  by  universal  mourning  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xvii.  6,  §  5).  It  was  at  the  time  of  this  fatal  ill- 
ness that  he  must  have  caused  the  slaughter  of  the 
infants  at  Bethlehem  (Matt.  ii.  16-18),  and  from 
the  comparative  insignificance  of  the  murder  of  a 
few  young  children  in  an  unimportant  village  when 
contrasted  with  the  deeds  which  he  carried  out  or 
designed,  it  is  not  surprising  that  Josephus  has 
passed  it  over  m  silence.  The  number  of  children 
in  Bethlehem  and  "all  the  borders  thereof"  (eV 
iraaiv  to7s  Spiois)  may  be  estimated  at  about  ten 
or  twelve ; "  and  the  language  of  the  Evangelist 
leaves  in  complete  uncertainty  the  method  in  which 
the  deed  was  eftected  {aTrocmiXas  auelKev)-  The 
scene  of  open  and  undisguised  violence  which  has 
been  consecrated  by  Christian  art  is  wholly  at  va- 
riance with  what  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  the 
historic  reahty.  At  a  later  time  the  murder  of  the 
children  seems  to  have  been  connected  with  the 
death  of  Antipater.  Thus,  according  to  the  anec- 
dote preserved  by  Macrobius  (c.  A.  D.  410),  "Au- 
gustus, gum  audisset  inter  pueros  quos  in  Syria 
Herodes,  Kex  Judajorum,  intra  bimatum  (INIatt.  ii. 
16;  ib.  Vulg.  a  bimatu  et  infra)  jussit  interfici, 
filium  quoque  ejus  occisuin,  ait ;  Melius  est  Herodis 
porcum  es.se  quam  filium"  (Macrob.  Sut.  ii.  4) 
But  Josephus  has  preserved  two  very  remarkable 
references  to  a  massacre  which  Herod  cause^l  to  be 
made  shortly  before  his  death,  which  may  throw 
an  additional  light  upon  the  history.  In  this  it  is 
Baid  that  Herod  did  not  spare  "  those  who  seemed 
most  dear  to  him"  {Ant  xvi.  11,  §  7),  but  "slew 
all  those  of  his  own  family  who  sided  with  the 
Pharisees  (o  ^apicroios) "  in  refusing  to  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  lioman  emperor,  while 
*jhey  looked  forward  to  a  chaiuje  in  the  royal  line 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  2,  §  6;  cf.  Lardner,  Credibility, 
'tc.,  i.  278  ff.,  332  f.,  349  f.).  How  far  this  event 
Jiay  have  been  directly  connected  with  the  murder 
at  Bethlehem  it  is  impossible  to  say,  fi-om  the  ob- 
scurity of  the  details,  but  its  occasion  and  charac- 
ter throw  a  great  light  upon  St.  Matthew's  nar 
native. 

In  dealing  with  the  religious  feelings  or  preju- 
dices of  the  Jews,  Herod  showed  as  great  contempt 
for  public  opinion  as  in  the  execution  of  his  per- 
sonal vengeance.  He  signalized  his  elevation  to 
the  throne  by  offerings  to  the  Capitoline  Jupiter 
(Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Judenthums,  i.  318),  and  sur- 
rounded his  pei-soti  Dy  foreign  mercenaries,  some  of 
whom  had  been  formerly  in  the  service  of  Cleopatra 
;jos.  Ant.  XV.  7,  §  3;  xvii.  1,  §  1;  8,  §  3).  His 
loins  and  those  of  his  successors  bore  only  Greek 


HEROD 


1051 


a  The  language  of  St.  Matthew  offers  an  instructive 
contrast  to  that  of  Justin  M.  {Dial.  c.  Tnjph.  78): 
I  'Hp<o2i>)S  ■   .  ,  TrdiTas  oiTrXws  tous  iraiSas  tows 


legends;  and  he  introduced  heathen  games  within 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  8,  §  1).  He 
displayed  ostentatiously  his  favor  towards  foreigners 
(Jos.  Ant.  xvi.  5,  §  3),  and  oppressed  the  old  Jew- 
ish aristocracy  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  1,  §  1).  The  later 
Jewish  traditions  describe  him  as  successively  the 
sei"vant  of  the  Hasmonseans  and  the  Romans,  and 
relate  that  one  Rabbin  only  survived  the  persecu- 
tion which  he  directed  against  them,  purchasing 
his  life  by  the  loss  of  sight  (Jost,  i.  319,  &c.). 

While  Herod  alienated  in  this  manner  the  afTee- 
tions  of  the  Jews  by  his  cruelty  and  disregard  f(W 
the  Law,  he  adorned  Jerusalem  with  many  splendid 
monuments  of  his  taste  and  magnificence.  The 
Temple,  which  he  rebuilt  with  scrupulous  care,  so 
that  it  might  seem  to  be  a  restoration  of  the  old 
one  rather  than  a  new  building  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  §  11), 
was  the  greatest  of  these  works.  The  restoration 
was  begun  b.  c.  20,  and  the  Temple  itself  was  conu- 
pleted  in  a  year  and  a  half  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  11,  §  6). 
The  surreunding  buildings  occupied  eight  years 
more  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5).  But  fresh  additions 
were  constantly  made  in  succeeding  years,  so  that 
at  the  time  of  the  Lord's  visit  to  Jerusalem  at  the 
beginning  of  His  ministry,  it  w;\s  said  that  the 
Temple  was  "  built  {cpKodofj.^O'rf)  in  forty  and  six 
years  "  (John  ii.  20),  a  phrase  which  expresses  the 
whole  periotl  from  the  conmiencenient  of  Herod's 
work  to  the  completion  of  the  latest  addition  then 
made,  for  the  final  completion  of  the  whole  build- 
ing is  placed  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xx.  8,  §  7,  jjSr]  5l 
t6t(  koX  rb  Uphv  6T6TeA6trTo)  in  the  time  of 
Herod  Agrippa  II.  (c.  A.  d.  50). 

Yet  even  this  splendid  work  was  not  likely  to 
mislead  the  Jews  as  to  the  real  spirit  of  the  king. 
While  he  rebuilt  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  he  re- 
built also  the  Temple  at  Samaria  (Jos.  Ant.  xv.  8, 
§5),  and  made  provision  in  his  new  city  Csesarea 
for  the  celebration  of  heathen  worship  (Jos.  AiU 
XV.  9,  §  5);  and  it  has  been  supposetl  (Jost,  Gesch. 
d.  Jvdtnth.  i.  323)  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple 
furnished  him  with  the  opportunity  of  destroying 
tlie  authentic  collection  of  genealogies  which  was 
of  the  highest  importance  to  the  priestly  families. 
Herod,  as  appears  from  his  public  designs,  affected 
the  dignity  of  a  second  Solomon,  but  he  joined  the 
license  of  that  monarch  to  his  magnificence;  and 
it  was  said  that  the  monument  which  he  raised  over 
the  royal  tombs  was  due  to  the  fear  which  seized 
him  after  a  sacrilegious  attempt  to  rob  them  of 
secret  treasures  (Jos.  Ant.  xvi.  7,  §  1). 

It  is,  perhaps,  difficult  to  see  in  the  charactei 
of  Herod  any  of  the  true  elements  of  greatness 
Some  have  even  supjwsed  that  the  title  —  the  greed 

—  is  a  mistranslation  for  the  elder  (W^H,  Jo3t,  i. 
319,  note ;  6  /xeyas,  Ewald,  Gesch.  iv.  473,  Ac.); 
and  yet  on  the  other  hand  he  seems  to  hav3  poa- 
sessed  the  good  qualities  of  our  own  Heni*y  VIII. 
with  his  vices.  He  maintained  peace  at  home 
during  a  long  reign  by  the  vigor  and  timely  gen- 
erosity of  his  administration.  Abroad  he  conciliated 
the  good-will  of  the  Romans  under  circumstances  of 
unusual  difficulty.  His  ostentatious  display  and 
even  his  arbitrary  tyranny  was  calculated  to  inspire 
Orientals  with  awe.  Bold  and  yet  prudent,  oppress- 
ive and  yet  profuse,  he  had  many  of  the  character 
i'tica  which  make  a  popular  hero;  and  the  title 

t.  Byfikfen  BKekevaev  ai>asf>e0r)vai.  Cf.  Orig.  e.  CtU 
.  p.  47,  ed.  Speuc.  6  &e  'HpuiST)s  onetAe  iravTa  t4  h 
B-,.'A.€€fi.  Kai  Tols  opiocs  auTTJs  iracSta  .  . 


HEROD 


HEROD 


ffhich  may  have  been  first  given  in  admiration  of  I  answers  to  the  general  tenor  of  Lis  life.    He 


successful  despotism  now  serves  to  bring  out  m 
clearer  contrast  the  terrible  price  at  which  the  suc- 
cess was  purchased. 


Copper  Coin  of  Herod  the  Great. 

Obv.  HPtoAOY.    Bunch  of  grapes.    Rev.  EeNAPXO, 

Macedonian  helmet :  in  the  field  caduceus. 

II.  Herod  Antifas  CAuTlirarpos,  'AfTtVay) 
was  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great  by  ]\Ialthace,  a 
Samaritan  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  1,  §  3).  His  father  had 
originally  destined  him  as  his  successor  in  the  king- 
dom (cf.  Matt.  ii.  22;  ARCnKi>AUs),  but  by  the 
last  change  of  his  will  appointed  him  "  tetrarch  of 
Galilee  and  Peraea"  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1,  'Hp.  6 
TcrpdpxnSy  Matt.  xiv.  1 ;  Luke  iii.  19,  ix.  7 ;  Acts 
xiii.  1;  cf.  Luke  iii.  1,  re'^papxovuTOs  ttjs  FaA-t- 
\aias  'Up.)-,  which  brought  him  a  yearly  revenue 
of  200  talents  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  1-3,  §  4;  cf.  Luke  viii. 
3,  Xov(a  iirtTp6irov  'H/?.)-  He  first  married 
a  daughter  of  Aretas,  <'  king  of  Arabia  Petraea," 
but  after  some  time  (Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  1)  he 
made  overtures  of  marriage  to  Herodias,  the  wife 
of  his  half-brother  Heixxl-Philip,  which  she  received 
favorably.  Aretas,  indignant  at  the  insult  offered 
to  his  daughter,  found  a  pretext  for  invading  the 
territory  of  Herod,  and  defeated  him  with  great 
less  (Jos.  /.  c).  This  defeat,  according  to  the  famous 
passage  in  Josephus  {Ant.  xviii.  6,  §  2),  was  attrib- 
uted by  many  to  the  murder  of  John  the  Baptist, 
which  had  been  committed  by  Antipas  shortly 
before,  under  the  influence  of  Herodias  (Matt.  xiv. 
4ff'.;  Mark  vi.  17  fF.;  Luke  iii.  19).  At  a  later 
time  the  ambition  of  Herodias  proved  the  cause 
of  her  husljand's  ruin.  She  urged  him  to  go  to 
Rome  to  gain  the  title  of  king  (cf.  Mark  vi.  14,  6 
^  aa-  i\€v  s  'Up.  by  courtesy),  which  had  been 
granted  to  his  nephew  Agrippa ;  but  he  was  opposed 
at  the  court  of  Caligula  by  the  emissaries  of  Agrippa 
[Hkkod  AojuprA].  and  condemned  to  perpetual 
banishment  at  Lugdunum,  A.  D.  39  (Jos.  Ant.  xviii. 
7,  §  2),  whence  he  apiiears  to  have  retired  after- 
wards to  SjKiin  (B.  J.  ii.  9,  §  6;  but  see  note  on 
p.  796).  Herodias  voluntarily  shared  his  punish- 
ment, and  he  died  in  exile.     [Herodias.] 

Pilate  took  occasion  from  our  Ix)rd's  residence 
in  Galilee  to  send  Him  for  examination  (Luke  xxiii. 
6  fF.)to  Herod  Antipas,  who  came  up  to  Jerusalem 
to  celebrate  the  Passover  (cf.  Joe.  A7U.  xviii.  6,  §  3), 
»nd  thus  heal  the  feud  which  had  existed  between 
the  tetrarch  and  himself  (Luke  xxiii.  12;  cf.  Luke 
liii.  1,  Trepl  twv  VaKiXaioov^  uv  rh  cuyia  Ti'iKaTOS 
"iM^isp  ficTO.  TWJ'  dvfficov  avTciv)-"  'I'he  share 
*hich  Antipas  thus  took  in  the  Passion  is  specially 
noticed  in  the  Acts  (iv.  27)  in  connection  with  Ps. 
ii.  1,  2.    Hig  character,  as  it  appears  in  the  Gospels, 


scrupulous  (Luke  iii.  19,  vepl  iravruv  u)v  dwolriertt 
TToyrjpwf),  tyrannical  (Luke  xiii.  31),  and  weak 
(Matt.  xiv.  9).  Yet  his  cruelty  was  marked  by 
cimning  (Luke  xiii.  32,  tj?  aAc^Tre/ct  ravTrj),  and 
followed  by  remorse  (Mark  vi.  14).  In  contrast 
with  Pilate  he  presents  the  type  of  an  Eastern 
despot,  capricious,  sensual,  and  superstitious.  This 
last  element  of  superstition  is  both  natural  and 
clearly  marked.  For  a  time  "  he  heard  John 
gladly"  (Mark  vi.  20),  and  was  anxious  to  see 
Jesus  (Luke  ix.  9,  xxiii.  8),  in  the  exjiectation,  as  it 
is  said,  of  witnessing  some  miracle  wrought  by  Him 
(Luke  xiii.  31,  xxiii.  8). 

The  city  of  Tiberias,  which  Antipas  founded 
and  named  in  honor  of  the  emi^eror,  was  the  most 
conspicuous  monument  o^"  his  long  reign ;  but,  like 
the  rest  of  the  Herodian  family,  he  showed  his 
passion  for  building  cities  in  several  places,  restor- 
ing Sepphoris,  near  Tabor,  which  had  been  de- 
stroyed in  the  wars  after  the  death  of  Herod  the 
Great  (Jos.  Ant.  xvii.  12,  §  9;  xviii.  2,  §  1)  and 
Betharamphtha  (Beth-haram)  in  Peraea,  which  he 
named  Julias,  "from  the  wife  of  the  emperor" 
(Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  2,  1 ;  Hieron.  Euseb.  Chrun.  a.  d. 
29,  Livlas). 

III.  Archklaus  i'Apx^f^aos  [ruler  of  the 
peo/jle] )  was,  like  Herod  Antipas,  the  son  of  Herod 
the  Great  and  Malthace.  He  was  brought  up  with 
his  brother  at  Pome  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  1,  §  3), 
and  in  consequence  of  the  accusations  of  his  eldest 
brother  Antipater,  the  son  of  Doris,  he  was  ex- 
cluded by  his  father's  will  from  any  share  in  his 
dominions.  Afterwards,  however,  by  a  second 
change,  the  "  kingdom "  was  left  to  him,  which 
had  been  designed  for  his  brother  Antiijas  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1),  and  it  was  this  unexi^ected 
arrangement  which  led  to  the  retreat  of  Joseph  to 
Galilee  (Matt.  ii.  22).  Archelaus  did  not  enter  on 
his  power  without  strong  opposition  and  bloodshed 
(Joseph.  Anf..  xvii.  9);  but  Augustus  confirmed  the 
will  of  Heixjd  in  its  essential  provisions,  and  gave 
Archelaus  the  government  of  "  Iduma'A,  Judaea, 
and  Samaria,  with  the  cities  of  Cajsarea,  Sebaste, 
Joppa,  and  Jerusalem  "  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  13,  §  5), 
which  produced  a  revenue  of  400  (Joseph.  B.  J.  ii. 
6,  §  3)  or  600  talents  (Ant.  xvii.  13,  5).  For  the 
time  he  received  the  title  of  Ethnarch,  with  the 
promise  of  that  of  king,  if  he  proved  worthy  of  it 
(Joseph.  I.  c).  His  conduct  justified  the  fears 
which  his  character  inspired.  After  violating  the 
Mosaic  law  by  the  marriage  with  Glaphyra,  his 
brother's  widow  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  13,  §  1),  he 
roused  his  subjects  by  bis  tyranny  and  cruelty  to 
appeal  to  Pome  for  redress.''  Augustus  at  once 
summoned  him  to  his  presence,  and  after  his  cause 
was  heard  he  was  banished  to  Vienne  in  (janl 
(a.  d.  7),  where  probably  he  died  (Jos#|jh.  /.  r. : 
cf.  Strab.  xvi.  p.  760;  Dio  Cass.  Iv.  27);  though 
in  the  time  of  Jerome,  his  tomb  was  shown  near 
Bethlehem  {Otwniagticon). 

IV.  Herod  Phimp  I.  {^iKnnros,  Mark  vi.  17) 
was  the  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  Mariamne  the 


a  *  Pilate's  sending  Jesus  to  Herod  seems  to  have 
been  an  expedient  merely  to  dispose  of  the  case,  if  pos- 
liiuly  he  might  do  so,  in  that  way.  Ilei'od,  conciliated 
by  an  apparent  act  of  courtesy,  may  then  have  made 
idrances  on  his  part  to  the  procurator,  which  led  to 
Um?  w'storation  of  a  better  understanding  between 
tuim.  That  it  was  their  common  enmity  to  Christ 
wbkh  made  Herod  and  Pilate  friends  on  this  occasion 


(as  is  often  said)  does   not  agree  with  the  manifest 
anxiety  of  Pilate  to  release  Jesus.  h. 

b  *  Of  this  character  of  Archelaus  Matthew's  state- 
ment (ii.  22)  furnishes  a  significant  intimation.  On 
returning  from  Egypt  Joseph  evidently  meant  to  ge 
directly  to  Bethlehem  ;  but  hearing  that  Archelaus  had 
succeeded  Herod  rather  than  some  other  one  of  hit 
soDi,  he  avoided  that  place  and  proceeded  to  GiIUm. 


HEROD 

aaogateroTa  high-priest  Simon  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii. 
B,  4),  and  must  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the 
tetrarch  I'hilip.  [Herod  Philip  II.]  He  married 
Karodias,  the  sister  of  Agrippa  I.,  by  whom  he  had 
a  daughter  Salome.  Ilerodias,  however,  left  him, 
and  made  an  infamous  marriage  with  his  half- 
brother  Herod  Antipas  (Matt.  xiv.  6;  JVIarli  vi.  17; 
Luke  iii.  I'J).  He  is  called  only  Herod  by  Josephus, 
but  the  repet-ition  of  the  name  Philip  is  fully  justi- 
fied by  the  frequent  recurrence  of  names  in  the 
Herodian  family  (e.  g.  Antipater).  The  two  PhiUps 
were  confounded  by  Jerome  (ad  Matt.  1.  c),  and 
the  confusion  was  the  more  easy,  because  the  son 
of  jNIariamne  was  excluded  from  all  share  in  his 
father's  possessions  (ttjs  diaO-fiK-qs  i^-f]\eiyp€v)  in 
consequence  of  his  mother's  treachery  (Joseph.  B. 
J.  i.  30,  §  7),  and  hved  afterwards  in  a  private 
station. 

V.  Herod  Philip  II.  (4»tAt7nros)  was  the  son 
of  Herod  the  Great  and  Cleopatra  {'l€po(To\viiuTis)- 
like  his  half-brothers  «  Antipas  and  Archelaus,  he 
was  brought  up  at  Rome  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  1,  §  3), 
and  on  the  death  of  his  father  advocated  the  claims 
of  Archelaus  before  Augustus  (Joseph.  B.  J.  ii.  G, 
§  1 ).  He  received  as  his  own  government  "  Batansea, 
Trachonitis,  Auranitis  (Gaulonitis),  and  some  parts 
about  Jamnia  "  (Joseph.  B.  J.  ii.  6,  §  3),  with 
the  title  of  tetrarch  (Luke  iii.  1,  *iAi7r7rou  .  .  . 
rsTpapxovvTOS  ttjs  ^Irovpalas  Kol  Tpaxcouiridos 
X(*>pas)'  His  rule  was  distinguished  by  justice  and 
moderation  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  6),  and  he  ap- 
pears to  have  devoted  himself  entirely  to  the  duties 
of  his  office  without  sharing  in  the  intrigues  which 
disgraced  his  family  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  5,  6).  He 
built  a  new  city  on  the  site  of  Paneas,  near  the 
sources  of  the  Jordan,  which  he  called  Cajsarea 
(Kaia-apeia  rj  ^iXiirnou,  Matt.  xvi.  13 ;  Mark  viii. 
27),  and  raised  Bethsaida  (in  lower  Gaulonitis)  to 
the  rank  of  a  city  under  the  title  of  Julias  (Joseph. 
Ant.  ii.  9,  §  1;  xviii.  2,  §  1),  and  died  there  a.  d. 
34  (xviii.  5,  §  6).  He  married  Salome,  the  daugh- 
ter of  Philip  (1.)  and  Herodias  {Ant.  xviii.  (j,  §  4), 
but  as  he  left  no  children  at  his  death  his  dominions 
were  added  to  tlie  Koman  province  of  Syria  (xviii. 
5,  §  6). 

VI.  Herod  Agrippa  I.  {'Hp(i>S'ns,  Acts  ; 
A.y plmras.  Joseph.)  was  the  son  of  Aristobulus 

and  Berenice,  and  grandson  of  Herod  the  Great. 
He  was  brought  up  at  Rome  with  Claudius  and 
Drusus,  and  after  a  life  of  various  vicissitudes 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  7),  was  thrown  into  prison  by 
Tiberius  for  an  unguarded  speech,  where  he  re- 
mained till  the  accession  of  Caius  (Caligula)  A.  D. 
37.  The  new  emperor  gave  him  the  governments 
formerly  held  by  the  tetrarchs  Philip  and  Lysanias, 
and  bestowed  on  him  the  ensigns  of  royalty  and 
other  marks  of  favor  (Acts  xii.  1,  'Up.  6  ^acriKevs)- 
The  jealousy  of  Herod  Antipas  and  his  wife  Herodias 
was  excited  by  these  distinctions,  and  they  sailed 
to  Rome  in  the  hope  of  supplanting  Agrippa  in  the 
emperor's  favor.  Agrippa  was  aware  of  their  de- 
sign, and  anticipated  it  by  a  counter-charge  against 
Antipas  of  treasonous  correspondence  with  the 
Parthians.    Antipas  failed  to  answer  the  accusation, 


HEROD  1053 

and  was  banished  to  Gaul  (A.  D.  39),  and  hia 
dominions  were  added  to  those  already  held  by 
Agrippa  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  7,  §  2).  Afterwards 
Agrippa  rendered  important  services  to  Claudius 
(Joseph.  B.  J.  ii.  11,  §§  2,  3),  and  received  from 
him  in  return  (a.  d.  41)  the  government  of  Judaea 
and  Samaria ;  so  that  his  entire  dominions  equaled 
in  extent  the  kingdom  of  Herod  the  Groat.  Unlike 
his  predecessors,  Agrippa  was  a  strict  observer  of 
the  Law  (Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  7,  §  3),  and  he  sought 
with  success  the  favor  of  the  Jews.^  It  is  probable 
that  it  was  with  this  view  ^  he  put  to  death  Jamea 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  further  imprisoned  Peter 
(Acts  xii.  1  ff.)  But  his  sudden  death,  which  fol- 
lowed immediately  afterwards,  intennipted  his  am- 
bitious projects. 

In  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign  over  the  whole 
of  Judaea  (a.  d.  44)  Agrippa  attended  some  gamra 
at  Csesarea,  held  in  honor  of  the  emperor.  When 
he  api>eared  in  the  theatre  (Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  8,  §  2, 
devTfpa  roov  Qewpicou  rifxepq,]  Acts  xii.  21,  tukt'^ 
rjfiepa)  in  "a  robe  of  silver  stuff  (e'l  apyvpoh 
TreTTonj/JLewov  iraaau,  Joseph. ;  iaQrjTa  ^aaiAiK-f^Vy 
Acts  xii.  21)  which  shone  in  the  morning  light, 
his  flatterers  saluted  him  as  a  god ;  and  suddenly 
he  was  seized  with  terrible  pains,  and  being  carried 
from  the  theatre  to  the  palace  died  after  five  dayg 
agony  {i(p'  rifxipas  irevre  tw  ttJs  yacTTphs  biKyi)- 
fiaTi  diepyacrdeU  rhv  fiiov  KaT€(TTp€\pev,  Joseph. 
Ant.  xix.  8;  y^vSjxivos  (rKCo\r]K6fipwTos  e|e;|/y|ei', 
Acts  xii.  23;  cf.  2  Mace.  ix.  5-9). 

By  a  singular  and  instructive  confusion  Euse- 
bius  (//.  A',  ii.  10;  cf.  Heinichen,  Exc.  2,  ad  loc.) 
converts  the  owl,  which,  according  to  Josephus,  ap- 
])eared  to  Herod  as  a  messenger  of  evil  {&yye\o! 
KaKwv)  into  "  the  angel  "  of  the  Acts,  who  was  th( 
unseen  minister  of  the  Divine  Will  (Acts  xii.  23, 
iiroLTa^eu  avrhv  &yy€hos  Kvplov',  cf.  2  K.  xix.  35, 
LXX.). 

Various  conjectures  have  been  made  as  to  the 
occasion  of  the  festival  at  which  the  event  took 
place.  Josephus  (/.  c.)  says  that  it  was  in  «'  behalf 
of  the  emperor's  safety,''  and  it  has  been  supposed 
that  it  might  be  in  connection  with  his  return  from 
Britain;  but  this  is  at  least  very  uncertain  (cf. 
Wieseler,  Citron,  d.  Apost.  Zeit.  p.  131  fi'.).  Jose- 
phus mentions  also  the  concourse  "  of  the  chief  men 
throughout  the  province"  who  were  present  on  the 
occasion ;  and  though  he  does  not  notice  the  em- 
bassy of  the  Tynans  and  Agrippa' s  speech,  yet  his 
narrative  is  perfectly  consistent  with  both  facts. 

VII.  Herod  Agrippa  II.  ('AypiTTTros,  N.  T. 
Joseph.)  was  the  son  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  and  Cy- 
pros,  a  grand-niece  of  Herod  the  Great.  At  the 
time  of  the  death  of  his  father,  A.  D.  44,  he  was  at 
Rome,  and  his  youth  (he  was  17  years  old)  pre- 
vented Claudius  from  carrying  out  hia  first  inten- 
tion of  appointing  him  his  father's  successor  (Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xix.  9,  §§  1,  2).  Not  long  afterwards, 
however,  the  emperor  gave  him  (c.  A.  D.  50)  the 
kingdom  of  Chalcis,  which  had  belonged  to  hia 
uncle  (who  died  A.  D.  48;  Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  4,  §  2; 
B.  J.  ii.  1-2,  §  1);  and  then  transferred  him  (a.  d. 
52)  to  the  tetrarchies  formerly  held  by  Phihp  and 


L 


a  Jos.    Ant.    xvii.    8,  §   1    Josephus   calls   Philip    in  virtue,  that  is,  of  his  half-descent  from  the  Haa- 
xpxeKoLOv  a5cA.(|)bs  -yvrjo-to?  ;  but  elsewhere  he  states    monaeans. 
iieir  distinct  descent.  I      c  Jost  (p.  421,  &c.),  who  objects  that  these  acts  art 

b  Jost  ( Gesch.  d.  JurJenthums,  i.  420)  quotes  a  legend    inconsistent  with   the  known   humanity  of  Agrippa, 
>hat  Agrippa  burst  into  tears  on  reading  in  a  public  I  entirely  neglects  the  roason   suggested  by   St.  Lake 
Mrrice  Deut    x-'ii.  l.*^ ;  whereupon  the  people  cried  I  (Acts  xii.  3) 
'  B«  uot  distressed,  Agrippa,  thou  art  our  brother  "  [ 


1054  herodians 

Lysanias  (Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  6,  §  1 ;  B.J.  ii.  12,  § 
8),  with  the  title  of  king  (Acts  xxv.  13,  *Aypiiriras 
6  ^actXevs,  xxvi.  2,  7,  &c.). 

Nero  afterwards  increased  the  dominions  of 
Agrippa  by  tlie  addition  of  several  cities  (Ant.  xx. 
6,  §  4) ;  and  he  displayed  the  lavish  magnificence 
which  marked  his  family  by  costly  buildings  at 
Jerusalem  and  Berytus,  in  both  cases  doing  violence 
to  the  feehngs  of  the  Jews  {Ant.  xx.  7,  §  11;  8, 
§  4).  The  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  his  sister 
Berenice  (Acts  xxv.  13)  was  the  cause  of  grave  sus- 
picion (Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  6,  §  3),  which  was  noticed 
by  Juvenal  {Sat.  vi.  155  fF.).  In  the  last  Koman 
war  Agrippa  took  part  with  the  Romans,  and  after 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  retired  with  Berenice  to  Rome, 
where  he  died  in  the  third  year  of  Trajan  (a.  d. 
100),  being  tlie  last  prince  of  the  house  of  Herod 
(Phot.  Cod.  33). 


Copper  Coin  of  Herod  Agrippa  II.  with  Titus. 
Obv. :  AYTOKPTITOC  KAICAPCEBA.  _  Head    lau- 
reate to  the  right,     llev. :  ETO  KS  BA  AFPinnA 
(year  26).     Victory  advancing  to  the  right :  in  the 
field  a  star. 

The  appearance  of  St.  Paul  before  Agrippa  (a. 
D.  60)  offers  several  characteristic  traits.  Agrippa 
seems  to  have  been  intimate  with  Festus  (Joseph. 
Ant.  XX.  7,  §  11);  and  it  was  natural  that  the  Ro- 
man governor  should  avail  himself  of  his  judgment 
on  a  question  of  what  seemed  to  l)e  Jewish  law 
(Acts  xxv.  18  ff.,  20;  cf.  Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  8,  §  7). 
The  "  pomp  "  {voWh  (pavTaaia)  with  which  the 
king  came  into  the  audience  chamber  (Acts  xxv. 
23)  was  accordant  with  his  general  bearing;  and 
the  cold  irony  with  which  he  met  the  impassioned 
words  of  the  Apostle  (Acts  xxvi.  27,  28)  suits  the 
temper  of  one  who  was  contented  to  take  [wirt  in 
the  destruction  of  his  nation.  B.  F.  W. 

VIII.  Bkhenick.     [Bkkenice.] 

IX.  DitUSILLA.       [DUUSILLA.] 

HERO'DIANS  {'Wpw^iavol:  {Hei-odiani]). 
In  the  account  which  is  given  by  St.  Matthew 
(xxii.  15  ff.)  and  St.  Mark  (xii.  13  ff.)  of  the  last 
efforts  made  by  different  sections  of  the  Jews 
to  obtain  from  our  Lord  himself  the  materials  for 
his  accusation,  a  party  under  the  name  of  Hevo- 
dians  is  represented  as  acting  in  concert  with  the 
Pharisees"  (Matt.  xxii.  16;  Mark  xii.  13).      St. 

«  Origen  (Comni.  in  Matt.  torn.  xvii.  §  26)  regards 
this  coiiihination  of  the  Ilerodians  and  Pharisees  as  a 
combination  of  antagonistic  parties,  the  one  favorable 
to  the  lloman  government  (ei^bs  yap  on.  ev  tcS  kaw  rare 
01  fiev  fiiSicTKOi're?  reXeti'  tov  ifyopov  KaiVapt  eKoXovuTO 
"RpuiSiavoi  VTTO  rS)v  joirj  OeKovTOiV  toCto  yivea^ai  .  .  .  )> 
and  the  other  opposed  to  it ;  but  this  view,  which  is 
only  coiijtH-tural  (etxo?),  does  not  oflfer  a  complete  solu- 
tion of  t!ie  various  relations  of  the  Ilerodians  to  the 
other  parties  of  tlie  times.  Jerome,  following  Origen, 
limits  file  moaning  of  the  term  yet  more :  "  Cum  lle- 
rodiania,  id  est,  militibus  llerodis,  seu  quos  illudentes 
Pharisa'i.  quia  Itomanis  tributa  solvebant,  Ilerodianos 
T(w«ban{  et  non  divine  cultui  deditos  "  (Uieron.  Comm. 
in  Matt.  xxii.  15). 


HERODIANS 

Mark  mentions  the  combination  of  the  two  partiei 
for  a  similar  object  at  an  earlier  period  (Mark  iii. 
6),  and  in  another  place  (viii.  15;  cf.  Luke  xii.  I) 
he  preserves  a  saying  of  our  Lord,  in  which  "  the 
leaven  of  Herod  "  is  placed  in  close  connection  with 
"  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees  ").  In  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Luke,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Herodians  are  not 
brought  forward  at  all  by  name. 

These  very  scanty  notices  of  the  Evangelists  as  to 
the  position  of  the  Herodians  are  not  comjiensated 
by  other  testimonies ;  yet  it  is  not  difficult  to  fix 
their  characteristics  by  a  reference  to  the  condition 
of  Jewish  feeling  in  the  Apostolic  age.  There 
were  prokibly  many  who  saw  in  the  power  of  the 
Herodian  family  the  pledge  of  the  preservation  of 
their  national  existence  in  tlie  face  of  Roman  am- 
bition. In  proportion  as  they  regarded  the  inde- 
pendent nationality  of  the  Jewish  people  as  the  first 
condition  of  the  fulfillment  of  its  future  destiny, 
they  would  lie  willing  to  acquiesce  in  the  dominion 
of  men  who  were  themsehes  of  foreign  descent 
[Hekod],  and  not  rigid  in  the  observance  of  the 
Mosaic  ritual.  Two  distinct  classes  might  thus 
unite  in  supporting  what  was  a  domestic  tyranny 
as  contrasted  with  absolute  dependence  on  Rome  — 
those  who  saw  in  the  Herods  a  protection  against 
direct  heathen  rule,  which  was  the  one  object  of 
their  fear  (cf.  dachas,  f.  19,  ap.  Lightfoot,  Harm. 
Ev.  p.  470,  ed.  I^usd.  "  Herodes  etiam  senem  Hil- 
lel  magno  in  honore  habuit;  namque  hi  homines 
regem  ilium  esse  non  aegre  ferebant "),  and  those 
who  were  inclined  to  look  with  satisfaction  upon 
such  a  compromise  between  the  ancient  faith  and 
heathen  civilization,  as  llerod  the  Great  and  his 
successors  had  endeavored  to  realize,  as  the  true 
and  highest  consummation  of  Jewish  hopes.**  On 
the  one  side  the  Herodians  —  partisans  of  Herod  in 
the  widest  sense  of  the  term  —  were  thus  brought 
into  union  with  the  Pharisees,  on  the  other,  with 
the  Sadducees.  Yet  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  they  endeavored  to  form  any  very  systematic 
harmony  of  the  conflicting  doctrines  of  the  two 
sects,  but  rather  the  conflicting  doctrines  themselves 
were  thrown  into  the  background  by  what  appeared 
to  be  a  paramount  political  necessity.  Such  coali- 
tions ha\'e  been  frequent  in  every  age;  and  the 
rarity  of  the  allusions  to  the  Herodians,  as  a  marked 
lx)dy,  seems  to  show  that  this,  hke  similar  coalitions, 
had  no  enduring  influence  as  the  foundation  of 
party.  The  feelings  which  led  to  the  coalition  re- 
mained, but  they  were  incapable  of  animating  the 
common  action  of  a  united  body  for  any  length  of 
time.  B.  F.  W. 

*  On  the  occasion  mentioned  in  INIatt.  xxii.  16 
and  ]Mark  xii.  13,  the  Herodians  appear  as  supporters 
of  the  claim  of  the  Roman  emperors  to  receive 
tribute-money  from  the  Jews.      This  fiict  agrees 

b  In  this  way  the  Ilerodians  were  said  to  regard 
Herod  (Antipas)  as  "the  Messiah":  'HptoSiayoi  km 
e/ceiVous  row?  \p6vov<;  ?\<rax'  ol  tov  'HpioSrjf  \pi<Trov  ewan 
keyovTe<; ,  ^^  l(rropeLTai  (Vict.  Ant.  ap.  Cnim.  Cat.  in 
Marc.  p.  400).  Philastrius  {Har.  xxviii.)  applies  tne 
same  belief  to  Herod  Agrippa  ;  Epiphanius  {HfBr.  xix.) 
to  Herod  the  Great.  Jerome  in  one  place  {ad  Matt. 
xxii.  15)  calls  the  idea  "a  ridicuious  notion  cf  some 
Latin  writers,  which  rests  on  no  authority  ('/uoiJ  ni<S' 
qiiam  legimu.s);''''  and  again  {Dial,  c  Liiri/er.  xxii;.; 
mentions  it  in  a  general  summary  of  heretical  notioni 
without  hesitation.  The  belief  was,  in  fact,  one  <rf 
general  sentiment,  and  not  of  distinct  and  pr  wouooej 
oonfeesion. 


HERODIAS 

^nt  with  the  view  that  they  were  essentially  a  po- 
litical and  not  a  religious  party,  and  hence  in  this 
respect  stood  at  the  very  opposite  pole  from  tb-? 
Pharisees,  for  the  latter  denied  the  Koinan  right  of 
government  and  resisted  all  foreign  innovations.  It 
is  remarkable  that  we  find  two  such  hostile  parties 
acting  together  in  any  instance.  And  especially  in 
regard  to  that  earlier  combination  (INIark  iii.  G),  it 
does  not  appear  from  the  narrative  how  a  coalition 
of  the  Pharisees  with  the  Hcrodians  was  to  enable 
them  to  accomplish  the  death  of  Jesus.  We  can 
only  conjecture  how  this  may  have  been.  The  in- 
fluence of  Christ  among  the  people  in  Galilee  at  that 
period  was  very  great,  and  therefore  any  open  act 
of  violence  on  the  part  of  his  enemies  was  out  of 
the  question.  Means  more  covert  must  be  employed. 
The  llerodians,  as  the  partisans  of  Herod,  had  in- 
fluence with  that  ruler;  and  the  Pharisees,  in- 
triguing with  them  and  fixing  upon  some  political 
accusation,  may  have  hoped  to  secure  Herod's  inter- 
position in  arresting  and  putting  to  death  the  object 
of  their  maUce.  It  is  not  without  significance  that 
the  overture  tor  this  alliance  came  from  the  Phari- 
sees and  not  from  the  Herodians  (fiera  t&u  'Hpcc- 
Siavcau  avfjL^ovKiov  iiroiovv,  Mark  iii.  6).       H. 

HERO'DIAS  i'HpcaSias,  a  female  patronymic 
from  'lifja>5r)s'i  on  patronymics  and  gentilic  names 
in  las,  see  Matthise,  Greek  Gr.  §  101  and  103),  the 
name  of  a  woman  of  notoriety  in  the  N.  T.,  daugh- 
ter of  Aristobulus,  one  of  the  sons  of  Mariamne 
and  Herod  the  Great,  and  consequently  sister  of 
Agrippa  I. 

She  first  married  Herod,  surnamed  Philip,  an- 
other of  the  sons  of  Mariamne  and  the  first  Herod 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  4;  comp.  B.  J.  i.  29,  §  4), 
and  therefore  her  full  uncle;  then  she  eloped  from 
him,  during  his  lifetime  {Ant.  ibid-),  to  marry 
Herod  Antipas,  her  step-uncle,  who  had  been  long 
married  to,  and  was  still  Uving  with,  the  daughter 
of  JEneas  or  Aretas  —  his  assumed  name  —  king 
of  Arabia  {ibid.  xvii.  9,  §  4).  Thus  she  left  her 
husband,  who  was  still  alive,  to  connect  herself  with 
a  man  whose  wife  was  still  alive.  Her  paramour 
was  indeed  less  of  a  blood  relation  than  her  original 
husband;  but  being  likewise  the  half-brother  of 
that  husband,  he  was  already  connected  with  her 
by  affinity  —  so  close  that  there  was  only  one  case 
contemplated  in  the  Law  of  Moses  where  it  could 
be  set  aside,  namely,  when  the  married  brother  had 
died  childless  (Lev.  xviii.  16,  and  xx.  21,  and  for 
the  exception  Deut.  xxv.  5  fF.).  Now  Herodias  had 
already  had  one  child  —  Salome  —  by  Philip  {Ant. 
viii.  5,  §  4),  and,  as  he  was  still  alive,  might  have 
uad  more.  Well,  therefore,  may  she  be  charged  by 
Josephus  with  the  intention  of  confounding  her 
country's  institutions  {ibid,  xviii.  5,  §  4);  and  well 
may  St.  John  the  Baptist  have  remonstrated  against 
the  enormity  of  such  a  connection  with  the  tetrarch, 
whose  conscience  would  certainly  seem  to  have  been 
a  less  hardened  one  (Matt.  xiv.  9  says  he   "was 


a  This  town  is  probably  Lugdunum  Convenarum, 
a  town  of  Gaul,  situated  on  the  right  bank  of  the 
Oaronne,  at  the  foot  of  the  Pyrenees,  now  St.  Bertrand 
de  Comminices  (Murray,  Handb.  of  France,  p.  314) : 
Eusebius,  H.  E.  i.  11,  says  V'.snne,  confounding  An- 
ipas  with  Archelaus  ;  Burton  on  Matt.  xiv.  3,  Alford, 
AQd  moderns  in  general,  Lyons.  In  Josephus  {B.  ,T. 
11.  9,  §  6),  Antipas  is  said  to  have  died  in  Spain  —  ap- 
twrently  fixjm  the  context,  the  land  of  his  eXile.  A 
lown  on  the  finntiers  therefore,  Uke  the  abow,,  would 
ftitisfy  both  poi^sages. 


HERODIAS  1056 

soiry,  "  Mark  vi.  20  that  he  "feared"  St.  John; 
and  "  heard  him  gladly  "). 

The  consequences  both  of  the  crime,  and  of  the 
reproof  which  it  incurred,  are  well  known.  Aretas 
made  war  upon  Herod  for  the  uyury  done  to  hia 
daughter,  and  routed  him  with  the  loss  of  his  whole 
army  {Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  1).  The  head  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  was  granted  to  the  recjuest  of  Herodiaa 
(Matt.  xiv.  8-1  h  Mark  vi.  24-28).  According  to 
Josephus  the  execution  took  places  in  a  fortress 
called  Maclui'rus,  on  the  frontier  butween  the  do- 
minions of  Aretas  and  Herod,  according  to  Pliny 
(v.  15),  looking  down  upon  the  Dead  Sea  from  tha 
south  (comp.  Robinson,  i.  570,  note).  And  it  was 
to  the  iniquity  of  this  act,  rather  than  to  the  ira- 
morahty  of  that  illicit  connection  that,  the  hist{>rian 
says,  some  of  the  Jews  attributed  the  defeat  of 
Herod.  In  the  closing  scene  of  her  career,  indeed, 
Herodias  exhibited  considerable  mignanimity;  as 
she  prefen-ed  going  with  Antipas  to  Lugdunum," 
and  there  sharing  his  exile  and  reverses,  till  leath 
ended  them,  to  the  remaining  with  her  brother 
Agrippa  I.,  and  partaking  of  his  elevation  {Ant 
xviii.  7,  §  2). 

There  are  few  episodes  in  the  whole  range  of  the 
N.  T.  more  suggestive  to  the  commentator  than 
this  one  scene  in  the  life  of  Herodias. 

1.  It  exhibits  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  the 
undesigned  coincidences  between  the  N.  T.  and 
Josephus;  that  there  are  some  discrepancies  in  the 
two  accounts,  only  enhances  their  value.  More 
than  this,  it  has  led  the  historian  into  a  brief  di- 
gression upon  the  life,  death,  and  character  of  the 
Baptist,  which  speaks  vo.Himes  in  favor  of  the 
genuineness  of  that  still  more  celebrated  passage, 
in  which  he  speaks  of  "Jesus,"  that  "wise  man, 
if  man  he  may  be  called  "  {Ant.  xviii.  3,  §  3;  comp. 
XX.  9,  §  1,  unhesitatingly  quoted  as  genuine  by 
Euseb.  H.  E.  i.  ll).** 

2.  It  has  been  warmly  debated  whether  it  was 
the  adultery,  or  the  incestuous  connection,  that 
drew  down  the  reproof  of  ilie  Baptist.  It  has 
been  already  shown  that,  either  way,  the  offense 
merited  condemnation  upon  more  grounds  than 
one. 

3.  The  birthday  feast  is  another  undesigned 
coincidence  between  Scripture  and  profane  history. 
The  Jews  abhorred  keeping  birthdays  as  a  pagan 
custom  (Bland  on  Malt.  xiv.  6).  On  the  otJtier 
hand,  it  was  usual  with  tlie  Egyptians  (Gen.  xl. 
20;  comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  4,  §  7),  with  the  Per- 
sians (Herod,  i.  133),  with  the  (jreeks,  even  in  the 
case  of  the  dead,  whence  the  Christian  custom  of 
keeping  anniversaries  of  the  martyrs  (Biihr,  ad 
Herod,  iv.  26),  and  with  the  Romans  (Pers.  Sat 
ii.  1-3).  Now  the  Herods  may  be  said  to  have 
gone  beyond  Rome  in  the  observance  of  all  that 
was  Roman.  Herod  the  Great  kept  the  day  of  his 
accession;  Antipas  — as  we  read  here— and  Agrippa 
I.,  as  Josephus  tells  us  {Ant.  xix.  7,  §   1),  their 


h  *  Tholuck  has  made  admirable  use  of  the  argu- 
ment  from  this  source  in  hia  Glaubwiirf/igkeit  der 
Evang.  Geschichte,  pp.  354-357.  It  is  shown  that  the 
personal  names,  the  places,  dates,  and  customs,  Jewish 
and  Roman,  mentioned  or  implied  in  tlie  account  of 
Herodia"  and  of  the  beheading  of  John,  are  fully  con- 
firmed by  coatemporary  Mrriters.  On  the  question 
whether  Josephus  and  the  evangelists  disagree  in  re- 
gard to  the  place  where  John  was  imprisoned,  Mt 
TiBEKua.  H 


1056 


HERODION" 


birthday,  with  such  magnificence,  that  the  "  birth- 
days of  Herod  "  (Herodis  dies)  had  passed  into  a 
proverb  when  Persius  wrote  {Sat.  v.  180). 

4.  And  yet  dancing,  on  these  festive  occasions, 
was  common  to  both  Jew  and  Gentile;  and  was 
practiced  in  the  same  way  —  youths  and  virgins, 
singly,  or  separated  into  two  bands,  but  never  in- 
termingled, danced  to  do  honor  to  their  deity,  their 
hero,  or  to  the  day  of  their  solemnity.  Miriam 
(Ex.  XV.  20),  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  (Judges  xi. 
34).  and  JJavid  (2  Sam.  vi.  1-4).  are  familiar  instances 
In  Holy  Writ;  the  "  Carmen  Sseculare  "  of  Horace, 
to  quote  no  more,  points  to  the  same  custom 
amongst  Greeks  and  Romans.  It  is  plainly  owing 
to  the  elevation  of  woman  in  the  social  scale,  that 
dancing  in  pairs  (still  unknown  to  the  East)  has 
come  into  fashion. 

5.  The  rash  oath  of  Herod,  like  that  of  Jeph- 
thah in  the  O.  T.,  has  afforded  ample  discussion  to 
casuists.  It  is  now  ruled  that  all  such  oaths,  where 
there  is  no  reservation,  expressed  or  implied,  in 
favor  of  the  laws  of  God  or  man,  are  illicit  and 
without  force.  And  so  Solomon  had  long  since 
decided  (1  K.  ii.  20-24;  see  Sanderson,  i)e /«ram. 
Oblly.  Prcelect.  iii.  16).  E.  S.  Ff. 

HERO'DION  i'RpcoSlwv:  Herodion),  a  rela- 
tive of  St.  Paul  {rhv  (rvfydvri  fioV-  cognntus),  to 
whom  he  send.-,  liis  salutation  amongst  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  Roman  Church  (IJom.  xvi.  11).  Noth- 
uig  appears  to  be  certainly  known  of  him.  By 
Hippolytus,  however,  he  is  said  to  have  been  bishop 
of  Tarsus;  and  by  Pseudo-Uorotheus,  of  Patrae 
(Winer,  sub  roc). 

HERON  (nD3S).  The  Hebrew  armphah  ap- 
pears as  the  name  of  an  unclean  bird  in  Ler.  xi.  19, 
Dent.  xiv.  18.  From  the  addition  of  the  words 
"after  her  kind,"  we  may  infer  that  it  was  a  gen- 
eric name  for  a  well-known  class  of  birds,  and  hence 
it  is  the  more  remarkable  that  the  name  does  not 
occur  elsewhere  in  the  Bible.  It  is  quite  uncer- 
tain what  bird  is  intended ;  the  only  point  on  which 
any  two  commentator  seem  to  agree  is,  that  it  is 
not  the  heron,  for  many  suppose  the  preceding 
word,  translated  in  the  A.  V.  "stork,"  to  apply  in 
reality  to  the  heron.  The  LXX.  translates  it  ^o- 
pdSpios,  which  may  be  regarded  as  appUcable  to  all 
birds  frequenting  swampy  ground  (eV  x«pa5poty), 
but  more  particularly  to  the  plover.  This  explana- 
tion loses  what  little  weight  it  might  othenvise 
:ave  had,  from  the  probability  that  it  originated  in 
a  false  reading,  namely,  agaphah,  which  the  trans- 
lators coTifiected  with  agnph,  "a  bank."  The  Tal- 
mudists  evidently  were  at  a  loss,  for  they  describe 
it  indefinitely  as  a  "high-flying  bird  of  prey" 
( Chul'm,  63  a).  The  only  ground  on  which  an 
opinion  can  be  formed,  is  the  etymology  of  the 
Ford;  it  is  connected  by  Gesenius  {Tfies.  p.  127) 
■dth  the  root  anciph,  "to  snort  in  anger,"  and  is 
Therefore  applicable  to  some  irritable  bird,  perhaps 
the  goose.  The  parrot,  swallow,  and  a  kind  of 
eagle  have  been  suggested  without  any  real  reason. 

W.  L.  B. 

HE'SED  ("ton  [kindness^  /aiw] :  'EaSl; 
Alex.  Eo5:  Beuhesed),  the  son  of  Hesed,  or  Ben- 
Chesed,  was  commissary  for  Solomon  in  the  district 
of  "  the  Arubboth,  Socoh,  and  all  the  land  of 
Hepher"  (1  K.  iv.  10). 

HESH'BON  (fl2^*n  [p-udence,  under- 
ftanding]i  'Eaefiiov;  [Rom.  Vat.  in  Josh.  xxi.  39, 
Earpdv-]  Hest/jon),  the  capital  city  of  Sihon  king 


HESHMON 

of  the  Amorites  (Num.  xxi.  26).  It  stood  on  tM 
western  border  of  the  high  plain  {Miskor,  Josh. 
xiii.  17),  and  on  the  boundary-line  between  the 
tribes  of  Reul^en  and  Gad.  The  ruins  of  Hesbdn^ 
20  miles  east  of  the  Jordan,  on  the  parallel  of  the 
northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  mark  the  site,  aa 
they  bear  the  name,  of  the  ancient  Heshbon.  The 
city  is  chiefly  celebrated  from  its  connection  with 
Sihon,  who  was  the  first  to  give  battle  to  the  invad- 
ing Israelites.  He  marched  against  them  to  Jahaz, 
which  must  have  been  situated  a  short  distance 
south  of  Heshbon,  and  was  there  completely  over- 
thrown (Deut.  ii.  32  ff".).  Heshbon  was  rebuilt  by 
the  tribe  of  Reuben  (Num.  xxxii.  37),  but  was  as- 
signed to  the  Levites  in  connection  with  the  tribe 
of  Gad  (Josh.  xxi.  39).  After  the  Captivity  it  feU 
into  the  hands  of  the  IMoabites,  to  whom  it  had 
originally  belonged  (Num.  xxi.  26),  and  hence  it 
is  mentioned  in  the  prophetic  denunciations  against 
Moab  (Is.  XV.  4;  Jer.  xlviii.  2,  34,  45).  In  the 
fourth  century  it  was  still  a  place  of  some  not* 
( Onom.  s.  v.  Ksebon),  but  it  has  now  been  for  many 
centuries  wholly  desolate. 

The  ruins  of  Heshbon  stand  on  a  low  hill  rising 
out  of  the  great  undulating  plateau.  They  are 
more  than  a  mile  in  circuit;  but  not  a  building 
remains  entire.  Towards  the  western  part  is  a  sin- 
gular structure,  whose  crumbling  ruins  exhibit  the 
workmanship  of  successive  ages— the  massive  stones 
of  the  Jewish  period,  the  sculptured  cornice  of  the 
Roman  era,  and  the  light  Saracenic  arch,  all  grouped 
together.  There  are  many  cisterns  among  the 
ruins ;  and  towards  the  south,  a  few  yards  from  the 
base  of  the  hill,  is  a  large  ancient  reservoir,  which 
calls  to  mind  the  passage  in  Cant.  vii.  4,  "  Thine 
eyes  are  like  the  fish-pools  of  Heshbon  by  the  gate 
of  Bath-rabbim."  (See  Burckhardt,  Trnv.  in  Syr., 
p.  365;  Irby  and  Mangles,  p.  472.)  [Bath-kab- 
BIM.]  J.  L.  P. 

*  For  a  description  of  the  ruins  of  ffesbdn,  see 
Tristram's  Land  of  hrael,  p.  544,  2d  ed.  Among 
other  monuments  of  the  old  city,  he  speaks  of  "  the 
foundations  of  a  forum,  or  public  building  of  the 
Roman  period,  arranged  exactly  hke  the  forum  at 
Pompeii.  .  .  .  Some  portions  of  the  walls  are 
standing  —  a  few  tiers  of  worn  stones;  and  the 
space  is  thickly  strewn  with  piles  of  Doric  shafts, 
capitals  of  columns,  broken  entablatures,  and  large 
stones  with  the  broad  bevelled  edge.  In  one  edifice, 
of  which  a  large  portion  remains,  near  the  foot  of 
the  hill,  Jewish  stones,  Roman  arches,  Doric  pillars, 
and  Saracenic  arches,  are  all  strangely  mingled.  .  .  . 
The  old  wells  were  so  numerous  that  we  had  to  ride 
with  great  care  to  avoid  them."  Instead  of  "fish- 
pools  "  said  (A.  V.)  to  have  been  at  Heshbon  (Cant, 
vii.   4),   we   should   read    "pools"   or   "tanks" 

(miD'nS) :  and,  as  we  see  above,  the  remains  of 
water-works  of  this  description  are  still  abundant 
there.  Of  all  the  marks  of  antiquity  the  Arabs 
consider  none  more  decisive  than  the  ruins  of 
cisterns  or  resen'oirs  (Wetzstein's  Reisebei-icht 
iiber  Hauran,  etc.,  p.  86).  H. 

HESH'MON  ('|*"1^?''r7  {thriving,  fruitfvl. 
ness]:  LXX.  omits,  both  MSS.;  [Comp.  Aid, 
'Ao-eyucii/:]  Hassemon),  a  place  named,  with  others, 
as  lying  between  Moladah  and  Beer-sheba  (Josh.  xY 
27),  and  therefore  in  the  extreme  south  of  Judat 
Nothmg  further  is  known  of  if;  but  may  it  not 
be  another  form  of  the  name  Azmon,  given  iiv 
Num.  xxxiv.  4  as  one  of  the  landmarks  of  thf 
southern  boundary  of  Judah?  G. 


L 


HESRON 

HES'RON  (l"''^n  {enclosed;  as  by  a  wall]: 
*k<rpd>v\  Alex.  A<rpw/i:  ffcsron).  Hezkon,  the 
son  of  Reuben  (Num.  xxvi.  6,  [21]).  Our  trans- 
lators followed  the  Vulg.  in  adopting  this  form  of 
the  name.  [In  many  modern  editions  of  the  A. 
V.  however,  it  is  spelt  Hebron.  A.]    W.  A.  AV. 

HES'RONITES,  THE  ("'i^hn^nn :  6 
A(rp(ovi',  [Vat.]  Alex,  o  Kapcavei'  l/tsronitce). 
Descendants  of  Hesron,  or  Hezron,  the  son  of  Reu- 
ben (Num.  xxvi.  6).  [In  many  modern  editions 
of  the  A.  V.  the  word  is  spelt  Hearonites.  —  A.] 

W.  A.  W. 

HETH  (iin,  i.  e.  Cheth  [terror,  giant]: 
XeV:  ITeth),  the  forefather  of  the  nation  of  tiik 
HrrriTKS.  In  the  genealogical  tables  of  Gen.  x. 
and  1  Chr.  i.,  Heth  is  stated  as  a  son  of  Canaan, 
younger  than  Zidon  the  firstborn,  but  preceding 
the  Jebusite,  the  Amorite,  and  the  other  Canaanite 
families.  Heth  and  Zidon  alone  are  named  as 
Ijersons;  all  the  rest  figure  as  ti'ibes  (Gen.  x.  15; 
1  Chr.  i.  13;  LXX.  rhu  XerTOioy:  [Vulg.  Ileth- 
mijn ;]   and  so  Josephus,  Ant.  i.  6,  §  2). 

The  Hittites  were  therefore  a  Hamite  race, 
neither  of  the  "  country  "  nor  the  "  kindred  "  of 
Abraham  and  Isaac  (Gen.  xxiv.  3,  4;  xxviii.  1,  2). 
In  the  earliest  historical  mention  of  the  nation  — 
the  beautiful  narrative  of  Abraham's  purchase  of 
the  cave  of  Machpelah  —  they  are  styled,  not  Hit- 
tites, but  Bene-Cheth  (A.  V.  "  sons,  and  children 
of  Heth,"  Gen.  xxiii.  3,  5,  7,  10,  16,  18,  20;  xxv. 
10;  xlix.  32).  Once  we  hear  of  "daughters  of 
Heth  "  (xxvii.  46),  the  "daughters  of  the  land;  " 
at  that  early  period  still  called,  after  their  less  im- 
mediate progenitor,  "  daughters  of  Canaan  "  (xxviii. 
1,  8,  compared  with  xxvii.  46,  and  xxvi.  34,  35). 

In  the  Egyptian  monuments  the  name  Chat  is 
said  to  stand  for  Palestine  (Bunsen,  ^gypten, 
quoted  by  Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  317,  note).  G. 

HETHXON  i^^^U  "H":;!?,  </'e  ^(ty  of 
Hethlon  [i.  e.  of  the  lurking-plnce  or  strong- 
hold]:  [LXX.  translate  the  name:  Ilethalon]),  the 
name  of  a  place  on  the  northern  border  of  the 
"  promised  land."  It  is  mentioned  only  twice  in 
Scripture  (Ez.  xlvii.  15,  xlviii.  1).  In  all  prob- 
ability the  "  way  of  Hethlon  "  is  the  pass  at  the 
northern  end  of  I^banon,  from  the  sea-coast  of  the 
Mediterranean  to  the  great  plain  of  Hamath,  and 
is  thus  identical  with  "  the  entrance  of  Hamath  " 
in  Num.  xxxiv.  8,  &c.  (See  Five  Years  in  Da- 
mascus, ii.  356.)  J.  L.  P. 

HEZ'EKI  C'|?Tn,  i.  e.  Hizki,  a  short  form  of 
Hizkiah,  s</'en^^/i  q/' ./e/ioyaA  =  Hezekiah :  'ACaKi; 
[Vat.  A^a/cet:]  Ilezeci),  a  man  in  the  genealogies 
of  Benjamin,  one  of  the  Bene-Elpaal  [sons  of  E.], 
a  descendant  of  Shaaraim  (1  Chr.  viii.  17). 

HEZEKFAH  {T}^7nn,  generally  ^n^''i7Tn, 
Eizldya'hu,  and  also  with  initial  "^  —  ^il'^ntn'^ : 
LXX.  and  Joseph.  'ECe«^as:  Ezechias  ;=  strength 
of  Jehovah,  comp.  Germ.  Gotthard,  Ges.),  twelfth 
king  of  Judah,  son  of  the  apostate  Ahaz  and  Abi 
(or  Abijah),  ascended  the  throne  at  the  age  of  25 
B.  c.  726.  Since,  however,  Ahaz  died  at  the  age 
of  36,  some  prefer  to  make  Hezekiah  only  20  years 
old  at  his  accession  (reading  3  for  HD),  as  other- 
wise he  must  have  been  born  when  Ahaz  was  a  boy 
of  H  years  old.  This,  indeed,  is  not  i.apossible 
(Hieroiu  A>.  ad  Vilalem,  132,  quoted  by  Bochart, 
tf7 


HEZEKIAH  1057 

Geogr.  Sacr.  p.  920;  see  Keil  on  2  K.  xviii.  1; 

Knobel,  Jes.  22,  &c.);  but,  if  any  change  be  de- 
sirable, it  is  better  to  suppose  that  Ahaz  was  25 
and  not  20  years  old  at  his  accession  (LXX.  Syr 

Arab.  2  Chr.  xxviii.  1),  reading  HD  for  D  in  2 
K.  xvi.  2. 

Hezekiah  was  one  of  the  three  most  perfect  kings 
of  Judah  (2  K.  xviii.  5;  Ecclus.  xlix.  4).  Hia 
first  act  was  to  purge,  and  repair,  and  reopen  with 
splendid  sacrifices  and  perfect  ceremonial,  the  Tem- 
ple which  had  been  despoiled  and  neglected  during 
the  careless  and  idolatrous  reign  of  his  father. 
This  consecration  was  accompanied  by  a  revival  of 
the  theocratic  spirit,  so  strict  as  not  even  to  spare 
"  the  high  places,"  which,  although  tolerated  by 
many  well-intentioned  kings,  had  naturally  been 
profaned  by  the  worship  of  images  and  Asherahs 
(2  K.  xviii.  4).  On  the  extreme  importance  and 
probable  consequences  of  this  measure,  see  High 
Places.  A  still  more  decisive  act  was  the  de- 
struction of  a  brazen  serpent,  said  to  have  been 
the  one  used  by  Aloses  in  the  miraculous  healing 
of  the  Israelites  (Num.  xxi.  9),  which  had  been 
removed  to  Jerusalem,  and  had  l)ec(jme,  "  down  to 
those  days,"  an  object  of  adoration,  partly  in  con 
sequence  of  its  venerable  character  as  a  relic,  and 
partly  perhaps  from  some  dim  tendencies  to  the 
ophiolatry  common  in  ancient  times  (Ewald,  Gesch. 
iii.  622).  To  break  up  a  figure  so  curious  and  so 
highly  honored  showed  a  strong  mind,  as  well  aa  a 
clear-sighted  zeal,  and  Hezekiah  briefly  justified  hii 

procedure  by  calling  the  image  1^11^(13,  "a  bra- 
zen thing,"  possibly  with  a  contemptuous  play  oo 
the  word  l^H^,  "a  serpent."  How  necessary  this 
was  in  such  times  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact 
that  "the  brazen  serpent"  is,  or  was,  reverenced 
in  the  Church  of  St.  Ambrose  at  Milan  (Prideaux, 
Connect,  i.  19,  Oxf  ed.).«  When  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  had  fallen,  Hezekiah  extended  his  pious  en- 
deavors to  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  and  by  inviting 
the  scattered  inhabitants  to  a  peculiar  Passover 
kindled  their  indignation  also  against  the  idolatrous 
practices  which  still  contiimed  among  them.  This 
Passover  was,  from  the  necessities  of  the  case,  cel- 
ebrated at  an  unusual,  though  not  illegal  (Num. 
ix.  10,  11)  time,  and  by  an  excess  of  Levitical  zeal, 
it  was  continued  for  the  unprecedented  period  of 
fourteen  days.  For  these  latter  facts  the  Chronicler 
(2  Chr.  xxix..  xxx.,  xxxi.)  is  our  sole  authority,  and 
he  characteristically  narrates  them  at  great  length. 
It  would  appear  at  first  sight  that  this  Passover 
was  celebrated  immediately  after  the  purification  of 
the  Temple  (see  Prideaux,  /.  c),  but  careful  con- 
sideration makes  it  almost  certain  that  it  could  not 
have  taken  place  before  the  sixth  year  of  Hezekiah's 
reign,  when  the  fall  of  Samaria  had  stricken  re- 
morseful terror  into  the  heart  of  Israel  (2  Chr. 
xxxi.  1,  xxx.  6,  9,  and  Keil  on  2  K.  xviii.  3). 

By  a  rare  and  happy  providence  the  most  pious 
of  kings  was  confirmed  in  his  faithfulness,  and 
seconded  in  his  endeavors  by  the  powerful  assist- 
ance of  the  noblest  and  most  eloquent  of  prophets. 
The  influence  of  Isaiah  was,  however,  not  gained 
without  a  struggle  with  the  "  scornful "  remnant 
of  the  former  royal  counsellors  (Is.  xxviii.  14),  who 
in  all  probability  recommended  to  the  king  such 


a  "Un  serpent  de  bronze  qui  selon  une  croyanot 
populaire  serait  celui  que  leva  Moise,  et  qui  doit  Hflet 
d  la  fin  du.  monde  '"      Itin.  de  Vllatte,  p  117  ) 


1058  HEZEKIAH 

•Ilumoes  and  coir  promises  as  would  be  in  unison 
rather  with  the  dictates  of  political  expediency,  than 
with  that  sole  unhesitating  trust  in  the  arm  of 
Jehovah  which  the  prophets  inculcated.  The  lead- 
ing man  of  this  cabinet  was  Shebna,  who,  from  the 
omission  of  his  father's  name,  and  the  expression  in 
Is.  xxii.  IG  (see  Blunt,  Uncles.  Coincidtnces)^  was 
probably  a  foreigner,  perhaps  a  Syrian  (Hitzig). 
At  the  instance  of  Isaiah,  he  seems  to  have  been 
subsequently  degraded  from  the  high  post  of  pre- 
fect of  the  palace  (which  office  was  given  to  tlia- 
kira,   Is.   xxii.   21),   to   the   inferior,  though   still 

honorable,  station  of  state-secretary  ("^S!D,  2  K. 

xviii.  18);  the  further  punishment  of  exile  with 
which  Isaiah  had  threatened  him  (xxii.  18)  being 
possibly  forgiven  on  his  amendment,  of  which  we 
have  some  traces  in  Is.  xxxvii.  2  fF.  (Ewald,  Gesch. 
iii.  617). 

At  the  head  of  a  repentant  and  united  people, 
Hezekiah  ventured  to  assume  the  aggressive  against 
the  Philistines,  and  in  a  series  of  victories  not  only 
rewon  the  cities  which  his  father  had  lost  (2  Chr. 
xxviii.  18),  but  even  dispossessed  them  of  their  own 
cities  except  Gaza  (2  K.  xviii.  8)  and  Gath  (.Joseph. 
Ant.  ix.  18,  5  ^)-  It  was  perhaps  to  the  purposes 
of  this  war  that  he  applied  the  money  which  would 
otherwise  have  been  used  to  pay  the  tribute  exacted 
by  Shalmanezer,  according  to  the  agreement  of 
Ahaz  with  his  predecessor,  Tiglath  Pileser.  When, 
after  the  capture  of  Samaria,  the  king  of  Assyria 
apphed  for  this  impost,  Hezekiah  refused  it,  and  in 
open  rebellion  omitted  to  send  even  the  usual  pres- 
ents (2  K.  xviii.  7),  a  line  of  conduct  to  which  he 
was  doubtless  encouraged  by  the  splendid  exhorta- 
tion of  his  prophetic  guide. 

Instant  war  was  averted  by  the  heroic  and  long- 
continued  resistance  of  the  Tyrians  under  their  king 
Eluloeus  (.Joseph.  Ant.  ix.  14),  against  a  siege, 
which  was  abandoned  only  in  the  fifth  year  (Grote, 
Greece,  iii.  359,  4th  ed.),  when  it  was  found  to  be 
impracticable.  This  nmst  have  been  a  critical  and 
intensely  anxious  period  for  Jerusalem,  and  Heze- 
kiah used  every  available  means  to  strengthen  his 
position,  and  render  his  capital  impregnable  (2  K. 
XX.  20;  2  Chr.  xxxii.  3-5,  30;  Is.  xxii.  8-11,  xxxui. 
18 ;  and  to  these  events  Ewald  also  refers  Ps.  xlviii. 
13).  But  while  all  Judaea  trembled  with  anticipa- 
tion of  Assyrian  invasion,  and  while  Shebna  and 
others  were  relyhig  "in  the  shadow  of  Egypt," 
Isaiah's  brave  heart  did  not  fail,  and  he  even  de- 
nounced the  Avrath  of  God  against  the  proud  and 
sinful  merchant-city  (Is.  xxiii.),  which  now  seemed 
to  be  the  main  bulwark  of  Juda;a  against  immediate 
attack. 

It  was  probably  during  the  siege  of  Samaria  that 
Shalmanezer  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  Sargon, 
who,  jealous  of  Egyptian  influence  in  Judaea,  aent  an 
army  under  a  Tartan  or  general  (Is.  xx.  1),  which 
penetrated  Egypt  (Nah.  iii.  8-10)  and  destroyed 
No-Amon;  although  it  is  clear  from  Hezekiah's 
rebellion  (2  K.  xviii.  7)  that  it  can  have  produced 
but  little  permanent  impression.  Sargon,  in  the 
tenth  year  of  his  reign  (which  is  the  fourteenth 
year  of  the  reign  of  Hezekiah),  made  an  expedition 
to  Palestine;  but  his  annals  make  no  mention  of 
any  conquests  from  Hezekiah  on  this  occasion,  and 
he  seems  to  have  occupied  himself  in  the  siege  of 
Ashdod  (Is.  XX.  1),  and  in  the  inspection  of  mines 
(Eosenmiiller,  Bibl.  Geocjr.  ix.).  This  must  there- 
fore be  the  expedition  alluded  to  in  2  K.  xviii.  13; 
b.  xxxvi.  1 ;  an  expedition  which  is  merely  alluded 


HEZEKIAH 

to,  as  it  led  to  no  result.  But  if  1/ie  Scrip  lore  nar- 
rative is  to  be  reconciled  with  the  records  of  AfSjT 
ian  history  it  seems  necessary  to  make  a  transposi- 
tion in  the  text  of  Isaiah  (and  therefore  of  the  book 
of  Kings).  That  some  such  expedient  must  b« 
resorted  to,  if  the  Assyrian  history  is  trustworthy, 
is  maintained  by  Dr.  Hiiicks  in  a  paper  On  Uie 
rectijicntion  of  C/nonolof/y,  which  the  newly-dis- 
covered Apis-steles  render  necessary.  "  The  text," 
he  says,  "  as  it  originally  stood,  was  probably  to 
this  effect:  2  K.  xviii.  13.  Now  in  the  fourteenth 
year  of  kiiig  Hezekiah  the  king  of  Assy  Ha  cime. 
up  [alluding  to  the  attack  mentioned  in  Sargon'* 
Annals']  ;  xx.  1-19.  In  those  days  was  king  Heze- 
kiah sick  unto  death,  etc.,  xviii.  13.  And  Sen- 
nacherib, king  of  Assyria,  came  up  against  all  th« 
fenced  cities  of  Judah,  and  took  them,  etc.,  x\.j; 
13,  xix.  37  "  (Dr.  Hincks,  in  Journ.  of  Sacr.  Lit. 
Oct.  1858).  Perhaps  some  later  transcriber,  unaware 
of  the  earlier  and  unimportant  invasion,  confused 
the  allusion  to  Sargon  in  2  K.  xviii.  13  with  the 
detailed  story  of  Sennacherib's  attack  (2  K.  xriii. 
14  to  xix.  37),  and,  considering  that  the  account 
of  Hezekiah's  illness  broke  the  continuity  of  the 
narrative,  removed  it  to  the  end. 

According  to  this  scheme,  Hezekiah's  dangerous 
illness  (2  K.  xx.;  Is.  xxxviii.;  2  Chr.  xxxii.  24) 
nearly  synchronized  with  Sargon's  futile  invasion, 
in  the  fourteenth  year  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  eleven 
years  before  Sennacherib's  invasion.  That  it  must 
have  preceded  the  attack  of  Sennacherib  is  nearly 
obvious  from  the  promise  in  2  K.  xx.  6,  as  well  aa 
from  modern  discoveries  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.  i. 
145);  and  such  is  the  view  adopted  by  the  Rabbii 
{Seder  Olam,  cap.  xxiii.),  Ussher,  and  by  most  com- 
mentators, except  Vitringa  and  Gesenius  (Keil,  ad 
loc;  Prideaux,  i.  22).  There  seems  to  be  nc 
ground  whatever  for  the  vague  conjecture  so  con- 
fidently advanced  (Winer,  s.  v.  Iliskins ;  Jahn 
Ilebr.  Common.  §  xli. )  tliat  the  king's  illness  way 
the  same  plague  which  had  destroyed  tlie  Assyrian 

anny.     The  word  ]^nr-7  is  not  elsewhere  applied 

to  the  plague,  but  to  carbuncles  and  inflammatory 
ulcers  (Ex.  ix.  9;  Job  ii.  7,  <fec.).  Hezekiah,  whose 
kingdom  was  in  a  dangerous  crisis,  who  had  at  that 
time  no  heir  (for  Manasseh  was  not  bom  till  long 
afterwards,  2  K.  xxi.  1),  and  who  regarded  death 
as  the  end  of  existence  (Is.  xxxviii.),  "turned  his 
face  to  the  wall  and  wept  sore  "  at  the  threatened 
approach  of  dissolution.  God  had  compassion  on 
his  anguish,  and  heard  his  prayer.  Isaiah  had 
hardly  left  the  palace  when  he  was  ordered  to 
promise  the  king  immediate  recovery,  and  a  fresh 
lease  of  life,  ratifying  the  promise  by  a  sign,  and 
curing  the  boil  by  a  plaster  of  figs,  which  were  oftec 
used  medicinally  in  similar  cases  (Ges.  Thes.  i- 
311;  Celsius,  Ilierobot.  ii. '377;  Bartholinus,  De 
Moi-bis  Biblicis,  x.  47).  What  was  the  exact  nature 
of  the  disease  we  cannot  say ;  according  to  Meade 
it  was  fever  terminating  in  abscess.  For  som* 
account  of  the  retrogression  of  thf  shadow  on  the 
sundial  of  Ahaz,  see  Dial.  Ou  this  remarkable 
passage  we  must  be  content  to  refer  tlie  reader  to 
Carpzov,  App.  Ciit.  p.  351  ff". ;  Winer,  s.  v.  Hi$k%ai 
and  Uhren ;  Pawlinson,  Herod,  ii.  332  AT. ;  the 
elaborate  notes  of  Keil  on  2  K.  xx. ;  Rosenmiiller 
and  Gesenius  on  Is.  xxxviii.,  and  especially  Ewald, 
Ge$ch.  iii.  638. 

Various  ambassadors  dkme  with  letters  and  gifti 
to  congratulate  Hezekiah  on  his  recovery  (2  Chi 
xxxii.  23),  and  among  them  an  en  bassy  from  Mero 


HEZEKIAH 

9aeh-Daladan  (or  Berodach,  2  K.  xx.  12;  6  Bdx- 
aBa^t  Joseph.  /.  c),  the  viceroy  of  Babylon,  the 
Mardokempados  of  Ptolemy's  caMon.  The  osten- 
lible  object  of  this  mission  was  to  compliment  Heze- 
kiah  on  his  convalescence  (2  K.  xx.  12 ;  Is.  xxxix. 
1),  and  "to  inquire  of  the  wonder  that  was  done 
in  the  land  "  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  31),  a  rumor  of  which 
could  not  fail  to  interest  a  people  devoted  to  astrol- 
ogy. But  its  real  purpose  was  to  discover  how  far 
an  alliance  between  the  two  powers  was  possible  or 
desirable,  for  Mardokempados,  no  less  than  Heze- 
kiah,  was  in  apprehension  of  the  Assyrians.  In 
fact  Sargon  expelled  him  from  the  throne  of  Baby- 
lon in  the  following  year  (the  16th  of  Hezekiah), 
although  after  a  time  he  seems  to  have  returned 
and  reestablished  himself  for  six  months,  at  the  end 
of  which  he  was  murdered  by  BeUbos  (Dr.  Hincks, 
I.  c.  ;  Eosenmliller,  Bibl.  (Jeogr.  ch.  viii. ;  Layard, 
Nin.  and  Bab.  i.  141).  Community  of  interest 
made  Hezekiah  receive  the  overtures  of  Babylon 
with  unconcealed  gratification;  and,  perhaps,  to 
enhance  the  opinion  of  his  own  importance  as  an 
ally,  he  displayed  to  the  messengers  the  princely 
treasures  which  he  and  his  predecessors  had  ac- 
cumulated. The  mention  of  such  rich  stores  is  an 
additional  argument  for  supposing  these  events  to 
have  happened  before  Sennacherib's  invasion  (see  2 
K.  xviii.  14-16),  although  they  are  related  after 
them  in  the  Scripture  historians.  If  ostentation 
were  his  motive  it  received  a  terrible  rebuke,  and 
he  was  informed  by  Isaiah  that  from  the  then  tot- 
tering and  subordinate  province  of  Babylon,  and 
not  from  the  mighty  Assyria,  would  come  the  ruin 
and  captivity  of  Judah  (Is.  xxxix.  5).  This  prophecy 
and  the  one  of  Micah  (Mic.  iv.  10)  are  the  earliest 
definition  of  the  locality  of  that  hostile  power,  where 
the  clouds  of  exile  so  long  threatened  (Lev.  xxvi. 
33;  Deut.  iv.  27,  xxx.  3)  were  beginning  to  gather. 
It  is  an  impressive  and  fearful  circumstance  that 
the  moment  of  exultation  was  chosen  as  the  oppor- 
tunity for  warning,  and  that  the  prophecies  of  the 
Assyrian  deli\erance  are  set  side  by  side  with  those 
of  the  Babylonish  Captivity  (Davidson  On  Prophecy, 
p.  256).  The  weak  friend  was  to  accomplish  that 
which  was  impossible  to  the  powerful  foe.  But, 
although  pride  was  the  sin  thus  vehemently  checked 
by  the  prophet,  Isaiah  was  certainly  not  blind  to 
the  political  motives  (Joseph.  Ant.  x.  2,  §  2),  which 
made  Hezekiah  so  complaisant  to  the  Babylonian 
ambassadors.  Into  those  motives  he  had  inquired 
in  vain,  for  the  king  met  that  portion  of  his  ques- 
tion ("What  said  these  men?")  by  emphatic 
silence.  Ilezekiah's  meek  answer  to  the  stern  de- 
nunciation of  future  woe  has  been  most  unjustly 
censured  as  "  a  false  resignation  which  combines 
selfishness  with  silliness"  (Newman, //eZr.  Mon. 
p.  274).  On  the  contrary  it  merely  implies  a  con- 
fiction  that  God's  decree  could  not  be  otherwise 
than  just  and  right,  and  a  natural  thankfulness  for 
even  a  temporary  suspension  of  its  inevitable  ful- 
fillment. 

Sargon  was  succeeded  (b.  c.  702)  by  his  son 
ftannacherib,  whose  two  invasions  occupy  the  gi-eater 
part  of  the  Scripture  records  concerning  the  eeign 
of  Hezekiah.  The  first  of  these  took  place  vii  the 
third  year  of  Sennacherib  (b.  c.  700),  and  occupies 
only  three  verses  (2  K.  xviii.  13-16),  though  the 
route  of  the  advancing  Assyrians  may  be  traced  in 
is.  X  5,  xi.  The  rumor  of  the  invasion  redoubled 
Hezekiah's  exertions,  and  he  prepared  for  a  siege 
by  providing  oflTensive  and  defensive  armor,  stoppmg 
vp  the  wells,  and  diverting  the  watercourses,  con- 


HEZEKIAH  1069 

ducting  the  water  of  Gihon  into  the  city  by  a  gub- 
terranean  canal  (Kcclus.  xlviii.  17.  For  a  giniilar 
precaution  taken  by  the  Mohammedans,  see  Will 
Tyr.  viii.  7,  Keil).  But  the  main  hope  of  the 
political  factiion  was  the  alliance  with  Egypt,  and 
they  seem  to  have  sought  it  by  presents  and  private 
entreaties  (Is.  xxx.  6),  especially  with  a  view  tc 
obtaining  chariots  and  cavalry  (Is.  xxxi.  1-3),  which 
was  the  .weakest  arm  of  the  Jewish  service,  as  we 
see  from  the  derision  which  it  excited  (2  K.  xviii. 
23).  Such  overtures  kindled  Isaiah's  indignation, 
and  Shebna  may  have  lost  his  high  office  by  recom- 
mending them.  The  prophet  clearly  saw  that  Egypt 
was  too  weak  and  faithless  to  be  serviceable,  and 
the  applications  to  Pharaoh  (who  is  compared  by 
Rabshakeh  to  one  of  the  weak  reeds  of  his  own 
river),  implied  a  want  of  trust  in  the  help  of  God. 
But  Isaiah  did  7iot  disapprove  of  the  spontaneously 
proffered  assistance  of  the  tall  and  warlike  Ethio- 
pians (Is.  xviii.  2,  7,  ace.  to  Ewald's  trans.);  be- 
cause he  may  have  regarded  it  as  a  providential 
aid. 

The  account  given  of  this  first  invasion  in  the 
Annals  of  Sennacherib  is  that  he  attacked  Heze- 
kiah, because  the  Ekronites  had  sent  their  king 
Padiya  (or  "  Haddiya  "  ace.  to  Col.  Kawlinson)  aa 
a  prisoner  to  Jerusalem  (cf.  2  K.  xviii.  8);  that  he 
took  forty-six  cities  ("all  the  fenced  cities"  in  2 
K.  xviii.  13  is  apparently  a  general  expression,  ef. 
xix.  8)  and  200,000  prisoners;  that  he  besieged 
Jerusalem  with  mounds  (cf.  2  K.  xix.  32);  and 
although  Hezekiah  promised  to  pay  800  talents  of 
silver  (of  which  perhaps  300  only  were  ever  paid) 
and  30  of  gold  (2  K.  xviii.  14;  but  see  Layard, 
Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  145),  yet  not  content  with  this 
he  mulcted  him  of  a  part  of  his  dominions,  and 
gave  them  to  the  kings  of  Ekron,  Ashdod,  and  Gaza 
(Rawlinson,  Herod,  i.  475  ff ).  So  important  was 
this  expedition  that  Demetrius,  the  Jewish  his- 
torian, even  attributes  to  Sennacherib  the  Great 
Captivity  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  p.  146,  ed.  Sylb.). 
In  almost  every  particular  this  account  agrees  with 
the  notice  in  Scripture,  and  we  may  see  a  reason 
for  so  great  a  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  Hezekiah  in 
the  glimpse  which  Isaiah  gives  us  of  his  capital  city 
driven  by  desperation  into  licentious  and  impious 
mirth  (xxii.  12-14).  This  campaign  must  at  least 
have  had  the  one  good  result  of  proving  the  worth- 
lessness  of  the  Egyptian  alliance;  for  at  a  place 
called  Altagil  (the  Eltekon  of  Josh.  xv.  59?)  Sen- 
nacherib inflicted  an  overwhelming  defeat  on  the 
combined  forces  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  which  had 
come  to  the  assistance  of  Ekron.  But  Isaiah  re- 
garded the  purchased  treaty  as  a  cowardly  defection, 
and  the  sight  of  his  fellow-citizens  gazing  peacefully 
from  the  house-topS  on  the  bright  array  of  the  car- 
borne  and  quivered  Assyrians,  filled  him  with  in- 
dignation and  despair  (Is.  xxii.  1-7,  if  the  latest 
explanations  of  tliis  chapter  be  correct). 

Hezekiah's  bribe  (or  fine)  brought  a  temporary 
release,  for  the  Assyrians  marched  into  Egypt, 
where,  if  Herodotus  (ii.  141)  and  Josephus  {Ant. 
X.  1-3)  are  to  be  trusted,  they  advanced  without 
resistance  to  Pelusium,  owing  to  the  hatred  of  the 
warrior-caste  against  Sethos  the  king-priest  of 
Pthah,  who  had,  in  his  priestly  predilections,  inte^ 
fered  with  their  prerogatives.  In  spite  of  this 
advantage,  Sennacherib  was  forced  to  n»^  the 
siege  of  Pelusium,  by  the  advance  o.'  Tirhakah  or 
Tarakos,  the  ally  of  Sethos  and  Hezekiah,  who 
afterwards  united  the  crowns  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia. 
This  magnificent  Ethiopian  hero,  who  had  extended 


1060  HEZEKIAH 

Idi  eouquesls  to  the  pillars  of  Hercules  (Strab.  xv. 
472),  was  indeed  sv  formidable  antagonist.  His 
iecds  are  recorded  in  a  temple  at  Medineet  Haboo, 
but  the  jealousy  of  the  Memphites  (Wilkinson,  Anc. 
EgyjA.  i.  141)  concealed  his  assistance,  and  attrib- 
uted the  deliverance  of  Sethos  to  the  miraculous 
interposition  of  an  army  of  mice  (Herod,  ii.  141). 
This  story  may  have  had  its  source,  however,  not 
in  jealousy,  but  in  the  use  of  a  mouse  as  the  em- 
blem of  destruction  (HorapoU.  Hievoyl.  i.  50 ;  Kaw- 
linson,  Herod,  ad  loc),  and  of  some  sort  of  disease 
or  plague  (?  1  Sam.  vi.  18;  Jahn,  Arch.  Bibl.  § 
185).  The  legend  doubtless  gained  ground  from 
the  extraordinary  circumstances  which  afterwards 
ruined  the  army  of  Sennacherib.  "We  say  after- 
warih,  because,  however  much  the  details  of  the 
two  occurrences  may  have  been  confused,  we  can- 
not agree  with  the  majority  of  writers  (Prideaux, 
Bochart,  Michaelis,  Jahn,  Keil,  Newman,  etc.)  in 
identifying  the  flight  of  Sennacherib  from  Pelusium 
with  the  event  described  in  2  K.  xix.  We  prefer 
to  follow  Josephus  in  making  them  allude  to  dis- 
tinct events. 

Returning  from  his  futile  expedition  (^TrpoKTos 
tti'6Xc6p77<r€,  Joseph.  Ant.  x.  1,  §  4),  Sennacherib 
''dealt  treacherously"  with  Hezekiah  (Is.  xxxiii.  1) 
by  attacking  the  stronghold  of  Lachish.  This  was 
the  commencement  of  that  second  invasion,  respect- 
ing which  we  have  such  full  details  in  2  K.  xviii. 
17  ff. ;  2  Chr.  xxxii.  9  fT. ;  Is.  xxxvi.  That  there 
v!ere  two  invasions  (contrary  to  the  opinion  of 
Layard,  Bosanquet,  Vance  Smith,  etc.)  is  clearly 
proved  by  the  details  of  the  first  given  in  the 
Assyrian  annals  (see  Rawlinson,  I/erod.  i.  p.  477). 
Although  the  annals  of  Sennacherib  on  the  great 
cylinder  in  the  Brit.  Museum  reach  to  the  end  of 
his  eighth  year,  and  this  second  invasion  belongs 
to  his  fifth  year  (u.  c.  698,  the  twenty-eighth  year 
of  Hezekiah),  yet  no  allusion  to  it  has  been  found. 
So  shameful  a  disaster  was  naturally  concealed  by 
iiational  vanity.  From  Lachish  he  sent  against 
Jerusalem  an  army  under  two  officers  and  his  cup- 
bearer the  orator  Rabshakeh,  with  a  blasphemous 
and  insulting  summons  to  surrender,  deriduig  Heze- 
kiah's  hopes  of  Egyptian  succor,  and  apparently 
endeavoring  to  inspire  the  people  with  distrust  of 
his  religious  innovations  (2  K.  xviii.  22,  25,  30). 
The  reiteration  and  peculiarity  of  the  latter  argu- 
ment, together  with  Rabshakeh's  fluent  mastery  of 
Hebrew  (which  he  used  to  tempt  the  i)eople  from 
their  allegiance  by  a  glowing  promise,  v.  31,  32), 
give  countenance  to  the  supposition  that  he  was  an 
apostate  Jew.  Hezekiah's  ministers  were  thrown 
into  anguish  and  dismay;  but  the  undaunted  Isaiah 
hurled  back  threatening  for  threatening  with  un- 
rivaled eloquence  and  force.  He  even  prophesied 
that  the  fires  of  1  ophet  were  already  burning  in 
expectancy  of  the  Assyrian  corpses  which  were 
destined  to  feed  their  flame.  Aleanwhile  Sen- 
nacherib, having  taken  Lachish  (an  event  possibly 
depicted  on  a  series  of  slabs  at  INIosul,  Layard,  N. 
arid  B.   148-152),  was   besieging  Libnali,  when. 


a  *  Stanley's  note  may  be  cited  here :  "  By  what 
ipecial  means  this  great  destruction  was  effected,  with 
bow  large  or  small  a  remnant  Sennacherib  returned, 
«  not  told.  It  might  be  a  pestilential  blast  (Is.  xxxvii. 
7;  Joseph.  Ant.  x.  1,  §  6),  according  to  the  analogy 
ty  which  a  pestilence  is  usually  described  in  Scripture 
-tiader  the  image  of  a  destroying  angel  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  49  ; 
I  Sam.  xxiv.  16) ;  and  the  numbers  aro  not  greater 
Ihan  ara  re«;crded  as  perishing  within  very  short 
■•rioda  —  IT-O.OkX)  Carthaginians  in  Sicily,  600,000  U 


HEZEKIAH 

alarmed  by  a  «  rumor  "  of  Tirhakah's  adTuioe  (fef 
avenge  the  defeat  at  AltagCi?),  be  was  forced  te 
rehnqnish  once  more  his  immediate  designs,  an^ 
content  himself  with  a  defiant  letter  to  Hezekiah. 
Whether  on  this  occasion  he  encountered  and  de- 
feated the  Ethiopians  (as  Prideaux  precariously 
infers  from  Is.  xx.  Count ct.  i.  p.  26),  or  not,  we 
cannot  tell.  The  next  event  of  the  campaign,  about 
which  we  are  informed,  is  that  the  Jewish  king 
with  simple  piety  prayed  to  God  with  Sennacherib's 
letter  outspread  before  him  (cf.  1  Mace.  iii.  48), 
and  received  a  prophecy  of  immediate  deUvenince. 
Accordingly  "that  night  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
went  out  and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyriam, 
185,000  men." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  some  secondary  cause  was 
employed  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  evejiL 
We  are  certainly  "not  to  suppose,"  as  Dr.  Johnson 
obser\'ed,  "  that  the  angel  went  about  with  a  a  word 
in  his  hand  stabbing  them  one  by  one,  but  that 
some  powerful  natural  agent  was  employed."  The 
Babylonish  Talmud  and  some  of  the  Targums  at- 
tribute it  to  storms  of  lightning  (Vitringa,  V^ogel, 
etc.);  Prideaux,  Heine  {de  cavsd  Strag.  Assyr.), 
and  Faber  to  the  Simoon ;  R.  Jose,  Ussher,  Preiss  (t/e 
causa  clad.  Assyr. \  etc.,  etc.,  to  a  nocturnal  attack 
by  Tirhakah;  Paulus  to  a  poisoning  of  the  waters; 
and  finally  Josephus,  followed  by  an  immense  ma- 
jority of  ancient  and  modern  commentators,  includ- 
ing even  Keil,  to  the  Pestilence.  'This  would  be  a 
cause  not  only  adequate  (Justin,  xix.  11;  Diodor. 
xix.  p.  434 :  see  the  other  instances  quoted  by  Ro- 
senmiiller,  Winer,  Keil,  Jahn,  etc.),  but  most  prob- 
able in  itself  from  the  crowded  and  terrified  state 
of  the  camp.  There  is  therefore  no  necessity  to 
adopt  the  ingenious  conjectures  by  which  licder- 
lein,  Koppe,  and  Wessler  endeavor  to  get  rid  of  the 
large  number  185,000.« 

After  this  reverse  Sennacherib  fled  precipitatdy 
to  Nineveh,  where  he  revenged  himself  on  as  many 
Jews  as  were  in  his  power  (Tob.  i.  18),  and  after 
many  years  (not  fifty-five  days,  as  Tobit  says,  i. 
21),  was  murdered  by  two  of  his  sons  as  he  drank 
himself  drunk  in  the  house  of  Nisroch  (Assarac?) 
his  god.  He  certainly  lived  till  b.  c.  080,  for  his 
22d  year  is  mentioned  on  a  clay  tablet  (Rawlinson, 
/.  c);  he  must  therefore  have  sunived  Hezekiah 
by  some  seventeen  years.  It  is  probable  that  sev- 
eral of  the  Psalms  (e.  g.  xlvi.-xlviii.,  Ixxvi.)  allude 
to  his  discomfiture. 

Hezekiah  only  lived  to  enjoy  for  about  one  year 
more  his  well-earned  peace  and  glory.  He  slept 
with  his  fathers  after  a  reign  of  twenty-nine  years, 
in  the  56th  year  of  his  age  (b.  c.  097),  and  was 
buried  with  great  honor  and  universal  mourning 
"  in  the  chiefest  of  the  sepulchres  (or  '  the  road 
leading  up  to  the  sepulchres,'  iv  avafidaei  rd<pw)fy 
LXX.,  because,  as  Thenius  conjectures,  the  actual 
sepulchres  were  full)  of  the  sons  of  David  "  (2  Chr. 
xxxii.  33).  He  had  found  time  for  many  works  of 
peace  in  the  noble  and  almost  blameless  course  cf 
his  troubled  life,  and  to  his  pious  labors  we  are  in* 


seven  months  at  Cairo  (Geseniuj,  ad  loc).  It  might 
be  accompanied  by  a  storm.  So  Vitringa  understood 
it,  and  this  would  best  suit  the  words  in  Is.  xxx.  29" 
{History  of  the  Jewish  Church,  ii.  530).  A  mutilated 
account  of  this  wonder  was  current  among  the  £g}'p 
tians.  They  ascribed  it,  as  a  matter  of  course,  t* 
their  own  divinities,  but  unquestionably  had  in  Ti** 
the  same  occurrence  (sen  Kawlinron,  Herod,  ii.  111). 

B. 


HEZEKIAH 

lebted  for  at  least  one  portion  of  Lhe  presen^  canon 
^ProY.  XXV.  1;  Ecclus.  xlviii.  17  ff).  He  can  have 
10  finer  panegyric  tiian  the  words  of  the  son  of 
Sirach,  "  even  the  kinsrs  of  Judah  failed,  for  they 
forsook  the  law  of  the  Most  High ;  all  except  Da- 
vid, and  Ezekias,  and  Judas  failed.^'' 

Besides  the  reiany  authors  and  commentators  who 
have  \vritten  on  this  period  of  Jewish  history  (on 
which  much  light  has  been  recently  thrown  by 
Mr.  Layard,  Sir  G.  Wilkinson,  Sir.  H.  Kawlinson, 
Dr.  Hincks,  and  other  scholars  who  have  studied 
the  Nineveh  remains),  see  for  continuous  lives  of 
Hezekiah,  Josephus  (Ant,  ix.  Vi-x.  2),  Prideaux 
(Connect,  i.  Ifi-SO),  Jahn  (flehr.  Coram.  §  xli.), 
Winer  (s.  v.  Ifisklas)^  and  Ewald  ( Gesch.  iii.  6  l-i- 
G44,  2d  ed.).  F.  W.  F. 

*  Dean  Stanley  devotes  a  long  lecture  (Fllstory 
vfthe  Jewish  Church,  ii.  505-540)  to  the  character 
of  Hezekiah,  and  the  events  with  which  he  was 
connected.  "The  reign  of  Hezekiah  is  the  cul- 
minating point  of  interest  in  the  history  of  the 
kings  of  Judah."  Yet  the  interest  of  his  personal 
history  is  mainly  that  which  arises  fi-om  the  con- 
templation of  his  example  as  one  of  faith  and  piety, 
and  of  the  wonderful  deliverances  vouchsafed  to  the 
nation  for  his  sake,  though  both  these  and  his  ear- 
nest efforts  for  the  reformation  of  the  people  served 
only  to  delay,  but  not  to  avert  the  hastening  ruin 
of  the  commonwealth.  The  sketch  drawn  by  Mr. 
Stanley  of  Hezekiah's  repairing  to  the  temple  with 
the  defiant  letter  of  Sennacherib,  to  spread  it  before 
Jehovah  and  to  implore  his  help,  brings  out  the 
monarch's  character  at  that  most  critical  juncture 
in  its  best  light.  The  Assyrian  conqueror  had  sent 
from  Lachish,  demanding  the  submission  of  Heze- 
kiah and  the  surrender  of  Jerusalem  into  the  hands 
of  his  general.  On  hearing  this  summons,  Eli- 
akim,  Shebna,  and  Joah,  Hezekiah's  three  highest 
officers,  "tore  their  garments  in  horror,  and  ap- 
peared in  that  state  before  the  king.  He,  too,  gave 
way  to  the  same  uncontrolled  burst  of  grief.  He 
and  they  both  dressed  themselves  in  sackcloth,  and 
the  king  took  refuge  in  the  Temple.  The  minis- 
ters went  to  seek  comfort  from  Isaiah.  The  in- 
sulting embassy  returned  to  Sennacherib.  The 
army  was  moveid  from  Lachish  and  lay  in  front  of 
the  fortress  of  Libnah.  A  letter  couched  in  terms 
like  those  already  used  by  his  envoys,  was  sent 
direct  from  the  king  of  Assyria  to  the  king  of  Ju- 
dah. What  would  be  their  fate  if  they  were  taken, 
they  might  know  from  the  fate  of  Lachish,  which 
we  still  see  on  the  sculptured  monuments,  where 
the  inhabitants  ire  lying  before  the  king,  stripped 
in  order  to  be  flayed  alive.  Hezekiah  took  the 
{otter,  and  penetrating,  as  it  would  seem,  into  the 
Most  Holy  Place,  laid  it  before  the  Divine  Presence 
eiithroned  above  the  cherubs,  and  called  upon  him 
whose  name  it  insulted,  to  look  down  and  see  with 
his  own  eyes  the  outrage  that  was  offered  to  him. 
From  that  dark  recess  no  direct  answer  was  vouch- 
oafed.  The  answer  came  through  the  mouth  of 
Isaiah.  From  the  first  moment  that  Sennacherib's 
army  had  appeared,  he  had  held  the  same  language 
of  unbroken  hope  and  confidence,  clothed  in  every 
rariety  of  imagery.  ...  It  was  a  day  of  awful 
luspense.  In  proportion  to  the  strength  of  Isaiah's 
sonfidence  and  of  Hez^'kiah's  devotion,  would  have 
\;«en  the  ruin  of  the  Jewish  church  and  faith,  if 
<hev  had  been  disappointed  of  their  hope.  It  was 
I  day  of  suspense  also  for  the  two  great  armies 
irhich  were  drawing  near  to  their  encounter  on  the 
x>Dfiuei  }f  Palestine.     Like  ^nianus  in  the  siege 


HEZEKIAH 


lOtM 


of  Orleans,  Hezekiah  must  have  kioked  HOuth^iaKI 
and  westward  with  ever  keener  and  keener  eager- 
ness. For  already  there  was  a  runior  that  Tirha- 
kail,  the  king  of  Egypt,  was  on  his  way  to  the  rescue 
Already  Sennacherib  had  heard  the  rumor,  and  it 
was  this  which  precipitated  his  endeavor  to  in- 
timidate Jerusalem  into  submission.  The  evening 
closed  in  on  what  seemed  to  be  the  devoted  city. 
The  morning  dawned,  and  with  the  morning  came 
the  tidings  from  the  camp  at  Libnah,  that  they 
were  delivered.  '  It  came  to  pass  that  night  (2 
K.  xix.  35)  that  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  went  forth, 
and  smote  in  the  camp  of  the  Assyrians  a  hundred 
and  fourscore  and  five  thousand.'  .  .  .  The  As- 
syrian king  at  once  returned,  and,  according  to  the 
Jewish  tradition,  wreaked  his  vengeance  on  the 
Israelite  exiles  whom  he  found  in  Mesopotamia 
He  was  the  last  of  the  great*  Assyrian  conquerors. 
No  Assyrian  host  again  ever  crossed  the  Jordan. 
Within  a  few  years  from  that  time  ...  the  As- 
syrian power  suddenly  vanished  from  the  earth." 

It  was  in  all  probability  at  the  time  of  Sen- 
nacherib's first  invasion  of  Palestine  that  Hezekiah 
purchased  his  exemption  from  subjection  to  the 
Assyrian  yoke  by  the  payment  of  a  fine.  If  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  are  rightly  interpreted,  they 
furnish  an  important  confirmation  of  the  Biblical 
account  of  this  expedition,  and  of  its  results  as  re- 
gards Hezekiah  and  the  Jews.  The  boastful  record 
on  one  of  the  cylinders  is  said  to  read  as  follows: 
" '  And  because  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,'  says 
Sennacherib,  ♦  would  not  submit  to  my  yoke,  I  came 
up  against  him,  and  by  force  of  arms  and  by  the 
might  of  my  power,  I  took  fvrty-slx  of  his  strong 
fenced  cities ;  and  of  the  smaller  towns  which  were 
scattered  about,  I  took  and  plundered  a  countless 
number.  And  from  these  places  I  captured  and  car^ 
ried  off  as  spoil  two  hundred  thousand  one  hundred 
and  fifty  people,  old  and  young,  male  and  female, 
together  with  horses  and  mares,  asses  and  camels, 
oxen  and  sheep,  a  countless  multitude.  And  Heze- 
kiah himself  I  shut  up  in  Jerusalem,  his  capital  citv, 
like  a  bird  in  a  cage,  building  towers  round  the  city 
to  hem  him  in,  and  raising  banks  of  earth  against 
the  gates,  so  as  to  prevent  escape.  .  .  .  Then  upon 
this  Hezekiah  there  fell  the  fear  of  the  power  of 
my  arms,  and  he  sent  out  to  me  the  chiefs  and  the 
elders  of  Jerusalem  with  30  talents  of  gold  and  800 
talents  of  silver,  and  divers  treasures,  a  rich  and 
immense  booty.  (See  2  K.  xviii.  13-16.)  .  .  . 
All  these  things  were  brought  to  me  at  Nineveh, 
the  seat  of  my  government,  Hezekiah  having  sent 
them  by  way  of  tribute,  and  as  a  token  of  his  sub- 
mission to  my  power.'  "  (See  Kawlinson's  Bmnp- 
ton  Lectures  for  1859,  p.  316  f.,  Amer.  ed.)  Dean 
Milman  also  calls  attention  to  this  coincidence 
(History  of  the  Jews,  i.  427,  Amer.  ed.). 

The  chronological  order  of  some  of  the  events 
in  Hezekiah's  life  is  not  easily  adjusted.  The 
events  are  related  in  different  books  (Kings,  Chron 
icles,  Micah,  Isaiah),  and  not  with  many  notations 
of  time.  M.  von  Niebuhr  treats  of  some  of  the 
questions  relating  to  the  synchronism  of  Hezekiah's 
history  with  that  of  the  Babylonians  and  Egyp- 
tians (Geschichte  Assures  u.  Babel's,  pp.  71,  76, 
88,  100  f.,  179).  For  valuable  articles  on  Heze- 
kiah, see  Winer's  Bibl.  Realm,  i.  496-499 :  Her- 
zc  ^' 8  Real- Encyk.  vi.  151-157;  and  Zeller's  Bibl. 
Vlrterb.  i.  612-615,  2te  Aufl.  For  information 
on  related  subjects,  the  reader  is  referred  in  thii 
Dictionary  to  DrAr.;  Isaiah;  Sajoon;  Seh 
isaciikuib:  Lachish;  and  Micail  H. 


1062  HEZION 

2  ['E^e/ffa.]  Son  of  Neariab,  one  of  the  de- 
Ksendants  of  the  royal  family  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iii.  23). 

3.  [Iizecias ;  ed.  1590,  -diias.]  The  same 
Dame,  though  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  IIizkiau,  is 
l>und  in  Zeph.  i.  1. 

4.  Ater-of-Hezekiah.  [Ater.]   F.  W.  F. 

HE'ZIOI^  O'y^]^  \»i<M  visiony.  'a^V; 
[Vat.  A^eiv;]  Alex.  A^ar/A:  Ilezion),  a  king  of 
Aram  (Syria)  father  of  'J'abrimon,  and  grandfather 
of  Benhadad  I.  He  and  his  father  are  mentioned 
only  in  1  K.  xv.  18,  and  their  names  are  omitted 
by  Josephus.  In  the  absence  of  all  information, 
the  natural  suggestion  is  that  he  is  identical  with 
Rezox,  the  contemporary  of  Solomon,  in  1  K.  xi. 
23 ;  the  two  names  being  very  similar  in  Hebrew, 
and  still  more  so  in  other  versions  (compare  Arab, 
and  Peshito  on  the  latter  passage) ;  and  indeed  this 
conclusion  has  been  adopted  by  some  translators 
and  commentators  (Junius,  Kchler,  Dathe,  Ewald). 
Against  it  are  (a),  that  the  number  of  generations 
of  the  Syrian  kings  would  then  be  one  less  than 
those  of  the  contemporary  kings  of  Judah.  But 
then  the  reign  of  Abijain  was  only  three  years,  and 
in  fact  Jeroboam  outlived  both  Kehoboam  and  his 
son.  {b.)  The  statement  of  Nicolaus  of  Damascus 
(Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  5,  §  2),  that  from  the  time  of 
David  for  ten  generations  the  kings  of  Syria  were 
one  dynasty,  each  king  taking  the  name  of  Hadad, 
"  as  did  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt."  But  this  would 
exclude,  not  only  Hezion  and  Tabrinion,  but  Kezon, 
unless  we  may  interpret  the  last  sentence  to  mean 
that  the  official  title  of  Hadad  was  held  in  addition 
to  the  ordinary  name  of  the  king.    [Rezox  ;  Tab- 

RIMON.]  G. 

HE'ZIR  (l^yn  [miney.  Xtjj.Tv;  [Vat.  Xt?- 
^eiv;]  Alex.  le^eip;  [Comp.  X-nC^ip'  Hezh-]).  1. 
A  priest  in  the  time  of  David,  leader  of  the  17th 
monthly  course  in  the  service  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  15). 

2.  ['H0p;  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  UC^ip:  Ifazir.] 
One  of  the  heads  of  the  people  (laymen)  who  sealed 
the  solemn  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  20). 

HEZ'RAI  [2  syl.]  {^y:n  [=  V^O,  Hez- 
ron,  which  see],  according  to  the  Keri  of  the  Ma- 
sorets,  but  the  original  reading  of  the  text,  Cetib, 

has  "T^^^n  =  Hezro :  'Aaapdi;  [Alex.  Affapai'-] 
Hesrai),  a  native  of  Carmel,  perhaps  of  the  south- 
em  one,  and  in  that  case  possibly  once  a  slave  or 
adherent  of  Nabal ;  one  of  the  30  heroes  of  David's 
guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  35).  In  the  parallel  list  the 
name  appears  as  — 

HEZ'RO  (Tn^^n  [see  jn/»'«]=  'Hcepc;  Alex. 
Ao-apoi;  [Aid. 'Ao-pal*:  Comp.  *E<rp(0  Hesro),\n 
1  Chr.  xi.  37.  Kennicott,  however  {Dissertation, 
pp.  207,  208),  decides,  on  the  almost  unanimous 
authority  of  the  ancient  versions,  that  Hetzrai  is 
the  original  form  of  the  name. 

HEZ'RON  (l''Vr7  [blooming,  Furst;  but 
walled,  as  a  garden,  Gos.]:  *Aapik>u;  [Alex,  in 
Num.,  Affpufji-]  Jlesron).  1.  A  son  of  Reuben 
(Gen.  xlvi.  9;  Ex.  vi.  14),  who  founded  the  family 
of  the  Hezronites  (Num.  xxvi.  6). 

2.  A  son  of  Pharez,  and  one  of  the  dupect  an- 
oeitors  of  David  (Gen.  xlvi.  12;  Ruth  iv.  18);  in 
LXX.  'Effpcov  (once  var.  lect.  Grab.  *Acp(S)v\  and 
'Effp^fiy  which  is  followed  in  Matt.  i.  3.  [Vat.  in 
B'llh,  Eo-pwj/;  in  1  Chr.  ii.  9,  18,  21,  25,  Efffptav; 
1.  to,  iv.  1,  Apffwu-  Vulg.  Jlesron,  in  Ruth  Esron.] 

T.  E.  B. 


HIEL 

HEZ'RONITES,  THE  {''yi'^rill:  6  At 
puvi  [Vat.  -j/et] :  J/esronitce).  A  branch  oS  Ha 
tribe  of  Judah,  descendants  of  Hezron,  the  son  d 
Pharez  (Num.  xxvi.  21).  [In  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611 
the  word  is  spelt  IIe.sronites.  —  A.]    W.  A.  W. 

HIDDAI  [2  syl.]  O'^Tl  [mighty  chiefs 
Alex.  A00aj;  [Comp.  'H5aj;  Aid.  Oyp/;]  Vat 
omits:  Iltddai),  one  of  the  thirty-seven  heroes  ol 
David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  30),  described  as  "ol 
the  torrents  of  Gaash."  In  the  parallel  list  of  ] 
Chr.  (xi.  32)  the  name  is  given  as  lIuuAi.  Ken- 
nicott ( Dissert,  p.  194 )  decides  in  favor  of  "  Hurai " 
on  grounds  for  which  the  reader  must  be  referred 
to  his  work. 

HIDDE'KEL  (bp'^n  [shar/),  swift,  Dietr. 
in  Ges.  6te  Aufl.]:  Tt7pts;  [in  Dan.  (Theodot.),] 
Tiy.pts  'ESSe/fcA  [Alex.  EvSfKeX]  :  Tygris,  Ti- 
gris), one  of  the  rivers  of  Eden,  the  river  which 
"goeth  eastward  to  Assyria"  (Gen.  ii.  14),  and 
which  Daniel  cxlls  "the  Great  river"  (Dan.  x.  4), 
seems  to  have  been  rightly  identified  by  the  LXX. 
with  the  Tigris.     It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the 

initial  H,  unless  it  be  for  ^H,  "  lively,"  which  is 
used  of  running  water  in  Gen.  xxvi.  19.  Dekel 
(  Vp"l)  is  clearly  an  equivalent  of  Digla  or  DiglatJi^ 
a  name  borne  by  the  Tigris  in  all  ages.  The  form 
Diglath  occurs  in  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jon- 
athan, in  Josephus  {Ant.  i.  1),  in  the  Armenian 
Eusebius  {Chron.  Can.  pars  i.  c.  2),  in  Zonaraa 
{Ann.  i.  2),  and  in  the  Armenian  version  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  hardened  to  Diglit  (Dighto)  by 
Pliny  (//.  N.  vi.  27).  The  name  now  in  use  among 
the  inliabitants  of  Mesopotamia  is  Dijleh. 

It  has  generally  been  supjwsed  that  Digla  is  a 
mere  Semitic  corruption  of  Tigra,  and  that  this 
latter  is  the  true  name  of  the  stream.  Strabo  (xi. 
14,  §  8),  Phny  {loc.  cit.)  and  other  wTiters  tell  ug 
that  the  river  received  its  designation  from  its 
rapidity,  the  word  Tigris  ( Tigra)  meaning  in  the 
Medo-Persic  language  "an  arrow."  This  seems 
probable  enough ;  but  it  must  be  observed  that  the 
two  forms  are  found  side  by  side  in  the  Babylonian 
transcript  of  the  Behistun  inscription,  and  that  the 
ordinary  name  of  the  stream  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Assyria  is  Tig  gar.  Moreover,  if  we  allow  the 
Dekel  of  Iliddeket,  to  mean  the  Tigris,  it  would 
seem  probable  that  this  was  the  more  ancient  of 
the  two  appellations.  Perhaps,  therefore,  it  is  best 
to  suppose  that  there  was  in  early  Babylonian  a 
root  dik,  equivalent  in  meaning,  and  no  doubt  con- 
nected in  origin,  with  the  Aryan  tig  or  tij,  and 
that  from  these  two  roots  were  formed  independ- 
ently the  two  names,  Dekel,  Dikla,  or  Digla,  anu 
Tiggar,  Tigra,  or  'J'igris.  The  stream  was  known 
by  either  name  indifferently ;  but  on  the  whole  the 
Aryan  appellation  predominated  in  ancient  timea, 
and  was  that  most  commonly  used  even  by  Semitia 
races.  The  Arabians,  however,  when  they  ccnqaered 
Mesopotamia,  revived  the  true  Semitic  title,  and 
this  {Dijleh)  continues  to  be  the  name  by  which 
the  river  is  known  to  the  natives  down  to  the  pres- 
ent day.  The  course  of  the  river  is  described  under 
Tigris.  G.  R. 

HI'EL  (bS^n,  perhaps  for  ^^71^  [God 
lives,  Ges.]:  'Ax«^A  ?  [Vat.  AydtjX;  Comp 
Xi-f]\ :]  Hiel),  a  native  of  Bethel,  who  rebuilt  Jer 
icho  in  the  reign  of  Ahab  (1  K.  xvi.  34);  and  ii 
whom  was  fulfilled  the  curse  pronounced  by  Joahuft 


HIERAPOLIS 

(loah.  vi  26).  Strabo  speaks  of  this  cursing  of  a 
iestroyed  city  as  an  ancient  custom,  and  instances 
khe  curses  imprecated  by  Agamemnon  and  Croesus 
(Grot.  Aiinot.  ad  Josh.  vi.  26);  Masius  compares 
the  cursing  of  Carthage  by  the  Romans  (Pol.  Syn.). 

The  terra  Bethelite  C^^.^H  ^"'^^^  ^^^^^  °"^^  ^^  ^^^' 
dered  family  of  cuvsbig  (Pet.  JNIart.),  and  also 
house  or  jjlace  of  cursiny  (Arab..  Syr.,  and  Chald. 
versions),  qu.  H^S  rT^Sl ;  but  there  seems  no  rea- 
son for  questioning  the  accuracy  of  the  LXX.  6 
Baidr)\iTVS,  which  is  approved  by  most  commen- 
tators, and  sanctioned  by  Ges.  (Lex.  s.  v.).  The 
rebuilding  of  Jericho  was  an  intrusion  upon  the 
kingdom  of  Jehoshaphat,  unless  with  Pet.  Mart. 
we  suppose  that  Jericho  had  already  been  detached 
fiom  it  by  the  kings  of  Israel.  T.  E.  B. 

HIERAP'OLIS  {'UpdwoKis  [sacred  city]). 
This  place  is  mentioned  only  once  in  Scripture,  and 
that  incidentally,  namely,  in  Col.  iv.  13,  where  its 
church  is  associated  with  those  of  Coloss.e  and 
IjAODicea.  Such  association  is  just  what  we 
should  expect;  for  the  three  towns  were  all  in  the 
basin  of  the  Maeander,  and  within  a  few  miles  of 
one  another.  It  is  probable  that  Hierapolis  was 
one  of  the  "  inlustres  Asiae  urbes  "  (Tac.  Ann.  xiv. 
27)  which,  with  Laodicea,  were  simultaneously  des- 
olated by  an  earthquake  about  the  time  when  Chris- 
tianity was  established  in  this  district.  There  is 
little  doubt  that  the  church  of  Hierapolis  was 
founded  at  the  same  time  with  that  of  Colossae, 
and  that  its  characteristics  in  the  apostolic  period 
were  the  same.  Its  modern  name  is  Pamboulc- 
Kalessi.  The  most  remarkable  feature  of  the 
neighborhood  consists  of  the  hot  calcareous  springs, 
which  have  deposited  the  vast  and  singular  incrus- 
tations noticed  by  travellers.  See,  for  instance, 
Chandler,  Trav.  in  Asia  Minoi-  (1817),  i.  264-272; 
Hamilton,  Res.  in  Asia  Minor  (1842),  i.  507-522. 
The  situation  of  Hierapolis  is  extremely  beautiful; 
and  its  ruins  are  considerable,  the  theatre  and  gym- 
nasium being  the  most  conspicuous.        J.  S.  H. 

*  Arundel  passed  within  sight  of  Hierapolis, 
which  he  describes  as  high  up  on  the  mountain 
side,  on  a  ten-ace  extending  several  miles  (Discov- 
eries in  Asirt  Jlfinor,  ii.  200).  Kichter  (  Wallfahr- 
ten,  p.  533  ff.)  states  that  Hierapolis  and  Laodicea 
(mentioned  together.  Col.  iv.  13)  lie  within  view 
of  each  other  on  opposite  sides  of  the  Lycus.  For 
notices  by  still  other  travellers,  see  Pococke's  De- 
scription of  the  Kasf,  etc.,  ii.  pt.  ii.  75;  Fellows's 
Asia  Minor,  p.  283  ff. :  and  Schubert's  Reise  in 
das  Morgenland,  p.  283.  The  various  observations 
are  brought  concisely  together  in  Lewin's  sketch 
(Life  and  Episths  of  St.  Paul,  i.  204  f.).  Ep- 
aphras  may  ha\e  founded  the  church  at  HierapoHs ; 
and  at  all  events,  that  city  was  one  of  the  places 
where  he  manifested  that  zeal  for  the  truth  ac- 
credited to  him  by  the  Apostle  (Col.  iv.  13) 
The  celebrated  Stoic  philosopher,  Epictetus,  was  a 
native  of  Hierapolis,  and  nearly  contemporary  with 
Paul  and  Epaphras.  H. 

HIER'EEL  ('l6pe^\:  Jeelech),  1  Esdr.  ix, 
U.     [Jeiiiel.] 

HIER'EMOTH   ('Upefxcie:   EHmoth).      1. 

Esdr.  ix.  27.     [Jeremoth.] 

2.  [Jerimoih.']    1  Esdr.  ix.  30.    [Ramoth.] 

HIERIEXUS  CleCptrAos,  /.  e.  lezrielos; 
rVat.  uQopiKXos',  .A.ld.  'Ifp^TjAo?:]  Jezrelus),  1 
Gidr.  U.  27-     I'Lia  answers  to  Jeiiikl  in  the  lisi 


HIGH  PLACES 


1063 


of  Ez.r.  X.;    but  whence  our  translators  obtuned 
their  form  of  the  name  does  not  appear. 

*  Our  translators  evidently  derived  this  form  of 
the  name  from  the  Aldine  edition  of  the  LXX. 
which  they  have  so  often  followed  in  the  Apoo* 
rypha.  A. 

HIER'MAS  CUpfxds;  [Vat.iep/to:]  Remias), 
1  Esdr.  ix.  26.     [Ramiah.] 

HIERON'YMUS  ('Upduvfxos  [sacred- 
named]  :  Ilieronymus),  a  Syrian  general  in  the 
time  of  Antiochus  V.  F.upator  (2  Mace.  xii.  2). 
The  name  was  m^de  distinguished  among  the 
Asiatic  Greeks  by  Ilieronymus  of  Cardia,  the  his- 
torian of  Alexander's  successors.  B.  F.  W. 

*  HIERU'SALEM  is  used  in  the  A.  V.  ed. 

1611,  and  other  early  editions,  for  Jerusalem. 

HIGGAION  [3  syl.]  ClV2n  :  ^S^),  a  word 
which  occurs  three  times  in  the  book  of  Psalms 
(ix.  17  [16],  xix.  15  [14],  xcii.  4  [3]).  Mendelssohn 
translates  it  meditation,  thoiujht,  idea.  Knapp 
(Die  Psdmen)  identifies  it,  in  Ps.  ix.  17,  with  the 

Arabic  *^n  and  S^H,  *'  to  mock,"  and  hence 
his  rendering  "What  a  shout  of  laughter!  "  (be- 
cause the  wicked  are  entrapped  in  their  own  snares) ; 
but  in  Ps.  xcii.  4,  he  translates  it  by  "  Lieder " 
(songs).  R.  David  Kimchi  likewise  assigns  two 
separate  meanings  to  the  word ;  on  Ps.  ix.  17  he 
says,  '•  This  aid  is  for  us  (a  subject  of)  meditation 
and  thankfulness,"  whilst  in  his  commentary  on 
the  passage  Ps.  xcii.  4,  he  gives  to  the  same  word 
the  signification  of  melody,  "  this  is  the  melody  of 
the  hymn  when  it  is  recited  (played)  on  the  harp." 
"  We  will  meditate  on  this  forever  "  (Rashi,  Comm. 
on  Ps.  ix.  17).  In  Ps.  ix.  17,  Aben  Ezra's  Com- 
ment, on  "  Higgaion  Selah  "  is,  "this  will  I  record 
in  truth:"  on  Ps.  xcii.  4  he  says,  "Higgaion 
means  the  melody  of  the  hymn,  or  it  is  the  name 
of  a  musical  instrument."     According  to  Fiirst, 

■jVin  is  derived  from  TOH.  "to  whisper:"  (a) 
it  refers  to  the  vibration  of  the  harp,  or  to  the 
opening  of  an  interlude,  an  opinion  supported  by 
the  LXX.,  Symmachus,  and  Aquilas:  (b)  it  refers 
to  silent  meditation :  this  is  agreeable  to  the  use  of 
the  word  in  the  Talmud  and  in  the  Rabbinical 

writings;  hence  IV^H  for  logic  (Concord.  Hebr. 
atque  Chald.). 

It  should  seem,  then,  that  Higgaion  has  two 
meanings,   one  of  a  general  character  implying 

thought,   reflection,   from   H^TI  (comp.    P*'!!?!'! 

>dh,  Ps.  ix.  17,  and  CVH  bD  <hv  D3Vn^^ 
Lam.  iii.  62),  and  another  in  Ps.  ix.  17  and  Pa 
xcii.  4,  of  a  technical  nature,  bearing  on  the  im  • 
port  of  musical  sounds  or  signs  well  known  in  the 
age  of  David,  but  the  precise  meaning  of  which 
cannot  at  this  distance  of  time  be  determined. 

D.  W.  M. 

HIGH  PLACES  (niD^  :  in  the  historical 
books,  ra  v^pTjXd,  to.  i/»|/rj;  in  the  Prophets,  fiwfioi; 
in  the  Pentateuch,  arriXai,  I^v.  xxvi.  30,  &c.; 
and  once  elfScoXa,  I'lz.  xvi.  16:  excelsa,  fana). 
From  the  earliest  times  it  was  the  custom  among 
ad  nations  to  erect  altars  and  places  of  worship  on 
lofty  and  conspicuous  spots.  We  find  that  the 
Trojans  sacrificed  to  Zeus  on  Mount  Ida  (//.  z. 
171),  and  we  are  repeatedly  told  hat  such  was  tin 
custom  of  the  Persians,  Greek&    Germaoa,  eto, 


1064 


HIGH  PLACES 


they  fancied  that  the  hill-tops  were  nearer 
heaven,  and  therefore  the  most  favorable  places  for 
prayer  and  incense  (Herod,  i.  131;  Xen.  Cyrop. 
viii.  7;  Mem.  iii.  8,  §  10;  Strab.  xv.  p.  732;  Luc. 
efe  Sacrif.  i.  4 ;  Creuzer,  Srjmb.  i.  159 ;  Winer,  s.  v. 
Berggotter).  To  this  general  custom  we  find  con- 
stant allusion  in  the  Bible  (Is.  Ixv.  7;  Jer.  iii.  6; 
Ez.  vi.  13,  xviii.  6;  Hos.  iv.  13),  and  it  is  espe- 
cially attributed  to  the  Moabites  (Is.  xv.  2,  xvi. 
12;  Jer.  xlviii.  35).  Even  Abraham  built  an  altar 
to  the  Lord  on  a  mountain  near  IJethel  (Gen.  xii.  7, 
8;  of.  xxii.  2-4,  xxxi.  54)  which  shows  that  the 
practice  was  then  as  innocent  as  it  was  natural;  and 
although  it  afterwards  became  mingled  with  idol- 
atrous observances  (Num.  xxiii.  3),  it  was  in  itself 
far  less  hkely  to  be  abused  than  the  consecration 
of  groves  (Hos.  iv.  13).  The  external  religion  of 
the  patriarchs  was  in  some  outward  observances 
different  from  that  subsequently  established  by  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  therefore  they  should  not  be  con- 
demned for  actions  which  afterwards  became  sinful 
only  because  they  were  forbidden  (Heidegger,  Hist. 
Pair.  II.  iii.  §  53).     [Bamah.] 

It  is,  however,  quite  obvious  that  if  every  grove 
and  eminence  had  been  suffered  to  become  a  place 
for  legitimate  worship,  especially  in  a  country  where 
they  had  already  been  defiled  with  the  sins  of 
polytheism,  the  utmost  danger  would  have  resulted 
to  the  pure  worship  of  the  one  true  God  (Haver- 
nick,  Einl.  i.  p.  592).  It  would  infallibly  have  led 
to  the  adoption  of  nature-goddesses,  and  "  gods  of 
the  hills  "  (1  K.  xx.  23).  It  was  therefore  implic- 
itly forbidden  by  the  law  of  IMoses  (Dent.  xii.  11- 
14),  which  also  gave  the  strictest  injunction  to 
destroy  these  monuments  of  Canaanitish  idolatry 
(Lev.  xxvi.  30;  Num.  xxxiii.  52;  Deut.  xxxiii.  29, 
ubi  LXX.  rpdxv^os),  without  stating  any  general 
reason  for  this  command,  beyond  the  fact  that  they 
had  been  connected  with  such  association's.  It 
seems,  however,  to  be  assumed  that  every  Israelite 
would  perfectly  understand  why  groves  and  high 
places  were  prohibited,  and  therefore  they  are  only 
condemned  by  virtue  of  the  iiy  unction  to  use  but 
one  altar  for  the  purposes  of  sacrifice  (I^v.  xvii.  3, 
4;  Deut.  xii.  passim,  xvi.  21;  John  iv.  20). 

The  command  was  a  prospective  one,  and  was 
not  to  come  into  force  until  such  time  as  the  tribes 
were  settled  in  the  promised  land,  and  "  had  rest 
from  all  their  enemies  round  about."  Thus  we 
find  that  both  Gideon  and  JNIanoah  built  alUirs  on 
high  places  by  Divine  command  (Judg.  vi.  25,  26, 
xiii.  16-23),  and  it  is  quite  clear  from  the  tone  of 
ihe  book  of  Judges  that  the  law  on  the  subject 
was  either  totally  forgotten  or  practically  obsolete. 
Nor  could  the  unsettled  state  of  the  country  have 
L>een  pleaded  as  an  excuse,  since  it  seems  to  have 
been  most  fully  understood,  even  during  the  life  of 
Joshua,  that  burnt-offerings  could  be  legally  offered 
on  one  altar  only  (Josh.  xxii.  29).  It  is  more  sur- 
prising to  find  this  law  absolutely  ignored  at  a 
much  later  period,  when  there  was  no  intelligible 
reason  for  its  violation  —  as  by  Samuel  at  Mizpeh 
(1  Sam.  vii.  10)  and  at  Bethlehem  (xvi.  5);  by 
Saul  at  Gilgal  (xiii.  9)  and  at  Ajalon  (?  xiv.  35); 
by  David  (1  Chr.  xxi.  26);  by  Elijah  on  Mount 
Carmel  (1  K.  xviii.  30);  and  by  other  prophets 
(I  Sam.  X.  5).  To  suppose  that  in  all  these  cases 
*he  rule  was  superseded  by  a  Divine  intimation 
appears  to  us  an  unwarrantable  expedient,  the 
aiore  so  as  the  actors  in  the  transactions  do  not 
appear  to  be  aware  of  anything  extraordinary  in 
ih^  oonduot    The  Rabbis  have  invented  elaborate 


HIGH  PLACJES 

methods  to  account  for  the  anomaly:  thua  thej 
say  that  high  places  were  allowed  until  the  build 
ing  of  the  Tabernacle;  that  they  were  then  illegal 
until  the  arrival  at  Gilgal,  and  then  during  th« 
period  while  the  Tabernacle  was  at  Shiloh ;  that 
they  were  once  more  permitted  whilst  it  was  at 
Nob  and  Gideon  (cf.  2  Chr.  i.  3),  until  the  build- 
ing of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  rendered  them 
finally  unlawful  (R.  Sol.  Jarchi,  Abarbanel,  etc.. 
quoted  in  Carpzov,  App.  Ciit.  p.  333  ff. ;  Reland, 
Ant.  liebr.  i.  8  ff).  Others  content  themstlvea 
with  saying  that  until  Solomon's  time  all  Palestine 
was  considered  holy  ground,  or  that  there  existed 
a  recognized  exemption  in  iavor  of  high  places  for 
private  and  spontaneous,  though  not  for  the  stated 
and  public  sacrifices. 

Such  explanations  are  sufficiently  unsatisfactory ; 
but  it  is  at  any  rate  certain  that,  whether  from  tJw 
obvious  temptations  to  the  disobedience,  or  from 
the  example  of  other  nations,  or  from  ignorance  of 
any  definite  law  against  it,  the  worship  in  high 
places  was  organized  and  all  but  universal  through- 
out Judsea,  not  only  during  (1  K.  iii.  2-4),  but 
even  after  the  time  of  Solomon.  The  convenience 
of  them  was  obvious,  because,  as  local  centres  of 
religious  worship,  they  obviated  the  unpleasant  and 
dangerous  necessity  of  visiting  Jerusalem  for  the 
celebration  of  the  yearly  feasts  (2  K.  xxiii.  9). 
The  tendency  was  ingrained  in  the  national  mind ; 
and  although  it  was  severely  reprehended  by  the 
later  historians,  we  have  no  proof  that  it  was  known 
to  be  sinful  during  the  earlier  periods  of  the  mon- 
archy, except  of  course  where  it  was  directly  con- 
nected with  idolatrous  abominations  (1  K.  xi.  7; 
2  K.  xxiii.  13).  In  fact  the  high  places  seem  to 
have  supplied  the  need  of  synagogues  (Ps.  Ixxiv.  8), 
and  to  have  obviated  the  extreme  self-denial  in- 
volved in  having  but  one  legalized  locality  for  the 
highest  forms  of  worship.  Thus  we  find  that 
Rehoboam  established  a  definite  M'orship  at  the 
high  places,  with  its  own  peculiar  and  separated 
priesthood  (2  Chr.  xi.  15;  2  K.  xxiii.  9),  the  mem- 
bers of  which  were  still  considered  to  be  priests  of 
Jehovah  (although  in  2  K.  xxiii.  5  they  are  called 

by  the  opprobrious  term  D^'H^IS).  It  was  there- 
fore no  wonder  that  Jeroboam  found  it  so  easy  to 
seduce  the  people  into  his  symbolic  worship  at  the 
high  places  of  Dan  and  liethel,  at  each  of  which  he 
built  a  chapel  for  his  golden  calves.  Such  chapels 
were  of  course  frequently  added  to  the  mere  altars 
on  the  hills,  as  appears  from  the  expressions  ui  1  K. 

xi.  7;  2  K.  xvii.  9,  &c.  Indeed,  the  word  m^2 
became  so  common  that  it  was  used  for  any  idol- 
atrous shrine  even  in  a  valley  (Jer.  vii.  31),  or  in 
the  streets  of  cities  (2  K.  xvii.  9;  Ez.  xvi.  31). 
These  chapels  were  probably  not  structures  of  stone, 
but  mere  tabernacles  hung  with  colored  tapestrj 
(Ez.  xvi.  16;  e'yu)8(<Aio-/xa,  Aqu.  Theod.;  Jer.  ad 
loc.;  etdwXov  paTrT6u,  LXX.),  Uke  the  aKrjy^  iepd 
of  the  Carthaghiians  (Diod.  Sic.  xx.  65;  Creuzer, 
Symbol,  v.  176,  quoted  by  Ges.  Thes.  i.  188),  and 
like  those  mentioned  in  2  K.  xxiii.  7 ;  Am.  v.  26. 

Many  of  the  pious  kings  of  Judali  were  either 
too  weak  or  too  ill  informed  to  repress  the  worship 
of  Jehovah  at  these  local  sanctuaries,  while  they  of 
course  endeavored  to  prevent  it  from  being  contJam- 
inated  with  polytheism.  It  is  therefore  appended 
as  a  matter  of  blame  or  a  (perhaps  venial)  drawback 
to  the  character  of  some  of  the  most  pious  princes 
that  they  tolerated  this  disobedience  to  the  provii^ 


HIGH-PRIEST 

kai  of  Deutertmomy  and  Leviticus.  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  mentioned  as  an  aggravation  of  tlie  sin- 
fulness of  othef  kings  that  they  built  or  raised  high 
places  (2  Chr.  xxi.  11,  xxviii.  25),  which  are  gen- 
erally said  to  have  been  dedicated  to  idolatrous 
purposes.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  that  so  direct 
a  violation  of  the  tlieocratic  principle  as  the  per- 
mitted existence  of  false  worship  should  have  been 
tolerated  by  kings  of  even  ordinary  piety,  much 
less  by  the  highest  sacerdofcxl  authorities  (2  K.  xii. 
3).  When  therefore  we  find  the  recurring  phrase, 
*'  only  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away ;  as  yet 
the  people  did  sacrifice  and  burn  incense  on  the 
high  places"  (2  K.  xiv.  4,  xv.  4,  35;  2  Chr.  xv. 
17,  Ac.),  we  are  forced  to  limit  it  (as  above)  to 
places  dedicated  to  Jehovah  only.  The  subject, 
however,  is  made  more  difficult  by  a  double  discrep- 
ancy, for  the  assertion,  that  Asa  "  took  away  the 
high  places"  (2  Chr.  xiv.  3),  is  opposite  to  what  is 
stated  in  the  first  book  of  Kings  (xv.  14),  and  a 
similar  discrepancy  is  found  in  the  case  of  Jehosh- 
aphat  (2  ('hr.  xvii.  6,  xx.  33).  Moreover  in  both 
instances  the  chronicler  is  apparently  at  issue  with 
himself  (xiv.  3,  xv.  17,  xvii.  G,  xx.  33).  It  is  in- 
credible that  this  should  have  been  the  result  of 
carelessness  or  oversight,  and  we  must  therefore 
suppose,  either  that  the  earlier  notices  expressed 
the  will  and  endeavor  of  these  monarchs  to  remove 
the  high  places,  and  that  the  later  ones  recorded 
their  failure  in  the  attempt  (Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  468 ; 
Keil,  Apolog.  Versuch,  p.  2^)0;  Winer,  s.  vv.  Assa, 
Josaphat) ;  or  that  the  statements  refer  respectively 
to  Banioth,  dedicated  to  Jehovah  and  to  idols 
(Michaelis,  Schulz,  Bertheau  on  2  Chr.  xvii.  6,  &c.). 
"  Those  devoted  to  false  gods  were  removed,  those 
misdevoted  to  the  true  God  were  suffered  to  remain. 
The  kings  opposed  impiety,  but  winked  at  error" 
(Bishop  Hall). 

At  last  Hezekiah  set  himself  in  good  earnest  to 
the  suppression  of  this  prevalent  corruption  (2  K. 
xviii.  4,  22),  both  in  Judah  and  Israel  (2  Chr. 
xxxi.  1),  although,  so  rapid  was  the  growth  of  the 
evil,  that  even  his  sweeping  reformation  required  to 
be  finally  consummated  by  Josiah  (2  K.  xxiii.), 
and  that  too  in  Jerusalem  and  its  immediate  neigh- 
borhood (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  3).  The  measure  must 
have  caused  a  very  violent  shock  to  the  religious 
prejudices  of  a  large  number  of  people,  and  we 
have  a  curious  and  almost  unnoticed  trace  of  this 
resentment  in  the  fact  that  Rabshakeh  appeals  to 
the  discontented  faction,  and  represents  Hezekiah 
as  a  dangerous  innovator  who  had  provoked  God's 
anger  by  his  arbitrary  impiety  (2  K.  xviii.  22 ;  2 
Chr.  xxxii.  12).  After  the  time  of  Josiah  we  find 
CO  further  mention  of  these  Jehovistic  high  places. 

F.  W.  F. 

HIGH-PRIEST  Cinbn,  with  the  definite 
article,  i.  e.  the  Priest;  and  in  the  books  subse- 
quent to  the  Pentateuch  with  the  frequent  addition 

v12n  and  ti'Sin).  I^v.  xxi.  10  seems  to  ex- 
hibit the  epithet  7""T3  (as  iirlaKoiros  and  didKovos 
In  the  N.  T.)  in  a  transition  state,  not  yet  wholly 
technical;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  Num. 
J:xxv.  25,  where  the  explanation  at  the  end  of  the 
rerse,  "which  was  anointed  with  the  holy^il," 

leems  to  show  that  the  epithet  bl2  was  not  yet 
mite  established  as  distinctive  of  the  chief  priest 
(ct  ver.  28).  In  all  other  passages  of  the  Penta- 
*evth  it  is  sunply  "the  priest,"  Ex.  xxix.  30,  44; 


HIGH-PRIEST 


106o 


Lev.  xvi.  32 :  or  yet  more  frequently  "  Aaron,"  or 
"Aaron  the  priest,"  as  Num.  iii.  6,  iv.  33;  Lev.  i. 
7,  &c.  So  too  "  Eleazar  the  priest,"  Num.  xxvlL 
22,  xxxi.  26,  29,  31,  &c.     In  the  LXX.  d  &pxte- 

pevs,  or  iepevs,  where  the  Heb.  has  only  ^HS, 
Vulg.  sacerdos  magnus,  or  primus  ponti/ex,  prin 
ceps  isicerdotum. 

In  treating  of  the  office  of  high-priest  among 
the  Israelites  it  will  be  convenient  to  consider  it  — 
I.  Legally.     II.  Theologically.      III.  Historically. 

I.  The  legal  view  of  the  high-priest's  oflBce  com- 
prises all  that  the  law  of  jNIoses  ordained  respecting 
it.  The  first  distinct  separation  of  Aaron  to  the 
office  of  the  priesthood,  which  previously  belonged 
to  the  firstborn,  was  that  recorded  Ex.  xxviii.  A 
partial  anticipation  of  this  call  occurred  at  the 
gathering  of  the  manna  (ch.  xvi.),  when  ]\Ioses  bid 
Aaron  take  a  pot  of  manna,  and  lay  it  up  before 
the  I^rd :  which  implied  that  the  ark  of  the  Testi- 
mony would  thereafter  be  under  Aaron's  charge, 
though  it  was  not  at  that  time  in  existence.  The 
taking  up  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  with  their  father 
Aaron  to  the  JNIount,  where  they  beheld  the  glory 
of  the  God  of  Israel,  seems  also  to  have  been 
intended  as  a  preparatory  intimation  of  Aaron's 
hereditary  priesthood.  See  also  xxvii.  21.  But 
it  was  not  till  the  completion  of  the  directions  for 
making  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture  that  the 
distinct  order  was  given  to  Moses,  "  Take  thou 
unto  thee  Aaron  thy  brother,  and  his  sons  with 
him,  from  among  the  children  of  Israel,  that  he 
may  minister  unto  me  in  the  priest's  office,  even 
Aaron,  Natlab  and  Abihu,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar, 
Aaron's  sons  "  (Ex.  xxviii.  1).  And  after  the  order 
for  the  priestly  garments  to  be  made  "  for  Aaron 
and  his  sons,"  it  is  added,  "  and  the  priest's  office 
shall  be  theirs  for  a  perpetual  statute;  and  thou 
shalt  consecrate  Aaron  and  his  sons,"  and  "I  will 
sanctify  both  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  minister  to  me 
in  the  priest's  office,"  xxix.  9,  44. 

We  find  from  the  very  first  the  following  charac- 
teristic attributes  of  Aaron  and  the  high-priests  hia 
successors,  as  distinguished  from  the  other  priests. 

(1.)  Aaron  alone  was  anointed.  "He  poured 
of  the  anointing  oil  upon  Aaron's  head,  and  anointed 
him  to  sanctify  him''  (Lev.  viii.  12);  whence  one 
of  the  distinctive  epithets  of  the  high -priest  wa» 

n"^tr^n  ]nbn,,"  the  anointed  priest"  (Ley. 
iv.  3,  5,  16,  xxi.  10;  see  Num.  xxxv.  25).  Thia 
appears  also  from  Ex.  xxix.  20,  30,  where  it  if 
ordered  that  the  one  of  the  sons  of  Aaron  who  suc- 
ceeds him  in  the  priest's  oflSce  shall  wear  the  holy 
garments  that  were  Aaron's  for  seven  days,  to  be 
anointed  therein,  and  to  be  consecrated  in  them. 
Hence  Eusebius  {Hist.  Eccks.  i.  6;  Dem.  Evang. 
viii.)  understands  the  Anointed  (A.  V.  "  Messiah," 
or,  as  the  LXX.  read,  -x^picrixa)  in  Dan.  ix.  26,  th« 
anointing  of  the  Jewish  high-priests :  "  It  mean* 
nothing  else  than  the  succession  of  high-priesta, 
whom  the  Scripture  commonly  calls  xP'^^'^'ovs^ 
anointed;"  and  so  too  TertuUian  and  Theodore! 
(Kosenm.  ad  I.  c).  The  anointing  of  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  i.  e.,  the  common  priests,  seems  to  have 
been  confined  to  sprinkling  their  garments  with  the 
anointing  oil  (Ex.  xxix.  21,  xxviii.  41,  <fec.),  though 
accoioing  to  Kalisch  on  Ex.  xxix.  8,  and  Lightfoot, 
following  the  Rabbinical  interpretation,  the  diflTer- 

ence  consists  in  the  abundant  pouring  of  oil  (PV^) 
on  the  head  of  the  high-priest,  from  whence  it  wa« 
drawn  with  the  finger  mto  two  streams,  iu  tli« 


1066  HIGH-PRIEST 

SHape  of  a  Greek  X,  while  the  priests  were  merely 
marked  with  the  finger  dipped  in  oil  on  the  fore- 
head (nti^tt).  But  this  is  probably  a  late  inven- 
tion of  the  Kabbins.  The  anointing  of  the  high- 
priest  is  alluded  to  in  Ps.  cxxxiii.  2 :  "It  is  like 
the  precious  ointment  upon  the  head,  that  ran  down 
upon  the  beard,  even  Aaron's  beard,  that  went 
down  to  the  skirts  of  his  garments."  The  com- 
position of  this  anointing  oil,  consisting  of  myrrh, 
ciimamon,  calamus,  cassia,  and  oUve  oil,  is  pre- 
scribed Ex.  XXX.  22-25,  and  its  use  for  any  other 
purpose  but  that  of  anointing  tlie  priests,  the 
tabernacle,  and  the  vessels,  was  strictly  prohibited 
on  pain  of  being  "  cut  off  from  his  people."  The 
munufacture  of  it  was  intrusted  to  certain  priests 
called  apothecaries  (Neh.  iii.  8).  But  this  oil  is 
laid  to  have  been  wanting  under  the  second  Temple 
(Prideaux,  i.  151;  Selden,  cap.  ix.). 


Illgh-priest. 

(2.)  The  high-priest  had  a  neculiar  dress,  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  passed  to  nis  successor  at  his 
death.  This  dress  consisted  of  eight  parts,  as  the 
Rabbins  constantly  note,  the  breastplate^  the  ephod 
with  its  curious  girdle,  the  robe  of  the  ephod,  the 
mitre,  the  broidered  coat  or  diaper  tunic,  and  the 
(firdk,  the  materials  being  gold,  blue,  red,  crimson, 
and  fine  (white)  linen  (Ex.  xxviii.).  To  the  above 
ire  added,  in  ver.  42,  the  breeches  or  dratcers  (Lev. 
c'\.  4)  of  linen;  and  to  make  up  the  number  8, 
x)rae  reckon  the  high-priest's  mitre,  or  the  plate 

vV^^)  separately  from  the  bonnet;  while  others 
ie«kon  the  curious  girdle  of  the  ephod  separately 
frDm  the  ephod  .a 

Of  these  8  articles  of  attire,  4,  namely,  the  coat 
or  tunic,  the  girdle,  the  breeches,  and  the  bonnet  or 


'  Tn  Lev.  viil.  7-12  there  is  a  complete  account  of 
•Jhe  putting  on  of  these  garments  by  Aaron,  and  the 
Jr!iole  ceremony  of  his  consecration  and  that  of  his 
fons.  It  there  appears  distinctly  that,  besides  the 
girdle  common  to  all  the  priests,  the  high-priest  also 
»oi«  the  curious  girdle  of  the  ephod. 

b  Josephua,  however,  whom  Bahr  follows,  calls  the 


HIGH-PBIEST 

turban,  H^S^^,  instead  of  the  raitre,  n53"2p 
belonged  to  the  common  priests. 

It  is  well  known  how,  in  the  Assyrian  sculpturei^ 
the  king  is  in  like  manner  distinguished  by  Um 
shape  of  his  head-dress ;  and  how  in  Persia  none 
but  the  king  wore  the  cidaris  or  erect  tiara.« 
Taking  the  articles  of  the  high-priest's  dress  in  the 
order  in  which  they  are  enumerated  above,  we  have 
(a)  the  breastplate,  or,  as  it  is  further  named  (Ex. 
xxviii.  15,  29,  30),  the  breastplate  of  judgment, 

T  :  ^  1^'n,  \oye7ov  rSiv  Kpiaecov  (or  tTjs 
Kpicrecos)  in  the  LXX.,  and  only  in  ver.  4,  irepic 
T-fjOiou.  It  was,  like  the  inner  curtains  of  the 
tabernacle,  the  vail,  and  the  ephod,  of  "  cunning 

work,"  ^ttrn  nC2?5^»  "opus  plumarium,"  and 
"  arte  plumaria,"  Vulg.  [See  Embroidei;kk.] 
The  breastplate  was  originally  2  spans  long,  and  1 
span  broad,  but  when  doubled  it  was  square,  the 
shape  in  which  it  was  worn.  It  was  fastened  at  the 
top  by  rhigs  and  chains  of  wreathen  gold  to  the 
two  onyx  stones  on  the  slioulders.  and  beneath  with 
two  other  rings  and  a  lace  of  blue  to  two  corre- 
sponding rings  in  the  ephod,  to  keep  it  fixed  in  its 
place,  above  the  curious  girdle.  But  the  most 
remarkable  and  most  important  parts  of  this  breast- 
plate, were  the  12  precious  stones,  set  in  4  rows,  3 
in  a  row,  thus  corresponding  to  the  12  tribes,  and 
divided  in  the  same  manner  as  their  camps  were ; 
each  stone  having  the  name  of  one  of  the  children 
of  Israel  engraved  upon  it.  Whether  the  order  ^ 
followed  the  ages  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  or,  as  seems 
most  probable,  the  order  of  the  encampment,  may 
be  doubted;  but  unless  any  appropriate  distinct 
symbolism  of  the  different  tribes  be  found  in  the 
names  of  the  precious  stones,  tlie  question  can 
scarcely  be  decided.  According  to  the  LXX.  and 
Josephus,  and  in  accordance  with  the  language  of 
Scripture,  it  was  these  stones  which  constituted  the 
L'rim  and  Thummim,  nor  does  the  notion  advo- 
cated by  Gesenius  after  Spencer  and  others,  that 
these  names  designated  two  little  images  placed 
between  the  f^lds  of  the  breastplate,  peem  to  rest 
on  any  sufficient  ground,  in  spite  of  the  Egj-ptian 
analogy'  brought  to  bear  ujwn  it.  Josephug'j 
opinion,  on  the  other  hand,  improved  upon  by  the 
Kabbins,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  stones  gave 
out  the  oracular  answer,  by  preternatural  illumina- 
tion, appears  equally  destitute  of  probability.  It 
seems  to  be  far  simplest  and  most  in  agreement 
with  the  different  accounts  of  inquiries  made  by 
Urim  and  Thummim  (1  Sam.  xiv.  3,  18,  19,  xxiii. 
2,  4,  9,  11,  12,  xxviii.  6;  Judg.  xx.  28;  2  Sam. 
V.  23,  &c. )  to  suppose  that  the  answer  was  given 
simply  by  the  Word  of  the  Lord  to  the  high-priest 
(comp.  John  xi.  51),  when  he  had  inquired  of  the 
lx>Td  clothed  with  the  ephod  and  breastplate.  Such 
a  view  agrees  with  the  true  notion  of  the  breast- 
plate, of  which  it  was  not  the  leading  characteristic 
to  be  oracular  (as  the  term  \oye7ov  supposes,  and 
as  is  by  ma,ny  thought  to  be  intimated  by  the  de- 
scriptive addition  "  of  judgment,"  t.  e.,  as  they 


bonnets  of  the  priests  by  the  name  of  iHCS^^,  Sec 
Lelow. 

c  Bahr  compares  also  the  apices  of  the  flames 
Dialis. 

<i  For  an  account  of  the  image  of  Thmei  worn  bj 
the  Egyptian  judge  and  priest,  see  Kalisch  a  note  09 
Ex.  xxviii. ;  Ilengstenberg's  Egypt  and  the  Books  o, 
Moses ;  Wilkinson's  Egyptians,  ii.  27,  &c. 


HIGH-PRIEST 

nndarstand  it,  "  decision  "),  but  only  an  incidenvdl 
privilege  connected  witli  its  fundamental  meaning. 
VVliat  that  meaning  was  «-e  learn  from  Ex.  xxviii.  30, 
where  we  read  "  Aaron  sliall  bear  the  judgment  of  the 
children  of  Israel  upon  his  heart  before  the  Lord 

continually."  Now  tSDtt^D  is  the  judicial  sen- 
tence by  which  any  one  is  either  justified  or  con- 
demned. In  prophetic  vision,  as  in  actual  oriental 
life,  the  sentence  of  justification  was  often  expressed 
by  the  nature  of  the  robe  worn.  *'  He  hath  clothed 
me  with  the  garments  of  salvation,  He  hath  covered 
me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness,  as  a  bridegroom 
dccketh  himself  with  ornaments,  and  as  a  bride 
adorneth  herself  with  her  jewels"  (Is.  Ixi.  10),  is  a 
good  illustration  of  this;  cf.  Ixii.  3.  In  like  man- 
ner, in  Rev.  iii.  6,  vii.  9,  xix.  14,  Ac,  the  white 
linen  robe  expresses  the  righteousness  or  justifica- 
tion of  saints.  Something  of  the  same  notion 
may  be  seen  in  Esth.  vi.  8,  9,  and  on  the  contrary 
ver.  12. 

The  addition  of  precious  stones  and  costly  orna- 
ments expresses  glory  beyond  simple  justification. 
Thus  in  Is.  Ixii.  3,  "  Thou  shalt  be  a  crown  of  glory 
in  the  hand  of  the  Lord,  and  a  royal  diadem  in  the 
hand  of  thy  God."  Exactly  ♦Jie  same  symbolism 
of  glory  is  assigned  to  the  precious  stones  in  the 
description  of  the  New  Jerusalem  (Hev,  xxi.  11, 
19-21),  a  passage  which  ties  together  with  singular 
force  the  arrangement  of  the  tribes  in  their  camps, 
and  that  of  the  precious  stones  in  the  breastplate. 
But,  moreover,  the  high-priest  being  a  representa- 
tive personage,  the  fortunes  of  the  whole  people 
would  most  properly  be  indicated  in  his  person.  A 
striking  instance  of  this,  in  connection  too  with 
symbolical  dress,  is  to  be  found  in  Zech.  iii.  "  Now 
Joshua  (the  high-priest,  ver.  1)  was  clothed  with 
filthy  garments  and  stood  before  the  angel.  And 
he  answered  and  spake  unto  those  that  stood  before 
him,  saying.  Take  away  the  filthy  garments  from 
him.  And  unto  him  he  said.  Behold,  I  have  caused 
thine  iniquity  to  pass  from  thee,  and  I  will  clothe 
thee  with  change   of  raiment.     And  I  said,  Let 

them  set  a  fair  mitre  (^"^3^)  upon  his  head.  So 
they  set  a  fair  mitre  upon  his  head,  and  clothed 
him  with  garments."     Here  the  priest's  garments, 

l3'^"T33,  and  the  mitre,  expressly  typify  the  restored 
righteousness  of  the  nation.  Hence  it  seems  to  be 
sufficiently  obvious  that  the  breastplate  of  righteous- 
ness or  judgment,  resplendent  with  the  same  pre- 
cious stones  which  symbolize  the  glory  of  the  New 
Jerusalem,  and  on  which  were  engraved  the  names 
of  the  12  tribes,  worn  by  the  high-priest,  who  was 
then  said  to  bear  the  judgment  of  the  children  of 
Israel  upon  his  heart,  was  intended  to  express  by 
symbols  the  acceptance  of  Israel  grounded  upon  the 
sacrificial  functions  of  the  high-priest.  The  sense 
of  the  symbol  is  thus  nearly  identical  with  such 
passages  as  Num.  xxiii.  21,  and  the  meaning  of  the 
Urim  and  Thummim  is  explained  by  such  expres- 
ttons  aa   Tj^'lS  W^-'^S   nh«  >72^p,    "Arise, 

ihine;  for  thy  light  is  come"  (Is.  Ix.  1).     Thum- 
mim expresses  alike  complete  prosperity  and  com- 
olete  innocence,  and  so  falls  in  exactly  with  the 
iouble  notion  of  light  (Is.  Ix.  1,  and  Ixii.  1,  2). 
The  privilege  of  receiving  an   answer  from  God 
bears  the  same  relation  to  the  general  state  of  Israel  ' 
Ijvmboilzed  by  the  priest  s  dress,  that  the  promise  I 
o  Is.  liv.  13,  '•All  thy  children  shall  be  taught  :f  I 
Ui»  Lord/'  does  to  the  preceding  description,  "  I ' 


HIGH-PRIEST 


1067 


will  lay  thy  stones  with  fair  colors,  and  Liy  thj 
foundations  with  sapphires,  and  I  will  make  th\ 
windows  of  agates,  and  thy  gates  of  carbuncles,  an«I 
all  thy  borders  of  pleasant  stones,"  ver.  11,  12, 
comp.  also  ver.  14  and  17  (Heb.).  It  is  obvious  to 
add  how  entirely  this  view  accords  with  the  bless- 
ing of  Levi  in  Ueut.  xxxiii.  8,  where  I^vi  is  called 
God's  holy  one,  and  God's  Thummim  and  Urim 
are  said  to  be  given  to  him,  because  he  came  out 
of  the  trial  so  clear  in  his  integrity.  (See  also  Mat. 
v.  2.) 

(b.)  The  Ephod  (ibN),  This  consisted  of  two 
parts,  of  which  one  covered  the  back,  and  the  other 
the  front,  i  e.,  the  breast  and  up{)er  part  of  the 
body,  like  the  4irwfiis  of  the  Greeks  (see  Bid.  of 
Antiquities,  art.  Tunica,  p.  1172).  These  were 
clasped  together  on  the  shoulder  with  two  large 
onyx  stones,  each  having  engraved  on  it  6  of  the 
names  of  the  tribes  of  Israel.  It  was  further  united 
by  a  "  curious  girdle  "  of  gold,  blue,  purple,  scarlet, 
and  fine  twined  linen  round  the  waist.  Upon  it 
was  placed  the  breastplate  of  judgment,  which  in 
lact  was  a  part  of  the  ephofl,  and  included  in  the 
term  in  such  passages  as  1  Sam.  ii.  28,  xiv.  3, 
xxiii.  9,  and  was  fastened  to  it  just  above  the  ciui- 
ous  girdle  of  the  ephod.  Linen  ephods  were  also 
worn  by  other  priests  (1  Sam.  xxii.  18),  by  Samuel, 
who  was  only  a  Levite  (1  Sam.  ii.  18),  and  by 
David  when  bringing  up  the  ark  (2  Sam.  vi.  14). 
The  expression  for  wearing  an  ephod  is  '■'•  yh'ded 
with  a  linen  ephod."  The  ephod  was  also  fre- 
quently used  in  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the 
Israelites.    See  Judg.  viii.  27,  xvii.  5,  &c.    [Ephod; 

GlKDLE.] 

(c.)  The  Robe  of  the  ephod  (b**!?)^).    This  was 

of  inferior  material  to  the  ephod  itself,  being  all  of 
blue  (Ex.  xxviii.  31),  which  implied  its  being  only 

of  "woven  work"  (^^S  (1^3?^,  xxxix.  22).    It 

was  worn  immediately  under  the  ephod,  and  was 
longer  than  it,  though  not  so  long  as  the  broidered 

coat  or  tunic  ("^StTri  n^HS),  according  to 
some  statements  (Bahr,  Winer,  Kalisch,  etc.).  The 
Greek  rendering,  however,  of  v'^^P,  7ro5^/j?js,  and 
Josephus's  description  of  it  {B.  J.  v.  5,  §  7)  seem 
to  outweigh  the  reasons  given  by  Bahr  for  thinking 
the  robe  only  came  down  to  the  knees,  and  to  make 
it  improbable  that  the  tunic  should  have  been  seen 
below  the  robe.  It  seems  likely  therefore  that  the 
sleeves  of  the  tunic,  of  white  diaper  linen,  were  the 
only  parts  of  it  which  wei-e  visible,  in  the  case  of 
the  high-priest,  when  he  wore  the  blue  robe  over  it. 
For  the  blue  robe  had  no  sleeves,  but  only  slits  in 
the  sides  for  the  arras  to  come  through.  It  had  a 
hole  for  the  head  to  pass  through,  with  a  border 
round  it  of  woven  work,  to  prevent  its  being  rent. 
The  skirt  of  this  robe  had  a  remarkable  trimming 
of  pomegranates  in  blue,  red,  and  crimson,  with  a 
bell  of  gold  between  each  pomegranate  alternately. 
The  bells  were  to  give  a  sound  when  the  high-priest 
went  in  and  came  out  of  the  Holy  Place.  eJosephus 
in  the  Antiquities  gives  no  explanation  of  the  use 
of  the  bells,  but  merely  speaks  of  the  studied  beauty 
of  their  appearance.  In  his  Jewish  War,  however, 
he  tells  us  that  the  bells  signified  thunder,  and  the 
pomegranates  lightning.  For  Philo's  very  curioui 
observations  see  Lightfoot's  Works,  ix.  p.  25. 

Neither  does  the  son  of  Sirach  very  distinctly 
explain  it  (Ecclus.  xlv.),  who  in  his  description  of 


10G8  HIGH-PRIEST 

the  liigh-priest's  attire  seems  chiefly  impressed  with 
its  beauty  and  magnificence,  and  says  of  this  trim- 
ming, "  He  compassed  him  with  pomegranates  and 
with  many  golden  hells  round  about,  that  as  he 
went  there  might  he  a  sound,  aiid  a  noise  made 
•  that  might  he  heard  in  the  temple,  for  a  memorial 
to  the  children  of  his  people  "  I'erhaps,  however, 
he  means  to  intimate  that  the  use  of  the  bells  was 
to  give  notice  to  the  people  outside,  when  the  high- 
priest  went  in  and  came  out  of  the  sanctuary,  as 
Whiston,  Yatablus,  and  many  others  have  sup- 
l>osod. 

(r/.)  The  fourth  article  peculiar  to  the  high-priest 
is  the  mitre  or  upper  turban,  with  its  gold  plate, 
engraved  with  Holinkss  to  tiik  Lt)UD,  fastened 
to  it  by  a  ribbon  of  blue.     Joseph  us  applies  the 

term  HSD^D  {/xa(rvaeiu,(f>d7}s)  to  the  turbans  of 
the  common  priests  as  well,  Itut  says  that  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  and  sewn  on  to  the  top  of  it,  the  high- 
priest  had  another  turban  of  blue;  that  beside  this 
he  had  outside  the  turban  a  triple  crown  of  gold, 
consisting,  that  is,  of  3  rims  one  above  the  other, 
and  terminating  at  top  in  a  kind  of  conical  calyx, 
like  the  inverted  calyx  of  the  herb  hyoscyanius. 
Josephus  doubtless  gives  a  true  account  of  the  high- 
priest's  turban  as  worn  in  his  day.  It  may  be 
fairly  conjectured  that  the  crown  was  appended 
when  the  Asmoneans  unitetl  the  temporal  n)onarchy 
with  the  priesthood,  and  that  this  was  continued, 
though  in  a  modified  sha|)e,«  after  the  sovereignty 
was  taken  from  them.  Josephus  also  describes  the 
vfraXov,  the  lamina  or  gold  plate,  which  he  says 
covered  the  forehead  of  the  high-priest.  In  Ant. 
vii.  3,  §  8,  he  says  that  the  identical  gold  plate 
made  in  the  days  of  Moses  existed  in  his  time;  and 
Whiston  adds  in  a  note  that  it  Mas  still  presen-ed 
in  the  time  of  Origen,  and  that  the  inscription  on 
it  was  engraved  in  Samaritan  characters  (Ant.  iii. 
3,  §  6).  It  is  certain  that  R.  PLhezer,  who  flouriglied 
in  Hadrian's  reign,  saw  it  at  Home.  It  was  doubt- 
less placed,  with  other  spoils  of  the  Temple,  in 
the  Temple  of  Peace,  which  was  burnt  down  in  the 
reign  of  Commodus.  These  spoils,  however,  are 
expiessly  mentioned  as  part  of  Alaric's  plunder 
when  he  took  Home.  They  were  carried  by  Gen- 
seric  into  Africa,  and  brought  by  Belisarius  to  By- 
zantium, where  they  adorned  his  triumph.  On  the 
warning  of  a  Jew  the  emperor  ordered  them  back 
to  Jerusalem,  but  what  became  of  them  is  not 
known  (Reland,  de  Spoliis  TtmjAi). 

(e.)  The  broidered  coat,  V^^r-^  AV^T,  was 
a  tunic  or  long  shirt  of  linen  with  a  tessellated  or 
diaper  pattern,  like  the  setting  of  a  stone.     The 

girdle,  1^35^?,  also  of  linen,  was  wound  round  the 
body  several  times  from  the  breast  downwards,  and 
the  ends  hung  down  to  the  ankles.     The  breeches 

or  drawers,  D"^p3pp,  of  linen,  covered  the  loins 

Bud  thighs;  and  the  bonnet  or  nV25P  was  a 
turban  of  linen,  partially  covering  the  head,  but  not 
ai  the  form  of  a  cone  We  that  of  the  high-priest 
when  the  mitre  was  added  to  it.  These  four  last 
were  common  to  all  priests.  Josephus  speaks  of 
Ihe  robes  (^vSujuoto)  of  the  chief  priests,  and  the 
tunics  and  girdles  of  the  priests,  as  forming  part 
ti  the  spoil  of  the  Temple,  {B.  J.  vi.  8,  §  3).  Aaron, 


o  Josephu3  {A,  J.  XX.  10)  says  that  Pouipey  would 
tot  allo^  Hyrcanus  to  wear  the  diadem,  when  he 
rwtorad  him  tc  tlie  high  priesthood. 


HIGH  PRIEST 

and  at  his  death  Eleazar  (Num.  xx.  26,  28),  «m 
their  successors  in  the  high-priesthood,  were  sol 
emnly  inaugurated  into  their  office  by  being  clad 
in  these  eight  articles  of  dress  on  seven  successive 
days.  From  the  time  of  the  second  Temple,  when 
the  sacred  oil  (said  to  have  been  hid  by  Joshah,  and 
lost)  was  wanting,  this  putting  on  of  the  garments 
was  deemed  the  official  investiture  of  the  office. 
Hence  the  robes,  which  had  used  to  be  kept  in  one 
of  the  chambers  of  the  Temple,  and  were  by  Hyr- 
canus deposited  in  the  Baris,  which  he  built  on 
purpose,  were  kept  by  Herod  in  the  same  tower, 
which  he  called  Antonia,  so  that  they  might  be  at 
his  absolute  disposal.  The  Romans  did  the  same 
till  the  government  of  A'itellius  in  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  when  the  custody  of  the  robes  was  restored 
to  the  Jews  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  4;  xviii.  4,  §  3). 

(3.)  Aaron  had  peculiar  functions.  To  him  alone 
it  appertained,  and  he  alone  was  permitted,  to  enter 
the  Holy  of  Holies,  which  he  did  once  a  year,  in 
the  great  day  of  atonement,  when  he  sprinkled  the 
blood  of  the  sin-ofiering  on  the  mercy-seat,  and 
burnt  incense  within  the  vail  (Lev.  xvi.).  He  ia 
said  by  the  Talmudists,  with  whom  agree  Lightfoot, 
Selden,  Grotius,  Winer,  Bfihr,  and  many  others, 
not  to  have  worn  his  full  pontifical  robes  on  this 
occasion,  but  to  have  been  clad  entirely  in  white 
linen  (Lev.  xvi.  4,  32).  It  is  singular,  however, 
that  on  the  other  hand  Josephus  says  that  the 
great  fast  day  was  the  chief,  if  not  the  only  day  in 
the  year,  when  the  high-priest  wore  all  his  robes 
{B.  J.  v.  5,  §  7),  and  in  spite  of  the  alleged  im- 
propriety of  his  wearing  his  splendid  apparel  on  a 
day  of  humiliation,  it  seen)S  far  more  probable  that 
on  the  one  occasion  when  he  perfomied  functions 
peculiar  to  the  high-priest,  he  should  have  worn 
his  full  dress.  Josephus  too  could  not  have  been 
mistaken  as  to  the  fact,  which  he  repeats  {cont.  Ap. 
hb.  ii.  §  7),  where  he  says  the  high-priests  alone 
might  enter  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  "  propria 
stola  circumamicti."  Tor  although  Selden,''  who 
strenuously  supports  the  Rtibbinical  statement  that 
the  high-priest  only  wore  the  4  linen  garments 
when  he  entered  the  Holy  of  HoUes,  endeavors  to 
make  Josephus  say  the  same  thing,  it  is  impossible 
to  twist  his  words  into  this  meaning.  It  is  true 
on  the  other  hand,  that  Lev.  xvi.  distinctly  pje- 
scribes  that  Aaron  should  wear  the  4  priestly  gar- 
ments of  hnen  when  he  enteretl  into  the  Holy  of 
Hohes,  and  put  them  off  immediately  he  came  out, 
and  leave  them  in  the  Temple;  no  one  being  pres- 
ent in  the  Temple  while  Aaron  made  the  atonement 
(ver.  17).  Either  therefore  in  the  time  of  Josephus 
this  law  was  not  kept  in  practice,  or  else  we  must 
reconcile  the  apparent  contradiction  by  supposing 
that  in  consequence  of  the  great  jealousy  with 
which  the  high-priest's  robes  were  kept  by  the  civil 
power  at  this  time,  the  custom  had  arisen  for  him 
to  wear  them,  not  even  always  on  the  3  great  festi- 
vals {Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  3),  but  only  on  the  great  day 
of  expiation.  Clad  in  this  gorgeous  attire  he  would 
enter  the  Temple  in  presence  of  all  the  people,  and 
after  having  performed  in  secret,  as  the  law  requires, 
the  rites  of  expiation  in  the  linen  dress,  he  would 
resume  his  pontifical  robes  and  so  appear  again  in 
pubhc.  Thus  his  wearing  the  robes  would  easilj 
come  to  be  identified  chiefly  with  the  day  of  atone- 
ment; and  this  is  perhaps  the  most  probable  ex- 


6  Selden  himself  remarks  (cap.  vii.  in  fn.) 
Josephus  and  others  always  describe  the  pont; 
robes  by  the  name  of  rqs  vroXr\%  ap\icpaTiK^s. 


HIGH- PRIEST 

phowtion.  In  other  respects  the  high-priest  per- 
formed the  functions  of  a  priest,  but  only  on  new 
moons  and  other  great  feasts,  and  on  such  solemn 
accasrons  as  the  dedication  of  the  Temple  under 
Solomon,  under  Zeruobabel,  etc.     [Atonement, 

DAY  OF.] 

(4.)  The  high-priest  had  a  p-culiar  place  in  the 
law  of  the  manslayer,  and  his  taking  sanctuary  in 
the  cities  of  refuge.  The  manslayer  might  not 
leave  the  city  of  refuge  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
existing  high-priest  who  was  anointed  with  the 
holy  oil  (Num.  xxxv.  25,  28).  It  was  also  forbid- 
den to  the  high-priest  to  follow  a  funeral,  or  rend 
his  clothes  for  the  dead,  according  to  the  precedent 
in  Lev.  x.  6. 

The  other  respects  in  which  the  high-priest  ex- 
ercised superior  functions  to  the  other  priests  arose 
rather  from  his  position  and  opportunities,  than 
were  distinctly  attached  to  his  office,  and  they  con- 
sequently varied  with  the  personal  character  and 
abilities  of  the  high-priest.  Such  were  reforms  in 
religion,  restorations  of  the  Temple  and  its  service, 
the  preservation  of  the  Temple  from  intrusion  or 
profanation,  taking  the  lead  in  ecclesiastical  or  civil 
affairs,  judging  the  people,  presiding  in  the  San- 
hedrim (which,  however,  he  is  said  by  Lightfoot 
rarely  to  have  done),  and  other  similar  transactions, 
in  which  we  find  the  high-priest  sometimes  prom- 
inent, sometimes  not  even  mentioned.  (See  the 
historical  part  of  this  article.)  Even  that  portion 
of  power  which  most  naturally  and  usually  fell  to 
his  share,  the  rule  of  the  Temple,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  priests  and  Levites  who  ministered 
there,  did  not  invariably  fall  to  the  share  of  the 
high-priest.     For  the  title  "Ruler  of  the  House 

of  God,"  □"^n'b^n-n^2  T^3?,  which  usually 
denotes  the  high-priest,  is  sometimes  given  to  those 
who  were  not  high-priests,  as  e.  g.  to  Pashur  the 
Bon  of  Immer  in  Jer.  xx.  1 ;  comp.  1  Chr.  xii.  27. 
The  Rabbins  speak  very  frequently  of  one  second 
in  dignity  to  the  high-priest,  whom  they  call  the 
tagan^  and  who  often  acted  in  the  high-priest's 
room.«  He  is  the  same  who  in  the  0.  T.  is  called 
"  the  second  priest "  (2  K.  xxiii.  4,  xxv.  18).  They 
say  that  Moses  was  sagan  to  Aaron.  Thus  too  it 
is  explained  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  (Luke  iii.  2), 
that  Annas  was  sagan.  Ananias  is  also  thought 
by  some  to  have  been  sagan,  acting  for  the  high- 
priest  (Acts  xxiii.  2).  In  like  manner  they  say 
Zadok  and  Abiathar  were  high-priest  and  sagan  in 
the  time  of  David.  The  sagan  is  also  very  fre- 
quently called  memunneli,  or  prefect  of  the  Temple, 
and  upon  him  chiefly  lay  the  care  and  charge  of 
the  Temple  services  (Lightfoot,  passim).  If  the 
high-priest  was  incapacitated  from  officiating  by 
any  accidental  uncleanness,  the  sagan  or  vice  high- 
priest  took  his  place.  Thus,  e.  g.,  the  Jerusalem 
Talmud  tells  a  story  of  Simon  son  of  Kamith,  that 
'  on  the  eve  of  the  day  of  expiation,  he  went  out 
to  speak  with  the  king,  and  some  spittle  fell  upon 
his  garments  and  defiled  him :  therefore  Judah  his 
brother  went  in  on  the  day  of  expiation,  and  served 
m  his  stead ;  and  so  their  mother  Kamith  saw  two 
cf  her  sons  high-priests  in  one  day.  She  had  seven 
Bons,  and  they  all  served  in  the  high-priesthood  " 
(Lightrbot,  ix.  35).  It  does  not  appear  by  whose 
Juthority  the  high-priests  were  appointed  to  their 


HIGH-PRIEST 


1069 


a  There  is  a  controversy  as  to  whether  tL»  deputy 
(tigh-prtest  was  the  same  a&  the  sagan.  iJghtfoot 
ttbukxnot. 


office  before  there  were  kings  of  Israel.  But  a«  W8 
find  it  invariably  done  by  the  civil  ^jower  in  latef 
times,  it  is  probable  that,  in  the  times  pi-eceding 
the  monarchy,  it  was  by  the  elders,  or  Sanh^lrim 
The  installation  and  anointing  of  the  high-priest  oi 
clothing  him  with  the  eight  garments,  which  was 
the  formal  investiture,  is  ascril)ed  by  Maimonidea 
to  the  Sanhedrim  at  all  times  (Lightfoot,  ix  22V 

It  should  be  added,  that  the  usual  age  for  enter- 
ing upon  the  functions  of  the  priesthood,  according 
to  2  Chr.  xxxi.  17,  is  considered  to  have  been  20 
years,  though  a  priest  or  high -priest  was  not  actually 
incapacitated  if  he  had  attained  to  puljerty,  as  ap- 
pears by  the  example  of  Aristobulus,  who  was  high 
priest  at  17.  Onias,  the  son  of  Simon  the  -lust, 
could  not  be  high-priest,  because  he  was  but  a  child 
at  his  father's  death.  Agahi,  accordhig  to  l^v. 
xxi.,  no  one  that  had  a  blemish  could  officiate  at 
the  altar.  Moses  enumerates  11  blemishes,  which 
the  Talmud  expands  into  142.  Josephus  relates 
how  Antigonus  mutilated  Hyrcanus's  ears,  to  inca- 
pacitate him  for  being  restored  to  the  high-priest- 
hood. Illegitimate  birth  was  also  a  bar  to  the 
high-priesthood,  and  the  subtlety  of  Jewish  dis- 
tinctions extended  this  illegitimacy  to  being  born 
of  a  mother  who  had  been  taken  captive  by  heathen 
conquerors  (Joseph,  c.  Apion.  i.  §  7).  Thus  Eleazar 
said  to  John  Hyrcanus  (though,  Josephus  says, 
falsely)  that  if  he  was  a  just  man,  he  ought  to 
resign  the  pontificate,  because  his  mother  had  been 
a  captive,  and  he  was  therefore  incapacitated.  Lev. 
xxi.  13,  14,  was  taken  as  the  ground  of  this  and 
similar  disqualifications.  For  a  full  account  of  this 
branch  of  the  subject  the  reader  is  refen-ed  to 
Selden's  learned  treatises  De  Sicccessionibtis,  etc., 
and  De  Siiccess.  in  Pontif.  Ebrceor. ;  and  to  Pri- 
deaux,  ii.  306.  It  was  the  universal  opinion  of  the 
Jews  that  the  deposition  of  a  high-priest,  which 
became  so  common,  was  unlawful.  Josephus  {Ant. 
XV.  3)  says  that  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  the  first 
who  did  so,  when  he  deposed  Jesus  or  Jason ;  Aris 
tobulus,  who  deposed  his  brother  Hyrcanus,  the 
second :  and  Herod,  who  took  away  the  high-priest- 
hood from  Ananelus  to  give  it  to  Aristobulus,  the 
third.  See  the  story  of  Jonathan  son  of  Ananus, 
Ant.  xix.  G,  §  4. 

II.  Theologically.  The  theological  view  of  tho 
high-priesthood  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of 
this  Dictionary.  It  must  suffice  therefore  to  indi 
cate  that  such  a  view  would  embrace  the  considera- 
tion of  the  office,  dress,  functions,  and  ministrationa 
of  the  high-priest,  considered  as  typical  of  the 
priesthood  of  our  Ix)rd  Jesus  Christ,  and  as  setting 
forth  under  shadows  the  truths  which  are  openly 
taught  under  the  Gospel.  This  has  been  done  to 
a  great  extent  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and 
is  occasionally  done  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  as, 
e.  g.,  Rev.  i.  13,  where  the  TroS-fjprjs,  and  the  girdle 
about  the  paps,  are  distinctly  the  rol)e,  and  the 
curious  girdle  of  the  ephod,  characteristic  of  the 
high-priest.  It  would  also  embrace  all  the  moral 
and  spiritual  teaching  supposed  to  l)e  intended  by 
such  symbols.  Philo  {de  vita  Mosis),  Origen 
{Homil.  in  Levit.),  Eusebius  {Demonst.  Evang. 
lib.  iii.);  Epiphanius  {cant.  Melchized.  iv.  &e.), 
Gregory  Nazianzen  {Orat.  i.,  and  Eliae  Cretens. 
Comment,  p.  195),  Augustine  {Qucest.  in  Exod.) 
may  be  cited  among  many  others  of  the  ancienti 
who  have  more  or  less  thus  treated  the  subject.  Of 
modemg,  Bahr  {Symbulik  des  Mosaischen  Culttu), 
Fairbain:  {Tyiwhgy  of  ScHpL),  Kalisch  (Ci»»l- 
ment.  on  Eacod.)  have  entered  fulUr  into  thU  Miib- 


1070  HIGH-PRIEST 

•et,  both  frtrn  the  Jewish  and  Christian  point  of 
fiew.     [See  end  of  the  article.] 

in.  T:"  pass  to  the  historical  view  of  the  subject. 
The  history  of  the  high-priests  embraces  a  period 
of  about  1370  years,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
the  present  writer,  and  a  succession  of  about  80 
high-priests,  beginning  with  Aaron,  and  ending 
with  Phannias.  "  Tlie  number  of  all  the  high- 
priests  (says  Josephus,  Ant.  xx.  10)  from  Aaron 
-  .  .  until  Phanas  .  .  .  was  83,"  where  he  gives 
a  comprehensive  account  of  them.  They  naturally 
arrange  themselves  into  three  groups:  («)  those 
before  David;  (b)  those  from  David  to  the  Cap- 
tivity; (c)  those  from  the  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonish Captivity  till  the  cessation  of  the  oflRce  at 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  two  former 
have  come  down  to  us  in  the  canonical  books  of 
Scripture,  and  so  have  a  few  of  the  earliest  and 
the  latest  of  the  latter;  but  for  by  far  the  larger 
portion  of  the  latter  group  we  have  only  the  au- 
thority of  Josephus,  the  Talmud,  and  some  other 
profane  writers. 

(a. )  The  high-priests  of  the  first  group  who  are 
distinctly  made  known  to  us  as  such,  are :  (1 )  Aaron ; 
(2)  Eleazar;  (3)  Phinehas;  (4)  Eli;  (5)  Ahitub 
(1  Chr.  ix.  11;  Neh.  xi.  11:  1  Sam.  xiv.  3);  (6) 
Ahiah;  (7)  Ahimelech.  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eh, 
and  father  of  Ahitub,  died  before  his  father,  and  so 
was  not  high-priest.  Of  the  above  the  three  first 
succeeded  in  regular  order,  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
Aaron's  eldest  sons,  having  died  in  the  wilderness 
(I>ev.  X.).  But  Eli,  the  4th,  was  of  the  line  of 
Ithamar.  What  was  the  exact  interval  between 
the  death  of  Phinehas  and  the  accession  of  Eli, 
what  led  to  the  transference  of  the  chief  priesthood 
from  the  line  of  ICleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar,  and 
whether  any,  or  which,  of  the  descendants  of  Elea- 
zar  between  Phinehas  and  Zadok  (seven  in  number, 
namely,  Abishua,  Bukki,  IJzzi,  Zenihiali,  Meraioth, 
Amariah,  Ahitub),  were  high-priests,  we  have  no 
means  of  determining  from  Scripture.  Judg.  xx. 
28,  leaves  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  priest  at 
Shiloh,  and  1  Sam.  i.  3,  9,  finds  EU  high-priest 
there,  with  two  grown-up  sons  priests  under  him. 
The  only  clew  is  to  be  found  in  the  genealogies,  by 
which  it  appears  that  Phinehas  was  6th  in  succes- 
sion from  Levi,  while  Eli,  supposing  him  to  be  the 
same  generation  as  Samuel's  grandfather,  would  be 
10th.  If,  however,  Phinehas  lived,  as  is  probable, 
to  a  great  old  age,  and  Eli,  as  his  age  admits,  be 
placed  about  half  a  generation  backward,  a  very 
gmall  interval  will  remain.  Josephus  asserts  (Ant. 
riii.  1,  §  3)  that  the  father  of  Bukki  —  whom  he 
cjalls  Joseph,  and  (Ant.  v.  Jl,  §  5)  Abiezer,  i.  e., 
Abishua  —  was  the  last  high-priest  of  Phinehas's 
Une,  before  Zadok.  This  is  probably  a  true  tradi- 
tion, though  Josephus,  with  characteristic  levity, 
does  not  adhere  to  it  in  the  above  passage  of  his 
6th  book,  where  he  makes  Bukki  and  Uzzi  to  have 
been  both  high-priests,  and  I'^i  to  have  succeeded 
Uzzi ;  or  in  bk.  xx.  10,  where  he  reckons  the  high- 
priests  before  Zadok  and  Solomon  to  have  been  13 
(a  reckoning  which  includes  apparently  all  Elea- 
Ear's  descendants  down  to  Ahitub),  and  adds  Eli 
•nd  his  son  Phinehas,  and  Abiathar,  whom  he  calls 
Eli's  grandson.  If  Abishua  died,  leaving  a  son  or 
grandson  under  age,  Eh,  as  head  of  the  line  of  Ith- 
amar, might  have  become  high-priest  as  a  matter  of 
x)urse,  or  he  might  have  been  appointed  by  the 
elders.  His  having  judged  Israel  40  years  (1  Sam 
T.  18)  marks  him  as  a  man  of  ability.  If  Ahiah 
led  Aiiimelech  are  not  variations  of  the  name  of 


HIGH-PRIEST 

the  same  person,  they  must  have  been  brothen 
since  both  were  sons  of  Ahitub.  ITie  high-priesti 
then  before  David's  reign  may  be  set  down  as  eighx 
in  number,  of  whom  seven  are  said  in  Scripture  to 
have  been  high-priests,  and  one  by  Josephus  alone. 
The  bearing  of  this  on  the  chronology  of  the  times 
from  the  Exodus  to  David,  tallying  as  it  does  with 
the  number  of  the  ancestors  of  David,  is  too  im- 
portant to  be  passed  over  in  silence.  It  must  also 
be  noted  that  the  tabernacle  of  God,  during  the 
high-priesthood  of  Aaron's  successors  of  this  first 
group,  was  pitched  at  Shiloh  in  the  tribe  of  Eph- 
raim,  a  fact  which  marks  the  strong  influence  which 
the  temporal  power  already  had  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  since  Ephraim  was  Joshua's  tribe,  as  Judah 
was  David's  (Josh.  xxiv.  30,  33;  Judg.  xx.  27,  28, 
xxi.  21 ;  1  Sam.  i.  3,  9,  24,  iv.  3,  4,  xiv.  3,  &c. ; 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  60).  This  strong  uifluence  and  inter- 
ference of  the  secular  power  is  manifest  throughout 
the  subsequent  history.  This  first  period  was  also 
marked  by  the  calamity  which  befell  the  high-priests 
as  the  guardians  of  the  ark,  in  its  capture  by  the 
Philistines.  This  probably  suspended  all  inquiries 
by  Urim  and  Thummim,  which  were  made  before 
the  ark  (1  Chr.  xiii.  3;  conip.  Judg.  xx.  27;  1 
Sam.  vii.  2.  xiv.  18),  and  must  have  greatly  dimin- 
ished the  influence  of  the  high-priests,  on  whom 
the  largest  share  of  the  humiliation  expressed  in 
the  name  Ichabod  would  naturally  fall.  The  rise 
of  Samuel  as  a  prophet  at  this  very  time,  and  his 
paramount  influence  and  importance  in  the  state, 
to  the  entire  eclipsing  of  Ahiah  the  priest,  coin- 
cides remarkably  with  the  absence  of  the  ark,  and 
the  means  of  inquiring  by  Urim  and  Tliummim. 

(6.)  Passing  to  the  second  group,  we  begin  with 
the  unexplained  circumstance  of  there  being  two 
priests  in  the  reign  of  David,  apparently  of  nearly 
equal  authority,  namely,  Zadok  and  Abiathar  (1 
Chr.  XV.  11;  2  Sam.  viii.  17).  Indeed,  it  is  only 
from  the  deposition  of  Abiathar,  and  the  placing  of 
Zadok  in  his  room,  by  Solomon  (1  K.  ii.  35),  that 
we  learn  certainly  that  Abiathar  was  the  high- 
priest,  and  Zadok  the  second.  Zadok  was  son  of 
Ahitub,  of  the  hne  of  Eleazar  (1  Chr.  vi.  8),  and 
the  first  mention  of  him  is  in  1  Chr.  xii.  28,  as 
"a  young  man,  mighty  in  valor,"  who  joined  Da- 
vid in  Hebron  after  Saul's  death,  with  22  captains 
of  his  father's  house.  It  is  therefore  not  unlikely 
that  alter  the  death  of  Ahimelech  and  the  secession 
of  Abiathar  to  David,  Saul  may  have  made  Zadok 
priest,  as  far  as  it  was  possible  for  him  to  do  so 
in  the  absence  of  the  ark  and  the  high-priest's  robes, 
and  that  David  may  have  avoided  the  difficulty  of 
deciding  between  the  claims  of  his  faithful  friend 
Abiathar,  and  his  new  and  important  ally  Zadok 
(who  perhaps  was  the  means  of  attaching  to  Da- 
vid's cause  the  4600  Levites  and  the  3700  priests 
who  came  under  Jehoiada  their  captain,  w.  26,  27), 
by  appointing  them  to  a  joint  priesthood:  the  first 
place,  with  the  Ephod,  and  Urim  and  Thummim, 
remaining  with  Abiathar,  who  was  in  actual  pos- 
session of  them.  Certain  it  is  that  from  this  time 
Zadok  and  Abiathar  are  constantly  named  together, 
and  singularly  Zadok  always  first,  both  in  the  book 
of  Samuel  and  that  of  Kings.  We  can,  however, 
trace  very  clearly  up  to  a  certain  point  the  division 
of  the  priestly  offices  and  dignities  between  them 
coinciding,  as  it  did,  with  the  divided  state  of  th» 
Levitical  worship  in  David's  time.  For  we  lean 
from  1  Chr.  xvi.  1-7,  37,  compared  with  39,  4( 
and  yet  more  distinctly  from  2  Chr.  i.  3,  4,  ft,  that 
the  tabernacle  and  the  brazen  altar  made  bj  Muaei 


HIGH-PRIESl 

md  BezAleel  in  the  wilderness  were  at  thia  Uuie  at 
Gibeon,  while  the  ark  was  at  Jerusalem,  in  the 
■eparate  tent  made  for  it  hy  David.  [Gibeon,  p. 
693-]  Now  Zadok  the  priest  and  his  brethren  the 
priests  were  left  "  before  the  tabernacle  at  Gibeon  " 
to  offer  burnt-offerings  unto  the  Lord  morning  and 
evening,  and  to  do  according  to  all  that  is  written 
in  the  law  of  the  Lord  (1  Chr.  xvi.  39,  40).  It  is 
therefore  obvious  to  conclude  that  Abiathar  had 
special  charge  of  the  ark  and  the  services  connected 
with  it,  which  agrees  exiictly  with  the  possession 
of  the  ephod  by  Abiathar,  and  his  previous  position 
with  David  before  he  became  king  of  Israel,  as  well 
as  with  what  we  are  told  1  Chr.  xxvii.  34,  that 
Jehoiada  and  Abiathar  were  the  king's  counsellors 
next  to  Ahitliophel.  Residence  at  Jerusalem  with 
the  ark,  and  the  privilege  of  inquiring  of  the  Lord 
before  the  ark,  both  well  suit  his  office  of  counsel- 
lor. Abiathar,  however,  forfeited  his  place  by 
taking  part  with  Adonijah  against  Solomon,  and 
Zadok  was  made  high-priest  in  his  place.  The 
pontificate  was  thus  again  consolidated  and  trans- 
feired  permanently  from  the  line  of  Ithamar  to 
that  of  Eleazar.  This  is  the  only  instance  recorded 
of  the  deposition  of  a  high-priest  (which  became 
common  in  later  times,  especially  under  Herod  and 
the  Romans)  during  this  second  period.  It  was 
the  fulfillment  of  the  prophetic  denunciations  of 
the  sin  of  EU's  sons  (I  Sam.  ii.,  iii.). 

The  first  considerable  difficulty  that  meets  us  in 
the  historical  survey  of  the  high -priests  of  the 
second  group  is  to  ascertain  who  was  high-priest 
at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple  —  Josephus 
(Ant.  X.  8,  §  6)  asserts  that  Zadok  was,  and  the 
Seder  Oiim  makes  him  the  high-priest  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon.  But  first  it  is  very  improbable 
that  Zadok,  who  must  have  been  very  old  at  Sol- 
omon's accession  (being  David's  con  temporary), 
should  have  lived  to  the  11th  year  of  his  reign ; 
and  next,  1  K.  iv.  2  distinctly  asserts  that  Azariah 
the  son  of  Zadok  was  priest  under  Solomon,  and 
1  Chr.  vi.  10  tells  us  of  Azariah,«  "he  it  is  that 
executed  the  priest's  office  in  the  Temple  that  Sol- 
omon built  in  Jerusalem,"  obviously  meaning  at  its 
first  completion.  We  can  hardly  therefore  be  wrong 
in  saying  that  Azariah  the  son  of  Ahimaaz  was  the 
first  high-priest  of  Solomon's  Temple.  The  non- 
mention  of  him  in  the  account  of  the  dedication 
of  the  Temple,  even  where  one  would  most  have 
expected  it  (as  1  K.  viii.  3,  6, 10, 11,  62;  2  Chr.  v. 
7,  11,  &c.),  and  the  prominence  given  to  Solomon 
—  the  civil  power  —  are  certainly  remarkable. 
Compare  also  2  Chr.  viii.  14,  15.  The  probable 
jiference  is  that  Azariah  had  no  great  personal 
qualities  or  energy.  In  constructing  the  list  of  the 
succession  of  priests  of  this  group,  our  method 
must  be  to  compare  the  genealogical  list  in  1  Chr. 
vi.  8-15  (A.  V.)  with  the  notices  of  high-priests 
hi  the  sacred  history,  and  with  the  list  given  by 
Josephus,  who,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  access 
to  the  Usts  preserved  in  the  archives  at  Jerusalem: 
testing  the  whole  by  the  application  of  the  ordinary 
rules  of  genealogical  succession.  Now  as  regards 
the  genealogy,  it  is  seen  at  once  that  there  is  some- 
thing defective ;  for  whereas  from  David  to  Jeconiah 
there  are  20  kings,  from  Zadok  to  Jehozadak  there 
are  but  13  priests.     Moreover  the  passage  in  ques- 


o  It  appears  from  1  Chr.  yi.  9  ^--hat  Azariah  was 
frandson  to  Zadok,  being  the  f>on  of  Ahimaaz.  The 
notice  in  ver.  10  seems  to  belong  to  him,  and  not  to 
Um  son  of  Johanaa. 


HIGH-PRIEST  1071 

tion  is  not  a  list  of  high- priests,  but  the  pedigrw 
of  Jehozadak.  Then  again,  while  the  pedigree  is 
its  six  first  generations  from  Zadok,  inclusive,  ex- 
actly suits  the  history  —  for  it  makes  Amariah  th6 
sixth  priest,  while  the  history  (2  Chr.  xix.  11)  tells 
us  he  lived  in  Jehoshaphat's  reign,  who  was  the 
sixth  king  from  David,  inclusive;  and  while  the 
same  pedigree  in  its  five  last  generations  also  suits 
the  history  —  inasmuch  as  it  places  Hilkiah  the  son 
of  Shallum  fourth  from  the  end,  and  the  history 
tells  us  he  lived  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  fouith 
king  from  the  end  —  yet  is  there  a  great  gap  in  tho 
middle.  For  between  Amariah,  the  high-priest  in 
Jehoshaphat's  reign,  and  Shallum  the  father  of 
Hilkiah,  the  high-priest  in  Josiah's  reign  —  an  in- 
terval of  about  240  years  —  there  are  but  two 
names,  Ahitub  and  Zadok,  and  those  liable  to  the 
utmost  suspicion  from  their  reproducing  the  same 
sequence  which  occui-s  in  the  earher  part  of  the 
same  genealogy  —  Amariah,  Ahitub,  and  Zadok. 
Besides  which  they  are  not  mentioned  by  Josephus. 
This  part,  therefore,  of  the  pedigree  is  useless  for 
our  purpose.  But  the  historical  books  supply  us 
with  four  or  five  names  for  this  interval,  namely, 
Jehoiada  in  the  reigns  of  Athaliah  and  Joash,  and 
probably  still  earlier ;  Zechariah  his  son ;  Azariah 
in  the  reign  of  Uzziah;  Urijah  in  the  reign  of 
Ahaz ;  and  Azariah  in  the  reign  of  llezekiah.  If, 
however,  in  the  genealogy  of  1  Chr.  vi.  Azariah  and 
Hilkiah  have  been  accidentally  transposed,  as  is  not 
unlikely,  then  the  Azariah  who  was  high-priest  in 
Hezekiah's  reign  will  be  the  Azariah  of  1  Chr.  vi.  13, 
14.  Putting  the  additional  historical  names  at 
four,  and  deducting  the  two  suspicious  names  from 
the  genealogy,  we  have  15  high-priests  indicated  in 
Scripture  as  contemporary  with  the  20  kings,  with 
room,  however,  for  one  or  two  more  in  the  history. 
Turning  to  Josephus,  we  find  his  list  of  17  high- 
priests  (whom  he  reckons  as  18  {Ant.  xx.  10),  as  do 
also  the  Rabbins)  in  places  exceedingly  corrupt,  a 
corruption  sometimes  caused  by  the  end  of  one 
name  sticking  on  to  the  beginning  of  the  following 
(as  in  Axioramus),  sometimes  apparently  by  sub- 
stituting  the  name  of  the  contemporary  king  or 
prophet  for  that  of  the  high-priest,  as  Joel  and 
Jotham.  Perhaps,  however,  Sudeas,  who  corre- 
sponds to  Zedekiah  in  the  reign  of  Amaziah  in  the 
Seder  Olam,  and  Odeas,  who  corresponds  to  Hosh- 
aiah  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  according  to  the 
same  Jewish  chronicle,  may  really  represent  high- 
priests  whose  names  have  not  been  preserved  in 
Scripture.  This  would  bring  up  the  number  to 
17,  or,  if  we  retain  Azariah  as  the  father  of  Seraiah, 
to  18,  which  agrees  with  the  20  kings. 

Reviewing  the  high-priests  of  this  second  group, 
the  following  are  some  of  the  most  remarkable  in- 
cidents: —  (1)  The  transfer  of  the  seat  of  worship 
from  Shiloh  in  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  to  Jerusalem 
in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  effected  by  David,**  and  con 
solidated  by  the  building  of  the  magnificent  Tcmpli 
of  Solomon.  (2.)  The  organization  of  the  temple 
service  under  the  high-priests,  and  the  division  of 
the  priests  and  I^evites  into  courses,  who  resided  at 
the  Temple  during  their  term  of  service  —  all  which 
necessarily  put  great  power  into  the  hands  of  an 
able  high-priest.     (3.)  The  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes 


b  *  Its  transfer  by  David  was  not  immediate,  for  thfl 
ark  after  its  capture  by  the  Phihstines  at  the  time  of 
Eli's  death,  was  kept  at  several  other  places  before  its 
ultimate  removal  to  Jerusalem.  [Smton;  Tabuva* 
CLB,   Hstory.]  B 


1072  HIGH -PRIEST 

from  the  dynasty  of  David  and  from  the  worship  at 
Jorasalcm,  and  tlie  setting  up  of  a  schismatical 
priesthood  at  Dan  and  Beer-sheba  (1  K.  xii.  31; 
8  Chr.  xiii.  9,  &c.).  (4.)  The  overthrow  of  the 
usurpation  of  Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Ahab,  by 
Jehoiada  the  high-priest,  whose  near  relationship 
to  king  Joash,  added  to  his  zeal  against  the  idol- 
atries of  the  house  of  Ahab,  stimulated  him  to 
head  the  revolution  with  the  force  of  priests  and 
I-^vites  at  his  command.  (5.)  The  boldness  and 
success  with  which  the  high-priest  Azariah  with- 
Btool  the  encroachments  of  the  king  Uzziah  upon 
the  office  and.  functions  of  the  priesthood.  (6.) 
The  repair  of  the  temple  by  Jehoiada,  in  the  reign 
of  Joash,  the  restoration  of  the  temple  services  by 
Azariah  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  and  the  discovery 
of  the  book  of  the  law,  and  the  religious  reforma- 
tion by  liilkiah  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  [HiLr- 
KiAii.]  (7.)  In  all  these  great  religious  move- 
ments, however,  excepting  the  one  headed  by 
Jehoiada,  it  is  remarkable  how  the  civil  power 
took  the  lead.  It  was  David  who  arranged  all  the 
temple  service,  Solomon  who  directed  the  building 
and  dedication  of  the  temple,  tlie  high-priest  being 
not  so  much  as  named ;  Jehoshaphat  who  sent  the 
ndests  about  to  teach  the  people,  and  assigned  to 
.he  high-priest  Amariah  his  share  in  the  work; 
Hezekiah  who  headed  the  reformation,  and  urged 
on  Azariah  and  the  priests  and  Levites;  Josiah 
who  encouraged  the  priests  in  the  service  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord.  On  the  other  hand  we  read  of 
no  opposition  to  the  idolatries  of  Manasseh  by  the 
high-priest,  and  we  know  how  shamefully  subser- 
vient Urijah  the  high-priest  was  to  king  Ahaz, 
actually  building  an  altar  according  to  the  pattern 
of  one  at  Damascus,  to  displace  the  brazen  altar, 
and  joining  the  king  in  his  profane  worship  before 
it  (2  K.  xvi.  10-16).  The  preponderance  of  the 
civil  over  the  ecclesiastical  power,  as  an  historical 
fact,  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  although  kept  within 
bounds  by  the  hereditary  succession  of  the  high- 
priests,  seems  to  be  proved  from  these  circum- 
stances. 

The  priests  of  this  series  ended  with  Seraiah, 
who  was  taken  prisoner  by  Nebuzar-adan,  and  slain 
at  Riblah  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  together  with  Zeph- 
aniah  the  second  priest  or  sagnn,  after  the  burn- 
ing of  the  temple  and  the  plunder  of  all  the  sacred 
vessels  (2  K.  xxv,  18).  His  son  Jehozadak  or  Jose- 
dech  was  at  the  same  time  carried  away  captive 
(1  Chr.  vi.  15). 

The  time  occupied  by  these  (say)  eighteen  high- 
priests  who  ministered  at  Jerusalem,  was  about  454 
years,  which  gives  an  average  of  something  more 
than  twenty-five  years  to  each  high-priest.  It  is 
remarkable  that  not  a  single  instance  is  recorded 
after  the  time  of  David  of  an  inquiry  by  Urim  and 
Tliummim  as  a  means  of  inquiring  of  the  Lord. 
The  ministry  of  the  prophets  seems  to  have  super- 
seded that  of  the  high-priests  (see  e.  g.  2  Chr.  xv., 
iviii.,  XX.  14,  15;  2  K.  xix.  1,  2,  xxii.  12-14;  Jer. 
txi.  1,  2).  Some  think  that  Urim  and  Thummim 
ceased  with  the  theocracy ;  others  with  the  division 
of  Israel  into  two  kingdoms.  Nehemiah  seems  to 
nave  expected  the  restoration  of  it  (Neh.  vii.  65), 
and  so  perhaps  did  Judas  Maccabaeus,  1  Mace.  iv. 
46;  comp.  xiv.  41,  while  Josephus  affirms  that  it 
had  been  exercised  for  the  last  time  200  years  be- 
fore he  wrote,  namely,  by  John  Hyrcanus  (Whis- 
ton,  Note  on  Ant.  iii.  8,  and  Prid.  Connect,  i.  150, 
161).  It  seems  therefore  scarcely  true  to  reckon 
(Jrim  aad  Thummim  as  one  of  the  marks  of  God's 


HIGH-PRIEST 

presence  with  Solomon's  Temple,  which  was  wanting 
to  the  second  Temple  (Prid.  i.  138,  144  tf.).  Thii 
early  cessation  of  answers  by  Urim  and  Tliummim 
though  the  high-priest's  office  and  the  wearing  of 
the  breastplate  continued  in  force  during  so  manj 
centuries,  seems  to  confirm  the  notion  that  such 
answers  were  not  the  fundamental,  but  only  th« 
accessory  uses  of  the  breastplate  of  judgment. 

(c)  An  interval  of  about  fifty- two  years  elapsed 
between  the  high-priests  of  the  second  and  third 
group,  during  which  there  wiis  neither  temple,  nor 
altar,  nor  ark,  nor  priest.  Jehozadak,  or  Josedech, 
as  it  is  written  in  Ilaggai  (i.  1,  14,  &c.),  who  should 
have  succeeded  Semiah,  lived  and  died  a  captive  at 
Babylon.  The  pontifical  office  re\ived  in  his  son 
Jeshua,  of  whom  such  frequent  mention  is  made  in 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Ilaggai,  and  Zechariah,  1 
Esdr.  and  Ecclus. ;  and  lie  therefore  stands  at  the 
head  of  this  third  and  last  series,  honorably  dis- 
tinguished for  his  zealous  coiiperation  with  Zenib- 
babel  in  rebuilding  the  Temj  le,  and  restoring  the 
dilapidated  commonwealth  of  Israel.  His  success- 
ors, as  far  as  the  ().  T.  guides  us,  were  Joiakim, 
Eliashib,  Joiada,  Johanan  (or  Jonathan),  and  Jad- 
dua.  Of  these  we  find  Eliashib  hindering  rather 
than  seconding  the  zeal  of  tlie  devout  Tirshatha 
Nehemiah  for  the  observance  of  God's  law  in  Israel 
(Neh.  xiii.  4,7);  and  Johanan,  Josephus  tells  us, 
murdered  his  own  brother  Jesus  or  Joshua  in  the 
Temple,  which  led  to  its  further  profanation  by  Ba- 
goses,  the  general  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon's  army 
{Ant.  xi.  7).  Jaddua  was  high-priest  in  the  time 
of  Alexander  the  Great.  Concerning  him  Josephus 
relates  the  story  that  he  went  out  to  meet  Alexan- 
der at  Sapha  (probably  the  ancient  Mizpeh)  at  the 
head  of  a  procession  of  priests;  and  that  when 
Alexander  saw  the  multitude  clothed  in  white,  and 
the  priests  in  their  linen  ganiients,  and  the  high- 
priest  in  blue  and  gold,  with  the  mitre  on  his  head, 
and  the  gold  plate,  on  which  was  the  name  of  God, 
he  stepped  forward  alone  and  adored  the  Name, 
and  hastened  to  embrace  the  high-priest  {Ant.  xi. 
8,  §  5).  Josephus  atlds  among  other  things  that 
the  king  entered  Jerusalem  with  the  high-priest, 
and  went  up  to  the  Temple  to  worship  and  offer 
sacrifice;  that  he  was  showTi  the  prophecies  of 
Daniel  concerning  himself,  and  at  the  high-priest's 
intercession  granted  the  Jews  liberty  to  live  accord- 
ing to  their  own  laws,  and  freedom  from  tribute  on 
the  Sabbatical  years.  The  story,  however,  has  not 
obtained  credit.  It  was  the  brother  of'this  Jaddua, 
Manasseh,  who,  according  to  the  same  authority, 
was  at  the  request  of  Sanballat  made  the  first  high- 
priest  of  the  Samaritan  temple  by  Alexander  tb« 
Great. 

Jaddua  was  succeeded  by  Onias  I.,  his  son,  and 
he  again  by  Simon  the  Just,  the  last  of  the  men 
of  the  great  synagogue,  as  the  .lews  speak,  and  to 
whom  is  usually  ascribed  the  completion  of  the 
Canon  of  the  0.  T.  (Prideaux,  Cmn.  i.  545).  Of 
him  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  speaks  in  terms  of 
most  glowing  eulogy  in  Ecclus.  i.,  and  ascribing  to 
him  the  repair  and  fortification  of  the  Temple,  with 
other  works.  The  passage  (1-21)  contains  an  in- 
teresting account  of  the  ministrations  of  the  high- 
priest.  Upon  Simon's  death,  his  son  Onias  being 
under  age,  Eleazar,  Simon's  brother,  succeeded  him. 
The  high-priesthood  of  Eleazar  is  memonxble  as 
being  that  under  which  the  LXX.  version  of  the 
Scriptures  was  made  at  Alexandria  for  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus,  according  to  the  account  of  Josephui 
taken  firom  Aristeas  {Ant.  xii.  2).    This  tranalaUoi 


HIGH-PRIEST  l073 

mus  himself  died,  and  that  Alexander,  king  of 
Syria,  made  Jonathan,  the  brother  of  Judas,  high- 
priest.  Josephus  himself  too  calls  Jonathan  "  the 
first  of  the  sons  of  Asamonaeus,  who  was  high- 
priest"  (Vita,  §  1).  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
Judas  may  have  been  elected  by  the  people  to  the 
office  of  high-priest,  though  never  confirmed  in  it 
by  the  Syrian  kings.  The  Asmonean  family  were 
priests  of  the  course  of  Joiarib,  the  first  of  the 
twenty-four  courses  (I  Chr.  xxiv.  7),  and  whose 
return  from  captivity  is  recorded  1  Chr.  ix.  10 
Neh.  xi.  10.  They  were  probably  of  the  house  of 
IQeazar,  though  this  cannot  be  affirmed  with  cer- 
tainty; and  Josephus  tells  us  that  he  himself  was 
related  to  them,  one  of  his  ancestors  having  mar- 
ried a  daughter  of  Jonathan,  the  first  high-priest 
of  the  house.  This  Asmonean  dynasty  lasted  from 
B.  c.  153  till  the  family  was  damaged  by  intestine 
divisions,  and  then  destroyed  by  Herod  the  Great. 
Aristobulus,  the  last  high-priest  of  his  line,  brother 
of  Mariamne,  was  murdered  by  order  of  Herod,  his 
brother-in-law,  n.  c.  35.  The  independence  of 
Judaea,  under  the  priest-kings  of  this  ra?c,  had 
lasted  till  Pompey  took  Jerusalem,  and  sent  king 
Aristobulus  H.  (who  had  also  taken  the  high- 
priesthood  from  his  brother  Hyrcanus)  a  prisoner 
to  Rome.  Pompey  restored  Hyrcanus  to  the  high- 
priesthood,  but  forbad  him  to  wear  the  diadem. 
Everything  Jewish  was  now,  however,  hastening 
to  decay.  Herod  made  men  of  low  birth  high- 
priests,  deposed  them  at  his  will,  and  named  others 
in  their  room.  In  this  he  was  followed  by  Arche- 
laus,  and  by  the  Romans  when  they  took  the  gov- 
ernment of  Judaja  into  their  own  hands ;  so  that 
there  w^re  no  fewer  than  twenty-eight  high-priests 
from  the  loign  of  Herod  to  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple  by  Titus,  a  period  of  107  years."  The  N. 
T.  introduces  us  to  some  of  these  later,  and  oft- 
changing  high-priests,  namely,  Annas  and  Caiaphaa 
—  the  former,  high-priest  at  the  commencement 
of  John  Baptist's  ministry,  with  Caiaphas  as  sec- 
ond priest;  and  the  latter  high-priest  himsuf  at 
our  Lord's  crucifixion  —  and  Ananias,  thought  to 
be  the  same  as  Ananus  who  was  murdered  by  the 
Zealots  just  before  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  before 
whom  St.  Paul  was  tried,  as  we  read  Acts  xxiii., 
and  of  whom  he  said  "  God  shall  smite  thee,  thou 
whited  wall."  Theophilus,  the  son  of  Ananus,  was 
the  high-priest  from  whom  Saul  received  letters  to 
the  synagogue  at  Damascus  (Acts  ix.  1,  14,  Kui- 
noel).  Both  he  and  Ananias  seem  certainly  to 
have  presided  in  the  Sanhedrim,  and  that  officially, 
nor  is  Lightfoot's  explanation  (viii.  450,  and  484) 
of  the  mention  of  the  high-priest,  though  Gama- 
liel and  his  son  Simeon  were  respectively  presidents 
of  the  Sanhedrim,  at  all  probable  or  satisfactory 
(see  Acts  v.  17,  Ac).  The  last  high-priest  was 
appointed  by  lot  by  the  Zealots  from  the  course  of 
priests  called  by  Josephus  Eniachim  (probably  a 
corrupt  reading  for  Jacliim).  He  is  thus  described 
by  the  Jewish  historian.  "  Mis  name  was  I'han- 
nias:  he  was  the  son  of  Samuel  of  the  village  of 
Aphtha,  a  man  not  only  not  of  the  numl-CT  of  the 
chief  priests,  but  who,  such  a  mere  rustic  was  hs, 
scarcely  knew  what  the  high-priesthood  meant. 
Yet  did  they  drag  him  reluctant  from  the  country, 
and  setting  him  forth  in  a  borrowed  character  m 
on  the  stage,  they  put  the  sacred  vestments  on  him. 

a  Josephus  tells  us  of  one  Ananus  and  his  five  sons  Agrippa  for  the  part  he  took  in  causing  "  Jamp«  th« 
«ho  all  fill&i  the  office  of  high-priest  in  turn.  One  brother  of  Jesus  who  was  called  Christ "  to  be  »tcti»d 
If  cbww,  Auanus  the  younger,  was  deposed  by  king  I  {Ant  xx.  9,  §  1). 

as 


HIGH-PRIEST 

9k  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  into  Greek,  valuable  as  I 
it  was  with  reference  to  the  wider  interests  of  re- 
ligion, and  aiarked  as  was  the  Providence  which 
gave  it  to  the  world  at  this  time  as  a  preparation 
lor  the  approaching  advent  of  Christ,  yet  viewed  in 
its  relation  to  Judaism  and  the  high-priesthood, 
was  a  sign,  and  perhaps  a  helping  cause  of  their 
decay.  It  marked  a  growing  tendency  to  Hellenize, 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  the  jMosaic 
economy.  Accordingly  in  the  high-priesthood  of 
I'^leazar's  rival  nephews,  Jesus  and  Onias,  we  find 
their  very  names  changed  into  the  Greek  ones  of 
.lason  and  Menelaus,  and  with  the  introduction  of 
this  new  feature  of  rival  high-priests  we  find  one 
of  them,  Menelaus,  strengthening  himself  and  seek- 
ing support  from  the  Syro-Greek  kings  against  the 
Jewish  party,  by  offering  to  forsake  their  national 
laws  and  customs,  and  to  adopt  those  of  the  Greeks. 
The  building  of  a  gymnasium  at  Jerusalem  for  the 
u.^e  of  these  apostate  Jews,  and  their  endeavor  to 
conceal  their  circumcision  when  stripped  for  the 
games  (1  Mace.  i.  14,  15;  2  jMacc.  iv.  12-15;  Jos. 
Ant.  xii.  5,  §  1),  show  the  length  to  which  this 
spirit  was  carried.  The  acceptance  of  the  spurious 
priesthood  of  the  temple  of  Onion  from  Ptolemy 
Philometor  by  Onias  (the  son  of  Onias  the  high- 
priest),  who  would  have  been  the  legitimate  high- 
priest  on  the  death  of  Menelaus,  his  uncle,  is  another 
striking  indication  of  the  same  degeneracy.  By 
this  flight  of  Onias  into  Egypt  the  succession  of 
high-priests  in  the  family  of  Jozadak  ceased:  for 
although  the  Syro-Greek  kings  had  introduced 
much  uncertainty  into  the  succession,  by  deposing 
at  their  will  obnoxious  persons,  and  appointing 
whom  they  pleased,  yet  the  dignity  had  never  gone 
out  of  the  one  family.  Alcimus,  whose  Hebrew 
name  was  Jakim  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  12),  or  perhaps 
Jachin  (1  Chr.  ix.  10,  xxiv.  17),  or,  according  to 
Ruffinus  (ap.  Selden),  Joachim,  and  who  was  made 
high-priest  by  Antiochus  Eupator  on  INIenelaus 
being  put  to  death  by  him,  was  the  first  who  was 
of  a  different  family.  One,  says  Josephus,  that 
"  was  indeed  of  the  stock  of  Aaron,  but  not  of  this 
family ''  of  Jozadak. 

What,  however,  for  a  time  saved  the  Jewish  in- 
stitutions, infused  a  new  life  and  consistency  into 
the  priesthood  and  the  national  religion,  and  ena- 
bled them  to  fulfill  their  destined  course  till  the 
advent  of  Christ,  was  the  cruel  and  impolitic  perse- 
cution of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  This  thoroughly 
aroused  the  piety  and  national  spirit  of  the  Jews, 
and  drew  together  in  defense  of  their  temple  and 
country  all  who  feared  God  and  were  attached  to 
their  national  institutions.  The  result  was  that 
after  the  high-priesthood  had  been  brought  to  the 
lowest  degradation  by  the  apostasy  and  crimes  of 
the  last  Onias  or  Menelaus,  and  after  a  vacancy  of 
seven  years  had  followed  the  brief  pontificate  of 
Alcimus,  his  no  less  infamous  successor,  a  new  and 
glorious  succession  of  high-priests  arose  in  the 
Asmonean  family,  who  united  the  dignity  of  civil 
rulers,  and  for  a  time  of  independent  sovereigns, 
to  that  of  the  high-priesthood.  Josephus,  who  is 
foll(Jwed  by  Lightfoot,  Selden,  and  others,  calls 
Judas  Maccabaeus  "  high-priest  of  the  nation  of 
Judah  "  (Ant.  xii.  10,  §  6),  but,  according  to  the 
lar  better  authority  of  1  Mace.  x.  20,  it  was  not 
till  after  the  death  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  that  Alci- 


1074 


HIGH-PRIEST 


HILEK 


•nd  instructed  him  how  to  act  on  the  occasion. 
This  shocking  impiety,  which  to  them  was  a  sub- 
ject of  merriment  and  sport,  drew  tears  from  the 
other  priests,  who  beheld  from  a  distance  their  law 
turned  into  ridicule,  and  groaned  over  the  subver- 
sion of  the  sacred  honors"  {B.  J.  iv.  3,  §  8). 
Thus  ignominiously  ended  the  series  of  high-priests 
which  had  stretched  in  a  scarcely  broken  line, 
through  nearly  fourteen,  or,  according  to  the  com- 
mon chronology,  sixteen  centuries.  The  Egyptian, 
Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Persian,  Grecian,  and  Koman 
empires,  which  the  Jewish  high-priests  had  seen  in 
turn  overshadowing  the  world,  had  each,  except 
the  last,  one  by  one  withered  away  and  died  —  and 
now  the  last  successor  of  Aaron  was  stripped  of  his 
sacerdotal  robes,  and  the  temple  which  he  served 
laid  level  with  the  ground  to  rise  no  more.  But 
this  did  not  happen  till  the  true  High-priest  and 
King  of  Israel,  the  Minister  of  the  sanctuary  and 
of  the  true  Tabernacle  which  the  Lord  pitched,  and 
not  man,  had  offered  His  one  sacrifice,  once  for  all, 
and  had  taken  His  place  at  the  right  hand  of  the 
Majesty  in  the  heavens,  bearing  on  His  breast  the 
judgment  of  His  redeemed  people,  and  continuing 
a  Priest  forever,  in  the  Sanctuary  which  shall 
never  be  taken  down ! 

The  subjoined  table  shows  the  succession  of  high- 
priests,  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascertained,  and  of  the 
contemporary  civil  rulers. 

CIVn.  EOLER.  HIGH-PEIBST. 

Moses Aaron. 

Joshua Eleazar. 

Othniel Pbinebas. 

Abishua Abisbua. 

Eli Eli. 

Samuel Ahitub. 

Saul Abijah. 

David 25adok  and  Abiathar. 

Solomon Azariab. 

Abyah Jobanan. 

Asa Azariab. 

Jebosbapbat       ....  Amariab. 

Jeboram Jeboiada. 

Abaziab " 

Jeboasb Do.  and  Zecbariah 

Amaziab ? 

Jzziab Azariab. 

Jotbam ? 

Abaz Urijab. 

Hezekiah Azariab. 

Manasseh Sballum. 

Amon (( 

J<»iah Hilkiab. 

Jeboiakim Azariab  ? 

Zedekiah Seraiab. 

Evil-Merodach    ....  Jebozadak. 

Zerubbabel     (C^-rus     and  Jesbua. 

Darius). 

Mordecai?  (Xerxes)     .     .  Joiakim. 

Ezra  and  Nebemiab  (Ar-  Eliasblb. 

taxerxes). 

Darius  Notiius  ....  Joiada. 

Artaxerxcs  Mnemon     .     .  Jobanan 

Alexander  the  Qreat    .     .  Jaddua. 

Onias  I.  (Ptolemy  S:ter,  Oniaa  I. 

Antigonus). 

Ptolemy  Soter    ....  Simon  the  Just. 

Ptolemy  Pbiladelpbus      .  Eleazar. 

<< Manasseh. 

Ptolemy  Euergetes       .     .  Onias  II. 

Ptolemy  Pbilopator     .     .  Simon  II. 

Ptolnmy    Epipbanes    and  Onias  III. 

Antiocbus. 

intiochus  Epiphanos  .     .  (Joshua,  or)  Jason, 

u       .  .  Onias,  or  Menelaus. 


dTHi  KxnjBK 
Demetrius  .  . 
Alexander  Balas 


Simon  (Asmonean)       .     . 

Jobn  Uyrcanus  (Asm.)     . 

King  Aristobulus   (Asm.) 

King  Alexander  Januaeus 
(Asmonean). 

Queen  Alexandra    (Asm.) 

King  Aristobulus  II.  (As- 
monean). 

Pompey  tbe  Great  and 
Hyrcanus,  or  rather, 
towards  tbe  end  of  his 
pontificate,  An  ti  pater. 

Pacorus  tbe  Partbian  .     . 

Herod,  K.  of  Judaea     .     . 


Herod  tbe  Qreat 


Arcbelaus,  K.  of  Judsea   . 


Cyrenius,  governor  of 
Syria,  second  time. 

Valerius  Gratus,  procura- 
tor of  Judsea 


mon-rsun. 
Jacimus,  or  Alctmus 
Jonathan,      brother     ot 

Judas  MaccabaeuB  (Is 

monean). 
Simon  (Asmonean). 
Jobn  Hyrcanus  (Do.). 
Aristobulus  (Do.). 
Alexander  Jannaeus  (Do  ) 

Hyrcanus  II.  (Do.). 
Aristobulus  IL  (Do.). 

Hyrcanus  II.  (Do.). 


Antigonus  (Do.). 

Ananelus. 

Aristobulus   (last  of   As- 

nioneans)  murdared  by 

Herod. 
Ananelus  restored. 
Jesus,  son  of  Phabes. 
Simon,  son    of   BoethnSf 

father-in-law  to  Herod. 
Mattbias,    son    of   Theo- 

philus. 
Joazarus,    son   of  Simon 

[ratber,    Boethus,    Jo- 

sepb.  Ant.  xviu.  1,  §  1]. 
Eleazar. 

Jesus,  son  of  Sie. 
Joazariis  (second  time). 
Ananus. 

Isbmaal,  son  of  Phabi. 


«« Eleazar,  son  of  Ananus. 

« Simon,  son  of  Kami tb. 

" Caiapbas,  called  also  Jo- 

sepb. 
Vitellius,      governor      of    Jonathan,  son  of  Ananus 
Syria 

« Tbeopbilus,     brother    of 

Jonntban. 
Herod  Agrippa  ....     Simon  Cantberas. 

" Matthias,  brother  of  Jon- 
athan, son  of  Ananus. 
i< Elionseus,    son    of    Can- 
tberas. 
Herod,  king  of  Chalcis     .    Joseph,  son  of  Camei. 

u Ananias,  son  of  Nebedseus 

(( Jonatban. 

" Isbniael,  son  of  Phabi. 

u Joseph,  son  of  Simon. 

« Ananus,  son  of  Anamu, 

or  Ananias. 

[u Jesus,  son  of  Damneeus.j 

Appointed  by  tbe  people    Jesua,  son  of  Gamaliel. 
Do.  (Wbiston  on  J5.  J.  iv.     Mattbias,    son    of   Theo- 

3,  §  6).  pbilus. 

Chosen  by  lot    .     .  .     Pbannias,  son  of  Samuel 

The  latter  part  of  the  above  list  is  taken  partly 
from  Lightfoot,  vol.  ix.  p.  26  ff.  —  also  in  part  from 
Josephus  directly,  and  in  part  from  Whiston'g  note 
on  Ant  XX.  8,  §  5.  A.  C.  H. 

*  The  subject  of  the  preceding  article  and  that 
of  Priests  are  so  related  to  each  other,  that  writen 
have  usually  discussed  them  under  the  same  head. 
For  a  list  of  some  of  the  writers  who  have  treated 
of  the  topics  more  or  less  in  connection  with  enci 
other,  see  under  Puiests.  II 

*  HIGHWAY.     [Hedges;  Wat.] 
HIXEN  (l^^n    [perh.  /(n-ireu,  Ftinll:  « 


HILKIAH 

IfXvd;  Alex.  N77Aa)»/:«  Ileloii),  the  name  of  a  city 
>f  Judah  allotted  with  its  "  suburbs  "  to  the  priests 
[1  Chr.  vi.  58);  and  which  in  the  corresponding 
ists  of  Joshua  is  called  Holo>'.  G. 

HILKI'AH  (=in^i7^n  and  njpbn,  the 
Loi'd  [Jehovah]  is  my  portion :  Xe\Klas ;  [in  2  K. 
Xviii.  18,  Alex.  XoA/cios;  26,  37,  Vat.  Alex.  -Kei-:] 
Ilelrias).  1.  Hilkia'hu,  father  of  Elialtim  (2  K. 
xviii.  [18,  26,]  37;  Is.  xxii.  20,  xxxvi.  [3,]  22). 
[Eli A  KIM.] 

2.  [Vat.  genr.  XeAweias;  in  Ezr.  vii.  1,  Vat. 
EAKCjas,  Alex.  XeA«eioy;  in  Neh.  xi.  11,  Rom. 
'EAx'«>  ^'•^^'  ^'^^-  EA/feta]  High-priest  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah  (2  K.  xxii.  4  ff. ;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  9  fF. ; 
I  Esdr.  i.  8).  According  to  the  genealogy  in  1 
Chr.  vi.  13  (A.  V.)  he  was  son  of  Shalhnn,  and 
from  Ezr.  vii.  1,  apparently  the  ancestor  of  Ezra 
the  scribe.  His  high-priesthood  was  rendered  par- 
ticularly illustrious  by  the  great  reformation  effected 
under  it  by  king  Josiah,  by  the  solemn  Passover 
kept  at  Jerusalem  in  the  18th  year  of  that  king's 
reign,  and  above  all  by  the  discovery  which  he 
made  of  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  in  the  Temple. 
With  regard  to  the  latter,  Kennicott  {Heb.  Text, 
ii.  299)  is  of  opinion  that  it  was  the  original 
autograph  copy  of  the  Pentateuch  written  by 
Moses  which  Ililkiah  found.  He  argues  from  the 
peculiar  form  of  expression  in  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  14, 

n^^Q  T^  T\yr[>  rn^^\  npp,  »tnebookof 

the  law  of  Jehovah  by  the  hand  of  jNIoses;  "  whereas 
in  the  fourteen  other  places  in  the  0.  T.  where  the 
law  of  Moses  or  the  book  of  Moses  are  mentioned, 
it  is  either  "the  book  of  IMoses,"  or  "the  law  of 
Moses,"  or  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  But 
the  argument  is  far  from  conclusive,  because  the 
phrase  in  question  may  quite  as  properly  signify 
"  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  I^rd  given  through 
Moses."  Compare  the  expression  eV  x^ 'pi  /teenVou 
(Gal.  iii.  19),  and  nt!?D  T2  (Ex.  ix.  35,  xxxv. 
29 ;  Neh.  x.  29 ;  2  Chr.'  xxxv.  6  ;*  Jer.  1. 1 ).  Though, 
however,  the  copy  cannot  be  pro\ed  to  have  been 
Moses'  autograph  from  the  words  in  question,  it 
seems  probable  that  it  was,  from  the  place  where  it 
was  found,  namely,  in  the  Temple;  and,  from  its 
not  having  been  discovered  before,  but  being  only 
brought  to  light  on  the  occasion  of  the  repairs 
which  were  necessary,  and  from  the  discoverer  being 
the  high-priest  himself,  it  seems  natural  to  conclude 
that  tifie  particular  part  of  the  Temple  where  it  was 
found  was  one  not  usually  frequented,  or  ever  by 
any  but  the  high-priest.  Such  a  place  exactly  was 
the  one  where  we  know  the  original  copy  of  the 
law  was  deposited  by  command  of  Moses,  namely, 
by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  within  the 
rail,  as  we  learn  from  Dent.  xxxi.  9,  26.  A  diificult 
and  interesting  question  arises.  What  was  the  book 
found  by  Hilkiah?  Was  it  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
IS  Le  Clerc,  Keil.  Ewald,  etc.,  suppose,  or  the  three 
middle  books,  as  Bertheau,  or  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy alone,  as  De  AVette,  Gesenius,  Rosenmiiller, 
etc.  ?  Our  means  of  answering  this  question  seem 
•0  be  limited,  (1)  to  an  examination  of  the  terms 
m  which  the  depositing  the  book  of  the  'aw  by  the 
wk  was  originally  enjoined;  (2;  to  an  examination 
»f  the  contents  of  the  book  discovered  by  Hilkiah, 
4S  far  as  they  transpire;  (3)  to  any  indications 


«  In  the  LXX.  this  name  appears  in  ver. 
tMinged  places  wita  Jattir. 


HILKIAH  1076 

which  may  be  gathered  from  the  contencporary 
>vritings  of  Jeremiah,  or  from  any  other  portioni 
of  Scripture.  As  regards  the  first,  a  comparison 
of  Dent.  i.  5  with  xxxi.  9;  the  consideration  how 
exactly  suited  Deuteronomy  is  for  the  purpose  of  a 
public  recital,  as  commanded  Deut.  xxxi.  10-13, 
whereas  the  recital  of  the  whole  Pentateuch  is 
scarcely  coiiceival)le;  and  perhaps  even  the  smaller 
bulk  of  a  copy  of  Deuteronomy  compared  with  that 
of  the  whole  law,  considered  with  reference  to  its 
place  by  the  ark,  point  strongly  to  the  conclusion 
that  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  ordered  to  be  put  "  in 
the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  "  was  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  alone,  whether  or  no  exactly  in  its 
present  form  is  a  further  question.  As  regards  the 
second,  the  28th  and  29th  chapters  of  Deut.  seem 
to  be  those  especially  referred  to  in  2  K.  xxii.  13, 
16,  17,  and  2  K.  xxiii.  2,  3  seem  to  point  directly 
to  Deut.  xxix.  1,  in  the  mention  of  the  covenant, 
and  ver.  3  of  the  former  to  Deut.  xxx.  2,  in  the 
expression  with  all  their  heart  and  all  their  soul. 
The  words  in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  3,  "  The  Levites  that 
taught  all  Israel,"  seem  also  to  refer  to  Deut.  xxxiii. 
10.  All  the  actions  of  Josiah  which  followed  the 
reading  of  the  book  found,  the  destruction  of  all 
idolatrous  symbols,  the  putting  away  of  wizards  and 
workers  with  familiar  spirits,  and  the  keeping  of  the 
Passover,  were  such  as  would  follow  from  hearing 
the  16th,  18th,  and  other  chapters  of  Deuteronomy, 
while  there  is  not  one  that  points  to  any  precept 
contained  in  the  other  books,  and  not  in  Deuter- 
onomy. If  there  is  any  exception  to  this  statement 
it  is  to  be  found  in  the  description  of  the  Passover 
in  ch.  xxxv.  The  phrases  "  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  first  month,"  in  ver.  1:  "Sanctify  your- 
selves, and  prepare  your  brethren,  that  they  may 
do  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  the  hand 
of  Moses,"  ver.  6;  "The  priests  sprinkled  the 
blood,"  ver.  11;  and  perhaps  the  allusion  in  ver. 
12,  may  be  thought  to  point  to  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  or 
Num.  ix.  3;  to  Lev.  xxii.  and  Num.  viii.  20-22; 
to  Lev.  i.  5 ;  iii.  2,  <fec. ;  and  to  Lev.  iii.  3-5,  &c. 
respectively.  But  the  allusions  are  not  marked,  and 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Levitical  institu- 
tions existed  in  practice,  and  that  the  other  books 
of  Moses  were  certainly  extant,  though  they  were 
not  kept  by  the  side  of  the  ark.  As  regards  the 
third,  it  is  well  known  how  full  the  writings  of 
Jeremiah  are  of  direct  references  and  of  points  of 
resemblance  to  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Now 
this  is  at  once  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  of 
the  law  thus  found  by  Hilkiah  being  that  book, 
which  would  thus  naturally  be  an  object  of  special 
curiosity  and  study  to  the  prophet,  and  as  naturally 
influence  his  own  writings.  Moreover,  in  an  un- 
dated prophecy  of  Jeremiah's  (ch.  xi.*),  which 
seems  to  have  been  occasioned  by  the  finding  of  this 
covenant  —  for  he  introduces  the  mention  of  "  the 
words  of  this  covenant "  quite  abruptly  —  he  quotes 
word  for  word  from  Deut.  xxvii.  26,  answering 
Amkn  himself,  as  the  people  are  there  directed  to 
do,  with  reference  to  the  curse  for  disobedience  (see 
ver.  3,  5);  a  very  strong  confirmation  of  the  pre 
ceding  arguments  which  tend  to  prove  that  Deuter 
onomy  was  the  book  found  by  Hilkiah.  But  again: 
in  Josh.  viii.  we  have  the  account  of  the  first  execu- 
tion by  Joshua  and  the  Israelites  of  that  which 
Moses  had  commanded  relative  to  writinsr  the  law 


havins  I      ^  Hitzig,  on  Jer.  xi.,  also  supposes  the  expressioni 
in  this  chapter  to  have  been  occasioned  by  4he  fiuclkiy 
I  of  the  book  of  the  law. 


1076 


HILKIAH 


upon  stones  to  be  set  upon  Mount  Ebal;  and  it  is 
added  in  ver.  34,  "  and  afterwards  he  read  all  the 
words  of  the  law,  (he  blessings  and  cursings,  accord- 
ing to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law." 
In  vei.  32  he  had  said  ".he  wrote  there  upon  the 
stones  a  copy  of  the  law  of  Moses."  Now  not  only 
is  it  impossible  to  imagine  that  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch was  transcribed  on  these  stones,  but  all  the 
references  which  transpire  are  to  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy. The  altar  of  whole  stones  untouched  by 
iron  tool,  the  peace-offerings,  the  blessings  and  the 
cursings,  as  well  as  the  act  itself  of  writing  the  law 
on  stones  and  setting  them  on  Mount  Ebal,  and 
placing  half  the  tribes  on  Mount  Ebal,  and  the 
other  half  on  Mount  Gerizim,  all  belong  to  Deuter- 
onomy. And  therefore  when  it  is  added  in  ver. 
35,  "  There  was  not  a  word  of  all  that  Closes  com- 
manded which  Joshua  read  not  before  all  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel,"  we  seem  constrained  to  accept 
the  words  with  the  limitation  to  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy, as  that  which  alone  was  ordered  by  Moses 
to  be  thus  publicly  read.  And  this  increases  the 
probability  that  here  too  the  expression  is  limited 
to  the  same  book. 

The  only  discordant  evidence  is  that  of  the  book 
of  Nehemiah.  In  the  8th  chapter  of  that  book, 
and  ix.  3,  we  have  the  public  reading  by  Ezra  of 
"  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  "  to  the  whole  con- 
gregation at  the  feast  of  1  abernacles,  in  e\ident 
obedience  to  Deut.  xxxi.  10-13.  But  it  is  quite 
certain,  from  Neh.  viii.  14-17,  that  on  the  second 
day  they  read  out  of  Leviticus,  because  the  directions 
about  dwelling  in  booths  arc  found  there  only,  in 
ch.  xxiii.  Moreover  in  the  prayer  of  the  Levites 
which  follows  Neh.  ix.  5,  and  which  is  apparently 
based  upon  the  previous  reading  of  the  law,  reference 
is  freely  made  to  all  the  books  of  INIoses,  and  indeed 
to  the  later  books  also.  It  is,  however,  perhaps  not 
an  improbable  inference  that,  I'^ra  having  lately 
completed  his  edition  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  more 
was  read  on  this  occasion  than  was  strictly  enjoined 
by  Deut.  xxxi.,  and  that  therefore  this  transaction 
does  not  really  weaken  the  foregoing  evidence. 

But  no  little  surprise  has  been  expressed  by 
critics  at  the  previous  non-acquaintance  with  this 
book  on  the  part  of  Hilkiah,  Josiah,  and  the  people 
generally,  which  their  manner  of  receiving  it  plainly 
evidences;  and  some  have  argued  from  hence  that 
"  the  law  of  Moses  "  is  not  of  older  date  than  the 
reign  of  Josiah;  in  fact  that  Josiah  and  Hilkiah 
invented  it,  and  pretended  to  have  found  a  copy  in 
the  Temple  in  order  to  give  sanction  to  the  refor- 
mation which  they  had  in  hand.  The  following 
remarks  are  intended  to  point  out  the  true  inferences 
V)  be  drawTx  from  the  narrative  of  this  remarkable 
discovery  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
The  direction  in  Deut.  xxxi.  10-13  for  the  public 
reading  of  the  law  at  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  on 
each  seventh  year,  or  year  of  release,  to  the  whole 
congregation,  as  the  means  of  perpetuating  the 
knowledge  of  the  law,  sufficiently  shows  that  at  that 
time  a  multiplication  of  copies  and  a  multitude  of 
readers  was  not  contemplated.  The  same  thing 
leenis  to  be  implied  also  in  the  direction  given  in 
Deut.  xvii.  18,  19,  concerning  the  copy  of  the  law 
lo  be  made,  for  the  special  use  of  the  king,  distinct 
ftom  that  in  the  keeping  of  the  priests  and  Levites. 
4.nd  this  paucity  of  copies  and  of  readers  is  just 
what  one  would  have  expected  m  an  age  when  the 
art  of  reading  and  writing  was  confined  to  the  pro- 
fessional scribes,  and  the  very  few  others  who,  like 
lloafx,  had  learnt  the  art  in  Egypt  (Acts  vii.  22). 


HILKIAH 

The  troublous  times  of  the  Judges  were  obviooal} 
more  likely  to  obliterate  than  to  promote  the  studj 
of  letters.  And  whatever  occasional  revival  of  sacred 
learning  may  have  taken  place  under  such  kings  aa 
David,  Solomon,  J ehoshaphat,  Uzziah,  Jotham,  and 
Hezekiah,  yet  on  the  other  hand  such  reigns  a* 
that  of  Athaliali,  the  last  years  of  Joash,  that  of 
Ahaz,  and  above  all  the  long  reign  of  Manasseh, 
with  their  idolatries  and  national  calamities,  must 
have  been  most  unfavorable  to  the  study  of  "  the 
sacred  letters."  On  the  whole,  in  the  days  of  Josiah 
irreligion  and  ignorance  had  o\erflowed  all  the 
dykes  erected  to  stay  their  progress.  In  spite  of 
such  occasional  acts  as  the  public  reading  of  the 
law  to  the  people,  enjoined  by  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr. 
xvii.  9),  and  rfuch  insulated  evidences  of  the  king's 
reading  the  law,  as  commanded  by  INIoses,  as  the 
action  recorded  of  Amaziah  affords  (2  K.  xiv.  6)  — 
where  by  the  way  the  reference  is  still  to  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy  —  and  the  yet  more  marked  ac- 
quaintance with  the  law  attributed  to  Hezekiah 
(2  K.  xviii.  5,  6)  [Genealogy],  everything  in 
Josiah's  reign  indicates  a  very  low  state  of  knowl- 
edge. Tliere  were  indeed  still  professional  scribes 
among  the  Levites  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  13),  and  Shaphan 
was  the  king's  scribe.  But  judghig  from  the  nar- 
rative, 2  K.  xxii.  8,  10;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.,  it  seems 
probable  that  neither  Ililkiali  nor  Josiah  could 
read.  The  same  may  perhaps  be  said  of  Jeremiah, 
who  was  always  attended  by  Baruch  the  scribe,  who 
wrote  down  the  words  of  Jeremiah  from  his  mouth 
(Jer.  xxxvi.  2,  4,  6,  8,  18,  28,  32.  xlv.,  &c.).  How 
then  can  we  wonder  that  under  such  circumstances 
the  knowledge  of  the  law  had  fallen  into  desuetude? 
or  fail  to  see  in  the  incident  of  the  startling  dis- 
covery of  the  copy  of  it  by  Hilkiah  one  of  those 
many  instances  of  simple  truthfulness  which  im- 
press on  the  Scripture  narrative  such  an  unmis- 
takable stamp  of  authenticity,  when  it  is  read  in 
the  same  guileness  spirit  in  which  it  is  written  ? 
In  fact,  the  ignorance  of  the  law  of  Moses  which 
this  history  reveals  is  in  most  striking  harmony 
with  the  prevalent  idolatry  disclosed  by  the  previous 
history  of  Judsea,  especially  since  its  connection 
with  the  house  of  Ahab,  as  well  as  with  the  low 
state  of  education  which  is  aj'.parent  from  so  many 
incidental  notices. 

The  story  of  Hilkiah's  discovery  throws  no  light 
whatever  upon  the  mode  in  which  other  portions 
of  the  Scriptures  were  preserved,  and  therefore  this 
is  not  the  place  to  consider  it.  But  Thenius  truly 
observes  that  the  expression  in  2  K.  xxii.  8  clearly 
implies  that  the  existence  of  the  law  of  IMoses  was 
a  thing  well  known  to  the  Jews.  It  is  interesting 
to  notice  the  concurrence  of  the  king  with  the  high- 
priest  in  the  restoration  of  the  Temple,  as  well  as 
the  analogy  of  the  circumstances  with  what  tool, 
place  in  the  rei<:n  of  Toash,  when  Jehoiada  w:ib 
high-prir<t,  as  related  2  rhr.  xxiv.  (Bertheau,  ad 
loc. ;  fndeaux.  Connect,  i.  43,  316;  I^ewis,  O^-iy. 
Heb.  bk.  viii.  ch.  8,  &c.)     [Chelcias.] 

A.  C.  H. 

3.  Hilki'ah  (LXX.  [Rom.  Vat.]  omit;  [Alex. 
XfXKias',  Comp.  Aid.  X(\Kias  or  -o:]  Ilelcias),  a 
Merarite  Levite,  son  of  Amzi,  one  of  the  ancestors 
of  Ethan  (1  Chr.  vi.  45;  Heb.  30). 

4.  [Vat.  omits;  Alex.  X6A»f6ias.]  IIilkia'hu; 
another  Merarite  Levite,  second  son  of  Hosah*, 
among  the  doorkeepei-s  of  the  tabernacle  m  the  tim< 
of  king  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 

5.  [In  Neh.  viii.  4.  XeAwfo,  Vat.  EAweia,  Alar 
X€\Kua',  in  xii.  7,  Rom.  Vat.  Ales..  FA.^  omii 


HILLEL 

10  hi  x!i.  2:,  exc.  Rom.  'EAk/osJ  HiLKr'AH;  one  I 
jf  those  who  stood  on  the  right  hand  of  Ezra  when 
he  read  the  law  to  the  peonle.  '  Doubtless  a  Levite,  j 
and  probably  a  priest  (Neh.  viii.  4).  He  may  be 
identical  with  the  Hilkiah  who  came  up  in  the 
expedition  with  Jeshua  and  Zerubbabel  (xii.  7),  and 
whose  descendant  Hashabiah  is  commemorated  as 
living  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  (xii.  21). 

6.  IIilkia'hu;  a  priest,  of  Anathoth,  father  of 
♦he  prophet  Jekemiah  (Jer.  i.  1). 

7.  Hii.Ki'AH,  father  of  Gemariah,  who  was  one 
of  Zedekiah's  envoys  to  Babylon  (Jer.  xxix.  3). 

HIL'LEL  P^n  [^^"^^  '"  prnls^,  Flirst]: 
'EAA^A;  Alex.  SeAATJiu;  Joseph.  "EAAtjAos  :  lUd), 
a  native  of  Pirathon  in  Mount  Ephraim,  father  of 
AnDOX,  one  of  the  judges  of  Israel  (Judg.  xii.  13, 
15). 

HILLS.  The  structure  and  characteristics  of 
the  hills  of  Palestine  will  be  most  conveniently 
noticed  in  the  general  description  of  the  features 
of  the  country.  [Palestine.]  But  it  may  not 
be  unprofitable  to  call  attention  here  to  the  various 
Hebrew  tenns  for  which  the  word  "hill"  has  been 
employed  in  the  Auth.  Version. 

1.  Gibeah,  711722,  from  a  root  akin  to  35|? 
which  seems  to  have  the  force  of  curvature  or 
humpishness.  A  word  involving  this  idea  is  pecul- 
iarly applicable  to  the  rounded  hills  of  Palestine, 
and  from  it  are  derived,  as  has  been  pointed  out 
under  Gibe  ah,  the  names  of  several  places  situated 
on  hills.  Our  translators  have  been  consistent  in 
rendering  (/ibeah  by  "hill;  "  in  four  passages  only 
qualifying  it  as  "  little  hill,"  doubtless  for  the  more 
complete  antithesis  to  "mountain"  (Ps.  Ixv.  12, 
Ixxii.  3,  cxiv.  4,  6). 

2.  But  they  have  also  employed  the  same  Eng- 
lish word  for  the  very  different  term  har,  "IH, 
which  has  a  much  more  extended  sense  than  r/ibeah, 
meaning  a  whole  district  rather  than  an  individual 
eminence,  and  to  which  our  word  "mountain" 
answers  with  tolerable  accuracy.  This  exchange  is 
always  undesirable,  but  it  sometimes  occurs  so  as 
to  confuse  the  meaning  of  a  passage  where  it  is 
desirable  that  the  topography  should  be  unmistak 
able.  For  instance,  in  Ex.  xxiv.  4,  the  "hill"  is 
the  same  which  is  elsewhere  in  the  same  chapter 
(12,  13,  18,  &c.)  and  book,  consistently  and  accu- 
rately rendered  "mount"  and  "mountain."  In 
Num.  xiv.  44,  45,  the  "hill"  is  the  "mountain" 
of  ver.  40,  as  also  in  Deut.  i.  41,  43,  compared  with 
24,  44.  In  Josh.  xv.  9,  the  allusion  is  to  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  correctly  called  "  mountain  "  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse ;  and  so  also  in  2  Sam.  xvi.  13.  The 
country  of  the  "hills,"  in  Deut.  i.  7;  Josh.  ix.  1, 
I.  40,  xi.  16,  is  the  elevated  district  of  Judah,  Ben- 
jamin, and  Ephraim,  which  is  correctly  called  "  the 
mountain  "  in  the  eariiest  descriptions  of  Palestine 
(Num.  xiii.  29),  and  in  many  subsequent  passages. 
The  "  holy  hill "  (Ps.  iii.  4),  the  "  hill  of  Jehovah  " 
(xxiv.  3),  the  "hill  of  God  "  (Ixviji.  15),  are  noth- 
bg  else  than  "Mount  Zion."  Jn  2  K.  i.  9  and 
'v.  27,  the  use  of  the  word  "  hill "  obscures  the 

llusion  to  Carmel,  which  ii.  other  passages  of  the 
'jfe  of  the  prophet  (e.  ff.  1  K.  xviii.  19;  2  K.  iv. 
25)  has  the  term  "  mount "  correctly  attached  to 
-t.  Other  places  in  the  historical  books  in  which 
the  same  substitution  weakens  the  force  of  the  nar- 
•ative,  are  as  follows :  Gen.  vii.  19 ;  Deut.  viil.  7 ; 

fuah.  xiii.  6,  xviii.  13,  14;  Judg.  xvi.  3;  1  baui. 


HINNOM,  VALLEY  OP    1077 

xxiii.  14;  xxv.  20;  xxvi.  13;  2  Sam.  xiii.  34,  1  K 
XX.  23,  28,  xxii.  17,  Ac. 

3.  On  one  occasion  the  word  iMa'nleh,  "l^^^, 
is  rendered  "  hill,"  namely,  1  Sam.  ix.  11,  where  it 
would  be  better  to  employ  "  a'jcent "  or  some  sim- 
ilar term. 

4.  In  the  N.  T.  the  word  "  hill  "  is  employed  to 
render  the  Greek  word  fiovv6s]  but  on  one  occa- 
sion it  is  used  for  opos,  elsewhere  "mountain,"  so 
as  to  obscure  the  connection  between  the  two  parts 
of  the  same  narrative.  The  "hill''  from  which 
Jesus  was  coming  down  in  Luke  ix.  37,  is  the  same 
as  "the  mountain"  into  which  He  had  gone  for 
His  transfiguration  the  day  before  (conip.  ver.  28). 
In  Matt.  v.  14,  and  Luke  iv.  23,  opos  is  also  ren- 
dered "  hill,"  but  not  with  the  inconvenience  just 
noticed.  In  Luke  i.  39  [and  65]  the  "  hill  country" 
{r}  opeivfj)  is  the  same  "mountain  of  Judah" 
[sing.  =  collective]  to  which  frequent  reference  is 
made  in  the  0.  T.  G. 

HIN.     [Measures.] 

HIND  (n^^M:  ^\a(pos'  ce?tw),  the  female 
of  the  common  stag  or  cervus  elaphus.  It  is  fre- 
quently noticed  in  the  poetical  parts  of  Scripture 
as  emblematic  of  activity  (Gen.  xlix.  21;  2  Sam 
xxii.  34;  Ps.  xviii.  33;  Hab.  iii.  19),  gentleness 
(Prov.  v.  19),  feminine  modesty  (Cant.  ii.  7,  iii.  5), 
earnest  longing  (Ps.  xiii.  1),  and  maternal  affection 
(Jer.  xiv.  5).  Its  shyness  and  remoteness  from  the 
haunts  of  men  are  also  noticed  (Job  xxxix.  1),  and 
its  timidity,  causing  it  to  cast  its  young  at  the 
sound  of  thunder  (Ps.  xxix.  9).  The  conclusion 
which  some  have  drawn  from  the  passage  last 
quoted  that  the  hind  produces  her  young  with  great 
diflRculty,  is  not  in  reality  deducible  from  the  words, 
and  is  expressly  contradicted  by  Job  xxxix.  3.  The 

LXX.  reads  H^'^S  in  Gen.  xUx.  21,  rendering  it 
(TTeAexos  avei/x^you,  "  a  luxuriant  terebinth : " 
Lowth  has  proposed  a  similar  change  in  Ps.  xxix., 
but  in  neither  case  can  the  emendation  be  accepted : 
Naphtali  verified  the  comparison  of  himself  to  a 
"graceful  or  tall  hind  "  by  the  events  recorded  in 
Judg.  iv.  6-9,  V.  18.  The  inscription  of  Ps.  xxii., 
"the  hind  of  the  morning,"  probably  refers  to  a 
tune  of  that  name.     [Aijeletu-Shaitar.] 

W.  L.  B. 

HINGE.    1.  "T'V,  ffTp6(piy^,  cm-do,  with  the 

notion  of  turning  (Ges.  p.  1165).  2.  HQ,  evpw/ia, 
cnrdo,  with  the  notion  of  insertion  (Ges.  p.  1096). 
Both  ancient  Egyptian  and  modern  Oriental  doors 
were  and  are  hung  by  means  of  pivots  turning  in 
sockets  both  on  the  upper  and  lower  sides.  In 
Syria,  and  especially  the  Hauran,  there  are  many 
ancient  doors  consisting  of  stone  slabs  M-ith  pivots 
can-ed  out  of  the  same  piece,  inserted  in  sockets 
above  and  below,  and  fixed  during  the  building  of 
the  house.  The  allusion  in  Prov.  xxvi.  14  is  thus 
clearly  explainetl.  The  hinges  mentioned  in  1  K. 
vii.  50  were  probably  of  the  Egyptian  kind,  attached 
to  the  upper  and  lower  sides  of  the  door  (Bucking- 
ham, A7'ab  Tt-ibes,  p.  177 ;  Porter,  Damascus,  ii. 
22,  192.  Maundrell,  Early  Travels,  pp.  447,  448 
(Bohn);  Shaw,  Travels,  p.  210;  Lord  Lindsay, 
Letters,  p.  292;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg.  abridgm.  i. 
15).  H.  W.  P. 

HINNOM,  VALLEY  [more  strictly  Ra- 
vixj]   of,  otherwise  called   "  the  valley  of  tie 

son  "  or  "children  [sons]  of  Hinnom"  (0371"^)!, 


1078    HINNOM,  VALLEY  OF 

3r  n'lSf'S,  or  n"**p4l"*^2,  variously  ren- 
dered by  LXX,  (pdpay^  'EuvSfx  [Vat.  Ovofi,  Josh. 
IV.  8],  or  vlov  'Evvdfi  [2  K.  xxiii.  10,  Jer.  vii.  29, 
30,  xxxii.  35],  or  Taievya,  Josh,  xviii.  16  [also 
vdirri  "Siovvajx  (Alex,  vairi]  viov  Evvofi),  and  Ta'i 
Ovuo/JL  (Alex,  for  raievva)] ;  eV  76  BevevvSfx 
[Alex,  iu  yrj  Beeuuofj.],  2  Chr.  xxviii.  3,  xxxiii. 
6 ;  rh  iroAvdvSpiou  viau  twv  t^kvuv  avruVf  Jer. 
lix.  2,  [TToKvduSpioy  viov  ^Et^ud/x  (Vat.  Alex.  FA. 
Evuofi),  ver.]  6),<*  a  deep  and  narrow  ravine,  with 
steep,  rocky  sides  to  tlie  S.  and  W.  of  Jerusalem, 
separating  jNIount  Zion  to  the  N.  from  the  "  Hill 
of  Iwil  Counsel,"  and  the  sloping  rocky  plateau  of 
the  "  plain  of  Rephaim "  to  the  S.,  taking  its 
name,  according  to  Professor  Stanley,  from  <'  some 
ancient  hero,  the  son  of  Hinnom  "  having  encamped 
in  it  (Stanley,  ^\  cf  P.  p.  172).  The  earliest 
mention  of  the  Valley  of  Hirmom  in  the  sacred 
writings  is  Josh.  xv.  8,  xviii.  16,  where  the  bound- 
ary line  between  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Benjamin 
is  described  with  minute  topographical  accuracy, 
as  passing  along  the  bed  of  the  ravine.  On  the 
southern  brow,  overlooking  the  valley  at  its  eastern 
extremity,  Solomon  erected  high  places  for  !Molech 
(1  K.  xi.  7),  whose  horrid  rites  were  revived  from 
time  to  time  in  the  same  vicinity  by  the  later 
idolatrous  kings.  Ahaz  and  Manasseh  made  their 
children  "  pass  through  the  fire "  in  this  valley 
(2  K.  xvi.  3;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  3,  xxxiii.  6),  and  the 
fiendish  custom  of  infant  sacrifice  to  the  fire-gods 
seems  to  have  been  kept  up  in  Tophet,  at  its  S.  E. 
extremity  for  a  considerable  period  (Jer.  vii.  31; 
2  K.  xxiii.  10).  [Tophet.]  To  put  an  end  to 
these  abominations  the  place  was  polluted  by 
Josiah,  who  rendered  it  ceremonially  unclean  by 
spreading  over  it  human  bones,  and  other  corrup- 
tions (2  K.  xxiii.  10,  13,  14;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  4,  5), 
from  which  time  it  appears  to  have  become  the 
common  cesspool  of  the  city,  into  which  its  sewage 
was  conducted,  to  be  carried  off  by  the  waters  of 
the  Kidron,  as  well  as  a  laystall,  where  all  its  soUd 
filth  was  collected.  Most  commentators  follow 
Buxtorf,  Lightfoot,  and  others,  in  asserting  that 
perpetual  fires  were  here  kept  up  for  the  consump- 
tion of  bodies  of  criminals,  carcases  of  animals,  and 
whatever  else  was  combustible ;  but  the  Rabbinical 
authorities  usually  brought  forward  in  support  of 
this  idea  appear  insufficient,  and  Robinson  declares 
(i.  274)  that  "  there  is  no  evidence  of  any  other 
fires  than  those  of  Molech  having  been  kept  up  in 
this  valley,"  referring  to  Rosenmiiller,  Biblisch. 
Geogr.  11.  i.  156,  164.  For  the  more  ordinary 
view,  see  Hengstenburg,  Chiistol.  ii.  454,  iv.  41 ; 
Keil  on  Kintjs  ii.  147,  Clark's  edit.;  and  cf.  Is. 
XXX.  33,  kvi.  24. 

From  its  ceremonial  defilement,  and  from  the 
detested  and  abominable  fire  of  Molech,  if  not  from 
the  supposed  everburning  funeral  piles,  the  later 
Jews  applied  the  name  of  this  valley  Ge  Hinnom^ 
Gehenna^  to  denote  the  place  of  eternal  torment, 
and  some  of  the  Rabbins  here  fixed  the  "  door  of 
bell;"  a  sense  in  which  it  is  used  by  our  Lord. 
[Gehenn-v.]  It  is  called,  Jer.  ii.  23,  "  the  val- 
ley," /car'  i^oxhv,  and  perhaps  "the  valley  of 
deaid  bodies,"  xxxi.  40,  and  "the  valley  of  vision," 
[s.  xxii.  1,  5  (Stanley,  Syr.  and  Pal  pp.  172,  482). 


HINNOM.  VALLEY  OF 

The  name  by  which  it  is  now  known  is  (it  igno- 
rance of  the  meaning  of  the  initial  syllable)  Wad^ 
Jehennam,  or  Wddy  er  Rvbeb  ("Williams,  IIol^ 
City,  i.  56,  suppl.),  though  in  Mohammedan  tra- 
ditions the  name  Gehenna  is  applied  to  the  Valley 
of  Kedron  (Ibn  Batutah,  12,  4;  Stanley,  ut  svp.). 
The  valley  commences  in  a  broad  sloping  basin 
to  the  W.  of  the  city,  S.  of  the  Jaffa  road  (extend- 
ing nearly  to  the  brow  of  the  great  Wady,  on  the 
W.),  in  the  centre  of  which,  700  yards  from  the 
Jaffa  gate,  is  the  large  reser\'oir,  supposed  tc  be 
the  "  upper  pool,"  or  "Gihon"  [Gihon]  (Is.  vii. 
3,  xxxvi.  2;  2  Chr.  xxxii.  30),  now  known  as  Bir- 
ket-el-MamUla.  After  running  about  three  quar- 
ters of  a  mile  E.  by  S.  the  valley  takes  a  sudden 
bend  to  the  S.  opposite  the  Jaffa  gate,  but  in  less 
than  another  three  quarters  of  a  mile  it  encounters 
a  rocky  hill-side  which  forces  it  again  in  an  eastern 
direction,  sweeping  round  the  precipitous  S.  W. 
comer  of  Jlount  Zion  almost  at  a  right  angle.  In 
this  part  of  its  course  the  valley  is  from  50  to  100 
yards  broad,  the  bottom  everywhere  covered  with 
small  stones,  and  cultivated.  At  290  yards  from 
the  Jaffa  gate  it  is  crossed  by  an  aqueduct  on  nine 
very  low  arches,  conveying  water  from  the  "  pools 
of  Solomon  "  to  the  Temple  Mount,  a  short  dis- 
tance below  which  is  the  "  lower  pool "  (Is.  xxii. 
9),  Birket-es-Sultiln.  From  this  point  the  ravine 
narrows  and  deepens,  and  descends  with  great  ra- 
pidity between  broken  cliffs,  rising  in  successive 
terraces,  honeycombed  with  innumerable  sepulchral 
recesses,  forming  the  northern  face  of  the  "  Hill  of 
Evil  Counsel,"  to  the  S.,  and  the  steep,  shelving, 
but  not  precipitous  southern  slopes  of  Mount  Zion, 
which  rise  to  about  the  height  of  150  feet,  to  the 
N.  The  bed  of  the  valley  is  planted  with  olives 
and  other  fruit  trees,  and  when  practicable  is  cul- 
tivated. About  400  yards  from  the  S.  W.  angle 
of  Mount  Zion  the  valley  contracts  still  more,  be- 
comes quite  narrow  and  stony,  and  descends  with 
much  greater  rapidity  towards  the  "  \alley  of  Je- 
hoshaphat,"  or  "of  the  brook  Kidron,"  before 
joining  which  it  opens  out  again,  forming  an  ob- 
long plot,  the  site  of  Tophet,  devoted  to  gardens 
irrigated  by  the  waters  of  Siloam.  Towards  the 
eastern  extremity  of  the  valley  is  the  traditional 
site  of  "Aceldama,"  authenticated  by  a  bed  of 
white  clay  still  worked  by  potters  (Williams,  Holy 
City,  ii.  495),^  opposite  to  which,  where  the  cliff  is 
thirty  or  forty  feet  high,  the  tree  on  which  Judaa 
hanged  himself  waj  placed  during  the  Frankish 
kingdom  (Barclay,  City  of  Great  Kinrj,  p.  208). 
Not  far  from  Aceldama  is  a  conspicuously  situated 
tomb  with  a  Doric  pediment,  sometimes  known  as 
the  "  whited  sepulchre,"  near  which  a  large  sepul- 
chral recess  with  a  Doric  portal  hewn  in  the  native 
rock  is  known  as  the  "Latibulum  apostolorum," 
where  the  Twelve  are  said  to  have  concealed  them- 
selves during  the  time  between  the  Crucifixion  and 
the  Resurrection.  The  tombs  continue  quit«  down 
to  the  corner  of  the  mountain,  where  it  bends  off 
to  the  S.  along  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat.  None 
of  the  sepulchral  recesses  in  the  vicinity  of  Jeru- 
salem are  so  well  preserved ;  most  of  them  are  very 
old  [see  infra']  —  small  gloomy  caves,  with  narrow, 
rock-hewn  doorways. 

Robinson  places  "  the  valley  gate,"   [which  had 


a  *  Some  of  the  variations  of  the  Vatican  MS.  are 
J  ot  noticed  here,  being  mere  corruptions.  A. 

6  •  The  clay  used  in  the  pottery  at  Jerusalem  near 
Bie  oliurcb  of  St.  Anne  is  said  to  be  obtained  firom  El- 


Jib  (Gibeon).  See  Ordnance  Survey  of  Jerusalem,  p 
59  (1865).  Compare  the  note  under  Aceldama,  f 
19,  and  the  text  to  which  the  note  relates.  The  tef 
timony  at  presMit  indicates  different  opinions.      H 


HINNOM,  VALLEY  OF 

to  name  from  this  ravine],  Neh.  ii.  13,  15;  2  Chr. 
ixvi.  9,  at  the  N.  W.  comer  of  Mount  Z-on  in  the 
jpper  part  of  this  valley  (Robinson,  i.  220,  239, 
274,  320,  353;  Williams,  Holy  City,  i.  suppl.  50, 
li.  495;  Barclay,  City  of  Great  Ktfig,  205,  208). 
[But  see  Jkrusalkm.]  E.  V. 

*  The  group  of  tombs  in  th  Valley  of  Hinnom 
and  on  the  southern  hill-side  above  the  ravine  are 
somewhat  fully  described  in  the  Ordnance  Survey 
of  Jermrdem,  pp.  07,  08  (1805).  They  are  re- 
garded "  as  having  been  made  or  modified  at  a  later 
period  than  those  on  the  north  side  of  the  city." 
Many  of  them  have  an  inscription  or  scattered  let- 
ters, but  nothing  tliat  can  be  well  deciphered. 
Closer  inspection  shows  some  of  these  to  be  much 
more  elaborate  than  has  been  generally  supposed. 
"  Close  to  the  building  of  Aceldama  the  rock  is 
perforated  by  seven  '  locuU,'  through  one  of  which 
a  chamber  containing  several  more  '  loculi '  is 
rftiched ;  and  one  of  these  again,  on  the  right-hand 
side,  gives  access  to  a  second  chamber  with  'lo- 
culi;' from  that  there  is  an  opening  to  a  third, 
and  thence  down  a  fliglit  of  steps  to  a  fourth  and 
last  one,  all  the  chambers  having  '  locuU ; '  most 
of  them  are  filled  with  rubbish,  and  many  have  the 
appearance  of  leading  to  other  chambers."  Sketches 
were  taken  of  some  of  the  appurtenances  of  these 
tombs,  which  accompany  the  text  of  the  work  re- 
ferred to.  Tobler  states  the  results  of  a  special 
examination  of  these  rock-sepulchres  in  Hinnom 
{Dritte  Wanderuncj,  p.  348  ff.). 

A  very  noticeable  feature  of  this  ravine  is  the 
precipitous  wall  of  rocks  which  overhangs  the  gorge 
in  its  deepest  part,  on  the  left,  as  one  goes  west- 
ward and  nearly  opposite  to  Aceldama  on  the  height 
above.  The  rocky  ledges  here  are  almost  perpen- 
dicular, and  are  found  to  be  at  different  points 
forty,  thirty-six,  thirty-three,  thirty,  and  twenty 
feet  high.  A  few  trees  still  grow  along  the  margin 
of  the  overhanging  brow,  and  trees  here  must  an- 
ciently have  been  still  more  numerous  when  the 
land  was  better  cultivated.  Aside  from  this  pecu- 
liarity of  the  valley,  regarded  as  one  of  its  aspects, 
it  has  some  additional  interest  from  its  having  been 
connected  by  some  with  the  death  of  Judas.  It 
has  been  thought  that  he  may  have  hung  himself 
on  the  limb  of  a  tree  near  the  edge  of  one  of  these 
precipices,  and  that  the  rope  or  limb  breaking,  he 
fell  to  the  bottom  and  was  dashed  to  pieces.  This 
latter  result  would  have  been  the  more  certain,  in 
the  event  of  his  having  so  fallen,  on  account  of  the 
sharp  edges  projecting  from  the  sides  of  the  cliff, 
OS  well  as  the  rocky  ground  below.  Dr.  Robinson 
{Harmony  of  the  Greek  Gospels,  §  151)  supposes 
that  some  such  relation  as  this  may  have  existed 
between  the  traitor's  "  bursting  asunder  "  and  the 
suicide,  though  he  does  not  assign  the  occurrence 
to  any  particular  place.  Tlioluck  {MS.  Notes)  is 
one  of  those  who  think  of  Hinnom  as  the  scene  of 
the  event.  See  on  this  point  the  Life  of  our  Lord^ 
by  Andrews,  p.  510  ff.  (1807).  We  cannot  indeed 
t&Vf  very  much  on  such  minute  specifications,  be- 
tause  so  little  being  related,  so  little  is  really  known 
especting  the  manner  of  Judas's  death.    [Judas.] 

It  may  not  be  useless  to  correct  more  distinctly 


a  *  That  depends  on  the  explanation.  Dr.  JocAnt 
n marks  on  the  passage  :  u  Like  a  cedar;  namely,  as 
%  cedar  is  bent,  which  is  not  easily  done.  Tb)  allusion 
IS  to  the  strength  and  stiffness  of  the  tail,  the  small- 
Mt  and  w  akest  of  all  the  members  of  the  animal' 
Body"  (Buok  of  Job,  with  a  Revised  Version,  p.  156) 


HIRAH  1079 

a  somewhat  prevalent  idea  that  the  Valley  of  Hin- 
nom lies  wholly  on  the  south  of  Jerusalem.  This 
name  belongs  also  to  the  valley  on  the  west  of  the 
city,  though  the  latter  is  often  called  from  the  res- 
ervoirs there  the  Valley  of  Gihon.  They  are  l)oth 
parts  of  one  and  the  same  valley,  which  sweeps 
around  the  city  on  two  sides.  As  a  topographical 
description,  the  reader  will  find  Robinson's 'concise 
account  of  this  locality  {P/iys.  Geogr.,  pp.  97-100) 
very  distinct  and  accurate.  II. 

HIPPOPOT'AMUS.  There  is  hardly  a 
doubt  that  the  Hebrew  behemoth  (m^HS)  de- 
scribes the  hippopotamus:  the  word  itself  bears 
the  strongest  resemblance  to  the  Coptic  name  pe- 
hemx)ut,  "the  water-ox,"  and  at  the  same  time 
expresses  in  its  Hebrew  form,  as  the  plural  of 

npn2,  the  idea  of  a  very  large  beast.  Though 
now  no  longer  found  in  the  lower  Nile,  it  was  for- 
merly common  there  (Wilkinson,  i.  239).  The 
association  of  it  with  the  crocodile  in  the  passage 
in  which  it  is  described  (Job.  xl.  15  ff.),  and  most 
of  the  particulars  in  that  passage  are  more  appro- 
priate to  the  hippopotamus  than  to  any  other  ani- 
mal. Behemoth  "eateth  grass  as  an  ox"  (Job  xl. 
15)  —a  circumstance  which  is  noticed  as  peculiar 
in  an  animal  of  aquatic  habits ;  this  is  strictly  true 
of  the  hippopotamus,  which  leaves  the  water  by 
night,  and  feeds  on  vegetables  and  green  crops. 
Its  strength  is  enormous,  vv.  10, 18,  and  the  notice 
of  the  power  of  the  muscles  of  the  belly,  "  his 
force  is  in  the  navel  of  his  belly,"  appears  to  be 
sti'ictly  correct.  The  tail,  however,  is  short,  and 
it  must  be  conceded  that  the  first  part  of  ver.  17, 
"  he  moveth  his  tail  like  a  cedar,"  seems  not  alto- 
gether applicable."  Ilis  mode  of  attack  is  with 
his  mouth,  which  is  armed  with  a  formidable  array 
of  teeth,  projecting  incisors,  and  enormous  curved 
canines;  thus  "his  creator  offers  him  a  sword," 
for  so  the  words  in  ver.  19  may  be  rendered.  But 
the  use  of  his  sword  is  mainly  for  pacific  purposes, 
"  the  beasts  of  the  field  playing  "  about  him  as  he 
feeds;  the  hippopotamus  being  a  remarkably  inof- 
fensive animal.  His  retreat  is  among  the  lotuses 
{tzeelim;  A.  V.  "shady  trees")  which  abounded 
about  the  Nile,  and  amid  the  reeds  of  the  river. 
Thoroughly  at  home  in  the  water,  "  if  the  river  ris- 
eth,  he  doth  not  take  to  flight ;  and  he  cares  not 
if  a  Jordan  (here  an  appellative  for  a  "stream") 
press  on  his  mouth."  Ordinary  means  of  capture 
were  ineffectual  against  the  great  strength  of  this 
animal.  "Will  any  take  him  before  his  eyes?" 
(i.  e.  openly,  and  without  cunning),  "  will  any  bore 
his  nose  with  a  gin?"  as  was  usual  with  large 
fish.  The  method  of  killing  it  in  Egypt  was  with 
a  spear,  the  animal  being  in  the  lirst  mstanco 
secured  by  a  lasso,  and  repeatedly  struck  un  lil  it 
became  exhausted  (AVilkinson,  i.  240);  the  very 
same  method  is  pursued  by  the  natives  of  South 
Africa  at  the  present  day  (Livingstone,  p.  73;  in- 
stances of  its  great  strength  are  noticed  by  tha 
same  writer,  pp.  231,  232,  497).  W.  L.  B. 

HI'RAH    (n";^n    [nobility,    noble    birth]  : 


See  also  Ilirzers  Hiob  erkldart,  p.  240.  There  are  ser- 
eral  expressions  in  this  celebrated  description  of  th« 
water-ox  of  the  Nile  which  the  present  philology  rep- 
resents somewhat  differently  from  the  A.  V.  See  tht 
Tersions  of  Esvald,  De  Wette,  Umbreit,  Conant,  Noyefi 
ind  others.  O 


1080 


HIRAM 


Elods  ITlram)j  an  Adullamite,  the  friend  C^"^) 
)f  Judah  (Gen.  xxxviii.  1,  12;  and  see  20).  For 
'friend"  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  have  "shepherd," 

probably  reading  ^n^"). 

HITIAM  or  HU'RAM  (Q^'^n,  or  C'^-'in 

Inoble  bom  =  "in  Ges.] :  [Rom.  Xipdfi,  exc.  2 
Sam.  V.  11,  1  ?hr.  xiv.  1,  Xeipafx;  Vat.  Alex. 
Xeipa/x:  Hiram]  on  the  different  forms  of  the  name 
see  HuRAai).  1.  Tlie  King  of  Tyre  who  sent 
workmen  and  materials  to  .lerusalem,  first  (2  Sam. 
V.  11,  1  Chr.  xiv.  1)  to  build  a  palace  for  David 
whom  he  ever  loved  (1  K.  v.  1),  and  again  (1  K. 
V.  10,  vii.  13,  2  Chr.  ii.  14,  16)  to  build  the  Tem- 
ple for  Solomon,  with  whom  he  had  a  treaty  of 
peace  and  commerce  (1  K.  v.  11,  12).  Ihe  con- 
tempt with  which  he  received  Solomon's  present 
of  Cabul  (1  K.  ix.  12)  does  not  appear  to  have 
caused  any  breach  between  the  two  kings.  He  ad- 
mitted Solomon's  ships,  issuing  from  Joppa,  to  a 
share  in  the  profitable  trade  of  the  Mediterranean 
(1  K.  X.  22);  and  Jewish  sailors,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Tyrians,  were  taught  to  bring  the  gold  of 
India  (1  K.  ix.  26)  to  Solomon's  two  harbors  on 
the  Red  Sea  (see  Ewald,  Gesch.  Jsr.  iii.  345- 
347). 

Eupolemon  {np.  Euseb.  Prcep.  Evang.  ix.  30) 
states  that  David,  after  a  war  with  Hiram,  reduced 
him  to  the  condition  of  a  tributary  prince.  Dius, 
the  Phoenician  historian,  and  Menander  of  Ephesus 
(rt/?.  Joseph,  c.  Aj).  i.  17,  18)  assign  to  Hiram  a 
prosperous  reign  of  34  years;  and  relate  that  his 
father  was  Abibal,  his  son  and  successor  lialeazar ; 
that  he  rebuilt  various  idol-temples,  and  dedicated 
some  splendid  offerings ;  that  he  was  successful  in 
war;  that  he  enlarged  and  fortified  his  city;  that 
he  and  Solomon  had  a  contest  with  riddles  or  dark 
sayings  (compare  Samson  and  his  friends,  Judg. 
xiv.  12),  in  which  Solomon,  after  winning  a  large 
sum  of  money  from  the  king  of  Tyre,  was  even- 
tually outwitted  by  Abdemon,  one  of  his  subjects. 
The  intercourse  of  these  great  and  kindred-minded 
kings  was  much  celebrated  by  local  historians. 
Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  2,  §  8)  states  that  the  corre- 
spondence between  them  with  respect  to  the  build- 
ing of  the  Temple  was  preserved  among  the  Tyrian 
archives  in  his  days.  With  the  letters  in  1  K.  v. 
and  2  Chr.  ii.  may  be  compared  not  only  his  copies 
of  the  letters,  but  also  the  still  less  authentic  let- 
ters between  Solomon  and  Hiram,  and  between 
Solomon  and  Vaphres  (Apries?),  which  are  pre- 
Ben'ed  by  Eupolemon  {op.  Euseb.  Prcq).  Evnng. 
JT.  30),  and  mentioned  by  Alexander  Polyhistor 
{ap.  Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  i.  21,  p.  332).  Some 
Phcenician  historians  {ap.  Tatian.  cont.  Grcec.  §  37) 
relovie  that  Hiram,  besides  supplying  timber  for  the 
Temple,  gave  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  Solomon. 
Jewish  ^Titers  in  less  ancient  times  cannot  over- 
ook  Hiram's  uncircumcisicn  in  his  services  towards 
,he  building  of  the  Temple.  Their  legends  relate 
{njj.  Eisenm.  Ent.Jud.  i.  868)  that  because  he  was 
a  God-fearing  man  and  built  the  Temple  he  was 
received  alive  into  Paradise;  but  that,  after  he  had 
been  there  a  thousand  years,  he  sinned  by  pride, 
and  was  thrust  down  into  hell. 

2.  {Xipifxx  Vat.  Alex.  Xeipa/jL'.  Iliram.']  Hiram 
was  the  name  of  a  man  of  mixed  race  (1  K.  vii. 
13,  40,  [45] ),  the  principal  architect  and  engineer 
lent  by  king  Hiram  to  Solomon ;  also  called  Hu- 

mu  in  tho  Chronicles.     On  the  title  of  DS  = 


HITTITES,  THE 

master.,  or  father^  given  to  him  in  2  Chi  ii.  II 
iv.  16,  see  Huram,  No.  3.  ^Y.  T.  B. 

*  At  the  distance  of  Ii  hours  on  the  hill-sidi 
east  of  Tyre,  is  a  remarkable  tomb  known  as  Kabr 
Hairdn,  i.  e.  Tomb  of  Hiram.  "It  stands  aO 
alone,  apart  ahke  from  human  habitation  and  an- 
cient ruin  —  a  solitary,  venerable  relic  of  remota 
antiquity.  In  fact  it  is  one  of  the  most  singular 
monuments  in  the  land.  It  is  an  immense  sarcoph- 
agus of  limestone  hewn  out  of  a  single  block  — 
1 2  feet  long,  8  wide,  and  6  high ;  covered  by  a  lid 
slightly  pyramidal,  and  5  feet  in  thickness ;  —  the 
whole  resting  on  a  massive  pedestal,  about  10  feet 
high,  composed  of  three  layers  of  large  hewn 
stones,  the  upper  layer  projecting  a  few  inches.  The 
monument  is  perfect,  though  M'eather-beaten.  The 
only  entrance  to  it  is  an  aperture  broken  through 
the  eastern  end.  A  tradition,  now  received  by  all 
classes  and  sects  in  the  surrounding  country,  makes 
this  the  tomb  of  Hiram,  Solomon's  friend  and 
ally ;  and  the  tradition  may  have  come  down  un- 
broken from  the  days  of  Tjtc's  grandeur.  We 
have  at  least  no  just  ground  for  rejecting  it." 
(Porter,  Hanflbook,  ii.  395.) 

The  people  there  also  connect  Hiram's  name 
with  a  copious  fountain  over  which  a  massive  stone 
structure  has  been  raised,  which  the  traveller  passes 
on  the  south  shortly  before  coming  to  the  site  of 
Tyre  (see  Tristram's  Land  of  Israel.,  p.  55,  2d  ed.). 
Such  traditions,  whether  they  cleave  rightfully  or 
not  to  these  particular  places,  have  their  interest. 
They  come  down  to  us  through  Phoenician  ckan- 
nels,  and  indirectly  authenticate  the  history  of 
Hiram  as  recorded  by  the  Hebrew  writers.      II. 

HIRCA'NUS  {"tpKav6s  [Ifyrcanian,  from 
"TpKavia,  a  province  on  the  Caspian  Sea] :  Jlh-ca- 
nm),  "a  son  of  Tobias,"  who  had  a  large  treasure 
placed  for  security  in  the  treasury  of  the  Temple  at 
the  time  of  the  visit  of  Heliodorus  (c.  187  B.  c. ; 
2  Mace.  iii.  11).  Josephus  also  mentions  "  chil- 
dren of  Tobias  "  {Ant.  xii.  5,  §  1,  iraides  Tccfiiov), 
who,  however,  belonged  to  the  faction  of  Menelaus, 
and  notices  especially  a  son  of  one  of  them  (Joseph) 
who  was  named  Hyrcanus  {Ant.  xii.  4,  §  2  ff.). 
But  there  is  no  suflScient  reason  for  identifying  the 
Hyrcanus  of  2  IMacc.  with  this  grandson  of  Tobias 
either  by  supposing  that  the  ellipse  {rov  Tufilov) 
is  to  be  so  filled  up  (Grotius,  Calmet),  or  that  the 
sons  of  Joseph  were  popularly  named  after  theif 
grandfather  (Ewald,  Uesch.  iv.  309),  which  could 
scarcely  have  been  the  case  in  consequence  of  the 
great  eminence  of  their  father. 

The  name  appears  to  be  simply  a  local  appella- 
tive, and  became  illustrious  afterwards  in  the  Mac- 
cabean  dynasty,  though  the  circumstances  which 
led  to  its  adoption  are  unknown  (yet  comp.  Joseph. 
Ant.  xiii.  8,  §  4).     [^Iaccabkks.]      B.  F.  W- 

*  HIS  is  used  throughout  the  A.  V.  instead  ot 
its,  which  does  not  occur  in  the  original  edition  of 
1611,  though  it  has  been  introduced  in  one  place 
in  later  editions.  [It.]  This  use  sometimes  occa- 
sions ambiguity,  as  in  Matt.  vi.  33,  "  Seek  ye  lirst 
the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteousness,"  where 
Eastwood  and  Wright  {Bible  Word-Book,  p.  262;. 
erroneously  refer  the  "  his  "  to  "  kingdom  "  '"'•  stead 
of  to  "  God,"  the  Greek  being  r^v  ZiKaioavintit 
ai/Tov,  not  auTrjs-  "His  righter usness "  here 
means  "  the  righteousness  which  He  requires." 

A. 
HITTITES,   THE,   the    nation   deaceadet 
from  Cheth  (A.  V.   'Heth"),  the  second  son  d 


HITTITES,  THE 

(1  )  With  five  exceptions,  noticed  be- 
ow,  the  word  is  '^^^^  =  ihe  Chiiliie  [6  Xer- 
raios,  01  XeTToiot-  Hetfmus^  ffethm;  in  Ezr.  ix. 
t,  &  Edi,  Vat.  Edet,  Alex.  EBdi],  in  the  singular 
aumber,  according  to  the  common  Hebrew  idiom. 
It  is  occasionally  rendered  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  sin- 
gular number,  "  the  Hittite  "  (Ex.  xxiii.  28,  xxxiii. 
2,  xxxiv.  11;  Josh.  ix.  1,  xi.  3),  but  elsewhere 
plural  (Gen.  xv.  20;  Ex.  iii.  8,  17,  xiii.  5,  xxiii. 
2.};  Num.  xiii.  29;  Deut.  vii.  1,  xx.  17;  Josh,  iii. 
20,  xii.  8,  xxiv.  11;  Judg.  iii.  5;  1  K.  ix.  20;  2 
Chr.  viii.  7;  Ezr.  ix.  1;  Neh.  ix.  8;  1  Esdr.  viii. 
0.),  XsTToiot)'  (2.)  The  plural  form  of  the  word 
is  D'^rinn  =  the  ChiUlm,  or  HUtiles  [XcttiV 
(Vat.  -ret*',  Alex.  XeTTjetyit),  X^ttuu  (Vat.  -etv), 
oi  XeTTatot :  Iletihim,  fletkei]  (Josh.  i.  4 ;  Judg. 
i.  26;  1  K.  X.  29;  2  K.  vii.  6;  2  Chr.  i.  17). 

(3.)  "A  Hittite  [woman]"  is  H'^rin  [Xerrala: 
Cethcea]  (Ez.  xvi.  3,  45).  In  1  K.  xi.  1,  the  same 
word  is  rendered  "  Hittites." 

1.  Our  first  introduction  to  the  Hittites  is  in  the 
time  of  Abraham,  when  he  bought  from  the  Bene- 
Cheth,  «  Children  of  Heth  "  —  such  was  then  their 
title  — the  field  and  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  be- 
longing to  Ephron  the  Hittite.  They  were  then 
settled  at  the  town  which  was  afterwards,  under  its 
new  name  of  Hebron,  to  become  one  of  the  most 
famous  cities  of  Palestine,  then  bearing  the  name 
of  Kirjath-arba,  and  perhaps  also  of  Mamre  (Gen. 
xxiii.  19,  XXV.  9).  The  propensities  of  the  tribe 
appear  at  that  time  to  have  been  rather  commer- 
cial«  than  military.  The  "money  current  with 
the  merchant,"  and  the  process  of  weighing  it, 
were  familiar  to  them ;  the  peaceful  assembly  "  in 
the  gate  of  the  city  "  was  their  manner  of  receiv- 
hig  the  stranger  who  was  desirous  of  having  a 
"possession"  "secured"  to  him  among  them. 
The  dignity  and  courtesy  of  their  demeanor  also 
come  out  strongly  in  this  narrative.  As  Ewald 
well  says,  Abraham  chose  his  allies  in  warfare  from 
the  Amorites,  but  he  goes  to  the  Hittites  for  his 
grave.  But  the  tribe  was  evidently  as  yet  but 
small,  not  important  enough  to  be  noticed  beside 
"  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  "  who  shared  the 
bidk  of  the  land  between  them  (Gen.  xii.  6,  xiii. 
7).  In  the  southern  part  of  the  country  they  re- 
mained for  a  considerable  period  after  this,  possibly 
extending  as  fat  as  Gerar  and  Beer-sheba,  a  good 
deal  below  Hebron  (xxvi.  17,  xxviii.  10).  From 
their  families  Esau  married  his  two  first  wives; 
and  her  fear  lest  Jacob  should  take  the  same  course 
is  the  motive  given  by  Rebekah  for  sending  Jacob 
away  to  Haran.  It  was  the  same  feeling  that 
had  urged  Abram  to  send  to  Mesopotamia  for  a 
wife  for  Isaac.  The  descendant  of  Shem  could  not 
wed  with  Hamites  —  "  with  the  daughters  of  the 
Canaanites  among  whom  I  dwell  .  .  .  wherein  I 
fcm  a  stranger,"  but  "go  to  my  country  and  thy 
kindred  "  is  his  father's  command,  "  to  the  house 
of  thy  mother's  father,  and  take  thee  a  wife  from 
Ihence  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  2,  xxiv.  4). 

2.  Throughout  the  book  of  Exodus  the  name  of 
the  Hittites  occurs  only  in  the  usual  formuia  for 
the  occupants  of  the  Promised  l^nd.  Changes 
jccur  in  the  mode  of  stating  this  formula  [Canaan, 
9.  354  a],  but  the  Hittites  are  never  omitted  '^ee 


HITTITES,  THE 


1081 


a  « Canaanite "  has  la  many  places  the  force  of 
<  Eierchant  "  or  "  trafficker."  See  among  others  the 
^samples  In  to  1. 1.  p.  351  6 


Ex.  xxiii.  28).  In  the  report  of  the  spies,  howei-er, 
we  have  again  a  real  historical  notice  of  them: 
"  the  Hittite,  the  Jebusite,  and  the  Amorite  dwell 
in  the  mountain"  (Num.  xiii.  29).  Whatevat 
temporary  circumstances  may  have  attractcil  them 
so  far  to  the  south  as  Beer-sheba,  a  people  having 
the  quiet  commercial  tastes  of  Ephron  the  Hittite 
and  his  companions  can  have  had  no  call  for  the 
roving,  skirmishing  life  of  the  country  bordering 
on  the  desert;  and  thus,  during  the  sojourn  of 
Israel  in  Egypt,  they  had  withdrawn  themselves 
from  those  districts,  retiring  before  Amalek  (Num. 
xiii.  29)  to  the  more  secure  mountain  country  in 
the  centre  of  the  land.  Perhaps  the  words  of 
Ezekiel  (xvi.  3,  45)  may  imply  that  they  helped  to 
found  the  city  of  Jebus. 

From  this  time,  however,  their  quiet  habits 
vanish,  and  they  take  their  part  against  the  invader, 
in  equal  alliance  with  the  other  Canaanite  tribes 
(Josh.  ix.  1,  xi.  3,  &c.). 

3.  Henceforward  the  notices  of  the  Hittites  are 
very  few  and  faint.  We  meet  with  two  individuals, 
both  attached  to  the  person  of  David.  (1. )  "  Ahim- 
elech  the  Hittite,"  who  was  with  him  in  the  hill 
of  Hachilah,  and  with  Abishai  accompanied  him  by 
night  to  the  tent  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  6).  He  is 
nowhere  else  mentioned,  an*!  was  possibly  killed  in 
one  of  David's  expeditioio,  before  the  list  in  2  Sam. 
xxiii.  was  drawn  up.  (2.)  "  Uriah  the  Hittite," 
one  of  "  the  thirty  "  of  David's  body-guard  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  39;  1  Chr.  xi.  41),  the  deep  tragedy  of  whose 
wrongs  forms  the  one  blot  in  the  life  of  his  master. 
In  both  these  persons,  though  warriors  by  profes- 
sion, we  can  perhaps  detect  traces  of  those  quaUties 
which  we  have  noticed  as  characteristic  of  the  tribe. 
In  the  case  of  the  first,  it  was  Abishai,  the  practi- 
cal, unscrupulous  "son  of  Zeruiah,"  who  pressed 
David  to  allow  him  to  kill  the  sleeping  king: 
Ahimelech  is  clear  from  that  stain.  In  the  case 
of  Uriah,  the  absence  from  suspicion  and  the  gen- 
erous self-denial  which  he  displayed  are  too  well 
known  to  need  more  than  a  reference  (2  Sam.  xi. 
11,  12). 

4.  The  Egyptian  annals  tell  us  of  a  very  power- 
ful confederacy  of  Hittites  in  the  valley  of  the 
Orontes,  with  whom  Sether  I.,  or  Sethos,  waged 
war  about  b.  c.  1340,  and  whose  capital,  Ketesh, 
situate  near  Emesa,  he  conquered.  [Egypt,  p. 
511.] 

5.  In  the  AssjTian  inscriptions,  as  lately  deci- 
phered, there  are  frequent  references  to  a  nation 
of  Khattl,  who  '•  formed  a  great  confederacy  ruled 
by  a  immber  of  petty  chiefs,"  whose  territory  also 
lay  in  the  valley  of  the  Orontes,  and  who  were 
sometimes  assisted  by  the  people  of  the  sea-coast, 
probably  the  Phoenicians  (Rawlinson's  Herodotus, 
i.  463).  "Twelve  kings  of  the  Southern  Khatti 
are  mentioned  in  several  places."  If  the  identifi- 
cation of  these  people  with  the  Hittites  should 
prove  to  be  correct,  it  agrees  with  the  name  Chaty 
as  noticed  under  Heth,  and  affords  a  clew  to  the 
meaning  of  some  passages  which  are  otherwise 
puzzling.  These  are  (a)  Josh.  i.  4,  where  the  ex- 
pre-ssion  "  all  the  land  of  the  IliUitcs  "  appears  tc 
mean  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  or  at  lea.st  tl.e  northern 
part  thereof.  (6)  Judg.  i.  26.  Here  nearly  the 
same  -"xpression  recurs.  [Lu/.]  (c)  1  K.  x.  29; 
2  Ch  i.  17 :  "  All  the  kings  of  the  Hittites  and 
knigs  c  f  Aram  "  (probably  identical  with  the  "  kings 

24)  are  mentioned 


on  thii  jide  Euphrates,"  1  K. 

as  purchasing  chariots  and  horseo  from  Egypt,  tbi 

the  possession  of  which  they  were  so  notorious,  taat 


1082 


HIVITES,  THE 


(d)  it  would  seem  to  have  become  at  a  Liter  date 
almost  proverbial  in  allusion  to  an  alarm  of  an 
itttack  by  chariots  (2  K.  vii.  6). 

6.  Nothing  is  said  of  the  religion  or  worship  of 
the  Hittites.  Even  in  the  enumeration  of  Solomon's 
idolatrous  worship  of  the  gods  of  his  wives  —  among 
whom  were  Hittite  women  (1  K.  xi.  1)  —  no  Hittite 
deity  is  alluded  to.  (See  1  K.  xi.  5,  7 ;  2  K.  xxiii. 
13.) 

7.  The  names  of  the  individual  Hittites  men- 
tioned in  the  Bible  are  as  follow.  They  are  all 
susceptible  of  interpretation  as  Hebrew  words,  which 
would  lead  to  the  belief  either  that  the  Hittites 
spoke  a  dialect  of  the  Aramaic  or  Hebrew  language, 
or  that  the  words  were  Hebraized  in  their  trans- 
ference to  the  Bible  records. 

Adah  (woman),  Gen.  xxxvi.  2. 

AiiiMELECii,  1  Sam.  xxvi.  6. 

Basiiemath,  accur.  Bas'math  (woman);  pos- 
sibly a  second  name  of  Adah,  Gen.  xxvi.  34. 

Beeri  (father  of  Judith,  below),  Gen.  xxvi.  34. 

Elon  (father  of  Basmath),  Gen.  xxvi.  34. 

Ephrox,  Gen.  xxiii.  10,  13,  14,  «S;c. 

Judith  (woman),  Gen.  xxvi.  34. 

Uriah,  2  Sam.  xi.  3,  &c.,  xxiii.  39,  &c. 

ZoiiAR  (father  of  Ephron),  Gen.  xxiii.  8. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  Sibbechai,  who  in  the 
Hebrew  text  is  always  denominated  a  Hushathite, 
Is  by  Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  2)  styled  a  Hittite. 

G. 

HI'VITES,  THE  O^HJl  [perh.  the  villager, 
Ges.],  i.  e.  the  Chiwite:  6  EvaTos'-,  [iu  Josh.  ix.  7, 
Xoppaios,  and  so  Alex,  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  2:]  Jhvceus). 
The  name  is,  in  the  original,  uniformly  found  in 
the  singular  number.  It  never  has,  hke  that  of  the 
Hittites,  a  plural,  nor  does  it  ai)i)ear  in  any  tjther 
foi-m.  Terhaps  we  may  assume  from  this  that  it 
originated  in  some  peculiarity  of  locality  or  circum- 
stance, as  in  the  case  of  the  Aniorites  —  "moun- 
taineers; "  and  not  in  a  progenitor,  as  did  that  of 
the  Ammonites,  who  are  also  styled  Hene-Ammon 
—  children  of  Amnion  — or  the  Hittites,  Bene- 
Cheth  —  children  of  Heth.  The  name  is  explained 
by  Ewald  {Gesch.  i.  318)  as  Binnenliinder,  that  is, 
"Midlanders ;  "  by  Gesenius  ( Thes.  451)  as  pagani, 
"villagers."  In  the  following  passages  the  name 
is  given  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  singular  —  the 
Hivite:  — Gen.  x.  17;  Ex.  xxiii.  28,  xxxiii.  2, 
xxxiv.  11;  Josh.  ix.  1,  xi.  3;  1  Chr.  i.  15;  also 
Gen.  xxxiv.  2,  xxxvi.  2.  In  all  the  rest  it  is 
plural. 

1.  In  the  genealogical  tables  of  Genesis,  "  the 
Hivite"  is  named  as  one  of  the  descendants  —  the 
sixth  in  order  —  of  Canaan,  the  son  of  Ham  (Gen. 
X.  17;  1  Chr.  i.  15).  In  the  first  enumeration  of 
the  nations  who,  at  the  time  of  the  call  of  Abraham, 
occupied  the  promised  land  (Gen.  xv.  19-21),  the 
Hivites  are  omitted  from  the  Hebrew  text  (though 
n  the  Samaritan  and  LXX.  their  name  is  inserted). 
Iliis  has  led  to  the  conjecture,  amongst  others,  that 
:hey  are  identical  with  the  Kad^ionites,  whose 
name  is  found  there  and  there  oidy  (Reland,  Pal. 
140;  Bochart,  Phal.  iv.  3G;  Can.  i.  19).  But  are 
not  the  Kadmonites  rather,  as  their  name  implies, 
the  representatives  of  the  Bene-kedem,  or  <'  children 
of  the  East "  ?  The  name  constantly  occurs  in  the 
formula  by  which  the  country  is  designated  in  the 
wrlier  bocks  (Ex.  iii.  8,  17,  xiii.  5,  xxiii.  23,  28, 
ttxiii.  2,  xxxiv.  11;  Dent.  vii.  1,  xx.  17;  Josh.  iii. 
10,  tc.  1,  xii.  8,  xxiv.  11),  and  also  in  the  later 
ones  (1  E.  ix.  20;  2  Chr.  viii.  7;  but  comp.  Ezr. 


HIVITES,  THE 

ix.  1,  and  Neh.  ix.  8).     It  is,  however,  alisent  ii 

the  report  of  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.  29),  a  document 
which  fixes  the  localities  occupied  by  the  Canaanite 
nations  at  that  time.  Perhaps  this  is  owing  to 
the  then  insignificance  of  the  Hivites,  or  perhaps 
to  the  fact  that  they  were  indifferent  to  the  special 
locality  of  their  settlements. 

2.  AV' e  first  encounter  the  actual  people  of  the 
Hivites  at  the  time  of  Jacob's  return  to  Canaan. 
Shechem  was  then  (according  to  the  current  He- 
brew text)  in  their  posse&sion,  Hamor  the  Hivite 
being  the  "prince  (S'^tt^a)  of  the  land"  (Gen. 
xxxiv.  2).  They  were  at  this  time,  to  judge  of 
them  by  their  rulers,  a  warm  and  impetuous 
people,  credulous,  and  easily  deceived  by  the  crafty 
and  cruel  sons  of  Jacob.  The  narrative  further 
exhibits  them  as  peaceful  and  commercial,  given  tw 
"trade"  (10,  21),  and  to  the  acquiring  of  "pos- 
sessions "  of  cattle  and  other  "  wealth  "  (10,  23,  28, 
29).  Like  the  Hittites  they  held  their  assemblies 
or  conferences  in  the  gate  of  their  city  (20).  We 
may  also  see  a  testimony  to  their  peaceful  habits 
in  the  absence  of  any  attempt  at  revenge  on  Jacob 
for  the  massacre  of  the  Shechemites.  Perhaps  a 
similar  indication  is  furnishetl  by  the  name  of  the 
god  of  the  Shechemites  some  generations  after  this 
—  Baal-berith  —  Baal  of  the  league,  or  the  alliance 
(.Judg.  viii.  33,  ix.  4,46);  by  the  way  in  which 
the  Shechemites  were  beaten  by  Abimelech  (40); 
and  by  the  unmilitary  character,  both  of  the  weapon 
which  caused  Abimelech's  death  and  of  the  person 
who  discharged  it  (ix.  53). 

The  Alex.  ]\IS.,  and  several  other  MSS.  of  the 
LXX.,  in  the  above  narrative  (Gen.  xxxiv.  2)  sub- 
stitute "  Horite  "  for  "  Hivite."  The  change  is 
remarkable  from  the  usually  close  adherence  of  the 
Alex.  Codex  to  the  Hebrew  text,  but  it  is  not  cor- 
roborated by  any  other  of  the  ancient  versions,  nor 
is  it  recommended  by  other  considerations.  No 
instances  occur  of  Horites  in  this  part  of  l*alestine, 
while  we  know,  from  a  later  narrative,  that  there 
was  an  important  colony  of  Hivites  on  the  highland 
of  Benjamin  at  Gibeon,  etc.,  no  very  g'-eat  distance 
from  Shechem.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Gen.  xxxvi. 
2,  where  Ahohbamah,  one  of  Esau's  wives,  is  said  to 
have  been  the  daughter  of  [Anah]  the  daughter  of 
Zibeon  the  Hivite,  all  considenitions  are  in  favor  of 
reading  "Horite"  for  "  Hivite."  In  this  case  we 
fortunately  possess  a  detailed  genealogy  of  the  fam- 
ily, by  comparison  of  which  little  doubt  is  left  of 
the  propriety  of  the  change  (comp.  verses  20,  24, 
25,  30,  with  2),  although  no  ancient  version  has 
suggested  it  here. 

3.  We  next  meet  with  the  Hivites  during  the 
conquest  of  Canaan  (Josh.  ix.  7,  xi.  19).  Their 
character  is  now  in  some  respects  materially  altered. 
They  are  still  evidently  averse  to  fighting,  but  they 
have  acquired  —  possibly  by  long  experience  in 
trafiic  —  an  amount  of  craft  which  they  did  not 
before  possess,  and  which  enables  them  to  turn  the 
tables  on  the  Israelites  in  a  highly  successful  man- 
ner (Josh.  ix.  3-27).  The  colony  of  Hivites,«  who 
made  Joshua  and  the  heads  of  the  tribes  their 
dupes  on  this  occasion,  had  four  cities  —  Gibeon, 
Chephirah,  Beeroth,  and  Kiijatli-jearim  —  situated, 
if  our  present  knowledge  is  accurate,  at  considerable 
distances  asunder.  It  is  not  certain  whether  the 
three  last  were  destroyed  by  Joshua  or  not  (xi.  19) 


i*  Here  again  the  LXX.  (both  MSS.)  hare  Horitd 
for  Hivites ;  but  we  camiot  accept  the  change  withoiS 
further  consideration. 


mZKIAH 

3ibeon  certainly  was  spared.  In  ver.  11  the  Gib- 
sonites  speak  of  the  «'  elders  "  of  their  city,  a  word 
irhich  does  not  necessarily  point  to  any  special 
5orm  of  government,  as  is  assumed  by  Winer 
{fleviier),  who  uses  the  ambiguous  expression  that 
they  "  lived  under  a  republican  constitution  "  (in 
republicanischer  Verfassung)\  See  also  Ewald 
(Gesch.  i.  318,  319). 

4.  The  main  body  of  the  Hivites,  however,  were 
at  this  time  living  on  the  northern  confines  of 
western  Palestine  —  "  under  Hermon,  in  the  land 
of  Mizpeh  "  (Josh.  xi.  3)  —  "  in  Mount  Lebanon, 
from  IMount  Baal-llermon  to  the  entering  in  of 
I  laniath  "  (Judg.  iii.  3).  Somewhere  in  this  neigh- 
In  u'liood  they  were  settled  when  Joab  and  the  cup- 
•ains  of  the  host,  in  their  tour  of  numbering,  came 
to  "  all  the  cities  of  the  Hivites "  near  Tyre  (2 
Sam.  xxiv.  7).    In  the  Jerusalem  Targum  on  Gen. 

X.  17,  they  are  caUed  Tripolitans  (*'SVl3"^ntp), 
a  name  which  points  to  the  same  general  northern 
locality. 

5.  In  speaking  of  the  Avi^r,  or  Avvites,  a  sug- 
gestion has  been  made  by  the  writer  that  they  may 
have  been  identical  with  the  Hivites.  This  is  ap- 
parently corroborated  by  the  fact  that,  according  to 
the  notice  in  Deut.  ii.,  the  Avites  seem  to  have  been 
dispersed  before  the  Hivites  appear  on  the  scene  of 
the  sacred  history.  G. 

HIZKI'AH  (n^i^tn  Istrength  of  Jehovah]: 
'E^eKtas:  Ezecias),  an  ancestor  of  Zephaniah  the 
prophet  (Zeph.  i.  1). 

HIZKFJAH  Cn^TflT]  [as  above]:  'ECeKla: 
Hezecin),  according  to  the  punctuation  of  the  A. 
V.  a  man  who  sealed  the  covenant  of  reformation 
with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  17).  But  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  name  should  be  taken  with 
that  preceding  it,  as  "  Ater-Hizkijah,"  a  name 
given  in  the  lists  of  those  who  returned  from  Baby- 
lon with  Zerubbabel.  It  appears  also  extremely 
likely  that  the  two  names  following  these  in  x.  17, 
18  (Azzur,  Hodljah)  are  only  corrupt  repetitions 
of  them. 

This  and  the  preceding  name  are  identical,  and 
are  the  same  with  that  given  in  the  A.  V.  as 
Hkzekiah. 

HO'BAB  (23n  [love,  bebved]:  S  'Oj8a)8, 
Alex.  n,fiafi ;  in  Judg.  'Iw/Sa/S :  Ilobab).  This 
name  is  found  in  two  places  only  (Num.  x.  29; 
Judg.  iv.  11),  and  it  seems  doubtful  whether  it 
denotes  the  father-in-law  of  IVIoses,  or  his  son. 
(1.)  In  ftivor  of  the  latter  are  (a.)  the  express  state- 
ment that  Hobab  was  "  the  son  of  Kaguel "  (Num. 
X.  29);  liaguel  or  Keuel  —  the  Hebrew  word  in 
both  cases  is  the  same  —  being  identified  with 
Jethro,  not  only  in  Ex.  ii.  18  (comp.  iii.  1,  &c.), 
but  also  by  Josephus,  who  constantly  gives  him 
that  name.  (6.)  The  fact  that  Jethro  had  some 
time  previously  left  the  Israelite  camp  to  return  to 
his  own  country  (Ex.  xviii.  27).  The  words  "the 
father-in-law  of  Moses"  in  Num.  x.  29,  though  in 
most  of  the  ancient  versions  connected  with  Hobab, 
will  in  the  original  read  either  way,  so  that  no 
surgument  oan  be  founded  on  then..  (2.)  In  favor 
af  Hobab's  identity  with  Jethro  are  (n.)  the  words 
»f  Judg.  iv.  11;  but  it  should  be  remembered  that 

>hi8  is  (ostensibly)  of  later  date  than  the  other,  and 
Jtogetlier  a  more  casual  statement,  (h.)  Josephus 
m  spea'dng  of  Raguel  remarks  once  (Ant.  ii.  12,  §  1) 

htii,  he  " had  lothor,  i.  e.  Jethro)  for  a  surname" 


HOBAH  10S8 

(rovTO  yap  ^v  ^ttj/cAtjjuo  ry  'Payow]\)'  From 
the  absence  of  the  article  here,  it  is  inferred  by 
Whiston  and  others  that  Josephus  intends  that  he 
had  more  than  one  surname,  but  this  seems  hardly 
safe. 

The  Mohammedan  traditions  are  certainly  in  favor 
of  the  identity  of  Hobab  with  Jethro.  He  is  known 
in  the  Koran  and  elsewhere,  and  in  the  East  at  the 

present  day,  by  the  name  of  Sho'eib  (,_>AJtAw  )j 
doubtless  a  corruption  of  Ilobab.  According  to 
those  traditions  he  was  the  prophet  of  God  to  the 
idolaters  of  Medyen  (Midian),  who  not  believing 
his  message  were  destroyed  (Lime's  Koran,  179- 
181);  he  w.is  blind  (ib.  180  note)-,  the  rod  of  Moses 
was  his  gift,  it  had  once  been  the  rod  of  Adam, 
and  was  of  the  myrtle  of  Paradise,  etc.  ( lb.  190 : 
Weil's  Bibl.  Legends,  107-109).  The  name  of 
Sho'eib  still  remains  attached  to  one  of  the  wadies 
on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  opposite  Jericho, 
through  which,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 
locality  (Seetzen,  Reisen,  1854,  ii.  319,  376),  the 
children  of  Israel  descended  to  the  Jordan.  [Bkth- 
NiMRAii.]  According  to  this  tradition,  therefore, 
he  accompanied  the  people  as  far  as  the  Promised 
Land,  though  whatever  weight  that  may  possess  is, 
when  the  statement  of  Ex.  xviii.  27  is  taken  into 
account,  against  his  identity  with  Jethro.  Other 
places  bearing  his  name  and  those  of  his  two 
daughters  are  shown  at  Sinai  and  on  the  Gulf  of 
Akaba  (Stanley,  S.  tf  P.  p.  33). 

But  whether  Hobab  was  the  father-in-law  of 
Moses  or  not,  the  notice  of  him  in  Num.  x.  29-32, 
though  brief,  is  full  of  point  and  interest.  While 
Jethro  is  preserved  to  us  as  the  wise  and  practiced 
administrator,  Hobab  appears  as  the  experienced 
Bedouin  sheikh,  to  whom  JNIoses  looked  for  the 
material  safety  of  his  cumbrous  caravan  in  the  new 
and  difficult  ground  before  them.  The  tracks  and 
passes  of  that  "  waste  howling  wilderness "  were 
all  familiar  to  him,  and  his  practiced  sight  would 
be  to  them  "  instead  of  eyes "  in  discerning  the 
distant  clumps  of  verdure  which  betokened  the  welln 
or  springs  for  the  daily  encampment,  and  in  giving 
timely  warning  of  the  approach  of  Amalekites  or 
other  spoilers  of  the  desert.     [Jethko.]         G. 

HO'BAH    [or    HO'BA,   A.  V.   ed.   1611] 

(rr^in  [concealed,  Ges. ;  lurking-hole,  Fiirst] : 
Xo^d'.  Iloba),  the  place  to  which  Abraham  pursued 
the  kings  who  had  pillaged  Sodom  (Gen.  xiv.  15). 
It   was   situated  "  to   the   north   of  Damascus " 

(pit'^'37  ^SXDti?^).  Josephus  mentions  a  tra- 
dition concerning  Abraham  which  he  takes  frorn 
Nicolaus  of  Damascus :  —  "  Abraham  reigned  %t 
Damascus,  being  a  foreigner  .  .  .  and  bis  name  is 
still  famous  in  the  country;  and  th^re  is  lIjowt  a 
village  called  from  him  I'he  Habitation  of  Abra^ 
ham''''  (Ant.  i.  7,  §  2).  It  is  re'narkable  that  in 
the  village  of  Burzeh,  three  miles  ncrth  of  Damas- 
cus, there  is  a  wely  held  in  high  veneration  by  the 
Mohammedans,  and  called  after  the  name  of  tha 
patriarch,  Mast/ ad  Ibrahim,  » the  prayer-place  of 
Abi*anam."  The  tradition  attached  to  it  is  that 
here  Abraham  offered  thanks  to  God  after  the  total 
discomfiture  of  the  eastern  kings.  Behind  the  wely 
is  a  cleft,  in  the  rock,  in  which  another  tradition 
represenla  the  patriarch  as  taking  refuge  on  out 
occasion  from  the  giant  Nimrod.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  word  Hob  ah  signifies  "a  hiding-place." 
The  Jews  of  Damascus  affirm  that  the  village  of 


1084  HOD 

Jdbar,  not  far  from  Burzeh,  is  the  Ilobah  of  Scrip- 
ture. They  have  a  synagogue  there  dedicated  to 
Elijah,  to  which  they  make  frequent  pilgrimages 
(see  p.  720  b,  note;  also  JJcuidb.  J'oi'  Syr.  and  Pal. 
pp.  491,  492).  J.  L.  P. 

HOD  ("Tin  [splendor,  ornament]  :  'rici;  [Vat.] 
Alex,  ns :  Tlod),  one  of  the  sons  of  Zophah,  among 
the  descendants  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  ^7). 

HODA'TAH    [3   syl]    {Chetib,    ^mplH, 

litered  in  the  Keri  to  ^H'^'l'l'in,  t.  e.  Hoda- 
VIA'hu  [splendor  of  Jehovah]  :  'OSoAia ;  Alex. 
nSovia'.  Oduia),  son  of  Klioenai,  one  of  the  last 
members  of  the  royal  line  of  Judah ;  mentioned  1 
Chr.  iii.  24. 

HODAVI'AH  (njphn  [as  above] :  'nSoui'a: 
Odoia).  1.  A  man  of  Manasseh,  one  of  the  heads 
of  the  half-tribe  on  the  east  of  .Jordan  (1  Chr.  v. 
24). 

2.  [Vat.  05ym:  Oduia.]  A  man  of  Benjamin, 
Bon  of  Has-senuah  (I  Chr.  ix.  7). 

3.  [Vat.  2oSoutc:  Odavia.]  A  Levite,  who 
seems  to  have  given  his  name  to  an  important 
family  in  the  tribe  —  the  Bene  Hodaviah  (Ezr.  ii. 
40).  In  Nehemiah  the  name  appears  as  IIodevah. 
Lord  A.  Hervey  has  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  this  name  is  closely  connected  with  Judah 
(Genealogies,  p.  119).  This  being  the  case,  we 
probably  find  this  Hodaviah  mentioned  again  in 
iii.  9. 

HO'DESH  (^^yn  [new  moon,  or  tme  of  the 
new  moon]  :  *ASa ;  [Comp.  X65es  ■]  Ilodes),  a 
woman  named  in  the  genealogies  of  Benjamin  (1 
Chr.  viii.  9)  as  the  wife  of  a  certain  Shaharaim, 
and  mother  of  seven  children.  Shaharaim  had  two 
wives  besides  Hodesh,  or  possibly  Hodesh  was  a 
second  name  of  one  of  those  women  (ver.  8).  The 
LXX.  by  reading  Baara,  BooSci,  and  Hodesh,  'A5a, 
Beem  to  wish  to  establish  such  a  connection. 

HOD'EVAH  (nnhn,  Keri  HniH  [perh. 
brightness,  ornament  of  Jehovah]:  OvBovla'.  [Vat. 
&ov5ovia'.]  Alex.  OuboviS:  Oduia),  Bene-Hodevah 
[sons  of  H.],  a  Levite  family,  returned  from  Cap- 
tivity with  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  vii.  43).  In  the 
parallel  lists  it  is  given  as  Hodaviah  (No.  3)  and 

SUDIAS. 

HODI'AH  (njYnn  [splendor  of  Jehovah] : 
7)  'iBovia;  Alex,  loudaia;  [Comp.  'flS/o:]  Odaia), 
one  of  the  two  wives  of  Ezra,  a  man  of  Judah,  and 
mother  to  the  founders  of  Keilah  and  Eshtemoa 
(1  Chr.  iv.  19).  She  is  doubtless  the  same  person 
OS  Jehudijah  (in  verse  18,  that  is  *'  the  Jewess"), 
in  fact,  except  the  article,  which  is  disregarded  in 
'he  A.  v.,  the  two  names  are  identicjil  [comp. 
Hodaviah,  No.  3].  Hodiah  is  exactly  the  same 
aame  as  Hodijah,  under  which  form  it  is  given 
more  than  once  in  the  A.  V. 

HODFJAH  (np'in  [as  above]  :  'ftSoyfa: 
Odia,  Odaia).  This  is  in  the  original  precisely  the 
lame  name  as  the  preceding,  though  spelt  differently 
in  the  A.  V.     It  occurs  — 

1.  A  Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
(N<dh.  viii.  7:  and  probably  also  ix.  5;  x.  10).    The 


a  In  each  MS.  the  same  <iquiTalent  as  the  above  has 
MU  given  for^HooAM 


HOLON 

name  with  others  is  omitted  in  the  two  fifst  ol 
these  passages  in  the  LXX. 

2.  [^0,Bovfi;  Alex.  flSot/o:  Odaia.]  i\iiothei 
Levite  at  the  same  time  (Neh.  x.  13). 

3.  [^ClZovia'i  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  OBovia'  Odaia. ^ 
A  layman ;  one  of  the  "  heads  "  of  the  people  at 
the  same  time  (Neh.  x.  18). 

HOG'LAH  (nbjn  {pa7-tiidffe] :  'Ey\d, 
Alex.  At7Xo,  AiyXan'.  Hegla),  the  third  of  the 
five  daugliters  of  Zelophehad,  in  whose  favor  the 
law  of  inheritance  was  altered  so  that  a  daughter 
could  inherit  her  father's  estate  when  he  left  no 
sons  (Num.  xxvi.  33,  xxvii.  1,  xxxvi.  11,  Josh, 
xvii.  3). 

The  name  also  occurs  in  Beth-hog lah,  which 
see. 

HO'HAM  (CnSn  [whom  Jehovah  incites, 
Ges.]:  'EAo/i;  Alex.  AjAo)it;«  Oham),  king  of 
Hebron  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
(Josh.  X.  3) ;  one  of  the  five  kings  who  were  pursued 
by  Joshua  down  the  pass  of  Beth-horon,  and  who 
were  at  last  captured  in  the  cave  at  Makkedah  and 
there  put  to  death.  As  king  of  Hebron  he  ia 
frequently  referred  to  in  Josh,  x.,  but  his  name 
occurs  in  the  above  passage  only. 

HOLM-TREE  {Trpivos-  Hex)  occurs  only  in 
the  apocryphal  story  of  Susanna  (ver.  58).  The 
passage  contains  a  characteristic  play  on  the  names 
of  the  two  trees  mentioned  by  the  elders  in  their 
evidence.  That  on  the  mastich  {cx}vov  .  .  . 
&yye\os  aKiaei  (re)  has  been  noticed  under  that 
head  [Mastich-tkee,  note].  That  on  the  holm- 
tree  {tr pivov)  is  •'  the  angel  of  God  waiteth  with  the 
sword  to  cut  thee  in  two  "  {'iva  irpiaai  (re).  For  the 
historical  significance  of  these  puns  see  Susanna. 
The  irpTvos  of  Theophrastus  {Hist.  Plant,  iii.  7,  § 
3,  and  16,  §  1,  and  elsewhere)  and  Dioscorides  (i. 
144)  denotes,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  the  Querent 
cocclfera,  the  Q.  pseiulo-coccifera,  which  is  perhaps 
not  specifically  distinct  from  the  first-mentioned 
oak.  The  ilex  of  the  Roman  writers  was  applied 
both  to  the  holm-oak  {Quercus  ilex)  and  to  the 
Q.  coccifera  or  kermes  oak.  See  Phny  (//.  N. 
xvi.  6). 

For  the  oaks  of  Palestine,  see  a  paper  by  Dr. 
Hooker  in  the  Transactions  ofUie  Linnceun  Society, 
vol.  xxiii.  pt.  ii.  pp.  381-387.     [Oak.]     W.  H. 

HOLOFER'NES,  or,  more  correctly,  Olo- 
FERNES('OA.o<^epi/rjy:  [Holof ernes]  ),^  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  book  of  Judith,  a  general  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, king  of  the  Assyrians  (Judg.  ii.  4),  who  was 
slain  by  the  Jewish  heroine  Judith  during  the  siege 
of  Bethulia.  [Judith.]  The  name  occurs  twice  in 
Cappadocian  history,  as  borne  by  the  brother  of 
Ariarathes  I.  (c.  n.  c.  350),  and  afterwards  by  a 
pretender  to  the  (  appadocian  throne,  who  was  at 
first  supported  and  afterwards  imprisoned  by  Deme- 
trius Soicr  (c.  B.  c.  158;.  The  termination  (Ti»- 
saphei-nes,  etc.)  points  to  a  Persian  origin,  but  the 
meaning  of  the  word  is  imcertain.        B.  F.  W. 

HO'LON  (1'bn  [abode,  kaltinff-place,  Sim.] . 
XoAou  Koi  Xafvd,  Alex.  XiXovuv;  7}  TeAAa,  Alex. 
n,\a)v:  Olon,  Holm).  1.  A  town  in  the  mountains 
of  Judah;  one  of  the  first  group,  of  which  Debii 
was  apparently  the  most  considerable.  It  is  named 
between  Goshen  and  Giloh  (Josh.  xv.  51),  and 


ft  *  In  the  A,  V.  ed.  1611  the  name  Is  generall 
printed  "  Olofemes,"  tbougl  "  Holofemes  "  also  <« 
euzs.  A. 


H03VIAM 

W»a  allotted  with  its  "  suburbs "  to  the  priests 
(rxi.  15).  In  the  list  of  priest's  cities  of  1  Chr. 
n.  the  name  appears  as  Hilen.  In  the  Onomaa- 
Ucon  ("  Plelon  "  and  "  Olon  ")  it  is  mentioned,  but 
not  so  as  to  imply  its  then  existence.  Nor  has  the 
name  been  since  recognized  by  travellers. 

2.  ("Jlvn  [as  above]:  XeKdv'  Ileion),  a  city 
of  Moab  (Jer.  xlviii.  21,  only).  It  was  one  of  the 
towns  of  the  Mishor,  the  level  downs  (A.  V.  «'  plain 
country")  east  of  Jordan,  and  is  named  with 
Jahazah,  Dibon,  and  other  known  places ;  but  no 
identification  of  it  has  yet  taken  place,  nor  does  it 
appear  in  the  parallel  lists  of  Num.  xxxii.  and 
Josh.  xiii.  G. 

HO'MAM  (Dp^n  [extermination,  Ges.]  : 
Aifidi/''  Iloman),  the  form  under  which  in  1  Chr. 
i.  39  an  Edoniite  name  appears,  which  in  Gen. 
xxxvi.  is  given  IIemam.  llomam  is  assumed  by 
Gesenius  to  be  the  original  form  ( Thes.  p.  385  a). 
By  Knobel  {Genesis,  p.  254),  the  name  is  compared 

with  that  of  Ilomaima  (aL#^i&.j,  a  town  now 

ruined,  though  once  important,  half-way  between 
Petra  and  Ailath,  on  the  ancient  road  at  the  back 
of  the  mountain.  See  Laborde,  Journey,  p.  207, 
Ameiine ;  also  the  Arabic  authorities  mentioned  by 
Knobel.  G. 

HOMER.     [Measures.] 

*  HONEST.    [Honesty.] 

»  HONESTY,  for  o-e/xr^Jrrj?  (A.  V.),  1  Tim. 
ii.  2,  is  more  restricted  in  its  idea  than  the  Greek 
word  fffij.v6T7]s-  The  latter  designates  generally 
dignity  of  character,  including  of  course  probity, 
l)ut  also  other  qualities  allied  to  self-control  and 
decorum.  The  same  word  is  rendered  "gravity," 
1  Tim.  iii.  4,  and  Tit.  ii.  7.  It  may  be  added  that 
"honest"  (which  in  the  N.  T.  usually  represents 
Ka\6s,  once  (r€ij.v6<i)  is  often  to  be  taken  as  equiv- 
alent to  "good  "or  "reputable."  Like  the  Latin 
honestus,  it  describes  what  is  honorable,  becoming, 
or  morally  beautiful  in  character  and  conduct. 
"  Honestly  "  b  used  in  the  A.  V.  in  a  similar  man- 
ner as  the  rendering  of  eifa'xVH'<^t^(^s  ^^d  Ka\cos 
(Rom.  xiii.  13;  1  Thess.  iv.  12;  Heb.  xiii.  18). 

H. 

HONEY.  We  have  already  noticed  [Food] 
the  extensive  use  of  honey  as  an  article  of  ordinary 
food  among  the  Hebrews :  we  shall  therefore  in  the 
present  article  restrict  ourselves  to  a  description  of 
the  different  articles  which  passed  under  the  Hebrew 

name  of  (Tbash  {WD."!).  In  the  first  place  it  ap- 
plies to  the  product  of  the  bee,  to  which  we  ex- 
clusively apply  the  name  of  honey.  All  travellers 
agree  in  describing  Palestine  as  a  land  "  flowing 
with  honey  "  (Ex.  iii.  8),  bees  being  abundant  even 
in  the  remote  parts  of  the  wilderness,  where  they 
deposit  their  honey  in  the  crevices  of  the  rocks  or 
m  hollow  trees.  In  some  parts  of  northern  Arabia 
the  hills  are  so  well  stocked  with  bees,  that  no 
sooner  are  hives  placed  than  they  are  occupied 
(Wellsted's  Travels,  ii.  123).  The  Hebrews  had 
special  expressions  to  describe  the  exudit.g  of  the 

loney  from  the  comb,  such  as  nopheih  (HSZ), 
'  dropping"  (Cant.  iv.  11;  I'rov.  v.  3,  xxiv.  13,, 
\xAph  (^VJ"),  "overflowing"  (Ps.  xix.  lO;  Prov. 
cvi.  24),  and  ya'ar  (IV^)  or  ya'drah  (HHl?^;  (1 
Smu.   xiv.   27;  Cant.  v.   1) —expressions   which 


HOOK  1086 

answer  to  the  mel  acctum  of  Pliny  (xi.  15):  th« 

second  of  these  terms  approaches  nearest  to  the 
sense  of  "honey  comb,''  inasmuch  as  it  is  connected 
with  no2)heili  in  Ps.  xix.  10,  "  the  droppings  of  the 
comb."  (2.)  In  the  second  place,  the  term  d'bash 
applies  to  a  decoction  of  the  juice  of  the  grape, 
which  is  still  called  dibs,  and  which  forms  an  article 
of  commerce  in  the  East;  it  was  this,  and  not 
ordinary  bee-honey,  which  Jacob  sent  to  Joseph 
(Gen.  xliii.  11),  and  which  the  Tyrians  purchased 
from  Palestine  (liz.  xxvii.  17).  The  mode  of  pre- 
paring it  is  described  by  PHny  (xiv.  11):  tlie  must 
was  either  boiled  down  to  a  half  (in  which  case  it 
was  called  defrutiun),  or  to  a  third  (when  it  was 
called  siracuin.  or  sapa,  the  aripaios  oluos,  and 
6i//77jUO  of  the  (Jreeks):  it  was  mixed  either  with 
wine  or  milk  (Virg.  (Jeorg.  i.  2i)G;  Ov.  Fast.  ir. 
780)  :  it  is  still  a  favorite  article  of  nutriment 
among  the  Syrians,  and  has  the  appearance  of 
coarse  honey  (Kussell,  Aleppo,  i.  82).  (3.)  A  third 
kind  has  been  described  by  some  writers  as  "  vege- 
table "  honey,  by  which  is  meant  the  exudations 
of  certain  trees  and  shrubs,  such  as  the  Tamarix 
mannifera,  foimd  hi  the  peninsula  of  Sinai,  or  the 
stunted  oaks  of  Luristan  and  Mesojwtamia.  The 
honey  which  Jonathan  ate  in  the  wood  (1  Sam. 
xiv.  25),  and  the  "  wild  honey  "  which  supported 
St.  John  (Matt.  iii.  4),  have  been  referred  to  thit 
species.  \\'e  do  not  agree  to  this  view:  the  honej- 
in  the  wood  was  in  such  abundance  that  Jonathap 
took  it  up  on  the  end  of  a  stick ;  but  the  vegetable 
honey  is  found  only  in  small  globules,  which  musf 
be  carefully  collected  and  strained  before  being  used 
(Wellsted,  ii.  50).  The  use  of  the  term  yn'ar  in 
that  passage  is  decisive  against  this  kind  of  honey. 
The  ix4\t  &ypiov  of  Matthew  need  not  mean  any- 
thing else  than  the  honey  of  the  wild  bees,  which 
we  have  already  stated  to  be  common  in  Palestine, 
and  which  Josejjhus  (Z?.  J.  iv.  8,  §  3)  specifies 
among  the  natural  productions  of  the  plain  of 
Jericho :  the  expression  is  certainly  applied  by 
Diodorus  Siculus  (xix.  94)  to  honey  exuded  from 
trees;  but  it  may  also  be  applied  like  the  Latin 
niel  silvestre  (Plhi.  xi.  16)  to  a  particular  kind  of 
bee-honey.  (4.)  A  fourth  kind  is  described  by 
Josephus  {I.  c),  as  being  manufactured  from  the 
juice  of  the  date. 

The  prohibition  against  the  use  of  honey  in  meat 
offerings  (Lev.  ii.  11)  appears  to  have  been  grounded 
on  the  fermentation  produced  by  it,  honey  soon 
turning  sour,  and  even  forming  vinegar  (Plin.  xxi. 
48).  This  fact  is  embodied  in  the  TalmudicaJ 
word  liidbish=  "to  ferment,"  derived  from  d'bash. 
Other  explanations  have  been  offered,  as  that  bee» 
were  unclean  (Philo  de  Sacrif.  c.  G,  Ajyp.  ii.  255), 
or  that  the  honey  was  the  artificial  dibs  (liiih*. 
Symbol,  ii.  323).  W.  L.  B. 

*  HONEY-COMB.     [Honey.] 
*HOOD.     Is.  iu.  23.     [Head-dress.] 

HOOK,  HOOKS.  Various  kinds  of  hooka 
are  noticed  in  the  Bible,  of  which  the  following  are 
the  most  important. 

1.  Fishing-hooks    (HS^,   T'D,    Am.    ir.   2; 

nSn,  Job  xli.  2;  Is.  xix.  8;  Hab.  i.  15).  Th« 
two  first  of  these  Hebrew  terms  mean  primarily 
t^7rr.s,  and  secondarily  Jishing-hooks,  from  th« 
similarity  in  shape,  or  perhaps  from  thorns  ha%'ing 
been  originally  used  for  the  puqx)se;  in  both  caset 
the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  are  mistaken  in  their  render- 
iogSj  giving  'ovKois  !«id  contia  for  the  first,  A«j8i^ 


1086  HOPHNI 

rat  "od  oGis  for  the  second ;  the  third  term  refers 
to  the  contraction  of  the  mouth  by  the  hook. 

2  n^n  (A.  V.  "thorn"),  properly  a  ririff 
(\l/4\\ioy,  circuliis)  placed  through  the  mouth  of 
a  large  fish  and  attached  by  a  cord  CjlD^lS)  to  a 
stake  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  it  alive  in  the 
water  (Job  xli.  2);  the  word  meaning  the  cord  is 
rendered  "hook"  in  the  A.  V.  and  =  (r^6iuo5. 

3.  Tin  and  TlMl,  generally  rendered  "  hook " 
in  the  A.  V.  after  the  LXX.  ^yKiarpov,  but  prop- 
erly a  rm(/  (circulus),  such  as  in  our  country  is 
placed  through  the  nose  of  a  bull,  and  similarly 
used  in  the  east  for  leading  about  lions  (Ez.  xix.  4, 
where  the  A.  V.  has  "  with  chains  "),  camels,  and 
other  animals.  A  similar  method  was  adopted  for 
leading  prisoners,  as  in  the  case  of  Manasseh  who 
was  led  with  rings  (2  Chr.  xxxiii.  11;  A.  V.  "in 
the  thorns").  An  illustration  of  this  practice  is 
found  in  a  bas-relief  discovered  at  Khorsabad  (Lay- 
ard,  ii.  376).  The  expression  is  used  several  times 
in  thia  sense  (2  K.  xix.  28  j  Is.  xxxvii.  29;  Ez. 

xxix.  4,  xxxviii.  4).  The  term  t27f2*IX2  is  used  in 
a  similar  sense  in  Job  xl.  24  (A.  V.  "  bore  his  nose 
with  a  gin,"  margin). 


C 


Uook.     (Layard'8  Nineveh.) 

4.  C^IX  a  term  exclusively  used  in  reference  to 
the  Tabernacle,  rendered  "  hooks "  in  the  A.  V. 
The  LXX.  varies  in  its  rendering,  sometimes  giv- 
ing Ke(pa\isy  i-  «•  the  capital  of  the  pillars,  some- 
times Kp'iKos  and  ay/cyAij;  the  expenditure  of  gold, 
as  given  in  Kx.  xxxviii.  28,  has  led  to  this  doubt; 
they  were,  however,  most  probal)ly  hooks  (Ex.  xxvi. 
32,  37,  xxvii.  10  tf.,  xxxviii.  10  fF.);  the  word  seems 

to  have  given  name  to  the  letter  1  in  the  Hebrew 
alphabet,  possibly  from  a  similarity  of  the  form  in 
which  the  latter  appears  in  the  Greek  Digamma, 
to  that  of  a  hook. 

5.  rr^DTP?  a  vine-dresser's  pruning-hook  (Is. 
ii.  4,  xviii.  5 ;  Mic.  iv.  3 ;  Joel  iii.  10). 

G.  5  yT^  and  H^btp  (Kpedypa),  a  flesh-hook 
for  getting  up  the  joints  of  meat  out  of  the  boiling 
pot  (Ex.  xxvii.  3;  1  Sam.  ii.  13-14). 

7.  D^.i?5^  (Ez.  xl.  43),  a  term  of  very  doubt- 
ful meaning,  probably  meaning  "  hooks  "  (as  in  the 
A.  v.),  used  for  the  purpose  of  hanging  up  ani- 
mals to  flay  them  {paxij/i  bifurci,  Ges.  Thes.  p. 
1470):  other  meanings  given  are  —  ledges  (labia, 

Vulg.),  or  eaves,  as  though  the  word  were  D'^nDti?  j 
pens  for  keeping  the  animals  previous  to  their  being 
slaughtered ;  hearth-stones,  as  in  the  margin  of  the 
A.  V. ;  and  histly,  gutters  to  receive  and  carry  off 
the  blood  from  the  slaughtered  animals. 

W.  L.  B. 

HOPH'NI  (^3?:n,  a  fffhter  [a  ptigiUd, 
hoxer,  Ges.  ;  one  strong,  jiowerful,  Fiirst] :   'Oc^vi 


a  *  Dean  Stanley  finds  a  lesson  also  for  other  and- 
later  times  In  that  "great  and  instructive  wicked- 
a«u  •'  which  the  names  of  Phinehas  and  Uophni  recall 


HOR,  MOUNT 

[Vat.  -i/et;  Alex,  in  1  Sam.  ii.  34,  E^vti,  Iv.  4 

11,  17,  0(pvei:  Ophni])  and  Phinehas  (DHp'^Q, 
^ivees  [V^at.  ^eit/ees]),  the  two  sons  of  Eli,'wlM 
fulfilled  their  hereditary  sacerdotal  duties  at  Shiloh. 
Their  brutal  rapacity  and  lust,  which  seemed  to 
acquire  fresh  violence  with  their  father's  increasing 
years  (1  Sam.  ii.  22,  12-17),  filled  the  people  with 
disgust  and  indignation,  and  provoked  the  curse 
which  was  denounced  against  their  father's  house 
first  by  an  unknown  prophet  (vv.  27-36),  and  then 
by  Samuel  (1  Sam.  iii.  11-14).  They  were  both 
cut  off  in  one  day  in  the  flower  of  their  age,  and 
the  ark  which  they  had  accompanied  to  battle 
against  the  riiilistines  was  lost  on  the  same  occa- 
sion (1  Sam.  iv.  10,  11).  The  predicted  ruin  and 
ejectment  of  Eli's  house  were  fulfilled  in  the  reign 
of  Solomon.  [Eli;  Zadok.]  The  unbridled 
licentiousness  of  these  young  priests  gives  us  a  ter- 
rible glimpse  into  the  fallen  condition  of  the  chosen 
people  (Ewald,  Gesch.  ii.  538-638) .«  The  Scrip, 
ture  calls  them  "sons  of  Belial  "  (1  Sam.  ii.  12); 
and  to  this  our  great  poet  alludes  in  the  words  —  - 

"  To  him  no  temple  stood 

Or  altar  smoked  ;  yet  who  more  oft  than  he 
In  temples  and  at  altars,  when  the  priest 
Turns  atheist,  as  did  Eli's  sons,  who  filled 
With  lust  and  violence  the  house  of  God  ?  " 

Par.  Lost,  i.  492.         F.  W.  P. 

HOR,  MOUNT  (nnn  nh,  =  7707-  the 
mountain,  remarkable  as  the  only  case  in  which 
the  name  comes  first).  1.  ("H/j  rh  upos:  Mom 
flor),  the  mountain  in  which  Aaron  died  (Num. 
XX.  25,  27).  The  word  Hor  is  regarded  by  the 
lexicographers  as  an  archaic  form  of  I/ar,  the  usual 
Hebrew  term  for  "  mountain "  (Gesenius,  Thes. 
p.  391  b;  Fiirst,  Ilandwb.  ad  voc,  etc.),  so  that  the 
meaning  of  the  name  is  simply  "  the  mountain  of 
mountains,"  as  the  LXX.  have  it  in  another  case 
(see  below.  No.  2)  rh  upos  rh  Spos^  Vulg.  mons 
nltLmitiiis;  and  Jerome  {F.p.  ad  Fabiolam)  "non 
in  monte  simpliciter  sed  in  montis  monte.'' 

The  few  iiicts  given  us  in  the  Bible  regarding 
Mount  Hor  are  soon  told.  It  was  "  on  the  boundary 
line"  (Num.  xx.  23)  or  "at  the  edge"  (xxxiii.  37) 
of  the  land  of  Edom.  It  was  the  next  halting- 
place  of  the  people  after  Kadesh  (xx.  22,  xxxiii. 
37),  and  they  quitted  it  for  Zalmonah  (xxxiii.  41) 
in  the  road  to  the  Red  Sea  (xxi.  4).  It  was  during 
the  encampment  at  Kadesh  that  Aaron  was  gath- 
ered to  his  fathers.  At  the  command  of  Jehovah, 
he,  his  brother,  and  his  son  ascended  the  moun- 
tain, in  the  presence  of  the  people,  "  in  the  eyes 
of  all  the  congregation."  The  garments,  and  with 
the  garments  the  oflBce,  of  high-priest  were  taken 
from  Aaron  and  put  upon  Eleazar,  and  Aaron  died 
there  in  the  top  of  the  mountain.  In  the  circum- 
stances of  the  ascent  of  the  height  to  die,  and  in 
the  marked  exclusion  from  the  Promised  Land,  the 
end  of  the  one  brother  resembled  the  end  of  the 
other;  but  in  the  presence  of  the  two  suivivori, 
and  of  the  gazing  crowd  below,  there  is  a  striking 
difference  between  this  event  and  the  solitary  death 
of  Moses. 

Mount  Hor  "  is  one  of  the  very  few  spots  con- 
nected  with  the  wanderings  of  the  Israelites  which 
admit  of  no  reasonable  doubt "  (Stanley,  Syr.  and 
Pol.  p.  86).    It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  state  that 


U8.   See  his  remarks,  Historv  of  the  Jewish  Omrrk 
i.  418.  H 


HOR,  MOUNT 

H  if  tftoatefi  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  great  valley 
of  the  Arabah,  the  highest  and  most  conspicuous 
of  the  whole  range  of  the  sandstone  mountains  of 
Edom,  having  close  beneath  it  on  its  easteni  side  — 
though  strange  to  say  tlie  two  are  not  visible  to 
each  other  —  the  mysterious  city  of  Petra.  The 
tradition  has  existed  from  the  earliest  date.  Jose- 
phus  does  not  mention  the  name  of  Hor  (Ant.  iv. 
4,  §  7),  but  he  describes  the  death  of  Aaron  as 
taking  place  "  on  a  very  high  mountain  which  sur- 
rounded the  metropolis  of  the  Arabs,"  which  latter 
"was  formerly  called  Arke,  but  now  Petra."  In 
the  Ommasticon  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  it  is  Or 
nions — "a  mountain  in  which  Aaron  died,  close 
to  the  city  of  Petra."  When  it  was  visited  by  the 
Crusaders  (see  the  quotations  in  Rob.  521),  the 
sanctuary  was  already  on  its  top,  and  there  is  little 
doubt  that  it  was  then  what  it  is  now  —  the  Jebel 
Nebi-IIarun,  "  the  mountain  of  the  Prophet 
Aaron." 


HOR,  MOUNT 


1087 


Of  the  geological  formation  of  Mount  Hot  we 
have  no  very  trustworthy  accounts.  The  general 
structure  of  the  range  of  Edom,  of  which  it  forms 
the  most  prominent  feature,  is  new  red  sandstone, 
displaying  itself  to  an  enormous  thickness.  Above 
that  is  the  Jura  limestone,  and  higher  still  the 
cretaeeous  beds,  which  latter  in  Mount  Seir  arc 
reported  to  be  3,500  feet  in  thickness  (Wilson, 
Lands,  i.  194).  Through  these  deposited  strata 
longitudinal  dykes  of  red  granite  and  pcrphjxy 
have  forced  their  way,  nnming  nearly  north  and 
south,  and  so  completely  silicifying  the  neighboring 
sandstone  as  often  to  give  it  the  look  of  a  in'imitive 
rock.  To  these  combinations  are  due  the  extraor- 
dinary colors  for  which  Petra  is  so  famous.  Mount 
Hor  itself  is  said  to  be  entirely  sandstone,  in  very 
horizontal  strata  (Wilson,  i.  290).  Its  height, 
according  to  the  latest  measurements,  is  4,800  feet 
(Eng.)  above  the  ^lediterranean,  that  is  tc  say 
about  1,700  feet  above  the  town  of  Petra,  4,000 


View  of  the  summit  of  Mount  Ilor.     (From  Laborde.) 


above  the  level  of  the  Arabah,  and  more  than  6,000 
above  the  Dead  Sea  (Roth,  in  Petermann's  3IU- 
theil,  1858,  i.  3).  The  mountain  is  marked,  far 
and  near,  by  its  double  top,  which  rises  like  a  huge 
castellated  building  from  a  lower  base  and  is  sur- 
mounted by  the  circular  dome  of  the  tomb  of 
Aaron,  a  distinct  white  spot  on  the  dark  red  sur- 
liace  of  the  mountain  (Stanley,  80 ;  Laborde,  143 ; 
Stephens,  Incidents).  This  lower  base  is  the  "  plain 
i)f  A-^roc,"  beyond  which  Burckhardt  was,  after  all 
his  toiia,  prevented  from  ascending.  "  Out  of  this 
plain,  culminating  in  its  two  summits,  springs  the 
red  sandstone  mass,  from  its  base  upwards  rocky 
and  naked,  not  a  bush  or  a  tree  to  relieve  the  rug- 
ged and  broken  corners  of  the  sandstone  blocks 
which  compose  it.  On  ascending  this  mass  a  little 
plain  is  found  to  lie  between  the  two  peaks,  marked 
by  a  white  cypress,  and  not  unlike  the  celebrated 
plain  of  the  cypress  under  the  summit  of  Jebel 
Muaaj  traditionally  believed  to  be  the  scene  of 
Elijah's  vision.  The  southernmost  of  the  two,  on 
Approaching,  takes  a  conical  form.  The  northem- 
naoat  is  truncated,  and  crowned  by  the  chapel  of 
Aaron's  tomb."  The  chapel  or  mosk  is  a  small 
•quare  building,  measuring  inside  about  28  feet  by 
n  (Wilaon,  295),  with  its  door  in  the  S.  W.  angle. 


It  is  built  of  rude  stones,  in  part  broken  columns, 
all  of  sandstone,  but  fragments  of  granite  and 
marble  lie  about.  Steps  lead  to  the  flat  roof  of 
the  chapel,  tVoni  which  rises  a  white  dome  as  usual 
over  a  sainfs  tomb.  The  interior  of  the  chapel 
consists  of  two  chambers,  one  below  the  other. 
The  upper  one  has  four  large  pillars  and  a  stone 
chest,  or  tombstone,  like  one  of  the  ordinary  slabs 
in  churchyards,  but  larger  and  higher,  and  rather 
bigger  at  the  top  than  the  bottom.  At  its  head  ia 
a  high  round  stone,  on  which  sacrifices  are  made, 
and  which  retained,  when  Stephens  saw  it,  the 
marks  of  the  smoke  and  blood  of  recent  offerings. 
"  On  the  slab  are  Arabic  inscriptions,  and  it  ia 
covered  with  shawls  chiefly  red.  One  of  the  pil- 
lars is  hung  with  votive  offerings  of  beads,  etc., 
and  two  ostrich  eggs  are  suspended  OA*er  the  chest. 
Steps  in  the  N.  W.  angle  lead  down  to  the  lower 
chamber,  which  is  partly  in  the  rock,  but  plastered. 
It  is  perfectly  dark.  At  the  end,  apparently  under 
the  stone  chest  above,  is  a  recess  guarded  by  a  gra- 
ting. Within  this  is  a  rude  protuberance,  whether 
of  stone  or  plaster  was  not  ascertainable,  resting  on 
wood,  and  covered  by  a  nigged  pall.  This  lower 
recess  is  no  doubt  the  tomb,  and  possibly  ancient. 
What  is  above  is  jnly  the  artificial  monument  and 


1088 


nOR,  MOUKT 


seiiaiiily  modem."  «  In  one  of  the  walls  of  the 
upper  chamber  is  a  *'  round  polished  black  stone," 
one  of  those  mysterious  stones  of  which  the  pro- 
totype is  the  Kaaba  at  Mecca,  and  which,  like  that, 
would  appear  to  be  the  object  of  great  devotion 
(Martineau,  419,  420). 

The  impression  received  on  the  spot  is  that 
Aaron's  death  took  place  in  the  small  basin  be- 
tween the  two  peaks,  and  that  the  people  were 
stationed  either  on  the  plain  at  the  base  of  the 
peaks,  or  at  that  part  of  the  Wady  Alni-Kusheybeh 
from  which  the  top  is  commanded.  Josephus  says 
that  the  ground  was  sloping  downwards  (/carai'Tey 
"fiv  rh  x^^P^ou]  Ant.  iv.  4,  §  7).  But  this  may  be 
the  mere  general  expression  of  a  man  who  had 
never  been  on  the  spot.  The  greater  part  of  the 
above  information  has  been  kindly  communicated 
to  the  writer  by  Professor  Stanley. 

The  chief  interest  of  Mount  Hor  will  always  con- 
sist in  the  prospect  from  its  summit  —  the  last  view 
of  Aaron  —  "that  view  which  was  to  him  what 
Pisgah  was  to  his  brother."  It  is  described  at 
length  by  Irby  (134),  Wilson  (i.  292-9),  Martineau 
(420),  and  is  well  summed  up  by  Stjinley  in  the 
following  words :  "  We  saw  all  the  main  points  on 
which  his  eye  must  have  rested.  He  looked  over 
the  valley  of  the  Arabah  countersected  by  its  hun- 
dred watercourses,  and  beyond,  over  the  white 
mountains  of  the  wilderness  they  had  so  long  trav- 
ersed; and  at  the  northern  edge  of  it  there  must 
have  been  visible  the  heights  through  which  the 
Israelites  had  vainly  attempted  to  force  their  way 
into  *he  Promised  Land.  This  was  the  western 
view.  Close  around  him  on  the  east  were  the 
rugged  mountains  of  Edom.  and  far  along  the 
horizon  the  wide  downs  of  Mount  Seir,  through 
which  the  passage  had  been  denied  by  the  wild 
tribes  of  Esau  who  hunted  over  their  long  slopes." 
Op  the  north  lay  the  mysterious  I^ead  Sea  gleam- 
ing from  the  depths  of  its  profound  basin  (Stephens, 
Incidents).  "  A  dreary  moment,  and  a  dreary 
scene  —  such  it  must  have  seemed  to  the  aged 
priest.  .  .  .  The  peculiarity  of  the  view  is  the  com- 
bination of  wide  extension  with  the  scarcity  of 
marked  features.  Petra  is  shut  out  by  intervening 
rocks.  But  the  survey  of  the  Desert  on  one  side, 
and  the  mountains  of  I'Idom  on  the  other,  is  com- 
plete; and  of  these  last  the  great  feature  is  the 
mass  of  red  bald-headed  sandstone  rocks,  intersected 
not  by  valleys  but  by  deep  seams  "  (S.  cf  P.  p.  87). 
Though  Petra  itself  is  entirely  shut  out,  one  out- 
lying building  —  if  it  may  be  called  a  building  — 
is  visible,  that  which  goes  by  the  name  of  the  Deir^ 
or  Convent.  Professor  Stanley  has  thrown  out  a 
suggestion  on  the  connection  between  the  two  which 
IS  well  worth  further  investigation. 

Owing  to  the  natural  difficulties  of  the  locality 
and  the  caprices  of  the  Arabs,  IMount  Hor  and 
Petra  are  more  difficult  of  access  than  any  other 
plaf;es  which  Europeans  usually  attempt  to  visit. 
The  records  of  these  attempts  —  not  all  of  them 
successes  —  will  be  found  in  the  works  of  Burck- 
hardt,  Irby  and  Mangles,  Stephens,  Wilson,  Robin- 
son, IMartineau,  and  Stanley.  They  are  sufficient 
lo  invest  the  place  with  a  secondary  interest,  hardly 
•nferior  to  that  which  attaches  to  it  as  the  halting- 
place  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  the  burial-place 
of  Aaron. 


HORAM 

2.  (rh  6pos  rh  6pos''  mons  altissimus.)  A  moun- 
tain, entirely  distinct  from  the  preceding,  named 
in  Num.  xxxiv.  7,  8,  only,  as  one  of  the  marks  of 
the  nortliern  boundary  of  the  land  which  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  were  about  to  conquer.  The  identi- 
fication of  this  mountain  has  always  been  one  of 
the  puzzles  of  Sacred  Geography.  The  Mediter- 
ranean was  the  western  boundary.  The  northern 
boundary  started  from  the  sea;  the  first  point  in  it 
was  Mount  Hor,  and  the  second  the  entrance  of 
Hamath.  Since  Sidon  was  subsequently  allotted 
to  the  most  northern  tribe  —  Asher  —  and  was,  as 
far  as  we  know,  the  most  northern  town  so  allotted, 
it  would  seem  probable  that  the  northern  boundary 
would  commence  at  about  that  point;  that  is, 
opposite  to  where  the  great  range  of  I^banon  breaks 
down  to  the  sea.  The  next  landmark,  the  entrance 
to  Hamath,  seems  to  have  been  determined  by  Mr. 
Porter  as  the  pass  at  Kuldt  el-Husn,  close  to  Hums, 
the  ancient  Hamath  —  at  the  other  end  of  the 
range  of  Lebanon.  [Hamath,  Amer.  ed  ]  Surely 
"  Mount  Hor  "  then  can  be  nothing  else  than  the 
great  chain  of  Lebanon  itself.  Looking  at  the  mas- 
sive character  and  enormous  height  of  the  range,  it 
is  very  difficult  to  suppose  that  any  individual  peak 
or  mountain  is  intended  and  not  the  whole  mass, 
which  takes  nearly  a  straight  course  between  the 
two  points  just  named,  and  includes  below  it  the 
great  plain  of  the  Bu/cn'a  and  the  whole  of  Pales- 
tine properly  so  called. 

The  Targum  Pseudojon.  renders  Mount  Hor  by 
Umanos,  probably  intending  Amana.  The  latter 
is  also  the  reading  of  the  Talmud  ( (Jitlin  8,  quoted 
by  Fiirst,  sub  voce),  in  which  it  is  connected  with 
the  Amana  named  in  Cant.  iv.  8.  But  the  situation 
of  this  Amana  is  nowhere  indicated  by  them.  It 
cannot  have  any  connection  with  the  Amana  or 
Abana  river  which  flowed  through  Damascus,  as 
that  is  quite  away  from  the  position  required  in 
the  passage.  By  the  Jewish  geographers  Schwarz 
(24,  25)  and  Parchi  (Benj.  of  Tudeh,  413,  &c.), 
for  various  traditional  and  linguistic  reasons,  a 
mountain  is  fixed  upon  very  far  to  the  north,  be- 
tween Tripoli  and  Hamath,  in  fact,  though  they  do 
not  say  so,  very  near  the  Mons  Amanus  of  the 
classical  geographers.  But  this  is  some  200  miles 
north  of  Sidon,  and  150  above  Hamath,  and  ia 
surely  an  unwarranted  extension  of  the  hmits  of 
the  Holy  Land.  The  great  range  of  Lebanon  is  so 
clearly  the  natural  northern  boundary  of  the  coun- 
try, that  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
whole  range  is  intended  by  the  term  Hor.        G. 

*  Dr.  Pobinson  {Phys.  Geogr.  p.  345)  would  limit 
this  Hor  either  to  "  the  northern  end  of  Lebanon 
Proper  or  a  Hor  connected  with  it."  Porter  also 
{Giant  Cities  of  Ba shun,  etc.,  p.  316)  fixes  on  the 
northern  peak  of  Lebanon  as  the  point  of  departure 
in  tracing  the  northern  boundary,  which  peak  he 
represents  as  sufficiently  conspicuous  to  be  thus 
singled  out.  The  entire  Lebanon  range,  stretching 
so  far  from  north  to  south,  would  certainly  be  very 
indefinite  if  assigned  as  the  starting-point  for  run- 
ning the  line  in  that  direction.  In  other  respects 
this  description  of  the  Land  of  Promise  (Num. 
xxxiv.  3-12)  may  be  said  to  be  remarkably  specifij 
in  the  designation  of  places.  II. 

HO'RAM  (D^n  {elevated,   prent]:  'E\((/*. 


a  If  Burckhardt'a  informants  were  correct  {Syria, 
p.  481)  there  is  a  considerable  difference  between  wtiat 
th«  tomb  was  even  when  he  sacrificed  his  kid  on  the 


plain  below,  and  when  Irby  and  Mangles  Ttaited  U 
six  years  after. 


HOREB 

pTtt.]  Aim.  AtAo/t;  [Aid.  'npc^/.:  Floram),  king 
of  Gezer  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  of  tha  south- 
western part  of  Palestine  (Josh.  ^.  33).  He  came 
to  the  assistance  of  Lachish,  but  was  slaughtered 
by  Joshua  with  all  his  people.  Whether  the  Gezer 
which  he  governed  was  that  commonly  mentioned, 
or  another  place  further  south,  is  not  determinable. 

HO'REB  [3nn,  drtj:  Xcop-fi^;  Alex,  in 
Deut.  i.  19.  2ox(^6'  fJ<»'^b}^  Ex.  iii.  1,  xvii.  6, 
xxxiii.  6;  Deut.  i.  2,  6,  19,  iv.  10,  15,  v.  2,  ix  8, 
Kviii.  16,  xxix.  1;  1  K-  viii.  9,  xix.  8;  2  Chr.  v.  10; 
I's.  cvi.  19;  Mai.  iv.  4;  Ecclus.  xlviii.  7.   [Sinai.] 

HO  REM  (D^n  [consecrated,  (kei.:  fortress, 
Fiirst]:  MeyaXaapl/j.  [Vat.  -eiju],  Alex.  Mayoa- 
KifjiDpafij  both  by  inclusion  of  the  preceding  name : 
fforem),  one  of  the  fortified  places  in  the  territory 
Df  Naphtali;  named  with  Iron  and  Migdal-el  (Josh. 
tix.  38).  Van  de  Velde  (i.  178-9;  Memoir,  322) 
suggests  Tlurah  as  the  site  of  Horem.  It  is  an 
ancient  site  in  the  centre  of  the  country,  half-way 
between  the  Ras  en-Ndkhura  and  the  LakeMerom, 
on  a  Tell  at  the  southern  end  of  the  W(tdy  el-' Am, 
one  of  the  natural  features  of  the  country.  It  is 
ilso  in  favor  of  this  identification  that  Hurah  is 
i.ear  Yarun,  probably  the  representative  of  the 
ancient  Ixtox,  named  with  Horem.  G. 

HOR  HAGID'GAD  (127371  Ifl  [moun- 
tain of  the  cleft,  Fiirst]:  opos  TdSyaZ'  Mons  Gad- 
gad— hoih.  reading  171  for  Ul),  the  name  of  a 
desert  station  where  the  Israelites  encamped  (Num. 
xxxiii.  32),  probably  the  same  as  Gudgodah  (Deut. 
X.  7).  In  both  passages  it  stands  in  sequence  with 
three  others,  Moserah  or  Moseroth,  (Beeroth)  Bene- 
Jaakan,  and  Jotbath  or  Jotbathah ;  but  the  order 
is  not  strictly  preserved.  Hengstenberg  (Genuine- 
ness of  the  Pentateuch,  ii.  356)  has  souglat  to  ac- 
count for  this  by  supposing  that  they  were  in  Deut. 
X.  7  going  the  opposite  way  to  that  in  Num.  xxxiii. 
32.    For  the  consideration  of  this  see  Wilderness 

OF  Wandering.  Gedged  (Arab.  cX:^  (A,.'^  j 
raeana  a  hard  and  level  tract.     We  have  also  Gud- 

>     O     5 

ywc?  (Arab.   cXi^cX^  ),  which  has  among  other 

meanings  that  of  a  well  abounding  in  water.  The 
plural  of  either  of  these  might  closely  approximate 
in  sound  to  (JudAgid.  It  is  observable  that  on  the 
west  side  of  the  Arabah  Robinson  (vol.  i.,  map)  has 
a  Wddi)  Ghudarjhidh,  which  may  bear  the  same 
meaning;  but  as  that  meaning  might  be  perhaps 
ajiplied  to  a  great  number  of  localities,  it  would  be 
dangerous  to  infer  identity.  The  junction  of  this 
wady  with  the  Arabah  would  not,  however,  be  un- 
suitable for  a  station  between  Mount  Hor,  near 
which  Moserah  lay  (com p.  Num.  xx.  28,  Deut.  x. 
6),  and  Ezion-Geber.  Robinson  also  mentions  a 
shrub  growing  in  the  Arabah  itself,  which  he  calls 

Lo-ft,  Ghiidhah  (ii.  121  comp.  119),  which  may 
abo  possibly  suggest  a  derivation  for  the  name. 

H.  H. 

HO'RI.  1.  ("'"TT,  but  in  Chron.  ^1^^ 
\inhnbitant  of  caves,  troglodyte,  Ges.,  Fiirst] : 
Xo^poi,  Alex.  Xoppei,  in  Chron.  Xod&i  [Vat.  -et] : 
ffori),  a  Horite,  as  his  name  beU^kens;  son  of 
Lotan  the  son  of  Seir,  and  brother  to  Hemam  or 
(Gen.  Kxvi.  22;  1  Chr.  i.  39).  No  trace 
69 


HORMAH  1089 

of  the  name  appears  to  have  been  met  with  m 
modern  times. 

2.  {Xoppi',  Alex.  Xoppti  :  Hoi^'ceorum.)  Ib 
Gen.  xxxvi.  30,  the  name  has  in   the  original  the 

definite  article  prefixed  —  '^1(151=  <Ae  Horite; 
and  is  in  fact  precisely  the  same  word  with  that 
which  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  also  in  21,  is 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  the  Horites." 

3.  Onhn  :  «  7,ovpi  in  both  MSS.  [rather,  Rom., 
Alex.;  Vat.  Soupet:]  Hui-i.)  A  man  of  Simeon; 
father  of  Shaphat,  who  represented  that  tribe 
among  the  spies  sent  up  into  Canaan  by  Moses 
(Num.  xiii.  5). 

HO^RITES  and  HO'RIMS  (^*^r,Gen.  xiv. 

6,  and  □'•"^H,  Deut.  ii.  12:  Xoppaloi:  Corrad 
[Tlorrmi,  Horrhcei ;  also  HO'RITE  in  the  sing., 
(ien.  xxxvi.  20,  XoppaTos-  Horrceus']),  the  aborig- 
inal inhabitants  of  JMount  Seir  (Gen.  xiv.  6),  and 
probably  allied  to  the  Emims  and  Rephaims.    The 

name  Horite  C^IH,  a  troglodyte,  from  "Tin,  "  • 
hole"  or  " cave ")  appears  to  have  been  derived 
from  their  habits  as  "cave-dwellers."  Their  ex- 
cavated dwellings  are  still  found  in  hundreds  in  the 
sandstone  cliflfe  and  mountains  of  Edom,  and  espe- 
cially  in  Petra.  [Edom  and  Edomites.]  It  may, 
perhaps,  be  to  the  Horites  Job  refers  in  xxx.  6,  7. 
They  are  only  three  times  mentioned  in  Scripture: 
first,  when  they  were  smitten  by  the  kings  of  the 
East  (G^n.  xiv.  6);  then  when  their  genealogy  is 
given  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  20-30  and  1  Chr.  i.  38-42; 
and  lastly  when  they  were  exterminated  by  the 
Edomites  (Deut.  ii.  12,  22).  It  appears  probable 
that  they  were  not  Canaanites,  but  an  earlier  race, 
who  inhabited  Mount  Seir  before  the  posterity  of 
Canaan  took  possession  of  Palestine  (Ewald,  6'e»- 
chichte,  vol.  i.  304,  305).  J.  L.  P. 

HOR'MAH  (n^nn  [devotement  to  deMruo- 
tion,  anathema  :  Rom.  Vat.  Alex,  commonly  'Epfxa 
or  'Epfid,  but  Num.  xxi.  3  and  Judg.  i.  17,  'Audd- 
e/na,  1  Sam.  xxx.  30,  'l€pi/j.ov9  (Vat.  -pej-) ;  Rom. 
Vat.  Num.  xiv.  45,  'Epixdv,  Josh.  xii.  14,  'Epfxad: 
Alex.  Josh.  XV.  30,  Ep/naA-  Horma,  Fferma,  Harma, 
Arama  (al.  Haranui)];   its  earUer  name  Zephath, 

ilD^,  is  found  Judg.  i.  17)  was  the  chief  town 
of  a  "  king  "  of  a  Canaanitish  tribe  on  the  south 
of  Palestine,  reduced  by  Joshua  (Josh.  xii.  14),  and 
became  a  city  of  the  territory  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv. 
30;  1  Sam.  xxx.  30),  but  apparently  belonged  to 
Simeon,  whose  territory  is  reckoned  as  parcel  of  the 
former  (Josh.  xix.  4;  comp.  Judg.  i.  17;  1  Chr.  iv. 
30).  The  seeming  inconsistency  between  Num.  rxi. 
3  and  Judg.  i.  17  may  be  relieved  by  supposing 
that  the  vow  made  at  the  former  period  was  ful- 
filled at  the  latter,  and  the  name  (the  root  of  which, 

nT'''7>  constantly  occurs  in  the  sense  of  to  devote 
to  destruction,  or  utterly  to  destroy)  given  by  antici- 
pation.    Robinson  (ii.  181)  identifies  the  pass  Es- 

Siifa,  sLfl-oJf.  with  Zephath,  in  respect  both 
of  the  name,  which  is  sufficiently  similar,  and  of 
the  situation,  which  is  a  probable  one,  namely,  the 
gap  in  the  mountain  barrier,  which,  running  about 
S.  W.  and  N.  E.,  completes  the  plateau  of  Southern 
Palestine,  and  rises  above  the  less  elevated  step  — 


a  Pu.-this  2,  represen'ing  H,  comp  Hilen,  HiLUB., 

UOSAH. 


1090 


HORN 


the  level  of  the  desert  ei-  Tih  —  interposed  between 
It  and  the  Ghor  [Wilderness  of  Wander- 
ing.] H.  H. 

HORN.  I.  Literal.  (Josh.  vi.  4,  5;  comp. 
Ex.  xix.  13;  1  Sam.  xvi.  1,  13;  1  K.  i.  39;  Job 
ilii.  1-4). — Two  purposes  are  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures  to  which  the  horn  seems  to  have  been 
apphed.  Trumpets  were  probably  at  first  merely 
horns  perforated  at  the  tip,  such  as  are  still  used 
upon  mountain-farms  for  calhng  home  the  laborers 
at  meal-time.    If  the  A.  V.  of  Josh.  vi.  4,  5  ("  rams' 

horns,"  VllVn  X^'\})  were  correct,  this  would 
settle  the  question:  but  the  fact  seems  to  be  that 
^"^y^  has  nothing  to  do  with  ram,  and  that  ]n^i7.? 
horn,  serves  to  indicate  an  instrument  which  orig- 
inally was  made  of  horn,  though  afterwards,  no 
doubt,  constructed  of  different  materials  (comp. 
Varr.  L.  L.  v.  24,  33,  "  cornua  quod  ea  quas  nunc 
sunt  ex  sere  tunc  fiebant  bubulo  e  cornu "). 
[Cornet.]  The  horns  which  were  thus  made  into 
tnunpets  were  probably  those  of  oxen  rather  than 
of  rams:  the  latter  would  scarcely  produce  a  note 
sufficiently  imposing  to  suggest  its  association  with 
the  fall  of  Jericho. 

The  word  horn  is  also  applied  to  a  flask,  or  vessel 
made  of  horn,  containing  oil  (1  Sam.  xvi.  1,  13; 
1  K.  i.  39),  or  used  as  a  kind  of  toilet-bottle,  filled 
with  the  preparation  of  antimony  with  which  women 
tinged  their  eye-lashes  (Keren-happuch=/)«i«i- 
horv,  name  of  one  of  .lob's  daughters,  Job  xlii.  14). 
So  in  English,  drinking-horn  (commonly  called  a 
horn).  In  the  same  way  the  Greek  K^pas  some- 
times signifies  bugle,  trumpet  (Xen.  An.  ii.  2,  §  4), 
and  sometimes  drinking-horn  (vii.  2,  §  23).  In 
like  manner  the  Latin  coimu  means  trumpet,  and 
also  oil-cruel  (Hor.  Hat.  ii.  2,  61),  and  funnel 
(Virg.  Georg.  iii.  509). 

II.  Metaphorical.  —  1.  From  dmilarity  of 
form.  —  To  this  use  belongs  the  application  of  the 
word  horn  to  a  trumpet  of  metal,  as  ah'eady  men- 
tioned. Horns  of  ivory,  that  is,  elephants'  teeth, 
are  mentioned  in  Ez.  xxvii.  15;  either  metaphori- 
cally from  similarity  of  form;  or,  as  seems  more 
probable,  from  a  vulgar  error.  The  hoi-ns  of  the 
altar  (Ex.  xxvii.  2)  are  not  supposed  to  have  been 
made  of  horn,  but  to  have  been  metallic  projec- 
tions from  the  four  corners  {yoovlai  K€paT0€iSf7s, 
Joseph.  £.  J.  V.  5,  §  G).  [Altar,  p.  74  6.]  The 
peak  or  summit  of  a  hill  was  called  a  horn  (Is.  v. 
1,  where  hill  =  horn  in  Heb. ;  comp.  /ce'pas,  Xen. 
An.  V.  6,  §  7,  and  cornu,  Stat.  Theb.  v.  532;  Arab. 
Kiiriin  Ilattin  [^Horns  of  flnttin],  Robinson,  Bibl. 
n<-*  ii.  370;  Germ.  Schreckhorn,  Wetterhoi'n, 
Aurkorn ;  Celt,  cairn).  In  Hab.  iii.  4  ("  he  had 
horns  coming  out  of  his  hand")  the  context  im- 
plies rays  of  li(jld.» 

The  denominative  "J  7^"^  =to  emit  rays,  is  used 
of  Moses'  face  (Ex.  xxxiv.  29,  30,  35);  so  all  the 
versions  except  Aquila  and  the  Vulgate,  which 
have  the  translations  KfparwSTjs  ^v,  cwnuta  erat. 
This  curious  idea  lias  not  only  been  perpetuated  by 
paintings,  coins,  and  statues  (Zornius,  Biblioth. 
Antiq.  i.  121),  but  has  at  least  passed  muster  with 


«  *  So  Dr.  No3-es  translates,  Rays  stream  fortk  Jrom 
his  hand,  and  remarks,  "May  not  this  denote  that 
Ughtnings  were  in  his  hand.s  ?  See  Job  xxxvi.  32, 
Hj  e»vertth  his  iwids  with  li{(htning.  Also  xxxvii.  8, 
U.  16.'  A. 


HORN 

Grotius  (Annot.  ad  loc.),  who  citefc  AbeD-£a»'i 
identification  of  Moses  with  the  homed  Mnevis  of 
Egypt,  and  suggests  that  the  phenomenon  was  in- 
tended to  remind  the  Israelites  of  the  golden  calf! 
Spencer  (Leg.  Ilebr.  iii.  Diss.  i.  4)  tries  a  recon- 
cihation  of  renderings  upon  the  ground  that  coi-nua 
=  radii  liicis ;  but  Spanheim  {Diss.  vii.  1),  not 
content  with  stigmatizing  the  efforts  of  art  in  this 
direction  as  "  praepostera  industria,"  distinctly  at- 
tributes to  Jerome  a  belief  in  the  veritable  horns  of 
Moses.  Bishop  Taylor,  iti  all  good  faith,  though 
of  course  rlietoricaUy,  compares  the  "  sun's  golden 
horns  "  to  those  of  the  Hebrew  Lawgiver. 

2.  From  similarity  of  position  ami  use.  —  Tw  ) 
principal  applications  of  this  njetaphor  will  be  found 
—  strength  and  hon(y)\  Of  strength  the  horn  of 
the  unicorn  [Unicorn]  was  the  most  frequent 
representative^  (Deut.  xxxiiL  17,  &c.),  but  not 
always;  comp.  1  K.  xxii.  11,  where  probably  horns 


Hair  of  South  Africans  ornamented  with  buQa,lo-honii. 
(Livingstone,  Travels,  pp.  450,  451.) 

of  iron,  worn  defiantly  and  symbolically  on  the 
head,  are  intended.  Expressive  of  the  same  idea, 
or  perhaps  merely  a  decoration,  is  the  oriental  mil- 
itary ornament  mentioned  by  Taylor  {CalmeVa 
Frag,  cxiv.),  and  the  conical  cap  observed  by  Dr. 
Livingstone  among  the  natives  of  S.  Africa,  and 
not  improbably  suggested  by  the  horn  of  the  rhi- 
noceros, so  abundant  in  that  country  (see  Living- 


Heads  of  modem  Asiatics  ornamented  with  homi. 

stone's  Travels,  pp.  365,  450,  557;  comp.  Taylcr, 
/.  c).  Among  the  Druses  upon  Mount  Lebanon 
the  married  women  wear  silver  horns  on  their 
heads.  The  spiral  coils  of  gold  wire  projecting  on 
either  side  from  the  female  head-dress  of  some  of 
the  Dutch  provinces  are  evidently  an  ornament 
borrowed  from  the  same  original  idea. 

In  the  sense  of  honor,  the  word  horn  stands  for 


&  *  In  this  sense  David  speaks  of  God  (Ps.  Jtviii.  2) 
as  "  the  horn  of  his  salvation,"  ».  e.  his  mighty,  effec 
tual  deliverer  (comp.  Am.  vi.  13).  Hence  we  see  the  im 
port  of  this  same  figure  and  language  {Kepai;  (TMnipia; 
ifniv)  as  applied  by  Zacharias  to  the  Savfour  (Luko 
1 69\.  H. 


HORNET 

Jw  abstraci  {my  horn.  Job  xvi.  15 ;  all  the  horns 
of  Israel,  Lam.  ii.  3),  and  so  for  the  supreme  au- 
thority (comp.  the  story  of  Cippus,  Ovid,  Met.  xv. 
565;  and  the  horn  of  the  Indian  Sachem  men- 
tioned in  Clarkson's  Life  of  Penn).  It  also  stands 
for  concrete^  whence  it  comes  to  mean  king,  king- 
dom (Dan.  viii.  3,  Ac;  Zech.  i.  18;  comp.  Tar- 
quin's  dream  in  Accius,  ap.  Cic.  Div.  i.  22);  hence 
Dn  coins  Alexander  and  the  Seleucidse  wear  horns 
(see  drawings  on  p.  61),  and  the  former  is  called  in 
Arab,  two  horned  (Kor.  xviii.  85  ff.),  not  without 
reference  to  Dan.  viii. 

Out  of  either  or  both  of  these  two  last  meta- 
phors sprang  the  idea  of  representing  gods  with 
horns.  Spanheim  has  discovered  sucb  figures  on 
the  Roman  denarius,  and  on  numerous  Egyptian 
coins  of  the  reigns  of  Trajan,  Hadrian,  and  the 
Antonines  {Diss.  v.  p.  353).  The  Bacchus  ravpo- 
Kepus,  or  cornuius,  is  mentioned  by  Euripides 
{Baech.  100),  and  among  other  pagan  absurdities 
Arnobius  enumerates  "  Dii  cornuti "  (c.  Gent.  vi.). 
In  like  manner  river- gods  are  represented  with  horns 
("  tauriformis  Aufidus."  Hor.  Od.  iv.  14,  25;  rav- 
p6fiop(pov  u^jxa  Kr?(^£(roG,  Eur.  Ion.  12GI).  For 
various  opinions  on  the  ground-thmighi  of  this 
metaphor,  see  Notes  and  Queries,  i.  419,  456. 
Manx  legends  speak  of  a  tarroo-ushtey,  i.  e.  loater- 
byU  (see  Creteen's  Manx  Diet).  (See  Bochart, 
Hieroz.  ii.  288;  and,  for  an  admirable  compen- 
dium, with  references,  Zornius,  Biblioiheca  Antiqua- 
ria,  ii.  106  If.).  T.  E.  B. 

HORNET  (n^"]!^  :  (rcp-qKia:  crnbro).  That 
the  Hebrew  word  tzir'dh  describes  tbe  hornet,  may 
be  taken  for  granted  on  the  almost  unanimous  au- 
thority of  the  ancient  versions.  Not  only  were 
bees  exceedingly  numerous  in  Palestine,  but  from 
the  name  Zoreah  (Josh.  xv.  33)  we  may  infer  that 
hornets  in  particular  infested  some  parts  of  the 
country :  the  frequent  notices  of  the  animal  in  the 
Talmudical  writers  (Lewysohn,  Zool.  §  405)  lead  to 
the  same  conclusion.  In  Scripture  the  hornet  is 
referred  to  only  as  the  means  which  Jehovah  em- 
ployed for  the  extirpation  of  the  Canaanites  (Ex. 
xxiii.  28;  Deut.  vii.  2U;  Josh.  xxiv.  12;  Wisd. 
xii.  8).  Some  commentators  regard  the  word  as 
used  in  its  literal  sense,  and  adduce  authenticated 
instances,  where  armies  have  been  seriously  mo- 
lested by  hornets  (Lilian,  xi.  28,  xvii.  35 ;  Ammian. 
Marcellin.  xxiv.  8).  But  the  following  arguments 
»eem  to  decide  in  favor  of  a  metaphorical  sense: 
(I)  that  the  word  "hornet"  in  Ex.  xxiii.  28  is 
parallel  to  "fear"  in  ver.  27;  (2)  that  similar  ex- 
pressiors  are  undoubtedly  used  metaphorically,  e.  g. 
"to  chase  as  the  bees  do  ''  (Deut.  i.  44;  Ps.  cxviii. 
12);  (3)  that  a  similar  transfer  from  the  literal  to 
tb}  metaphorical  sense  may  be  instanced  in  the 
classical  oestrus,  originally  a  "gad-fly,"  afterwards 
terror  and  madness;  and  lastly  (4),  that  no  his- 
torical notice  of  such  intervention  as  hornets  occur 
In  the  Bible.  We  may  therefore  regard  it  as  ex- 
pressing under  a  vivid  image  the  consternation  with 
which  Jehovah  would  inspire  the  enemies  of  the 
[sraelites,  as  declared  in  Deut.  ii.  25,  Josh.  ii.  11. 

W.  L.  B. 

H0R0NA1M  (D^3nn  =  tvx)  caverns:  [in 
ts.,]  ^ Kpwviiijx,  Alex.  AZwvieifx',  [in  Jer.,]  'Hpco- 
ioiij.,  ['Opwvai'ju,  etc. ;]  Oronnim),  a  town  of"  Moab 
aanied  with  Zoar  and  Luhith  (Is.  xv.  5;  Jer. 
tlviii.  3,  5,  34),  but  to  the  position  of  wh  jh  no 
iJew  ia  afforded  either  by  the  notices  of  the  Bible 


HORSE  1091 

or  by  mention  in  other  works.  It  seemai  to  have 
been  on  an  eminence,  and  approached  (like  Beth- 
horon)   by  a  road  which   is   styled  the   "way" 

CTJ'l'fT,  Is.  XV.  5),  or  the  "  descent "  (TVID,  Jer. 

xlviii.  5).  From  the  occurrence  of  a  similar  ex- 
pression in  reference  to  Luhith,  we  might  imagine 
that  these  two  places  were  sanctuaries,  on  the  high 
places  to  which  the  eastern  worship  of  those  days 
wa.s  so  addicted.  If  we  accept  the  name  as  He- 
brew, we  may  believe  the  dual  form  of  it  to  arise, 
either  from  the  presence  of  two  caverns  in  the 
neighborhood,  or  from  there  having  been  two  towns, 
possibly  an  upper  and  a  lower,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  two  Beth-horons,  connected  by  the  ascending 
road. 

From  Horonaim  possibly  came  Sanballat  the 
Horonite.  G. 

HOR'ONITE,  THE  O^Vnn  [patr.  from 
"jWnJ:  6  'Apcavl;  [Vat.  FA. -j/et,  exc.  xiii.  28, 

where  Rom.  d  Oupaj/ir-ns,  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit:] 
Iloronites),  the  designation  of  Sanballat,  who  was 
one  of  the  principal  opponents  of  Nehemiah's 
works  of  restoration  (Neh.  ii.  10,  19;  xiii.  28). 
It  is  derived  by  Gesenius  {Thes.  459)  from  Horo- 
naim the  Moabite  town,  but  by  FUrst  {Handiob.) 
from  Horon,  i.  e.  [Upper-]  Beth-horon.  Which 
of  these  is  the  more  accurate  is  quite  uncertain. 
The  former  certainly  accords  well  with  the  Am- 
monite and  Arabian  who  were  Sanballat's  com- 
rades; the  latter  is  perhaps  more  etymologically 
correct.  G. 

HORSE.  The  most  striking  feature  in  the 
Biblical  notices  of  the  horse  is  the  exclusive  appli- 
cation of  it  to  warlike  operations ;  in  no  instance  ia 
that  useful  animal  employed  for  the  purposes  of 
ordinary  locomotion  or  agriculture,  if  we  except  Is. 
xxviii.  28,  where  we  learn  that  horses  (A.  V.  "  horse- 
men") were  employed  in  threshing,  not  however, 
in  that  case  put  in  the  gears,  but  simply  driven 
about  wildly  over  the  strewed  grain.  This  remark 
will  be  found  to  be  borne  out  by  the  historical  pas- 
sages hereafter  quoted ;  but  it  is  equally  striking 
in  the  poetical  parts  of  Scripture.  The  animated 
description  of  the  horse  in  Job  xxxix.  19-25,  ap- 
plies solely  to  the  war-horse;  the  mane  streaming 
in  the  breeze  (A.  V.  "thunder")  which  "clothes 
his  neck;  "  his  lofty  bounds  "  as  a  grasshopper;  " 
his  hoofs  "  digging  in  the  valley "  with  excite- 
ment ;  his  terrible  snorting  —  are  brought  before 
us,  and  his  ardor  for  the  strife  — 

He  swalloweth  the  ground  with  fierceness  and  rage ; 
Neither  believeth  he  that  it  is  the  sound  of  the  trum 

pet. 
He  saith  among  the  trumpets  Ha,  ha ! 
And  he  smelleth  the  battle  afar  ofif,  the  thunder  of  th« 

captains,  and  the  shouting. 

So  again  the  bride  advances  with  her  charms  to  an 
immediate  conquest  "  as  a  company  of  horses  in 
Phar>oh's  chariots"  (Cant.  i.  9);  and  when  the 
prophet  Zechariah  wishes  to  convey  the  idea  of 
perfect  peace,  he  represents  the  horse,  no  moi«^ 
mixing  in  the  fray  as  before  (ix.  10),  but  bearing 
on  his  bell  (which  was  intended  to  strike  terror 
into  tne  foe)  the  peaceable  inscription  "Holiness 
tnto  the  Lord  "  (xiv.  20).  Lastly,  the  character- 
istic of  the  horse  is  not  so  much  his  speed  or  hi« 
utihty,  but  his  strength  (Ps.  xxxiii.  17,  cxlvii.  10), 
as  shown  in  the  special  application  of  the  tera 


1092 


HORSE 


nbbir  ("n^'SS),  I  c.  strong,  aa  an  equivalent  for  a 
horse  (Jer.  viii.  16,  xlvii.  3,  1.  11). 

The  terms  under  which  the  horse  is  described  in 
the  Hebrew  language  are  usually  siis  and  pdrash 

(D^D,  tt^HQ).  The  origin  of  these  terms  is  not 
satisfactorily  made  out;  Pott  {Ktym.  Forsch.  i. 
60)  connects  them  respectively  with  Susa  and 
Pares,  or  Persia,  as  the  countries  whence  the  horse 
was  derived;  and  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  sus 
was  also  employed  in  Egypt  for  a  mare^  showing 
that  it  was  a  foreign  term  there,  if  not  also  in  Pal- 
estine. There  is  a  marked  distinction  between  the 
sus  and  the  parash;  the  former  were  horses  for 
driving  in  the  war  chariot,  of  a  heavy  build,  the 
latter  were  for  riding,  and  particularly  for  cavah-y. 
This  distinction  is  not  observed  in  the  A.  V.  from 
the  circumstance  that  parash  also  signifies  horse- 
man ;  the  correct  sense  is  essential  in  the  following 
passages  —  IK.  iv.  26,  "  forty  thousand  chariot- 
horses  and  twelve  thousand  cavalry-horses;"  Ez. 
xxvii.  14,  "driving-horses  and  riding-horses;" 
Joel  ii.  4,  "as  riding-horses,  so  shall  they  run;" 
and  Is.  xxi.  7,  "a  train  of  horses  in  couples."     In 

addition  to  these  terms  we  have  recesh  (ITp^,  of 
undoubted  Hebrew  origin)  to  describe  a  swift  horse, 
used  for  the  royal  post  (Esth.  viii.  10, 14)  and  sim- 
ilar purposes  (1  K.  iv.  28;  A.  V.  "dromedary" 
as  also  in  Esth.),  or  for  a  rapid  journey  (Mic.  i. 

13);  rammdc  (TJ^n),  used  once  for  a  mare  (Esth. 

viii.  10);  and  susah  {TVD'D)  in  Cant.  i.  9,  where 
it  is  regarded  in  the  A.  V.  is  a  collective  term, 
"company  of  hoises;"  it  rather  means,  according 
to  the  received  punctuation,  "  my  mare,"  but  still 
better,  by  a  slight  alteration  in  the  punctuation, 
"  mares." 

The  Hebrews  in  the  patriarchal  age,  as  a  pastoral 
race,  did  not  stand  in  need  of  the  sen-ices  of  the 
horse,  and  for  a  long  period  after  their  settlement 
in  Canaan  they  dispensed  with  it,  partly  in  conse- 
quence of  the  hilly  nature  of  the  country,  which 
only  admitted  of  the  use  of  chariots  in  certain  lo- 
calities (Judg.  i.  19),  and  partly  in  consequence  of 
the  prohibition  in  Deut.  x\\\.  16,  which  would  be 
held  to  apply  at  all  periods.  Accordingly  they 
hamstrung  the  horses  of  the  Canaan ites  (Josh.  xi. 
6,  9).  David  first  established  a  force  of  cavalry 
and  chariots  after  the  defeat  of  Hadadezer  (2  Sam. 
nii.  4),  when  he  reserved  a  hundred  chariots,  and, 
as  we  may  infer,  all  the  horses:  for  the  rendering 
"  houghed  all  the  chariot-/io?'ses,"  is  manifestly  in- 
correct. Shortly  after  this  Absalom  was  possessed 
of  some  (2  Sam.  xv.  1 ).  But  the  great  supply  of 
horses  was  subsequently  effected  by  Solomon  through 
his  connection  with  Egypt ;  he  is  reported  to  have 
had  "  40,000  stalls  of  horses  for  his  chariots,  and 
12,000  cavalry  horses  "  (1  K.  iv.  26),  and  it  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  these  forces  are  mentioned 
parenthetically  to  account  for  the  great  security  of 
lifa  and  property  noticed  in  the  preceding  verse. 
There  is  probably  an  error  in  the  former  of  these 
numbers;  for  the  number  of  chariots  is  given  in 
1  K.  X.  26 ;  2  Chr.  i.  14,  as  1,400,  and  consequently 
if  we  allow  three  horses  for  each  chariot,  two  in 
nse  and  one  as  a  resen^e,  as  was  usual  in  some 
tountries  (Xen.  Cyrop.  vi.  1,  §  27),  the  number 
required  would  be  4,200,  or,  in  round  numbers, 
4,000,  '^•hich  is  probably  the  correct  reading.  Solo- 
mon also  established  a  very  active  trade  in  horses, 
NrLich  were  brought  by  dealers  out  of  Egypt  and 


HORSE 

resold  at  a  profit  to  the  Hittites,  who  li\ed  betweea 

Palestine  and  the  Euphrates.  The  passsige  in  which 
this  commerce  is  described  (1  K.  x.  28,  29),  is  un- 
fortunately obscure;  the  tenor  of  ver.  28  seems  tc 
be  that  there  was  a  regularly  established  traffic, 
the  Egyptians  bringing  the  horses  to  a  mart  in  th« 
south  of  Palestine  and  handing  them  over  to  the 
Hebrew  dealers  at  a  fixed  tariff.  The  price  of  a 
horse  was  fixed  at  150  shekels  of  silver,  and  that 
of  a  chariot  at  600 ;  in  the  latter  we  must  include 
the  horses  (for  an  Egyptian  war-chariot  was  of  no 
great  value)  and  conceive,  as  liefore,  that  three 
horses  accompanied  each  chariot,  leaving  the  value 
of  the  chariot  itself  at  150  shekels.  In  addition  to 
this  source  of  supply,  Solomon  received  horses  by 
way  of  tribute  (1  K.  x.  25).  The  force  was  main- 
tained by  the  succeeding  kings,  and  frequent  notices 
occur  both  of  riding  horses  and  chariots  (2  K.  ix. 
21,  33,  xi.  16),  and  particularly  of  war-chariots  (1 
K.  xxii.  4;  2  K.  iii.  7;  Is.  ii.  7).  The  force  seems 
to  have  failed  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  (2  K.  xvili. 
23)  in  Judah,  as  it  had  previously  in  Israel  under 
Jehoahaz  (2  K.  xiii.  7).  The  number  of  horses 
belonging  to  the  Jews  on  their  return  from  Baby- 
lon is  stated  at  736  (Neh.  vii.  68). 

In  the  countries  adjacent  to  Palestine,  the  us* 
of  the  horse  was  much  more  frequent.  It  was  in- 
troduced into  Egypt  probably  by  the  Hyksos,  as  it 
is  not  represented  on  the  monuments  before  the 
18th  dynasty  (Wilkinson,  i.  386,  abridgm.).  At 
the  period  of  the  Exodus  horses  were  abundant 
there  (Gen.  xlvii.  17,  1.  9 ;  Ex.  ix.  3,  xiv.  9,  23 ; 
Deut.  xvii.  16),  and  subsequently,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  they  were  able  to  supply  the  nations 
of  Western  Asia.  The  Jewish  kings  sought  the 
assistance  of  the  Egyptians  against  the  Assyrians 
in  this  respect  (Is.  xxxi.  1,  xxxvi.  8;  Ez.  xvii.  15). 
The  Canaanites  were  possessed  of  them  (Deut.  xx. 
1;  Josh.  xi.  4;  Judg.  iv.  3,  v.  22,  28),  and  like- 
wise the  Syrians  (2  Sam.  viii.  4 ;  1  K.  xx.  1 ;  2  K. 
vi.  14,  vii.  7,  10)  —  notices  which  are  confirmed  by 
the  pictorial  representations  on  Eg}'ptian  monu- 
ments (Wilkinson,  i.  393,  397,  401),  and  by  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  relating  to  S}Tian  expeditions. 
But  the  cavalry  of  the  Assyrians  themselves  and 
other  eastern  nations  was  regarded  as  most  formid- 
able; the  horses  themselves  were  highly  bred,  as  the 
Assyrian  sculptures  still  testify,  and  fully  merited 
the  praise  bestowed  on  them  by  Habakkuk  (i.  8), 
"  swifter  than  leopards,  and  more  fierce  than  the 
evening  wolves;"  their  riders  "clothed  in  blue, 
captains  and  rulers,  all  of  them  desirable  young 
men  "  (Ez.  xxiii.  6),  armed  with  "  the  bright  sword 
and  glittering  sjjear  "  (Nah.  iii.  3),  made  a  deep 
impression  on  the  Jews,  who,  plainly  clad,  went  on 
foot ;  as  also  did  their  regular  array  as  they  pro- 
ceeded in  couples,  contrasting  with  the  disorderly 
troops  of  asses  and  camels  which  followed  with  the 
baggage  (Is.  xxi.  7,  receb  in  this  passage  signifying 
rather  a  train  than  a  single  chariot).  The  numbCT 
employed  by  the  eastern  potentates  was  very  great, 
Holofernes  possessing  not  less  than  12,000  (Jud.  ii. 
15).  At  a  later  period  we  have  frequent  notices 
of  the  cavalry  of  the  Grseco-Syrian  monarchs  (1 
Mace.  i.  17,  iii.  39,  Ac). 

With  regard  to  the  trappings  and  management 
of  the  horse,  we  have  little  information;  the  bridle 
{resen)  was  placetl  over  the  horse's  nose  (Is.  xxx. 
28),  and  a  bit  or  curb  {metheg)  is  also  noticed  (3 
K.  xix.  28;  Ps.  xxxii.  9:  Prov.  xxvi.  3;  Is.  xxxvii 
29 ;  in  the  A.  V.  it  is  incorrectly  given  "  bridle,'' 
with  the  exception  of  Ps.  xxxii.).     The  hanie«  of 


HORSE-GaTB 

ibe  Assyrian  horses  was  profusely  decorated? ,  the 
bits  being  gilt  (1  Esdr.  iii.  6),  and  the  bridles 
wJonied  with  tassels;  on  the  neck  was  a  collar 
terminating  in  a  bell,  as  described  by  Zechariah 
(xiv.  20).  Saddles  were  not  used  until  a  late  period; 
only  one  is  represented  on  the  Assyrian  sculptures 
(Layard,  ii.  357).  The  horses  were  not  shod,  and 
therefore  hoofs  as  hard  "as  flint"  (Is.  v.  28)  were 
regarded  as  a  great  merit.  The  chariot-horses  were 
covered  with  embroidered  trappings  —  the  "  pre- 
cious clothes"  manufactured  at  Dedan  (F^.  xxvii. 
20):  these  were  fastened  by  straps  and  buckles,  and 
to  this  perhaps  reference  is  made  in  Pro  v.  xxx.  31, 
hi  the  teim  znrfir,  "one  girded  about  the  loins" 
(A.  V.  "greyhound").  Thus  adorned,  Mordecai 
rode  in  state  through  the  streets  of  Shushan  (Esth. 
vi.  9).  White  horses  were  more  particularly  ap- 
propriate to  such  occasions,  as  being  significant  of 
victory  (Rev.  vi.  2,  xix.  11,  14).  Horses  and 
chariots  were  used  also  in  idolatrous  processions, 
AS  noticed  m  regard  to  the  sun  (2  K.  xxiii.  11). 

W.  L.  B. 


HOSANNA 


1098 


Trappings  of  Assyrian  horse.  (Layard  ) 
*  HORSE-GATE.  [Jerusalem.] 
HORSELEECH  (njl^b^.,  'dlukdh :  ^de\- 
A.o:  sanguisuga)  occurs  once  only,  namely,  Prov. 
txx.  15,  "'The  horseleech  hath  two  daughters,  cry- 
ing. Give,  give."  There  is  little  if  any  doubt  that 
^dlukdk  denotes  some  species  of  leech,  or  rather  is 
the  generic  term  for  any  bloodsucking  annelid,  such 
AS  Ilirwh)  (the  medicinal  leech),  Hcemopis  (the 
horseleech),  Liinnntis,  Trochetia,  and  Aulnstoma, 
if  all  these  genera  are  found  in  the  marshes  and 
pools  of  the  Bible-lands.  Schultens  ( Comment,  in 
Prov.  1.  c.)  and  Bochart  {Hieroz.  iii.  785)  have 
indeavored  to  show  that  'alukdh  is  to  be  understood 
o  signify  "  fate,"  or  "  impending  misfortune  of 
*ny  kind"  {fatum  unicuique  impendens);  they 
TDfer  the  Hebrew  term  to  the  Arabic  \iluk,  res 
appensa,  affixa  homini.      The  "two  daughters" 

are  explained  by  Bochart  to  signify  Hades  ( v"1Stt7) 
and  the  grave,  which  are  never  satisfied.  This  ex- 
^anation  is  certainly  very  ingenious,  but  where  is 
he  necessity  to  appeal  to  it,  when  the  important 
i>ld  versions  are  opposed  to  any  such  interpretation  ? 
The  bloodsucking  leeches,  such  as  Hirudo  and 
Hi£mf)pis,  wer3  without  a  doubt  known  to  the 
Ancient  Hebrews,  and  as  the  leech  has  been  for 
Iges  the  emblem  of  rapacity  and  cruelty,  there  is 
oo  WMon  to  doubt  that  this  annelid  is  denoted  by 


^dlukdh.  The  Arabs  to  this  day  Jeiominate  the 
Limnatis  Nilotica,  ^cdak.  As  to  the  expression 
"two  daughters,"  which  has  been  by  some  writers 
absurdly  explained  to  allude  to  "  the  double  tongue  " 
of  a  leech  —  this  animal  having  no  tongue  at  all  — 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  figurative,  and  is 
intended,  in  the  language  of  oriental  hjperbole,  to 
denote  its  bloodthirsty  propensity,  evidenced  by  the 
tenacity  w'th  which  a  leech  keeps  its  hold  on  the 
skin  (if  llirvdo)^  or  mucous  membrane  (if  Ilcemoins). 
Com  p.  Horace,  Ep.  ad  Pis.  476;  Cicero,  Kp.  ad 
Atticwn,  i.  16;  Plautus,  I'Jpid.  act  iv.  sc.  4.  The 
etymology  of  the  Hebrew  word,  from  an  unused 
root  which  signifies  "  to  adhere,"  is  eminently  suited 
to  a  "leech."  Gesenius  (TAes.  p.  1038)  remhids 
us  that  the  Arabic  \duk  is  explained  in  Camus  by 
ghid,  "  a  female  monster  like  a  vampire,  which 
sucked  human  blood."  The  passage  in  question, 
however,  has  simply  reference  to  a  "  leech."  The 
valuable  use  of  the  leech  (Hirudo)  in  medicine, 
though  undoubtedly  known  to  Pliny  and  the  later 
Koman  writers,  was  in  all  probability  unknown  to 
the  ancient  Orientals  ;  still  they  were  doubtless 
acquainted  with  the  fact  that  leeches  of  the  above 
named  genus  would  attach  themselves  to  the  skin 
of  persons  going  barefoot  in  ponds ;  and  they  also 
probably  were  cognizant  of  the  propensity  horse- 
leeches (Hcemopis)  have  of  entering  the  mouth  and 
nostrils  of  cattle,  as  they  drink  from  the  waters 
frequented  by  these  pests,  which  are  common  enough 
in  Palestine  and  Syria.  W.  H. 

HO'SAH  (nOn  lidace  of  refuge,  pro 
tection] :  [Rom.  'Ia<ri0,  Vat.  -(r€i(l);]  Alex.  Souca; 
[Aid.  5a)<ra;  Comp.  'nad:]  Hosa),  a  city  of  Asher 
(Josh.  xix.  29),  the  next  landmark  on  the  boundary 
to  Tyre.  G. 

HO'SAH  (npn  [as  above]  :  'Oad ;  [Vat 
Oaaa,  loo-tra;]  Alex.  n,(rr}e  and  naa'-  Ilosa),  a 
man  who  was  chosen  by  David  to  be  one  of  the 
first  doorkeepers  (A.  V.  "  porters  ")  to  the  ark  after 
its  arrival  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  xvi.  38).  He  was 
a  Merarite  Levite  (xxvi.  10),  with  "  sons  and 
brethren"  thirteen,  of  whom  four  were  certainly 
sons  (10,  11);  and  his  charge  was  especially  the 
"  gate  Shallecheth,"  and  the  causeway,  or  raised 

road  which  ascended  (16,   nVli^PT   HvOp), 

HOSAN'NA  i^aauud;  Heb.  S3  VWMl, 
"  Save,  we  pray;  "  acoa-ou  Stj,  as  Theophylact  cor- 
rectly interprets  it),  the  cry  of  the  multitudes  as 
they  thronged  in  our  Lord's  triumphal  procession 
into  Jerusalem  (Matt.  xxi.  9,  15;  Mar.  xi.  9,  10; 
John  xii.  13).  The  Psalm  from  which  it  was  taken, 
the  118th,  was  one  with  which  they  were  familiar 
from  being  accustomed  to  recite  the  25th  and  26th 
verses  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  On  that  occa- 
sion the  Great  Ilallel,  consisting  of  Psalms  cxiii.- 
cxviii.,  was  chanted  by  one  of  the  priests,  and  at 
certain  intervals  the  multitudes  joined  in  the 
responses,  waving  their  branches  of  willow  and 
palm,  and  shouting  as  they  waved  them,  Hallelujah, 
or  Hosanna,  or  "  0  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  send  now 
prosperity"  (Ps.  cxviii.  25).  This  was  done  at  the 
recitation  of  the  first  and  last  verses  of  Ps.  cxviii. ; 
hv*  according  to  the  school  of  Hillel,  at  the  wordi 
"Save  now,  we  beseech  thee"  (ver.  25).  The 
school  of  Shammai,  on  the  contrary,  say  it  was  at 
the  wxis  'Send  now  prosperity"  cf  the  same 
verse.  Rabban  Gamaliel  and  R.  Joshua  were  ot>- 
served  by  R.  Akiba  to  wave  their  branches  only  •! 


1094  HOSEA 

khe  words  "  Sare  now,  we  beseech  thee"  (Mishna, 
Huccah,  iii.  9).  On  each  of  the  seven  days  during 
which  the  feast  lasted  the  people  thronged  in  the 
court  of  the  Temple,  and  went  in  procession  about 
the  altar,  setting  their  boughs  bending  towards  it ; 
the  trumpets  sounding  as  they  shouted  Hosanna. 
But  on  the  seventh  day  they  marched  seven  times 
round  the  altar,  shouting  meanwhile  the  great 
Hosanna  to  the  sound  of  the  trumpets  of  the  Levites 
(Lightfoot,  Temple  Service,  xvi.  2).  The  very 
children  who  could  wave  the  palm  branches  were 
expected  to  take  part  in  the  solemnity  (Mishna, 
Succah,  iii.  15;  Matt.  xxi.  15).  From  the  custom 
of  waving  the  boughs  of  myrtle  and  willow  during 
the  service  the  name  Hosanna  was  ultimately  trans- 
ferred to  the  boughs  themselves,  so  that  according 
to  Elias  Levita  (Thisbi,  s.  v.),  "the  bundles  of  the 
willows  of  the  brook  which  they  carry  at  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  are  called  Hosannas."  The  term  is 
frequently  apphed  by  Jewish  writers  to  denote  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  the  seventh  day  of  the  feast 
being  distinguished  hs  the  great  Hosanna  (Buxtorf, 

Lex.  Talm.  s.  v.  VW^).  It  was  not  uncommon 
for  the  Jews  in  later  times  to  employ  the  observances 
of  this  feast,  which  was  preeminently  a  feast  of 
gladness,  to  express  their  feelings  on  other  occasions 
of  rejoicing  (1  Mace.  xiii.  51;  2  Mace.  x.  6,7),  and 
it  is  not,  therefore,  matter  of  surpri<v>  that  they 
should  have  done  so  under  the  circumstances 
recorded  in  the  Gospels.  W.  A.  W. 

HOSE'A  (^tJ?""in  \}itlp,deliverance,GGS.\  or, 
God  IS  help,  Fiirst] :  'Ho-Tje,  T-.XX. ;  'ncTjf ,  N.  T. 
[in  Tisch.  ed.  7,  but  'Cla-ne,  Flz.,  Lachm.] :  Osee), 
son  of  Beeri,  and  first  of  the  Minor  Prophets  as 
they  appear  in  the  A.  V.  The  name  is  precisely 
the  same  as  Hoshka,  which  is  more  nearly  equiv- 
alent to  the  Hebrew. 

Time.  —  This  question  must  be  settled,  as  far  as 
it  can  be  settled,  partly  by  reference  to  the  title, 
partly  by  an  inquiry  into  the  contents  of  the  book, 
(a.)  As  regards  the  title,  an  attempt  has  been  made 
to  put  it  out  of  court  by  representing  it  as  a  later 
addition  (Calmet,  Rosenmiiller,  Jahn).  But  it  can 
easily  be  shown  that  this  is  unnecessary ;  and  Eich- 
honi,  suspicious  as  he  ordinarily  is  of  titles,  lets 
that  of  Hosea  pass  without  question.  It  has  been 
most  unreasonably  inferred  from  this  title  that  it 
intends  to  describe  the  prophetic  life  of  Hosea  as 
extending  over  the  entire  reigns  of  the  monarchs 
whom  it  mentions  as  his  contemporaries.  Starting 
with  this  hypothesis,  it  is  easy  to  show  that  these 
reigns,  including  as  they  do  upwards  of  a  century, 
are  an  impossil)le  period  for  the  duration  of  a 
prophet's  ministry.  But  the  title  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  any  such  absurdity ;  and  interpreted 
in  the  light  of  the  prophecy  itself  it  admits  of  an 
obvious  and  satisfactory  Umitation.  For  the  begin- 
ning of  Hosea's  ministry  the  title  gives  us  the  reign 
of  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  hut  hmits  this  vague 
definition  by  reference  to  Jeroboam  II.,  king  of 
Israel.  The  title  therefore  gives  us  Uzziah,  and 
more  definitely  gives  us  Uzziah  as  contemporary 
with  Jeroboam ;  it  therefore  yields  a  date  not  later 
than  B.  c.  783.  The  question  then  arises  how 
much  further  back  it  is  possible  to  place  the  first 
public  appearance  of  Hosea.  To  this  question  the 
title  gives  no  answer ;  for  it  seems  evident  that  the 
only  reason  for  mentioning  Jeroboam  at  all  nay 
iuive  been  to  indicate  a  certain  portion  of  the  reign 
H  Uzziah.    {b.)  Accordingly  it  is  necessary  to  refer 


HOSEA 

to  the  contents  of  the  prophecy ;  and  in  ioing  tUi 
Eichhorn  has  clearly  shown  that  we  cannot  aliow 
Hosea  much  ground  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboaia 
(823-783).  The  book  contains  descriptions  which 
are  utterly  inapphcable  to  the  condition  of  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  during  this  reign  (2  K.  xiv.  25  IF.). 
The  pictures  of  social  and  political  life  which  Hosea 
draws  so  forcibly  are  rather  applicable  to  the  inter- 
regnum which  followed  the  death  of  Jeroboam 
(782-772),  and  to  the  reign  of  the  succeeding  kings. 
The  calhng  in  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  to  the  aid  of 
rival  factions  (x.  3,  xiii.  10)  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  strong  and  able  government  of  Jeroboam.  Nor 
is  it  conceivable  that  a  prophet  who  had  lived  long 
under  Jeroboam  should  have  omitted  the  mention 
of  that  monarch's  conquests  in  his  enumeration  of 
Jehovah's  kindnesses  to  Israel  (ii.  8).  It  seems 
then  almost  certain  that  very  few  at  least  of  his 
prophecies  were  written  until  after  the  death  of 
Jeroboam  (783). 

So  much  for  the  beginning ;  as  regards  the  end 
of  his  career  the  title  leaves  us  in  still  greater  doubt. 
It  merely  assures  us  that  he  did  not  prophesy  be- 
yond the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  But  here  again  the 
contents  of  the  book  help  us  to  reduce  the  vague- 
ness of  this  indication.  In  the  sixth  year  of  Heze- 
kiah the  prophecy  of  Hosea  was  fulfilled,  and  it  is 
very  improbable  that  he  should  have  permitted  this 
triumphant  proof  of  his  Divine  mission  to  pass 
unnoticed.  He  could  not  therefore  have  Uved  long 
into  the  reign  of  Hezekiah;  and  as  it  does  not 
seem  necessary  to  allow  more  than  a  year  of  each 
reign  to  justify  his  being  represented  as  a  contem- 
porary on  the  one  hand  of  Jeroboam,  on  the  other 
of  Hezekiah,  we  may  suppose  that  the  life,  or  rather 
the  prophetic  career  of  Hosea,  extended  from  784 
to  725,  a  period  of  fifty-nine  years. 

The  Hebrew  reckoning  of  ninety  years  (Corn,  k 
Lap.)  was  probably  limited  by  the  fulfillment  of  the 
prophecy  in  the  sixth  of  Hezekiah,  and  by  the  date 
of  the  accession  of  Uzziah,  as  apparently  indicated 
by  the  title:  809-720,  or  719  =  90  years. 

Place.  —  There  seems  to  be  a  general  impression 
among  commentators  that  the  prophecies  contained 
in  this  collection  were  delivered  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel,  for  whose  warning  they  were  principally 
intended.  Eichhorn  does  not  attempt  to  decide 
this  question  (iv.  28-i).  He  thinks  it  possible  that 
they  may  have  been  primarily  communicated  to 
Judali,  as  an  indirect  appeal  to  the  conscience  of 
that  kingdom ;  but  he  evidently  leans  toward  the 
opposite  supposition  that  having  been  first  pub- 
lished in  Israel  they  were  collected,  and  a  copy  sent 
into  Judah.  The  title  is  at  least  an  evidence  that 
at  a  very  early  period  these  prophecies  were  sup- 
posed to  concern  both  Israel  and  Judah,  and,  uulesg 
we  allow  them  to  have  been  transmitted  from  the 
one  to  the  other,  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  their 
presence  in  our  canon.  As  a  proof  of  their  northern 
origin  Eichhorn  professes  to  discover  a  Saniaritan- 

ism  in  the  use  of  "^S  as  masc.  suff.  of  the  second 
person. 

Tribe  and  Parentage.  —  Tribe  quite  unknown 
The  Pseudo-Epiphanius,  it  is  uncertain  upon  what 
ground,  assigns  Hosea  to  the  tribe  of  Issachar. 
His  father,  Beeri,  has  by  some  writers  been  con- 
founded with  Beerah,  of  the  tribe  of  Keuben  (*. 
Chr.  V.  6):  this  is  an  anachronism.  The  Jewish 
fancy  tnat  all  prophets  whose  birth-place  is  nof 
specified  are  to  be  refen-ed  to  Jerusalem  (R.  David 
Vatab.)  is  probably  nothing  more  than  a  fiwiCf 


I 


(Corn,  k  Lap.).  Of  his  father  Beeri  we  know 
ftbsolutely  nothing.  Allegorical  interpretations  of 
the  name,  marvelous  for  their  frivolous  ingenuity, 
have  been  adduced  to  prove  that  be  was  a  prophet 
(Jerome  ad  Zeph.  init. ;  Basil  ad  Is.  i. ) ;  but  they 
ai-e  as  little  trustworthy  as  the  Jewish  dogma, 
which  decides  that,  when  the  father  of  a  prophet  is 
mentioned  by  name,  the  individual  so  specified  was 
himself  a  prophet. 

Order  in  the  Prophetic  series.  —  INIost  ancient 
and  mediaeval  interpretators  make  Hosea  the  first 
of  the  prophets ;  their  great  argument  being  an  old 
reudering  of  i.  2,  according  to  which  "  the  begin- 
ning of  the  word  by  Hosea"  implies  that  the 
streams  of  prophetic  inspiration  began  with  him, 
as  distinct  from  the  other  prophets.  Modern  com- 
mentators have  rejected  this  interpretation,  and 
substituted  the  obvious  meaning  that  the  particular 
jH-ophecy  \fhich  follows  was  the  first  communicated 
by  God  to  Hosea.  The  consensus  for  some  time 
seems  to  have  been  for  the  third  place.  Wall  ( Ciit. 
Not.  0.  T.)  gives  Jonah,  Joel,  Hosea  ;  Home's 
Table  gives  Jonah,  Amos,  Hosea;  Gesenius  writes 
Joel,  Amos,  Hosea.  The  order  adopted  in  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Versions  is  of  little  consequence. 

In  short,  there  is  great  dilficulty  in  arranging 
these  prophets:  as  far  as  titles  go,  Amos  is  Hosea' s 
only  rival;  but  2  K.  xiv.  25  goes  far  to  show  that 
they  must  both  yield  to  Jonah.  It  is  perhaps  more 
important  to  know  that  Hosea  must  have  been 
more  or  less  contemporary  with  Isaiah,  Amos, 
Jonah,  Joel,  and  Nahum. 

Division  of  the  Book.  —  It  is  easy  to  recognize 
two  great  divisions,  which  accordingly  have  been 
generally  adopted :  (1.)  chap.  i.  toiii.;  (2.)  iv.  to 
end. 

The  subdivision  of  these  several  parts  is  a  work 
of  greater  difficulty:  that  of  Eichhoni  will  be  found 
to  be  based  upon  a  highly  subtle,  though  by  no 
means  precarious  criticism. 

(1.)  According  to  him  the  first  division  should 
be  subdivided  into  three  separate  poems,  each 
originating  in  a  distinct  aim,  and  each  after  its 
own  fashion  attempting  to  express  the  idolatry  of 
Israel  by  imagery  borrowed  from  the  matrimonial 
relation.  The  first,  and  therefore  the  least  elaborate 
of  these  is  contained  in  chap,  iii.,  the  second  in  i. 
2-11,  the  third  in  i.  2-9,  and  ii.  1-23.  These  three 
are  progressively  elaborate  developments  of  the  same 
reiterated  idea.  Chap.  i.  2-9  is  common  to  the 
second  and  third  poems,  but  not  repeated  with  each 
severally  (iv.  273  ff.).  (2.)  Attempts  have  been 
made  by  Wells,  Eichhorn,  etc.,  to  subdivide  the 
second  part  of  the  book.  These  divisions  are  made 
either  according  to  reigns  of  contemporary  kings, 
or  according  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  poem. 
The  former  course  has  been  adopted  by  Wells,  who 
gets  Jive^  the  latter  by  Eichhorn,  who  gets  sixteen 
poems  out  of  this  part  of  the  book. 

These  prophecies  —  so  scattered,  so  unconnected 
that  Bishop  Lowth  has  compared  them  with  the 
leaves  of  the  Sibyl  —  were  probably  collected  by 
Hosea  himself  towards  the  end  of  his  career. 

Hosea'' s  marriage  with  Gomer.  —  This  passage 
(i.  2  foil. )  is  the  vexatn  qucestio  of  the  book.  Of 
course  it  has  its  literal  and  its  allegorical  interpre- 
fers.  For  the  literal  view  we  have  the  majurity  of 
the  fathers,  and  of  the  ancient  and  mediaeval  com- 
mentators. There  is  some  little  doubt  about  Jer.  me, 
ifho  speaks  of  a  Jignrative  and  typical  interpreta- 
tion ;  but  he  evidently  means  the  word  typical  in 
l«  proper  sense  as  applied  to  a  factual  reality  fig- 


HOSEA  1095 

uratively  representative  of  something  else  ^Com.  k 
Lap.)  At  the  period  of  the  Reformation  th« 
allegorical  interpreters  could  only  boast  the  Chaldee 
Paraphrase,  some  fiew  Rabbins,  and  the  Hermeneutic 
school  of  Origen.  Soon  afterwards  the  theory  ob- 
tained a  vigorous  supporter  in  Junius,  and  more 
recently  has  been  adopted  by  the  bulk  of  modern 
commentators.  Both  views  are  embarrassed  by 
serious  inconveniences,  though  it  would  seem  that 
those  which  beset  the  literal  theory  ai'e  the  more 
formidable.  One  question  which  sprang  out  of  the 
literal  view  was  whether  the  connection  between 
Hosea  and  Gomer  was  matrriage,  or  fornication. 
Another  question  which  followed  immediately  upon 
the  preceding  was  "  an  Deus  possit  dispensare  ut 
fornicatio  sit  licita."  This  latter  question  was 
much  discussed  by  the  schoolmen,  and  by  the 
Thomists  it  was  avowed  in  the  affirmative.  But, 
notwithstanding  the  difficulties  besetting  the  literal 
interpretation,  Bishops  Horsley  and  Lowth  have 
declared  in  its  favor.  Eichhorn  sees  all  the  weight 
on  the  side  of  the  literal  interpretation,  and  shows 
that  marrying  a  harlot  is  not  necessarily  implied  by 

□"^Il^ST  iltL'S,  which  may  very  well  imply  a  wife 
who  after  marriage  becomes  an  adulteress,  though 
chaste  before.  In  favor  of  the  literal  theory,  he 
also  observes  the  unfitness  of  a  wife  unchaste  before 
marriage  to  be  a  type  of  Israel. 

References  in  N.  T.  —  Matt.  ix.  13,  xil.  7,  Hos. 
vi.  6;  Luke  xxiii.  30,  Rev.  vi.  16,  Hos.  x.  8;  Matt, 
ii.  15,  Hos.  xi.  1;  Rom.  ix.  25,  26,  1  Pet.  ii.  10, 
Hos.  i.  10,  u.  23;  1  Cor.  xv.  4,  Hos.  vi.  2  [?]; 
Heb.  xiii.  15,  Hos.  xiv.  2. 

Style.  —  «  Commaticus,"  Jerome.  "  Osea  quanto 
profundius  loquitur,  tan  to  operosius  penetratur," 
August.  Obscure  brevity  seems  to  be  the  charac- 
teristic quaUty  of  Hosea;  and  all  commentators 
agree  that  "  of  all  the  prophets  he  is,  in  point  of 
language,  the  most  obscure  and  hard  to  be  under- 
stood "  (Henderson,  Minor  Prophets,  p.  2).  Eich- 
horn is  of  opinion  that  he  has  never  been  adequately 
translated,  and  in  fact  could  not  be  translated  into 
any  European  language.  He  compares  him  to  a 
bee  flying  from  flower  to  flower,  to  a  painter  revel- 
ing in  strong  and  glaring  colors,  to  a  tree  that 
wants  pruning.  Horsley  detects  another  important 
specialty  in  pointing  out  the  excessively  local  and 
individual  tone  of  these  prophecies,  which  above  all 
others  he  declares  to  be  intensely  Jewish. 

Hosea's  obscurity  has  been  variously  accounted 
for.  Lowth  attributes  it  to  the  fact  that  the  extant 
poems  are  but  a  sparse  collection  of  compositions 
scattered  over  a  great  number  of  years  (Prcel.  xxi.) 
Horsley  (Pref.)  makes  this  obscurity  individual 
and  peculiar ;  and  certainly  the  heart  of  the  prophet 
seems  to  have  been  so  full  and  fiery  that  it  might 
well  burst  through  all  restraints  of  diction  (Eich- 
horn). T.  E.  B. 

*  That  Hosea  exercised  the  prophetic  office  in 
Israel,  and  in  all  probability  was  born  there  and 
not  in  Judah,  is  the  general  view  of  scholars  at 
present.  The  almost  exclusive  reference  of  his  mes- 
sages to  that  kingdom  is  a  sufficient  ground  for 
this  opinion:  for  the  prophets  very  seldom  after  the 
separation  of  the  ten  tribes  left  their  own  part  of 
<^.he  country  for  another,  as  appears  the  more 
aorongly  from  the  exceptional  character  which  the 
mission,  for  example,  of  Elijah  and  Amos  to  both 
kingdoms  is  repr^ented  as  having  in  their  respec 
tive  histories,  but  though  we  are  to  rely  on  thii 
as  the  main  argument,  we  may  concede  som«^U  iim 


1096 


HOSEA 


wO  other  considerations.  Hosea  shows,  undeniably, 
ft  special  familiarity  with  localities  in  the  territory 
of  Ephraim,  as  Gilead,  Mizpah,  Tabor,  Gibeah, 
Gilgal,  Beth-Aven,  Samaria,  and  others  (see  iv.  15, 
V.  18,  vi.  8,  X.  5,  7,  xii.  11,  &c.).  His  diction  also 
partakes  of  the  roughness,  and  here  and  there  of 
the  Aramaean  coloring,  of  the  north-Palestine 
writers.  For  a  list  of  words  or  forms  of  words 
more  or  less  peculiar  to  Hosea  see  Keil's  Einltiinng 
in  das  A.  T.  p.  27G.  Havernick  has  shown  that 
the  grounds  for  ascribing  to  him  a  south-Palestine 
extraction  are  wholly  untenable  (Jlandb.  der  Einl. 
in  das  A.  Test.  ii.  277  fF.).  It  may  excite  surprise, 
it  is  true,  that  Hosea  mentions  in  the  title  of  his 
book  (the  genuineness  of  which  there  is  no  reason 
for  doubting)  four  kings  of  Judah,  and  only  one 
of  Israel.  It  is  a  possible  explanation  of  this  that 
the  prophet  after  the  termination  of  his  more  public 
ministry  may  have  withdrawn  from  Ephraim  to 
Judah,  and  there  collected  and  published  his 
writings  (see  Bleek,  Einl.  in  das  A.  Test.  p.  523). 
Dr.  Pusey  finds  a  deeper  reason  for  this  preeminence 
given  to  the  Judsean  dynasty.  "  The  kingdom  of 
Judah  was  the  kingdom  of  the  theocracy,  the  line 
of  David  to  which  the  promises  of  God  were  made. 
As  Elisha  ....  turned  away  from  Jehoram  (2 
K.  iii.  13,  14)  saying  '  Get  thee  to  the  prophets 
of  thy  father  and  to  the  prophets  of  thy  mother,' 
and  owned  Jehoshaphat  king  of  Judah  only,  so  in 
the  titb  of  his  prophecy  Hosea  at  once  expresses 
that  the  khigdom  of  Judah  was  legitimate  "  {Hosea, 
p.  7).  The  book  at  all  events  was  soon  known 
among  the  people  of  Judah ;  for  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  did  not  continue  long  after  the  time  of  Hosea, 
and  Jeremiah  certainly  had  a  knowledge  of  Hosea, 
as  is  evident  from  various  expressions  and  illus- 
trations common  to  him  and  that  prophet.  (On 
this  latter  point  see  especially  Kueper,  Jeremias 
Libi:  Sacr.  Interpres  atque  Vindex,  pp.  67-71). 

No  portion  of  this  difficult  writer  has  occasioned 
so  much  discussion  as  that  relating  to  Hosea's 
marriage  with  Goraer,  "  a  wife  of  whoredoms  "  and 
the  names  of  the  children  Jezreel  and  Lo-ruhamah, 
the  fruit  of  that  marriage  (i.  2  fF.).  From  the 
earliest  period  some  have  maintained  the  literal 
and  others  the  figurative  interpretation  of  this  nar- 
rative. For  a  history  of  the  different  opinions,  the 
student  may  consult  Marck's  Diati-ibe  de  Uxore 
Foi'nicationum  qua  exponitur  fere  inieffimm  cop. 
i.  JIos€(e  (Leyden,  1696),  and  reprinted  in  his 
Comm.  in  XII.  Prophetas  Minm-es  (Tiibing.  1734). 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  transaction  can  be 
defended  on  grounds  of  moraUty,  if  it  be  understood 
fts  an  outward  one.  It  has  been  sa'd  that  when 
'  Scripture  relates  that  a  thing  was  done,  and  that 
.vith  the  names  of  persons,"  we  must  conclude  that 
it  is  "to  be  taken  as  literally  true."  The  principle 
thus  stated  is  not  a  correct  one :  for  in  the  parable 
acts  are  related  and  names  often  applied  to  the 
actors,  and  yet  the  literal  sense  is  not  the  t-)'ue  one. 
The  question  in  reality  is  not  whether  we  are  to 
accept  the  prophet's  meaning  in  this  instance,  but 
what  the  meaning  is  which  the  prophet  intended 
to  convey,  and  which  he  would  have  us  accept  as 
the  intended  meaning.  Further,  aside  from  this 
question  of  the  morahty  or  immorality  of  the  pro- 
ceeding, it  is  impossible  to  see  in  it  any  adaptation 
ko  the  prophet's  object  above  that  of  the  parabolic 
representation  of  a  case  assumed  for  the  purpose 
»f  iU'istration.  The  circumstances,  if  they  occurred 
lu  a  literal  sense,  must  extend  over  a  series  of  years : 
khej  tiuuld  have  been  known  to  the  people  only  by 


HOSEA 


the  prophet's  own  rehearsal  of  them,  ud 
could  have  had  the  force  only  of  his  own  persona, 
testimony  and  explanation  of  their  import.  Heng- 
stenberg  {Christoluyy,  i.  177,  Edinburgh,  1854 
has  stated  very  forcibly  the  manifold  difficulties 
exegetical  and  moral,  which  lie  against  our  suppos- 
ing that  Hosea  was  instructed  to  form  a  marriage 
so  disreputable  and  repulsive,  and  at  variance  with 
explicit  promulgations  of  the  Slosaic  code  (e.  y 
Lev.  xxi.  7).  At  the  same  time  this  writer,  while 
he  denies  that  the  marriage,  the  wife's  adultery 
and  the  birth  of  the  "children  of  whoredoms  "  (ii. 
4)  took  place  outwardly  and  literally,  maintains 
that  they  took  place  inwardly  and  actually  as  a  sort 
of  vision ;  thus  serving  to  impress  the  facts  more 
strongly  on  the  mind  and  enabling  him  to  desciibe 
them  with  greater  effect.  He  is  very  earnest  to 
make  something  of  the  difference  between  this  view 
and  that  of  a  symbohc  or  parabolic  use  of  marriage 
as  a  type  both  in  the  sacredness  of  its  relations  and 
the  criminality  of  its  violations  of  the  covenant 
between  Jehovah  and  his  people;  but  the  Ime  of 
distinction  is  not  a  very  palpable  one.  To  regard 
the  acts  as  mentally  performed  in  a  sense  different 
from  that  of  their  being  olyects  of  thought  simply, 
would  be  going  altogether  too  far.  The  idea  of  the 
ingenious  writer  may  be  that  the  vision,  which  is 
subjective  as  distinguished  from  an  outward  occur- 
rence, is  at  the  same  time  objective  to  the  prophet 
as  that  which  he  inwardly  beholds.  Prof.  Cowles 
offers  two  or  three  suggestions  to  relieve  this  diffi- 
cult question  of  some  of  its  embarrassment  (ac- 
cording to  the  literal  theory)  in  his  Minor  Prophets, 
pp.  3,  4,  413-415. 

Dr.  Pusey  assigns  70  years  to  the  period  oi 
Hosea's  ministry.  He  draws  a  fearful  picture  of  the 
corruption  of  the  times  in  which  the  prophet  lived, 
derived  partly  from  Hosea's  own  declarations,  and 
partly  from  those  of  his  contemporary,  Amos.  "  The 
course  of  iniquity  had  been  run.  The  stream  had 
become  darker  and  darker  in  its  downward  flow.  .  .  . 
Every  commandment  of  God  was  broken,  and  that, 
habitually.  All  was  falsehood,  athiltery,  blood- 
shedding;  deceit  to  God  produced  fiiithlessness  to 
man ;  excess  and  luxury  were  supplied  by  secret  or 
open  robbery,  oppression,  false  deahng,  perversion 
of  justice,  grinding  of  the  poor.  Blood  was  shed 
like  water,  until  one  stream  met  another,  and  over- 
spread the  land  with  one  defihng  deluge.  Adultery 
was  consecrated  as  an  act  of  religion.  Those  who 
were  first  in  rank  were  first  in  excess.  People  and 
king  vied  in  debauchery,  and  the  sottish  king  joined 
and  encouraged  the  free-thinkers  and  blasphemers 
of  his  court.  The  idolatrous  priest  loved  and  shared 
in  the  sins  of  the  people;  nay,  they  seem  to  hav6 
set  themselves  to  intercept  those  on  either  side  of 
Jordan,  who  would  go  to  worship  at  Jerusalem, 
laying  wait  to  murder  them.  Corruption  had 
spread  throughout  the  whole  land ;  even  the  places 
once  sacred  through  (Jod's  revelations  or  other 
mercies  to  their  forefathers.  Bethel,  Gilgal,  Gilead, 
Mizpah,  Shecheni,  were  especial  scenes  of  corruption 
or  of  sin.  Every  holy  memory  was  effaced  by 
present  corruption.  Could  things  be  worse?  There 
was  one  aggravation  more  Remonstrance  was  use- 
less:  the  knowledge  of  God  was  willfully  rejected 
the  people  hated  rebuke;  the  more  they  were  called, 
the  more  they  refused :  they  forbade  their  prophets 
to  prophesy:  and  their  false  prophets  hated  God 
greatly.  All  attempts  to  heal  all  this  disease  onlj 
showed  its  hicurableness  "  {f/a^en,  p.  3). 

The  same  writer  traces  the  obs  :urity  Tihich  mxD.} 


HOSEA 

-ttve  found  in  Hosea,  to  the  «'  solemn  pathos  "  for  [ 
nrhich  he  is  distinguished.  The.  expression  of  St. 
Jerome  has  often  been  repeated ;  "  Hosea  is  concise, 
jind  speaketh,  as  it  were,  in  detache/?  sayings." 
The  words  of  upbraiding,  of  judgmert,  of  woe, 
hurst  out,  as  it  were,  one  by  one,  slowly,  heavily, 
condensed,  abrupt,  from  the  prophet's  heavy  and 
shrinking  soul,  as  God  commanded  and  constrained 
liira,  and  put  His  words,  like  fire,  in  the  prophet's 
mouth.  An  image  of  Him  who  said,  '  0  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and 
Btonest  them  which  are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often 
would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together,  even 
as  a  hen  gathers  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and 
ye  would  not,'  he  delivers  his  message,  as  though 
each  sentence  burst  with  a  groan  from  his  soul, 
and  he  had  anew  to  take  breath,  before  he  uttered 
each  renewed  woe.  I'iach  verse  forms  a  whole  for 
itself,  like  one  heavy  toll  in  a  funeral  knell.  The 
prophet  has  not  been  careful  about  order  and  sym- 
metry, so  that  each  sentence  went  home  to  the  soul. 
And  yet  the  unity  of  the  prophecy  is  so  evident 
in  the  main,  that  we  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  not 
broken,  even  when  the  connection  is  not  apparent 
on  the  surface.  The  great  difficulty  consequently 
in  Hosea  is  to  ascertain  that  coimection  in  places 
where  it  evidently  exists,  yet  where  the  Prophet 
has  not  explained  it.  The  easiest  and  simplest 
sentences  are  sometimes,  in  this  respect,  the  most 
difficult." 

Literature.  —  Some  of  the  helps  have  been  inci- 
dentally noticed  in  the  addition  which  precedes.  See 
under  Amos  and  Habakkuk  for  the  more  im- 
portant general  works  which  include  Hosea.  Of 
the  separate  works  on  this  prophet  the  following 
may  be  mentioned :  Pocock,  the  celel^rated  orien- 
talist and  traveller,  Comment,  on  Hosea.,  1085; 
Manger,  Comment,  in  ffoseam,  1782,  perhaps  un- 
equaled  for  the  tact  and  discrimination  with 
which  he  unfolds  the  spirit  and  religious  teachings 
of  the  prophet;  Kuinoel,  Iloseoi  Oracula  Hebr.  et 
Lat.  Annotatione  illustravlt^  17!)2;  Bishop  Horsley, 
Hosea,  translated  from  the  Hebrew,  with  Notes 
explanatory  and  critical,  2d  ed.,  Lond.  ISOi;  J.  C. 
Stuck.  Hosea s  Propheta  :  Jntroductionem  prcemislt, 
rertit,  commentatus  est,  1828,  who  regards  the 
symboUc  acts  in  chaps,  i.  and  iii.  as  real  events  or 
ficts;  Simson,  Der  Prophet  Hosea  erkldrt  u. 
iibersetzt,  with  a  copious  history  of  the  interpreta- 
tion, 1851;  Drake,  JVotes  on  Hosea,  Canibr.  (Eng.), 
1853;  and  August  Wiinsche,  Der  Prophet  Hosea 
iihersetzt  u.  erkldrt,  1868  (erste  Hiilfte,  as  far  as 
chap.  vii.  G.  pp.  i.-xxxii.  and  1-288),  in  which  he 
lias  made  special  use  of  the  Targums,  and  of  the 
Jewish  interpreters  Kashi,  Aben  Ezra,  and  David 
Kimchi.  Dr.  Pusey's  Commentary)  on  this  prophet 
(in  pt.  i.  of  his  Minor  Prophets)  deserves  to  be 
characterized  as  learned,  devout,  and  practical.  It 
co»)tains  passages  of  great  beauty  and  suggestive- 
ness.  In  his  pages  Hosea  still  lives,  and  his  teach- 
ings are  for  our  times  as  well  as  for  his  own.  All 
that  is  Jewish  is  not  found  in  Judaism,  nor  all 
that  is  heathenish  found  in  heathendom. 

Liibkert  {Symbolische  Handlung  Hosea''s  in  the 
Theol  Stud.  n.  KHt.,  1835,  pp.  647-656)  main- 
';«ins  the  parabolic  view  of  the  Gomer-marriage 
question.  Umbreit's  article  Hosea  (Herzog's  Real- 
Knoyk.  \\.  267-275)  is  to  some  extent  exegetical  as 
Tell  as  biographical.  Stanley's  interesting  sketch 
y>rtray8  Hosea  as  "  the  Jeremiah  of  Israel "  and 
*  ths  only  individual  character  that  stands  out 
unidft  the  darkness  of  .  .      nearly  the  wh^le  of 


HOSHEA  1097 

the  last  century  of  the  northern  kingdom  "  (/etrtiA 
Church,  ii.  409  f.). 

The  Christology  of  Hosea  is  not  without  diffi- 
culties. One  passage  only,  namely,  that  foretelling 
the  conversion  of  the  heathen  (ii.  23  and  comp.  1 
10)  is  cited  in  the  IS.  T.  as  explicitly  Messianic 
(Kom.  ix.  25;  1  Pet.  ii.  10).  But  it  is  a  falsi 
principle  of  interpretation  that  only  those  portions 
of  the  0.  T.  refer  to  Christ  which  are  expressly 
recognized  as  having  that  character  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  N.  T.  writers  represent  the  Re- 
deemer as  the  great  subject  of  the  ancient  economy; 
and  if  only  those  types  and  predictions  relate  to 
him  which  are  cited  and  applied  in  that  manner, 
it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  can 
justly  have  ascribed  to  them  such  a  character  of 
predominant  reference  to  the  Christian  economy. 
In  regard  to  such  Gospel  prophecies  in  Hosea,  the 
reader  may  consult  (in  addition  to  the  Com- 
mentaries) Hengstenberg's  Christology  of  the  0. 
T.  i.  158-285  (Edinb.  ed.)  ;  Hofmann's  Weis- 
snyung  u.  Erfiillung,  i.  206  f.;  Tholuck's  Die 
Propheten  u.  ihre  Weissagungen,  pp.  193,  197, 
206;  and  StiiheUn's  Die  Messianischen  Weissa- 
gungen des  A.  T.  p.  35  ff. 

All  these  writers  do  not  recognize  the  same  pas- 
sages as  significant,  nor  the  same  as  significant  in 
the  same  degree.  H. 

*  HOSEN  (plural  of  hose)  Dan.  iii.  21  (A.  V.^ 
is  the  translation  of  a  Chaldee  word  which  signifies 
tunics  [Dress,  p.  624  a].  Hosen  formerly  denoted 
any  covering  for  the  legs,  short  trowsers  or  trunk- 
hose  as  well  as  stockings.  See  examples  of  this 
usage  in  Eastwood  and  Wright's  Bible  [Vo7-d-Book, 
p.  257.  '  H. 

HOSHA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (n;^ty*in  [ivhom 
Jehovah  saved] :  Osaias).  1.  Cricrata.)  A  man  who 
assisted  in  the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem 
after  it  had  been   rebuilt  by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xii. 

32).  He  led  the  princes  (**T?ti7)  of  Judah  in  the 
procession,  but  whether  himself  one  of  them  we  aw 
not  told. 

2.  (Maao-aias;  [Alex.  Maaatas;  FA.i  Avvavias, 
Mao-eas.]  The  father  of  a  certain  Jezaniah,  or 
Azariah,  who  was  a  man  of  note  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  {3er.  xlii.  1, 
xhii.  2). 

HOSH'AMA  (3?att;^n  [whom  Jehovah 
hears]:  'ClaafidO'i  [Vat.  -fiuO  (]  Alex,  laxrafid] 
[Comp.  'n,aaij.d:]  Sama),  one  of  the  sons  of  Je- 
coniah,  or  Jehoiachin,  the  last  king  of  Judah  but 
one  (1  Chr.  iii.  18).  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that, 
in  the  narrative  of  the  capture  of  Jeconiah  by 
Nebuchadnezzar,  though  the  mother  and  the  wiven 
of  the  king  are  mentioned,  nothing  is  said  about 
his  sons  (2  K.  xxiv.  12,  15).  In  agreement  with 
this  is  the  denunciation  of  him  as  a  chUdless  man 
in  Jer.  xxii.  30.  There  is  good  reason  for  suspect- 
ing some  confusion  in  the  present  state  of  the 
genealogy  of  the  royal  family  in  1  Chr;  iii. ;  and 
these  facts  would  seem  to  confirm  it. 

HOSHE'A  (^tiJ'irT  [help,  or  God  is  help: 
see  Fiirst]  :  'no-Tje':  Osee),  the  nineteenth,  last,  and 
best  king  of  Israel.  He  succeeded  Pekah,  whom 
he  slew  in  a  successful  conspiracy,  thereby  fulfilling 
a  proph'vy  of  Isaiah  (Is.  vii.  16).  Although 
Jjspphus  "alls  Hoshea  a.  friend  oi  Pekah  (^jAoi 
Tivdy  iirilSouXevcravTOS  ahrS,  Ant.  ix.  13,  §  1), 
we  hav9  no  grr*'nd  for  calling  this-  '*  a  treacheroai 


1098  HOSHEA 

mnrder  "  (Prideaux,  i.  16).  It  took  place  b.  c. 
737,  "in  the  20th  year  of  Jotham  "  (2  K.  xv.  30), 
i.  €.  "  in  the  20th  year  after  Jotham  became  sole 
king,"  for  he  only  reigned  16  years  (2  K.  xv.  33). 
But  there  must  have  been  an  interregnum  of  at 
least  eight  years  before  Hoshea  came  to  the  throne, 
which  was  not  till  n.  c.  729,  in  the  12th  year  of 
Ahaz  (2  K.  xvii.  1 :  we  cannot,  with  Clericus  [Le 
Clerc],  read  4th  for  12th  in  this  verse,  because  of 
2  K.  xviii.  9),  This  is  the  simplest  way  of  recon- 
ciling the  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  pas- 
sages, and  has  been  adopted  by  Ussher,  Des  Yig- 
noies,  riele,  etc.  (Winer,  s.  v.  Iloseas).  The  other 
methods  suggested  by  Hitzig,  Lightfoot,  etc.,  are 
mostly  untenable  (Keil  on  2  K.  xv.  30). 

It  is  expressly  stated  (2  K.  xvii.  2)  that  Hoshea 
was  not  so  sinful  as  his  predecessors.  According 
to  the  liabbis  this  superiority  consisted  in  his  re- 
moving from  the  frontier  cities  the  guards  placed 
there  by  his  predecessors  to  prevent  their  subjects 
from  worshijiping  at  Jerusalem  (Seder  Olavi  Rabba. 
cap.  22,  quoted  by  Prideaux,  i.  16),  and  in  his  not 
hindering  the  Israelites  from  accepting  the  invita- 
tion of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxx.  10),  nor  checking 
their  zeal  against  idolatry  {ib.  xxxi.  1).  This  en- 
comium, however,  is  founded  on  the  untenable  sup- 
position that  Hezekiah 's  passover  preceded  the  fall 
of  Samaria  [Hezekiah],  and  we  must  be  content 
with  the  general  fact  that  Hoshea  showed  a  more 
theocratic  spirit  than  the  former  kings  of  Israel. 
The  compulsory  cessation  of  the  calf-worship  may 
have  removed  his  gi-eatest  tem[)tation,  for  Tiglath- 
Pileser  had  carried  off  the  golden  calf  from  Dan 
some  years  before  {Sed.  01.  Rab.  22),  and  that  at 
Bethel  was  taken  away  by  Shalmaneser  in  his  first 
invasion  (2  K.  xvii.  3;  II os.  x.  l-i;  Prideaux,  /-  c). 
But,  whatever  may  have  been  his  excellences,  he 
still  "did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,"  and  it 
was  too  late  to  avert  retribution  by  any  improve- 
ments. 

In  the  third  year  of  his  reign  (b.  c.  726)  Shal- 
maneser, impelled  probably  by  mere  thirst  of  con- 
quest, came  against  him,  cruelly  stormed  the  strong 
caves  of  Betb-arbel  (Hos.  x.  14),  and  made  Israel 
tributary  (2  K.  xvii.  3)  for  three  years.  At  the 
end  of  this  period,  encouraged  perhaps  by  the  revolt 
of  Hezekiah,  Hoshea  entered  into  a  secret  aUiance 
with  So,  king  of  Egypt  (wiio  was  either  the  Seuex*'^ 
of  Manetho,  and  son  of  2a)3a/ca»s,  Herod,  ii.  137 ; 
Keil,  Vitringa,  Gesenius,  etc.;  Jahn,  Ilebi:  Com. 
§  xl. ;  or  else  Sabaco  himself,  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg. 
i.  139;  Ewald,  Gesch.  iii.  610),  to  throw  off  the 
Assyrian  yoke.  The  alliance  did  him  no  good ;  it 
was  revealed  to  the  court  of  Nineveh  by  the  Assyr- 
ian party  in  Ephraim,  and  Hoshea  was  immediately 
seized  a.i  a  rebellious  vassal,  shut  up  in  prison,  and 
apparently  treated  with  the  utmost  indignity  (Mic. 
?.  1).  If  this  happened  before  the  siege  (2  K. 
I  n\.  4),  we  must  account  for  it  either  by  supposing 
tuat  Hoshea,  hoping  to  dissemble  and  gain  time, 
had  gone  to  Shalmaneser  to  account  for  his  con- 
hict,  or  that  he  had  been  defeated  and  taken  pris- 
iner  in  some  unrecorded  battle.  That  he  disap- 
peared very  siiddeidy,  Hke  "  foam  upon  the  water," 
we  may  infer  from  Hos.  xiii.  11,  x.  7.  The  siege 
of  Samaria  lasted  three  years ;  for  that  "  glorious 
and  beautiful "  city  was  strongly  situated  like  "  a 
crown  of  pride"  among  her  hills  (Is.  xxviii.  1-5). 
Durinf^  the  course  of  the  siege  Shalmaneser  must 
have  died,  for  it  is  certain  that  Samaria  was  taken 
oy  his  successor  Sargon,  who  thus  laconically  de- 
icribes  the  event  in  his  annals :  "  Samaria  I  looked 


HOSPITALITY 

at,  I  captured ;  27,280  men  (families  ?)  who  dwell 
in  it  I  carried  away.  I  constructed  fifty  cbarioU 
in  their  country  ...  I  appointed  a  governor  ovef 
them,  and  continued  upon  them  the  tribute  of  th 
former  people"  (Botta,  145,  11,  quoted  by  Dr 
Hincks,  Journ.  of  Sacr.  Lit.  Oct.  1858;  Layard. 
Nin.  and  Bab.  i.  148).  This  was  probably  b.  c. 
721  or  720.  For  the  future  history  of  the  unhappy 
Ephraim  ites,  the  places  to  which  they  were  trans- 
planted by  the  policy  of  their  conqueror  and  his 
officer,  "  the  great  and  noble  Asnapper  "  (Ezr.  iv. 
10),  and  the  nations  by  which  they  were  superseded, 
see  Samaria.  Of  the  subsequent  fortunes  of 
Hoshea  we  know  nothing.  He  came  to  the  throne 
too  late,  and  governed  a  kingdom  torn  to  pieces  by 
foreign  invasion  and  intestine  broils.  Sovereign 
after  sovereign  had  fallen  by  the  dagger  of  the 
assassin;  and  we  see  from  the  dai'k  and  terrible 
delineations  of  the  contemporary  prophets  [Hosea, 
MiCAH,  Isaiah],  that  murder  and  idolatry,  drunk- 
enness and  lust,  had  eaten  like  "  an  incurable 
wound"  (Mic.  i.  9)  into  the  inmost  heart  of  the 
national  morality.  Ephraim  was  dogged  to  its  ruin 
by  the  apostate  policy  of  the  renegade  who  had 
asserted  its  independence  (2  K.  xvii.;  Joseph.  Ant. 
ix.  14 ;  Prideaux,  i.  15  ff. ;  Keil,  On  Kings,  ii.  50  ff., 
Engl.  ed. ;  Jahn,  Hebr.  Com.  §  xl. ;  Ewald,  Gesch. 
iii.  607-613;  Rosenmiiller,  Bihl.  Geogr.  chap,  ix., 
Engl,  transl.;  Pawlinson,  Herod,  i.  149). 

F.  W.  F. 

HOSHE'A  {VW'yn=help  [see  above]).  The 
name  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  the  prophet 
known  to  us  as  IIoSE.v.  1.  The  son  of  Nun,  t.  e. 
Joshua  (Deut.  xxxii.  44;  and  also  in  Num.  xiii.  8, 
though  there  the  A.  V.  has  Oshea).  It  was  prob- 
ably his  original  name,  to  which  the  Divine  name 
of  Jab  was  afterwards  addefl  —  Jehoshua,  Joshua  — 
"  Jehovah's  help."  The  LXX.  in  this  passage 
miss  the  distinction,  and  have  ^Irjaovs  •  Vu^. 
Josue. 

2.  ('Ho-^:  Osee.)  Son  of  Azaziah  (1  Chr.  xxvii. 
20);  like  his  great  namesake,  a  man  of  Ephraim, 
ruler  {nagid)  of  his  tribe  in  the  time  of  king 
David. 

3.  Cno-??/;  [Vat.  FA.  no-rj^a:]  Osee.)  One 
of  the  heads  of  the  "  people  "  —  t.  e.  the  laymen  — 
who  sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x. 
23). 

HOSPITALITY.  The  rites  of  hospitality  are 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  customs  prevailing  in 
the  entertainment  of  guests  [Food;  Meals],  and 
from  the  laws  and  practices  relating  to  charity, 
almsgiving,  etc.;  and  they  are  thus  separately 
treated,  as  far  as  possil)le,  in  this  article. 

Hospitality  was  regarded  by  most  nations  of  the 
ancient  world  as  one  of  the  chief  virtues,  and 
especially  by  peoples  of  the  Semitic  stock ;  but  that 
it  was  not  characteristic  of  the  latter  alone  is  amply 
shown  by  the  usages  of  the  (ireeks,  and  even  the 
Romans.  Kace  undoubtedly  influences  its  exercise, 
and  it  must  also  be  ascribed  in  no  small  degree  to 
the  social  state  of  a  nation.  Thus  the  desert  tribes 
have  always  placed  the  \irtue  higher  in  their  esteem 
than  the  townsfolk  of  the  same  descent  as  them- 
selves ;  and  in  our  own  day,  though  an  Arab  towns- 
man is  hospitable,  he  entertains  different  notions  on 
the  subject  from  tlie  Arab  of  the  desert  (the  Bed- 
awee).  The  former  has  fewer  opjxirtunities  of 
showing  his  hospitality ;  and  when  he  does  so,  h« 
does  it  not  as  much  with  the  feeling  of  discharging 
an  obligatory  act  as  a  social  and  civiliced  duty 


HOSPITALITY 

With  the  advance  of  civilization  the  calls  of  hoa- 
pitality  become  less  and  less  urgent.  The  dweller 
m  the  wilderness,  however,  finds  the  entertainment 
of  wayfarers  to  be  a  part  of  his  daily  life,  and  that 
to  refuse  it  is  to  deny  a  common  humanity.  Viewed 
in  this  light,  the  notions  of  the  Greeks  and  the 
Romans  must  be  appreciated  as  the  recognition  of 
the  virtue  where  its  necessity  was  not  of  the  urgent 
character  that  it  possesses  in  the  more  primitive 
lands  of  the  Kast.  The  ancient  Egyptians  resembled 
the  Greeks ;  but,  with  a  greater  exclusiveness,  they 
limited  their  entertainments  to  their  own  country- 
men, being  constrained  by  the  national  and  priestly 
Abhorrence  and  dread  of  foreigners.  This  exclusion 
throws  some  obscurity  on  their  practices  in  the  dis- 
charge of  hospitality ;  but  otherwise  their  customs 
in  the  ent  ertaiument  of  guests  resembled  those  well 
known  to  ^'.issical  scholars  —  customs  probably  de- 
rived in  a  great  measure  from  Egypt. 

While  hospitality  is  acknowledged  to  have  been 
a  wide-spread  virtue  in  ancient  times,  we  must  con- 
cede that  it  flourished  chiefly  among  the  race  of 
Shem.  The  0.  T.  abounds  with  illustrations  of  the 
divine  command  to  use  hospitality,  and  of  the 
strong  national  belief  in  its  importance;  so  too 
the  writings  of  the  N.  T. ;  and  though  the  Eastern 
Jews  of  modern  times  dare  not  entertain  a  stranger 
lest  he  be  an  enemy,  and  tlie  long  oppression  they 
have  endured  has  begotten  that  greed  of  gain  that 
has  made  their  name  a  proverb,  the  ancient  hospi- 
tality still  lives  in  their  hearts.  The  desert,  how- 
ever, is  yet  free;  it  is  as  of  old  a  howling  wilder- 
ness; and  hospitality  is  as  necessary  and  as  freely 
given  as  in  patriarchal  times.  Among  the  Arabs 
we  find  the  best  illustrations  of  the  old  Bible  nar- 
ratives, and  among  them  see  traits  that  might 
beseem  their  ancestor  Al)raham. 

The  laws  respecting  strangers  (Lev.  xix.  -33,  34) 
and  the  poor  (Lev.  xxv.  14  ff;;  Deut.  xv.  7),  and 
concerning  redemption  (Lev.  xxv.  23  fF.),  et^;..  are 
framed  in  accordance  with  tlie  spirit  of  hospitality ; 
and  the  strength  of  the  national  feeling  regarding 
it  is  shown  in  the  incidental  mentions  of  its  prac- 
tice. In  the  I^aw,  compassion  to  strangers  is  con- 
stantly enforced  by  the  words,  "  for  ye  were  stran- 
gers in  the  land  of  I'^gypt "  (as  Lev.  xix.  34).  And 
before  the  Law,  Abraham's  entertainment  of  the 
*ngels  (Gen.  xviii.  1  ff.),  and  lx)t's  (xix.  1),  are  in 
exact  agreement  with  its  precepts  and  with  modern 
usage.  So  Moses  was  received  by  Jethro,  the  priest 
of  Midian,  who  reproached  his  daughters,  though 
he  believed  him  to  be  an  Egyptian,  saying,  "  And 
where  is  he?  why  is  it  [that]  ye  have  left  the 
man?  call  hira,  that  he  may  eat  bread"  (Ex.  ii. 
20).  The  story  of  Joseph's  hospitality  to  his 
brethren,  although  he  knew  them  to  be  such,  ap- 
pears to  be  narrated  as  an  ordinary  occurrence ;  and 
in  like  manner  Pharaoh  received  Jacob  with  a  lib- 
erality not  merely  dictated  by  his  relationship  to 
the  savior  of  Egypt.  Like  Abraham,  "Manoah 
friid  unto  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  I  pray  thee  let  us 
detain  thee  until  we  shall  have  made  ready  a  kid 
for  thee"  (Judg.  xiii.  15);  and  like  Lot,  the  old 
man  of  Gibeah  sheltered  the  Levite  when  he  saw 
him,  "  a  wayfaring  man  in  the  street  of  the  city : 
ind  the  old  man  said,  AVhither  goest  thou  ?  and 


a  *  We  see  here  why  the  inhospitality  of  the  Sa- 
«aarltans  excited  such  fierce  indignation  in  the  two 
llsciples,  James  and  John  (Luke  ix.  52  ff).  Jesws 
lent  them  at  the  close  of  the  dxy  into  one  of  the  Sa- 
vasltan  Tillages  to  procure  a  night's  lodging  for  him ; 


HOSPITALITY  1099 

whence  comest  thou  ?  .  .  Peace  be  with  thee, 
howsoever  [let]  all  thy  wants  [lie]  upon  me;  only 
lodge  not  in  the  street.  So  he  brought  him  into 
his  house,  and  gave  provender  unto  the  asses ;  and 
they  washed  their  feet,  and  did  eat  and  drink" 
(Judg.  xix.  17,  20,  21). 

In  the  N.  T.  hospitality  is  yet  more  markedly 
eryoined ;  and  in  the  more  civilized  state  of  society 
which  then  prevailed,  its  exercise  became  more  a 
social  virtue  than  a  necessity  of  patriarchal  life.* 
The  good  Samaritan  stands  for  all  ages  as  an  ex- 
ample of  Christian  hospitality,  embodying  the  com- 
mand to  love  one's  neighbor  as  himself;  and  our 
Lord's  charge  to  the  disciples  strengthened  that 
command :  "  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  me, 
and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent 
me.  .  .  .  And  whosoever  shall  give  to  drink  unto 
one  of  these  little  ones  a  cup  of  cold  water  [only], 
in  the  name  of  a  disciple,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  ho 
shall  in  nowise  lose  his  reward "  (Matt.  x.  42). 
The  neglect  of  Christ  is  symbolized  by  inhospitality 
to  our  neighbors,  in  the  words,  "  I  was  a  stranger 
and  ye  took  me  not  in"  (Matt.  xxv.  43).  The 
Apostles  urged  the  church  to  "  follow  after  hospi 
tality,"  using  the  forcible  words  tV  (f>i\o^eviai' 
SidKovTis  (Kom.  xii.  13;  cf.  1  Tim.  v.  10);  to 
remember  Abraham's  example,  "  Be  not  forgetful  tc 
entertain  strangers,  for  thereby  some  hava  enter- 
tained angels  unawares"  (Heb.  xiii.  2);  to  "use 
hospitality. one  to  another  without  grudging"  (1 
Pet.  iv.  9);  while  a  bishop  must  be  a  "lover  of 
hospitality"  (Tit.  i.  8,  cf.  1  Tim.  iii.  2).  The 
practice  of  the  early  Christians  was  in  accord  with 
these  precepts.  They  had  all  things  in  common, 
and  their  hospitality  was  a  characteristic  of  their 
belief. 

If  such  has  been  the  usage  of  Biblical  times,  it 
is  in  the  next  place  importajit  to  remark  how  hos- 
pitality was  shown.  In  the  patriarchal  ages  we 
may  take  Abraham's  example  as  the  most  fitting, 
as  we  have  of  it  the  fullest  account;  and  by  the 
light  of  Arab  custom  we  may  see,  without  obscu- 
rity, his  hasting  to  the  tent  door  to  meet  his  guests, 
with  the  words,  "  My  lord,  if  now  I  have  found 
favor  in  thy  sight,  pass  not  away,  I  pray  thee,  from 
thy  servant :  let  a  little  water,  I  pray  you,  be  fetched, 
and  wash  your  feet,  and  rest  yourselves  under  the 
tree,  and  1  will  fetch  a  morsel  of  bread,  and  com- 
fort ye  your  hearts."  "  And,"  to  continue  the 
narrative  in  the  vigorous  language  of  the  A.  V., 
"  Abraham  hastened  into  the  tent  unto  Sarah,  and 
said.  Make  ready  quickly  three  measures  of  fine 
meal,  knead  [it],  and  make  cakes  upon  the  hearth. 
And  Abraham  ran  unto  the  herd,  and  fetched  % 
calf  tender  and  good,  and  gave  [it]  mito  a  young 
man,  and  he  hasted  to  dress  it.  And  he  took  but- 
ter and  milk,  and  the  calf  which  he  had  dressed, 
and  set  [it]  before  them ;  and  he  stood  by  them 
under  the  tree,  and  they  did  eat."  A  traveller  in 
the  eastern  desert  may  see,  through  the  vista  of 
ages,  this  far-off  example  in  its  living  traces.  Mr. 
Lane's  remarks  on  this  narrative  and  the  general 
subject  of  this  article  are  too  apposite  to  be  omitted : 
he  says,  "  Hospitality  is  a  virtue  for  which  the  na- 
tives of  the  East  in  general  are  highly  and  de- 
servedly admired;    and  the  people  of  Egypt  are 


but  the  people  refused  to  receive  hun,  becau.se  he  waj 
journeying  to  Jerusalem.  This  act  was  not  an  in- 
^ivilit"-  merely,  or  an  inhumanity  :  it  was  an  outrag* 
again)*-  one  of  the  most  sacred  of  the  recognized  l»"vi 
of  or'«*ntal  society.  H 


1100  HOSPITALITY 

wrell  entitled  to  commendation  on  this  account.  A 
word  which  signifies  literally  '  a  person  on  a  jour- 
ney '  (musafir)  is  the  term  most  commonly  em- 
ployed in  this  country  in  the  sense  of  a  visitor  or 
guest.  There  are  very  few  persons  here  who  would 
think  of  sitting  down  to  a  meal,  if  there  was  a 
stranger  in  the  house,  without  inviting  him  to  par- 
take of  it,  unless  the  latter  were  a  menial,  in  which 
case  he  would  he  invited  to  eat  with  the  servants. 
It  would  be  considered  a  shameful  violation  of  good 
manners  if  a  Muslim  abstained  from  ordering  the 
table  to  be  prepaied  at  the  usual  time  because  a 
visitor  happened  to  be  present.  Persons  of  the 
middle  classes  in  this  country  [Egypt],  if  living  in 
%  retired  situation,  sometimes  take  their  supper 
before  the  door  of  their  house,  and  invite  every 
passenger  of  respectable  appearance  to  eat  with 
them."  This  is  very  commonly  done  among  the 
lower  orders.  In  cities  and  large  towns  claims  on 
hospitality  are  unfrequent,  as  there  are  many  we- 
kdlehs  or  khans,  where  strangers  may  obtain  lodg- 
ing ;  and  food  is  very  easily  procured :  but  in  the 
villages  travellers  are  often  lodged  and  entertained 
by  the  Sheykh  or  some  other  inhabitant;  and  if 
the  guest  be  a  person  of  the  middle  or  higher 
classes,  or  even  not  very  poor,  he  gives  a  present  to 
the  host's  servants,  or  to  the  host  himself.  In  the 
desert,  however,  a  present  is  seldom  received  from 
a  guest.  By  a  Sunneh  law  a  traveller  may  claim 
entertainment,  of  any  i)erson  able  to  afford  it  to 
him,  for  three  days.  The  account  of  Abraham's 
entertaining  the  three  angels,  related  in  the  Bible, 
presents  a  perfect  picture  of  tlie  manner  in  which  a 
modem  Bedawee  sheykh  receives  travellers  arriving 
at  his  encampment.  He  immediately  orders  his 
wife  or  women  to  make  bread,  slaughters  a  sheep 
or  some  other  animal,  and  dresses  it  in  haste,  and 
bringing  milk  and  any  other  provisions  that  he  may 
have  ready  at  hand,  with  the  bread  and  the  meat 
which  he  has  dressed,  sets  tliem  before  his  guests. 
If  these  be  persons  of  high  rank,  he  stands  by 
them  while  they  eat,  as  Abraham  did  in  the  case 
above  alluded  to.  Most  Bedawees  will  suffer  al- 
most any  injury  to  themselves  or  their  families 
rather  than  allow  their  guests  to  be  ill-treated  while 
under  their  protection.  There  are  Arabs  who  even 
regard  the  chastity  of  their  wives  as  not  too  pre- 
cious to  be  sacrificed  for  the  gratification  of  their 
guests  (see  Burckhardt's  iVo^es  on  the  Bedouins, 
etc.,  8vo  ed.  i.  179,  180);  and  at  an  encampment 
of  the  Bishareen,  I  ascertained  that  there  are  many 
persons  in  this  great  tribe  (which  inhabits  a  large 
portion  of  the  desert  between  the  Nile  and  the  Red 
Sea)  who  offer  their  unraamed  daughters  (cf.  Gen. 
iix.  8;  Judg.  xix.  24)  to  their  guests,  merely  from 
motives  of  hospitality,  and  not  for  hire"  {Mod. 
Egyjjt.  ch.  xiii.).  Mr.  I^ne  adds  that  there  used 
to  be  a  very  numerous  class  of  persons,  called  Tu- 
feylees,  who  lived  by  spunging,  presuming  on  the 
well-known  hospitality  of  their  countrymen,  and 
going  from  house  to  house  where  entertainments 
were  being  given.     The  Arabs  along  the  Syrian 


a  "  It  If  said  to  have  been  a  custom  of  some  of  the 
Bftrmekees  (the  family  so  renowned  for  their  gene- 
rosity) to  keep  open  house  during  the  hours  of  meals, 
»ni  to  allow  no  one  who  applied  at  such  times  for  ad- 
mission to  be  repulsed"  (Lane's  Tliousand  and  One 
Nights,  ch.  V.  note  97> 

b  The  time  of  entertainment,  according  to  the  pre- 
cept of  Mohammed,  is  three  days,  and  he  permitted  a 
g-aeat  *o  take  this  right  by  force ;  although  one  day 
liBd  one  nij^t  is  the  period  of  the  host's  being  "  kind  " 


HOSPITALITY 

frontier  usually  pitch  the  sheykh's  tent  towardi  Uh 
west,  that  is,  towards  the  fhhabited  country,  to  in 
vite  passengers  and  lodge  them  on  their  way  (Burck> 
hardt's  Notes  on  the  Bedouins,  etc.,  8vo  ed.  i.  33), 
it  is  held  to  be  disgraceful  to  encamp  in  a  place  out 
of  the  way  of  ti-avellers ;  and  it  is  a  custom  of  the 
Bedawees  to  hght  fires  in  their  encampments  to 
attract  travellers,  and  to  keep  dogs  who,  besides 
watching  against  robbers,  may  in  the  night-time 
guide  M'ayfarers  to  their  tents.  Hence  a  hospitable 
man  is  proverbially  called  "  one  whose  dogs  bark 
loudly."  *>  Approaching  an  encampment,  the  trav- 
eller often  sees  several  horsemen  coming  towards 
him,  and  striving  who  shall  be  first  to  claim  him 
as  a  guest.  The  favorite  national  game  of  the 
Arabs  before  El-Islam  illustrates  their  hospitality. 
It  was  called  "  Meysir,"  and  was  played  with  arrows, 
some  notched  and  others  without  marks.  A  young 
camel  was  bought  and  killed,  and  divided  into  21 
portions;  those  who  drew  marked  arrows  had  shares 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  notches ;  those  who 
drew  blanks  paid  the  cost  of  the  camel  among  them. 
Neither  party,  however,  ate  of  the  flesh  of  the 
camel,  which  was  always  given  to  the  poor,  and 
"  this  they  did  out  of  pride  and  ostentation,"  says 
Sale,  "it  being  reckoned  a  shame  for  a  man  to 
stand  out,  and  not  venture  his  money  on  such  an 
occasion."  Sale,  however,  is  hardly  philosophical 
in  this  remark,  which  concerns  only  the  abuse  of  a 
practice  originally  arising  from  a  national  virtue: 
but  Mohammed  forbade  the  game,  with  all  other 
games  of  chance,  on  the  plea  that  it  gave  rise  to 
quarrels,  etc.  (Sale's  Preliminary  Discourse,  p.  96, 
ed.  1836,  and  Kur-dn,  ch.  ii.  and  v.). 

The  oriental  respect  for  the  covenant  of  bread 
and  salt,  or  salt  alone,  certainly  sprang  from  the 
high  regard  in  which  hospitality  was  held.  Even 
accidentally  to  taste  another's  salt  imposes  this 
obligation ;  and  to  so  great  an  extent  is  the  feehng 
carried  that  a  thief  has  been  known  to  give  up  his 
booty  in  obedience  to  it.  Thus  El-Leys  Es-Saffiir, 
when  a  robber,  left  his  booty  in  the  passage  of  the 
royal  treasury  of  Sijistan ;  accidentally  he  stumbled 
over,  and,  in  the  dark,  tasted  a  lump  of  rock-salt : 
his  respect  for  his  covenant  gained  his  pardon,  and 
he  became  the  founder  of  a  royal  dynasty  (Lane's 
Thousand  and  One  Nights,  ch.  xv.  note  21).  The 
Arab  peculiarity  was  carried  into  Spain  by  the  so- 
called  Moors. 

For  the  customs  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  in 
the  entertainment  of  guests,  and  the  exercise  of 
hospitality  generally,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
Dictionary  of  Antiquities,  art.  Ilosjntinm.  They 
are  incidentally  illustrated  by  passages  in  the  N.  T., 
but  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  those  sc 
derived,  and  the  native  oriental  customs  which, 
as  we  have  said,  are  ^"ery  similar.  To  one  of  the 
customs  of  classical  antiquity  a  reference  is  sup- 
posed to  exist  in  Rev.  ii.  17:  "To  him  that  over- 
cometh  will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  hidden  manna,  and 
will  give  him  a  white  stone,  and  in  the  stone  a 


to  him  {Mishkat  el-Musabeeh,  ii.  329,  cited  in  Lane^c 
Tliousand  and  One  Nights,  Intr.  note  13).  Bnrck 
hardt  (Notes  on  the  Bedouins,  etc.,  i.  178,  179,  cite: 
in  the  same  note)  says  that  a  stranger  without  finendL 
in  a  camp  alights  at  the  first  tent,  where  the  wome* 
in  the  absence  of  the  owner,  provide  for  his  refiresh 
ment.  After  tlie  lapse  of  three  days  and  four  hours 
he  must,  if  he  would  avoid  censure,  either  assist  ii 
household  duties,  or  claim  hospitality  at  arathv 
tent 


HOST 

MMT  name  written,  which  no  man  knoweth,  saviug 
he  that  receiveth  [it].'*  E.  S.  P. 

*  HOST  (Luke  x.  35).    [Hospitality  ;  L\n.] 

*  HOSTAGE.  The  piactice  of  giving  and 
receiving  persons,  to  be  retained  as  security  for  the 
observance  of  public  treaties  or  engagements,  is 
indicated  in  2  Kings  xiv.  14,  and  2  Chr.  xxv.  24. 
It  is  said  there  that  Joash  after  his  victory  over  Ani- 

aziah  took  with  him  hostages  (mZin37rin  ^3S) 
upon  his  return  to  his  own  kingdom.     D.  S.  T. 

HO'THAM  (anin  [slynet^lngy.  XwOdy, 
Alex.  [Aid.]  Xcaddfj,'  Hotham),  a  man  of  Asher; 
son  of  Heber,  of  the  family  of  ISeriah  (1  Chr.  vii. 
32). 

HO'THAN  in'i^^,  L  e.  Hotham:  XwOdix; 
[Vat.]  Alex.  XwQaV,  [FA.  K(a9ap(]  Hotham),  a 
man  of  Aroer,  father  of  Shama  and  Jehiel,  two  of 
the  heroes  of  David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  44).  The 
Bubstitution  of  Hothan  for  Hotham  is  an  error 
which  has  been  retained  from  the  edition  of  IGll 
[following  the  Bishops'  Bible]  till  now.  (Comp. 
the  rendering  of  the  LXX.  both  of  this  and  the 
preceding  name.) 

HO'THIR  (~l"^n*"in  [fullness]  :  'aeyjpl; 
Vat.  ae-npei,  H0et;]  Alex.  iMedipi,  [UOipi:] 
Othir),  the  13th  son  of  Heman  "the  king's 
seer"  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4),  and  therefore  a  Kohathite 
Levite.  He  had  the  charge  of  the  twenty-first 
course  of  the  musicians  in  the  service  of  the  tab- 
ernacle (xxv.  28). 

*  Some  think  that  this  name  and  the  names  of 
four  of  Henian's  other  sons  (Giddalti,  Romamti- 
ezer,  JNIallothi,  Hothir,  Mahazioth)  formed  a  verse 
of  some  ancient  prophetic  saying.  They  follow 
each  other  in  the  list,  1  Chr.  xxv.  4  (except  the 
omission  of  Joshbekashah),  so  as  to  make  this 
couplet :  — 

I  haye  magnified  and  exalted  help  ; 
I  have  declared  ia  abundance  visions. 

FUrst  says  (Hebr.  u.  Chald.  Worterb.  i.  244), 
that  the  rhythm  of  the  words  favors  this  view. 
Ewald  refers  to  this  case  as  a  remarkable  illustra- 
tion of  the  use  of  significant  or  symboUc  personal 
names  among  the  Hebrews  {Lehrbuch  der  Htbr. 
Sprache,  p.  502,  S'e  Ausg.).  [Names,  Amer.  ed.] 
It  should  be  said  that  according  to  this  theory  ezei' 
belongs  to  both  the  preceding  verbs,  and  makes  of 
them  two  compound  names,  instead  of  one,  as  in 
the  A.  V.  ■  H. 

*  HOUGH  (Josh.  xi.  6,  9;  2  Sam.  viii.  4)  is 
an  obsolete  word  from  the  Anglo-Saxon  hoh,  and 
means  to  hamstring,  i.  e.  to  cut  the  back  sinews, 
and  thus  disable  animals.  H. 

HOUR  CnVW,  ^nVW,  Chald.).  This  word 
is  first  found  in  Dan.  iii.  6,  iv.  19,  33,  v.  5 ;  and 
t  occurs  several  times  in  the  Ajwcrypha  (Jud.  xiv. 
i,  2  Esdr.  ix.  44).  It  seems  to  be  a  vague  expres- 
sion for  a  short  period,  and  the  frequent  pLrase 
"in    the   same   hour"    means    "  imnjediately "  : 

aence  we  find  n^t??3,  substituted  in  the  Targura 

for  ^3'n?»  "in  a  moment"  (Num.  xvi.  21,  &c.). 
'Slpa  ia  frequently  used  in  the  same  way  by  the 
}Si.  T  writers  (Matt.  viii.  13;  Luke  xii.  39,  &c.). 


HOUK  1101 

I  It  occurs  in  the  LXX.  as  a  rendering  for  yarioui 
words  meaning  time,  just  as  it  does  in  Greek  wri- 
ters long  before  it  acquired  the  specific  meaning  of 
our  word  "hour."  Saah  is  still  used  in  Arabic 
both  for  an  hour  and  a  moment. 

The  ancient  Hebrews  were  probably  unacquainted 
with  the  division  of  the  natural  day  into  24  parts. 
The  general  distinctions  of  "  morning,  evening,  and 
noonday  "  (Ps.  Iv.  17).  were  sufficient  for  them  at 
first,  as  they  were  for  the  early  Greeks  (Hom.  7/. 
xxi.  Ill)  ;  afterwards  the  Greeks  adopted  five 
marked  periods  of  the  day  (Jul.  Pollux,  Onom.  i. 
68;  Dio  Chrysost.  Oral.  ii.  de  Glor.),  and  the 
Hebrews  parcelled  out  the  period  between  sunr'se 
and  sunset  into  a  series  of  minute  divisions  distin- 
guished by  the  sun's  course  [Day],  as  is  still  done 
by  the  Arabs,  who  have  stated  forms  of  prayers  for 
each  period  (Lane's  Mod.  Eg.  i.  ch.  3). 

The  early  Jews  appear  to  have  divided  the  day 
into  four  parts  (Neh.  ix.  3),  and  the  night  into 
three  watches  (Judg.  vii.  19)  [Day;  Watches], 
a:id  even  in  the  N.  T.  we  find  a  trace  of  this  di- 
vision in  Matt.  xx.  1-5.  There  is  however  no 
proof  of  the  assertion,  sometimes  made,  that  &pfx 
in  the  Gospels  may  occasionally  nfean  a  space  of 
three  hours. 

I'he  Greeks  adopted  the  division  of  the  day  into 
12  hours  from  the  Babylonians  (Herod,  ii.  109; 
comp.  Rawlinson,  Herod,  ii.  p.  334).  At  what 
period  the  Jews  became  first  acquainted  with  this 
way  of  reckoning  time  is  unknown,  but  it  is  gen- 
erally supposed  that  they  too  learnt  it  from  the 
Babylonians  during  the  Captivity  (Waehner,  Ant. 
Hehr.  §  v.  i.  8,  9).  They  may  have  had  some  such 
division  at  a  much  earlier  period,  as  has  been  in- 
ferred from  the  fact  that  Ahaz  erected  a  sun-dial 
in  Jerusalem,  the  use  of  which  had  probably  been 
learnt  from  Babylon.  There  is  however  the  great- 
est uncertainty  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 

nibl?^  (A.  V.  "degrees,"  Is.  xxxviii.  8). 
[Dial.]  It  is  strange  that  tne  Jews  were  not 
acquainted  with  this  method  of  reckoning  even 
earlier,  for,  although  a  purely  conventional  one,  it 
is  naturally  sugg'^sted  by  the  months  in  a  year. 
Sir  G.  Wilkinson  thinks  that  it  arose  from  a  less 
obvious  cause  (Rawlinson,  Herod,  ii.  334).  In 
whatever  way  originated,  it  was  known  to  the 
Egyptians  at  a  very  early  period.  They  had  12 
hours  of  the  day  and  of  the  night  (called  Nau  = 
hour),  each  of  which  had  its  own  genius,  drawn 
with  a  star  on  its  head.  The  word  is  said  by  Lep- 
sius  to  be  found  as  far  back  as  the  5th  dynasty 
(Kawlhison,  Herod,  ii.  135). 

There  are  two  kinds  of  hours,  namely,  (1.)  thp 
astronomical  or  equinoctial  hour,  i.  e.  the  24th  part 
of  a  civil  day,  which  although  "  known  to  astrono- 
mers, was  not  used  in  the  affairs  of  common  Ufa 
till  towards  the  end  of  the  4th  lentury  of  the  Chris- 
tian era"  {Diet,  of  Ant.  s.  v.  Ho7-a):  and  (2.)  tha 

natural  hour  (which  the  Rabbis  called  HT^^QT 
KaipiKui  or  temporales),  i.  e.  the  12th  part  of  thf 
natural  day,  or  of  the  tinie  between  sunrise  and 
sunset.  These  are  the  hours  meant  in  the  N.  T., 
Josephus,  and  the  Rabbis  (John  xi.  9,  &c. ;  Jos. 
Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  3),  and  it  must  be  remembered  that 
they  perpetually  vary  in  length,  so  as  to  be  very 
different  at  different  times  of  the  year.  Besides 
this,  an  hour  of  the  iay  would  always  mean  a  dif- 
ferent length  of  time  from  an  hour  of  the  night, 
except  at  the  equinox.     From  the  consequent  var 


1102 


HOUR 


oertainty  of  the  term  vhere  arose  the  proverbial 
expression  "  not  all  hours  are  equal "  (K.  Joshua 
ap.  Carpzov,  Apj).  Crit.  p.  345).  At  the  equinoxes 
the  third  hour  would  correspond  to  9  o'clock;  the 
sixth  would  always  be  at  noon.  To  find  the  exact 
time  meant  at  other  seasons  of  the  year  we  must 
know  when  the  sun  rises  in  Palestine,  and  reduce 
the  hours  to  our  reckoning  accordingly.  [Day.] 
(Winer,  s.  v.  Tacj,  Uhren ;  Jahn,  Avdi.  Bibl. 
§  101.)  What  horoiogic  contrivances  the  Jews 
[wssessed  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  is  uncertain ;  but 
we  may  safely  suppose  that  they  had  gnomons, 
dials,  and  clepsydrae,  all  of  which  had  long  been 
known  to  the  Persians  and  other  nations  with  whom 
they  had  come  in  contact.  Of  course  the  two  first 
were  inaccurate  and  uncertain  indications,  but  the 
water-clock  by  ingenious  modifications,  according 
to  the  season  of  the  year,  became  a  very  tolerable 
assistance  in  marking  time.     Mention  is  also  made 

of  a  curious  invention  called  ni7U^  "'I"'??)  by 
which  a  figure  was  constructed  so  as  to  drop  a  stone 
into  a  brazen  basin  every  hour,  the  sound  of  which 
was  heard  for  a  great  distance  and  announced  the 
time  (Otho,  Lex.  Rab.  a.  v.  Ilora). 

For  the  purposes  of  prayer  the  old  division  of 
the  day  into  4  portions  was  continued  in  the  Tem- 
ple service,  as  we  see  from  Acts  ii.  15,  iii.  1,  x.  9. 
The  Jews  supposed  that  the  3d  hour  had  been  con- 
secrated by  Abraham,  the  6th  by  Isaac,  and  the 
9th  by  Jacob  (Kimchi;  Schoettgen,  Hor.  Hebr. 
on  Acts  iii.  1).  It  is  probable  that  the  canonical 
hours  observed  by  the  Romanists  (of  which  there 
are  8  in  the  24)  are  derived  from  these  Temple 
hours  (Godwyn,  Moses  aiid  Aar.  iii.  9). 

The  Rabbis  pretend  that  the  hours  were  divided 
into  1080  D^pbn  (minutes),  and  56,848  D'^^3"1 
(seconds),  which  imtnbers  were  chosen  because  they 
are  so  easily  divisible  (Gem.  Hier.  Beracoth,  2,  4, 
b  Reland  Aiit.  Hebr.  iv.  1,  §  19).         F.  W.  F. 

*  Besides  the  various  points  mentioned  above 
as  forming  the  beginning  of  the  day,  from  which 
the  hours  were  reckoned,  Pliny  testifies  (//.  N.  ii. 
79)  that  among  the  Romans  the  official,  religious, 
and  civil  day  was  reckoned  from  midnight  to  mid- 
night. His  words  are :  "  Ipsum  diem  alii  aliter 
observavere  .  .  .  vulgus  onme  a  luce  ad  tenebras : 
gacerdotes  Romani,  et  qui  diem  diffiiiiere  civilem, 
item  iEgyptii,  et  Hipparchus,  a  media  nocte  in 
mediam."  To  the  same  purpose  also  Aulus  Gel- 
lius  (Noct.  Alt.  iii.  2):  "  Populum  autera  Roma- 
lum  ita,  uti  VaiTO  dixit,  dies  singulos  adnuraerare 
a  media  nocte  ad  mediam  proximam  multis  argu- 
mentis  ostenditur."     He  then  gives  Varro's  proofs. 

If  the  passages  in  St.  John's  Gospel  relating  to 
the  hour  of  the  day  be  all  examined,  it  will  appear 
probable  that  he  adopted  this  official  Roman  reck- 
oning, —  of  course,  numbering  the  hours  from 
midday  as  well  as  from  midnight,  so  as  not  to 
exceed  the  number  twelve.  In  i.  40  the  visit  of  the 
disciphs  to  Jesus  will  thus  have  occurred  about  10 
i.  »i.  instead  of  at  4  p.  m.  as  often  supposed,  and 
this  seems  more  agreeable  to  the  statement  "  they 
abode  with  him  that  day."  In  iv.  6  the  same 
mode  of  reckoning  brings  Jesus,  "  wearied  with 
his  journey,"  to  the  well  of  Samaria  at  six  in  the 
evening,  a  time  when  the  woman  would  naturally 
acme  to  draw  water,  instead  of  at  noon.  So  in  iv. 
53  this  computation  makes  "the  seventh  hour" 
when  the  fever  left  the  nobleman's  son,  seven  instead 
if  one  p.  M.,  which  agrees  better  with  the  circum- 


HOUSB 

stances  and  the  probable  distance  betwwD  CftOf 
and  Capernaum. 

The  only  remainuig  passage  is  xix.  14,  the  re- 
lation of  which  to  Mark  xv.  25  has  been  so  much 
questioned.  Here,  too,  this  method  of  reckoning 
removes  the  seeming  discrepancy,  while  the  whole 
course  of  the  narrative  in  all  the  Evangelists  shows 
that  the  time  indicated  by  St.  John  as  that  when 
Pilate  sat  upon  his  judgment- seat,  could  not  have 
been  later  than  between  six  and  seven  in  the  morn- 
ing —  "  about  the  sixth  hour."  After  this,  the 
events  which  followed  —  the  further  ineffectual  cp- 
position  and  fuial  yielding  of  Pilate  to  the  will  of 
the  Jews,  the  leadmg  of  Jesus  out  to  Golgotha 
after  takhig  off  his  mock  royal  array,  etc.,  the  prep- 
aration for  the  crucifixion,  and  the  crucifixion  it- 
self, must  have  consumed  the  two  hours  or  more 
until  our  nine  o'clock,  called  by  St.  Mark,  accord- 
ing to  Jewish  usage,  "  the  third  hour."  For  a  list 
of  the  older  writers  who  adopt  this  view,  see  Wol- 
fius,  Curce  Phil,  on  John  xix.  14.  Olshausen  (who 
seems  to  prefer  for  himself  a  conjectural  emenda- 
tion of  the  text)  yet  well  observes,  "  With  this 
hypothesis  admirably  accords  the  fact  that  John 
wrote  for  the  people  of  Asia  Minor"  — a  remark 
which  appUes  to  all  the  passages  above  cited  from 
his  Gospel.  F.  G. 

HOUSE  (n")5  :  oJkos:  domus;  Chald.  n^3, 
to  pass  the  nighty  Ges.  Thes.  191  6),  a  dweUing 
in  general,  whether  hterally,  as  house,  tent,  palace, 
citadel,  tomb;  derivatively,  as  tabernacle,  temple, 
heaven;  or  metaphorically,  as  family.  Although 
in  oriental  language,  every  tent  (see  Ges.  p.  32) 
may  be  regarded  as  a  house  (llarmer,  Obs.  i.  194), 
yet  the  distinction  between  the  permanent  dwelling- 
house  and  the  tent  must  have  taken  rise  from  the 
moment  of  the  division  of  mankind  into  dwellers 
in  tents  and  builders  of  cities,  i.  e.  of  permanent 
habitations  (Gen.  iv.  17,  20;  Is.  xxxviii.  12).  The 
Hebrews  did  not  become  dwellers  in  cities  till  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  and  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan 
(Gen.  xlvii.  3;  Ex.  xii.  7;  Heb.  vi.  9),  while  the 
Canaanites  as  well  as  the  Ass}Tians  were  from  an 
earlier  period  builders  and  inhabitants  of  cities, 
and  it  was  into  the  houses  and  cities  built  by  the 
former  that  the  Hebrews  entered  to  take  possession 
after  the  conquest  (Gen.  x.  11, 19,  xix.  1,  xxiii.  10, 
xxxiv.  20;  Num.  xi.  27;  Deut.  vi.  10,  11).  The 
private  dwellings  of  the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians 
have  altogether  perished,  but  the  sohd  material  of 
the  houses  of  Syria,  east  of  the  Jordan,  may  per- 
haps have  presened  entire  specimens  of  the  ancient 
dwellings,  even  of  the  original  inhabitants  of  thai 
region  (Porter,  Damascus,  ii.  195,  196;  C  C.  Gra- 
ham in  Camb.  Essays,  1859,  p.  160,  <fec. ;  comp. 
Buckingham,  Arab.  Tribes,  p.  171,  172). 

In  inferring  the  plan  and  aiTangement  of  ancieut 
Jewish  or  Oriental  houses,  as  alluded  to  in  Scrip- 
ture, from  existing  dwellings  in  Syria,  Egypt,  and 
the  East  in  general,  allowance  must  be  made  fo* 
the  difference  in  climate  between  Egypt,  Persia, 
and  Palestine,  a  cause  from  which  would  proceed 
differences  in  certain  cases  of  material  and  construc- 
tion, as  well  as  of  domestic  arrangement. 

1.  The  houses  of  the  rural  poor  in  Egypt,  aa 
well  as  in  most  parts  of  Syria,  Arabia,  and  Persia, 
are  for  the  most  part  mere  huts  of  nmd,  or  sun- 
burnt bricks.  In  some  parts  of  Palestine  and 
Arabia  stone  is  used,  and  in  certain  districts  cavei 
in  the  rock  are  used  as  dwellings  (Amos  v.  11 
Bartlett,    Walks,  p.  117;   Cavk.s).     The  hoiwM 


HOUSE 

an  uKially  of  one  story  only,  namely,  the  ground 
floor,  and  sometimes  contain  only  one  apartment. 
Sometimes  a  small  court  for  the  cattle  is  attached ; 
and  m  some  cases  the  cattle  are  housed  in  the  same 
building,  or  the  people  live  on  a  raised  platform, 
and  the  cattle  round  them  on  the  ground  (1  Sam. 
xxviii.  24;  Irby  and  INIangles,  p.  70;  JoUiffe,  Let- 
ters, i.  43;  Buckingham,  Arab  Tribes^  p.  170; 
Burckhardt,  2'ravels,  ii.  119).  In  Lower  Egypt 
the  oxen  occupy  the  width  of  the  chamber  farthest 
from  the  entrance;  it  is  built  of  brick  or  mud, 
about  four  feet  high,  and  the  top  is  often  used  as 
a  sleeping  place  in  winter.  The  windows  are  small 
apertures  high  up  in  the  walls,  sometimes  grated 
with  wood  (Burckhardt,  Travels,  i.  241,  ii.  101, 
119,  301,  329;  Lane,  Mod.  Eg.  i.  44).  The  roofs 
are  commonly  but  not  always  flat,  and  are  usually 
formed  of  a  plaster  of  mud  and  straw  laid  upon 
boughs  or  rafters;  and  upon  the  flat  roofs,  tents  or 
"  booths  "  of  boughs  or  rushes  are  often  raised  to 
be  used  as  sleeping-places  in  summer  (Irby  and 


HOUSE 


1108 


houses  of  the  first  rank.  The  prevailing  plan  of 
eastern  houses  of  this  class  presents,  as  was  tha 
case  in  ancient  Egypt,  a  front  of  wall,  whose  blank 
and  mean  appearance  is  usually  relieved  only  by 
the  door  and  a  few  latticed  and  projecting  windows 
( Vieios  in  Syria,  ii.  25).  Within  this  is  a  court 
or  courts  with  apartments  opening  into  them. 
Some  of  the  finest  houses  in  the  East  are  to  be 
found  at  Damascus,  where  in  some  of  them  are 
seven  such  courts.  When  there  are  only  two,  the 
innermost  is  the  hareem,  in  which  the  women  and 
children  live,  and  which  is  jealously  secluded  frou 
the  entrance  of  any  man  but  the  master  of  thf- 
house  (Burckhardt,  Travels  1.  188;  Van  Egmont 
ii.  24G,  253;  Shaw,  p.  207;  Porter,  Damascus,  i 
34,  37,  60;  Chardin.  Voyages,  vi.  6;  Lane,  Mol 
hUj.  I.  179,  207).  Over  the  door  is  a  projectinj^ 
window  with  a  lattice  more  or  less  elaborately 
wrought,  which,  except  in  times  of  public  celebra 


A  Nestorian  house,  with  stages  upon  the  roof  for 
sleeping.     (Layard,  Nineveh.,  I.  177.) 

Mangles,  71;  Niebuhr,  Descr.  pp.  49,  53;  Layard, 
Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  112 ;  Nineveh,  i.  17G ;  Burckhardt, 
Syria,  p.  280 ;  Travels,  i.  190 ;  Van  Egmont,  ii.  32 ; 
Malan,  Magdala  and  IBethany,  p.  15).  To  this  de- 
scription the  houses  of  ancient  Egypt  and  also  of 
Assyria,  as  represented  in  the  monuments,  in  great 
measure  correspond  (Layard,  Monuments  of  Xine- 
veh,  pt.  ii.  pi.  49,  50;  bas-reUef  in  Brit.  Mus. 
Assyrian  room.  No.  49;  first  Egypt,  room,  case 
17;  Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg. 
i.  13;  Martineau.  East. 
Life,  I  19,  97).  In  the 
towns  the  houses  of  the 
inferior  kind  do  not  differ 
much  from  the  above 
description,  but  they  are 
sometimes  of  more  than 
one  story,  and  the  roof-tern 
races  are  more  carefully 
constructed.  In  Palestine 
they  are  often  of  stone 
(JoUiffe,  i.  26). 

9,.  The    difference    be-      Assyrian  house,  K# 
tween  the  poorest  houses  younjik. 

ird  those  of  the  class  next 
•bOTt  them  is  greater  tlian  between  these  and  the 


Entrance  to  house  In  Cairo. 

Egyptians. ) 


(Lane,  Modem 


tions,  is  usually  closed  (2  K.  ix.  30;  Shaw,  Trav- 
eL<,  p.  207;  Lane,  Mod.  Eg.  i.  27).  The  doorway 
or  door  bears  an  inscription  from  the  Kuran,  as 
the  ancient  Esryptian  houses  had  inscriptions  over 
their  doors,  and  as  the  Israelites  were  directed  to 
write  sentences  from  the  Law  over  their  gates. 
[Gatk.]  The  entrance  is  usually  guarded  within 
from  sight  by  a  wall  or  some  arrangement  of  the 
passages.  In  the  [jassage  is  a  stone  seat  for  the 
porter  and  other  servants  (Lane,  Mod.  Eg.  i.  32; 
Shaw,  Travels,  I).  207 ;  Chardin,  l'oijages,iv.lli, 
Beyond  this  passage  is  an  open  court  like  the 
Roman  impluviwn,  often  paved  with  marble.  Into 
this  the  principal  apartments  look,  and  are  either 
open  to  it  in  front,  or  are  entered  from  Ii  by  doors. 
An  awning  is  sometimes  drawn  over  the  court,  and 
the  floor  strewed  with  carpets  on  festive  occasions 
(Shaw,  p.  208).  On  the  ground  floor  there  is 
generally  an  apartment  for  male  visitoi's,  called 
mandnrak,  having  a  portion  of  the  floor  sunk  be- 
low the  rest,  called  durkd'ah.  This  is  often  paved 
with  marble  or  colored  tiles,  and  has  in  the  centre 
a  fountain.  T!ie  rest  of  the  floor  is  a  raised  plat 
form  called  leewan,  with  a  mattress  and  cushior** 
at  the  back  on  eacli  of  the  three  sides.  This  st-at 
or  sofa  is  called  deeumn.    Every  person  on  eutruice 


1104 


HOUSE 


takes  off  his  shoes  on  the  durka'ah  before  stepping 
on  the  leewdn  (Ex.  iii.  5 ;  Josh.  v.  15 ;  Luke  vii. 
88).  The  ceUings  over  the  leewdn  and  durka'ah 
are  often  richly  paneled  and  ornamented  (Jer.  xxii. 
1-1).  [Ckilixg.]  The  stairs  to  the  upper  apart- 
ments are  in  Syria  usually  in  a  comer  of  the  court 
(Kol)inson,  iii.  302).  When  there  is  no  upper 
story  the  lower  rooms  are  usually  loftier.  In  Per- 
sia they  are  open  from  top  to  bottom,  and  only 
divided  from  the  court  by  a  low  partition  (Wilkin- 
son, Anc.  Eg.  i.  10 ;  Chardin,  iv.  119 ;  Burckhardt, 
Travels,    i.    18,    19  ;    Views  in   Syna,   i.   56). 


court  of  hoiue  in  Cairo,  with  Mak'ad. 

(Lane,  Modern  Egyptians.) 

Around  part,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  couil  is  a 
verandah,  often  nine  or  ten  feet  deep,  over  which, 
when  there  is  more  than  one  floor,  runs  a  second 
gallery  of  like  depth  ^^•ith  a  balustrade  (Shaw,  p. 
208).     liearing  in  mind  that  the  reception  room  is 


HOUSE 

raised  above  the  level  of  the  court  (Chardin,  it. 

118:  Views  in  Syiia,  i.  56),  we  may,  in  explaioiog 
the  circumstances  of  the  miracle  of  the  paralytic 
(Mark  ii.  3;  Luke  v.  18),  suppose,  (1.)  that  our 
Lord  was  standing  under  the  verandah,  and  the 
people  in  front  in  the  court.  The  bearers  of  the 
sick  man  ascended  the  stairs  to  the  roof  of  the 
house,  and  taking  off  a  portion  of  the  l)oarded  cov 
ering  of  the  verandah,  or  remo\ing  the  awning 
over  the  ifuplurium,  rh  /xeaov,  i»i  the  former  case 
let  down  the  bed  throiujh  the  verandah  roof,  or  in 
the  latter,  down  by  way  of  the  roof,  5ta  rwi  Kepd- 
fjLoop,  and  deposited  it  before  tlie  Saviour  (Shaw„ 
p.  212)."  (2.)  Another  explanation  presents  itself 
in  considering  the  njom  where  the  company  were 
assembled  as  the  Inrepawv,  and  the  roof  opened  for 
the  bed  to  be  the  true  roof  of  the  house  (Trench, 
Miracles,  \).  ]!)!»;  Lane,  Mod.  Ey.  i.  3!i).  (3.) 
And  one  still  more  simple  is  ftmnd  in  regarding 
the  house  as  one  of  tlie  rude  dwellings  now  to  be 
seen  near  the  Sea  of  iJalilee,  a  mere  room  '"  10  ot 
12  feet  high  and  as  inany  or  more  square,"  with 
no  opening  except  the  door.  The  roof,  used  as  a 
sleeping-place,  is  reached  by  a  ladder  from  the  out- 
side, and  the  bearers  of  the  paralytic,  unable  \x. 
approach  the  door,  would  thus  have  ascended  the 
roof,  and  having  uncovered  it  (€|opiy|avTes),  let 
him  down  into  the  room  where  our  Lord  was 
(Malan,  /.  c.).^ 

The  stairs  to  the  un]>er  anartments  or  to  th< 


11^ 


Oovrt  ct  house  at  A . 


Kii'ah  of  house  In  Cairo.     (l>iine.) 

roof  are  often  shaded  by  dnes  or  creeping  /»lante 
I  and  the  courts,  esjiecially  the  inner  ones,  planted 
I  with  trees.  The  court  has  often  a  well  or  tank  in 
lit  (Ps.  cxxviii.  3;  2  Sam.  xvii.  18;  Hussell,  Aleppo, 


«  *  «<»«  a  full  statement  of  this  latter  view  in  Nor- 
ton's lienumeness  of  tne  Gospeis,  2d  ed.,  i.  p.  cxii.  ff. 
(Addit.  Notes),  or  in  his  2>ans.  ef  the  Gospels,  with 
Notes,  i:.  218  t.,  249  f.  A. 

b  *  Another  view  may  be  stated.  Those  who  brought 
the  paralytic,  finamg  it  impossible  to  reach  the  Saviour 
In  the  room  where  he  was  teaching  (se»'  espwially 
Mark  ii.  2),  may  have  hasteued  at  once  to  the  court  of 
an  adjacent  house.  Taking  advantairc  there  of  the 
otaim  leading  up  thence  to  the  roof  of  that  next  house, 
Ui«y  could  have  crossed  to  the  roof  (sepanitt-d  from 


the  other,  if  at  all.  by  only  a  low  parapet)  which  wa* 
over  the  room  inff>  which  they  let  down  the  bed  be- 
fore Jesus,  throngh  the  riles,  broken  up  lor  ttiat  pur- 
pose. Stairs  on  the  outside  of  hou.<!es  are  alniast  un- 
known in  Palestine  at  pre.<ent.  and  would  only  e^tpcs* 
the  Inmates  to  violence  and  pillage.  The  healing  af 
the  paralytic  took  pluce  at  ("it|)ernaum  (Jlark  ii.  I 
where  the  houses  might  he  e.\i>^cted  to  be  thus  con- 
tiguous  to  each  other.  Thomson  Informs  us  (iMnu 
tin'f  Bcok.  ii.  0  ff.)  how  the  ordinary  Arab  hi>u»«w  ar« 
coustructed  iu  the  liast.  \L 


HOUSE 

i.  84,  33;  Wilkinson,  i.  6,  8;  Une,  Mod.  Eg.  i. 
82;  Vieios  in  Syria,  i.  56). 

Besides  the  mandarah,  there  is  sometimes  a  sec- 
ond room,  either  on  the  ground  or  the  upper  floor, 
called  kd'ah,  fitted  with  deeivdns,  and  at  the  cor- 
ners of  these  rooms  portions  taken  off  and  inclosed 
form  retiring  rooms  (Lane,  i.  39;  Kussell,  i.  31, 
33). 

When  there  is  no  second  floor,  but  more  than 
one  court,  the  women's  apartments,  hareem,  harem^ 

ur  fiaram  (  aJw^  and  (•y^'  secluded,  or  pro- 
hibited, with  which  may  be  compared  the  Hebrew 
.  Innon  ]'l^"^W  (Stanley,  S.  (f  P.  App.  §  82),  are 
usually  in  the  second  court ;  otherwise  they  form  a 
separate  building  within  the  general  inclosure,  or 
are  above  on  the  first  floor  (Lane,  Mod.  Ecj.  i.  179, 
207;  Views  in  Syria,  i.  56).  The  entrance  to  the 
harem  is  crossed  by  no  one  but  the  master  of  the 
house  and  the  domestics  belonging  to  the  female 
estal)lishment.  Though  this  remark  would  not 
apply  in  the  same  degree  to  Jewish  habits,  the  pri- 
vacy of  the  women's  apartments  may  possibly  be 

indicated  by  the  "  inner  chamber  "  (~1"^n  :  rajxi- 
€7ou-  cubiculum)  resorted  to  as  a  hiding-place  (1 
K.  XX.  30,  xxii.  25;  see  Judg.  xv.  1).  Solomon, 
in  his  marriage  with  a  foreigner,  introduced  also 


HOUSE 


1105 


Interior  o 


foreign  usage  in  this  respect,  which  was  carried 
further  in  subsequent  times  (1  K.  vii.  8;  2  K.  xxiv. 
15).       [WoMKN.]       The   harem   of  the    Persian 

monarch  (Q^t?."'3  n*^3  :  byvvaiKdv'  domusfem- 
innrwn)  is  noticed  in  the  book  of  Esther  (ii.  3). 

When  there  is  an  upper  story,  the  kd'ah  forms 
the  most  important  apartment,  and  thus  probably 
answers  to  the  uirepyov,  which  was  often  tlie 
'•  guest-chaml)er  "  (Luke  xxii.  12  laudyaiov]  ;  Acts 
i.  13,  ix.  37,  XX.  8;  Burckhardt,  Trnv.  i.  151).« 
The  windows  of  the  upper  rooms  often  project  one 
or  two  feet,  and  form  a  kiosk  or  latticed  chamber, 
the  ceilings  of  which  are  elaborately  ornamented 
([.ane,  i.  27;  Russell,  i.  102;  Burckhardt,  Trav. 
i.  190).     [Window.]     Such  may  have  been  the 

"  chamber  on  the  wall "  (n''^^_ 


vvcp^ov'  cosnac- 


«  *  "  At  Ramlek,^''  says  Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl.  Res.  ii. 
229,  2d  ed.),  we  were  "  conducted  to  an  ^  upper  room,' 
a  large  airy  hall,  forming  a  sort  of  third  story,  upon 
the  flat  roof  of  the  house."  The  prophet's  chamber 
at  Shunem,  2  K.  iv.  10  ("ta  the  wall,"  A.  V.,  but 
probably  =  wall-chamber,  i.  e.  one  purrounded  with  a 
wall,  duly  finished),  was  uc  doubt  the  modern  ^ailiyeh 
70 


«/?/>;  Ges.  p.  1030)  made,  or  rather  set  apart  tor 
Elisha,  by  the  Shunammite  woman  (2  K.  iv.  10, 
11).  So  also  the  "summer  parlor"  of  Eglon 
(Judg.  Jii.  20,  23,  but  see  Wilkinson,  i.  11),  the 
"loft"  of  the  widow  of  Zarephath  (1  K.  xvii.  19). 

The   "lattice"   (71311**7  :    SiktvcdtSv'-    cancelli) 

through  which  Ahaziah  fell,  perliaps  belonged  to 
an  upper  chamber  of  this  kind  (2  K.  i.  2),  as  also 
the  "third  loft"  (rpiffTfyov)  from  which  Euty 
chus  fell  (Acts  xx.  9;  conip.  Jer.  xxii.  13).  There 
are  usually  no  sfjecial  bedrooms  in  eastern  houses, 
and  thus  the  room  in  which  Ish-bosheth  was  mur- 
dered was  probably  an  ordinary  room  with  a 
deewdn,  on  wliicli  lie  was  sleeping  during  the  heat 
of  the  day  (2  Sam.  iv.  5,  6;  La)ie,  i.  41). 

Sometimes  the  deewdn  is  raised  sufficiently  to 
allow  of  cellars  underneath  for  stores  of  all  kincU 
{raixiela.  Matt.  xxiv.  20 ;  Kussell,  i.  32). 

The  outer  doors 
are  closed  with  a 
wooden  lock,  but  in 
some  cases  the, 
apartment'-  are  di- 
vided from  each 
other  by  curtains 
only  (Lane,  L  42; 
Chardin,  iv.  123  ; 
Russell,  i.  21). 

There  are  no 
chimneys,  but  fire 
is  made  when  re- 
quired with  char- 
coal in  a  chafing- 
dish;  or  a  fire  of 
wood  might  be  kin- 
dled in  the  open 
court  of  the  house 
(Luke  xxii.  55 ;  Rus- 
sell, i.  21;  Lane,  i. 
41;  Chardin,  iv. 
120).  [Coal, 
Amer.  ed.] 

Besides  the  man- 
darah, some  houses 
in  Cairo  have  an 
apartment  called 
mfik\id,  open  in 
front  to  the  court, 
with  two  or  more 
arches,  and  a  rail- 
ing ;  and  a  pillar  to  support  the  wall  above  (Lane^ 
i.  38).  It  was  in  a  chamber  of  this  kind,  probably 
one  of  the  largest  size  to  be  found  in  a  palace,  that 
our  Lord  was  being  arraigned  before  the  high-priest, 
at  the  time  when  the  denial  of  Him  by  St.  Peter 
took  place.  He  "  turned  and  looked  "  on  Peter  as 
he  stood  by  the  fire  in  the  court  (Luke  xxii.  56, 
61;  John  xviii.  25),  whilst  He  hiniself  was  in  th* 
"  hall  of  Judgment,"  the  mnk'ad.  Such  was  the 
"porch  of  judgment"  built  by  Solomon  (1  K.  vii. 
7),  which  finds  a  parallel  in  the  golden  alcove  of 
Mohammed  Uzbek  (Ibn  Batuta,  Trav.  76,  ed. 
Lee). 


House  in  a  street  at  Oalra. 
(From  Roberts.) 


(the  Hebrew  word  is  the  same).  "  It  is  the  most  de- 
sirable part  of  the  establishment,  is  best  fitted  up,  and 
is  still  given  to  guests  who  are  to  be  treated  Avith 
honor  "  (Thomson,  Lmvl  and  Bonk,  i.  235).  This  ia 
the  name  also  of  Elijah "s  room  ("  loft,"  A.  V.)  at  Sa- 
repta  (1  K.  xvu.  19).  H 


1106  HOUSE 

Before  quitting  the  interior  of  the  house  we  may 
observe  that,  on  the  deewdn,  the  corner  is  the  place 
of  honor,  which  is  never  quitted  by  the  master  of 
the  house  in  receiving  strangers  (Hussell,  i.  27; 
Malan,  Tyi-e  and  Sidim,  p.  38)."  The  roofs  of 
eastern  houses  are,  as  has  been  said,  mostly  flat, 
though  there  are  sometimes  domes  over  some  of  the 
rooms.  The  flat  portions  are  plastered  with  a  com- 
position of  mortar,  tar,  ashes,  and  sand,  which  in 
\ime  becomes  very  hard,  but  when  not  laid  on  at 
the  proper  season  is  apt  to  crack  in  winter,  and  the 
rain  is  thus  admitted.  In  order  to  prevent  this, 
every  roof  is  provided  with  a  roller,  which  is  set 
at  work  after  rain.  In  many  cases  the  terrace 
roof  is  little  better  than  earth  rolled  hard.  On  ill- 
compacted  roofs  grass  is  often  found  springing  into 
a  short-lived  existence  (Prov.  xix.  13,  xxvii.  15; 
Ps.  cxxix.  6,  7;  Is.  xxxvii.  27;  Shaw,  p.  210; 
I^ne,  i.  27;  Robinson,  iii.  39,  44,  60). 

In  no  point  do  oriental  domestic  habits  differ 
more  from  European  than  in  the  use  of  the  roof. 
Its  flat  surface  is  made  useful  for  various  house- 
hold purposes,  as  drying  corn,  hanging  up  linen, 
and  preparing  figs  and  raisins  (Shaw,  p.  211; 
Burckhardt,  Trav.  i.  191).  The  roofs  are  used  as 
places  of  recreation  in  the  evening,  and  often  as 
sleeping-places  at  night  (2  Sam.  xi.  2,  xvi.  22;  Dan. 
iv.  29;  1  Sam.  ix.  25,  20;''  Job  xxvii.  18;  Prov. 
xxi.  9;  Shaw,  p.  211;  Russell,  i.  35;  Chardin,  iv. 
116;  Layard,  Nineveh,  i.  177).  They  were  also 
used  as  places  for  devotion,  and  even  idolatrous 
worship  (Jer.  xxxii.  29,  xix.  13;  2  K.  xxiii.  12; 
Zeph.  i.  5;  Acts  x.  9).  At  the  time  of  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  booths  were  erected  by  the  Jews  on 
the  tops  of  their  houses,  as  in  the  present  day  huts 
of  boughs  are  sometimes  erected  on  the  housetops 
as  sleeping-places,  or  places  of  retirement  from  the 
heat  in  summer  time  (Neh.  viii.  16 ;  Burckhai-dt, 
Syria,  p.  280).  As  among  the  Jews  the  seclusion 
of  women  was  not  carried  to  the  extent  of  INIoham- 
medan  usage,  it  is  probable  that  the  housetop  was 
made,  as  it  is  among  Christian  inhabitants,  more  a 
place  of  pubUc  meeting  both  for  men  and  women, 
than  is  the  case  among  Mohammedans,  who  care- 
fully seclude  their  roofs  from  inspection  by  parti- 
tions (Burckhardt,  JV-au.  i.  191;  comp.  Wilkinson, 
i.  23).  The  Christians  at  Aleppo,  in  Russeirs  time, 
lived  contiguops,  and  made  their  housetops  a  means 
of  mutual  communication  to  avoid  passing  through 
the  streets  in  time  of  plague  (Russell,  i.  35).  In 
the  same  manner  the  housetop  might  be  made  a 
means  of  escape  by  the  stairs  \i.  e.  from  the  roof 
into  the  court]  by  which  it  was  reached  without 
entering  any  of  the  apartments  of  the  house  (Matt. 
xxiv.  17,  X.  27;  Luke  xii.  3). 

Both  Jews  and  heathens  were  in  the  habit  of 
waihng  publicly  on  the  housetops  (Is.  xv.  3,  xxii. 
1;  Jer.  xlviii.  38).  Protection  of  the  roof  by  par- 
apets was  enjoined  by  the  Law  (Deut.  xxii.  8).  The 
parapets  thus  constructed,  of  which  the  types  may 
be  seen  in  ancient  Egyptian  houses,  were  sometimes 
3f  open  work,  and  it  is  to  a  fall  through,  or  over 
one  of  these  that  the  injury  by  which  Ahaziah  suf- 
fered is  sometimes  ascribed  (Shaw,  p.  211).  To 
pass  over  roofs  tor  plundering  purposes,  as  well  as 


a  *  Hence  in  Am.  iii.  12  "  the  corner  of  a  bed  " 
,the  "divan  "  being  meant  there)  is  represented  as  the 
place  occupied  by  the  proud  nobles  of  Samaria,  from 
nrhitth  only  a  miserable  remnant  of  them  would  be 
ftble  to  escape  in  the  day  of  calamity.  H. 

6  •  The  A.  V.  (1  Sam    ix.  25)  states  merely  that 


HOUSE  OP  GOD 

for  safety,  would  be  no  difficult  matter  (Jod  il.  9)^ 
In  ancient  Egyptian  and  also  in  Assyrian  houses  a 
sort  of  raised  story  was  sometimes  built  above  tha 
roof,  and  in  the  former  an  open  chamber,  roofed  o! 
covered  with  awning,  was  sometimes  erected  on  the 
housetop  (Wilkinson,  i.  9;  Layard,  Mon.  of  Nin. 
ii.  pi.  49,  50). 

There  are  usually  no  fii-e-piaces,  except  in  the 
kitchen,  the  furniture  of  which  consists  of  a  sort 
of  raised  platform  of  brick  with  receptacles  in 
it   for   fire,    answering    to   the    "boiling   places" 

(m^SS'^P  :  fiayeip^ta:  culime)  of  Ezckiel  (xlvi. 
23;  Laiie,  i*.  41;  Ges.  p.  249). 

Special  apartments  were  devoted  in  larger  houses 
to  winter  and  summer  uses  (Jer.  xxxvi.  22;  Am. 
iii.  15;  Chardin,  iv.  119). 

The  ivory  house  of  Ahab  was  probably  a  palace 
largely  ornamented  with  inlaid  ivory.     [I'alace.] 

The  circumstance  of  Samson's  pulling  down  the 
house  by  means  of  the  pillars,  may  be  explained 
by  the  fact  of  the  company  being  assembled  on 
tiers  of  balconies  above  each  other,  supported  by 
central  pillars  on  the  basement ;  when  these  were 
pulled  down  the  whole  of  the  upper  floors  would 
fall  also  (Judg.  xvi.  26;  Shaw,  p.  211)-. 

Houses  for  jewels  and  armor  were  built  and  fur- 
nished under  the  kings  (2  K.  xx.  13).  The  draught- 
house  (niSnnp  :  Koirpeiv:  latrince)  was  doubt- 
less a  public  latrine,  such  as  exists  in  modern 
eastern  cities  (2  K.  x.  27;  Russell,  i.  34). 

Leprosy  in  the  house  was  probably  a  nitrous 
efflorescence  on  the  walls,  which  was  injurious  to 
the  salubrity  of  the  house,  and  whose  removal  was 
therefore  strictly  enjoined  by  the  Law  (Lev.  xiv. 
34,  55;  Kitto,  Phys.  Geoyr.  of  Pal.  p.  112; 
Winei',  s.  v.  Bfiuser). 

The  word  iT^lZl  is  prefixed  to  words  constituting 
a  local  name,  as  Bethany,  Beth-horon,  etc.  In 
modern  names  it  is  represented  by  Beit,  as  Beit- 
lahm.  H.  W.  P. 

*  HOUSEHOLD,  CESAR'S.  [Char's 
Household.] 

*  HOUSEHOLDER.     [Goodman.] 

*  HOUSE  OF  GOD.  This  expression  oc- 
curs in  Judg.  XX.  18  (A.  V.),  where  no  doubt  rT^S 

/S,  instead  of  being  translated,  should  be  retained 
as  a  proper  name,  i.  e.  Bethel;  so  also,  ver.  26  and 
xxi.  2.  Bethel  on  the  confines  of  Judah  and  Benja- 
min is  the  place  there  meant.  The  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  having  been  brought  to  Bethel  from  Shi- 
loh  just  at  that  time,  for  tlie  purpose  (it  may  be) 
of  more  convenient  access,  the  other  tribes  went  up 
thither  to  "ask  counsel"  of  Jehovah  in  regard  to 
the  war  on  which  they  were  about  to  enter  against 
the  Benjamites.  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is  found 
again  not  long  after  this  in  its  proper  sanctuary  at 
Shiloh  (1  Sam.  i.  3).  That  in  Judg.  xx.  18  Bethel 
denotes  the  place  where  the  Ark  then  was,  and  not 
the  Ark  itself  as  called  "the  house  of  God,"  is 
evident  from  Judg.  xx.  27,  where  the  narrative  dis- 
tinguishes the  two  from  each  other,  and  recognizes 


Samuel  and  Saul  had  a  conversation  or  private  inter- 
view '■  on  the  roof."  But  it  appears  from  the  Hebrew 
(ver.  26)  that  Saul,  at  least,  slept  there  during  the  fal- 
lowing night;  for  early  the  next  morning  Samue] 
called  to  him  on  the  roof  to  arise  and  rosume  hil 
journey  H. 


HUKKOK 

Jie  presence  of  the  Ark  at  Betriel  as  the  result  of 
ft  special  emergency.  H. 

HUK'KOK  (pi'^n  [incision,  rock-excavation, 
Dietr. ;  dUch,  Fiirst]  :  'luKavd ;  Aiex.  Ikvk  •  Huc- 
uca),  a  place  on  the  boundary  of  Naphtali  (Josh. 
xix.  34),  named  next  to  Aznoth-Tabor.  It  is  men- 
tioned by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  {Ononiast.  "Icoc"), 
but  in  such  a  manner  as  to  show  that  they  knew 
nothing  of  it  but  from  the  Text.  By  hap-Parchi 
in  1320,  and  in  our  own  times  by  Wolcott  and 
by  Robinson,  Hukkok  has  been  recovered  in  Ydkuk, 
a  village  in  the  mountains  of  Naphtali,  west  of  the 
upper  end  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  about  7  miles 
S.  S.  W.  of  Safed,  and  at  the  head  of  Wady-el- 
Amud.  An  ancient  Jewish  tradition  locates  here 
the  tomb  of  Habakkuk  (Zunz,  in  B.  Tudela,  ii. 
421;  Schwarz,  p.  182;  Robinson,  iii.  81,  82). 

G. 

HU'KOK  Cpp-'in  [perh.  established,  or  en- 
graved]: 7}  'A/ca/c;  [Vat.  I/ca/c;]  Alex.  laKaK', 
[Comp.  Aid.  'Ikcok:]  Ilucac),  a  name  which  in  1 
Chr.  vi.  75  is  substituted  for  Helkatii  in  the  par- 
allel list  of  the  Gershonite  cities  in  Asher,  in  Josh. 
xxi. 

HUL  ( /^n  [circle,  region,  Fiirst]  :  ''Ov\',  [in 
1  Chr.,  Rom.  Vat.  omit,  Alex.  Ou5:  IM]),  the 
second  son  of  Aram,  and  grandson  of  Sheiti  (Gen. 
X.  23).  The  geographical  position  of  the  people 
whom  he  represents  is  not  well  decided.  Josephus 
(Ant.  i.  6,  §  4)  and  Jerome  fix  it  in  Armenia; 
Schulthess  {Par ad.  p.  202)  on  etymological  grounds 

(as  though  the  name  =  V*in,  sand)  proposes  the 
southern  part  of  Mesopotamia;  von  liohlen  {fn- 
trod.  to  Gen.  ii.  249)  places  it  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Chaldaea.  The  strongej;t  evidence  is  in  favor 
of  the  district  about  the  roots  of  Lebanon,  where 
the  names  Ard'-el-IJuleh,  a  district  to  the  north  of 
Lake  Merom ;  OvXaQa,  a  town  noticed  by  Josephus 
{Ant.  XV.  10,  §  3),  between  Gahlee  and  Trachonitis; 
Golan,  and  its  modern  form  Djaiddn,  bear  some 
affinity  to  the  original  name  of  Hul,  or,  as  it  should 
rather  be  written,  Chul.  W.  L.  B. 

HUL'DAH  (rf^bn  \weasel,  Fiirst] :  "OA.- 
Zav'  [Flolda,]  Olda),  a  prophetess,  whose  husband 
Shallum  was  keeper  of  the  wardrobe  in  the  time 
of  king  Josiah,  and  who  dwelt  in  the  suburb  (Ros- 
enmiiller,  ad  Zeph.  i.  10)  of  Jerusalem.  While 
Jeremiah  was  still  at  Anathoth,  a  young  man  un- 
known to  fame,  Huldah  was  the  most  distinguished 
person  for  prophetic  gifts  in  Jerusalem ;  and  it  was 
to  her  that  Josiah  had  recourse  when  Hilkiah  found 
A  book  of  the  Law,  to  procure  an  authoritative 
opinion  on  it  (2  K.  xxii.  14;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22). 

W.  T.  B. 

HUM'TAH  (n^pn  [place  of  lizards,  Ges.; 
fortress,  Fiirst]:  Ev/nd',  Alex.  Xa/xjuaTa'-  Ath- 
tnaiha),  a  city  of  Judah,  one  of  those  in  the  moun- 
tain-district, the  next  to  Hebron  (Josh.  xv.  54). 
It  was  not  known  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (see 
Onomasticon,  "  Aramatha"),  nor  has  it  since  been 
identified.  There  is  some  resemblance  between  the 
name  and  that  of  Kimath  {Kt/j.dO),  one  of  the 
places  added  in  the  Vat.  LXX.  to  the  list  in  the 
Hebrew  text  of  1  Sam.  xxx.  27-31.  G. 

HUNTING.  The  objects  for  which  hunting 
js  practiced,  indicate  the  various  conditions  of  so- 
nety  and  the  progress  of  civilizatiop  Hunting, 
u  a  matter  of  necessity,  whether  for  the  extermi- 


1107 


HUNTING 


nation  of  dangerous  beasts,  or  for  procuring 
nance,  betokens  a  rude  and  semi-civihzed  state; 
as  an  anmsement,  it  betokens  an  advanced  state. 
In  the  former,  personal  prowess  and  physical 
strength  are  the  qualities  which  elevate  a  mar 
above  his  fellows  and  fit  him  for  dominion,  ano 
hence  one  of  the  greatest  heroes  of  antiquity  is  de- 
scribed as  a  "  mighty  hunter  before  the  Lord " 
(Gen.  x.  9),  while  Ishmael,  the  progenitor  of  a  wild 
race,  was  famed  as  an  archer  (Gen.  xxi.  20),  and 
Esau,  holding  a  similar  position,  was  "  a  cunning 
hunter,  a  man  of  the  field  "  (Gen.  xxv.  27).  The 
latter  state  may  be  exemplified,  not  indeed  from 
Scripture  itself,  but  from  contemporary  records. 
Among  the  accomplishments  of  Herod,  his  skill  in 
the  chase  is  particularly  noticed ;  he  kept  a  regular 
stud  and  a  huntsman  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  10,  §  3), 
followed  up  the  sport  in  a  wild  country  {Ant.  xv. 
7,  §  7)  which  abounded  with  stagS;  wild  asses,  and 
bears,  and  is  said  to  have  killed  as  many  as  forty 
head  in  a  day  {B.  J.  i.  21,  §  13).  The  wealthy  in 
Egypt  and  Assyria  followed  the  sports  of  the  field 
with  great  zest ;  they  had  their  preserves  for  the 
express  purpose  of  preserving  and  hunting  game 
(Wilkinson's  .4nc.  -t^gypt.  i.  215;  Xen.  Cyrop.  i. 
4,  §§  5,  14),  and  drew  from  hunting  scenes  subjects 
for  decorating  the  walls  of  their  buildings,  and  even 
the  robes  they  wore  on  state  occasions. 

The  Hebrews,  as  a  pastoral  and  agricultural 
people,  were  not  given  to  the  sports  of  the  field; 
the  density  of  the  population,  the  earnestness  of 
their  character,  and  the  tendency  of  their  ritual 
regulations,  particularly  those  affecting  food,  all 
combined  to  discourage  the  practice  of  hunting; 
and  perhaps  the  examples  of  Ishmael  and  Esau  were 
recorded  with  the  same  object.  There  was  no  lack 
of  game  in  Palestine;  on  their  entrance  into  the 
land,  the  wild  beasts  were  so  numerous  as  to  be 
dangerous  (Ex.  xxiii.  29);  the  utter  destruction  of 
them  was  guarded  against  by  the  provisions  of  the 
Mosaic  law  (Ex.  xxiii.  11;  Lev.  xxv.  7).  Some  of 
the  fiercer  animals  survived  to  a  late  period,  as 
lions  (Judg.  xiv.  5;  1  Sam.  xvii.  34;  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
20;  1  K.  xiii.  24,  xx.  30),  and  bears  (1  Sam.  xvii. 
34;  2  K.  ii.  24);  jackals  (Judg.  xv.  4)  and  foxes 
(Cant.  ii.  15)  were  also  numerous;  hart,  roebuck, 
and  fallow  deer  (Deut.  xii.  15;  1  K.  iv.  23)  formed 
a  regular  source  of  sustenance,  and  were  possibly 
preserved  in  inclosures.  The  manner  of  catching 
these   animals   was    either    by   digging   a   pitfall 

(^"^D??')?  which  was  the  usual  manner  with  the 
larger  animals,  as  the  lion  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20 ;  Ez. 
xix.  4,  8) ;  or  secondly  by  a  trap  (H^),  which  waa 
set  under  ground  (Job  xviii.  10),  in  the  run  of 
the  animal  (Prov.  xxii.  5),  and  caught  it  by  the 
leg  (Job  xviii.  9);  or  lastly  by  the  use  of  the  net, 
of  which  there  were  various  kinds,  as  for  the 
gazelle  (?)  (Is.  Ii.  20,  A.  V.  "wild  bull"),  and 
other  animals  of  that  class.  [Net.]  The  method 
in  which  the  net  was  applied  is  familiar  to  us  from 
the  descriptions  in  Virgil  {A!ln.  iv.  121,  151  ff., 
X.  707  ff. ) ;  it  was  placed  across  a  ravine  or  narrow 
valley,  frequented  by  the  animals  for  the  sake  of 
water,  and  the  game  was  driven  in  by  the  hunters 
and  then  dispatched  either  with  bow  and  arn  w,  or 
spears  (comp.  Wilkinson,  i.  214).  The  game  se- 
lected was  generally  such  as  was  adaptetl  for  food 
(Prov.  xii.  27),  and  care  was  taken  to  pour  out  thf 
blood  of  these  as  well  as  of  tame  animals  (Lev.  xvii 
13). 


1108 


HUPHAM 


Birds  formed  aii  article  of  food  among  the  He- 
brews (Lev.  xvii.  13),  and  much  skill  was  exercised 
in  catchuig  them.     The  following  were  the  most 

approved  methods.  (1.)  The  trap  (PlQ),  which 
consisted  of  two  parts,  a  net,  strained  over  a  frame, 
and  a  stick  to  support  it,  but  so  placed  that  it 
should  give  way  at  the  slightest  touch;  the  stick 

or  springe  was  termed  127)7^^  (Am.  iii.  5,  "gin;  " 
Ps.  kix.  22,  "trap");  this  was  the  most  usual 
method  (Job  xviii.  9;  Eccl.  ix.  12;  Prov.  vii.  23). 

(2.)  The  snare  (S**^^,  from  Dp^,  to  braid;  Job 
xviii.  9,  A.  V.  "robber"),  consisting  of  a  cord 
( V^n?  Job  xviii.  10 ;  comp.  Ps.  xviii.  5,  cxvi.  3, 
cxl.  5),  60  set  as  to  catch  the  bird  by  the  leg.  (3.) 
The  net,  which  probably  resembled  those  used  in 
Egypt,  consisting  of  two  sides  or  frames,  over  which 
network  was  strained,  and  so  arranged  that  they 
could  be  closed  by  means  of  a  cord:  the  Hebrew 
names  are  various.  [Net.]  (4.)  The  decoy,  to 
which  reference  is  made  in  Jer.  v.  26,  27  —  a  cage 

of  a  peculiar  construction  (2^73)  —  was  filled 
with  birds,  which  a«ted  as  decoys ;  the  door  of  the 
cage  was  kept  open  by  a  piece  of  stick  acting  as  a 

springe  (rT^HU^D),  and  closed  suddenly  with  a 
clap  (whence  perhaps  the  term  cHub)  on  the  en- 
trance of  a  bird.  The  partridge  appears  to  have 
been  used  as  a  decoy  (Ecclus.  xi.  30). 

W.  L.  B. 

HU'PHAM  (C5^n  Oro^ector,  Furst;  coast- 
inhabitant,  Ges.] :  LXX.  omit  in  both  MSS. ; 
[Comp.  'O(/>a^0  Hupham),  a  son  of  Benjamui, 
founder  of  the  family  {Mishpachah)  of  the  Hu- 
PHA MITES  (Num.  xxvi.  39).  In  the  lists  of  Gen. 
xlvi.  and  1  Chr.  vii.  the  name  is  given  as  Hurriii, 
which  see. 

HU'PHAMITES,  THE  ("^^p^nrT:  om. 
in  LXX.;  [Comp.  6 'O^a/t^]  Huphamitce).  De- 
scendants of  HuPHAiii  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
(Num.  xxvi.  39).  W.  A.  W. 

HUP'PAH  {^'^T}  [covering,  veiling]:  6 
'Owipoi;  [Vat.  Oxxofjxpai  Comp.]  Alex.  '0(|)</>a: 
Hoppha),  a  priest  hi  the  time  of  David,  to  whom 
«ras  committed  the  charge  of  the  13th  of  tlie  24 
wurses  in  the  service  of  the  house  of  God  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  13). 

HUP'PIM  (0*^5  7  [protection,  screen,  Fiirst, 
Ges.]:  Gen.  xlvi.  2*1 ;'  1  Chr.  vii.  12;  in  Gen., 
omitted  in  LXX.  [Rom.  Vat.],  but  Cod.  Alex,  has 
0<l>ip.iv',  in  1  Chr.  vii.  12,  'Awcpiv,  [Vat.  Aircpeiu,] 
and  in  Cod.  Alex.  Acpetfx,;  [ver.  15,  Vat.  A^i^^iv, 
Alex.  A(\)<pit.v\\  the  former  is  the  correct  form,  if, 
as  we  read  in  Num.  xxvi.  39,  the  name  was  Hu- 
pham:  Ophim,  [llajAam,  Ilapphim]),  head  of  a 
Benjamite  family.  According  to  the  text  of  the 
LXX.  in  Gen.,  a  son  of  Bela  [Bela  ;  Becher]  ; 
but  1  Chr.  vii.  12  tells  us  that  he  was  son  of  Ir,  or 
Iri  (ver.  7),  who  was  one  of  the  five  sons  of  Beia. 
According  to  Num.  xxvi.,  the  Huphamites  were 
%ne  of  the  original  families  of  the  tribe  of  Benja- 
■t\m.  The  sister  of  Huppim  married  into  the  tribe 
af  Manasseh  (1  Chr.  vii.  15).  A.  C.  H. 

HUR  O^n  [hole,  hence  a,  p^^son]  I  Hur).  1. 
("flp;  Joseph. ''ripos.)  A  man  who  is  mentioned 
#ritn  Moses  and  Aaron  on  the  occasion  of  the  battle 
4rith  Ainalek  at  Kephidim  (Ex.  xvii.  10),  when  with 


HUB 

Aaron  he  stayed  up  the  hands  of  Moses  (12).  H« 
is  mentioned  again  in  xxiv.  14,  as  being,  with  Aaron, 
left  in  charge  of  the  people  by  Moses  during  his 
ascent  of  Sinai.  It  would  appear  from  this  that  b« 
must  have  been  a  person  connected  with  the  family 
of  Moses  and  of  some  weight  in  the  camp.  The 
latter  would  follow  from  the  former.  The  Jevirigh 
tradition,  as  preserved  by  Josephus  {Ant.  iii.  2,  §  4), 
is  that  he  was  the  husband  of  Miriam,  and  (iii.  6, 
§  1)  that  he  was  identical  with  — 

2.  Cap-)  The  grandfather  of  Bezaleel,  the 
chief  artificer  of  the  tabernacle  —  "  son  oi  Uri,  son 
of  Hur  —  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  "  (Ex.  xxxi.  2,  xxxv. 
30,  xxxviii.  22),  the  full  genealogy  being  given  on 
each  occasion  (see  also  2  Chr.  i.  5).  In  the  lists 
of  the  descendants  of  Judah  in  1  Chr.  the  pedigree 
is  moie  fully  preserved.  Hur  there  appears  as  one 
of  the  great  family  of  Pharez.  He  was  the  son  of 
Caleb  ben-IIezron,  by  a  second  wife,  Ephrath  (ii. 
19,  20;  comp.  5,  also  iv.  1),  the  first  fruit  of  the 
marriage  (ii.  50,  iv.  4),  and  the  father,  besides  Uri 
(ver.  20),  of  three  sons,  who  founded  the  towns  of 
Kirjath-jearim,  Beth-lehem,  and  Beth-gader  (51). 
Hia"'s  connection  with  Beth-lehem  would  seem  to 
have  been  of  a  closer  nature  than  with  the  others 
of  these  places,  for  he  himself  is  emphatically  called 
"  Abi-Bethlehem  "  —  the  "father  of  Bethlehem" 
(iv.  4).  Certainly  Beth-lehem  enjoyed,  down  to  a 
very  late  period,  a  traditional  reputation  for  the 
arts  which  distinguished  his  illustrious  grandson. 
Jesse,  the  father  of  David,  is  said  to  have  been  a 
weaver  of  the  vails  of  the  sanctuary  (Targ.  Jonathan, 
2  Sam.  xxi.  19),  and  the  dyers  were  still  lingering 
there  when  Benjamin  of  Tudela  visited  Bethlehem 
in  the  13th  century. 

In  the  Targum  on  1  Chr.  ii.  19  and  iv.  4, 
Ephrath  is  taken  as  identical  with  INIiriam:  but 
this  would  be  to  contradict  the  more  trustworthy 
tradition  given  above  from  Josephus. 

In  his  comments  on  1  Chr.  iv.  1  (  QuubsL  Hebr. 
in  Paralip.),  Jerome  overlooks  the  fact  that  the 
five  persons  there  named  as  "  sons  "  of  Judah  are 
really  members  of  successive  generations;  and  he 
attempts,  as  his  manner  is,  to  show  that  each  of 
them  is  identical  with  one  of  the  immediate  sons 
of  the  patriarch.  Hur  he  makes  to  be  another 
name  for  Onan. 

3.  (O&p;  Joseph.  Ovpy]s.)  The  fourth  of  the 
five  "kings"  ("^5/^'  LXX.  and  Joseph.  Ant. 
iv.  7,  §  1,  /Sao-tAeTs)  of  Midian,  who  were  slain  with 
Balaam  after  the  "  matter  of  Peor  "  (Num.  xxxi.  8). 
In  a  later  mention  of  them  (Josh.  xiii.  21)  they 

are   called    "  princes "    C^S'^tt?!))    of  IMidian   and 

"  dukes  "  ("^D'^P??  "ot  the  word  commonly  ren- 
dered "  duke,"  but  probably  with  the  force  of 
dependence,  see  Keil  ad  loc. :  LXX.  evapa)  of  SihoD 
king  of  the  Amorites,  who  was  killed  at  the  sanw 
time  with  them.  No  further  light  can  be  obtained 
as  to  Hur. 

4.  {-Zoip;  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit.])  Father  of 
Rephaiah,  who  was  ruler  of  half  of  the  environs 

(TjbQ,  A.  V.  "  part ")  of  Jerusalem,  and  assisted 
Nehemiah  in  the  repair  of  the  wall  (Neh.  iii.  9). 

5.  The  "  son  of  Hur  "  —  Ben-Chin*  —  was  com- 
missariat oflRcer  for  Solomon  in  Mount  Ephraim 
(1  K.  iv.  8).  The  LXX.  (both  MSS.  [rather,  Rom 
and  Alex.] )  give  the  word  Ben  both  in  its  urigina. 
and  its  translated  form  (BeeV  —  Alex.  BeV  —  vih 
"ap    [Vat.   Baiup   for   B.    vi.  "dp;  Comp.  Aid 


HURAl 

Btp^p]),  a  not  infrequent  custom  with  them. 
Joaephua  {Ant.  viii.  2,  §  3)  has  Oupvs  as  the  name 
3f  the  officer  himself.  The  Vulg.  {Benhur)  follows 
the  Hebrew,  and  is  in  turn  followed  in  the  margin 
of  the  A.  V.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  same  form 
is  observed  in  giving  the  names  of  no  less  than  five 
out  of  the  twelve  officers  in  this  list.  G. 

HU'RAI  [2  syl.]  O^^H  [//-ee,  noWe,  Flirst: 

or=  ''"^^n,  linen-weaver,  Ges.]  :  Oupi;  [Vat.  FA. 
OupeiO  Hurai),  one  of  David's  guard  —  Ilurai  of 
the  torrents  of  Gaash  —  according  to  the  list  of  1 
Chr.  xi.  32.  In  the  parallel  catalogue  of  2  Sam. 
ixiii.  the  K  is  changed  to  D,  as  is  frequently  the 
case,  and  the  name  stands  as  Hiddai.  Kennicott 
has  examined  the  discrepancy,  and,  influenced  by 
the  readings  of  some  of  the  MSS.  of  the  LXX., 
decides  in  favor  of  Hurai  as  the  genuine  name 
(Dissert,  p.  l!)-t). 

HU-'RAM  (nn^n  [noble-born]  :  obpd/j.  ; 
[Vat.  nt/x;]  Alex.  lojj^:  Huram).  1.  A  Benjamite ; 
son  of  Bela,  the  first-born  of  the  patriarch  (1  Chr. 
viii.  5). 

2.  The  form  in  which  the  name  of  the  king  of 
Tyre  in  alliance  with  David  and  Solomon  —  and 
elsewhere  given  as  Hii?.vm  —  appears  in  Chronicles, 
(a.)  At  the  time  of  David's  estabhshinent  at  Jeru- 
galem  (1  Chr.  xiv.  1).  In  the  A.  V.  the  name  is 
Hiram,  in  accordance  with  the  Cttib  or  original 

Hebrew  text  (DT^n) ;  but  in  the  marginal  cor- 
rection of  the  Masorets  (Keri)  it  is  altered  to 
Huram  (D"mn),  the  form  which  is  maintained 
in  all  its  other  occurrences  in  these  books.  The 
LXX.  Xeipd/j.  [FA.  Xipa/x],  Vulg.  Hiram,  and 
Targum,  all  agree  with  the  Cttib.  {h.)  At  the 
accession  of  Solomon  (2  Chr.  ii.  3,  11,  12,  viii.  2, 
18,  ix.  10,  21:  in  each  of  these  cases  also  the 
LXX.  have  Xipd/j.,  [Vat.  and]  Alex.  Xeipa/j.,  Vulg. 
Hiram). 

3.  The  same  change  occurs  in  Chronicles  in  the 
name  of  Hiram  the  artificer,  which  is  given  as 
Hurara  in  the  following  places:  2  Chr.  ii.  13,  iv. 
11,  16.  In  the  first  and  last  of  these  a  singular 
title  is  given  him  —  the  word  Ab,  "father"  — 
"  Huram  my  father,"  «  and  "  Huram  his  father." 
No  doubt  this  denotes  the  respect  and  esteem  in 
which  he  was  held,  according  to  the  similar  custom 
of  the  people  of  the  East  at  the  present  day.''  There 
also  the  LXX.  [Rom.  Xipdfi,  Vat.  and  Alex. 
Xeipafx]  and  Vulgate  follow  the  form  Hu-am. 

IIU'RI  C*"]-'^n  [linertr-weaver']  :  [Oupi,  Vat. 
OupetO  Huri),  a  Gadite;  father  of  Abihail,  a  chief 
man  in  that  tribe  (1  Chr.  v.  14). 

HUSBAND.     [Marriage.] 

HU'SHAH  (ntr^n  IJiastey.  ^nadu-,  [Comp. 
Oua-d;  Aid.  Tlad-]  Horn),  a  name  which  occurs 
in  the  genealogies  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv. 
4) —  "  Ezer,  father  of  Hushah."  It  may  well  be 
the  name  of  a  place,  like  Etam,  Gedor,  Beth-lehem, 
ind  otiiers,  in  the  preceding  and  succeeding  verses; 

a  The  A.  V.  of  2  Chr.  ii.  13  renders  the  words  "  of 
3uram  my  father's,"  meaning  the  late  king  ;  but  this 
18  unnecessary,  and  the  Hebrew  will  well  bear  the 
rendering  given  above. 

&  Analogous  to  this,  though  not  exactly  similar,  ii 
/oseph's  expression  (Gen.  xlv.  8),  "  God  hath  made  m« 
A  fetter  uato  Pharaoh."  Compare  also  1  Mace  xi 
32 ;  where  note  the  use  of  the  two  terms  "  cousin  ' 


HUSHIM 


1109 


but  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  fact, 
since  it  occurs  nowhere  else.  For  a  patronymic 
possibly  derived  from  this  name  see  Husiiathite. 

HU'SHAI  [2  syl.]  {^W^U  [quick,  rajnd]: 
Xova-i  [Vat.  -aei,  and  so  often  Alex.],  LXX.  ano 
Joseph.:  Chusai),  an  Archite,  i.  e.  possibly  ai 
inhabitant  of  a  place  called  Erec  (2  Sam.  xv.  32  ff., 
xvi.  16  ff.).  He  is  called  the  "friend"  of  David 
(2  Sam.  XV.  37 ;  in  1  Chr.  xxvii.  33,  the  word  is 
rendered  "  companion;  "  comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  9, 
§  2:  the  LXX.  has  a  strange  confusion  of  Archite 
and  apxi€Ta7pos  =  c^^'^ei  friend).  To  him  David 
confided  the  delicate  and  dangerous  part  of  a  pre 
tended  adherence  to  the  cause  of  Absalom.  His 
advice  was  preferred  to  that  of  Ahithophel,  and 
speedily  brought  to  pass  the  ruin  which  it  medi- 
tated. 

We  are  doubtless  correct  in  assuming  that  the 
Hushai,  whose  son  Baana  was  one  of  Solomon's 
commissariat  officers  (1  K.  iv.  16),  was  the  famous 
counsellor  of  his  father.  Hushai  himself  was  prob- 
ably no  longer  living ;  at  any  rate  his  office  waa 
filled  by  another  (comp.  ver.  5).     [Archite.] 

T.  E.  B. 

HU'SHAM  (Dtt?n,  in  Chron.  UWAH  [hast- 
ing,  swift] :  'A(rciju,  [in  1  Chr.,]  'AoSfi,  [and  so 
Alex,  in  Gen. :]  Husam),  one  of  the  kings  of  Edom, 
before  the  institution  of  monarchy  in  Israel  (Gen. 
xxxvi.  34,  35;  1  Chr.  i.  4-5,  46).  He  is  described 
as  "  Husham  of  the  land  of  the  Temanite;"  and 
he  succeeded  Jobab,  who  is  taken  by  the  LXX.  in 
their  addition  to  the  Book  of  Job  as  identical  with 
that  patriarch. 

HU'SHATHITE,  THE  C^nt^nn,  and 
twice  in  Chron.  \'n/^nn  [pair,  from  nti?^n, 
see  above]  :  6  'hcrraTooQi,  Ouaadi,  'SovffaOi,  [etc. :] 
de  Husati,  Ilusathites),  the  designation  of  two  of 
the  heroes  of  David's  guard.  1.  Sibbechai  (3 
Sam.  xxi.  18;  1  Chr.  xi.  29,  xx.  4,  xxvii.  11).  In 
the  last  of  these  passages  he  is  said  to  have  be- 
longed to  the  Zarhites,  that  is  (probably)  the 
descendants  of  Zerah  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  So 
far  this  is  in  accordance  with  a  connection  between 
this  and  Hushah,  a  name,  apparently  of  a  place, 
in  the  genealogies  of  Judah.  Josephus,  however 
{Ant.  vii.  12,  §  2),  mentions  Sibbechai  as  a  Hit- 
tite. 

2.  [^hvca6iTr)s\  Vat.  -0ei- ;  Alex.  AaooOeirqs' 
de  Hus'tti.]  jVlEnaiVNAi  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  27).  ThenB 
seems  no  doubt  that  this  name  is  a  mere  corruption 
of  Sibbechai. 

HU'SHIM  (Q"^!?.'!!  [the  hasting,  Furst; 
hastes  (pi.)  Ges.] :  'A<t6ix:  Ilusim).  1.  In  Gen.  xlvi. 
23,  "  the  children  [sons]  C^D?)  of  Dan  "  are  said 
to  have  been  Hushim.  The  name  is  plural,  as  if 
of  a  tribe  rather  than  an  individual,  which  perhaps 
is  sufficient  to  account  for  the  use  of  the  plural  ^  in 
"  children."  In  the  list  of  Num.  xxvi.  the  name 
is  changed  to  Shuham, 

Hushim  figures  prominently  in  the  Jewish  tradi- 

{(Tvyyeirq^,  ver.  31}  and  "  father "  (32).  Somewhat 
analogous,  too,  is  the  use  of  terms  of  relationship  — 
"  brother,"  "  cousin  "  —  in  legal  and  ofBcial  docu- 
ments of  our  own  and  other  countiies. 

c  Gen.  xxxri.  25,  adduced  by  Knobel  ad  loc.  as  I 
paralle  :ase  to  this,  is  hardly  so,  since  a  daughter  of 
Anah  is  given  as  well  as  his  sen,  and  the  word  B»n 
covers  both. 


nio 


HUSKS 


tiOD8  of  the  recognition  of  Joseph,  and  of  Jacob's 
ourial  at  Hebron.  See  the  quotations  from  the 
Midrash  in  Weil's  Bib.  Legends,  p.  88  note,  and 
the  Targum  Pseudojon.  on  Gen.  1.  13.  In  the 
latter  he  is  the  eKecutioner  of  Esau. 

2.  D^n  {L  e.  Chussliim:  'Ao-c^m?  Alex.Ao-oiS: 
Hasim),  a  member  of  the  genealogy  of  Benjamin 
(1  Chr.  vii.  12);  and  here  agaui  apparently  (as  the 
text  now  stands)  the  plural  nature  of  the  name  is 
recognized,  and  Hushim  is  stated  to  be  "  the  sons 
{Bene)  of  Aher."  (See  Bertheau  in  Exeg.  Handb. 
ad  loc.) 

3.  (D^rpnn,  and  C'^tt'n :  'na/v;  [Vat.  Scoaij/, 
no-t/xei/;]  Alex.  Claifi  '  TJmim,  but  in  ver.  11 
Mehushn,  by  inclusion  of  the  Hebrew  pajrticle.) 
The  name  occurs  again  in  the  genealogy  of  Benjar 
niin,  but  there  as  that  of  one  of  the  two  wives  of 
Shaharaim  (1  Chr.  viii.  8),  and  the  mother  of  two 
of  his  sons  (11).  In  this  case  the  plural  significance 
of  the  name  is  not  alluded  to. 

HUSKS.    The  word  Kcpdria,  which  our  trans- 


Ceratonia  siliqua. 


Utors  have  rendered  by  the  general  term  "  husks "' 
(Luke  XV.  16),  describes  really  the  fruit  of  a  partic- 
ular kind  of  tree,  namely,  the  carob  or  Cernhmia 
vUqun  of  botanists.  This  tree  is  very  conmionly 
met  with  in  Syria  and  Egypt;  it  produces  pods, 
uliaped  like  a  horn  (whence  the  Greek  name),  vary- 
ing in  length  from  6  to  10  inches,  and  about  a 
finger's  breadth,  or  rather  more.  These  pods,  con- 
taining a  thick  pithy  substance,  very  sweet  to  the 
taste,  were  eaten ;  and  afforded  food  not  only  for 
tattl.j  (Mishn.  Shabb.  24,  §  2),  and  paiticularly 
pigs  (Colum.  R.  R.  vii.  9),  but  also  for  the  poorer 
clasaes  of  the  population  (Hor.  Ep.  ii.  1,  123 ;  Juv. 
id.  58).  The  same  uses  of  it  prevail  in  the  present 
dftj ;  u  the  tree  readily  sheds  its  fruit,  it  forms  a 
lonfeiuent  mode  of  feeding  pigs.     The  tree  is  also 


HUZZAB 

named  St.  John's  Breadj  from  a  tradition  tliftt  thtf 
Baptist  lived  upon  its  fruit  in  the  wildemeag. 

W.  L.  B. 

*  The  carob-tree  is  very  common  also  in  the 
Greek  islands,  and  its  fruit  is  still  in  great  request 
there  as  a  nutritious  article  for  fattening  swine. 
It  may  be  seen  exposed  for  sale  in  the  markets  at 
Smyrna  and  Athens.  The  writer  has  seen  it  aa 
far  north  as  Trieste,  on  the  Gulf  of  Venice.  The 
pod,  though  considerably  larger,  resembles  very 
much  that  of  our  common  locust-tree.  It  contains 
a  sweetish  pulp  when  tender,  but  soon  becomes  dry 
and  hard,  with  small  seeds,  which  rattle  in  the  pod 
when  shaken  It  emits  a  slight  odor  when  first 
gathered,  not  a  little  offensive  to  those  unaccus 
tomed  to  it. 

The  occasional  use  of  this  product  for  food  (see 
above)  is  not  at  variance  with  the  parable.  '  It  is 
not  said  there  that  the  prodigal  resorted  to  food 
eaten  only  by  swine ;  but  that  in  his  wi-etchedness, 
having  no  friend  to  give  him  anything  better,  he 
was  glad  to  share  (iiredi/jiei  ycfxicrai)  "  the  husks  " 
which  the  swine  were  eating,  which  he  was  sent 
into  the  fields  to  watch.  Yet  the  expression 
here  {koX  ouSeiy  ihiZov  avra})  some  under- 
stand differeiitly,  namely,  that  no  one  gave 
the  prodigal  even  so  much  as  any  of  the 
husks,  and  if  he  obtained  them,  it  was  with- 
out permission  and  by  stealth.  This  is 
Meyer's  view  {Lukas,  p.  450,  4te  Aufl.),  and 
it  appears  to  be  that  of  Luther.  The  Greek 
does  not  require  this  interpretation ;  for  the 
clause  cited  above  (added  in  the  Hebraistic 
way  by  koI  =  on)  may  assign  a  reason  why 
(there  being  no  other  alternative)  the  prodigal 
must  eat  the  husks  to  save  himself  from 
starvation.  The  ellipsis  of  t\  after  5i5w/At  is 
very  common  (Matt.  xix.  21,  xxv.  8;  Mark 
vi.  37 ;  Luke  vi.  30,  &c. ).  In  the  other  case 
we  supply  Kepdria  as  the  object.  H. 

HUZ  (V^^  [perh.,  fi-uitful  in  trees, 
Dietr.],  i.  e.  Uz,  in  which  form  the  name  is 
uniformly  given  elsewhere  in  the  A.  V. :  Ot'C» 
Alex.  fl|:  llus),  the  eldest  son  of  Nahor  and 
Milcah  (Gen.  xxii.  21).  [Buz;  Uz.] 

HUZ'ZAB  (3=V;n  [Assyrian,  I-urst:  see 
ivf'rn'\:  rj  inr6(TTa(ns '  miles  captivus),  ac- 
cording to  the  general  opinion  of  the  Jews 

(Buxtorf  s  Lexicon  ad  voc.  D^^),  was  the 
queen  of  Nineveh  at  the  time  when  Nahum 
delivered  his  prophecy.  This  view  appears 
to  be  followed  in  our  version  (Nah.  ii.  7/, 
and  it  has  been  recently  defended  by  Ewald 
Most  modern  expositors,  however,  incline  to 
the  belief  that  Iluzzab  here  is  not  a  proper  name  at 

all,  but  the  Hophal  of  the  verb  D^3   (see  Buxkorf, 

as  above;  Gesenius,  Lex.  p.  903),  and  this  is  allowed 
as  possible  by  the  alternative  rendering  in  the  mar- 
gin of  our  English  Bible  —  "  that  which  was  es- 
tablished." Still  there  are  diflficulties  in  the  way  of 
such  an  understanding  of  the  passage,  and  it  is  not 
improbable  that  after  all  Huzzab  may  really  be  a 
proper  name.  That  a  Ninevite  queen  otherwise 
unknown  should  suddenly  be  mentioned,  is  indeed 
exceedingly  unlikely ;  for  we  cannot  grant  to  Ewald 
that  "  the  Ninevite  queens  were  well  nigh  as  power- 
ful as  the  kings."  But  there  is  no  reason  why  tiM 
word  should  not  be  a  giographic  term  —  an  equiv- 
alent or  representative  jf  Assyria,  which  the  prophet 


to  threaten  with  captivity.  Iluzzab  may ' 
»  the  Zab  country,"  or  the  fertile  tract  east 
of  the  Tigris,  watered  by  the  uppe"  and  lower  Zab 
rivers  {Zab  Ala  and  Zab  Asfal),  the  K-diab-m6: 
of  the  geographers.  This  province  —  the  most  val- 
uable part  of  Assyria  —  miglit  well  stand  for  Assyria 
itself,  with  which  it  is  identified  by  Pliny  (//.  A^  v. 
12)  and  Amraianus  (xxiii.  6).  The  name  Zab,  as 
applied  to  the  rivers,  is  certainly  very  ancient,  being 
found  in  the  great  inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I., 
which  belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century 
V  c.  G.  K. 

IIY-iENA.  Authorities  are  at  variance  as  to 
whether  the  term  tzabu'a  (3?^3^)  m  Jer.  xii.  9 
means  a  "  hyaena,"  as  the  LXX.  has  it,  or  a 
"speckled  bird,"  as  in  the  A.  V.  The  etymolog- 
ical force  of  the  word  is  equally  adapted  to  either, 
the  hytena  being  streaked.  The  only  other  instance 
in  which  it  occurs  is  as  a  proper  name,  Zeboira 
(1  Sam.  xiii.  18,  "  the  valley  of  hyaenas,"  Aquila; 
Neh.  xi.  31).  The  Talmudical  writers  describe  the 
hyaena  by  no  less  than  four  names,  of  which  tzdbu'a 
is  one  (Lewysohn,  Zool  §  119).  The  opinions  of 
Bochart  {Hieroz.  ii.  163)  and  Gesenius  (Thes.  [>. 
1149)  are  in  favor  of  the  same  view;  nor  could  any 
room  for  doubt  remain,  were  it  not  for  the  word  ait 

(tO*^!?  ;  A.  V.  "bird")  connected  with  it,  which 
in  all  other  passages  refers  to  a  bird.  The  hyaena 
was  common  in  ancient  as  in  modern  Egypt,  and 
is  constantly  depicted  on  monuments  (Wilkinson, 
i.  213,  225):  it  must  therefore  have  been  well 
known  to  the  .Jews,  if  indeed  not  equally  common 
in  Palestine."  The  sense  of  the  passage  in  Jeremiah 
implies  a  fierce  strong  beast,  not  far  below  the  lion 
in  the  parallel  passage  (v.  8);  the  hyaena  fully 
answers  to  this  description.  Though  cowardly  in 
his  nature,  he  is  very  savage  when  once  he  attacks, 
and  the  strength  of  his  jaws  is  such  that  he  can 
crunch  the  thigh-bone  of  an  ox  (Livingstone's 
Travels,  p.  600).     [Zeboim.]  W.  L.  B. 

*  The  etymological  aflSnity  of  the  Arabic  *a*»0 

ought  to  decid:^  that  the  animal  intended  is  the 
hyaena.  This  animal  is  common  in  Palestine  and 
Syria.  G.  E.  P. 

HYDASTES  {'rSd(nrr)5-  [Jadasmi]),  a  river 
noticed  in  -Jud.  i.  6,  in  connection  with  the 
Euphrates  and  Tigris.  It  is  uncertain  what  river 
is  referred  to :  the  well-known  Hydaspes  of  India 
(the  Jelum  of  the  Panja)  is  too  remote  to  accord 
with  the  otlier  localities  noticed  in  the  context. 
We  may  perhaps  identify  it  with  the  Choaspes  of 
.Snsiam.  W.  L.  B. 

HYMEN^'TTS  [A.  V.  Hymene'us]  ('T^te- 
vaios),  tlie  name  ff  a  person  occurring  twice  in  the 
(correspondence  bei.ween  St.  Paul  and  Timothy;  the 
first  time  classed  with  Alexander,  and  with  him 
"  delivered  to  Satan,  that  they  might  learn  not  to 
blasphonio"  (1  Tim.  i.  20);  and  the  second  time 
tiassed  witli  Philetus,  and  with  him  charged  with 
naving  "  erred  conrerning  the  truth,  saying  that 
the  resurrfction  is  past  jjlready. "  and  thereby 
'  overthrown  the  faith  of  some '  (2  Tim.  ii.  17, 
18).  These  latter  expressions,  coupled  with  "  the 
ihipwreck  of  faith  "  attributed  to  Hymenaeus  in 


HYMEN^^US 


1111 


«  Prof.   Stanley  i-ecords  {S.  ^  P.  p.  162,  note)  that 
Jbt  onlv  wild  animal  he  saw  in  Palestine  was  a  hyaena. 


the  context  of  the  former  passage  (ver.  19),  Burelj 
warrant  our  understanding  both  passages  of  the 
same  person,  notwithstanding  the  interval  between 
the  dates  of  the  two  letters.  When  the  first  wa«« 
written  he  had  already  made  one  proselyte;  before 
the  second  was  penned  he  had  seduced  another; 
and  if  so,  the  only  points  further  to  be  considere<l 
are,  the  error  attributed  to  him,  and  the  sentence 
imposed  upon  him. 

I.  The  error  attributed  to  him  was  one  that  had 
been  in  part  appropriated  from  others,  and  has 
frequently  been  revived  since  with  additions.  W^hat 
initiation  was  to  the  Pythagoreans,  wisdom  to  the 
Stoics,  science  to  the  followers  of  Plato,  contempla- 
tion to  the  Peripatetics,  that  "knowledge"  (yvar 
(Tis)  was  to  the  Gnostics.  As  there  were  likewise 
in  the  Greek  schools  those  who  looked  forward  to  a 
complete  restoration  of  all  things  {airoKarda-Tains, 
V.  Heyne  o,d  Virg.  Ed.  iv.  5,  comp.  Jin.  vi.  745); 
so  there  was  "a  regeneration"  (Tit.  iii.  5;  Matt, 
xix.  28),  "  a  new  creation  "  (2  Cor.  v.  17,  see  Alford 
adloc.\  Kev.  xxi.  1),  "  a  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
of  Messiah  or  Christ  "  (Matt.  xiii. ;  Rev.  vii.)  —  and 
herein  popular  belief  among  the  Jews  coincided  — 
unequivocally  propounded  in  the  N.  T. ;  but  here 
with  this  remarkable  diflTerence,  namely,  that  in  a 
great  measure,  it  was  present  as  well  as  future  — 
the  same  thing  in  germ  that  was  to  be  had  in  per- 
fection eventually.  »  The  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you,"  said  our  Lord  (Luke  xvii.  21).  "He  that  is 
spiritual  judgeth  all  things,"  said  St.  Paul  (1  Cor. 
ii.  15).  "  He  that  is  born  of  God  cannot  sin,"  said 
St.  -lohn  (1  P2p.  iii.  9).  There  are  likewise  two 
deaths  and  two  resurrections  spoken  of  in  the  N. 
T. ;  the  first  of  each  sort,  that  of  the  soul  to  and 
from  sin  (John  iii.  3-8),  "  the  hour  which  now  is  " 
{ibid.  V.  24,  25,  on  which  see  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei, 
XX.  6);  the  second,  that  of  the  body  to  and  from 
corruption  (1  Cor.  xv.  36-44;  also  John  v.  28,  29), 
which  last  is  prospective.  Now  as  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  was  found  to  involve 
immense  diflSculties  even  in  those  early  days  (Acti 
xvii.  32;  1  Cor.  xv.  35;  how  keenly  they  were 
pressed  may  be  seen  in  St.  Aug.  De  Civ.  Dei,  xxii. 
12  ff. ) ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  there  was  so  great 
a  predisposition  in  the  then  current  philosophy 
(not  even  extinct  now)  to  magnify  the  excellenoe 
of  the  soul  above  that  of  its  earthly  tabernacle,  it 
was  at  once  the  easier  and  more  attractive  course 
to  insist  upon  and  argue  from  the  force  of  those 
passages  of  Holy  Scripture  which  enlarge  upon  the 
glories  of  the  spiritual  life  that  now  is,  under  Christ, 
and  to  pass  over  or  explain  away  allegorically  all 
that  refers  to  a  future  state  in  connection  with  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  In  this  manner  we  may 
derive  the  first  errors  of  the  Gnostics,  of  whom 
Hymenaeus  was  one  of  the  earliest.  They  were  on 
the  spread  when  St.  John  wrote;  and  his  grand- 
disciple,  St.  Irenaeus,  compiled  a  voluminous  work 
against  them  (Adv.  Hcer.).  A  good  account  of  their 
full  development  is  given  by  Gieseler,  E.  //.,  per.  i. 
div.  i.  §  44  fir. 

II.  As  regards  the  sentence  passed  upon  him  — 
it  has  been  asserted  by  some  winters  of  eminence 
(see  Corn,  a  Lapide  ad  1  Cm\  v.  5),  that  the 
"  delivering  to  Satan "  is  a  mere  sjTionym  for 
ecclesiastical  excommunication.  Such  can  hardly 
be  the  case.  The  Apostles  possessed  many  extra- 
ordinary prerogatives,  which  none  have  since  arro- 
gated. Even  the  title  which  they  bore  has  been 
set  apart  to  them  ever  since.  The  shaking  oflfthfl 
dust  of  the'r  leet  against  a  city  that  would  no« 


I 


1112 


HYMEN^US 


receive  them  (St.  Matt.  x.  14),  even  though  the 
same  Injunction  was  afterwards  given  to  the  Seventy 
(St.  Luke  X.  11),  and  which  St.  Paul  found  it 
necessary  to  act  upon  twice  in  the  course  of  his 
ministry  (Acts  xiii.  51,  and  xviii.  6),  has  never 
been  a  practice  since  with  Christian  ministers. 
"  Anathema,"  says  Bingham,  "  is  a  word  that 
occurs  frequently  in  the  ancient  canons  "  (Aniiq. 
xvi.  2,  16),  but  the  form  "  Anathema  Maranatha" 
is  one  that  none  have  ever  ventured  upon  since  St. 
Paul  (1  Cor.  xvi.  22).  As  the  Apostles  healed  all 
manner  of  bodily  infirmities,  so  they  seem  to  have 
possessed  and  exercised  the  same  power  in  inflicting 
them  —  a  power  fiir  too  jjerilous  to  be  continued 
when  the  manifold  exigencies  of  the  Apostolical  age 
had  passed  away.  Ananias  and  Sapphira  both  fell 
down  dead  at  the  rel)uke  of  St.  Peter  (Acts  v.  5 
and  10);  two  words  from  the  same  lips,  "  Tabitha, 
arise,"  sufficed  to  raise  Dorcas  from  the  dead  {ibid. 
ix.  40).  St.  Paul's  first  act  in  entering  upon  his 
ministry  was  to  strike  Elymas  the  soi-cerer  with 
blindness,  his  own  sight  having  been  restored  to 
him  through  the  medium  of  a  disciple  (iljid.  ix.  17, 
and  xiii.  11);  while  soon  afterwards  we  read  of  his 
healing  the  cripple  of  Lystra  {ibid.  xiv.  8).  Even 
apart  fh)m  actual  intervention  by  the  Apostles, 
bodily  visitations  are  siwken  of  in  the  case  of  those 
who  approached  the  Lord's  Supper  unworthily, 
when  as  yet  no  discipline  had  been  established : 
"  For  this  cause  many  are  weak  and  sickly  among 
you,  and  a  good  number  {iKavol,  in  the  former 
case  it  is  rroWoi)  sleep  "  (I  Cor.  xi.  30). 

On  the  other  hand  Satan  was  held  to  be  the 
instrument  or  executioner  of  all  these  visitations. 
Such  is  the  character  assigned  to  him  in  the  book 
of  Job  (i.  6-12,  ii.  1-7).  Similar  agencies  are 
described  1  K.  xxii.  19-22,  and  1  Chr.  xxi.  1.  In 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  49,  such  are  the  causes  to  which  the 
plagues  of  Egypt  are  assigned.  Even  our  Lord 
submitted  to  be  assailed  by  him  more  than  once 
(Matt.  iv.  1-10:  Luke  iv.  13  says,  "  departed  from 
Him  for  a  season  ");  and  "  a  messenger  of  Satan 
was  sent  to  buffet "  the  very  Aiwstle  whose  act  of 
delivering  another  to  the  same  power  is  now  under 
discussion.  At  the  same  time  large  powers  over 
the  world  of  spirits  were  authoritatively  conveyed 
by  our  Lord  to  his  inniiediate  followers  (to  the 
Twelve,  Luke  ix.  1 ;  to  the  Seventy,  as  the  results 
showed,  ibid.  x.  17-20). 

It  only  remains  to  notice  five  particulars  con- 
nected with  its  exercise,  which  the  Apostle  supplies 
himself.  (1.)  That  it  was  no  mere  prayer,  but  a 
solemn  authoritative  sentence,  pronounced  in  the 
name  and  power  of  Jesus  Christ  (1  Cor.  v.  3-5) 
(2.)  That  it  was  never  exercised  upon  any  without 
the  Church:  "  them  that  are  without  God  judgeth  " 
{ibid.  v.  13),  he  says  in  express  terms.  (3.)  That  it 
was  "  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh,"  t.  e.  some 
bodily  visitation.  (4. )  That  it  was  for  the  improve- 
ment of  the  offender;  that  "his  spirit  might  be 
saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus  "  {ibid.  v.  5); 
and  that  "  he  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme  "  while 
upon  earth  (1  Tim.  i.  20).  (5.)  That  the  Apostle 
could  in  a  given  case  empower  others  to  pass  such 
sentence  in  his  absence  (1  Cor.  v.  3,  4). 

Thus,  while  the  "delivering  to  Satan"  may 
resemble  ecclesiastical  excommunication  in  some 
respects,  it  has  its  own  characteristics  likewise, 
which  show  plainly  that  one  is  not  to  be  confounded 
)r  placed  on  the  same  level  with  the  other.  Nor 
•gain  does  St.  Paul  himself  deliver  to  Satan  all 
in  whose  company  he  bids  Biis  converts  "  not 


HYMN 


even  to  eat"  (1  Cor.  v.  11).     See  an  able 
of  the  whole  subject  by  Bingham,  Antiq.  vi.  2,  15 

E.  S.  Ff. 

HYMN".  This  word  is  not  used  in  the  English 
version  of  the  O.  T.,  and  only  twice  in  the  N.  T. 
(Eph.  V.  19;  Col.  iii.  16);  though  in  the  original 
of  the  latter  the  derivative  verb  «  occurs  in  three 
places  (Matt.  xxvi.  30 ;  comp.  Mark  xiv.  26 ;  Acts 
xvi.  25;  Heb.  ii.  12).  The  LXX.,  however,  employ 
it  freely  in  translating  the  Heb.  names  for  almost 
every  kind  of  poetical  composition  (Schleusn.  Lex. 
vixvos)-  In  fact  the  word  does  not  seem  to  have 
had  for  the  LXX.  any  very  special  meaning;  and 
they  called  the  Heb.  book  of  Tehillim  the  book  of 
psalms,  not  of  hymns.  Accordingly  the  word />sn/w 
had  for  the  later  Jews  a  definite  meaning,  while 
the  word  hymn  was  more  or  less  vague  in  its  appli- 
cation, and  capable  of  being  used  as  occasion  should 
arise.  If  a  new  poetical  form  or  idea  should  be 
produced,  the  name  of  hymn,  not  being  embar- 
rassed by  a  previous  determination,  was  ready  to 
associate  itself  with  the  fresh  thought  of  another 
literature.  And  this  seems  to  have  been  actually 
the  case. 

Among  Christians  the  H}Tnn  has  always  been 
something  different  from  the  Psalm  ;  a  different 
conception  in  thought,  a  different  type  in  composi- 
tion. There  is  some  dispute  about  the  h}-mn  sung 
by  our  I>ord  and  his  Apostles  on  the  occasion  of 
the  Last  Supper;  but  even  supposing  it  to  have 
been  the  Ihdltl,  or  Paschal  Hymn,  consisting  of 
Pss.  cxiii.-cxviii.,  it  is  obvious  that  the  word  hymn 
is  in  this  case  applied  not  to  an  individual  psalm, 
but  to  a  number  of  psalms  chanted  successively, 
and  altogether  forming  a  kind  of  devotional  exercise 
which  is  not  unaptly  called  a  hymn.  The  prayer 
in  Acts  iv.  24-30  is  not  a  hymn,  unless  we  allow 
non-metrical  as  well  as  metrical  hymns.  It  may 
have  been  a  hymn  as  it  was  originally  altered ;  but 
we  can  only  judge  by  the  Greek  translation,  and 
this  is  without  metre,  and  therefore  not  properly  a 
hymn.  In  the  jail  at  Philippi,  Paul  and  Silas 
"  sang  hymns  "  (A.  V.  "  pmises  '")  unto  God,  and 
so  loud  was  tlieir  song  that  their  fellow-prisoners 
heard  them.  This  must  have  been  what  we  mean 
by  singing,  and  not  merely  recitation.  It  was  in 
fact  a  veritable  singing  of  hymns.  And  it  is 
remarkable  that  the  noun  hymn  is  only  used  in 
reference  to  the  services  of  the  Greeks,  and  in  the 
same  passages  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the 
psalm  (Eph.  v.  19,  Col.  iii.  16),  "psalms,  and 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs." 

It  is  probable  that  no  Greek  version  of  the 
Psalms,  even  supposing  it  to  be  accommodated  to 
the  Greek  metres,  would  take  root  in  the  affections 
of  the  Gentile  converts.  It  was  not  only  a  question 
of  metre,  it  was  a  question  of  tune ;  and  Greek 
tunes  required  Greek  hymns.  So  it  was  in  Syria. 
Richer  in  tunes  than  Greece,  for  Greece  had  but 
eight,  while  Syria  had  275  (IBenedict.  Pre/,  vol.  y. 
Ojj.  kph.  Syr.),  the  Syrian  hjTnnographers  revelled 
in  the  varied  luxury  of  their  native  music ;  and  the 
result  was  that  splendid  development  of  the  Hymn, 
as  moulded  by  the  genius  of  Bardesanes,  Harmonms, 
and  Ephrem  Syrus.  In  Greece  the  eight  tunes 
which  seem  to  have  satisfied  the  exigencies  of 
church-music  were  probably  acconmiodated  to  fixed 
metres,  each  metre  being  wedded  to  a  particular 


(t  *  Hymn  occurs  also  in  Matt.  xxvi.  ?),  ard  Mad 
xiv.  26,  where  "when  they  had  tnuf  an  hyna 
(A.  V.)  stands  for  v/uifijo-aiaes.  8 


HYMN 

Imia;  %a  «rrangeraent  to  which  we  can  ooserve  a 
tendeucy  in  the  Directions  about  tunes  (ind  measures 
»t  the  end  of  our  Enj^lish  metrical  version  of  the 
Psalms.  This  is  also  the  case  in  tiie  German 
hyranology,  where  certain  ancient  tunes  are  recog- 
nized as  models  for  the  raftres  of  later  compositions, 
and  their  names  are  always  prefixed  to  the  hymns 
in  common  use. 

It  is  worth  while  inquiring  what  profane  models 
the  Greek  hymnogi-aphers  chose  to  work  after.  In 
the  old  religion  of  Greece  the  word  hymn  had 
already  acquired  a  sacred  and  liturgical  meaning, 
which  could  not  fail  to  suggest  its  application  to 
the  productions  of  the  Christian  muse.  So  much 
for  the  name.  The  special  forms  of  the  Greek 
hymn  were  various.  The  Homeric  and  Orphic 
hymns  were  written  in  the  epic  style,  and  in  hex- 
ameter verse.  Their  metre  was  not  adapted  for 
singing;  and  therefore,  though  they  may  have  been 
recited,  it  is  not  likely  that  they  were  sung  at  the 
celebration  of  the  mysteries.  We  turn  to  the  Pin- 
daric hymns,  and  here  we  find  a  sufficient  variety 
of  metre,  and  a  definite  relation  to  music.  These 
hymns  were  sung  to  the  accompaniment  of  the 
lyre;  and  it  is  very  likely  that  they  engaged  the 
attention  of  the  early  hymn-writers.  The  dithyramb, 
with  its  development  into  the  dramatic  chorus,  was 
sufficiently  connected  with  musical  traditions  to 
make  its  form  a  fitting  vehicle  for  Christian  poetry ; 
and  there  certainly  is  a  dithyrambic  savor  about 
the  earUest  known  Christian  hynm,  as  it  appears 
m  Clem.  Alex.  pp.  312,  313,  ed.  Potter. 

The  first  impulse  of  Christian  devotion  was  to 
run  into  the  moulds  ordinarily  used  by  the  wor- 
shippers of  the  old  religion.  This  was  more  than 
an  impulse,  it  was  a  necessity,  and  a  twofold  neces- 
jity.  The  new  spirit  was  strong ;  but  it  had  two 
Imitations  :  the  difficulty  of  conceiving  a  new 
nusico-poetical  literature;  and  the  quality  so  pecu- 
liar to  devotional  music,  of  lingering  in  the  heart 
after  the  head  has  been  convinced  and  the  belief 
changed.  The  old  tunes  would  be  a  real  necessity 
to  the  new  Hfe;  and  the  exile  from  his  ancient 
faith  would  delight  to  hear  on  the  foreign  soil  of  a 
new  religion  the  familiar  melodies  of  home.  Dean 
Trench  has  indeed  labored  to  show  that  the  reverse 
was  the  case,  and  that  the  early  Christian  shrank 
with  horror  fi'om  the  sweet,  but  polluted,  enchant- 
ments of  his  unbelieving  state.  We  can  only  as- 
sent to  this  in  so  far  as  we  allow  it  to  be  the  second 
phase  in  tlie  history  of  hymns.  When  old  tra<:li- 
tions  died  away,  and  the  Christian  acquired  not 
only  a  new  belief,  but  a  new  social  humanity,  it 
was  possible,  and  it  was  desirable  too,  to  break  for- 
ever the  attenuated  thread  that  bound  him  to  the 
ancient  world.  And  so  it  was  broken;  and  the 
trochaic  and  iambic  metres,  unassociated  as  they 
were  with  heathen  worship,  though  largely  associa- 
ted with  the  heathen  drama,  obtained  an  ascendant 
in  the  Christian  church.  In  1  Cor.  xiv.  26  aUu- 
Bion  is  made  to  improvised  hymns,  which  being 
the  outburst  of  a  passionate  emotion  would  proba- 
bly -issume  the  dithyrambic  form.  But  attempts 
aave  been  made  to  detect  fragments  of  ancient 
hymns  conformed  to  more  obvious  metres  in  Eph. 
V.  14;  Jam.  i.  17;  Rev.  i.  8  ffi,  xv.  3.  lliese  pre- 
tended fragments,  however,  may  with  much  greater 
iikelihcod  be  referred  to  the  swing  of  a  prose  com- 
position unconsciously  culminating  into  metre.  It 
Iras  ui  the  Latin  church  that  the  trociiaic  and  iam- 
wc  meti-es  became  most  deeply  rooted,  and  acquire(f 
ke  greatest  depth  of  tone  and  grace  of  finish 


HYSSOP 


1118 


As  an  exponent  of  Christian  feeling  they  soon  mi« 
perseded  the  accentual  hexameters ;  they  were  uaet 
mnemonically  against  the  heathen  and  the  heretioi 
by  Commodianus  and  Augustine.  The  introduc- 
tion of  hymns  into  the  Latin  church  is  commonly 
referred  to  Ambrose.  But  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive that  the  West  should  have  been  so  far  behind 
the  East;  similar  necessities  must  have  produced 
similar  results ;  and  it  is  more  likely  that  the  tra- 
dition is  due  to  the  ver^;  marked  prominence  of 
Ambrose  as  the  greatest  of  all  the  Latin  hymnog- 
raphers. 

The  trochaic  and  iambic  metres,  thus  impressed 
into  the  service  of  the  church,  have  continued  to 
hold  their  ground,  and  are  in  fact  the  7's,  S.  M., 
C.  M.,  and  L.  M.  of  our  modern  hymns;  many  of 
which  are  translations,  or  at  any  rate  imitations, 
of  Latin  originals.  These  metres  were  peculiarly 
adapted  to  the  grave  and  sombre  spirit  of  Latin 
Christianity.  Less  ecstatic  than  the  varied  chorus 
of  the  Greek  church,  they  did  not  soar  upon  the 
pinion  of  a  lofty  praise,  so  much  as  they  drooped 
and  sank  into  the  depths  of  a  great  sorrow.  They 
were  subjective  rather  than  objective ;  they  appealed 
to  the  heart  more  than  to  the  understanding ;  and 
if  they  contained  less  theology,  they  were  fuller  of 
a  rich  and  Christian  humanity.  (Daniel's  The- 
saurus ffymnologicus,  Halis  et  Lipsise,  1841-1855; 
Latelnische  Hyinnen,  etc.,  by  F.  G.  Mone;  Gesange 
Chrisilicher  Vorzeit,  by  C  Fortlage,  Berlin,  1844; 
Sacred  Latin  Poetry,  by  R.  C.  Trench ;  Ephrem 
Syrtis,  by  Dr.  Burgess ;  Hahn's  Bardesanes ; 
[Lamson's  Church  of  the  First  Three  Centuries, 
p.  343flr.,  2ded.])  T.  E.  B. 

HYSSOP  (:i'ltW,  ezob:  {/Vo-ccttos).  Perhaps 
no  plant  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures  has  given  rise 
to  greater  differences  of  opinion  than  this.  The 
question  of  the  identification  of  the  ezob  of  the 
Hebrews  with  any  plant  known  to  modern  botan- 
ists was  thought  by  Casaubon  "  adeo  difficilis  ad 
explicandum,  ut  videatur  Esias  expectandus,  qui 
certi  aliquid  nos  doceat."  Had  the  botanical 
works  of  Solomon  survived  they  might  have  thrown 
some  light  upon  it.  The  chief  difficulty  arisas  from 
the  fact  that  in  the  LXX.  the  Greek  vcro-wiros  is 
the  uniform  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  ezob,  and  that 
this  rendering  is  endorsed  by  the  Apostle  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (ix.  19,  21),  when  speaking 
of  the  ceremonial  observances  of  the  Levitical  law. 
Whether,  therefore,  the  LXX.  made  use  of  the 
Greek  vaa-coTTos  as  the  word  most  nearly  resembling 
the  Hebrew  in  sound,  as  Stanley  suggests  {S.  ^  P. 
21,  note),  or  as  the  true  representative  of  the  plant 
indicated  by  the  latter,  is  a  point  which,  in  all 
probabiUty,  will  never  be  decided.  Botanists  differ 
widely  even  with  regard  to  the  identification  of  the 
v<i(r<t)iros  of  Dioscorides.  The  name  has  been  given 
to  the  Satureia  Grceca  and  the  S.  Juliana,  to 
neither  of  which  it  is  appropriate,  and  the:  hyssop 
of  Italy  and  South  France  is  not  met  with  in 
Greece,  Syria,  or  Egypt.  Daubeny  {Lect.  on  Rom. 
Husbandry,  p.  313),  ibUowing  Sibthorpe,  identifie* 
the  mountain-hyssop  with  the  Thymbra  spicata, 
but  this  conjecture  is  disapproved  of  by  Kiihn 
{Comm.  in  Dlosc.  iii.  27),  who  hi  the  same  passage 
gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  Hebrews  used  the 
Origanum  jEgyiytiacum.  in  Egypt,  the  0.  Syria- 
cum  in  Palestine,  and  that  the  hyssop  of  Diosco- 
rides was  the  0.  Smynunum.  The  Greek  botanist 
describes  two  kinds  of  hyssop,  bpeiu-f}  and  K7]V(vr-it 
and  gives  TrecroAe/u,  a?  the  Egyptian  equivalent 


k 


1114  HYSSOP 

The  Talmudists  make  the  same  distinction  be- 
tween the  wild  hyssop  and  the  garden-plant  used 
for  food. 

The  ezob  was  used  to  sprinkle  the  doorposts  of 
the  Israelites  in  Egypt  witii  the  blood  of  the  pas- 
chal lamb  (Ex.  xii.  22);  it  was  employed  in  the 
purification  of  lepers  and  leprous  houses  (Lev.  xiv. 
4,  51),  and  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  red  heifer  (Num. 
xix.  6).  In  consequence  of  its  detergent  qualities, 
or  from  its  being  associated  with  the  purificatory 
services,  the  Psalmist  makes  use  of  the  expression, 
"  purge  me  with  ezub  "  (Ps.  li.  7).  It  is  described 
ui  1  K.  iv.  33  as  growing  on  or  near  walls.  In 
John  xix.  29  the  phrase  ucradiiru)  wepidcyrcs  corre- 
sponds to  Trepideh  KaXd/na)  in  Matt,  xxvii.  48  and 
Mark  xv.  36.  If  therefore  KaXdfxc^  be  the  equiva- 
lent of  ixrcrdiircf},  the  latter  must  be  a  plant  capa- 
ble of  producing  a  stick  three  or  four  feet  in  length. 

Five  kinds  of  hyssop  are  mentioned  m  the  Tal- 
mud. One  is  called  21^S  simply,  without  any 
epithet:  the  others  are  distinguished  as  Greek, 
Roman,  wild  hyssop,  and  hyssop  of  Cochali  (Mishna, 
Nec/aim,  xiv.  (j).  Of  these  the  four  last-mentioned 
*vere  profane,  that  is,  not  to  be  employed  in  puri- 
fications (Mishna,  Parah,  xi.  7).  Maimonides  {de 
Vacca  Eufa,  iii.  2)  says  that  the  hyssop  mentioned 
in  the  law  is  that  which  was  used  as  a  condiment. 
According  to  Porphyry  (De  Abstin.  iv.  7),  the 
Egyptian  priests  on  certain  occasions  ate  their 
bread  mixed  with  hyssop ;  and  the  znainr,  or  wild 
marjoram,  with  which  it  has  been  identified,  is  often 
an  ingredient  in  a  mixture  called  dukkcih,  which  is 
to  this  day  used  as  food  by  the  poorer  classes  in 
Egypt  (Lane,  i¥od.  Eg.  i.  200).  It  is  not  improb- 
able, therefore,  that  this  may  have  been  the  hyssop 
of  Maimonides,  who  wrote  in  li^ypt;  more  es[je- 
eially  as  R.  D.  Kimchi  {Lex.  s.  v.),  who  reckons 
seven  different  kinds,  gives  as  the  equivalent  tlie 

Arabic  yXjUC,  za'atar,  origanum,  or  marjoram, 

and  the  German  Dosten  or  Wohlr/emuih  (Rosenm. 
Hand!).).  With  this  agrees  the  Tanchum  Hieros. 
MS.  quoted  by  Gesenius.  So  in  the  Judseo-Span- 
ish  version,  Ex.  xii.  22  is  translated  "  y  tomar^des 
manojo  de  Qviyano.^^  But  Dioscorides  makes  a 
distinction  between  origanum  and  hyssop  when  he 
describes  the  leaf  of  a  species  of  the  former  as 
resembling  the  latter  (cf.  PUn.  xx.  67),  though  it 
is  evident  that  he,  as  well  as  the  Talmudists,  re- 
garded them  as  belonghig  to  the  same  family.  In 
the  Syriac  of  1  K.  iv.  33  hyssop  is  rendered  by 
ILsqI^,  lufd,    "houseleek,"    although   in   other 

pastures  it  is  represented  by  JLsOl,  zufo,  which 

the  Arabic  translation  follows  in  Ps.  li.  7  and  Heb. 
ix.  19,  while  in  the  Pentateuch  it  has  zaatar  for  the 
same.  Patrick  (on  1  K.  iv.  33)  was  of  opinion 
that  ezob  is  the  same  with  the  Ethiopic  aziib,  which 
represents  the  hyssop  of  Ps.  li.  7,  as  well  as  ■i]dv6a- 
uoy,  or  mint,  in  Matt,  xxiii.  23. 

Bochart  decides  in  favor  of  marjoram  or  some 
plant  like  it  (fJieroz.  i.  b.  2,  c.  50),  and  to  this 
conclusion,  it  must  be  admitted,  all  ancient  tradi- 
tion points.  The  monks  on  Jebel  Musa  give  the 
name  of  hyssop  to  a  fragrant  plant  called  jn'deh, 
which  grows  in  great  quantities  on  that  mountain 
v'Robinson,  Bibl.  Res.  i.  157).  Celsius  (Ilierobot. 
1.  423,,  after  enumerating  eighteen  different  plants, 
thyme,  southernwood,  rosemary,  French  lavender, 
wall  rue,  and  the  maidenhair  fern  among  others, 
iriiidi  havt  been  severally  identified  with  the  hys- 


HYSSOP 

sop  of  Scripture,  concludes  that  we  have  no  attcTi 

native  but  to  accept  the  Hyssopiis  officinalis^  "  nui 
velimus  apostolum  corrigere  qui  t^  3"l*S  Zaaw 

TTov  reddit  Heb.  ix.  19."  He  avoids  the  diflBcultj 
in  John  xix.  29  by  supposing  that  a  sponge  filled 
with  vinegar  was  wrapped  round  a  bunch  of  hyssop, 
and  that  the  two  were  then  fastened  to  the  end  of 
a  stick.  Dr.  Kitto  conceived  that  he  had  found 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Hebrew  ezob  in  the  Phyto- 
lacca decandra,  a  native  of  America.  Tremellius 
and  Ben  Zeb  render  it  by  "  moss."  It  has  been 
reserved  for  the  ingenuity  of  a  German  to  trace  a 
connection  between  ^sop,  the  Greek  fabuUst,  and 
the  ezob  of  1  K.  iv.  33  (Hitzig,  Die  Spi^iiche  Salo- 
mons, Einl.  §  2). 

An  elaborate  and  interesting  paper  by  the  late 
Dr.  J.  Forbes  Rojle,  On  the  Hyssop  of  SaHpture, 
in  the  Journ.  of  the  Roy.  As.  Soc.  viii.  193-212, 
goes  far  to  throw  light  upon  this  difficult  question. 
Dr.  R.,  after  a  careful  investigation  of  the  subject, 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  hyssop  is  na 
other  than  the  caper-plant,  or  capparis  spinosa  of 
Linnaeus.  The  Arabic  name  of  this  plant,  asuf 
by  which  it  is  sometimes,  though  not  commonly, 
described,  bears  considerable  resemblance  to  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  found  in  Lower  Egypt  (Forskal, 
Flo?:  Eg.-Arab. ;  Plin.  xiii.  44).  Burckhardt 
(Trav.  in  Syr.,  p.  536)  mentions  the  aszef  as  a 
tree  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  valleys  of  the 
peninsula  of  Sinai,  "  the  bright  green  creeper  which 
climbs  out  of  the  fissures  of  the  rocks  "  (Stanley, 
S.  cf  P.  p.  21,  &c.),  and  produces  a  fruit  of  the 
size  of  a  walnut,  called  by  the  Arabs  Felfel  Jibbel, 
or  mountain-pepper  (Shaw,  Spec.  Phytogr.  Afr. 
p.  39).  Dr.  R.  thought  this  to  be  undoubtedly  a 
species  of  capparis,  and  probably  the  caper-plant. 
The  cajyparis  spinosa  was  found  by  M.  Bovd  {Rel. 
d'un  Voy.  Botnn.  en  Eg.,  etc.)  in  the  desert  of  Sinai, 
at  Gaza,  and  at  Jerusalem.  Lynch  saw  it  in  a 
ravine  near  the  convent  of  Mar  Saba  {Exped.,  p. 
388).  It  is  thus  met  with  in  all  the  localities 
where  the  ez('ib  is  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  With 
regard  to  its  habitat,  it  grows  in  dry  and  rocky 
places,  and  on  walls:  "  quippe  quum  capparis  quo- 
que  seratur  siccis  maxime  "  (Plin.  xix.  48).  De 
Candolle  describes  it  as  found  "  in  muris  et  rupes- 
tribus."  The  caper-plant  was  believed  to  be  pos- 
sessed of  detergent  qualities.  According  to  Pliny 
(xx.  59 )  the  root  was  applied  to  the  cure  of  a  dis- 
ease similar  to  the  leprosy.  Lamarck  {Enc.  Fotan. 
art.  Caprier)  says,  "  les  capriers  .  .  .  sont  reg.ird^8 
comme  .  .  .  antiscorbutiques."  Finally,  the  oaper- 
plant  is  capable  of  producing  a  stick  three  or  foui 
feet  in  length.  Pliny  (xiii.  44)  describes  it  in 
Egypt  as  "  firmioris  figni  frutex,"  and  to  thii  prop- 
erty Dr.  Royle  attaches  great  importance,  identify- 
ing as  he  does  the  vacdyrc^  of  John  xix.  29  with 
the  KaXafxu)  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  He  thus  con- 
cludes: "A  combination  of  circumstances,  and 
some  of  them  apparently  too  improbable  to  be  uni- 
ted in  one  plant,  I  cannot  believe  to  be  accidental, 
and  have  therefore  considered  myself  entitled  to 
infer,  what  I  hope  I  have  succeeded  in  proving  to 
the  satisfaction  of  others,  that  the  caper-plant  is 
the  hyssop  of  Scripture."  Whether  his  conclusion 
is  sound  or  not,  his  investigations  are  well  worthy 
of  attention;  but  it  must  be  acknowledged  that, 
setting  aside  the  passage  in  John  xix.,  which  maj 
possibly  admit  of  another  solution,  there  seems  IM 
reason  for  supposing  that  the  properties  of  the  h6t 
of  the  Hebrews  may  not  be  found  in  some  one  of 


HYSSOP 

Llhe  plsmts  with  which  the  tradition  of  centuries 
hag  identified  it.  That  it  may  have  been  possessed 
of  some  detergent  qualities  which  led  to  its  signifi- 
cant employment  in  the  purificatory  service  is  pos- 
sible; but  it  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative  in 
Leviticus  that  its  use  was  such  as  to  call  into  action 
any  medicinal  properties  by  which  it  might  have 
been  characterized.  In  the  present  state  of  the 
evidence,  therefore,  there  does  not  seem  sufficient 
reason  for  departing  from  the  old  interpretation, 
which  identified  the  Greek  vcraruiros  with  the  He- 


brew niTs. 


W.  A.  W. 


*  I.  I  design  to  give  reasons,  conclusive  in  my 
mind,  against  the  supposition  that  the  Cappaiis 
spinosa  is  the  hyssop.  (1.)  It  is  a  thorny  plant 
highly  unsuitable  to  the  use  intended ;  i.  e.  the  be- 
ing formed  into  a  sort  of  wisp  or  brush,  or  bunch, 
suitable  for  sprinkling.  Its  branches  are  straggling 
and  quite  incapable  of  assuming  the  required  form, 
and  its  harsh  thorns  would  make  it  impossible  to 
hold  it  in  the  hand.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  it 
was  stripped  of  these  to  prepare  it  for  use?     (2.) 

It  has  no  affinity  with  the  Lj«\,  which  ia  one  of 

the  Labiatce,  and  which 
from     its     etymological 

identity  with  HITS  is 
entitled  to  be  considered 
the  plant  referred  to  in 
the  Scriptures. 

II.  I  desire  to  present 
the  evidence  which  satis- 
fies my  mind  that  the 
Origanum  mnru  is  the 
plant  intended. 

(1.)  The  definition  of 


'^) 


in   Arabic   is   "a 


plant  growing  on  a  slen- 
der square  stem "  (a 
characteristic  of  the  La- 
biatce)  "  with  a  leaf  like 

the  slender  (oJUO.'* 
This  definition  makes  it 
certain  that  the  Arabic 
Zupha  is  very  near  the 
Origanum  maru^  for  the 
latter  is  one  of  the  nume- 
rous species  included  by 
the  Arabs  under  the  in- 
definite term  ^  ^jLriO  : 
in  fact,  it  is  the  most 
common  of  them  all. 

(2.)  It  grows  on  the 
walk  of  all  the  terraces 
throughout  Palestine 
and  Syria. 

(3.)  It  is  free  from 
thorns,  and  its  slender 
Btem,  free  from  spread- 
ing branches,  and  ending 
in  a  cluster  of  heads, 
having  a  highly  aromatic 
odor,  exactly  fits  it  to  Origanum  maru.  (G.  E.  1 
be  made  mto  a  bunch  Post  fecu  )  1 


iBja  1115 

for  purposes  of  sprinkling.  No  plant  growing  in 
the  East  is  so  well  fitted  for  the  purpose.  These 
considerations  have  long  persuaded  me  that  this  ia 
the  plant  intended." 

Its  leaves  are  commonly  eaten  in  Syria  with  bread, 
and  as  a  seasoning,  as  we  use  summer  savory,  which 
it  resembles  in  taste.  Its  effects  on  sheep  and 
goats  are  very  salutary.  G.  E.  P. 


IB'H  AE,  Onil'!  \ph(m  God  chooses]:  'E^edpj 
'Efiadp,  Badp',  [Vat.  Baap  in  1  Chr.;]  Alex,  u- 
fiap,  le^aap''  Syr.  Jucobor:  Jebnhar,  Jebaar), 
one  ol  the  sons  of  David,  mentioned  in  the  lists 
next  after  Solomon  and  before  Elishua  (2  Sam.  v. 
15;  1  Chr.  iii.  6,  xiv.  5).  Ibhar  was  born  in  Je- 
rusalem, and  from  the  second  of  these  passages  it 
appears  that  he  was  the  son  of  a  wife  and  not  of  a 
concubine.  He  never  comes  forward  in  the  history 
in  person,  nor  are  there  any  traditions  concerning 
him.  For  the  genealogy  of  David's  family  see 
David. 

IB'LEAM  (D37yll'^  [conque7'07'  or  devourer 
of  the  peojjlt] :  [in  Josh.,  Rom.  Vat.  Alex,  omit, 
Comp.  'laiSAacta;  in  Judg.,]  'U^Aadfj.,  Alex.  Ba- 
Aaafi;  [in  2  K..,  Vat.  E/cjSAaa/i,  Kom.  Alex.  'le^S- 
\adij.:]  Jeblaam),  a  city  of  Alanasseh,  with  villages 
or  towns  (Hebrew  "daughters  ")  dependent  on  it 
(Judg.  i.  27).  Though  belonging  to  Manasseh,  it 
appears  not  to  have  lain  within  the  Umits  allotted 
to  that  tribe,  but  to  have  been  situated  in  the  ter- 
ritory of  either  Issachar  or  Asher  (Josh.  xvii.  11). 
It  is  not  said  which  of  the  two,  though  there  is  no 
doubt  from  other  indications  that  it  was  the  former. 
The  ascent  of  Guk,  the  spot  at  which  Ahaziah  re 
ceived  his  death  wound  from  the  soldiers  of  Jehu, 

was  "at  (2)  Ibleam  "  (2  K.  ix.  27),  somewhere 
near  the  present  Jenk,  probably  to  the  north  of  it, 
about  where  tlie  village  Jdama  now  stands. 

In  the  list  of  cities  given  out  of  Manasseh  to 
the  Kohathite  Levites  (1  Chr.  vi.  70),  Bileam  is 
mentioned,  answering  to  Gathrimmon  in  the  list 
of  Josh.  xxi.  Bileam  is  probably  a  mere  alteration 
of  Ibleam  (comp.  the  form  given  in  the  Alex.  LXX. 
above),  though  this  is  not  certain.  G. 

IBNE'IAH  [3syl.]  (H^?^^  {Jehovah  builds'] : 
'UfMvad;  [Vat.  Bayaa/LL;  Comp.  Aid]  Alex.  'le/S- 
j/ad:  Jobania),  son  of  Jeroham,  a  Benjamito,  who 
was  a  chief  man  in  the  tribe  apparently  at  the 
time  of  the  first  settlement  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr. 
ix.  8). 

IBNFJAH  (n*3n";  [as  above]:  'I6/i^a^ 
[Vat.  Boi/aia;]  Alex.  U^avaaf-  Jebania),  a  Bea- 
jamite  (1  Chr.  ix.  8). 

IB'RI  (^-]5^  [Hebrew]:  'A;8af;  Alex.  H/SS.. 
[Comp.  'AjSapt':]  Hebri),  a  Merarite  Levite  of  the 
family  of  Jaaziah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  27),  in  the  time  of 
king  David,  concerned  in  the  service  of  the  house 
of  Jehovah. 

The  word  is  precisely  the  same  as  that  elsewhere 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  "  Hebrew,"  which  see. 


*  The  fact  that  many  stalks  grow  up  froTi  one 
eminently  fltp    this  specie"  for  the  purpose  in- 


tended.    The  hand  could  easily  gather  in  a  eingli 
grasp  the  requisite  bundle  or  bunch  all  reMy  for  um 


1116 


IBZAN 


IB'ZAN  (l^'-S  [swift,  Jteef,  Dietr.;  splen- 
M,  beautiful,  Fiirst] :  'A/Saiaffdw,  [Vat.  A^ai- 
ffav;]  Alex.  Ea-e^wv;  Joseph.  'Ai|/cij/7js:  Abesan), 
a  native  of  Bethlehem,  who  judged  Israel  for  seven 
years  after  Jeplithah  (Judg.  xii.  8,  10).  He  had 
30  sons  and  30  daughters,  and  took  home  30  wives 
for  his  sons,  and  sent  out  his  daughters  to  as  many 
husbands  abroad.  He  was  buried  at  Bethlehem. 
From  the  non-addition  of  "Ephratah,"  or  "  Judah," 
after  Bethlehem,  and  from  Ibzan  having  been  suc- 
ceeded by  a  Zebulonite,  it  seems  pretty  certain  that 
the  Bethlehem  here  meant  is  that  in  the  tribe  of 
Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  15:  see  Joseph.  Ant.  v.  7,  § 
73).  There  is  )iot  a  shadow  of  probability  in  the 
notion  which  has  been  broached  as  to  the  identity  of 

Ibzan  with  Boaz  (T!^2l).  The  history  of  his  large 
fiimily  is  singularly  at  variance  with  the  impression 
of  Boaz  given  us  in  the  book  of  Ruth. 

A.  C.  H. 

ICH'ABOD  (Thn;)-^^,  from  >*,  "where?" 

equivalent  to  the  negative,  and  ^12^,  "glory," 


ICONIUM 

Ges.  Thes.  p.  79,  inf/hiious :  [in  1  Sani  iv.  S, 
Oi/atfiapxaSc^d,  [Alex.  Ouotxa)3aj5,  Comp  Ex* 
fi(i,d'  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  3,  'Iwxa^S^S],  which  aeemt 
to  derive  from  "^IS,  "woe,"  ouai,  1  Sam.  iv.  8 
Ges.  p.  39:  Jchabod),  the  son  of  Phinehas,  and 
grandson  of  Eli.  In  giving  birth  to  him  hia 
mother  died  of  grief  at  the  news  of  the  sudden 
deaths  of  her  husband  and  father-in-law.  Hia 
brother's  name  was  Ahiah  or  Ahimelech  (1  Sam. 
iv.  21.  xiv.  3).  H.  W.  P. 

ICO'NIUM  {"Ik6ulov\  the  modern  Konieh,  is 
situated  in  the  western  part  of  an  extensive  plain, 
on  the  central  table-land  of  Asia  Minor,  and  not 
far  to  the  north  of  the  chain  of  Taurus.  This 
level  district  was  anciently  called  Lycaonia.  Xen- 
ophon  {Amib.  i.  2,  19)  reckons  Iconium  as  the 
most  easterly  town  of  Phrygia;  but  all  other 
writers  speak  of  it  as  being  in  Lycaonia,  of  which 
it  was  practically  the  capital.  It  was  on  the  great 
line  of  communication  between  Ephesus  and  the 
western  coast  of  the  peninsula  on  one  side,  and 
Tarsus,  Antioch,  and  the  Euphrates  on  the  other. 
We  see  this  indicated  by  the  narrative  of  Xen^n'hop 


Iconium  (Koniek).     (Laborde,  Voyage  en  Orient.) 


(i.  c.)  and  the  letters  of  Cicero  (ad  Fam.  iii.  8,  v. 
20,  XV.  4).  WTien  the  Roman  provincial  system 
was  matured,  some  of  the  most  important  roads  in- 
tersected one  another  at  this  point,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  map  in  Leake's  Asia  Minor.  These  cir- 
cuinstaiices  should  be  borne  in  mind,  when  we  trace 
St.  Paul's  journeys  through  the  district.  Iconium 
ivas  a  well-chosen  place  for  missionary  operations. 
The  Apostle's  first  visit  was  on  his  first  circuit,  in 
company  with  Barnabas ;  and  on  this  occasion  he 
approached  it  from  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  which  lay 
to  the  west.  From  that  city  he  had  been  driven 
by  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  (Acts  xiii.  60,  51). 
There  were  Jews  in  Iconium  also ;  and  St.  Paul's 
first  efforts  here,  according  to  his  custom,  were 
made  in  the  synagogue  (xiv.  1).  The  results  were 
considerable  both  among  the  Hebrew  and  Gentile 
poi)uIation  of  the  place  {ibid.).  We  should  notice 
ihat  the  working  of  miracles  in  Iconium  is  emphat- 
ically mentioned  (xiv.  3).  The  intrigues  of  the 
Jews  again  drove  him  away ;  he  was  in  danger  of 
being  stoned,  and  he  withdrew  to  Lystka  and 
Dbrb'jC  in  the  eastern  and  wilder  part  of  Lycar>nia 
.ri<r.  6).     Thither  also  the  enmity  of  the  .Jews  of 


I  Antioch  and  Iconium  pursued  him ;  and  at  Lystra 
!  he  was  actually  stoned  and  left  for  dead  (xiv.  19 ). 
After  an  interval,  however,  he  returned  over  the 
old  ground,  revisiting  Iconium  and  encouraging  the 
church  which  he  had  founded  there  (xiv.  21,  22). 
These  sufferings  and  difficulties  are  alluded  to  in 
2  Tim.  iii.  11;  and  this  brings  us  to  the  consider- 
ation of  his  next  visit  to  this  neighborhood,  which 
was  the  occasion  of  his  first  practically  associating 
himself  with  Timothy.  Paul  left  the  Syrian  An- 
tioch, in  company  with  Silas  (Acts  xv.  40),  on  his 
second  missionary  circuit ;  and  travelling  through 
CiLiciA  (xv.  41),  and  up  through  the  passes  of 
Taurus  into  Lycaonia,  approached  Iconium  from 
the  east,  by  Derbe  and  Lystra  (xvi.  1,  2).  Though 
apparently  a  native  of  Lystra,  Timothy  was  evi- 
dently well  known  to  the  Christians  of  Iconium 
(xvi.  2);  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  his  circum- 
cision (xvi.  3)  and  ordination  (1  Tim.  .  18,  iv.  14 
vi.  12:  2  Tim.  i.  6)  took  place  there.  On  leaving 
Iconium  St.  Paul  and  his  party  travelled  to  thi 
N.  W. ;  and  the  place  is  not  mentioned  again  in 
the  sacred  narrative :  though  there  is  little  doubt 
that  it  was  visited  by  the  Apostle  again  in  the  earlj 


lOONIUM 

part  of  his  third  circuit  (Acts  xviii.  2S).  From  its 
position  it  could  not  fail  to  be  an  important  centre 
of  Christian  influence  in  the  early  ages  of  the 
ohurch.  The  curious  apocryphal  legend  of  St. 
Theela,  of  which  Iconiuin  is  the  scene,  must  not 
be  entirely  passed  by.  The  "  Acta  Pauli  et  Theclae ' 
are  given  in  full  by  Grabe  {Splcil.  vol.  i.),  and  by 
Jones  {On  the  Canon,  vol.  ii.  pp.  353-411).  It  is 
natural  here  to  notice  one  geographical  mistake  in 
that  document,  namely,  that  Lystra  is  placed  on 
the  west  instead  of  the  east.  In  the  declining 
period  of  the  Roman  empire,  Iconium  was  made  a 
ciilonia.  In  the  middle  ages  it  became  a  place  of 
great  consequence,  as  the  capital  of  the  Seljukian 
sultans.  Hence  the  remains  of  Saracenic  archi- 
tecture, which  are  conspicuous  here,  and  which  are 
described  by  many  travellers.  Konieh  is  still  a 
town  of  considerable  size.  J.  S.  H. 

*  The  origin  of  the  name  is  obscure.  Some  find 
it  allied  to  eUciv  or  cIkSuiov  (="  place  of  images  ") 
while  others  derive  it  from  a  Semitic  root  (see 
Pauly's  Real-Encykl.  iv.  51).  It  was  situated  on 
one  of  the  largest  plains  in  Asia  jNIinor,  and,  like 
Damascus,  formed  an  oasis  in  the  desert.  "  The 
rills  that  flowed  from  mountain  ranges  on  the  west 
of  the  city  irrigated,  for  a  little  distance,  the  low 
grounds  which  stretched  away  towards  the  east, 
and  gardens  and  orchards  were  seen  in  luxuriance, 
but  soon  the  water,  the  source  of  vegetation,  was 
exhausted,  and  then  commenced  the  dry  barren 
plain  of  Lycaonia."  (See  Ivcwin's  Life  and  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul,  i.  158.)  The  eyes  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas must  have  rested  for  hours  on  the  city  both 
before  reaching  it  from  Antioch  and  after  leaving 
it  for  Lystra.  "  We  travelled,"  says  Ainsworth, 
"  three  hours  along  the  plain  of  Koniyeh,  always 
in  sight  of  the  city,  before  we  reached  it "  ( Travels 
in  Asia  Minor,  ii.  65).  Leake  says,  "  We  saw 
the  city  with  its  mosques  and  ancient  walls  still  at 
.he  distance  of  12  or  14  miles  from  us"  {Travels 
ta  Ad  I  Minor,  p.  45). 

Luke's  statement  that  Paul  found  there  "  a  great 
multitude  both  of  Jews  and  Greeks"  (Acts  xiv.  1), 
accords  with  the  extent  and  variety  of  the  ruins 
still  found  on  the  spot.  It  accords  also  with  the 
geographical  position  of  the  place  so  well  situated 
for  trade  and  intercourse  with  other  regions.  The 
Greeks  and  Jews  were  the  commercial  factors  of 
that  period,  as  they  are  so  largely  at  the  present 
time;  and  hence  the  narrative  mentions  them  as 
very  numerous  precisely  here.  The  bulk  of  the 
population  belonged  to  a  different  stock.  The  pos- 
session of  a  common  language  gave  the  missionaries 
access  at  once  to  tlie  Greek-speaking  foreigners. 

The  Apostle's  narrow  escape  from  being  stoned 
at  Iconium  (Acts  xiv.  5)  recalls  to  us  a  passage  in 
one  of  the  epistles.  Paul  was  actually  stoned  at 
Lystra  (Acts  xiv.  19),  soon  after  his  departure  from 
Iconium,  and  referring  to  that  instance  when  he 
wrote  to  the  (^orinthians,  he  says  (2  Cor.  xi.  25): 
"Ortce  was  I  stoned."  Hence,  says  Paley  {florce 
Paulince),  "  had  this  meditated  assault  at  Iconium 
been  completed,  had  the  history  related  that  a  stone 
was  thrown,  as  it  relates  that  preparations  were 
made  both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  stone  Paul  and 
lis  companions,  or  even  had  the  account  of  this 
transaction  stopped,  without  going  on  to  inform  us 
that  Paul  and  his  companions  were  ♦  aware  of  the 
danger  and  tied,'  a  contradiction  between  the  his- 
tory and  tiie  epistles  would  have  ensued  Truth  is 
aeoessarily  consistent;  but  it  is  scarcely  possible 
iiat  iudc|>endent  accounts,  not   having  truth  to 


IBDO  1117 

guide  them,  should  thus  advance  to  the  very  biinli 
of  contradiction  without  falling  into  it."         H. 

ID'ALAH  (nbSl")  [memorial  stone  of  Ei 
(God),  Fiirst] :  'lepixd^'  [Vat.  -pei-] ;  Alex.  Ia5- 
7]\a''  Jedala  axui.  Jerali),  one  of  the  cities  of  the 
tribe  of  Zebulun,  named  between  Shimron  and 
Bethlehem  (Josh.  xix.  15).  Schwarz  (p.  172), 
without  quoting  his  authority,  but  probably  from 
one  of  the  Talnmdical  books,  gives  the  name  as 
"Yidalah  or  Chirii,"  and  would  identify  it  with 
the  village  "  Kellah  al-Chir^,  6  miles  S.  W.  oi 
Semunii."  Semuniyeh  is  known  and  marked  on 
many  of  the  maps,  rather  less  than  3  miles  S.  of 
Beit-lahm;  but  the  other  place  mentioned  by 
Schwarz  has  evaded  obser\at:on.  It  is  not  named 
in  the  Onomasticon.  G- 

ID'BASH  (C727^.  [stmt,  cmyulent]:  *ufi- 
Sds]  [Vat.  lafias;  Comp.  'leSejSas;]  Alex.  I^aySyjs: 
Jedebos),  one  of  the  three  sons  of  Abi-F.tam  — 
"the  father  of  Etam  " — among  the  families  of 
Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  3).  The  Tzelelponite  is  named 
as  his  sister.  This  list  is  probably  a  topographical 
one,  a  majority  of  the  names  being  those  of  places. 

ID'DO  1.  (^"^3?:  2aS5ci5;  [Vat.  corrupt;] 
Alex.  ^adooK'  Addo.)  The  father  of  Abinadab, 
one  of  Solomon's  monthly  purveyors  (1  K.  iv.  14), 

2.  (TO  :  'A8Si';  [Vat.  ASet;  Comp.  Aid.  'A8- 
5ci:]  Addo.)  A  descendant  of  Gershom,  son  of 
Levi  (1  Chr.  vi.  21).  In  the  reversed  genealogy 
(ver.  41)  the  name  is  altered  to  Udaiah,  and  we 
there  discover  that  he  was  one  of  the  forefathem 
of  Asaph  the  seer. 

3.  (^'^\  [favorite']:  'laSat;  [Vat.  loSSoi;] 
Alex.  loSSai":  J  addo.)  Son  of  Zechariah,  ruler 
{ndgid)  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  east  of  Jordan  in 
the  time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  21). 

4.  ("^"^3?.^,   i.   e.  Ye'doi    [6ww  on  a  festival, 

Fiirst] ;  but  in  the  correction  of  the  Keri  Tll?^, 
Ye'do:  'Ia;^\,  'ASScU  [Vat.  ASw] :  Addo.)  A  seer 
(ntn)  whose  "visions"  (mTH)  against  Jero 
boam  incidentally  contained  some  of  the  acts  of 
Solomon  (2  Chr.  ix.  29).  He  also  appears  to  have 
written  a  chronicle  or  story  {Midrash,  Ges.  p.  357) 
relating  to  the  life  and  reign  of  Abijah  (2  Chr.  xiii. 
22),  and  also  a  book  "concerning  genealogies,"  in 
which  the  acts  of  Kehoboam  were  recorded  (xii. 
15).  These  books  are  lost,  but  they  may  have 
formed  part  of  the  foundation  of  the  existing  books 
of  Chronicles  (liertheau.  On  Chron.  Introd.  §  3). 
The  mention  of  his  having  prophesied  against  Jero- 
boam probably  led  to  his  identification  in  the  an- 
cient Jewish  ti.iditions  (Jerome,  Qucest.  Ueb.  in 
2  Chr.  xii.  15,  Jaddo;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  3,  §  5, 
'laSajj/)  with  the  "Man  of  God"  out  of  Judah, 
who  denounced  the  altar  of  that  king  (1  K.  xiii.  1). 
He  is  also  identified  with  Oded  (see  Jerome  on  2 
Chr.  XV.  1). 

5.  {)AMV  ;  in  Zech.  [i.  7,]  'T\^  :  'A9d<&]  [in 
Ezr.,  Vat.  ASw;  m  Neh.,  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit, 
and  so  Rom.  in  xii.  4 :]  Addo.)  The  grandfather  of 
the  prophet  Zechariah  (Zech.  i.  1,  7),  although  in 
other  plaops  Zechariah  is  called  "  the  son  of  Iddo  " 
(Ezr.  V.  1,  vi.  14).  Itldo  returned  from  Babylon 
with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua  (Neh.  xii.  4),  and  in 
the  next  generation  —  the  "  days  of  Joiakim  "  son 
of  Jeshua  (w.  10, 12)  —  his  housK  was  repre8«t«J 


1118 


IDOL 


bj  Zechariah  (ver.  14).  In  1  Esdr.  vi.  1  the  name 
is  Addo. 

6.  01^ :  [LXX.  omit,  exc.  Comp.  once  'AS- 
8oe^:]  Eddo.)  The  chief  of  those  who  assembled 
at  Casii3hia,  at  the  time  of  the  second  caravan  from 
Babylon,  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus 
B.  c.  458.  He  was  one  of  the  Nethinim,  of  whom 
220  responded  to  the  appeal  of  Ezra  to  assist  in 
the  return  to  Judaea  (Ezr.  viii.  17;  comp.  20).  In 
the  Apocr.  Esdras  the  name  is  Saddeus  and  Dad- 
DKUS.  G. 

IDOL,  IMAGE.  As  no  less  than  twenty-one 
diflferent  Hebrew  words  have  been  rendered  in  the 
A.  V.  either  by  idol  or  image,  and  that  by  no 
means  uniformly,  it  will  be  of  some  advantage  to 
attempt  to  discriminate  between  them,  and  assign, 
as  nearly  as  the  two  languages  will  allow,  the  Eng- 
lish equivalents  for  each.  But,  before  proceeding 
to  the  discussion  of  those  words  which  in  them- 
selves indicate  the  objects  of  false  worship,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  notice  a  class  of  abstract  terms, 
which,  with  a  deep  moral  significance,  express  the 
degradation  associated  with  it,  and  stand  out  as  a 
protest  of  the  language  against  the  enormities  of 
idolatry.     Such  are  — 

1.  )1S,  dven,  rendered  elsewhere  "  nought," 
"vanity,"  "iniquity,"  ''wickedness,"  "sorrow." 
ttc.,  and  oiice  only  "  idol  "  (Is.  Ixvi.  3).  The  pri- 
mary idea  of  the  root  seems  to  be  emptiness,  nothmg- 
ness,  as  of  breath  or  vapor ;  and,  by  a  natural  tran- 
sition, hi  a  mol'al  sense,  wickedness  in  its  active 
form  of  mischief,  and  then,  as  the  result,  sorrow 
and  trouble.  Hence  dveti  denotes  a  vain,  false, 
wicked  thing,  and  expresses  at  once  the  essential 
nature  of  idols,  and  the  consequences  of  their  wor- 
ship. The  character  of  the  word  may  be  learnt 
from  its  associates.     It  stands  in  paralleUsm  with 

DpM,  ej}hes  (Is.  xli.  29),  which,  after  undergoing 
various  modifications,  comes  at  length  to  signify 
"nothing;"  with  72n,  fiebel,  "breath"  or  "va- 
por," itself  applied  as  a  term  of  contempt  to  the 
objects  of  idolatrous  reverence  (Deut.  xxxii.  21;  1 
K..  xvi.  13;  Ps.  xxxi.  G;  Jer.  viii.  19,  x.  8);  with 

M^tt7,  s^dr,  "nothingness,"  "vanity;"  and  with 

IpD,  sheker,  "falsehood"  (Zech.  x.  2):  all  indi- 
cating the  utter  worthlessness  of  the  idols  to  whom 
homage  was  paid,  and  the  false  and  delusive  nature 
of  their  worship.  It  is  employed  in  an  abstract 
sense  to  denote  idolatry  in  general  in  1  Sam.  xv. 
23.  There  is  much  significance  in  the  change  of 
name  from  Beth-el  to  Beth-aven,  the  great  centre 
of  idolatry  in  Israel  (Hos.  iv.  15). 

2.  v'^y.'?^,  elil,  is  thought  by  some  to  have  a 

sense  akin  to  that  of  ~'|7.tt'',  sheker,  "falsehood," 
with  which  it  stands  in  parallelism  in  Job  xiii.  4, 
and  would  therefore  much  resemble  dven,  as  ap- 
pUed  to  an  idol.     DeUtzsch  (on  Hab.  ii.  18)  derives 

it  from  the  negative  particle  /S,  aZ,  "  die  Nich- 
Ugcn."  But  according  to  Flirst  {Handw.  s.  v.)  it 
is  a  diminutive  of  7W,  "  god,"  the  additional  syl- 
lable indicating  the  greatest  contempt.  In  this 
case  the  signification  above  mentioned  is  a  sub- 
ndiary  one.  The  same  authority  asserts  that  the 
ford  denotes  a  small  image  of  the  god,  which  was 
eonsulted  as  an  oracle  among  the  Egyptians  and 
Phcenidana  (Is.  xix.  3;  Jer.  xiv.  14).     It  is  oer- 


IDOL 

tainly  used  of  the  idols  of  Noph  or  Memphis  (Ek 
XXX.  13).  In  strong  contrast  with  Jehovah  it  ap. 
pears  in  Ps.  xcvi.  5,  xcvii.  7 :  the  contrast  probably 
being  heightened  by  the  resemblance  between  Sli- 
lim  and  elohlm.     A  somewhat  similar  play  upon 

words   is   observable    in   Hab.   ii.    18,    D'^b'^vS 

Q'^^bW,  UUim  iUermm  ("dumb  idols,"  A.  V.). 

3.  PTD'^S,  emdh,  "  horror "  or  "  terror,"  and 
hence  an  object  of  horror  or  terror  (.ler.  I.  38),  in 
reference  either  to  the  hideousness  of  the  idols  or 
to  the  gross  character  of  their  worship.  In  this 
respect  it  is  closely  connected  with  — 

4.  n^7p/b,  miphletseih,  a  "fright,"  "horror," 
applied  to  the  idol  of  Maachah,  probably  of  wood, 
which  Asa  cut  down  and  burned  (1  K.  xv.  13;  2 
Chr.  XV.  16),  and  which  was  unquestionably  the 
Phallus,  the  symbol  of  the  productive  power  of 
nature  (Movers,  Phaen.  i.  571 ;  Selden,  de  Dis  Syi: 
ii.  5),  and  the  nature-goddess  Ashera.  Allusion  is 
supposed  to  be  made  to  this  in  Jer.  x.  5,  and  Epist. 
of  Jer.  70  [hi  the  Apocrypha].  In  2  Chr.  xv.  16 
the  Vulg.  render  "  simulacrum  Priapi  "  (cf.  Hor., 
"  furum  aviumque  maxima  furmido  " ).  llie  LXX. 
had  a  difterent  reading,  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
determine.  They  translate  in  1  K.  xv.  13  the  same 
word  both  by  avvoios  (with  which  corresponds  the 

Syr.  )}h^^    'ido.   "a   festival,"    reading   perhaivs 

^"^T???'  '<iis^reth,  as  in  2  K.  X.  20;  Jer.  ix.  2)  and 
Kara^vo-eiSf  while  in  Chronicles  it  is  eWwXov. 
Possibly  in   1   K.   xv.    13   they  may  have  read 

nnb^^P,  m'tsuMthdh,  for  rTJn^bSJp,  miph. 
laistdh,  as  the  Vulg.  specum,  of  which  "  simulacrum 
turpissimum  "  is  a  correction.  With  this  must  be 
noticed,  though  not  actually  rendered,  "  image  "  or 
"  idol." 

5.  ritrS,  bSsheth,  "  shame,"  or  "  shamefiU 
thing  "  (A.  V.  Jer.  xi.  13;  Hos.  ix.  10),  applied  to 
Baal  or  Baal-Peor,  as  characterizing  the  obscenity 
of  his  worship.  With  el'd  is  found  in  close  con- 
nection — 

6.  D"^/^'.!,  giUulim,  also  a  term  of  contempt, 
but  of  uncertain  origin  (Ez.  xxx.  13).  The  Rab- 
binical authorities,  referring  to  such  passages  as 
Ez.  iv.  12,  Zeph.  i.  17,  have  favored  the  interpre- 
tation given  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  to  Deut. 
xxix.  17,  "dungy gods"  (Vulg.  "sordes,"  "sordes 
idolorum,"  1  K.  xv.  12).     Jahn  connects  it  with 

/  v|,  gdlal,  "  to  roll,"  and  appUes  it  to  the  stocks 
of  trees  of  which  idols  were  made,  and  in  mockery 
called  gillulim,  "  rolling  things "  (a  volvendo,  he 
says,  though  it  is  diflScult  to  see  the  point  of  his 
remark).  Gesenius,  repudiating  the  derivation  fh)m 

a  ^ 
the  Arab.  (J^t  jalla,  "to  be  great,  illustrious,' 
gives  his  preference  to  the  rendering  "  stones,  stone 
gods,"  thus  deriving  it  from  v2,  gnl,  "  a  heap  of 
stones; "  and  in  this  he  is  followed  by  Fiirst,  who 
translates  yiUul  by  the  Germ.  "  Steinhaufe."  Th# 
expression  is  apphed,  principally  in  Ezekiel,  to  false 
gods  and  their  symbols  (Deut.  xxix.  17;  Ez.  riii 
10,  &c.).  It  stands  side  by  side  with  other  aoor 
temptuous   terms   in  Ez.  xvi.  36,  xx.  8;  as  fo 

example  VT?.^)  shekels,  «  filth,"   "  abomi 
(Ez.  viii.  10),  and  — 


IDOL 

7.  Tlie  cognate  V^f'^J  shikkut^  < filth,"  "im- 
purity," especially  applied,  like  shekets^,  to  that 
irhich  produced  ceremonial  uncleanness  (Ez.  xxxvii. 
23;  Nah.  iii.  6),  such  as  food  offered  in  sacrifice  to 
idols  (Zech.  ix.  7;  corap.  Acts  xv.  20,  29).  As 
referring  to  the  idols  themselves,  it  primarily  denotes 
the  obscene  rites  with  which  their  worship  was 
associated,  and  hence,  by  metonymy,  is  applied  both 
to  the  objects  of  worship  and  also  to  their  worship- 
pers, who  partook  of  the  impurity,  and  thus  "  be- 
came loathsome  like  their  love,"  the  foul  Baal-Peor 
aios.  ix.  10). 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  those 
\vords  which  more  directly  apply  to  the  images  or 
idols,  as  the  outward  symbols  of  the  deity  who  was 
worshipped  through  them.  These  may  be  classified 
according  as  they  indicate  that  the  images  were 
made  in  imitation  of  external  objects,  and  to  repre- 
sent some  idea,  or  attribute;  or  as  they  denote  the 
workmanship  by  which  they  were  fashioned.  To 
the  fii-st  class  belong  — 

8.  7^p,  semely  or  V^D,  semel,  with  which 
Gesenius  compares  as  cognate  ^^^,  mdshdl,  and 

D7^,  tselem^  the  Lat.  similis  and  Greek  d/uLa\6s, 
signifies  a  "likeness,"  "semblance."  The  Targ. 
in  Deut.  iv.  16  gives  W'^^^,  tsurd,  "  figure,"  as 
the  equivalent;  while  in  Ez.  viii.  3,  5,  it  is  rendered 
by  D^T^j  isHnm,  "image."    In  the  latter  passages 

the  Syriac  has  j  i^^>*.0,  koimtS,  "  a  statue " 
(the  ar-iiKy]  of  the  LXX.),  which  more  properly 
corresponds  to  matstsebdh  (see  No.  15  below);  and 

in  Deut.    c£QJ_,^^^,   genes^    "kind"   (=^^,,os). 

Tlie  passage  in  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  7  is  rendered  "  images 
of  four  faces,"  the  latter  words  representing  the 
one  under  consideration."  In  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  15  it 
appears  as  "  carved  images,"  following  the  LXX.  rb 
yKvirrSv-  On  the  whole  the  Greek  elKciu  of  Deut. 
iv.  16,  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  7,  and  the  "  simulacrum  "  of 
the  Vulgate  (2  Chr.  xxxiii.  15)  most  nearly  resem- 
ble the  Hebrew  semel. 

9.  D^*^,  (selem  (Ch.  id.  and  D^^,  tselnm)  is 
t)y  all  lexicographers,  ancient  ajid  modem,  con- 
nected with  V^,  tsel,  "  a  shadow."  It  is  the 
"  image  "  of  God  in  which  man  was  created  (Gen. 
i.  27:  cf.  Wisd.  ii.  23),  distinguished  from  il^D"^, 
demut/i,  or  "likeness,"  as  the  "image"  from  the 
"idea"  which  it  represents  (Schmidt,  de  Imay. 
Dei  in  Tlom.  p.  84),  though  it  would  be  rash  to 
insist  upon  this  distinction.  In  the  N.  T.  iiKcijv 
appears  to  represent  the  latter  (Col.  iii.  10;  cf. 
LXX.  of  Gen.  v.  1),  as  bixoiwfia  the  former  of  the 
two  words  (Honi.  i.  23,  viii.  29;  Phil.  ii.  7),  but 
in  Heb.  x.  1  ^Ikwv  is  opposed  to  a-Kia  as  the  sub- 
stance to  the  unsubstantial  form,  of  which  it  is  the 
perfect  representative.  The  I^XX.  render  demuth 
by  d/uLoiwcTis,  d/jLiiiw/xa,  elKwv,  'Sfxoios,  and  tselem 
Host  frequently  by  cIkwu,  though  dfioicoua,  fiScaAov, 
xad  rvTvos  also  occur,  liut  whatever  abstract  term 
•nay  best  define  the  meaning  of  tselem,  it  is  un- 
J[uestionably  used  to  denote  the  visible  forms  of 
external  objects,  and  is  applied  to  figures  of  gold 


IDOL 


1119 


and  silver  (1  Sam.  n.  5;  Num.  xxxiii.  52;  £>•» 

iii  1),  such  as  the  golden  image  of  Nebuchadn» 
zar,  as  well  as  to  those  painted  upon  walls  (Ez. 
xxiii.  14).  "  Image  "  perhaps  most  nearly  repre- 
sents it  in  all  passages.  Applied  to  the  human 
countenance  (Dan.  iii.  19)  it  signifies  the  "  expres- 
sion," and  corresponds  to  the  iSea  of  Matt,  xxviii. 
3,  though  demuth  agrees  rather  with  the  Platonic 
usage  of  the  latter  word. 

10,  n^^^rij  temundk,  rendered  "image"  in 
Job  iv.  16 ;  elsewhere  "  similitude  "  (Deut.  iv.  12), 
"likeness"  (Deut.  v.  8):  "form,"  or  "shape" 
would  be  better.    In  Deut.  iv.  16  it  is  in  paralKsUsm 

with  n"^D2ri,  tabnith,  liteially  "build;"  henot 
"plan,"  or' "model"  (2  K.  xvi.  10;  cf.  Ex.  xi. 
4;  Num.  xii.  8). 

11.  n^r,  'dtsdJ),  12.  n^^,  'etseb  (Jer.  ixii. 

28),  or  13.  n^37,  'otseb  (Is.  xlvui.  5),  "  a  figure," 

all  derived  from  a  root  ^^37,  ^Hisab,  "  to  work," 

or  "  fashion "  (akin  to  ^^H,  chdtsab,  and  the 
like),  are  terms  applied  to  idols  as  expressing  that 
their  origin  was  due  to  the  labor  of  man.  The 
verb  in  its  derived  senses  indicates  the  sorrow  and 
trouble  consequent  upon  severe  labor,  but  the  latter 
seems  to  be  the  radical  idea.  If  the  notion  of 
sorrow  were  most  prominent  the  words  as  applied 
to  idols  might  be  compared  with  dven  above.  Is. 
Iviii.  3  is  rendered  in  the  Peshito  Syriac  "idols" 
(A.  V.  "  labors"),  but  the  reading  was  evidently 

different.  In  Ps.  cxxxix.  24,  12^^  "H^r?!!'  cte'^ec'- 
ofseb,  is  "idolatry." 

14.  '^'^^,  tsl7\  once  only  applied  to  an  idol  (la. 

xlv.  16 ;  LXX.  vrjcroi,  as  if  Q'*^W,  iyyim).  The 
word  usually  denotes  "  a  pang,"  but  in  this  instance 
is  probably  connected  with  the  roots  1^1^,  tetir, 

and  "1?"^,  ydtsar,  and  signifies  "  a  shape,"  or 
"  mould,"  and  hence  an  "  idol." 

15.  nn*!^^,  mntstsebdh,   anything  set  up,  a 

"  statue  "  (:=  ^*^^3,  n'tsib,  Jer.  xliii.  13),  applied 
to  a  memorial  stone  like  those  erected  by  Jacob  on 
four  several  occasions  (Gen.  xxviii.  18,  xxxi.  45, 
XXXV.  14,  15)  to  commemorate  a  crisis  in  his  life, 
or  to  mark  the  grave  of  Rachel.  Such  were  the 
stones  set  up  by  Joshua  (Josh.  iv.  9)  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Jordan,  and  at  Shechera  (xxiv.  26),  and 
by  Samuel  when  victorious  over  the  Philistines  (1 
Sam.  vii.  12).  When  solemnly  dedicated  they  were 
anointed  with  oil,  and  libations  were  poured  upon 
them.  The  word  is  applied  to  denote  the  obeKski 
which  stood  at  the  entrance  to  the  temple  of  the 
Sun  at  Heliopolis  (Jer.  xliii.  13),  two  of  which  were 
a  hundred  cubits  high  and  eight  broad,  each  of  a 
single  stone  (Her.  ii.  111).  It  is  also  used  of  the 
statues  of  Baal  (2  K.  iii.  2),  whether  of  stone  (2  K. 
X.  27)  or  wood  {id.  26),  which  stood  in  the  inner- 
most recess  of  the  temple  at  Samaria.  Movem 
{Phoen.  i.  674)  conjectures  that  the  latter  were 
statues  or  columns  distinct  from  that  of  Baal,  which 
was  of  stone  and  conical  (673),  like  the  "meta" 
of  Paphos  (Tac.  H.  ii.  3),  and  probably  therefor* 


a  There  are  many  passages  in  the  Syr.  of  Chroniclea    the  whole  inferior  in  accuracy  lo  xtuit  of  (tw  iwt  of 
which  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  with  the  received    the  9.  T 
Hebrew  text ;  and  the  translation  of  these  lx>ok8  is  on  I 


1120 


IDOL 


belonging  to  oth^r  deities  who  were  his  trip^^poi 
3r  cvfi^difjLOi.  The  Phoenicians  consecrated  and 
Miointed  stones  like  that  at  Bethel,  which  were 
called,  as  some  think,  from  this  circumstance 
BcBtyiia.  Many  such  are  said  to  have  been  seen  on 
the  Ijebanon,  near  Heliopolis,  dedicated  to  various 
gods,  and  many  prodigies  are  related  of  them 
(Damascius  in  Photius,  quoted  by  Eochart,  Canaan^ 
ii  2).  The  same  authority  describes  them  as 
aerolites,  of  a  whitish  and  sometimes  purple  color, 
spherical  in  shape,  and  about  a  span  in  diameter. 
The  Palladium  of  Troy,  the  black  stone  in  the 
Kaaba  at  Mecca,  said  to  have  been  brought  from 
heaven  by  the  angel  Gabriel,  and  the  stone  at 
Ephesus  *'  which  fell  down  from  Jupiter "  (Acts 
six.  35),  are  examples  of  the  belief,  anciently  so 
common,  that  the  gods  sent  down  their  images 
npon  earth.  In  the  older  worship  of  Greece  stones, 
according  to  Pausanias  (vii.  22,  §  4),  occupied  the 
place  of  images.  Those  at  Pharse,  about  thirty  in 
number,  and  quadrangular  in  shape,  near  the  statue 
of  Hermes,  received  divine  honors  from  the  Pha- 
rians,  and  each  had  the  name  of  some  god  con- 
ferred upon  it.  The  stone  in  the  teniple  of  Jupiter 
Ammon  {umbillcx)  rnaxiine  siinilis),  enriched  with 
emeralds  and  gems  (Curt.  iv.  7,  §  31);  that  at 
Delphi,  which  Saturn  was  said  to  have  swallowed 
(Pans.  Phoc.  2-i,  §  G);  the  l)Iack  stone  of  pyramidal 
shape  in  the  temple  of  Juggernaut,  and  the  holy 
stone  at  Pessinus  in  Galatia,  sacred  to  Cybele,  show 
bow  widely  spread  and  almost  universal  were  these 
ancient  ol^jects  of  worship.  Closely  connected  with 
these  "statues"  of  Haal,  whether  in  the  form  of 
obelisks  or  otherwise,  were  — 

16.  C^p^n,  cliaiiwidnim,  rendered  in  the  mar- 
gin of  most  passages  "  sun-images."  The  word  has 
given  rise  to  much  discussion.  In  the  Vulgate  it 
is  translated  thrice  simuUicro,  thrice  cklubrn^  and 
owaefana.  The  LXX.  give  re/xeyr)  twice,  eJfSwAa 
twice,  ^iKiva  x^'poTroirjTa,  /85€A.y7/uaT«,  and  ret 
u\L'nKa.  With  one  exception  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  4, 
wnich  is  evidently  corrupt)  the  Syriac  has  vaguely 
either  "  fears,"  i.  e.  objects  of  fear,  or  "  idols."  The 

Targum  in  all  passages  translates  it  by  S^ppp^3n, 
thAnUn'sayyd,  "houses  for  star- worship "  (Fiirst 

a  > 
compares  the  Arab,  iu^a^,  Chunnas,  the  planet 
Mercury  or  Venus),  a  rendering  which  Rosenmiiller 
supports.  Gesenius  preferred  to  consider  these 
chanisri'snyyd  as  "veils"  or  "shrines  surrounded 
or  shrouded  with  hangings"  (Kz.  xvi.  16;  Targ. 
on  Is.  iii.  19),  and  srouted  the  interpretation  of 
Buxtorf — "statuse  solares  "  —  as  a  mere  guess, 
though  he  somewhat  paradoxically  assented  to 
RosenmiiUer's  opinion  that  they  Mere  "  shrines 
dedicated  to  the  worship  of  the  stars."     Kimchi, 

inder  the  root  ^^H,  mentions  a  conjecture  that 
they  were  trees  like  the  Asherim^  but  («.  v.  C*  H) 
elsewhere  expresses  his  own  belief  that  the  Nun  is 
spenthetic,  and  that  they  were  so  called  "  because 
the  sun-worshippers  made  them."  Aben  Kzra  (on 
Lev.  xxvi.  30)  says  they  were  "  houses  made  for 
worshipping  the  sun,"  which  Bochart  approves 
( Canaan^  ii.  17),  and  Jarchi,  that  they  were  a  kind 
n  idol  placed  on  the  roofs  of  houses.  Vossius  {(h 
Idol.  ii.  353),  as  Scaliger  before  him,  connects  the 
word  with  Amanus,  or  Omanus,  the  sacred  fire, 
the  symbol  of  the  Persian  sun-god,  and  renders  it 


IDOL 

pyrmu  (cf.  Selden.  ii.  8).  Adelung  (MUhnd.  I 
159,  quoted  by  Gesen.  on  Is.  xvii.  8)  suggested  the 
same,  and  compared  it  with  the  Sanskrit  horna 
But  to  such  interpretations  the  passage  in  2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  4,  is  inimical  (Vitringa  on  Is.  xvii.  8). 
Gesenius'  own  opinion  appears  to  have  fluctuated 
considerably.  In  his  notes  on  Isaiah  (/.  c.)  he  prefers 
the  general  rendering  "columns"  to  the  more 
definite  one  of  "  sun-columns,"  and  is  inchned  to 
look  to  a  Persian  origin  for  the  derivation  of  the 
word.  But  in  his  Thesaurus  he  mentions  the 
occurrence  of  Chammnn  as  a  synonym  of  Baal  in 
the  Phoenician  and  Palmyrene  inscriptions  in  the 
sense  of  "  Dominus  Solaris,"  and  its  after  applica- 
tion to  the  statues  or  columns  erected  for  his 
worship.  Spencer  {de  Leyg.  Jhbr.  ii.  25),  and 
after  him  Michaelis  {Svjjpl.  ad  Lex.  Ihln\  s.  v.), 
maintained  that  it  signified  statues  or  lofty  columns, 
like  the  pyramids  or  obelisks  of  Egypt.  Movers 
{PhoPM.  i.  441)  concludes  with  good  reason  that 
the  sun-god  Baal  and  the  idol  "  Chamman  "  are 
not  essentially  diflferent.  In  his  discussion  of  Cham- 
manim^  he  says,  "  These  images  of  the  fire-god  were 
placed  on  foreign  or  non-Israelitish  altars,  in  con- 
junction with  the  symbols  of  the  nature-goddess 
Asherah,  as  aifi^wfjLoi  (2  Chr.  xiv.  3,  5,  xxxiv.  4, 
7;  Is.  xvii.  9,  xxvii.  9),  as  was  otherwise  usual  with 
Baal  and  Asherah."  They  are  mentioned  with  the 
Asherim,  and  the  latter  are  coupled  with  the  statues 
of  Baal  (1  K.  xiv.  23;  2  K.  xxiii.  14).  The  cham- 
mdnim  and  statues  are  used  promiscuously  (cf.  2  K. 
xxiii.  14,  and  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  4;  2  Chr.  xiv.  3  and  5), 
but  are  never  spoken  of  together.  Such  are  the 
steps  by  which  he  arrives  at  his  conclusion.  He  is 
supported  by  tlie  Palmyrene  inscription  at  Oxford, 
alluded  to  above,  which  has  been  thus  rendered: 

"  This  column  (S3Z2n,  C/mmmdnim),  and  this 
altar,  the  sons  of  Malchu,  etc.  have  erected  and 
dedicated  to  the  Sun."  The  Veneto-Greek  Version 
leaves  the  word  untranslated  in  the  strange  form 
6.KdfiavT€s-  Prom  the  expressions  in  Ez.  vi.  4,  6, 
and  Lev.  xxvi.  30,  it  may  be  inferred  that  these 
columns,  which  perhaps  repi-esented  a  rising  flame 
of  fire  and  stood  upon  the  altar  of  Baal  (2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  4),  were  of  wood  or  stone. 

17.  il'^Stl'p,  mnsdOi,  occurs  in  I^v.  xxvi.  1; 
Num.  xxxiii.  52;  Ez.  viii.  12:  "device"  most 
nearly  suits  all  passages  (cf.  Ps.  Ixxiii.  7;  Prov. 
xviii.  11,  XXV.  11).  This  word  has  been  the  fruit- 
ful cause  of  as  much   dispute  as  the  preceding. 

The  general  opinion  appears  to  be  that  D  75^) 
eben  mascitli,  signifies  a  stone  with  figures  graven 
upon  it.  Ben  Zeb  explains  it  as  "  a  stone  with 
figures  or  hieroglyphics  carved  upon  it,"  and  so 
Michaelis;  and  it  is  maintained  by  Movers  (Phoen. 
i.  105)  that  the  bcety/in,  or  columns  with  painted 
figures,  the  "  lapides  effigiati  "  of  Minucius  Feiix 
(c.  3),  are  these  "stones  of  device,"  and  that  the 
characters  engraven  on  them  are  the  Up^  aroix^Ta, 
or  characters  sacred  to  the  several  deities.  The 
invention  of  these  characters,  which  is  ascribed  to 
Taaut,  he  conjectures  originated  with  the  Seres. 
Gesenius  explains  it  as  a  stone  with  the  image  of 
an  idol,  Baal  or  Astarte,  and  refers  to  his  Mon. 
Phoen.  21-24  for  others  of  similar  character 
Rashi  (on  Lev.  xxxi.  1)  derives  it  from  the  root 

"y^tt^j  to  cover,  "  because  they  cover  the  floor  witb 
a  pavement  of  stone"  "  The  Targum  and  Syr. 
Lev.  xxvi.  1,  give  "vione  of  devotion,"  and  Um 


IDOti 

in  Num.  xxxiii.  52,  has  "house  of  their 
devotion,"  where  the  Syr.  only  renders  "  their  ob- 
jects of  devotion."  lor  the  former  the  I^XX. 
have  \i0os  (tkottSs,  and  for  the  latter  rdy  o-/co7rtois 
uirrwv,  connecting  the  word  with  the  root  ^3127, 
''to  look,"  a  circumstance  which  has  induced  Saal- 
schiitz  {.Ifos.  lieclil,  pp.  382-;585)  to  conjecture  that 
eben  mascilh  was  ori<:^inally  a  smooth  elevated  stone 
employed  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  from  it  a 
freer  prospect,  and  of  offering  prayer  in  prostration 
upon  it  to  the  deities  of  heaven.  Hence,  generally, 
he  concludes  it  signifies  a  stone  of  prayer  or  devo- 
tion, and  the  "chambers  of  iniatrery  "  of  Ez.  viii. 
7,  are  "chambers  of  devotion."  The  renderings 
of  the  last-mentioned  passage  in  the  LXX.  and 
Targum,  are  curious  as  pointing  to  a  various  read- 
ing inSiyp,  or  more  probably  *ln3^'Z?. 
18.  C^dri.  terdpldm.     [Teraphim.] 

The  terms  wliich  follow  have  regard  to  the  mate- 
rial and  workmanship  of  the  idol  rather  than  to  its 
character  as  an  object  of  worship. 

19-  ^P!?,  pesel,  and  20.  C^'b^'DQ,  pesilim, 
asually  translated  in  the  A.  V.  "  graven  or  carved 
.mages."  In  two  passages  the  latter  is  ambigu- 
ously rendered  "quan-ies"  (Judg.  iii.  19,  26)  fol- 
lowing the  Targum,  but  there  seems  no  reason  for 
departing  from  the  ordinary  signification.  In  the 
majority  of  instances  the  LXX.  have  yKuTrrSy, 
once  yXvfxiia.  The  verb  is  employed  to  denote 
the  finishing  which  the  stone  received  at  the  hands 
of  the  masons,  after  it  had  been  rough-hewn  from 
the  quarries  (Ex.  xxxiv.  4;  1  K.  v.  18).  It  is 
probably  a  later  usage  which  has  applied  pesel "  to 
%  figure  cast  in  metal,  as  in  Is.  xl.  19,  xliv.  10. 
These  "sculptured  "  images  were  apparently  of  wood, 
iron,  or  stone,  covered  with  gold  or  silver  (Deut. 
vii.  25;  Is.  xxx.  22;  Hab.  ii.  19),  the  more  costly 
l>eing  of  sohd  metal  (Is.  xl.  19).  They  could  be 
burnt  (Deut.  vii.  5;  Is.  xlv.  20;  2  Chr.' xxxiv.  4), 
cut  down  (Deut.  xii.  3)  and  pounded  (2  Chr.  xxxiv. 
7),  or  broken  in  pieces  (Is.  xxi.  9).  In  making 
them,  the  skill  of  the  wise  iron-smith  (Deut.  xxvii. 
15;  Is.  xl.  20)  or  carpenter,  and  of  the  goldsmith, 
was  employed  (Judg.  xvii.  3,  4;  Is.  xli.  7),  the 
former  supplying  the  rough  mass  of  iron  beaten 
into  shape  on  his  anvil  (Is.  xliv.  12),  while  the  lat- 
ter overlaid  it  with  plates  of  gold  and  silver,  prob- 
ably from  Tarshish  (.Jer.  x.  9),  and  decorated  it 
with  silver  chains.  The  image  thus  formed  re- 
ceived the  further  adornment  of  embroidered  robes 
(Ez.  xvi.  18),  to  which  possibly  allusion  may  be 
made  in  Is.  iii.  19.  Brass  and  clay  were  among 
the  materials  employed  for  the  same  purpose  (Dan. 
ii.  33,  V.  23).^  A  description  of  the  three  great 
images  of  Babylon  on  the  top  of  the  temple  of 
Belus  will  be  found  in  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  9  (comp.  Lay- 
ard,  Nhi.  ii.  433).  The  several  stages  of  the  pro- 
cess by  which  the  metal  or  wood  became  the  "  gra- 
ven image  "  are  so  vividly  described  in  Is.  xliv.  10- 
20,  that  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  that  passage, 
and  we  are  at  once  introduced  to  the  mysteries  of 
idol  manufacture,  which,  as  at  Ephesus,  "  brought 
no  small  gain  unto  the  craftsmen." 

21.    Tfp3,    msec,  or   1703,   nesec,   and    22. 


IDOL 


1121 


o  More  p'\)bably  still  pesel  denotes  by  anticipation 
the  molten  image  in  a  later  stage  after  it  had  been 
into  shape  by  the  caster. 
71 


,  massecdh^  are  evidently  synonymous  (Is. 
xli.  29,  xlviii.  5;  Jer.  x.  14)  in  later  Hebrew,  and 
denote  a  "  molten  "  image.  Massecdh  is  frequently 
used  in  distinction  from  pesel  or  pesilim  (Deut. 
xxvii.  15;  Judg.  xvii.  3,  &c.).  The  golden  calf 
which  Aaron  made  was  fashioned  with  "  the  gra- 
ver "  (tDnn,  cheret),  but  it  is  not  quite  clear  for 
what  purpose  the  graver  was  used  (Ex.  xxxii.  4). 
The  cfieret  (cf  Gr.  xapdrTca)  appears  to  have  been 
a  sharp-pointed  instrument,  used  like  the  siylus  for 
a  writing  implement  (Is.  viii.  1 ).  Whether  then 
Aaron,  by  the  help  of  the  cheret^  gave  to  the 
molt«n  mass  the  shape  of  a  calf,  or  whether  he 
made  use  of  the  graver  for  the  purpose  of  carving 
hieroglyphics  upon  it,  has  been  thought  doubtful. 

The   Syr.    has    |.m25CL.^,   tupso    (ruTroy),    "the 

mould,"  for  cheret.  But  the  expression  '^^'*5, 
vayyatsdr,  decides  that  it  was  by  the  cheret,  in 
whatever  manner  employed,  that  the  shape  of  a 
calf  was  given  to  the  metal. 

In  N.  T.  cIklou  is  the  "  image  "  or  head  of  the 
emperoj-  on  the  coinage  (Matt.  xxii.  20). 

Among  the  earliest  objects  of  Avorship,  regarded 
as  symbols  of  deity,  were,  as  has  been  said  above, 
the  meteoric  stones  which  the  ancients  believed  to 
have  been  the  images  of  the  gods  sent  down  from 
heaven.  From  these  they  transferred  their  regard 
to  rough  unhewn  blocks,  to  stone  colunnis  or  pil- 
lars of  wood,  in  which  the  divinity  worshipped  waa 
supposed  to  dwell,  and  which  were  consecrated,  like 
the  sacred  stone  at  Delphi,  by  being  anointed  with 
oil,  and  crowned  with  wool  on  solemn  days  (Pans. 
P/ioc.  24,  §  6).  Tavernier  (quoted  by  Kosenmiiller, 
All.  (^  N.  Morf/enland,  i.  §  89)  mentions  a  black 
stone  in  the  pagoda  of  Benares  which  was  daily 
anointed  with  perfumed  oil,  and  such  are  the 
"  Lingams  "  in  daily  use  in  the  Siva  worship  of 
Bengal  (cf.  Arnobius,  i.  39:  Min.  Fel.  c.  3).  Such 
customs  are  remarkable  illustrations  of  the  solemn 
consecration  by  Jacob  of  the  stone  at  Bethel,  as 
showing  the  religious  reverence  with  which  these 
memorials  were  regarded.  And  not  only  were  sin- 
gle stones  thus  honored,  but  heaps  of  stone  were, 
in  later  times  at  least,  considered  as  sacred  to 
Hermes  (Hom.  Od.  xvi.  471 ;  cf.  Vulg.  Prov.  xxvi. 
8,  "  sicut  qui  mittit  lapidem  in  acervum  Mer- 
curii"),  and  to  these  each  passing  traveller  con- 
tributed his  offering  (Creuzer,  Symb.  i.  24).  The 
heap  of  stones  which  Laban  erected  to  commemo- 
rate the  solemn  compact  between  himself  and  Jacob, 
and  on  which  he  invoked  the  gods  of  his  fathers, 
is  an  instance  of  the  intermediate  stage  in  which 
such  heaps  were  associated  with  religious  obser- 
vances before  they  became  olyects  of  worship.  Ja- 
cob, for  his  part,  dedicated  a  single  stone  as  his 
memorial,  and  called  Jehovah  to  witness,  thus  hold- 
ing himself  aloof  from  the  rites  employed  by  Laban, 
which  may  have  partaken  of  his  ancestral  idolatry. 

[J  KGA  R-S  AHADUTII  A.] 

Of  the  forms  assumed  by  the  idolatrous  images 
we  have  not  many  traces  in  the  Bible.  Dagon, 
the  fish-god  of  the  Philistines,  was  a  human  figure 
terminating  in  a  fish  [Dagon]  ;  and  that  the 
Syrian  deities  were  represented  in  later  times  in  a 
symbolical  human  shape  we  know  for  certainty 


b  Images  of  glazed  pottery  have  been  found  in 
Bgyp*  (Wilkinson,  Ane.  Eg.  ill.  90 ;  comp.  Wisd  XT 
8). 


1122  IDOLATRY 

The  Hebrews  imitated  their  neighbors  iii  this  re- 
spect as  in  otliers  (Is.  xliv.  13;  Wisd.  xiii.  13), 
and  from  various  allusions  we  may  infer  that  idols 
in  human  forms  were  not  uncommon  among  them, 
though  they  were  more  anciently  symbolized  by 
animals  (Wisd.  xiii.  14),  as  by  the  calves  of  Aaron 
and  Jeroboam,  and  the  brazen  serpent  which  was 
afterwards  applied  to  idolatrous  uses  (2  K.  xviii. 
4;  Rom.  i.  23).  When  the  image  came  from 
the  hands  of  the  maker  it  was  decorated  richly  with 
silver  and  gold,  and  sometimes  crowned  (Epist. 
•Ter.  9  [or  Bar.  vi.  9]);  clad  in  robes  of  blue  and 
purpte  (.Jer.  x.  9),  like  the  draped  images  of  Pallas 
and  Hera  (Miiller,  Ilandb.  d.  Arch.  d.  Kunst,  §  69), 
and  fastened  in  the  niche  appropriated  to  it  by 
means  of  chains  and  nails  (Wisd.  xiii.  15),  in  order 
that  the  influence  of  the  deity  which  it  represented 
might  be  secured  to  the  spot.  So  the  Ephesians, 
when  besieged  by  Croesus,  connected  the  wall  of 
their  city  by  means  of  a  rope  to  the  temple  of 
Aphrodite,  with  the  view  of  ensuring  the  aid  of 
the  goddess  (Her.  i.  26);  and  for  a  similar  abject 
the  Tyrians  chained  the  stone  image  of  Apollo  to 
the  altar  of  Hercules  (Curt.  iv.  3,  §  15).  Some 
images  were  painted  red  (Wisd.  xiii.  14),  like  those 
of  Dionysus  and  the  Bacchantes  of  Hermes,  and 
the  god  Pan  (Pans.  ii.  2.  §  5;  Mijller,  Ilandb.  d. 
Arch.  d.  Kuvst,  §  69).  This  color  was  formerly 
considered  sacred.  Pliny  relates,  on  the  authority 
of  Verrius,  tliat  it  was  customary  on  festival  days 
to  color  with  red-lead  the  face  of  the  image  of 
Jupiter,  and  the  liodies  of  those  who  celebrated  a 
triumph  (xxxiii.  36).  The  figures  of  Priapus,  the 
god  of  gardens,  were  decorated  in  the  same  man- 
ner {^^ruijcr  custos"  Tiluill.  i.  1,  18).  Among 
the  objects  of  worship  enumerated  by  Amobius  (i. 
39)  are  bones  of  elephants,  pictures,  and  garlands 
suspended  on  trees,  the  "rami  coronati  "  of  Apu- 
leius  (de  M<i(j.  c.  56). 

When  the  process  of  adorning  the  image  was 
completed,  it  was  placed  in  a  temple  or  shrine  ap- 
pointed for  it  (oiKia,  Epist.  Jer.  12,  19  [or  Bar.  vi. 
12,  19];  oUrjiLia,  Wisd.  xiii.  15;  dSuXflov,  1  Cor. 
viii.  10;  see  Stanley's  note  on  the  latter  passage). 
Tn  Wisd.  xiii.  15,  otK-qfia  is  thought  to  be  used 
contemptuously,  as  in  Tibull.  i.  10, 19,  20  —  "  cum 
paupere  cultu  Stabat  in  exupm  ligneus  isde  deus" 
(PYitzsche  and  Grimm,  ffrmdb.),  but  the  passage 
quoted  is  by  no  means  a  good  illustration.  From 
these  temples  the  idols  were  sometimes  carried  in 
procession  (Epist.  .ler.  4,  26  [or  Bar.  vi.  4,  26]) 
on  festival  days.  Their  priests  were  maintained 
from  the  idol  treasury,  and  feasted  upon  the  meats 
which  were  appointed  for  the  idols'  use  (Bel  and 
the  Dragon,  3,  13).  These  sacrificial  feasts  formed 
an  important  part  of  the  idolatrous  ritual  [Idoi>- 
atuy],  and  were  a  great  stumbling-block  to  the 
early  Christian  converts.  They  were  to  the  hea- 
then, as  Prof.  Stanley  has  well  observed,  what  the 
observance  of  circumcision  and  the  Mosaic  ritual 
were  to  the  Jewish  converts,  and  it  was  for  this 
reason  that  St.  Paul  especially  directed  his  atten- 
tion to  the  subject,  and  laid  down  the  rules  of  con- 
duct contained  in  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians 
(viU.-x.).  W.  A.  W. 

IDOLATRY  (D'5";i?,  t'raphim,  "  tera- 
phim,"  once  only,  1  Sam.  xv.  23 :  elScoXoXarpela), 
(rtrictly  speaking,  denotes  the  worship  of  deity  in  a 
visible  form,  whether  the  images  to  which  homage 
ii  p.%id  are  symbolical  representations  of  the  true 
God,  or  of  the  false  divinities  which  have  been 


IDOLATRY 

made  the  objects  of  worship  in  his  iJbeiA.  WHh 
its  origin  and  progress  the  present  article  is  noi 
concerned.  The  former  is  lost  amidst  the  dark 
mists  of  gntiquity,  and  the  latter  is  rather  the  sub- 
ject of  speculation  than  of  history.  But  under 
what  aspect  it  is  presented  to  us  in  the  Scnpiures, 
how  it  aifected  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and  what 
influence  it  had  on  the  history  of  the  Israelites, 
are  questions  which  may  be  more  properly  dis- 
cussed, with  some  hope  of  arriving  at  a  satisfactory 
conclusion.  Whether,  therefore,  the  deification  of 
the  powers  '/  '-ature,  and  the  representation  of 
them  unaer  tangible  forms,  preceded  the  worship 
of  departed  htroes,  who  were  regarded  as  the  em- 
bodiment of  some  virtue  which  distinguished  their 
lives,  is  not  in  this  respect  of  much  importance. 
Some  Jewish  writers,  indeed,  grounding  their  the- 
ory on  a  forced  interpretation  of  Gen.  iv.  26,  assign 
to  Enos,  the  son  of  Seth,  the  unenviable  notoriety 
of  having  been  the  first  to  pay  divine  honors  to  the 
host  of  heaven,  and  to  lead  others  into  the  like 
error  (Maimon.  de  Idol.  i.  1).  R.  Solomon  Jarchi, 
on  the  other  hand,  while  admitting  the  same  verse 
to  contain  the  first  account  of  the  origin  of  idola- 
try, understands  it  as  implying  the  deification  of 
men  and  plants.  Arabic  tradition,  according  to 
Sir  W.  Jones,  connects  the  people  of  Yemen  with 
the  same  apostasy.  The  third  in  descent  from 
Joktan,  and  therefore  a  contemporary  of  Nahor, 
took  the  surname  of  Abdu  Shams,  or  "  servant  of 
the  sun,"  whom  he  and  his  family  worshipped, 
while  other  tribes  honored  the  planets  and  fixed 
stars  (Hales,  Chronol.  ii.  59,  4to  ed.).  Nimrod, 
again,  to  whom  is  ascribed  the  introduction  of 
Zabianism,  was  after  his  death  transferred  to  the 
constellation  Orion,  and  on  the  slender  foundation 
of  the  expression  "  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  "  (Gen.  xi. 
31)  is  built  the  fabulous  history  of  Abraham  and 
Nimrod,  narrated  in  the  legends  of  the  Jews  and 
Mussulmans  (.lellinek,  Bet  ha-Mldrask,  i.  23; 
Weil,  Bibl.  Leg.  pp.  47-74;  Hyde,  Rel  Pers.  c. 
2). 

I.  But,  descending  from  the  regions  of  fiction  to 
sober  historic  narrative,  the  first  undoubted  allusion 
to  idolatry  or  idolatrous  customs  in  the  Bible  is  in 
the  account  of  liachel's  stealing  her  father's  tera- 
phim  (Gen.  xxxi.  19),  a  relic  of  the  worship  of 
other  gods,  whom  the  ancestors  of  the  Israelites 
served  "  on  the  other  side  of  the  river,  in  old  time  " 
(Josh.  xxiv.  2).  By  these  household  deities  Laban 
was  guided,  and  these  he  consulted  as  oracles  (obs. 

"^■H^'n?  Gen.  XXX.  27,  A.  V.  "  learned  by  expe- 
rience"), though  without  entirely  losing  sight  of 
the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Xahor,  tc 
whom  he  appealed  when  occasion  offered  (Gen.  xxxi. 
53),  while  he  was  ready,  in  the  presence  of  Jacob, 
to  acknowledge  the  benefits  conferred  upon  him  by 
Jehovah  (Gen.  xxx.  27).  Such,  indeed,  was  the 
character  of  most  of  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the 
Israelites.  Like  the  Cuthean  colonists  in  Samaria, 
who  "  feared  Jehovah  and  ser\ed  their  own  gods  *' 
(2  K.  xvii.  33),  they  blended  in  a  strange  manner 
a  theoretical  belief  in  the  true  God  with  the  extemaj 
reverence  which,  in  diflferent  stages  cf  their  liistory 
they  were  led  to  pay  to  the  idols  of  the  nations  by 
whom  they  were  surrounded.  Foi  this  species  oi 
false  worship  they  seem,  at  all  times,  to  have  had 
an  incredible  propension.  On  their  journey  from 
Shechem  to  Bethel,  the  family  of  Jacob  put  awaj 
from  among  them  "  the  gods  of  the  Joi-eiyner : ' 
not  the  teraphim  of  Laban,  but  the  gods  of  thi 


ft  ' 

I 


IDOLATRY 

Danaanites  through  whose  land  they  passed,  and 
Ihe  amulets  and  charms  which  wert  worn  as  the 
uppendages  of  their  worship  (Gen.  xxxv.  2,  4).  And 
this  marked  feature  of  the  Hebrew  character  is 
traceable  throughout  the  entire  history  of  the  people. 
During  their  long  residence  in  Egypt,  the  country 
of  symbolism,  they  defiled  themselves  with  the  idols 
of  the  land,  and  it  was  long  before  the  taint  was 
removed  (Josh.  xxiv.  H;  Kz.  xx.  7).  To  these  gods 
Moses,  as  the  herald  of  Jehovah,  flung  down  the 
gauntlet  of  defiance  (Kurtz,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  B.  ii. 
>>6),  and  the  plagues  of  Egypt  smote  their  symbols 
(Num.  xxxiii.  4).  Yet,  with  the  memory  of  their 
deliverance  fresh  in  their  minds,  their  leader  absent, 
the  Isnielities  clamored  for  some  visible  shape  in 
which  they  might  worship  the  God  who  had  brought 
them  up  out  of  Egypt  (Ex.  xxxii.).  Aaron  lent 
himself  to  the  popular  cry,  and  chose  as  the  symbol 
of  deity  one  with  whicli  tiiey  had  long  been  familiar 
—  the  calf  —  embodiment  of  Apis,  and  emblem  of 
the  productive  power  of  nature.  But,  with  a  weak- 
ness of  character  to  whicli  his  greater  brother  was 
a  stranger,  he  compromised  with  his  better  im- 
pulses by  proclaiming  a  solemn  feast  to  Jehovah 
(Ex.  xxxii.  5).  How  much  of  the  true  God  was 
recognized  by  the  people  in  this  brutish  symbol  it 
is  impossible  to  conceive ;  the  festival  was  charac- 
terized by  all  the  shameless  licentiousness  with 
which  idolatrous  worship  was  associated  (ver.  25), 
and  which  seems  to  have  constituted  its  chief  at- 
traction. But  on  this  occasion,  as  on  all  others, 
the  transgression  was  visited  by  swift  vengeance, 
and  three  thousand  of  the  offenders  were  slain. 
For  a  while  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
establishment  of  the  worship  which  accompanied  it, 
satisfied  that  craving  for  an  outward  sign  which 
the  Israelites  constantly  exhibited;  and  for  the 
remainder  of  their  march  through  the  desert,  with 
the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah  in  their  midst,  they 
did  not  again  degenerate  into  open  apostasy.  But 
it  was  only  so  long  as  their  contact  with  the  nations 
was  of  a  hostile  character  that  this  seeming  ortho- 
doxy was  maintained.  The  charms  of  the  daughters 
of  Moab,  as  Balaam's  bad  genius  foresaw,  were 
potent  for  evil:  the  Israelites  were  "  yoked  to  Baal- 
Peor  "  in  the  trammels  of  his  fair  worshippers,  and 
the  character  of  their  devotions  is  not  obscurely 
hinted  at  (Num.  xxv.).  The  great  artd  terrible 
retribution  which  followed  left  so  deep  an  impress 
upon  the  hearts  of  the  people  that,  after  the  con- 
quest of  the  promised  land,  they  looked  with  an 
eye  of  terror  upon  any  indications  of  defection  from 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  denounced  as  idolatrous 
a  memorial  so  slight  as  the  altar  of  the  Reubenites 
at  the  passage  of  Jordan  (Josh.  xxii.  16). 

During  the  lives  of  Joshua  and  the  elders  who 
outlived  him,  they  kept  true  to  their  allegiance;  but 
the  generation  following,  who  knew  not  Jehovah, 
tor  the  works  he  had  done  for  Israel,  swerved  from 
the  plain  path  of  their  fathers,  and  were  caught  in 
the  toils  of  the  foreigner  (Judg.  ii.).  From  this 
time  forth  their  history  becomes  little  more  than  a 
chronicle  of  the  inevitable  sequence  of  offense  and 
punishment.  "They  provoked  Jehovah  to  anger 
.  .  .  and  the  anger  of  Jehovah  was  hot  against 
Israel,  and  he  delivered  them  into  the  hands  of 
ipoilers  that  spoiled  them  "  (Judg,  ii.  12,  14).  The 
narratives  of  the  book  oi  Judges,  contemporaneous 
or  successive,  tell  of  the  fierce  struggle  maintained 
iigainst  their  hated  foes,  and  how  women  forgot 
kheir  tenderness  and  forsook  their  retirement  to 
jng  the  song  of  victory  over  the  oppressor.     By 


11X>LATRY  1128 

turns  each  conquering  nation  strove  to  establish 
the  worship  of  its  national  god.  During  the  rule 
of  Midian,  Joash  the  father  of  Gideon  had  an  altai 
to  Baal,  and  an  Asherah  (Judg.  vi.  25),  though  he 
[)roved  but  a  lukewarm  worshipper  (ver.  31).  Even 
Gideon  himself  gave  occasion  to  idolatrous  woi-ship 
yet  the  ephod  which  he  made  from  the  spoils  of  the 
Midianites  was  perhaps  but  a  votive  offering  to  the 
true  God  (Judg.  viii.  27).  It  is  not  improbable 
that  the  gold  ornaments  of  which  it  was  composed 
were  in  some  way  connected  with  idolatry  (cf.  Is. 
iii.  18-24),  and  that  from  their  having  been  worn 
as  amulets,  some  superstitious  virtue  was  conceived 
to  cling  to  them  even  in  their  new  form.  But 
though  in  Gideon's  lifetime  no  overt  act  of  idolatry 
was  practised,  he  was  no  sooner  dead  than  the 
Israelites  again  returned  to  the  service  of  the 
Baalim,  and,  as  if  in  solemn  mockery  of  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Jehovah,  chose  from  among  ther. 
Baal  Berith,  '-Baal  of  the  Covenant"  (cf.  Zfi^i 
upKios),  as  the  object  of  their  special  adoration 
(Judg.  viii.  33).  Of  this  god  we  know  only  that 
his  temple,  probably  of  wood  (Judg.  ix.  49),  was  a 
stronghold  in  time  of  need,  and  tliat  his  treasury 
was  filled  with  the  silver  of  the  worshippers  (ix.  4). 
Nor  were  the  calamities  of  foreign  oppression  con- 
fined to  the  land  of  Canaan.  The  tribes  on  the 
east  of  Jordan  went  astray  after  the  idols  of  the 
land,  and  were  delivered  into  the  hands  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Ammon  (Judg.  x.  8).  But  they  put  away 
from  among  them  "  the  gods  of  the  foreigner,"  and 
with  the  baseborn  Jephthah  for  their  leader  gained 
a  signal  victory  over  their  oppressors.  The  exploits 
of  Samson  against  the  Philistines,  though  achieved 
within  a  narrower  space  and  with  less  important 
results  than  those  of  his  predecessors,  fill  a  brilliant 
page  in  his  country's  history.  But  the  tale  of  his 
marvelous  deeds  is  prefaced  by  that  ever-recurring 
phrase,  so  mournfully  familiar,  "  the  children  of 
Israel  did  evil  again  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah,  and 
Jehovah  gave  them  into  the  hand  of  the  Philis- 
tines." Thus  far  idolatry  is  a  national  sin.  The 
episode  of  Micah,  in  Judg.  xvii.  xviii.,  sheds  a  lurid 
light  on  the  secret  practices  of  individuals,  who 
without  formally  renouncing  Jehovah,  though  ceas- 
ing to  recognize  him  as  the  theocratic  King  (xvii, 
6),  linked  with  his  worship  the  symbols  of  ancient 
idolatry.  The  house  of  God,  or  sanctuary,  which 
3Iicah  made  in  imitation  of  that  at  Shiloh,  was 
decorated  with  an  ephod  and  teraphim  dedicated  to 
God,  and  with  a  graven  and  molten  image  conse- 
crated to  some  inferior  deities  (Selden,  de  Dis  Syris, 
Synt.  i.  2).  It  is  a  significant  fact,  showing  how 
deeply  rooted  in  the  people  was  the  tendency  to 
idolatry,  that  a  Levite,  who,  of  all  others,  should 
have  been  most  sedulous  to  maintain  Jehovah's 
worship  in  its  purity,  was  found  to  assume  the 
office  of  priest  to  the  images  of  IMicah ;  and  that 
this  Levite,  priest  afterwards  to  the  idols  of  Dan, 
was  no  other  than  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Gershoni, 
the  son  of  Moses.  Tradition  says  that  these  idols 
were  destroyed  when  the  Philistines  defeated  the 
ax-my  of  Israel  and  took  from  them  th'>  ark  of  the 
covenant  of  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  iv.).  The  Danitea 
are  supposed  to  have  carried  them  into  the  field,  aa 
the  other  tribes  bore  the  ark,  and  the  Philistines 
the  images  of  their  gods,  when  they  went  foith  to 
battle  (2  Sam.  v.  21;  l^wis,  Oiifj.  Iltbr.  v.  9). 
But  cue  Seder  01am  Rabba  (c.  24)  interprets  "the 
captivity  of  the  land"  (Judg.  xviii.  30),  of  the 
captivit'-  of  Manassehr  and  I3enjamin  of  Tudela 
mistook  the  remains  d  liter  Gintile  worship  fct 


1124 


IDOLATRY 


traces  of  the  altar  or  statue  which  Micah  had  dedi- 
cated, and  which  was  worshipped  by  the  tribe  of 
Dan  (Selden,  de  Dis  Syr.  Synt.  i.  c.  2;  Stanley, 
S.  (f  P.  p.  ."iUS).  In  later  times  the  practice  of  secret 
Idolatry  was  carried  to  greater  lengths.  Images 
»?ere  set  up  on  the  com-Hoors,  in  the  wine-vats, 
and  behind  the  doors  of  private  houses  (Is.  Ivii.  8; 
JIos.  ix.  1,  2);  and  to  check  this  tendency  the 
Btatnte  in  Deut.  xxvii.  15  was  originally  promul- 
gated. 

Under  Sanniel's  administration  a  fast  was  held, 
and  purificatory  rites  performed,  to  mark  the  public 
renunciation  of  idolatry  (1  Sam.  vii.  3-6).  But  in 
the  reign  of  Solomon  all  this  was  forgotten.  Each 
of  his  many  foreign  wives  brought  with  her  the 
gods  of  her  own  nation;  and  the  gods  of  Ammon, 
Moab,  and  Zidon,  were  openly  worshipped.  Three 
of  the  summits  of  Olivet  were  crowned  with  the 
high-places  of  Ashtoreth,  Chemosh,  and  Molech 
(1  K.  xi.  7;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  and  the  fourth,  in 
memory  of  his  great  apostasy,  was  branded  with 
the  opprobrious  title  of  the  "  Mount  of  Corruption." 
Rehoboam,  the  son  of  an  Ammonite  mother,  per- 
petuated the  worst  features  of  Solomon's  idolatry 
(1  K.  xiv.  22-24);  and  in  his  reign  was  made  the 
great  schism  in  the  national  religion :  when  Jero- 
boam, fresh  from  his  recollections  of  the  Apis 
worship  of  Egypt,  erected  golden  calves  at  Bethel 
and  at  Dan,  and  by  this  crafty  state-policy  severed 
for  ever  the  kingdoms  of  .ludah  and  Israel  (1  K. 
xii.  26-33).  To  their  use  were  temples  consecrated, 
and  the  service  in  their  honor  was  studiously  copied 
&X)m  the  Mosaic  ritual.  Iligh-priest  himself,  Jero- 
boam ordained  priests  from  the  lowest  ranks  (2  Chr. 
xi.  15);  incense  and  sacrifices  were  offered,  and  a 
solemn  festival  appointed,  closely  resembUng  the 
feast  of  tabernacles  (1  K.  xii.  32,  33;  cf.  Am.  iv. 
4,  5).  [Jerouoam.]  The  worship  of  the  calves, 
"the  sin  of  Israel "  (llos.  x..8),  which  was  appar- 
ently associated  with  the  goat-worship  of  Mendes 
(2  Chr.  xi.  15;  Herod,  ii.  46)  or  of  the  ancient 
Zabii  (Lewis,  Ori;j.  Ikbr.  v.  3),  and  the  Asherim 
(1  K.  xiv.  15;  A.  V.  "groves"),  lUtimately  spread 
to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  centred  in  Beer-sheba 
(Am.  V.  5,  vii.  9).  At  what  precise  period  it  was 
introduced  into  the  latter  kingdom  is  not  certain. 
The  Chronicles  tell  us  how  Abijah  taunted  Jero- 
boam with  his  apostasy,  while  the  less  partial  nar- 
rative in  1  Kings  represents  his  own  conduct  as  far 
from  exemplary  (1  K.  xv.  3).  Asa's  sweeping 
reform  spared  not  even  the  idol  of  his  grandmother 
Maachah,  and,  with  the  exception  of  the  high- 
places,  he  removed  all  relics  of  idolatrous  worship 
(1  K.  XV.  12-14),  with  its  accompanying  impurities. 
His  reformation  was  completed  by  Jehoshaphat 
(2  Chr.  xvii.  6). 

The  successors  of  Jeroboam  followed  in  his  steps, 
till  Ahab,  who  married  a  Zidonian  princess,  at  her 
instigation  (1  K.  xxi.  25)  built  a  temple  and  altar 
to  Baal,  and  revived  all  the  abominations  of  the 
Amorites  (1  K.  xxi.  20).  For  this  he  attained  the 
bad  preeminence  of  having  done  "  more  to  provoke 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  to  anger  than  all  the 
kings  of  Israel  that  were  before  him  "  (1  K.  xvi. 
33).     Compared    with   the  worship   of  Baal,  the 


a  The  Syr.  supports  the  rendering  of  Ip^  f  ^^  '^• 
16,  wnich  the  A.  V.  has  adopted  —  "  to  enquire  by  "  : 
but  Keil  translates  the  clause,  "  it  will  be  for  me  to 
MDiiler,"  ».  e.  what  shall  be  done  with  the  altar,  in 
ItdMr  to  support  his  theory  that  this  "iltar  erected  by 


IDOLATRY 

worship  of  the  calves  was  a  venial  offense,  probaUy 
because  it  was  morally  less  detestable  and  also  Ion 
anti-national  (1  K.  xii.  28;  2  K.  x.  28-31).  [Eu- 
JAH,  vol.  i.  p.  703  b.]  Henceforth  Baal-worship 
became  so  completely  identified  with  the  northern 
kingdom  that  it  is  described  as  walking  in  the  way 
or  statutes  of  the  kings  of  Israel  (2  K.  xvi.  3.  xvii.  8), 
as  distinguished  from  the  sin  of  Jeroboam,  which 
ceased  not  till  the  Captivity  (2  K.  xvii.  23),  and  the 
corruption  of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  the  land. 
The  idolatrous  priests  became  a  numerous  and  im- 
portant caste  (1  K.  xviii.  lU).  living  under  the  pat- 
ronage of  royalty,  and  fed  at  the  royal  table.  The 
extirpation  of  Baal's  priests  by  Elijah,  and  of  his  fol- 
lowers by  Jehu  (2  K.  x.),  in  which  the  royal  family 
of  Judah  shared  (2  Chr.  xxii.  7),  was  a  death-blow 
to  this  form  of  idolatry  in  Israel,  though  other 
systems  still  remained  (2  K.  xiii.  0).  But  while 
Israel  thus  sinned  and  was  punished,  Judah  was 
more  morally  guilty  (Ez.  xvi.  51).  The  alliance 
of  Jehoshaphat  with  the  family  of  Ahab  transferred 
to  the  southern  kingdom,  during  the  reigns  of  his 
son  and  grandson,  all  the  appurtenances  of  Baal- 
worship  (2  K.  viii.  ]8,  27).  In  less  than  ten  years 
after  the  death  of  that  king,  in  whose  praise  it  is 
recorded  that  he  "  sought  not  the  Basdim,"  nor 
walked  '•  after  the  deed  of  Israel "  (2  Chr.  xvii.  3, 
4),  a  temple  had  been  built  for  the  idol,  statues  and 
altars  erected,  and  priests  appointed  to  minister  ui 
his  service  (2  K.  xi.  18).  Jehoiada's  vigorous 
measures  checked  the  evil  for  a  time,  but  his  reform 
was  incomplete,  and  the  high-places  still  remained, 
as  in  the  days  of  Asa,  a  nucleus  for  any  fresh  sys- 
tem of  idolatry  (2  K.  xii.  3).  Much  of  this  might 
be  due  to  the  influence  of  the  king's  mother,  Zibiah 
of  Iieer-.sheba,  a  place  intimately  connected  with  the 
idolatrous  defection  of  Judah  (Am.  viii.  14).  After 
the  death  of  Jehoiada,  the  princes  prevailed  upon 
Joash  to  restore  at  least  some  portion  of  his  father's 
idolatry  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  18).  The  conquest  of  the 
Edomites  by  Amaziah  introduced  the  worship  of 
their  gods,  which  had  disappeared  since  the  days 
of  Solomon  (2  Chr.  xxv.  14,  20).  After  this  period 
even  the  kings  who  did  not  lend  themselves  to  the 
encouragement  of  false  worship  had  to  contend  with 
the  corruption  which  still  lingered  in  the  hearts  of 
the  people  (2  K.  xv.  35 ;  2  Chr.  xxvii.  2).  Hitherto 
the  temple  had  been  kept  pure.  The  statues  of 
Baal  and  the  other  gods  were  worshipiied  in  their 
own  shrines,  but  Ahaz,  who  "  sacrificed  unto  the 
gods  of  Damascus,  which  smote  him "  (2  Chr. 
xxviii.  23),  and  built  altars  to  them  at  every  comer 
of  Jerusalem,  and  high-places  in  every  city  of  Judah, 
replaced  the  brazen  altar  of  burnt-offering  by  one 
made  after  the  model  of  "  the  altar  "  of  Damascus, 
and  desecrated  it  to  his  own  uses  (2  K.  xvi.  10- 
15).« 

The  conquest  of  the  ten  tribes  by  Shalmaneser 
was  for  them  the  last  scene  of  the  drama  of  abom- 
inations which  had  been  enacted  uninterruptedly 
for  upwards  of  250  years.  In  the  northern  king- 
dom no  reformer  arose  to  vary  the  long  line  of 
royal  apostates ;  whatever  was  effected  in  the  way 
of  reformation,  was  done  by  the  hands  of  the  people 
(2  Chr.  xxxi.  1).     But  even  in  their  captivity  they 


Ahaz  was  not  directly  intended  to  profane  the  temple 
by  idolatrous  worship.  But  it  is  clear  that  something 
of  an  idolatrous  nature  had  been  introduced  into  th« 
temple,  and  was  afterwards  removed  by  Hezekiah  (1 
Chr.  xxix.  5;  cf.  Ezr.  vi.  21,  ix.  11).  It  is  poesibi* 
ihat  this  might  have  reference  to  the  brazen  serpent 


IDOLATRY 

kelped  to  perpetuate  the  con-uptioxi.  The  colouists, 
•rhom  the  Assyrian  conquerors  placed  in  t..eir 
jtead  in  the  cities  of  Samaria,  brought  with  them 
their  own  gods,  and  were  taught  at  Bethel  by  a 
priest  of  the  captive  nation  "  the  maimer  of  the 
God  of  the  land,"  tlie  lessons  thus  learnt  resulting 
in  a  strange  admixture  of  the  calf-worship  of  Jero- 
boam with  the  homage  paid  to  their  national  deities 
(2  K.  xvii.  24-41  ^  Their  descendants  were  in 
consequence  regarded  with  suspicion  by  the  elders 
who  returned  from  the  Captivity  with  Ezra,  and 
their  offers  of  assistance  rejected  (Ezr.  iv.  3). 

The  first  act  of  Hezelviah  on  ascending  the 
throne  was  the  restoration  and  purification  of  the 
Temple,  which  had  been  dismantled  and  closed  dur- 
ing the  latter  part  of  his  father's  life  (2  Chr.  xxviii. 
24;  xxix.  3).  The  multitudes  who  flocked  to  Je- 
rusalem to  celebrate  the  passo\er,  so  long  in  abey- 
ance, removed  the  idolatrous  altars  of  burnt-ofFering 
and  incense  erected  by  Ahaz  (2  Chr.  xxx.  14). 
The  iconoclastic  spirit  was  not  confined  to  Judah 
and  Benjamin,  but  spread  throughout  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  1),  and  to  all  external  ap- 
pearance idolatry  was  extirpated.  But  the  reform 
extended  little  below  the  surfiice  (Is.  xxix.  13). 
Among  the  leaders  of  the  people  there  were  many 
in  high  position  who  conformed  to  the  necessities 
of  the  time  (Is.  xxviii.  14),  and  under  Manasseh's 
patronage  the  false  worship,  which  had  been  merely 
driven  into  obscurity,  broke  out  with  tenfold  vir- 
ulence. Idolatry  of  every  form,  and  with  all  the 
accessories  of  enchantments,  divination,  and  witch- 
craft, was  again  rife^  no  place  was  too  sacred,  no 
associations  too  hallowed,  to  be  spared  the  contam- 
ination. If  the  conduct  of  Ahaz  in  erecting  an 
altar  in  the  temple  court  is  open  to  a  charitable  con- 
struction, Manasseh's  was  of  no  doubtful  character. 
The  two  courts  of  the  temple  were  profaned  by 
altars  dedicated  to  the  host  of  heaven,  and  tlie 
image  of  the  Asherah  polluted  the  holy  place  (2 
K.  xxi.  7 ;  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  7,  15 ;  cf.  Jer.  xxxii.  34). 
Even  in  his  late  repentance  he  did  not  entirely  de- 
stroy all  traces  of  his  fornier  wrong.  The  people, 
easily  swayed,  still  burned  incense  on  the  high 
places;  but  Jehovah  was  the  ostensible  object  of 
their  worship.  The  king's  son  sacrificed  to  his 
father's  idols,  but  was  not  associated  with  him  in 
his  repentance,  and  in  his  short  reign  of  two  years, 
restored  all  the  altars  of  the  Baalim,  and  the  im- 
ages of  the  Asherah.  With  the  death  of  Josiah 
ended  the  last  effort  to  revive  among  the  people  a 
purer  ritual,  if  not  a  purer  faith.  The  lamp  of 
David,  which  had  long  shed  but  a  struggling  ray, 
lickered  for  a  while  and  then  went  out  in  the  dark- 
of  Babylonian  captivity. 

But  foreign  exile  was  powerless  to  eratlicate  the 

sp  inl^red  tendency  to  idolatry.     One  of  the  first 

sulties  with  which  Ezra  had  to  contend,  and 

[iVhich  brought  him  well  nigh  to  despair,  was  the 

iie  with  which  his  countrymen  took  them  foreign 
dves  of  the  people  of  the  land,  and  followed  them 
^in  all  their  abominations  (Ezr.  ix.).  The  priests 
id  rulers,  to  whom  he  looked  for  assistance  in  his 
it  enterprise,  were  among  the  first  to  fall  away 
KEzr.  ix.  2,  x.  18;  Neh.  vi.  17,  J  8,  xiii.  23).  Eveii 
[during  tlie  Captivity  the  devotees  of  false  worsnip 
[plied  their  craft  as  prophets  and  diviners  (Jer.  xxix. 
\i;  Ez.  xiii.),  and  the  Jews  who  fled  to  Egypt  car- 
ried with  them  recollections  of  the  material  pros- 

iby  which  attended  their  idolatrous  sacrifices  in 
Fud-iih.  and  to  the  neglect  of  which  they  attributed 
etiled  condition  (Jer.  xUv.  17,  18).    The  con- 


IDOLATRY  112a 

quests  of  Alexander  in  Asia  caused  GriJek  Lifluenot 
to  be  extensively  felt,  and  Greek  idolatry  to  be  first 
tolerated,  and  then  practiced,  by  the  Jews  (1  Mace, 
i.  43-50,  54).  The  attempt  of  Antiochus  to  es- 
tablish this  form  of  worship  was  vigorously  resisted 
by  Mattathias  (1  Mace.  ii.  23-2G),  who  was  joined 
in  his  reljellion  by  the  Assidaeans  (ver.  42),  and 
destroyed  tlie  altars  at  which  the  king  commanded 
them  to  sacrifice  (1  Mace.  ii.  25,  45).  The  erection 
of  synagogues  has  been  assigned  as  a  reason  for  the 
comparative  purity  of  the  Jewish  worship  after  the 
Captivity  (Prideaux,  Connect,  i.  374),  while  an- 
t)ther  cause  has  been  discovered  in  the  hatred  for 
images  acquired  by  the  Jews  in  their  intercourse 
with  the  Persians. 

It  has  teen  a  question  much  debated  whether 
the  Israelites  were  ever  so  far  given  up  to  idolatry 
as  to  lose  all  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  It  would 
be  hard  to  assert  this  of  any  nation,  and  still  more 
diflScult  to  prove.  That  there  always  remained 
among  them  a  faithful  few,  who  in  the  face  of 
every  danger  adhered  to  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
may  readily  be  believed,  for  even  at  a  time  when 
Baal  worship  was  most  prevalent  there  were  found 
seven  thousand  in  Israel  who  had  not  bowed  before 
his  image  (1  K.  xxix.  18).  But  there  is  still  room 
for  grave  suspicion  that  among  the  masses  of  the 
people,  though  the  idea  of  a  supreme  Being  —  of 
whom  the  images  they  worshipped  were  but  the 
distorted  representatives  —  was  not  entirely  lost,  it 
was  so  obscured  as  to  be  but  dimly  apprehended. 
And  not  only  were  the  ignorant  multitude  thus  led 
astray,  but  the  priests,  scribes,  and  prophets  be- 
came leaders  of  the  apostasy  (Jer.  ii.  8).  Warbur- 
ton,  mdeed,  maintained  that  they  never  formally 
renounced  Jehovah,  and  that  their  defection  con- 
sisted "  in  joining  foreign  worship  and  idolatrous 
ceremonies  to  the  ritual  of  the  true  God "  {Div. 
Leg.  bk.  v.  §  3).  But  one  passage  in  their  history, 
though  confessedly  obscure,  seems  to  point  to  a 
time  when,  under  the  rule  of  the  judges,  "  Israel 
for  many  days  had  no  true  God,  and  no  teaching 
priest,  and  no  law"  (2  Chr.  xv.  3).  The  correl- 
ative argument  of  Cud  worth,  who  cm  tends  fix)ra 
the  teaching  of  the  Hebrew  doctors  and  mbbis  "  that 
the  pagan  nations,  anciently,  at  least  the  intelligent 
amongst  them,  acknowledged  one  supreme  God  of 
the  whole  world ;  and  that  all  other  gods  were  but 
creatures  and  inferior  ministers,"  is  controverted 
by  Mosheim  {Intell.  Syst.  i.  4,  §  30,  and  nof^s). 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  much  of  the  idolatry 
of  the  Hebrews  consisted  in  worshipping  the  true 
God  under  an  image,  such  as  the  calves  at  Bethel 
and  Dan  (Joseph.  A7it.  viii.  8,  §  5 :  SajxciKeis  iwot- 
vvfJLOvs  rw  de(S),  and  in  associating  his  worship  with 
idolatrous  rites  (Jer.  xli.  5),  and  places  consecrated 
to  idols  (2  K.  xviii.  22).  From  the  peculiarity  of 
their  position  they  were  never  distinguished  as  the 
inventors  of  a  new  pantheon,  nor  did  they  adopt 
any  one  system  of  idolatry  so  exclusively  as  ever  to 
become  identified  with  it.«  But  they  no  sooner 
came  in  contact  with  other  nations  than  they  readily 
adapted  themselves  to  their  practices,  the  old  spirit 
of  antagonism  died  rapidly  away,  and  intermarriage 
was  one  step  to  idolatry. 

II.  The  old  religion  of  the  Semitic  races  con- 
sisted, in  th?  'pinion  of  Movers  {Phon.  i.  c.  5),  in 
the  deification  of  the  powers  and  laws  of  nature; 
these  powers  being  considered  either  as  distinct  and 


«  A.    the  Moabites  wrth  the  worship  ot  Cb«mo«l 
(Num.  xxi.  29). 


1126 


IDOLATRY 


'Sidependcnl,  or  as  manifestations  of  one  supreme 
and  all-ruling  being.  In  most  instances  the  two 
Ideas  were  co-existent.  The  deity,  following  human 
analogy,  was  conceived  as  male  and  female:  the 
one  representing  the  active,  the  other  the  passive 
principle  of  nature ;  the  former  the  source  of  spir- 
itual, the  latter  of  physical  life.  The  transference 
of  the  attributes  of  the  one  to  the  other  resulted 
either  in  their  mystical  conjunction  in  the  her- 
maphrodite, as  the  Persian  Mithra  and  Phoenician 
Baal,  or  the  two  combined  to  form  a  third,  which 
symbolize:!  the  essential  unity  of  both^"  With 
these  two  supreme  beings  all  other  deities  are  iden- 
tical ;  so  that  in  different  nations  the  same  nature- 
worship  appears  under  different  forms,  representuig 
the  various  aspects  imder  which  the  idea  of  the 
power  of  nature  is  presented.  The  sun  and  moon 
were  early  selected  as  outward  symbols  of  this  all- 
pervading  power,  and  tho  worship  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  was  not  only  the  most  ancient  but  the  most 
prevalent  system  of  idolatry.  Taking  its  rise,  accord- 
ing to  a  proba!  le  hypothesis,  in  the  plains  of  Chal- 
dsea,  it  spread  through  Kgypt,  Greece,  Scythia,  and 
even  Mexico  and  ( "eylon.  it  was  regarded  as  an  of- 
fense an;enable  to  the  civil  authorities  in  the  days  of 
Job  (xxxi.  2G-28),  and  one  of  the  statutes  of  the 
Mosaic  law  was  directed  aiz;aiiist  its  observance 
(Deut.  iv.  19;  xvii.  3);  the  former  referring  to  the 
star-worship  of  Arabia,  the  latter  to  the  concrete 
form  in  which  it  appeared  among  the  Syrians  and 
Phoenicians.  It  is  probable  that  the  Israelites  learnt 
their  first  lessons  in  sun-worship  from  the  Kgyp- 
tians,  in  whose  religious  system  that  luminary,  as 
Osiris,  held  a  pron.inent  place.  The  city  of  On 
(Beth-shemesh  or  Heliopolis)  took  its  name  from 
his  temple  (.Jer.  xliii.  13),  and  the  wife  of  Joseph 
was  the  daughter  of  his  priest  (Gen.  xli.  45).  The 
Phoenicians  worshipped    him    under   the   title  of 

"Lord  of  heaven,"  Q'Pt^^  ^^??  Baalshamayim 
(Bee\<ra/irji/,  ace.  to  Sanchoniatho  in  Philo  Byb- 
Uus),  and  Adon,  the  Greek  Adonis,  and  the  Tham- 
muz  of  Ezekiel  (viii.  14).  [Thammuz.]  As 
Molech  or  INIUcom,  the  sun  was  worshipped  by  the 
Ammonites,  and  as  Chemosh  by  the  Moabites. 
The  Hadad  of  the  Syrians  is  the  same  deity,  whose 
name  is  traceable  in  Benhadad,  Hadadezer,  and 
Hadad  or  Adad,  the  Edomite.  The  Assyrian  Bel 
or  Belus,  is  another  form  of  Bjial.  According  to 
Philo  (f/e  Vit.  Cont.  §  3)  the  Essenes  were  wont 
to  pi*ay  to  the  sun  at  morning  and  evening  (Joseph. 
B.  ./.  ii.  8,  §  5).  By  the  later  kings  of  Judah, 
sacred  horses  and  chariots  were  dedicated  to  the 
Bun-god,  as  by  the  Persians  (2  K.  xxiii.  11 ;  Bo- 
chart,  Jlieroz.  pt.  1,  bk.  ii.  c.  xi. ;  Selden,  de  Dis 
Syr.  ii.  8);  to  march  in  procession  and  greet  his 
rising  (R.  Sol.  Jarchi  on  2  K.  xxiii.  11).  The 
Massagetae  offered  horses  in  sacrifice  to  him  (Strabo, 
xi.  p.  513),  on  the  principle  enunciated  by  Macro- 
bius  (Sat.  vii.  7),  "like  rejoiceth  in  like"  ("simili- 
bus  similia  gaudent;  "  cf.  Her.  i.  216),  and  the 
custom  was  connnon  to  many  nations. 

The  moon,  worshipped  by  the  Phoenicians  under 
the  name  of  Astarte  (Lucian,  de  Dea  Sy7-a,  c,  4), 


"  This  will  explain  the  occurrence  of  the  name  of 
Baal  with  the  masculine  and  feminine  articles  in  the 
LXX. ;  cf.  IIos.  xi.  2  :  Jer.  xix.  5 ;  Rom.  xi.  4.  Phi- 
ochctus,  quoted  by  Macrobius  (Sat.  iii.  8),  says  that 
laen  and  women  sacrificd  to  Venus  or  the  Moon,  with 
the  garments  of  the  sexes  interchanged,  because  she 
wts  regarded  both  as  masculine  and  feminine  (see  Sel- 
Isn,  de  Dii  Syr.  ii.  2).     Hence  Lunus  and  Luna. 


IDOLATRY 

or  Baaltis,  the  passive  power  of  nature,  as  Baal  WM 
the  active  (Movers,  i.  149),  and  known  to  the  He- 
brews as  Ashtaroth  or  Ashtoreth,  the  tutelary  god- 
dess of  the  Zidonians,  appears  early  among  the 
objects  of  Israelitish  idolatry.  But  this  SjTO-l^hce- 
nician  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  was  of  a  grosser 
character  than  the  pure  star-worship  of  the  Magi 
which  Movers  disthiguishes  as  Upper  Asiatic  oi 
Assyro-Persian,  and  was  equally  removed  from  the 
Chaldsean  astrology  and  Zabianism  of  later  times. 
The  former  of  these  systems  tolerated  no  images  or 
altars,  and  the  contemplation  of  the  heavenly  bodies 
from  elevated  spots  constituted  the  greater  part  of 
its  ritual. 

But,  though  we  have  no  positive  historical  ac- 
count of  star-worship  before  the  Assyrian  period, 
we  may  infer  that  it  was  early  practiced  in  a  con- 
crete form  among  the  IsraeUtes  from  the  allusions 
hi  Amos  V.  26,  and  Acts  vii.  42,  43.  Even  in  the 
desert  they  are  said  to  have  been  given  up  to  wor- 
ship the  host  of  heaven,  while  Chiun  and  Bemphan, 
or  Rephan,  have  on  various  grounds  been  identified 
with  the  planet  Saturn.  It  was  to  counteract 
idolatry  of  this  nature  that  the  stringent  law  of 
Deut.  xvii.  3  was  enacled,  and  with  the  \iew  of 
withdrawing  the  Israelites  from  undue  contempla- 
tion of  the  material  universe,  Jehovali,  the  God  of 
Israel,  is  constantly  placed  before  them  as  Jehovah 
Zebaoth,  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  the  king  of  heaven 
(Dan.  iv.  35,  37),  to  whom  the  heaven  and  heaven 
of  heavens  belong  (Deut.  x.  14).  However  this 
may  be.  Movers  {Phon.  i.  65,  66)  contends  that 
the  later  star- worship,  introduced  by  Ahaz  and  fol- 
lowed by  Manasseh,  was  purer  and  more  spiritual 
in  its  nature  than  the  Israelito- Phoenician  worship 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  under  symbolical  forms  as 
Baal  and  Asherah :  and  that  it  was  not  idolatry  in 
the  same  sense  that  the  latter  was,  but  of  a  simply 
contemplative  character.  He  is  supported,  to  some 
extent,  by  the  fact  that  we  find  no  mention  of  any 
images  of  the  sun  or  moon  or  the  host  of  heaven, 
but  merely  of  vessels  devoted  to  tiieir  service  (2  K. 
xxiii.  4).  But  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  divine  honors  paid  to  the  "  Queen  of  Heaven  " 
(or  as  others  render,  "  the  frame  "  or  "  structure  of 
the  heavens  ")''  were  equally  dissociated  from  image 
worship.  Mr.  Layard  [Nin.  ii.  451)  discovered  a 
bas-relief  at  Nimroud,  which  represented  four  idols 
carried  in  procession  by  Assyrian  warriors.  One 
of  these  figures  he  identifies  with  Hera  the  Assyr- 
ian Astarte,  represented  with  a  star  on  her  head 
(Am.  V.  26),  and  with  the  "queen  of  heaven," 
who  appears  on  the  rock-tablets  of  Pterium  "  stand- 
ing erect  on  a  lion,  and  crowned  with  a  tower,  or 
murai  coronet,"  as  in  the  Syrian  temple  of  Hie- 
rapolis  {Id.  p.  456;  Lucian,  de  Dea  Syrn,  31,  32). 
But,  in  his  remarks  upon  a  figure  which  resembles 
the  Rhea  of  Diodorus,  Mr.  Layard  adds,  "  the  rep- 
resentation in  a  human  form  of  the  celeotial  bodies, 
themselves  originally  but  a  type,  was  a  corruption 
which  appears  to  have  crept  at  a  later  period  into 
the  mythology  of  Assyria ;  for,  in  the  more  ancient 
bas-reliefs,  figures  with  caps  surmounted  by  stars 
do  not  occur,  and  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets  stand 
alone"  (Id.  pp.  457,  458). 


b  Jer.  vii.  18 ;  xliv.  19.  In  the  former  passage  8om« 
MSS.  have  H^Sb^S  for  HD?^,  a  reading  sup 
ported  by  the  LXX.,  rg  <rr parity,  as  well  as  by  tha 
Syr.  ^.^ut^Q^,  pdkhOn,  its  equivalent.  But  in  tin 
iatter  they  both  agree  in  the  rendering  **  queen.'* 


IDOLATRY 

The  allusions  in  Job  -siLXviii.  31,  32,  are  jOO  ob- 
leuie  to  allow  any  inference  to  be  drawn  as  to  the 
mysterious  influences  which  were  heid  by  the  old 
Mtrologers  to  be  exercised  by  the  stars  over  human 
destiny,  nor  is  there  sufficient  evidence  to  connect 
them  with  anything  more  recondite  than  the  astro- 
nomical knowledge  of  the  period.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  poetical  figure  in  Deborah's  chant 
of  triumph,  "  the  stars  from  their  highways  warred 
with  Sisera  "  (Judg.  v.  20).  In  the  later  times  of 
the  monarchy,  Mazzaloth,  the  j^lanets,  or  the  zodi- 
acal signs,  received,  next,  to  the  sun  and  moon, 
their  sliare  of  popular  adoration  (2  K.  xxiii.  5); 
and  the  history  of  idolatry  among  the  Hebrews 
shows  at  all  times  an  intimate  connection  between 
the  deification  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the 
superstition  which  watched  the  clouds  for  signs, 
and  used  divination  and  enchantments.  It  was 
but  a  step  from  such  culture  of  the  sidereal  powers 
to  the  worship  of  Gad  and  Meni,  Babylonian  divin- 
ities, symbols  of  Venus  or  the  moon,  as  the  goddess 
of  luck  or  fortune.  Under  the  latter  aspect,  the 
moon  was  reverenced  by  the  Egyptians  (Macrob. 
Sat.  i.  19);  and  the  name  Baal  Gad  is  possibly  an 
example  of  the  manner  in  which  the  worship  of 
the  planet  Jupiter  as  the  bringer  of  luck  was 
grafted  on  the  old  faith  of  the  Phoenicians.  The 
false  gods  of  the  colonists  of  Samaria  were  probably 
connected  with  eastern  astrology:  Adrammelech, 
Movers  regards  as  the  sun-fire  —  the  Solar  Mars, 
and  Anammelech  the  Solar  Saturn  (Phon.  i.  410, 
411).  The  Vulgate  rendering  of  Prov.  xxvi.  8, 
"  sicut  qui  mittit  lapidem  in  acervuin  Meixurii," 
follows  the  Midrash  on  the  passage  quoted  by  Jar- 
chi,  and  requires  merely  a  passing  notice  (see 
Selden,  de  Bis  Syris,  ii.  15;  Maim,  de  Idol.  iii. 

2;  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talni.  s.  v.^  D^'blpHQ). 

Beast-worship,  as  exemplified  in  the  calves  of 
Jeroboam  and  the  dark  hints  which  seem  to  point 
to  the  goat  of  Mendes,  has  already  been  alluded 
to.  There  is  no  actual  proof  that  the  Israelites 
ever  joined  in  the  service  of  Dagon,«  the  fish -god 
of  the  Philistines,  though  Ahaziah  sent  stealthily 
to  Baal-zebub,  the  fly-god  of  Ekron  (2  K.  i.),  and 
in  later  times  the  brazen  serpent  became  the  object 
of  idolatrous  homage  (2  K.  xviii.  4).  But  whether 
the  latter  was  regarded  with  superstitious  reverence 
as  a  memorial  of  their  early  history,  or  whether 
incense  was  offered  to  it  as  a  symbol  of  some  power 
of  nature,  cannot  now  be  exactly  determined.  The 
threatening  in  Lev.  xxvi.  30,  "  I  will  put  your  car- 
casses upon  the  carcasses  of  your  idols,"  may  fairly 
be  considered  as  directed  against  the  tendency  to 
Regard  animals,  as  in  Egypt,  as  the  symbols  of 
feity.  Tradition  says  that  Nergal,  the  god  of  the 
:«ion  of  Cuth,  the  idol  of  fire,  according  to  Leusden 
{Phil.  Hebr.  Mixt.  Diss.  43),  was  worshipped  under 
the  form  of  a  cock ;  Ash  i  ma  as  a  he-goat,  the  em- 
olem  of  generative  power ;  Nibhaz  as  a  dog ;  Adram- 
melech as  a  mule  or  peacock ;  and  Anammelech  as 
a  horse  or  pheasant. 


a  Some  have  explained  the  allusion  in  Zeph.  i.  9, 
ts  referring  to  a  practice  connected  with  the  worship 
»f  Dagon  ;  conip.  1  Sam.  v.  5.  The  Syrians,  '»n  the 
authority  of  Xenophon  {Anab.  i.  4,  §  U),  paid  iivine 
honorii  £o  fish. 

b  Jerome  {Onomast.  a.  v.  Dnjs)  menlions  an  oak 
near  Hebron  wliich  existed  in  his  infancy,  and  was  the 
araditional  tree  beneath  which  Abraham  dwelt.  It 
was  rei;arded  with  great  reverence,  and  was  made  an 
3ll^t  of  worship  by  the  heathen.     Modern  Palestine 


IDOLATRY  1127 

Of  pure  hero-worship  among  the  Semitic  rwoH 
we  find  no  trace.  Moses  indeed  seems  to  have  en- 
tertained some  dim  apprehension  that  his  country- 
men might,  after  his  death,  pay  him  more  hocon 
than  were  due  to  man;  and  the  anticipation  oC 
this  led  him  to  review  his  own  conduct  in  terms  of 
strong  reprobation  (Deut.  iv.  21,  22).  The  ex- 
pression in  Ps.  cvi.  28,  "  the  sacrifices  of  the  dead,' 
is  in  all  prol)ability  metaphorical,  and  Wisd.  xiv. 
15  refers  to  a  later  practice  due  to  Greek  influence. 
The  rabbinical  commentators  discover  in  Gen. 
xlviii.  IG,  an  allusion  to  the  worshipping  of  angels 
(Col.  ii.  18),  while  they  defend  their  ancestors  from 
the  charge  of  regarding  them  in  any  other  light 
than  mediators,  or  intercessors  with  God  (Lewis, 
Oriff.  Hebr.  v.  3).  It  is  needless  to  add  that  their 
inference  and  apology  are  equally  groundless.  With 
like  probability  has  been  advanced  the  theory  of 
the  demon-worship  of  the  Hebrews,  the  only  foun- 
dation for  it  being  two  highly  poetical  passages 
(Deut.  xxxii.  17;  Ps.  cvi.  37).  It  is  possible  that 
the  Persian  dualism  is  hinted  at  in  Is.  xlv.  7. 

But  if  the  forms  of  the  false  gods  were  manifold, 
the  places  devoted  to  their  worship  were  almost 
equally  numerous.  The  singular  reverence  with 
which  trees  have  in  all  ages  been  honored  is  not 
without  example  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews. 
The  terebinth  at  Mamre,  beneath  which  Abraham 
built  an  altar  (Gen.  xii.  7,  xiii.  18),  and  the  me- 
morial grove  planted  by  him  at  Beer-sheba  (Gen. 
xxi.  33),  were  intimately  connected  with  patriarchal 
worship,  though  in  after-ages  his  descendants  were 
forbidden  to  do  that  which  he  did  with  impunity, 
in  order  to  avoid  the  contamination  of  idolatry.* 
As  a  symptom  of  their  rapidly  degenerating  spirit, 
the  oak  of  Shechem,  which  stood  in  the  sanctuary 
of  Jehovah  (Josh.  xxiv.  26),  and  beneath  which 
Joshua  set  up  the  stone  of  witness,  perhaps  appears 
in  Judges  (ix.  37),  as  "  the  oak  (not  'plain,'  as  in 
A.  V.)  of  soothsayers"  or  "  augurs."  °  Moun- 
tains and  high  places  were  chosen  spots  for  ofFering 
sacrifice  and  incense  to  idols  (1  K.  xi.  7,  xiv.  23); 
and  the  retirement  of  gardens  and  the  thick  shade 
of  woods  offered  great  attractions  to  their  worship- 
pers (2  K.  xvi.  4;  Is.  i.  29;  Hos.  iv.  13).  It  was 
the  ridge  of  Carmel  which  Elijah  selected  as  the 
scene  of  his  contest  with  the  priests  of  Baal,  fight- 
ing with  them  the  battle  of  Jehovah,  as  it  were,  on 
their  own  ground.  [Carmel.]  Carmel  was  re- 
garded by  the  Roman  historians  as  a  sacred  moun- 
tain of  the  Jews  (Tac.  H.  ii.  78;  Suet.  Vesp.  7). 
The  host  of  heaven  was  worshipped  on  the  house- 
top (2  K.  xxiii.  12;  Jer.  xix.  13,  xxxii.  29;  Zeph. 
i.  5).  In  describing  the  sun-worship  of  the  Naba 
taei,  Strabo  (xvi.  p.  784)  mentions  two  charactei* 
istics  which  strikingly  illustrate  the  worship  of 
Baal.  They  built  their  altars  on  the  roofs  of 
houses,  and  offered  on  them  incense  and  libations 
daily.  On  the  wall  of  his  city,  in  the  sight  of  the 
besieging  armies  of  Israel  and  Edom,  the  king  of 
Moab  offered  his  eldest  son  as  a  burnt-offering. 


abounds  with  sacred  trees.  They  are  found  "  all  over 
the  land  covered  with  bits  of  rags  from  the  garments 
of  passing  villagers,  hung  up  as  acknowledgments  or 
as  deprecatory  signals  and  charms  :  and  we  find  beau- 
tiiui  clumps  of  oak-trees  sacred  to  a  kind  oi  beings 
called  Jacob's  daughters  "  (Thomson,  Land  and  Book^ 
ii.  151).     [See  Grove,] 

"  Unless,  indeed,  this  be  a  relic  of  the  ancien 
Canaanitish  worship ;  an  older  name  associated  wit! 
idolatry,  which  the  conquering  Hebrews  wore  com 
manded  and  endeavornd  to  obliterate  (Deut.  zli.  fti 


1128 


IDOLATRY 


I'he  Persians,  who  worshipped  the  sun  under  the 
name  of  Mithra  (Strabo,  xv.  p.  732),  sacrificed  on 
Rn  elevated  spot,  but  built  no  altars  or  images. 

The  priests  of  the  false  worship  are  sometimes 
designated  Chemarim,  a  word  of  Syriac  origin,  to 
which  different  meanings  liave  been  assigned.  It 
is  applied  to  the  non-Leviticai  priests  who  burnt 
incense  on  the  high-places  (2  K.  xxiii.  5)  as  well 
as  to  the  priests  of  the  calves  (Hos.  x.  5);  and  the 
corresponding  word  is  used  in  the  I'eshito  (Judg. 
xviii.  30)  of  Jonathan  and  his  4escendants,  priests 
to  the  tribe  of  Dan,  and  in  Targ.  Onkelos  (Gen. 
xlvii.  22)  of  the  priests  of  Egypt.  The  Rabbis, 
followed  by  Gesenius,  have  deri\ed  it  from  a  root 
signifying  "  to  be  black,"  and  without  any  authority 
assort  that  the  name  was  given  to  idolatrous  priests 
from  the  black  vestments  which  they  wore.  But 
white  was  the  distinctive  color  in  the  priestly  gar- 
ments of  all  nations  from  India  to  Gaul,  and  black 
was  only  worn  when  they  sacrificed  to  the  subter- 
ranean gods  (Biihr,  ISyinb.  ii.  87,  «fec.).  That  a 
special  dress  was  adopted  by  the  Baal-worshippers, 
as  well  as  by  the  false  prophets  (Zech.  xiii.  4),  is 
evident  from  2  K.  x.  22  (where  the  rendering 
should  be  '■'■the  apparel"):  the  vestments  were 
kept  in  an  apartment  of  the  idol  temple,  under 
the  charge  probably  of  one  of  the  inferior  priests. 
Micah's  Levite  was  provided  with  appropriate  robes 
(Judg.  xvii.  10).  The  "foreign  apparel,"  men- 
tioned in  Zeph.  i.  8,  refers  doubtless  to  a  similar 
dress,  adopted  by  the  Israelites  in  defiance  of  the 
sumptuary  law  in  Num.  xv.  37-40. 

In  addition  to  the  priests  there  were  other  per- 
sons intimately  connected  with  idolatrous  rites,  and 
the  impurities  from  which  they  were  inseparable. 
Both  men  and  women  consecrated  themselves  to 

the  service  of  i»'ols:  the  former  as  D^tt"'7|7,  kede- 
shim,  for  which  chere  is  reason  to  beheve  the  A.  V. 
(Deut.  xxiii.  17,  &c.)  has   not  given  too  harsh  an 

equivalent;  the  latter  as  H^t?'"!!?.  kedeshoth.  who 
wove  shrines  for  Astarte  (2  K.  xxiii.  7),  and  re- 
sembled the  iTalpaL  of  Corinth,  of  whom  Strabo 
(viii.  p.  378)  says  there  were  more  than  a  thousand 
attached  to  the  temple  of  Aphrodite.  Egyptian 
prostitutes  consecrated  themselves  to  Isis  (Juv.  vi. 
489,  ix.  22-24).  The  same  class  of  women  existed 
among  the  Phoenicianf!,  Armenians,  Lydians,  and 
Babylonians  (Her.  i.  93,  199;  Strabo,  xi.  p.  532; 
Epist.  of  Jerem.  vor.  43).  They  are  distinguished 
from  the  public  prostitutes  (Hos.  iv.  14)  and  asso- 
ciated with  the  performances  of  sacred  rites,  just 
kia  in  Strabo  (xii.  p.  559)  we  find  the  two  classes 
coexisting  at  Comana,  the  Corinth  of  Pontus, 
much  frequented  by  pilgrims  to  the  shrine  of  Aph- 
rodite." The  wealth  thus  obtained  flowed  into  the 
treasury  of  the  idol  temple,  and  against  such  a 
practice  the  injunction  in  Deut  xxiii.  18  is  directed. 
Dr.  Maitland,  anxious  to  defend  the  moral  charac- 
ter of  Jewish  women,  has  with  much  ingenuity 
attempted  to  show  that  a  meaning  foreign  to  their 
true  sense  has  been  attached  to  the  words  above 
mentioned;  and  that,  though  closely  associated 
with  idolatrous  services,  they  do  not  indicate  such 
tbui  corruption  {Ess'ty  on  False  Worshij}).  But 
if,  aa  Movers,  with  great  appeai-ance  of  probability, 
has  coryectured  {Phon.  i.  679 ),  the  class  of  persons 


a  An  illustration,  though  not  an  example,  of  this 

found  in  the  modern  historj'  of  Europe.     At  a  jte- 

lod   of   gresit  profligacy  and    corruption  of  morals, 

lioentiouaness  was  carried  to  such  an  excess  in  Stras- 


IDOLATRY 

alluded  to  was  composed  of  foreigners,  the  Jewial 
women  in  this  respect  need  no  such  a4lvocacj. 
That  such  customs  existed  among  foreign  nation* 
there  is  abundant  evidence  to  prove  (Luciau,  t/t 
Syra  JJen,  c.  5);  and  from  the  juxtaposition  of 
prostitution  and  the  idolatrous  rites  against  which 
the  laws  in  Lev.  xix.  are  aimed,  it  is  probable  that 
next  to  its  immorality,  one  main  reason  why  it  was 
visited  with  such  "stringency  was  its  connection 
with  idolatry  (comp.  1  Cor.  vi.  9). 

But  besides  these  accessories  there  were  the  or- 
dinary rites  of  worship  which  idolatrous  systems 
had  in  common  with  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews. 
Offering  burnt  sacrifices  to  the  idol  gods  {2  K.  v. 
17),  burning  incense  in  their  honor  (1  K.  xi.  8), 
and  bowing  down  in  worship  before  their  images 
(1  K.  xix.  18)  were  the  cliief  parts  of  their  ritual; 
and  from  their  very  analogy  with  the  ceremonies 
of  true  worship  were  more  seductive  than  the 
grosser  forms.  Nothing  can  be  stronger  or  more 
positive  than  the  language  in  which  these  cere- 
monies were  denounced  by  Hebrew  law.  Every 
detail  of  idol-worship  was  made  the  subject  of  a 
separate  enactment,  and  many  of  the  laws,  which  in 
themselves  seem  trivial  and  almost  absurd,  receive 
from  tins  point  of  view  their  true  significance.  We 
are  told  by  Maimonides  (Mor.  Neb.  c.  12)  that  the 
prohibitions  against  sowing  a  field  with  mingled 
seed,  and  wearmg  garments  of  mixed  material,  were 
directed  against  the  practices  of  idolaters,  who 
attributed  a  kind  of  magical  influence  to  the  mix- 
ture (Lev.  xix.  19;  Spencer,  de  Ley.  Hehr.  ii.  18). 
Such  too  were  the  precepts  which  forbade  that  the 
garments  of  the  sexes  should  be  interchanged  (Deut. 
xxii.  5;  Maimon.  de  Idol.  xii.  9).  According  to 
Macrobius  {Sat.  iii.  8)  other  Asiatics  when  they 
sacrificed  to  their  Venus  changed  the  dress  of  the 
sexes.  The  priests  of  Cybele  appeared  in  women's 
clothes,  and  used  to  mutilate  themselves  (Creuzer, 
Symb.  ii.  34,  42):  the  same  custom  was  observed 
"  by  the  IthvphaUi  in  the  rites  of  Bacchus,  and  by 
the  Athenians  in  their  Ascophoria  "  (Young,  Idol. 
Cor.  in  Rtl.  i.  105;  cf.  Lucian,  de  Dea  Syi'o,  c. 
15).  To  presen'e  the  Israehtes  from  contamination, 
they  were  prohibited  for  three  years  after  their  con- 
quest of  Canaan  from  eating  of  the  fruit-trees  of 
the  land,  whose  cultivation  had  been  attended  with 
magical  rites  (Lev.  xix.  23).  They  were  forbidden 
to  "  round  the  corner  of  the  head,"  and  to  "  mar 
the  corner  of  the  beard"  (Lev.  xix.  27),  as  the 
Arabians  did  in  honor  of  their  gods  (Her.  iii.  8,  iv. 

175).     Hence,  the  phrase  PNT  ''^JlVp,  ketsutse 

phedh,  (literally)  '•  shorn  of  the  comer,"  is  especially 
applied  to  idolaters  (Jer.  ix.  26,  xxv.  23).  Spencar 
{de  Ley.  Hehr.  ii.  9,  §  2)  explains  the  law  forbid- 
ding the  offering  of  honey  (Lev.  ii.  11)  as  intended 
to  oppose  an  idolatrous  practice.  Strabo  describes 
the  Magi  as  offering  in  aU  their  sacrifices  Ubations 
of  oil  mingled  with  honey  and  milk  (xv.  p.  733). 
Offerings  in  which  honey  was  an  ingredient  were 
made  to  the  inferior  deities  and  the  dead  (Horn. 
Od.  X.  519;  Porph.  de  Antr.  Nyviph.  c.  17).  So 
also  the  practice  of  eating  the  flesh  of  sacrifices 
"  over  the  blood  "  (Lev.  xix.  26;  Ez.  xxxiii.  25,  26) 
was,  according  to  INlaimonides,  common  among  th« 
Zabii.     Spencer  gives  a  double  reason  for  the  pro 


burg  that  the  public  prostitutes  received  the  appells 
tion  of  the  swallows  of  the  cathe'lral  (Miller,  FkU.  •' 
Hist,  ii  441). 


IDOLATRY 

IdMtion :  that  it  was  a  rite  of  divination,  and 
divination  of  the  worst  kind,  a  species  of  necro- 
mancy by  wliich  they  attempted  to  raise  the  spirits 
of  the  dead  (comp.  Hor.  Sat.  i.  8).  There  are 
supposed  to  be  allusions  to  the  practice  of  necro- 
mancy in  Is.  Ixv.  4,  or  at  any  rate  to  superstitious 
rites  in  connection  with  the  dead.  The  grafting 
of  one  tree  upon  another  was  forbidden,  because 
among  idolaters  the  process  was  accompanied  by 
gross  obscenity  (Maim.  Afor.  Neb.  c.  12).  Cutting 
the  flesh  for  the  dead  (I^v.  xix.  28;  1  K.  xviii.  28), 
and  making  a  baldness  between  the  eyes  (Deut. 
xiv.  1)  were  associated  with  idolatrous  rites:  the 
latter  being  a  custom  among  the  Syrians  (Sir  G. 
VV^ilkinson  in  Kawlinson's  Herod,  ii.  p.  158,  note). 
The  thrice  repeated  and  much-vexed  passage,  "  I'hou 
shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  his  mother's  milk  "  (Ex. 
xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  20;  Deut.  xiv.  21),  interpreted  by 
some  as  a  precept  of  humanity,  is  explained  by 
Cud  worth  in  a  very  different  manner.  He  quotes 
from  a  Karaite  commentary  which  he  had  seen  in 
MS. :  "  It  was  a  custom  of  the  ancient  heathens, 
when  they  had  gathered  in  all  their  fruit,  to  take 
a  kid  and  boil  it  in  the  dam's  milk,  and  then  in  a 
magical  way  go  about  and  besprinkle  with  it  all 
the  trees  and  fields  and  gardens  and  orchards; 
thinking  by  this  means  they  should  make  them 
fructify,  and  bring  forth  again  more  abundantly  the 
following  year"  {On  the  Lord's  Supper,  c.  2).« 
The  law  which  regulated  clean  and  unclean  meats 
(Lev.  XX.  23-26)  may  be  considered  both  as  a  san- 
itary regulation,  and  also  as  having  a  tendency  to 
separate  the  Israelites  from  the  surrounding  idol- 
atrous nations.  It  was  with  the  same  object,  in  the 
opinion  of  JNIichaelis,  that  while  in  the  wilderness 
they  were  prohibited  from  killing  any  animal  for 
food  without  first  offering  it  to  Jehovah  (Laios  of 
Moses,  trans.  Smith,  art.  203).  The  mouse,  one 
»f  the  unclean  animals  of  Leviticus  (xi.  29),  was 
sacrificed  by  the  ancient  Magi  (Is.  Ixvi.  17;  Movers, 
Phon.  i.  219).  It  may  have  been  some  such  reason 
as  that  assigned  by  Lewis  {Orig.  He.br.  v.  1),  that 
the  dog  was  the  symbol  of  an  Egyptian  deity,  which 
gave  rise  to  the  prohibition  in  Deut.  xxiii.  18. 
Movers  says  the  dog  was  offered  in  sacrifice  to 
Moloch  (i.  404),  as  swine  to  the  moon  and  Dionysus 
by  the  Egyptians,  who  afterwards  ate  of  the  flesh 
(Her.  iii.  47;  Is.  Ixv.  4).  Eating  of  the  things 
oflfered  was  a  necessary  appendage  to  the  sacrifice 
(comp.  Ex.  xviii.  12,  xxxii.  6,  xxxiv.  15 ;  Num.  xxv. 
2,  &c.).  Among  the  Persians  the  victim  was  eaten 
by  the  worshippers,  and  the  soul  alone  left  for  the 
.•od  (Strabo,  xv.  732).  "  Hence  it  is  that  the 
.  lolatry  of  tlie  Jews  in  worshipping  other  gods  is 
no  often  described  synecdochically  under  the  notion 
•if  feasting.  Is.  Ivii.  7,  '  Upon  a  high  and  lofty 
rajuntain  thou  hast  set  thy  bed,  and  thither  wentest 
thou  up  to  offer  sacrifice ; '  for  in  those  ancient 
times  they  were  not  wont  to  sit  at  feasts,  but  lie 
down  on  beds  or  couches.  Ez.  xxiii.  41 :  Amos  ii. 
8,  '  They  laid  themselves  down  upon  clothes  laid 
to  pledge  by  every  altar,'  i.  e.  laid  themselves  down 
•o  eat  of  the  sacrifice  that  was  offered  on  the  altar  : 
omp.  Ez.  xviii.  11"  (Cudworth,  ut  supra,  c.  1; 
if.  1  Cor.  viii.  10).  The  Israelites  were  forbidden 
•♦to  print  any  mark  upon  them"  (Lev.  xix.  28), 
because  it  was  a  custom  of  idolaters  to  brand  upon 
Jieir  flesh  some  symbol  of  the  deity  they  worshipped. 


a  Dr.  Thomson  mentions  a  favorite  disb  among  the 
4i«b«  calle*^  Itbn  imm<i,  to  which  he  conceives  allusion 
«Ukd3  ( Lana  and  Book,  i.  135). 


IDOLATRY  1129 

as  the  ivy-leaf  of  Bacchus  (3  Mace.  ii.  29).  Acooid* 
ing  to  Lucian  (de  Dea  Syra,  59),  all  the  Assymnt 
wore  marks  of  this  kind  on  their  necks  and  wrista 
(comp.  Is.  xliv.  5;  Gal.  vi.  17;  Rev.  xiv.  1,11). 
Many  other  practices  of  false  worship  are  alluded 
to,  and  made  the  subjects  of  rigorous  prohibition 
but  none  are  more  frequently  or  more  severely  de- 
nounced than  those  which  peculiarly  distinguished 
the  worship  of  Molech.  It  has  been  attempted  to 
deny  that  the  worship  of  this  idol  was  polluted  by 
the  foul  stain  of  human  sacrifice,  i)ut  the  allusions 
are  too  plain  and  too  pointed  to  admit  of  reasonable 
doubt  (Deut.  xii.  31;  2  K.  iii.  27;  Jer.  vii.  31;  Ps. 
cvi.  37;  Ez.  xxiii.  39).  Nor  was  this  practice  con- 
fined to  the  rites  of  Molech;  it  extended  to  those 
of  Baal  (Jer.  xix.  5),  and  the  king  of  Moab  (2  K. 
iii.  27)  offered  his  son  as  a  burnt-offering  to  his 
god  Chemosh.  The  Phoenicians,  we  are  told  by 
Porphyry  {de  Abstln.  ii.  c.  56),  on  occasions  of  great 
national  calamity  sacrificed  to  Kronos  one  of  their 
dearest  friends.  Some  allusion  to  this  custom  may 
be  seen  in  Micah  vi.  7.  Kissing  the  images  of  the 
gods  (1  K.  xix.  18;  Hos.  xiii.  2),  hanging  votive 
offerings  in  their  temples  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  10),  and 
carrying  them  to  battle  (2  Sam.  v.  21),  as  the  Jews 
of  INIaccab^us'  army  did  with  the  things  conse- 
crated to  the  idols  of  the  Janmites  (2  Alacc.  xii. 
40),  are  usages  connected  with  idolatry  which  are 
casually  mentioned,  though  not  made  the  oVyects 
of  express  legislation.  But  soothsaying,  interpre- 
tation of  dreams,  necromancy,  witchcraft,  magic, 
and  other  forms  of  divination,  are  alike  forbidden 
(Deut.  xviii.  9;  2  K.  i.  2;  Is.  kv.  4;  Ez.  xxi.  21). 
The  history  of  other  nations  —  and  indeed  the  too 
common  practice  of  the  lower  class  of  the  popula- 
tion of  Syria  at  the  present  day  —  shows  us  that 
such  a  statute  as  that  against  bestiality  (Lev.  xviii. 
23)  was  not  unnecessary  (cf.  Her.  ii.  46;  Rom.  i. 
26).  Purificatory  rites  in  connection  with  idol- 
worship,  and  eating  of  forbidden  food,  were  visited 
with  severe  retribution  (Is.  Ixvi.  17).  It  is  evident, 
from  the  context  of  Ez.  viii.  17,  that  the  votaries 
of  the  sun,  who  worshipped  with  their  faces  to  the 
east  (v.  16),  and  "put  the  branch  to  their  nose," 
did  so  in  observance  of  some  idolatrous  rite.  Movers 
{Phon.  i.  66),  unhesitatingly  affirms  that  the 
allusion  is  to  the  branch  Barsom,  the  holy  branch 
of  the  Magi  (Strabo,  xv.  p.  733),  while  Havemick 
{Comm.  zu  Ezech.  p.  117),  with  equal  confidence, 
denies  that  the  passage  supports  such  an  inference, 
and  renders,  having  in  view  the  lament  of  the 
women  for  Thammuz,  "  sie  entsenden  den  Trauer- 
gesang  zu  ihren  Zorn."  The  waving  of  a  myrtle 
branch,  say's  Maimonides  {de  Idol.  vi.  2),  accom- 
panied the  repetition  of  a  magical  formula  in  incan- 
tations. An  illustration  of  the  usage  of  boughs  in 
worship  will  be  found  in  the  Greek  iKerripla  (iEsch. 
j  Eum.  43 ;  Suppl.  192 ;  Schol.  on  Aristoph.  PluU 
!  383 ;  Porphyr.  de  Ant.  Nymph,  c.  33).  For  detailed 
'  accounts  of  idolatrous  ceremonies,  reference  must 
I  be  made  to  the  articles  upon  the  several  idols. 
!  III.  It  remains  now  briefly  to  consider  the  light 
I  in  which  idolatry  was  regarded  in  the  Mosiac  code, 
,  and  the  penalties  with  which  it  was  visited.  If  one 
I  main  olyect  of  the  Hebrew  polity  was  to  teach  the 
I  unity  of  God,  the  extermination  of  idolatry  was  but 
1  a  subordinate  end.  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  Israel- 
ites, was  the  civil  head  of  the  State.  He  was  the 
theocratic  king  of  the  people,  who  had  delivered 
them  from  bondage,  and  to  whom  they  had  taken  a 
wiUinsr  oath  of  allegiance.  They  had  entered  mw) « 
solemn  leascue  and  covenant  with  him  as  their  chowa 


1130  IDOLATRY 

king  (comp.  1  Sam.  viii.  7),  by  whom  obedience 
WM  requited  witli  temporal  blessings,  and  rebellion 
with  temporal  punishn)ent.  This  original  contract 
of  the  Hebrew  government,  as  it  has  been  termed, 
is  contained  in  Ex.  xix.  3-8,  xx.  2-5;  Deut.  xxix. 
10-xxx. ;  the  blessings  promised  to  obedience  are 
enumerated  in  Deut.  xxviii.  1-14,  and  the  wither- 
ing curses  on  disobedience  in  verses  15-68.  That 
this  covenant  was  faithfully  observed  it  needs  but 
slight  acquaintance  with  Hebrew  history  to  perceive. 
Often  broken  and  often  renewed  on  the  part  of  the 
people  (Judg.  x.  10;  2  Chr.  xv.  12,  13;  Neh.  ix. 
38),  it  was  kept  with  unwavering  constancy  on  the 
pai't  of  Jehovah.  To  their  kings  he  stood  in  the 
relation,  so  to  speak,  of  a  feudal  superior :  they  were 
hig  representatives  upon  earth,  and  with  them,  as 
viith  the  people  before,  his  covenant  was  made 
(1  K.  iii.  14,  xi.  11).  Idolatry,  therefore,  to  an 
Israelite,  was  a  state  offence  (1  Sam.  xv.  23),«  a 
political  crime  of  the  gravest  character,  high  treason 
a'^ainst  the  majesty  of  his  king.  It  was  a  trans- 
gression of  the  covenant  (Deut.  xvii.  2),  "  the  evil " 
preeminently  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah  (1  K.  xxi.  25, 

opp.  to  "ItJ^jn,  ''the  right,"  2  Chr.  xxvii.  2). 
But  it  was  much  more  than  all  this.  While  the 
idolatry  of  foreign  nations  is  stigmatized  merely  as 
an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  God,  which  called 
for  his  vengeance,  the  sin  of  the  Israelites  is  re- 
garded as  of  mori!  glaring  enormity,  and  greater 
moral  guilt.  In  the  figurative  language  of  the 
prophets,  the  relation  between  Jehovah  and  his 
people  is  represented  as  a  marriage  bond  (Is.  liv.  5 ; 
Jer.  iii.  14),  and  the  worship  of  false  gods  with  all 
its  accompaniments  (Lev.  xx.  5G)  becomes  then  the 
greatest  of  social  wrongs  (Hos.  ii. ;  Jer.  iii.  etc.). 
This  is  beautifully  brought  out  in  Hos.  ii.  16,  where 
the  heathen  name  Baali,  my  master,  which  the 
apostate  Israel  has  been  accustomed  to  apply  to  her 
foreign  possessor,  is  contrasted  with  Ishi,  my  man, 
my  husband,  the  native  word  which  she  is  to  use 
when  restored  to  her  rightful  husband,  Jehovah. 
Much  of  the  significance  of  this  figure  was  unques- 
tionably due  to  the  impurities  of  idolaters,  with 
whom  such  corruption  was  of  no  merely  spiritual 
character  (Ex.  xxxiv.  16;  Num.  xxv.  1,  2,  &c.), 
but  manifested  itself  in  the  grossest  and  most 
revolting  forms  (Rom.  i.  26-32). 

Regarded  in  a  moral  aspect,  false  gods  are  called 
"stumbling  blocks"  (Ez.  xiv.  3),  "lies"  (Am.  ii. 
4;  Rom.  i.  25),  "honors"  or  "frights"  (1  K.  xv. 
13;  Jer.  1.  38),  "abominations"  (Deut.  xxix.  17, 
«xii.  16;  1  K.  xi.  5;  2  K.  xxiii.  13),  "guilt" 

abstract  for  concrete,  Am.  viii.  14,  H^ITW, 
ashmdh,  comp.  2  Chr.  xxix.  18,  perhaps  with  a 
play  on  Ashima^  2  K.  xvii.  30),  and  with  a  pro- 
found sense  of  the  degradation  consequent  upon 
their  worship,  they  are  characterized  by  the  prophets, 
whoso  mission  it  was  to  warn  the  people  against 
them  (Jer.  xliv.  4),  as  "shame"  (Jer.  xi.  13;  Hos. 
ix.  10).  As  considered  with  reference  to  Jehovah, 
they  are  "  other  gods  "  (Josh.  xxiv.  2, 16),  "  strange 
gods  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  16),  "  new  gods  "  (Judg.  v.  8), 

'devils,  —  not  God  "  (Deut.  xxxii.  17;  1  Cor.  x. 


IDOLATRY 

20,  21) ;  and,  as  denoting  their  foreign  or^jUi 
"gods  of  the  foreigner"  (.Josh.  xxiv.  14,  15).' 
Their  powerlessness  is  indicated  by  describing  then 
as  "gods  that  cannot  save"  (Is.  xlv.  20),  "that 
made  not  the  heavens"  (Jer.  x.  11),  "nothing" 
(Is.  xli.  24;  1  Cor.  viii.  4),  "  wind  and  emptiness" 
(Is.  xli.  29),  "vanities  of  the  heathen"  (Jer.  xiv. 
22;  Acts  xiv.  15);  and  yet,  while  tlieir  deity  is 
denied,  their  personal  existence  seems  to  have  been 
acknowledged  (Kurtz,  Gtsch.  d.  A.  B.  ii.  86,  &c.), 
though  not  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  pre- 
tentions of  local  deities  were  reciprocally  recognized 
by  the  heathen  (1  K.  xx.  23,  28;  2  K.  xvii.  26). 
Other  terms  of  contempt  are  employed  with  refer- 
ence to  idols,  D''^** /.^>  elilim  (Lev.  xix.  4),  and 
D'^b^lv'l,  giUulim  (Deut.  xxix.  17),  to  which  dif- 
ferent meanings  have  been  assigned,  and  many 
which  indicate  ceremonial  uncleaimess.  [Idol.  p. 
1118  b.-\ 

Idolatry,  therefore,  being  from  one  point  of  view 
a  political  offense,  could  be  punished  without  in- 
fringement of  civil  rights.  No  penalties  were  at- 
tached to  mere  opinions.  For  aught  we  know, 
theological  speculation  may  have  been  as  rife  among 
the  Hebrews  as  in  modern  times,  though  such  was 
not  the  tendency  of  the  Semitic  mind.  It  was  not, 
however,  such  speculations,  heterodox  though  they 
might  be,  but  overt  acts  of  idolatry,  which  were 
made  the  subjects  of  legislation  (Michaehs,  Laws 
of  Moses,  arts.  245,  246).  The  first  and  second 
commandments  are  directed  against  idolatry  of 
every  form.  Individuals  and  communities  were 
equally  amenable  to  the  rigorous  code.  The  indi- 
vidual oflfender  was  devoted  to  destruction  (Ex.  xxH. 
20);  his  neai-est  relatives  were  not  only  bound  to 
denounce  him  and  deliver  him  up  to  punishment 
(Deut.  xiii.  2-10),  but  their  hands  were  to  strike 
the  first  blow  when,  on  the  evidence  of  two  wit- 
nesses at  least,  he  was  stoned  (Deut.  xvii.  2-5). 
To  attempt  to  seduce  others  to  false  worship  was  a 
crime  of  equal  enormity  (Deut.  xiii.  6-10).  An 
idolatrous  nation  shared  a  similar  fate.  No  facts 
are  more  strongly  insisted  on  in  the  0.  T.  than  that 
the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  was  the  pun- 
ishment of  their  idolatry  (Ex.  xxxiv.  15,  16 ;  Deut. 
vii.,  xii.  29-31,  xx.  17),  and  that  the  calamities  of 
the  Israelites  were  due  to  the  same  cause  (Jer.  ii. 
17).  A  city  guilty  of  idolatry  was  looked  upon  as 
a  cancer  of  the  state;  it  was  considered  to  be  in 
rebellion,  and  treated  according  to  the  laws  of  war. 
Its  inhai)itants  and  all  their  cattle  were  put  to 
death.  No  spoil  was  taken,  but  everything  it  con- 
tained was  burnt  with  itself;  nor  was  it  allowed  to  be 
rebuilt  (Deut.  xiii.  13-18;  Josh.  vi.  26).  Saul  lost 
his  kingdom,  Achan  his  life,  and  Hiel  his  family, 
for  transgressing  this  law  (1  Sam.  xv. ;  Josh.  vii. ; 
1  K.  xvi.  34).  The  silver  and  gold  with  which 
the  idols  were  covered  were  accursed  (Deut.  vii.  25, 
26).  And  not  only  were  the  Israehtes  forbidden 
to  serve  the  gods  of  Canaan  (Ex.  xxiii.  24),  but 
even  to  mention  their  names,  that  is,  to  call  upon 
them  in  prayer  or  any  form  of  worship  (Ex. 


n  The  point  of  this  verse  is  lost  in  the  A.  V, :  it 
ihould  bo  "  for  the  sin  of  witchcraft  (is)  rebellion  ;  and 
Idolatry  (lit  vanity)  and  teraphim  (are)  stubbornness.''' 
The  laraolites,  contrary  to  command,  had  spared  of 
ihe  spoil  of  the  idolatrous  Amalekites  to  offer  to  Je- 
lovah,  and  thus  assocL-ited  his  worship  with  that  of 


b  In  the  A.  V.  the  terms  "IT,  z&r,  ."  strange,"  and 

IDS  or  '''*'?3}  nSc&r  or  nAcri,  "foreign,"  are  not 
uniformly  distinguished,  and  the  point  of  a  pajssage  U 
frequently  lost  by  the  intercliange   of  one  with  tlu 
other,  or  by  rendering  both  by  the  same  word.    So  P 
Ixxxi.  9  should  be,    "  There  shall  not  be  in  the^ 
strange  god,  nor  shalt  '.hou  worship  a.  foreign  god.'- 


IDOLA^TRl 

IS;  Joflh.  xxiii.  7).  On  taking  possession  of  the 
jud  they  were  to  obliterate  all  traces  of  the  exist- 
ing idolatry;  statues,  altars,  pillars,  idol-temples, 
every  person  and  everything  connected  with  it, 
iirere  to  be  swept  away  (Ex.  xxiii.  24,  32,  xxxiv. 
13;  Deut.  vii.  5,  25,  xii.  1-3,  xx.  17),  and  the 
name  and  worship  of  the  idols  blotted  out.  Such 
were  the  precautions  taken  by  the  framer  of  the 
Mosaic  code  to  preserve  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
the  true  God,  in  its, purity.  Of  the  manner  in 
which  his  descendants  have  "  put  a  fence  "  about 
"the  law"  with  reference  to  idolatry,  many  in- 
stances will  be  found  in  Maimonides  {de  Jdol.). 
'i'liey  were  prohibited  from  using  vessels,  scarlet 
garments,  bracelets,  or  rings,  marked  with  the  sign 
of  the  sun,  moon,  or  dragon  (vii.  10);  trees  planted 
or  stones  erected  for  idol-worship  were  forbidden 
(viii.  5,  10);  and,  to  guard  against  the  possibility 
of  contamination,  if  the  image  of  an  idol  were 
found  among  other  images  intended  for  ornament, 
they  were  all  to  be  cast  into  the  Dead  Sea  (vii. 
11). 

IV.  Much  indirect  evidence  on  this  subject  might 
be  supplied  by  an  investigation  of  proper  names. 
Mr.  Layard  has  remarked,  "  According  to  a  custom 
Existing  from  time  immemorial  in  the  East,  the 
name  of  the  Supreme  Deity  was  introduced  into 
the  names  of  men.  This  custom  prevailed  from 
the  banks  of  the  Tigris  to  the  Phoenician  colonies 
beyond  the  Pillars  of  Hercules;  and  we  recognize 
in  the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Assyrians,  and  the  Han- 
nibal of  the  Carthaginians,  the  identity  of  the  relig- 
ious system  of  the  two  nations,  as  widely  distinct 
in  the  time  of  their  existence  as  in  their  geograph- 
ical position"  {Nin.  ii.  450).  The  hint  which  he 
has  given  can  l)e  but  briefly  followed  out  here. 
Traces  of  the  sun-worship  of  the  ancient  Canaanites 
remain  in  the  nomenclature  of  their  country.  Beth- 
iheraesh,  "  house  of  the  sun,"  En-shemesh,  "  spring 
of  the  sun,"  and  Ir-shemesh,  "city  of  the  sun," 
whether  they  be  the  original  Canaanitish  names, 
or  their  Hebrew  renderings,  attest  the  reverence 
paid  to  the  source  of  light  and  heat,  the  symbol 
of  the  fertilizing  power  of  nature.  Samson,  the 
Hebrew  national  hero,  took  his  name  from  the 
same  luminary,  and  was  born  in  a  mountain-village 
above  the  modern  'Ala  Shems  (En-shemesh:  Thom- 
son^ Land  and  Book,  ii.  3G1).  The  name  of  Baal, 
the  sun-god,  is  one  of  the  most  common  occurrence 
in  compound  words,  and  is  often  associated  with 
places  consecrated  to  his  worship,  and  of  which 
perhaps  he  was  the  tutelary  deity.  Bamoth-baal, 
"the  high-places  of  Baal;"  Baal-hermon,  Beth- 
Baal-meon,  Baal-gad,  Baal-hamon,  in  which  com- 
jround  the  names  of  tlie  sun-god  of  Phoenicia  and 
ICgypt  are  associated,  Baal-Tamar,  and  many  others, 
i-re  instances  of  this.«  Nor  was  the  practice  con- 
fined to  the  names  of  places:  proper  names  are 
found  with  the  same  element.  Esh  baal,  Ish-baal, 
etc.,  are  examples.  The  Amorites,  A'hom  Joshua 
did  not  drive  out,  dwelt  on  Mount  Heres,  in  Aija- 
lon,  "the  mountain  of  the  sun"  [Timnath- 
iiEUEs].  Here  and  there  we  find  traces  of  the 
attempt  made  by  the  Hebrews,  on  their  conquest 
y{  the  country,  to  extirpate  idolatry.  Thus  Baalah 
n  K.iijath-baal,  "  the  town  of  Baal,"  became  Kir- 


a  That  temples  in  Syria,  dedicate-l  to  tta  several 
livinities,  did  transfer  tlieir  names  to  he  places  where 
ihey  stood,  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  Lucian 
Ml  Aupyrian  himself.  His  derivation  of  Iliera  freer 
Om  t«mple  of  the  Assyrian  Hera  shows  that  he  was 


IDOLATRY  1131 

jath-jearim,  "  the  town  of  forests  "  (Joah.  xv.  W). 
The  Moon,  Astarte  or  Ashtaroth,  gave  her  name  to 
a  city  of  Bashan  (Josh.  xiii.  12,  31),  and  it  is  nd 
improbable  that  the  name  Jericho  may  have  been 
derived  from  being  associated  with  the  worship  of 
this  goddess.  [Jericho.]  Nebo,  whether  it  be 
the  name  under  which  the  Chaldaeans  worshippe<f 
the  Moon  or  the  planet  Mercury,  enters  into  many 
compounds:  Nebu-zaradan,  Samgar-nebo,  and  the 
like.  Bel  is  found  in  Belshazzar,  Belteshazzar,  and 
others.  Were  Baladan  of  Semitic  origin,  it  would 
probably  be  derived  from  Baal-Adon,  or  Adonig, 
the  Phoenician  deity  to  whose  worship  Jer.  xxii.  18 
seems  to  refer:  but  it  has  more  properly  been  traced 
to  an  Indo-Germanic  root.  Hadad,  Hadadezer, 
Benhadad,  are  derived  from  the  tutelar  deity  of 
the  Syrians,  and  in  Nergalsharezer  we  recognize 
the  god  of  the  Cushites.  Chemosh,  the  fire-god 
of  Moab,  appears  in  Carchemish,  and  Peor  in  Beth- 
peor.  Malcom,  a  name  which  occurs  but  once,  and 
then  of  a  Moabite  by  birth,  may  have  been  con- 
nected with  Molech  and  jNIilcom,  the  abomination 
of  the  Ammonites.  A  glimpse  of  star-worship 
may  be  seen  in  the  name  of  the  city  Chesil,  the 
Semitic  Orion,  and  the  month  Chisleu,  without 
recognizing  in  Rahab  "  the  glittering  fragments  of 
the  sea-snake  trailing  across  the  northern  sky."  It 
would  perhaps  be  going  too  far  to  trace  in  En-gedi, 
"  spring  of  the  kid,"  any  coimection  with  the  goat- 
worship  of  jNIendes,  or  any  relics  of  the  wars  of  the 
giants  in  Kapha  and  Rephaim.  Fiirst,  indeed,  rec- 
ognizes in  (iedi,  Venus  or  Astarte,  the  goddess  of 
fortune,  and  identical  with  Gad  {Jfnndio.  s.  v.). 
But  there  \re  fragments  of  ancient  idolatry  in  other 
names  in  which  it  is  not  so  palpable.  Ish-bosheth 
is  identical  with  P^sh-baal,  and  Jerulbesheth  with 
Jerubbaal,  and  Mephil)Osheth  and  Meribbaal  are 
but  two  names  for  one  person  (cf  Jer.  xi.  13).  The 
worship  of  the  Syrian  Rimmon  appears  in  the 
names  Hadad-rimmon,  and  Tabrimmon ;  and  if,  as 

some  suppose,  it  be  derived  from  'J'^^'7,  Rimmon^ 
"  a  pomegranate-tree,"  we  may  connect  it  with  the 
towns  of  the  same  name  in  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
with  En-Rimmon  and  the  prevailing  tree-worship. 
It  is  impossible  to  pursue  this  investigation  to  any 
length :  the  hints  which  have  been  thrown  out  may 
prove  suggestive.  W.  A.  W. 

IDU'EL  CiSouTjAos:  EcceUm),  1  Esdr.  viii. 
43.     [Ariel,  1.] 

IDUME'A  [or  IDUM^'A]  (Dll^^  less 
frequently  C^.SJ,  red}:  ^  'Woufiaia'-  Idumcea^ 
Kdom),  Is.  xxxiv.  5,  6;  Ez.  xxxv.  15,  xxxxn.  5;  1 
Mace.  iv.  15,  29,  61,  v.  3,  vi.  31;  2  Mace.  xii.  32 
Mark  iii.  8.     [Eoom.] 

IDUME'ANS  [or  IDUM^'ANS]  {o, 
'IdoufiaToii  Idumiei),  2  Mace.  x.  15,  IG.     [Edom- 

ITES.] 

I'GAL  (^Sll'^  Iwhom  God  redeems  or  avenf/es]). 
1.  ClAaa\;  Alex.  lya\:  Jf/al.)  Son  of  Joseph, 
of  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  chosen  by  Moses  to  repre- 
sent that  tribe  among  the  spies  who  went  up  from 
Kadesh  to  search  the  Promised  Land  (Num.  xiii. 
7). 


femiliar  with  the  circumstance  {de  Den  Syr.  c,  1). 
Baisampsa  ( =  Beth-shemesh),  a  town  of  Arabia,  de- 
rived its  name  from  the  sun-worship  (Vcssius,  d« 
T/ieol.  Gent.  ii.  c.  8),  like  Kir  Heres  (Ur.  xlriU  81 
of  Moab. 


1132  IGDALIAH 

2.  [Tda\'.  Igaal.']  One  of  the  heroes  cf  Da- 
rid's  guard,  son  of  Nathan  of  Zobah  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
36,  TAa\)-  In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Chr.  the  name 
w  given  as  "  Joel  the  brother  of  Nathan  "  (xi.  aS, 
'Iw/jA).  Kennicott,  after  a  minute  examination  of 
the  passage  both  in  the  original  and  in  the  ancient 
versions,  decides  in  favor  of  the  latter  as  most  like 
the  genuine  text  {Dissertation^  pp.  212-214). 

This  name  is  really  identical  with  Igkal. 

IGDALI'AH  (^n;b^r,  l.  e.  Igdalia'hu  [Je- 
hovah is  fjreat,  P'iirst;  ivho7n  Jehovah  makes  great, 
Ges.]:  ToSoXias;  [FA.  omits:]  Jegedeliag),  a 
prophet  or  holy  man  —  "  the  man  of  God  "  —  named 
once  only  (Jer.  xxxv.  4),  as  the  father  of  Hanan, 
in  the  chamber  of  whose  sons,  the  Bene-Hanan,  in 
the  house  of  .Jehovah,  Jeremiah  had  that  remark- 
able interview  with  the  Rechabites  which  is  recorded 
in  that  chapter. 

IG'EAL  (bW^^  [see  Igal]:  'iccfjk:  Jegaal), 
a  son  of  Shemaiah ;  a  descendant  of  the  royal  house 
of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iii.  22).  According  to  the  pres- 
ent state  of  the  text  of  this  difficult  genealogy,  he 
is  fourth  in  descent  from  Zerubbabel ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  Lord  A.  Hervey's  plausible  alteration,  he  is 
the  son  of  Shimei,  brother  to  Zerubbabel,  and 
therefore  but  one  generation  distant  from  the  latter 
{Genealogy  of  our  J^ord,  pp.  107-109).  The 
name  is  identical  with  Igal  [2  Sam.  xxiii.  36] ; 
and,  as  in  that  case,  the  LXX.  give  it  as  Joel. 

riM  (C^l?  [ruins,  stone-heaps]).  1.  (rot 
Heabarim).  The  partial  or  contracted  form  of  the 
name  Ije-Abakim,  one  of  the  later  stations  of  the 
Israelites  on  their  journey  to  Palestine  (Num. 
xxxiii.  45).  In  the  Samaritan  version  lim  is  ren- 
dered by  Cephrani,  *'  villages;  "  and  in  the  Targum 

Pseudojon.  by  Gizzeh,  H'TS,  possibly  pointing  to 
sheep-shearing  in  the  locality.  But  in  no  way  do 
we  gain  any  clew  to  the  situation  of  the  place. 

2.  (Ba/cc«;«;  Alex.  Aveifx-  Mm),  a  town  in  the 
extreme  south  of  Judah,  named  in  the  same  group 
with  J3eer-sheba,  Hormah,  etc.  (Josh.  xv.  29).  The 
Peshito  Syriac  version  has  Elin,  ^.>^^.      No 

trace  of  the  name  has  yet  been  discovered  in  this 
lirection.  G. 

IJ'E-AB'ARIM  (D^in3^n  ^f^,  with  the 
Mnite  article,  lye  ha-Abarira  —  the  heaps,  or 
"uins,  of  til e  further  regions :  Jerome  ad  Fabiolam, 
acervus  lapidum  transeuntium :  'A.xa\yai  [Vat. 
Xa\y\€L,  Alex.  AxeAyai],  and  ^a^•  Jeabarim, 
and  Jie<ibarim),  one  of  the  later  halting  i)laces  of 
the  children  of  Israel  as  they  wore  approaching 
Palestine  (Num.  xxi.  11 ;  xxxiii.  44).  It  was  next 
beyond  Oboth,  and  the  station  beyond  it  again  was 
the  Wady  Zared  —  the  torrent  of  the  willows  — 
probably  one  of  the  streams  which  run  into  the 
S.  E.  angle  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Between  Ije-abarim 
and  Dibon-gad,  which  succeeds  it  in  Num.  xxxiii., 
tlie  Zared  and  the  Arnon  have  to  be  inserted  from 
«he  parallel  accounts  of  xxi.  and  Deut.  ii.,  Dibon- 
t,&6.  and  Almon-Diblathaim,  which  lay  above  the 
Arron,  having  in  their  turn  escaped  from  the  two 
last-named  narratives.  Ije-abarim  was  on  the 
boundary  —  the  S.  E.  boundary  —  of  the  territory 
-)£  Moab;  not  on  the  pasture-downs  of  the  Mishor, 
the  modern  Belka,  but  in  the  midbar,  the  waste 
unniltivated  "wilderness"  on  its  skirts  (xxi.  11). 
Moab    they   were    expressly  forbidden  to   molest 


ILLYRICUM 

CDmt.  ii.  9-12),  but  we  may  perhaps  be  aHowed 
to  conclude  from  the  terms  of  ver.  13,  "  now  riM 

up  "  (^^i^),  that  they  had  remained  on  his  frontiet 
in  Ije-Abarim  for  some  length  of  time.  No  iden- 
tification  of  its  situation  has  been  attempted,  nor 
has  the  name  been  found  lingering  in  the  locaUty, 
which,  however,  has  yet  to  be  explored.  If  there 
is  any  connection  between  the  Ije-Abarim  and  the 
Har-Abarim,  the  mountain-range  opposite  Jericho, 
then  Abarim  is  doubtless  a  general  appellation  for 
the  whole  of  the  highland  east  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
[Abarim.] 

The  rendering  given  by  the  LXX.  is  remarkable. 
Tai  is  no  doubt  a  version  of  lye  —  the  Ain  being 
converted  into  G:  but  whence  does  the  'AxaA 
come?  Can  it  be  the  vestige  of  a  nachal —  "  tor- 
rent "  or  "wady"  —  once  attached  to  the  name? 
Tlie  Targum  Pseudojon.  has  Meshre  Megiztha  — 
the  plain  of  shearing  —  which  is  equally  puzzling. 

In  Num.  xxxiii.  45  it  is  given  in  the  shorter 
form  of  Jim.  G. 

rJON  (^l**!?,  ruin:  'A,tv  and  'AtcSy;  [in  1 
K.,  Alex.  NoiV;  in  2  Chr.,  Vat.  Iw:]  Ahion, 
[Aion] ),  a  town  in  the  north  of  Palestine,  belong- 
ing to  the  tribe  of  Naphtah.  It  was  taken  and 
plundered  by  the  captains  of  Benhadad,  along  with 
Dan  and  other  store-cities  of  Naphtah  (1  K.  xv. 
20;  2  Chr.  xvi.  4).  It  was  plundered  a  second 
time  by  Tiglath-pileser  (2  K.  xv.  29).  We  find 
no  further  mention  of  it  in  history.  At  the  base 
of  the  mountains  of  Naphtah,  a  few  miles  N.  W. 
of  the  site  of  Dan,  is  a  fertile  and  beautiful  little 

plain  called  Merj  ^Ayun  (,.j«j^^  — ,yO;  the 
Arabic  word  ^y^,  though  different  in  meaning, 

is  radically  identical  with  the  Heb.  ^*1''^);  and 
near  its  northern  end  is  a  large  mound  called  Teti 
Dibbin.  The  writer  visited  it  some  years  ago,  and 
found  there  the  traces  of  a  strong  and  ancient  city. 
This,  in  all  probability,  is  the  site  of  the  long-lost 
Ijon  (Robinson's  Bibl.  Res.,  iii.  375).     J.  L.  P. 

IK'KESH  (K'i?.3?  [perverse,  perverted]: 
"iffKa,  'E/c/ciy,  'Ekk^s  ;  Alex.  Ekkus,  [Ekkt^s  ; 
Vat.  FA.  in  1  Chr.,  EkttjsO  Acces),  the  father 
of  Ira  the  Tekoite,  one  of  the  heroes  of  David's 
guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  26;  1  Chr.  xi.  28,  xxvii.  9). 

FLAI  [2  syl.]  (''h^V  [most  high,  exalted]-. 
'HAf;  [Vat.  FA.  HAet:]  llcii),  an  Ahohite,  one  of 
the  heroes  of  David's  guard  (1  Chr.  xi.  29).  In 
the  hst  of  2  Sam.  xxiii.  the  name  is  given  Zal- 
MON.  Kennicott  {Dissertation,  pp.  187-9)  exam- 
ines the  variations  at  length,  and  decides  in  favor 
of  Ilai  as  the  original  name. 

ILLYR'ICUM  {'\\KvpiK6v\  an  extensive  dis- 
trict lying  along  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adriatic 
from  the  boundary  of  Italy  on  the  north  to  Epinia 
on  the  south,  and  contiguous  to  Moesia  and  Mace- 
donia on  the  east:  it  was  divided  by  the  river  Drilo 
into  two  portions.  lUyris  Barbara,  the  northern, 
and  Illyris  Graeca,  the  southern.  AVithin  these 
limits  was  included  Dalmatia,  which  appiars  to 
have  been  used  indifferently  with  Illyricum  for  a 
portion,  and  ultimately  for  the  whole  of  the  6x9- 
trict.  St.  Paul  records  that  he  preached  the  Gos- 
pel "  round  about  imto  Illyricum  "  (Rom.  xt.  19).' 
he  probably  uses  the  term  in  its  most  extensivf 
sense,  and  the  part  visited  (if  indeed  he  crossed 


IMAGE 

the  boundary  at  all)  would  have  been  about  Dyr- 
rachium.  W.  L.  B. 

*  In  Rom.  XV.  19  Paul  speaks  of  his  having 
preached  the  gospel  "from  Jerusalem  and  round 
about  unto  Illyricum."  We  ha\e  no  account  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  of  any  journey  to  that 
province.  It  is  a  question  of  interest  whether  we 
can  insert  ^his  journey  in  the  history  so  as  to  bring 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistles  into  accordance  with 
each  other  on  this  point.  Illyricum  lay  on  the 
Adriatic,  west  of  Macedonia.  Paul  now  was  in 
Macedonia  only  three  times  during  his  ministry. 
He  could  not  have  gone  to  Illyricum  when  he  was 
there  first;  for  the  course  of  his  journey  at  that 
time  is  minutely  traced  in  the  Acts  from  his  land- 
ing at  Neapolis  to  his  leaving  Corinth  on  his  return 
by  sea  to  Palestine.  In  going  south  on  that  occa- 
sion he  moved  along  the  eastern  side  of  the  penin- 
sula, and  was  kept  at  a  distance  from  Illyricum 
(Acts  xvi.  12  fF.).  Nor,  again,  could  it  have  been 
when  he  passed  through  Macedonia  on  his  return 
thither  from  Greece  at  the  time  of  his  last  journey 
to  Jerusalem  (Acts  xx.  1  ff.);  for  the  excursion  to 
Illyricum  must  have  preceded  this  return.  He 
had  then  written  the  Epistle  to  the  liomans,  in 
which  he  speaks  of  having  already  been  to  Illyr- 
icum; and  that  epistle  he  wrote  at  Corinth  just 
before  his  departure  thence  for  Macedonia  (see 
Horn.  xvi.  i.  23,  and  comp.  1  Cor.  i.  14).  His 
only  other  visit  to  Macedonia  was  the  intermediate 
one  when  he  came  to  that  region  from  Troas  on 
the  way  to  southern  Greece  (Acts  xx.  1,  2).  No 
mention  is  made  of  Illyricum  at  that  time,  but  in 
describing  the  circuit  of  the  Apostle's  labors  here, 
Luke  employs  the  comprehensive  expression,  •'  those 
parts  "  (ra  fiepj)  iKe7ua).  We  may  assume,  there- 
fore, that  one  of  the  "  parts,"  or  regions,  was  Illyr- 
icum, which  was  adjacent  to  Macedonia;  and  so 
much  the  more,  because  the  chronology  of  this  por- 
tion of  Paul's  life  allows  us  to  assign  the  ample 
time  of  three  or  four  months  to  just  these  labors 
In  Northern  Greece  before  he  proceeded  to  Achaia 
or  Corinth.  Thus  the  epistle  and  the  history,  so 
incomplete  and  obscure  apart  from  each  other,  form 
a  perfect  whole  when  brought  together,  and  that 
by  a  combination  of  circumstances,  of  which  the 
two  writers  could  have  had  no  thought  when  they 
penned  their  different  accounts.  Lardner  pro- 
nounces this  geographical  and  historical  coinci- 
dence sufficiently  important  to  authenticate  the 
entire  narrative  of  Paul's  travels  as  related  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  H. 

IMAGE.     [Idol.] 

*  IMAGERY,     CHAMBERS     OF,    or 

chambers  of  images  (Ezek.  viii.  12).    The  Hebrew 

Is  in^3ii7p  ^'^'^P^  ^^^>  and  of  this  a  literal 
translation  would  be :  "  Each  one  in  the  chamber 
or  apartment  of  his  imagery."  Many  of  the  com- 
mentators transfer  the  suffix  pronoun  to  the  first 
noun,  and  render:  "  Each  one  in  his  apartment  of 
images "  (see  Kosenmiiller,  Maurer,  and  others). 
But  the  pronoun  may  perhaps  be  added  to  the  last 
ftoun  to  show  that  difierent  persons  had  lifierent 
objects  of  worship.  The  whole  passage  (vv.  7-12 
inclusive)  represents  a  scene  of  idolatrous  worship 
which  was  disclosed  to  the  prophet  as  through  a 
lecret  door  of  entrance  (vv.  7,  8).  On  the  walls 
of  the  apartment  were  portrayed  "every  form  of 
jreepiag  tiling  and  abominal)le  beasts,  and  all  the 
Ada  of  tjie  bDuae  of  Israel "  (ver.  10);  and  seventy 


IMMANUEL 


1135 


men  of  the  elders  of  the  house  of  Israel  (according 
to  the  number  of  the  Sanhedrim),  with  their  presi 
dent  (Jaazaniah)  stood  before  these  pictures,  each 
with  his  censer  in  his  hand,  and  offered  incense 
(ver.  11).  That  this  idol  worship  was  introduced 
from  Egypt  is  plain  from  the  kind  of  objects  por- 
trayed, as  indicated  in  ver.  10;  whilst  in  subsequent 
verses  idolatrous  practices  which  had  crept  in  from 
Phoenicia  (ver.  14)  and  Persia  (ver.  10),  are  brought 
to  view.  A  similar  chamber  of  imagery  is  referred 
to  in  Ez.  xxiii.  14:  "  Where  she  saw  men  portrayed 
upon  the  wall,  the  images  of  the  Chaldae:ms  por- 
trayed with  vermilion,"  etc.  Representations  found 
among  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  as  well  as  in  Egypt, 
furnish  good  illustrations  of  the  practices  here 
referred  to.  K.  D.  C.  R. 

IMXA  (W^P']  {filled,  JuU ;  or  fidfiUery, 
'Ie/A)8Aa;  [Vat.  Ujx^Kaas,  Ieyu;8Aaa;]  Alex.  le/A- 
Ka-  Jemla),  father  or  progenitor  of  Micaiali,  the 
prophet  of  Jehovah,  who  was  consulted  by  Ahab 
and  Jehoshaphat  before  their  fatal  expedition  to 
Ramoth-gilead  (2  Chr.  xviii.  7,  8).     The  form  — 

IMXAH  (nb^;:  'Uf^fixad;  [Vat.  le/itas, 
UfjLLa;]  Alex.  Ujnaa:  Jemla)  is  employed  in  the 
parallel  narrative  (1  K.  xxii.  8,  9). 

IMMAN'UEL  (bS^D^r  [with  us  God],  or 

in  two  words  in  many  MSS.  and  editions  ^DTS^ 

vS  :  'E/x/ittj/ovi^A.:  Emmamiel),  the  symbolical 
name  given  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  to  the  child  who 
was  announced  to  Ahaz  and  the  people  of  Judah, 
as  the  sign  which  God  would  give  of  their  deUver- 
ance  from  their  enemies  (Is.  vii.  14).  It  is  applied 
by  the  Apostle  Matthew  to  the  Messiah,  born  of 
the  Virgin  (Matt.  i.  23).  By  the  LXX.  in  one 
passage  (Is.  vii.  14),  and  in  both  passages  by  the 
Vulg.,  Syr.,  and  Targ.,  it  is  rendered  as  a  proper 
name ;  but  in  Is.  viii.  8  the  LXX.  translate  it  Ut- 
erally  ^e0'  rifiiav  6  de6i.  The  verses  in  question 
have  been  the  battle-field  of  critics  for  centuries, 
and  in  their  discussions  there  has  been  no  lack  of 
the  odium  theoloyicum.  As  early  as  the  times  of 
Justin  Martyr  the  Christian  interpretation  was 
attacked  by  the  Jews,  and  the  position  which  they 
occupied  has  of  late  years  been  assumed  by  many 
continental  theologians.  Before  proceeding  to  a 
discussion,  or  rather  to  a  classification  of  the  nu- 
merous theories  of  which  this  subject  has  been  the 
fruitful  source,  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
prophecy  was  delivered  claim  especial  consideration. 
In  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Ahaz  the  king- 
dom of  Judah  was  threatened  with  annihilation  by 
the  combined  armies  of  Syria  and  Israel.  A  hun- 
dred and  twenty  thousand  of  the  choice  warriors 
of  Judah,  all  "sons  of  might,"  had  fallen  in  ono 
day's  battle.  The  Edomites  and  Phihstines  had 
thrown  off  the  yoke  (2  Chr.  xxviii.).  Jerusalem 
was  menaced  with  a  siege ;  the  hearts  of  the  king 
and  of  the  people  "  shook,  as  the  trees  of  a  forest 
shake  before  the  wind  "  (Is.  vii.  2).  The  king  had 
gone  to  "  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool,"  probably 
to  take  measures  for  preventing  the  supply  of  water 
from  being  cut  off  or  falling  into  the  enemy's  hand, 
when  the  prophet  met  him  with  the  message  of 
consolation.  Not  only  were  the  designs  of  the  hos- 
tile armies  to  fail,  but  within  sixty-five  years  the 
kingdom  of  Israel  would  be  overthrown.  In  con- 
firmation of  his  words,  the  prophet  bids  Ahan  ask 
a  sign  of  Jehovah,  which  the  king,  witn  pretooded 


1134  IMMANUEL 

humility,  refused  to  do.  After  administering  a 
severe  rebuke  to  Ahaz  for  his  obstinacy,  Isaiah  an- 
nounces the   sign   which  Jehovah  himself  would 

give  unasked:  "behold!  the  virgin  (HDv^n, 
ha'ahnah)  «  is  with  child  and  beareth  a  son,  and 
she  shall  call  his  name  Jmmanuel:' 

The  interpreters  of  this  passage  are  naturally 
divided  into  three  classes,  each  of  which  admits  of 
subdivisions,  as  the  differences  in  detail  are  numer- 
ous The  first  class  consists  of  those  who  refer  the 
fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  to  an  historical  e'eiit, 
which  followed  innnediately  upon  its  delivery.  The 
majority  of  Christian  writers,  till  within  the  last 
fifty  years,  form  a  second  class,  and  apply  the 
prophecy  exclusively  to  the  Messiah,  while  a  third 
(lass,  almost  equally  numerous,  agree  in  considering 
both  these  explanations  true,  and  hold  that  the 
prophecy  had  an  immediate  and  literal  fulfillment, 
but  was  completely  accomplished  in  the  miraculous 
conception  and  birth  of  Christ.  Among  the  first 
are  numbered  the  Jewish  writers  of  all  ages,  with- 
out exception.  Jerome  refutes,  on  chronological 
grounds,  a  theory  which  was  current  in  his  day 
amongst  the  Jews,  that  the  prophecy  had  reference 
to  Hezekiah,  the  son  of  Ahaz,  who  from  a  compar- 
ison of  2  K.  xvi.  2  with  xviii.  2,  must  have  been 
nine  years  old  at  the  time  it  was  deUvered.     The 


force  of  his  argument  is  somewhat  weakened  by 
the  evident  obscurity  of  the  nuiiibers  in  the  pas- 
sages in  question,  from  which  we  nmst  infer  that 
Ahaz  was  eleven  years  old  at  the  time  of  Hezekiah's 
birth.     By  the  Jews  in  the  middle  ages  this  ex- 
planation was  abandoned  as  untenable,  and  in  con- 
sequence some,  as  Jarchi  and  Aben  Ezra,  refer  the 
prophecy  to  a  son  of  Isaiah  himself,  and  others  to 
a  son  of  Ahaz  by  another  wife,  as    Kimchi  and 
Abarbanel.     In  this  case,  the  'almah  is  explained 
as  the  wife  or  betrothed  wife  of  the  prophet,  or  as 
a  later  wife  of  Ahaz.     Kelle  (Gesen.  Comvi.  iiber 
den  Jesaia)  degrades  her  to  the  third  rank  of  ladies 
in   the  harem   (comp.  Cant.  vi.  8).     Hitzig   {dtr 
Proph.   Jesaia)   rejects  Gesenius'    application   of 
'almdh  to  a  second  wife  of  the  prophet,  and  inter- 
prets it  of  the  prophetess   mentioned   in  viii.   3. 
Hendewerk   {des  Proph.  Jesaia  Weissay.)  follows 
Sesenius.     In  either  case,  the  prophet  is  made  to 
fulfill  his  own  prophecy.      Isenbiehl,  a  pupil  of 
Michaelis,  defended  the  historical  sense  with  con- 
siderable learning,  and  suflfered  unworthy  persecu- 
tion for  expressing  his  opinions.     The  Utlmah  in 
his  view  was  some  Hebrew  girl  who  was  present  at 
the   colloquy  between    Isaiah    and  Ahaz,   and  to 
whom  the  prophet  pointed  as  he  spoke.    This  opin- 
ion was  held  by  Bauer,  Cube,  and  Rosenmiiller 
(1st  ed.).     Michaelis,  Eichhorn,  I'aulus,  and  Am- 
mon,    give   her   a   merely   ideal  existence;    while 
Urabreit  allows  her  to  be  among  the  bystanders, 
but  explains  the  pregnancy  and  birth  as  imaginary 
caily.     Interpreters  of  the  second  class,  who  refer 
he  prophecy  solely  to  the  Messiah,  of  course  uii- 
erstand  by  the  'almdli  the  Virgin  Mary.     Among 
these,  Vitr'inga  {Obs.  Sacr.  v.  c.  1)  vigorously  op- 
poses  those,   who,    like   Grotius,    Pellicanus,    and 
Tirinus,  conceded  to  the  Jews  that  the  reference  to 
Christ  Jesus  was  not  direct  and  immediate,  but  by 

a  ^Almhh  denotes  a  girl  of  marriageable  age.  but 
not  married,  and  therefore  a  virgin  by  implication. 
It  k  never  even  used,  as  n^-^lHS,  bethMah,  which 
axon  directly  expresses  virginity,  of  a  bride  or  be- 
wife  (Joel  i  8).     ^Aim&h  and  betMil&h  are  both 


IMMANUEL 

way  of  typical  allusion.     For,   he  maintaiiu,   a 
young  mairied  woman  of  the  time  of  Ahaz  and 
Isaiah  could  not  be  a  type   of  the  Vu-gin,  nog 
could  her  issue  by  her  husband  be  a  figure  of  the 
child  to  be  born  of  the  Virgin  by  the  operation  of 
the  Holy   Ghost.      Against  this  hypothesis  of  a 
solely  INlessianic  reference,  it  is  objected  that  the 
birth  of  the  INIessiah  could  not  be  a  sign  of  dehv- 
erance  to  the  people  of  Judah  in  the  time  of  Ahaz. 
In  reply  to  this,  Theodoret  advances  the  ojnniou 
that  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  involved  the  conser- 
vation of  the  family  of  Jesse,  and  therefoie  by  i)n- 
plication  of  the  Jewish  state.     Cocceius  argues  on 
the  same  side,  that  the  sign  of  the  Messiah's  birth 
would  intimate  that  in  the  interval  the  kingdom 
and  state  of  the  Jews  could  not  be  alienated  from 
God,  and  besides  it  confirms  ver.  8,  indicating  that 
before  the  birth  of  Christ  Juda;a  should  not  be 
subject  to   Syria,   as  it  was  when  Archelaus  was 
removed  and  it  was  reduced  to  the  form  of  a  Ito- 
man  province.     Of  all  these  explanations  Vitringa 
disapproves,  and  states  his  own  conclusion,  which 
is  also  that  of  Calvin  and  Piscator,  to  be  the  fol- 
lowing:   In  vv.  14-lG,  the  prophet  gives  a  sign 
:  to  the  pious  in  Israel  of  their  deliverance  from  the 
impending  danger,  and  in  ver.  17,  &c.,  announces 
the  evils   which  the  Assyrians,   not  the   Syrians, 
should  inflict  upon  Ahaz  and  such  of  his  people  as 
resembled  him.     As   surely  as  Messiah  would  be 
born  of  the  Virgin,  so  surely  would  God  deUver  the 
Jews  from  the  threatened  evil.     The  principle  of 
interpretation  here  made  use  of  is  founded  by  Cal- 
vhi  on  the  custom  of  the  prophets,  who  confirmed 
specitd  promises  by  the  assurance  that  God  would 
send  a  redeemer.     But  this  explanation  involves 
another  difficulty,  besides  that  which  arises  from 
the  distance  of  the  event  predicted.     Before  the 
child  shall  arrive  at  years  of  discretion  the  prophet 
announces  the  desolation  of  the  land  whose  kings 
threatened  Ahaz.     By  this  Vitringa  understands 
that  no  more  time  would  elapse  before  the  former 
event  was  accomplished  than  would  intervene  be- 
tween the  birth  and  youth  of  Immanuel,  an  argu- 
ment too  far-fetched  to  have  much  weight.    Heng- 
stenberg  {C/iristolofjy,  ii.  44-66,  Eng.  trans.)  sup- 
ports to  the  full  the  Messianic  interpretation,  and 
closely  connects  vii.  14  with  ix.  6.      He  admits 
frankly  that  the  older  explanation  of  vv.   15,  16, 
has  exposed  itself  to  the  charge  of  being  arbitrary, 
and  confidently  propounds  his  own  method  of  le- 
moving   the   stumbling-block.      "In  ver.    14  tlie 
prophet  had  seen  the  birth  of  the  ;Messiah  as  pres- 
ent.   Holding  fast  this  idea  and  expaiiding  it,  the 
prophet  makes  him  who  has  been  born  accompany 
the  people  through  all  the  stages  of  its  existence. 
We  have  here  an  ideal  anticipatimi  of  the  real  iii- 

carnation What  the  prophet  means,  and 

intends  to  say  here  is,  tJiat,  in  the  space  of  about  a 
twekemwith,  the  overthrmo  of  the  hostile  kingdoms 
would  already  have  taken  place.  As  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  contemporaries,  he  brings  forward 
the  wonderful  child  who,  as  it  were,  formed   th«» 

soul  of  the  popular  life In  the  subsequent 

prophecy,  the  same  wonderfid  child,  grown  up  'm\i\ 
a  wariike  hero,  brings  the  deliverance  from  Asshur; 
and  the  world's  power  represented  by  it."     The 


applied  to  Rebekah  (Gen.  xxiv.  16,  43),  as  appnrentiy 
convertible  terms  ;  and  in  addition  to  the  evidence  from 
the  cognate  languages,  Arabic  and  Syriac,  we  have  th« 
testimony  of  Jerome  (on  Is.  vii.  14)  that  in  Punk 
alma  denoted  a  virgiu. 


IMMBR 

iBMiud  professor  thus  admits  the  double  sense  in 
the  case  of  Asshur,  but  denies  its  apphcation  to 
Immanuel.  It  would  be  hard  to  say  whether  text 
or  commentary  be  the  more  obscure. 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  which  attend  these 
explanations  of  the  prophecy,  the  third  class  of 
interpreters  above  alluded  to  have  recourse  to  a 
theory  which  combines  the  two  preceding,  namely, 
the  hypothesis  of  the  double  sense.  They  suppose 
that  the  immediate  reference  of  the  prophet  was  to 
some  contemporary  occurrence,  but  that  his  words 
received  their  true  and  full  accomplishment  in  the 
birth  of  the  Messiah.  Jerome  ( Comm.  in  Esaiam, 
vii.  14)  mentions  an  interpretation  of  some  Juda- 
izers  that  Immanuel  was  the  son  of  Isaiah,  born 
of  the  prophetess,  as  a  type  of  the  Saviour,  and 
that  his  name  indicates  the  calling  of  the  nations 
after  the  Word  became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us. 
Something  of  the  same  kind  is  proposed  by  Dathe ; 
in  his  opinion  "  the  miracle,  while  it  immediately 
respected  the  times  of  the  prophet,  was  a  type  of 
the  birth  of  Christ  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  Dr.  Pye 
Smith  conjectured  that  it  had  an  immediate  refer- 
ence to  Hezekiah,  "the  virgin"  being  the  queen 
of  Aliaz ;  but,  like  -'ome  other  prophetic  testimo- 
nies, had  another  ano  a  designed  reference  to  some 
remoter  circumstance,  which  when  it  occurred 
would  be  the  real  fulfillment,  answering  every  fea- 
ture and  filhng  up  the  entire  extent  of  the  original 
delineation  {Scriji.  Test,  to  the  MessiaJi^  i.  357,  3d 
ed.).  A  serious  objection  to  the  application  of  the 
prophecy  to  Hezekiah  has  already  been  mentioned. 
Kennicott  separates  ver.  16  from  the  three  preced- 
ing, applying  the  latter  to  Christ,  the  former  to 
the  son  of  Isaiah  {Sermon  on  Is.  vii.  13-16). 

Such  in  brief  are  some  of  the  principal  opinions 
which  have  been  held  on  this  important  question. 
From  the  manner  in  which  the  quotation  occurs 
in  Matt.  i.  23,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
Evangelist  did  not  use  it  by  way  of  accommodation, 
but  as  having  in  view  its  actual  accomplishment. 
Whatever  may  have  been  his  opinion  as  to  any 
contemporary  or  immediate  reference  it  might  con- 
tain, this  was  completely  obscured  by  the  full 
conviction  that  burst  upon  him  when  he  realized 
its  completion  in  the  Messiah.  What  may  have 
been  the  light  in  which  the  promise  was  regarded 
by  the  pi-ophet's  contemporaries  we  are  not  in  a 
Dosition  to  judge;  the  hypothesis  of  the  double 
yense  satisfies  most  of  the  requirements  of  the  prob- 
lem, and  as  it  does  less  violence  to  the  text  than 
the  others  which  have  been  proposed,  and  is  at  the 
same  time  supported  by  the  analogy  of  the  Apos- 
tle's quotations  from  the  0.  T.  (Matt.  ii.  15,  18, 
23;  iv.  15),  we  accept  it  as  approximating  most 
nearly  to  the  true  solution.  W.  A.  W. 

IM'MER  ("I^S  [perh.  talkative,  Dietr.  Ges. ; 
prominent,  hir/h,  Fiirst]  :  'E^/ii^p;  [in  1  Chr.  ix.  12, 
Vat.  E/xT/p;  Neh.  xi.  13,  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  omit:] 
Evimer),  apparently  the  founder  of  an  important 
family  of  priests,  although  the  name  does  not  occur 
in  any  genealogy  which  allows  us  to  discover  his 
descent  from  Aaron  (1  Chr.  ix.  12;  Neh.  xi.  13). 
This  family  had  charge  of,  and  gave  its  name  to, 
the  sixteenth  course  of  the  service  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  14). 
From  them  came  Pashur,  chief  governor  of  the 
Temple  in  .Jeremiah's  time,  and  his  persecutor  (Jer. 
tt.  1).  They  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerub- 
ftubel  and  -Jeshua  (Ezr.  ii.  37;  Neh.  vii.  40).  Zadok 
oen-Immer  repaired  his  own  house  (Neh.  iii.  29), 
md  tw;-  other  priests  of  the  family  put  away  their 


INCENSE  1185 

foreign  wives  (Ezr.  x.  20).     But  it  Is  remarkable 

that  the  name  is  omitted  from  the  hst  of  those  whc 
sealed  the  covenant  with  Nehemiah,  and  also  of 
those  who  came  up  with  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua, 
and  who  are  stated  to  have  had  descendants  sur- 
viving in  the  next  generation  —  the  days  of  Joiakim 
(see  Neh.  xii.  1, 10,  12-21).  [Ejkmkk.]  Diiferent 
from  the  foregoing  must  be  — 

2.  {'EfjL/j.'hp,  'Ufxijp;  [in  Ezr.,  Vat.  E^Tjp;  in 
Neh.,  Alex.  Uix/xrip']  J'-^nier,  [/inwier]),  apparent!) 
the  name  of  a  place  in  Babylonia  from  which  cer- 
tain persons  returned  to  .Jerusalem  with  the  first 
caravan,  who  could  not  satisfactorily  prove  their 
genealogy  (Ezr.  ii.  59 ;  Neh.  vii.  61).  In,l  Esdras 
the  name  is  given  as  'Aa\dp. 

IM'NA  {V^^\  [holding  back]  :  'ifj^avd  : 
Jemna),  a  descendant  of  Asher,  son  of  Helera,  and 
one  of  the  "  chief  princes  "  of  the  tribe  (1  Chr.  vii. 
35;  comp.  40). 

IM'NAH  (ni^")  \luck,  successy.  'Ufivdi 
[Vat.  Iviua'-]  Jemna).  1.  The  first-bora  of  Asher 
(1  Chr.  vii.  30).  In  the  Pentateuch  the  name 
(identical  with  the  present)  is  given  in  the  A.  V 

as  JiMMAH. 

2.  [Vat.  Ai^waj/.]  Kore  ben-Inmah,  the  Levite, 
assisted  in  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxxi. 
14). 

*  IMPLEAD  (A.  V.  Acts  xix.  38)  is  a  tech- 
nical term  (like  Luke's  iyKaKeiroDcrav),  signifying 
"  to  accuse,"  or  "  prosecute  "  by  a  due  course  of  law. 
The  proper  word  occurs  in  the  proper  place.  It  is 
the  city-councilor  who  speaks  in  that  passage  (see 
in  he),  pointing  out  to  the  Ephesians  the  lawful 
remedy  for  their  grievances  as  opposed  to  one  un- 
lawful. H. 

*  IMPORTABLE  occurs  in  the  Prayer  of 
Manasses :  =  hnportabilis  in  the  Vulg.  i.  e.  insup- 
portable, unendurable,  said  of  the  divine  threaten- 
ing.    The  word  is  now  obsolete  in  that  sense. 

^  H. 

*  IMPOTENT  (from  impotem)  signifies 
" strengthless,"  "sick,"  "infirm."  It  is  the  ren- 
dering of  aaOivwv  in  John  v.  3,  and  in  Acts  iv.  9 ; 
but  of  ahwoTos  in  Acts  xiv.  8.  H. 

*  IMPRISONMENT.    [Punishments.] 
IMOIAH  (n^P"]   [obstinacy,  Ges.]:  'Ifipiv, 

[Vat.  corrupt;]  Alex.  U/xpa:  Jamra),  a  descendant 
of  Asher,  of  the  family  of  Zophah  (1  Chr.  vii.  36), 
and  named  as  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  tribe. 

IM'RI  (^"!PW  [eloquent]).  1.  CAfifipaifi, 
[Vat.]  Alex,  omit:  Omrai,  but  it  seems  to  have 
changed  places  with  the  preceding  name.)  A  man 
of  Judah  of  the  great  family  of  Pharez  (1  Chr. 
ix.  4). 

2.  ('A/iopt;  [Vat.  FA.  Afiapei;  Alex.  Mtapii] 
Amri),  father  or  progenitor  of  Zaccuk,  who  as- 
sisted Nehemiah  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  wall  of 
Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  2). 

*  INCANTATIONS.     [Magic] 
INCENSE,  nn'llDp  iketd)-dh),  Deut.  xxxiii. 

10;  ri^^'^t^P  (k^toreth),  Ex.  xxv.  6,  xxx.  1,  «fec.; 

n^'^ib  debonah),  Is.  xliu.  23,  Ix.  6,  &c.  The 
incense  employed  in  the  service  of  the  tabernacle 
was  distinguished  as  D'^^DH  iH^tDj?  {ketordh 
hassammim),  Ex.  xxv.  6,  from  being  compounded 


1136  INCENSE 

of  the  perfumes  stacte,  onycha,  galbanum,  and  pure 
frankincense.     All  incense  which  was   not   made 

Df  these  ini,'redients  was  called  HHt  Tin^tip 
(ketordh  zdrah)^  Ex.  xxx.  9,  and  was  forbidden  to 
be  offered.  According  to  Rashi  on  Ex.  xxx.  34,  the 
above-mentioned  perfumes  were  mixed  in  equal  pro- 
portions, seventy  manehs  being  taken  of  each.  They 
were  compounded  by  the  skill  of  the  apothecary,  to 
whose  use,  according  to  rabbinical  tradition,  was 
devoted  a  portion  of  the  temple,  called,  from  the 
name  of  the  family  whose  especial  duty  it  was  to 
prepare  the  incense,  "  the  house  of  Abtines."  So 
in  the  large  temples  of  India  "  is  retained  a  man 
whose  chief  business  it  is  to  distil  sweet  waters 
from  flowers,  and  to  extract  oil  from  wood,  flowers, 
and  other  substances  "  (Roberts,  Orient.  Illus.  p. 
82)     riie  priest  or  Levite  to  whose  care  the  incense 

was  intrusted,  was  one  of  the  fifteen  D'^3"1Z2^ 
(me?/iMrtmr/j),. or  prefects  of  the  temple.  Constant 
watch  was  kept  in  the  house  of  Abtines  that  the 
incense   might   always    be  in  readiness   (Buxtorf, 

Lex.    Talm.  s.  v.  DD'^ir^nS). 

In  addition  to  the  four  ingredients  already  men- 
tioned Jarchi  enumerates  seven  others,  thus  making 
eleven,  which  the  Jewish  doctors  affirm  were  com- 
municated to  Moses  on  Mount  Sinai.  Josephus 
(>5.  J.  v.  5,  §  5)  mentions  thirteen.  The  propor- 
tions of  the  additional  spices  are  given  by  Mai- 
monides  {Ctle  haiamilcdds/i^  ii.  2,  §  3)  as  follows. 
Of  myrrh,  cassia,  spikenard,  and  saffron,  sixteen 
manehs  each.  Of  costus  twelve  manehs,  cinnamon 
nine  manehs,  sweet  bark  three  manehs.  The  weight 
of  the  whole  confection  was  308  manehs.  To  these 
was  added  the  fourth  part  of  a  cab  of  salt  of  Sodom, 
with  amber  of  Jordan,  and  an  herb  called   "  the 

Bmoke-raiser "  {^WV  n737D,  maiikh  dshdn), 
known  only  to  the  cunning  in  such  matters,  to 
whom  the  secret  descended  by  tradition.  In  the 
orduiary  daily  service  one  maneh  was  used,  half  in 
the  morning  and  half  in  the  evening.  Allowing 
then  one  maneh  of  incense  for  each  day  of  the  solar 
year,  the  three  manehs  which  remained  were  again 
pounded,  and  used  by  the  high-priest  on  the  day 
of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  12).  A  store  of  it  was 
constantly  kept  in  the  temple  (Jos.  B.  J.  vl.  8, 
§3). 

The  incense  possessed  the  threefold  characteristic 
of  being  salted  (not  tempered  as  in  A.  V.),  pure 
and  holy.  Salt  was  the  symbol  of  incorruptness, 
and  nothing,  says  Mainionides,  was  offered  without 
it,  except  the  wine  of  the  drink-offerings,  the  blood, 
and  the  wood  (cf.   Lev.  ii.   13).     The  expression 

T^?  "^5  (^'''f^  bebad),  Ex.  xxx.  34,  is  interpreted 
by  the  Chaldee  "  weight  by  weight,"  that  is,  an 
equal  weight  of  each  (cf.  Jarchi,  in  be);  and  this 
rendering  is  adojjted  by  our  version.  Others  how- 
ever, and  among  them  A  ben  Ezra  and  Mainionides, 
consider  it  as  signifying  that  each  of  the  spices  was 
Beparately  prepared,  and  that  all  were  afterwards 
mixed.  The  incense  thus  compounded  was  specially 
Bet  apart  for  tlie  service  of  the  sanctuary:  its  dese- 
cration was  punished  with  death  (Ex.  xxx.  37,  38); 
as  in  some  part  of  India,  according  to  Michaelis 
[Mosnisch.  Jieclit,  art.  24!)),  it  was  considered  high 
treason  for  any  person  to  make  use  of  the  best  sort 
Df  CcUambak,  which  was  for  the  service  of  the  king 
llone. 

Aaron,  as  high-priest,  was  originally  appointed 
f«  oi&r  incense,  but  ui  the  daily  service  of  the 


INCENSE 

aeoond  temple  the  office  dtvolved  upon  the  infefiot 
priests,  from  among  whom  one  was  chosen  by  k)( 
(Mishna,  Yomx,  ii.  4;  Luke  i.  9),  each  morning 
and  evening  (Abarbanel  071  Lev.  x.  1 ).  A  peculiar 
blessing  was  supposed  to  be  attached  to  this  service, 
and  in  order  that  all  might  share  in  it,  the  lot  wa« 
cast  among  those  who  were  "  new  to  the  incense," 
if  any  remained  (Mishna,  Vom",  1.  c. ;  iJartenora  tm 
Tnvdd,  V.  2),  Uzziah  was  punislied  for  his  pro- 
sumption  in  attempting  to  infringe  the  prerogatives 
of  the  descendants  of  Aaron,  who  were  consecrated 
to  burn  incense  (2  (hr.  xxvi.  ](i-21:  Jos.  Ant.  ix. 
10,  4).  The  officiating  priest  app«»ii:lwl  another, 
whose  office  it  was  to  take  the  f  re  Ironi  the  brazen 
altar.    According  to  Mainionides  (  Tni'id.  Umiis.  ii. 

8,  iii.  5)  this  fire  was  taken  from  the  second  pile, 
which  was  over  against  the  S  E.  corner  of  the  altar 
of  bunit-offering,  and  was  of  fig-tree  wood.    A  silver 

shovel  (nrin^,  machtdh)  was  first  filled  with  the 
live  coals,  and  afterw^ards  emptied  into  a  golden 
one,  smaller  than  the  former,  so  that  some  of  the 
coals  were  spilled  (Mishna,  Tamid,  v.  5,  Yoma,  iv. 
4 ;  cf.  Rev.  viii.  5).  Another  priest  cleared  the  golden 
altar  from  the  cinders  which  had  been  left  at  the 
previous  oflfering  of  hicense  (Mishna,  Tamid,  iii.  6, 

9,  vi.  1). 

The  times  of  offering  incense  were  specified  in 
the  instructions  first  given  to  Moses  (Ex.  xxx.  7,  8). 
The  morning  incense  was  offered  when  the  lamps 
were  trimmed  in  the  holy  place,  and  before  the 
sacrifice,  when  the  watchman  set  for  the  purpose 
announced  the  break  of  day  (Mishna,  ]  o??i«,  iii. 
1,  5).  When  the  lamps  were  hghted  "  between  the 
evenings,"  after  the  evening  sacrifice  and  before 
the  drink-offerings  were  offered,  incense  was  again 
burnt  on  the  golden  altar,  which  "  belonged  to  the 
oracle"  (1  K.  vi.  22),  and  stood  before  the  veil 
which  separated  the  holy  place  from  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  the  throne  of  God  (Rev.  viii.  4;  Philo,  de 
Anim.  idem.  §  3). 

When  the  priest  entered  the  holy  place  with  the 
incense,  all  the  people  were  removed  from  the 
temple,  and  from  between  the  porch  and  the  altar 
(Maimon.  Tmid.  Umus.  iii.  3;  cf.  Luke  i.  10). 
The  incense  was  then  brought  from  the  house  of 

Abtines  in  a  large  vessel  of  gold  called  H?   (^«pA), 

in  which  was  a  phial  ("^^^•^j  bazic^  properly  "  a 
mlver^'')  containing  the  incense  (Mishna,  Tamid, 
V.  4).  The  assistant  priests  who  attended  to  the 
lamps,  the  clearing  of  the  golden  altar  irom  the 
cinders,  and  the  fetching  fire  from  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering,  performed  their  offices  singly,  bowed 
towards  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  left  the  holy 
place  before  the  priest,  whose  lot  it  was  to  oflfer 
incense,  entered.  Profound  silence  was  observed 
among  the  congregation  who  were  praying  without 
(cf.  Rev.  viii.  1),  and  at  a  signal  from  the  prefect 
the  priest  cast  the  incense  on  the  fire  (Mishna, 
Tamid,  vi.  3),  and  bowing  reverently  towards  the 
Holy  of  Holies  retired  slowly  backwards,  not  pro- 
longing his  prayer  that  he  might  not  alarm  the 
congregation,  or  cause  them  to  fear  that  he  had 
been  struck  dead  for  offering  unworthily  (Lev.  xvi. 
13;  Luke  i.  21:  Mishna,  Yoma,  v.  1).  When  hs 
came  out  he  pronounced  the  blessing  in  Num.  v^ 
24-26,  the  "  magrephah  "  sounded,  and  the  Levitei 
burst  forth  into  song,  accompanied  by  the  full  swell 
of  the  temple  music,  the  sound  of  which,  say  the 
Rabbins,  could  be  heard  as  far  as  .Jericho  (Mishna, 
Tamid f  iii,  8).     It  is  possible  that  this  m»y  U 


INCENSE 

■niided  to  in  Eev.  viii.  5.  The  priest  then  emptied 
the  censer  in  a  clean  place,  and  hung  it  on  one  of 
the  horns  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering. 

On  the  day  of  atonement  the  service  was  dif- 
ferent. The  high-priest,  after  sacrificing  the  bullock 
as  a  sin-offering  for  liimself  and  his  family,  took 
Incense  in  his  left  hand  and  a  golden  shovel  filled 
with  live  coals  from  the  west  side  of  the  braisen 
altar  (Jarchi  on  Lev.  xvi.  12)  in  his  right,  and 
went  into  the  Holy  of  Holies.  He  then  placed  the 
shovel  upon  the  ark  between  the  two  bars.  In  the 
second  temple,  where  there  was  no  ark,  a  stone  was 
substituted.  Then  sprinkling  the  incense  upon  the 
coals,  he  stayed  till  the  house  was  filled  with  smoke, 
and  walking  slowly  backwards  came  without  the 
veil,  where  he  prayed  for  a  short  time  (Maimonides, 
Yom  hakkippur^  quoted  by  Ainsworth  on  Lev. 
xvi.;  Outrara  de  Sncrijiclls,  i.  8,  §  11). 

The  offering  of  incense  has  formed  a  part  of  the 
religious  ceremonies  of  most  ancient  nations.  The 
Egyptians  burnt  resin  in  honor  of  the  sun  at  its 
rising,  myrrh  when  in  its  meridian,  and  a  mixture 
called  Kuphi  at  its  setting  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Eg. 
V.  315).  Plutarch  (de  Is.  et  Os.  c.  52,  80)  describes 
Kuphi  as  a  mixture  of  sixteen  ingredients.  "  In 
the  temple  of  Siva  incense  is  offered  to  the  Lingam 
six  times  in  twenty-four  hours"  (Roberts,  Orient, 
lllus.  p.  468).  It  was  an  element  in  the  idolatrous 
•worship  of  the  Israelites  (Jer.  xi.  12,  17,  xlviii.  35 ; 
2  Chr.  xxxiv.  25). 

With  regard  to  the  symbolical  meaning  of  in- 
cen.se,  opinions  have  been  many  and  widely  differ- 
ing. While  jNIaimonides  regarded  it  merely  as  a 
perfume  designed  to  counteract  the  effluvia  arising 
from  the  beasts  which  wiere  slaughtered  for  the 
daily  sacrifice,  other  interpreters  have  allowed  their 
imaginations  to  run  riot,  and  vied  with  the  wildest 
speculations  of  the  Midrashim.  Philo  (  Q.uis  rer. 
div.  hcer.  sit,  §  41,  p.  501)  conceives  the  staete  and 
onycha  to  be  symbolical  of  water  and  earth ;  gal- 
banura  and  frankincense  of  air  and  fire.  Josephus, 
following  the  traditions  of  his  time,  believed  that 
the  ingredients  of  the  incense  were  chosen  from  the 
products  of  the  sea,  the  inhabited  and  the  unin- 
habited parts  of  the  earth,  to  indicate  that  all 
things  are  of  God  and  for  God  (B.  J.  v.  5,  §  5).  As 
the  temple  or  tabernacle  was  the  palace  of  Jehovah, 
the  theocratic  king  of  Israel,  and  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  his  throne,  so  the  incense,  in  the  opinion 
of  some,  corresponded  to  the  perfumes  in  which  the 
luxurious  monarchs  of  the  East  delighted.  It  may 
mean  all  this,  but  it  must  mean  much  more. 
Grotius,  on  Ex.  xxx.  1,  says  the  mystical  significa- 
tion is  "  sursum  habenda  corda."  Cornelius  a 
Lapide,  on  Ex.  xxx.  34,  considers  it  as  an  apt 
emblem  of  propitiation,  and  finds  a  symbolical 
meaning  in  the  sevei'al  ingredients.  Fairbairn 
( Typology  of  Scripture,  ii.  320),  with  many  others, 
looks  upon  prayer  as  the  reality  of  which  incense 
is  the  symbol,  founding  his  conclusion  upon  Ps. 
«U.  2;  Rev.  v.  8,  viii.  3,  4.  Biihr  {Symb.  d.  Mos. 
Cidt.  vol.  i.,  vi.  §  4)  opposes  this  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, on  the  ground  that  the  chief  thing  in  offering 
incense,  is  not  the  producing  of  the  smoke,  which 
presses  like  prayer  towards  heaven,  but  the  spread- 
ing of  the  fragrance.  His  own  exposition  may  be 
summed  up  as  follows.  Prayer,  among  all  oriental 
nations,  signifies  caUing  upon  the  name  of  God. 
The  oldest  prayers  consisted  in  the  mere  enumera- 
tion of  the  several  titles  of  God.  The  Scripture 
(■places  incense  in  close  relationship  to  prayer,  so 
that  offering  incense  is  synonymous  with  worship. 
72 


INDIA  1137 

Hence  incense  itself  is  a  symbol  of  the  name  of 

God.  The  ingredients  of  the  incense  correspond 
severally  to  the  perfections  of  God,  though  it  is 
impossible  to  decide  to  which  of  the  four  names  of 
God  each  belongs.     Perhaps  staete  corresponds  to 

n'jn*'   {Jehovah),  onycha  to  DTlbS  (Elohim), 

galbaimm  to  '^PT  (chai),  and  frankincense  to  tt^llp 
{kddosh).  Such  is  Bsihr's  exposition  of  the  sym- 
bohsm  of  incense,  rather  ingenious  than  logical. 
Looking  upon  incense  in  connection  with  the  other 
ceremonial  obsenances  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  it 
would  rather  seem  to  be  symbolical,  not  of  prayer 
itself,  but  of  that  which  makes  prayer  acceptable, 
the  intercession  of  Christ.  In  Rev.  viii.  3,  4,  the 
incense  is  spoken  of  as  something  distinct  from, 
though  offered  with,  the  prayers  of  all  the  saints 
(cf.  Luke  i.  10);  and  in  Rev.  v.  8  it  is  the  golden 
vials,  and  not  the  odors  or  incense,  which  are  said 
to  be  the  prayers  of  saints.  Ps.  cxli.  2,  at  first 
sight,  appears  to  militate  against  this  conclusion; 
but  if  it  be  argued  from  this  passage  that  incense 
is  an  emblem  of  prayer,  it  must  also  be  allowed 
that  the  evening  sacrifice  has  the  same  symbolical 
meaning.  W.  A.  W. 

IN'DIA  (^"^n,  i.e.  Hoddu:  ^  '1u8ik^'  Jndin) 
The  name  of  India  does  not  occur  in  the  Bible  be- 
fore the  book  of  Esther,  where  it  is  noticed  as  the 
limit  of  the  territories  of  Ahasuerus  in  the  east,  as 
Ethiopia  was  in  the  west  (i.  1;  viii.  9);  the  names 
are  similarly  connected  by  Herodotus  (vii.  9),  The 
Hebrew  form  '■'■  ffoddu"  is  an  abbreviation  of 
Honadu,  which  is  identical  with  the  indigenous 
names  of  the  river  Indus,  "  Hindu,"  or  "  Sindhu," 
and  again  with  the  ancient  name  of  the  country  as 
it  appears  in  the  Vendidad,  "  Hapta  Hendu."  The 
native  form  "  Sindus  "  is  noticed  by  Pliny  (vi.  23) 
The  India  of  the  book  of  Esther  is  not  the  penin- 
sula of  Hindostan,  but  the  country  surrounding  the 
Indus  —  the  Punjab,  and  perhaps  Scinde  —  the 
India  which  Herodotus  describes  (iii.  98)  as  form- 
ing part  of  the  Persian  empire  under  Darius,  and 
the  India  which  at  a  later  period  was  conquered  by 
Alexander  the  Great.  The  name  occurs  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Persepolis  and  Nakhsh-i-Rustam, 
but  not  in  those  of  Behistun  (Rawlinson,  Herod,  ii. 
485).  In  1  Mace.  viii.  8,  India  is  reckoned  among 
the  countries  which  Eumenes,  king  of  Pergamus, 
received  out  of  the  former  possessions  of  Antioehus 
the  Great.  It  is  clear  that  India  proper  ca}mot  be 
understood,  inasmuch  as  this  never  belonged  either 
to  Antioehus  or  lumienes.  At  the  same  time  none 
of  the  explanations  offered  by  commentators  are 
satisfactory:  the  Eneti  of  Paphlagonia  have  been 
suggested,  but  these  people  had  disappeared  long 
before  (Strab.  xii.  534):  the  India  of  Xeuophon 
( Cyrop.  i.  5,  §  3,  iii.  2,  §  25),  which  may  have  been 
above  the  Carian  stream  named  Indus  (Phn.  v.  29, 
probably  the  Calbis),  is  more  likely;  but  the  emen- 
dation "Mysia  and  Ionia"  for  Media  and  India, 
offers  the  best  solution  of  the  difficulty.  [Ionia.] 
A  more  authentic  notice  of  the  country  occurs  in 
1  Mace.  vi.  37,  where  Indians  are  noticed  as  the 
drivers  of  the  war-elephants  introduced  into  the 
army  of  the  Syrian  king.  (See  also  1  Esdr.  iii.  2; 
Esth.  xiii.  1;  xvi.  1.) 

But  though  the  name  of  India  occurs  so  seldom, 
the  people  and  productions  of  that  country  must 
have  been  tolerably  well  known  to  the  Jews.  There 
is  undoubted  evidence  that  an  active  trade  was 
carried  on  between  India  and  Western  Asia:  the 


1138 


INFIDEL 


Tyrians  establisJied  their  depots  on  the  shores  of 
the  Perian  Gulf,  and  procured  <'  horns  of  ivory  and 
ebony/  "  broidered  work  and  rich  apparel "  (Ez. 
xxvii.  15,  24),  by  a  route  which  crossed  the  Arabian 
desert  by  land,  and  then  followed  the  coasts  of  the 
Indian  ocean  by  sea.  The  trade  opened  by  Solomon 
with  Ophir  tliroiigh  the  Red  Sea  chiefly  consisted 
of  Indian  articles,  and  some  of  the  names  even  of 
the  articles,  (dtjummim,  "  sandal  wood,"  kopldni^ 
"apes,"  thucciim,  "peacocks,"  are  of  Indian  origin 
(Humboldt,  Kosinos,  ii.  133);  to  which  we  may 
add  the  Hebrew  name  of  the  "topaz,"  pitdah^ 
derived  from  tlie  Sanscrit /></«.  There  is  a  strong 
probability  that  productions  of  yet  greater  utiUty 
were  furnished  by  India  through  Syria  to  the  shores 
of  Europe,  and  that  the  Greeks  derived  both  the 
term  Kaairir^pos  (comp.  the  Sanscrit  kastira),  and 
the  article  it  represents,  "tin,"  from  the  coasts  of 
India.  The  connection  thus  established  with  India 
letl  to  the  opinion  that  the  Indians  were  included 
under  the  ethnological  title  of  Cush  (Gen.  x.  6), 
and  hence  the  Syrian,  Chaldajan,  and  Arabic  ver- 
sions frequently  render  that  term  by  India  or  In- 
dians, as  in  2  Chr.  xxi.  IG;  Is.  xi.  11,  xviii.  1; 
Jer.  xiii.  23;  Zeph.  iii.  10.  For  the  connection 
which  some  have  sought  to  estabUsh  between  India 
and  Paradise,  see  Eokn.  [See  on  this  word 
Roediger's  Addit.  ad  Ges.  Thes.  p.  83.  —  II.] 

W.  L.  B. 
*  INFIDEL,  known  to  our  Bible  phraseology 
only  in  2  Cor.  vi.  15,  and  1  Tim.  v.  8.  Instead  of 
this  positive  term  the  privative  "  unbeliever " 
(aTTio-Tos)  is  more  correct,  a  distinction  elsewhere 
observed  in  the  rendering.  Ti.e  A.  V.  misses  also 
the  alliteration  in  the  former  of  the  above  passages. 

H. 


INHERITANCE. 
INK,  INKHORN. 


[Heir.] 
[Wkitixg.] 


INN  (11 VD,  malm:  KaraKvixa,  Trav5oK(7ov)- 
The  Hebrew  word  thus  rendered  literally  signifies 
*  a  lotlging-place  for  the  night."  «  Inns,  in  our 
gense  of  the  term,  were,  as  they  still  are,  unknown 
in  the  East,  where  hospitality  is  religiously  practiced. 
The  khans,  or  caravanserais,  are  the  representatives 
of  European  inns,  and  these  were  established  but 
gradually.  It  is  doubtful  whether  there  is  any 
allusion  to  them  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
halting-place  of  a  caravan  was  selected  originally 
on  account  of  its  proximity  to  water  or  pasture,  by 
which  the  travellers  pitched  their  tents  and  passed 
the  night.  Such  was  undoubtedly  the  "  inn  "  at 
which  occurred  the  incident  in  the  life  of  Moses, 
narrated  in  Ex.  iv.  24.  It  was  probably  one  of  the 
halting- places  of  the  Ishmaelitish  merchants  who 
traded  to  Egypt  with  their  camel-loads  of  spices. 
Moses  was  on  his  journey  from  the  land  of  Midian, 
and  the  merchants  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  are  called  indis- 
criminately Ishmaelites  and  ^lidianites.  At  one 
of  these  stations,  too,  the  first  which  they  reached 
after  leaving  the  city,  and  no  doubt  within  a  short 
distance  from  it,  Joseph's  brethren  discovered  that 
their  money  had  been  replaced  in  their  wallets 
(Gen.  xlii.  27). 

Increased  commercial  intercourse,  and  in  later 


INN 

times  religious  enthusiasm  foi  pilgrimages  f  gvn 
rise  to  the  establishment  of  more  permanent  acuom- 
modation  for  travellers.  On  the  more  frequented 
routes,  remote  from  towns  (Jer.  ix.  2),  caravanserais 
were  in  course  of  time  erected,  often  at  the  expense 
of  the  wealthy.  The  following  description  of  one 
of  those  on  the  road  from  Baghdad  to  Babylon  will 
suffice  for  all :  "  It  is  a  large  and  substantial 
square  building,  in  the  distance  resembling  a  for- 
tress, being  surrounded  with  a  lofty  wall,  and 
flanked  by  round  towers  to  defend  the  inmates  in 
case  of  attack.  Passing  through  a  strong  gateway, 
the  guest  enters  a  large  court,  the  sides  of  which 
are  divided  into  numerous  arched  compartments, 
open  in  front,  for  the  accommodation  of  separate 
parties  and  for  the  reception  of  goods.  In  the 
centre  is  a  spacious  raised  platform,  used  for  sleep- 
ing upon  at  night,  or  for  the  devotions  of  the  faith- 
ful during  the  day.  Between  the  outer  wall  and 
the  compartments  are  wide  vaulted  arcades,  ex- 
tending round  the  entire  building,  where  the  beasts 
of  burden  are  placed.  Upon  the  roof  of  the  arcades 
is  an  excellent  terrace,  and  over  the  gateway  an 
elevated  tower  containing  two  rooms— one  of  which 
is  open  at  the  sides,  permitting  the  occupants  to 
enjoy  every  breath  of  air  thai  passes  across  the 
heated  plain.  The  terrace  is  tolerably  clean ;  but 
the  court  and  stabling  below  are  ankle- deep  in 
chopped  straw  and  filth  "  (Loftus,  Chak/cea,  p.  13). 
The  great  khans  estaljlished  by  the  Persian  kings 
and  great  men,  at  intervals  of  alwut  six  miles  on 
the  roads  from  Baghdad  to  the  sacred  places,  are 
provided  with  stables  for  the  horses  of  the  pilgrims. 
"  Within  these  stables,  on  both  sides,  are  other 
cells  for  travellers  "  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Bub.  p.  478, 
note).  The  "stall "or  "manger,"  mentioned  in 
Luke  ii.  7,  was  probably  m  a  stable  of  this  kind. 
Such  khans  are  sometimes  situated  near  running 
streams,  or  have  a  supply  of  water  of  some  kind, 
but  the  traveller  must  carry  all  his  provisions  with 
him  (Ouseley,  Trav.  in  Persia,  i.  261,  note).  At 
Damascus  the  khans  are,  many  of  them,  substantial 
buildings  ;  the  small  rooms  which  surround  the 
court,  as  well  as  those  above  them  which  are  entered 
from  a  gallery,  are  used  by  the  merchants  of  the 
city  for  depositing  their  goods  (Porter's  Damascus, 
i.  33).  The  loehakhs  of  modem  Egypt  are  of  a 
similar  description  (Lane,  Mod.  Eg.  ii.  10). 

"The  house  of  paths"  (Prov.  viii.  2,  eV  o'iKtp 
StJScoj/,  Vers.  Fen.),  where  Wisdom  took  her  stand, 
is  understood  by  some  to  refer  appropriately  to  a 
khan  built  where  many  ways  met  and  frequented 
by  many  travellers.     A  similar  meaning  has  been 

attached  to  DHpS  ^"^^"^2?  geruth  Cimham,  "the 
hostel  of  Chimham  "  (Jer.  xli.  17),  beside  Bethle- 
hem, built  by  the  liberality  of  the  son  of  Barzillai 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  going  down  to 
Egypt  (Stanley,  S.  ^  P.,  p.  163;  App.  §  90).  Tlie 
Targum  says,  "which  David  gave  to  Chimham, 
son  of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite  "  (comp.  2  Sam.  xix. 
37,  38).  With  regard  to  this  passage,  the  ancient 
versions  are  strangely  at  variance.    The  LXX.  had 

evidently  another  reading  with  3  and  21  transposed, 
which  they  left  untranslated  yafi-npaxafida,  Alex. 


a  In  the  language  of  the  A.  V.  "  to  lodge  "  has  the 
Ibroe  of  lemaining  for  the  night.  The  word  ^^^V  is 
Wndered  in  1  K.  xix.  9  "  lodge ;  "  in  Gen.  xix.  2 
"  tarry  all  night ;  "  comp.  also  Jer.  xiv.  8,  &c. 

b  lbs  erection  of  hospitals  in  the  middle  ages  was 


due  to  the  same  cause.  Paula,  the  friend  of  Jerome, 
built  several  on  the  road  to  Bethlehem  ;  and  the  Scotch 
and  Irish  residents  in  France  erected  hospitals  for  th« 
use  of  pilgrims  of  their  own  nation,  on  their  way  t» 
Rome  (Beckmann,  Hist,  of  Inv  ii  467).  Hence  kot 
pital,  hostel,  and  finally  hotei. 


INN 
Ynlhip<»9x''-l^'^''-t*-'  ^^®  Vulgate,  if  intended  to  be 
Eteral,  must  have  rej.d  P^^  ^'^"'?.?  peregririr- 
mte$  in  Chnnaair.  The  Arabic,  following  the  Alex- 
andrian MS.,  leaJ  it  iv  yrj  B-npcudxaindafi.,  "  in 
the  land   of  Berothchaniaam."     The   S}riac   has 

)yjJL::i,  bedre,  "in  the  threshing-Uoors,"  as  if 
mDn^!?,  beym'mth.     Josephus    had   a   reading 

different  from  all,  n'*l")7?2,  be  (/id roth,  "  in  the 
folds  of"  Chimham;  for  lie  says  the  fugitives  went 
"  to  a  certain  place  called  Mandra "  {M.dvdpa 
Kty6ixivov,  Ant.  x.  9.  §  5),  and  in  this  he  was 
toUowed  by  Aquila  and  the  Hexaplar  Syriac. 

The  TravSo/cetoj/  (Luke  x.  34)  probably  differed 
iVom  the  /caraAujua  (Luke  ii.  7)  in  having  a  "  host  " 


INSTANT 


1189 


or  "innkeeper"  (iraj'So/feys,  Luke  x.  35),  whc 
supplied  some  few  of  the  necessary  provisions,  and 
attended  to  the  wants  of  travellers  left  to  his  charge. 
The  word  has  been  adopted  in  the  later  Hebrew, 
and  apijears   in  the  JMishna   {Yebavioth,  xvi.   7) 

under  the  form  plUID,  piindak,  and  the  host  is 
"'pTD^D,  imndaki.     The  Jews  were  forbidden  to 

I  put  up  their  beasts  at  establishments  of  this  kind 
I  kept  by  idolatei-s  {Aboda  Zara,  ii.  1).  It  appears 
that  houses  of  entertainment  were  sometimes,  as 
in  Egypt  (Her.  ii.  35),  kept  by  women,  whose 
character  was  such  that  their  evidence  was  regarded 
with  suspicion.  In  the  Mishna  (  Yebamoih,  xvi.  7) 
j  a  tale  is  told  of  a  company  of  Levites  who  were 
,  travelling  to  Zoar,  the  City  of  Palms,  when  one  of 


Eastern  inn  or  caravaneierai. 


th-'m  fell  ill  on  the  road  and  was  left  by  his  com 
rades  at  an  inn,  under  the  charge  of  the  hostess 

(n'^p'TIl'lD,  pundekifh  =  TravSoKeuTpia)-  On  their 
return  to  inquire  for  their  friend,  the  hostess  told 
them  he  was  dead  and  buried,  but  they  refused  to 
believe  her  till  she  produced  his  staff,  wallet,  and 

roll  of  the  law.  In  Josh.  ii.  1,  ^TDIT,  zondh,  the 
term  applied  to  Kahab,  is  rendered  in  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan  Sn"^p"TD12,  pundtkitha.,  "a  woman 
who  keeps  an  inn."  So  in  Judg.  xi.  1,  of  the , 
mother  of  Jephthah;  of  Delilah  (Judg.  xvi.  1)  and  , 
the  two  women  who  api^ealed  to  Solomon  (1  K.  iii.  { 
16).  The  words,  in  the  opinion  of  Kimchi  on  Josh, 
ii.  1,  appear  to  have  been  synonymous. 

In  some  parts  of  modern  Syria  a  nearer  approach 
las  been  made  to  the  European  system.  The  people 
)f  es-Srdt,  according  to  Burckhardt,  support  four 
ftverns  (Menzel  or  Jlfedkaf'e)  at  the  public  exi^ense. 
\t  these  the  traveller  is  furnished  with  everything 
i3  may  require,  so  long  as  he  chooses  to  remain, 
.iTovided  his  stay  is  not  unreasonably  protracted, 
rhe  expenses  are  paid  by  a  tax  on  the  heads  of 
families,  and  a  kind  of  landlord  superintends  the 
eetablishment  {Trav.  in  Syria,  p.  36). 

W.  A.  W. 

*  ITie  statement  ascribed  above  to  Buickhardt 
[&  not  strictly  correct.  In  modern  Syria,  in  all 
villages  not  provided  with  a  khan,  there  is  a  house, 
asually  the  dwelling  of  the  sheikh,  which  is  called 
*he  menzoul,  which  is  the  place  of  entertainment 
of  all  strangers  who  are  not  visiting  at  the  houses 
»f  frl.-»nds.  One  of  the  villagers  is  officially  desig- 
jat^  «i8  th«  hhowCtt  or  caterer,  and  his  business  is 
to  direct  strangers  to  the  menzoul,  to  supply  them 
irith  provisions  and  fodder  if  required,  to  keep  off 


the  intrusive  visits  of  children  and  idlers,  and  t« 
provide  a  place  of  safety  for  the  animals  at  night 
It  is  not  customary  for  the  village  to  furnish  thes« 
supplies  gratis,  but  the  traveller  pays  for  them  at 
usual  rates,  the  caterer  being  the  referee  in  case  of 
a  dispute  between  the  buyer  and  seller.  The  caterei 
receives  a  compensation  for  his  services  proportioned 
to  the  generosity  of  the  traveller.  G.  E.  P. 

INSTANT,  INSTANTLY.  A  word  em- 
ployed by  our  translators  in  the  N.  T.  with  the 
force  of  urgency  or  earnestness,  to  render  five  dis- 
tinct Greek  words.  We  still  say  "  at  the  instance 
of,"  but  as  that  sense  is  no  longer  attached  to 
"  instant "  —  though  it  is  still  to  the  verb  "  insist," 
and  to  other  compounds  of  the  same  root,  such  as 
"  persist,"  "  constant  "  — it  has  been'thought  ad- 
visable to  notice  its  occurrences.  They  afford  an 
interesting  example,  if  an  additional  one  be  needed, 
of  the  close  connection  which  there  is  between  the 
Authorized  Version  and  the  Vulgate;  the  Vulgate 
having,  as  will  be  seen,  suggested  the  word  in  three 
out  of  its  five  occurrences. 

1.  «r7rowSaia>s  —  "  they  besought  Him  instantly  " 
(Luke  vii.  4).  This  word  is  elsewhere  commonly 
rendered  "  earnestly,"  which  is  very  suitable  here. 

2.  iir€KeiPTO,  from  €7ri«ei^a<,  to  lie  upon :  — 
"  they  were  instai  t  with  loud  voices  "  (Vulg.  tn- 
stabnnt),  Luke  xxiii.  23.  This  might  be  rendered 
"they  were  pressing"  (as  in  ver.  1). 

3.  (V  iKTcvela,  "  instantly  serving  God  "  (Act« 
xxvi.  7).  The  metaphor  at  the  root  of  this  word 
is  tliat  of  stretching  —  on  the  stretch.  Elsewheno 
in  the  A.  V.  it  is  represented  by  "  fervently." 

4.  TrpoffKapTcpovuTes,  "continuing  instant* 
(Rom.  xii.  12),  Vulg.  insianles.    Here  the  a4iectiv. 


1140  INWARD 

Is  hardly  necessary,  the  word  being  elsewhere  ren- 
dered by  "  continuing  "  —  or  to  preserve  the  rhythm 
of  so  familiar  a  sentence —  "  continuing  stedfast " 
(as  Acts  ii.  42). 

0-  'ETr/j-TTj^t,  from  icpicrroivai,  to  stand  by  or 
upon  —  "be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season "  (2 
Tim.  iv.  2),  Vulg.  insta.  Four  verses  further  on 
it  is  rendered,  "  is  at  hand."  The  sense  is  "  stand 
ready,"  "  be  alert "  for  whatever  may  happen.  Of 
the  five  words  this  is  the  only  one  which  contains 
the  same  metaphor  as  "  uistant." 

In  Luke  ii.  38,  "that  instant"  is  literally  "that 
same  hour,"  —  avry  rp  &pa.  G. 

*  INWARD  is  used  in  the  expression  "  my 
inward  friends,"   for  "familiar,"    "confidential" 

(A.  V.)  Job  xix.  19  01^D  \'in,  lit.  men  of  my 
intimacy).  The  patriarch  complains  that  those 
with  whom  he  had  Ijeen  most  familiar,  to  whom 
he  had  made  known  his  most  secret  thoughts,  had 
turned  against  him  and  abhori-ed  him.  H. 

*  INTEREST.     [Loan;  Usuky.] 

*  INTERPRETER.     [Prophet;  Magic] 
lO'NIA  ([Semitic   ];^,  Javan,   which  see:] 

*lo}via)'  The  substitution  of  this  word  for  ^  'Ij/- 
Stfc^  in  1  Mace.  viii.  8  (A.  V.  "  India")  is  a  con- 
jecture of  Grotius,  without  any  authority  of  IklSS. 
It  must  be  acknowledged,  however,  that  the  change 
removes  a  great  difficulty,  especially  if,  as  the  same 
commentator  suggests,  Mvaia  [Mysia]  be  substi- 
tuted for  M77Seta  or  MrjSia  in  the  same  context.« 
The  passage  refers  to  the  cession  of  territory  which 
the  Romans  forced  Antiochus  the  Great  to  make ; 
and  it  is  evident  that  India  and  Media  are  nothing 
to  the  purpose,  whereas  Ionia  and  Mysia  were 
among  the  districts  ci&  Taunim,  which  were  given 
up  to  Eumenes. 

As  to  the  term  Ionia,  the  name  was  given  in 
early  times  to  that  part  of  the  western  coast  of 
Asia  Minor  which  lay  between  tEoHs  on  the  north 
and  Doris  on  the  south.  These  were  pro{)erly  eth- 
nological terms,  and  had  reference  to  the  tribes  of 
Greek  settlers  along  this  shore.  Ionia,  with  its 
islands,  was  celebrated  for  its  twelve,  afterwards 
thirteen  cities;  five  of  which,  Ephesus,  Smyrna, 
Miletus,  Chios,  and  Samos,  are  conspicuous  in  the 
N.  T.  In  Koman  times  Ionia  ceased  to  have  any 
political  significance,  being  absorbed  in  the  province 
of  Asia.  The  term,  however,  was  still  occasionally 
used,  as  in  Joseph.  Ant.  xvi.  2,  §  3,  from  which 
passage  we  leam  that  the  Jews  were  numerous  in 
this  district.  This  whole  chapter  in  Josephus  is 
very  interesting,  as  a  geographical  illustration  of 
that  part  of  the  coast.     [Javan.]         J.  S.  H. 

IPHEDE'IAH  [4  syl.]  (H^"??^  [whom  Je- 
hovah frees]:  'UcpaSias'^  [Vat.  Ie<^ep€io;]  Alex. 
icpaSia'-  Jeplidala),  a  descendant  of  Beryamin, 
me  of  the  Bene-Shashak  (1  Chr.  viii.  25) ;  specially 
named  as  a  chief  of  the  tribe,  and  as  residing  in 
Jerusalem  (comp.  ver.  28). 

IR  O''^  [city,  toum] :  "Hp,  as  if  "11^ ',  Alex. 
{Ipa;  [Vat.  om.;  Comp.  "ip:]  Hir),  1  Chr.  vii. 
12.     [Ikl] 

TRA  (S"J^V   [vigilant,  Dietr.;   or  watcherl: 


a  *  For  a  copious  note  on  this  textual  question,  see 
fritzPche'g  Handb.  zu  den  Apokryphen,  iii.  124.  Dn- 
eea  ttie  tt'xt  be  coirupt,  it  is  impossible  to  acquit  the 
$rrltM  of  Maccabees  of  gross  inacciuracy.     Drusius  ami 


IRAM 

Ira).  1.  Cipds,  [Vat.]  Alex.  Kipas.)  "'1^ 
Jairite,"  named  in  the  catalogue  of  Dand's  greal 
officers   (2  Sam.  xx.  26)  as  "priest  to  David  ' 

(in  'J :  A.  V.  "  a  chief  ruler  " ).  The  Peshito  ver- 
sion for  "Jairite"  has  "from  Jathir,"  i.  e.  prob- 
ably Jattih,  where  David  had  found  friends  during 
his  troubles  with  Saul.  [Jaikite.]  If  this  can 
be  maintained,  and  it  certainly  has  an  air  of  prob- 
ability, then  this  Ira  is  identical  with  — 

2.  ("Ipas,  'Ipa;  [Vat.  Eipas,  Ipa;]  Alex.  EipuSy 
[ipasV  "Ira  the  Ithrite"  C^*in?n  ;  A.  V.  omiU 
the  article),  that  is,  the  Jattirite,  one  of  the  heroes 
of  David's  guard  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  38;  1  Chr.  xi.  40). 
[Ithkite;  Jattiu;  Jether.] 

3.  ("Ipas,  'Clpd;  [Vat.  Eipa^,  Upai;]  Alex. 
ripai',  [in  1  Chr.  xxvii.,  'Odoulas,  Alex.  Etpa, 
Comp.  'ipoO  IJira.)  Another  member  of  David's 
guard,  a  Tekoite,  son  of  Ikkesh  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  26 : 
1  Chr.  xi.  28).  Ira  was  leader  of  the  sixth  monthly 
course  of  24,000,  as  appointed  by  David  (1  Chr 
xxvii.  9). 

I'RAD  {T^^V  [fleet,  rapid,  Dietr.] :  TaiddS 
inbothMSS.;  Joseph. 'lope57?s:  Syr.  Idar : /ra J) 
son  of  Enoch;  grandson  of  Cain,  and  father  of 
Mehujael  (Gen.  iv.  18). 

I'RAM  {'OiyV  [watchful,  Dietr.] :  Zo(|)«tV 
[Alex.  Za<^w6t,  Hpa/j.;  Vat.  in  Chr.,  Zacpcaeipil 
Hiram;  "belonging  to  a  city,"  Ges.),  a  leader 

(^^VS:  LXX.  ^76/Aci)/:  "phylarch,"  A.  V 
"duke")  of  the  Edomites  (Gen.  xxxvi.  43;  1  Chr. 
i.  54),  i.  e.  the  chief  of  a  family  or  tribe.  He  oc- 
curs in  the  Ust  of  "  the  names  of  the  dukes  [that 
came]  of  Esau,  according  to  (heir  families,  after 
their  places,  by  their  names  "  (Gen.  xxxvi.  40-43), 
but  none  of  these  names  is  found  in  the  genealogy 
of  Esau's  immediate  descendants ;  the  latter  being 
separated  from  them  by  the  enumeration  of  the 
sons  of  Sek-  and  the  kings  of  Edom,  both  in  Gen. 
and  Chr.  They  were  certainly  descendants  of 
Esau,  but  in  what  generation  is  not  known;  ev- 
idently not  in  a  remote  one.  The  sacred  records 
are  generally  confined  to  the  history  of  the  chosen 
race,  and  the  reason  of  the  exclusion  of  the  Edomite 
genealogy  beyond  the  second  gener;ition  is  thus 
expUcable.  In  remarking  on  this  gap  in  the  ge- 
nealogy, we  must  add  that  there  appears  to  be  no 
safe  ground  for  supposing  a  chronological  sequence 
of  sons  and  grandsons  of  Esau,  sons  of  Seir,  kings 
of  Edom,  and  lastly  descendants  of  Esau  again, 
ruling  over  the  Edomites.     These  were  probably 

in  part,  or  wholly,  contemiwraneous ;  and  ^^vS, 
we  think,  should  be  regarded  as  signifying  a  chief 
of  a  tribe,  etc.  (as  rendered  aV)ove),  rather  than  a 
king.  The  Jewish  assertion  tiiat  these  terms  sig- 
nified the  same  rank,  except  that  the  former  waa 
uncrowned  and  the  latter  crowned,  may  be  safely 
neglected. 

The  names  of  which  "ram  is  one  are  "  according 
to   their  famiUes,  after  their  places   (or  'towns-' 

DnDpp),  by  their  names  "  (ver.  40);  and  again 
(ver.  43),  "These  [be]  the  dukes  of  Edom,  ac- 
cording to  their  habitations  in  the  land  of  their 
These  words  imply  that  tribes  an<? 


1 


others  had  suggested  the  change  of  names  before  Gn> 
tius.  It  has  been  thought  possible  also  that  the  erroi 
may  have  crept  into  the  Greek  in  the  process  of  traiM 
latioa  from  the  Aranueaa.  E. 


I 


IR-HA-HEKES 

places  were  called  after  their  leaders  and  founders, 
ftnd  tend  to  confirm  the  preceding  remarks  on  the 
descendants  of  Esau  being  chiefs  of  tribes,  and 
probably  more  or  less  contemporaneous  with  each 
other,  and  with  the  kings  and  Horites  named  to- 
gether with  them  in  the  same  records.  It  has  been 
Buggested  that  tlie  names  we  are  considering  are 
those  of  the  tribes  and  places  founded  by  Esau's 
immediate  descendants,  mentioned  earlier  in  the 
record ;  but  no  proof  has  been  adduced  in  support 
of  this  theory. 

The  time  of  the  final  destruction  of  the  Horites 
ts  uncertain.  By  analogy  with  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  (cf.  Dent.  ii.  12,  22)  we  may  perhaps  infer 
that  it  was  not  immediate  on  Esau's  settlement. 
No  identification  of  Irani  has  been  found. 

E.  S.  P. 

IR-HA-HE'RES,  in  A.  V.  The  City  of 

destkuction  (D~inn  n^v,  var.  D"^rirT  I'^V  : 

[ttSXis  aacScK;  EA.i  tp.  acreS-nXtov,  Comp.  tt- 
kx^p^s]  '■  Civitas  Soils),  the  name  or  an  appellation 
of  a  city  in  Egypt,  mentioned  only  in  Is.  xix.  18. 

The  reading  DHH  is  that  of  most  MSS.  the  Syr. 

Aq.  and  Theod.,  the  other  reading,  0~n,  is  sup- 
ported by  the  LXX.,  but  only  in  form,  by  Symm. 
who  has  Tr6\is  rjXiov,  and  the  Vulg.  Gesenius 
(Thes.  pp.  391  a,  522)  prefers  the  latter  reading. 
There  are  various  explanations :  we  shall  first  take 
those  that  treat  it  as  a  proper  name,  then  those 
that  suppose  it  to  be  an  appellation  used  by  the 
prophet  to  denote  the  future  of  the  city. 

1.  Dnnn  "^^V,  dty  of  the  sun,  a  translation 
of  the  Egyptian  sacred  name  of  Heliopolis,  gener- 
ally called  in  the  Bible  On,  the  Hebrew  form  of 
its  civil  name  An  [On],  and  once  Beth-sJiemesh, 
"the  house  of  the  sun"  (Jer.  xliii.  13),  a  more 
literal  translation  than  this  supposed  one  of  the 
sacred  name  [Beth-shemesh]. 

2-  onnn  n^v,  or  D^^T^  n'^v,  the  dty 

Herts,  a  transcription  in  the  second  word  of  the 
Egyptian  sacred  name  of  Heliopolis,  Ha-ra,  "  the 
abode  (Ut.  'house')  of  the  sun."  This  explana- 
tion would  necessitate  the  omission  of  the  article. 
The  LXX.  favor  it. 

3-  ^'^y^T}  '^'^^.1  «  <^%  destroyed,  lit.  » a  city 
of  destruction;"  in  A.  V.  "the  city  of  destruc- 
tion," meaning  that  one  of  the  five  cities  men- 
tioned should  be  destroyed,  according  to  Isaiah's 
idiom. 

4.  DTIOl^  "^^^j  ct  dty  preserved,  meaning 
that  one  of  the  five  cities  mentioned  should  be  pre- 
served. Gesenius,  who  proposes  this  construction, 
if  the  second  word  be  not  part  of  the  name  of  the 

place,  compares  the  Arabic  ly-fy^^i  "  lie  guarded, 

kept,  preserved,"  etc.  It  may  be  remarked  that 
the  word  Hki:es  or  Hres  in  ancient  Egyptian, 
probably  signifies  "a  guardian."  This  rendering 
of  Gesenius  is,  however,  merely  conjectural,  and 
seems  to  have  been  favored  by  him  on  account  of 
its  directly  contradicting  the  rendering  last  no- 
ticed. 

The  first  of  these  explanations  L«  highly  improb- 
able, for  we  find  elsewhere  both  the  sacred  and  the 
civil  names  of  Heliopolis,  so  that  a  third  name, 
Boerely  a  variety  of  the  Hebrew  rendering  of  the 


IR-HA-HERES  1141 

sacred  name,  is  very  unlikely.  The  name  Beth- 
she  mesh  is,  moreover,  a  more  literal  translation  ia 
its  first  word  of  the  Egyptian  name  than  this  sup- 
nosed  one.  It  may  be  remarked,  however,  as  to 
the  second  word,  that  one  of  the  towns  in  Palestine 
called  Beth-shemesh,  a  town  of  the  Levites  on  the 
borders  of  Judah  and   Dan,  was  not  far  from  a 

Mount  Heres,  O'lrj'ITl  (Judg.  i.  35),  so  that  the 
two  names  as  appUed  to  the  sun  as  an  object  of 
worship  might  probably  be  interchangeable.  The 
second  explanation,  which  we  believe  has  not  been 
hitherto  put  forth,  is  liable  to  the  same  objection 
as  the  preceding  one,  besides  that  it  necessitates  the 
exclusion  of  the  article.  The  fourth  explanation 
would  not  have  been  noticed  had  it  not  been  sup- 
ported by  the  name  of  Gesenius.  The  common 
reading  and  old  rendering  remains,  which  certainly 
present  no  critical  difficulties.  A  very  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  xixth  chap,  of  Isaiah,  and  of  the 
xviiith  and  xxth,  which  are  connected  with  it,  has 
inclined  us  to  prefer  it.  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  were 
then  either  under  a  joint  rule  or  under  an  Ethiopian 
sovereign.  We  can,  therefore,  understand  the  con- 
nection of  the  three  subjects  comprised  in  the  three 
chapters.  Chap,  xviii.  is  a  prophecy  against  the 
Ethiopians,  xix.  is  the  Burden  of  Egypt,  and  xs., 
delivered  in  the  year  of  the  capture  of  Ashdod  by 
Tartan,  the  general  of  Sargon,  predicts  the  leading 
captive  of  the  Egyptians  and  Ethiopians,  probably 
the  garrison  of  that  great  stronghold,  as  a  warning 
to  the  Israelites  who  trusted  in  them  for  aid.  Chap, 
xviii.  ends  with  an  indication  of  the  time  to  which 
it  refers,  speaking  of  the  Ethiopians  —  as  we  un- 
derstand the  passage  —  as  sending  "a  present" 
"  to  the  place  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  hosts, 
the  mount  Zion  "  (ver.  7).  If  this  is  to  be  taken 
in  a  prosier  and  not  a  tropical  sense,  it  would  refer 
to  the  conversion  of  Ethiopians  by  the  preaching 
of  the  Law  while  the  Temple  yet  stood.  That  such 
had  been  the  case  before  the  gospel  was  preached 
is  evident  from  the  instance  of  the  eunuch  of 
Queen  Candace,  whom  Philip  met  on  his  return 
homeward  from  worshipping  at  Jerusalem,  and  con- 
verted to  Christianity  (Acts  viii.  26-39).  The 
Burden  of  Egypt  seems  to  point  to  the  times  of 
the  Persian  and  Greek  dominions  over  that  country. 
The  civil  war  agrees  with  the  troubles  of  the  Do- 
decarchy,  then  we  read  of  a  time  of  bitter  oppres- 
sion by  "  a  cruel  lord  and  [or  '  even  ']  a  fierce 
king,"  probably  pointing  to  the  Persian  conquests 
and  rule,  and  specially  to  Cambyses,  or  Cambyses 
and  Ochus,  and  then  of  the  drying  of  the  sea  (the 
Red  Sea,  comp.  xi.  15)  and  the  river  and  canals, 
of  the  destruction  of  the  water-plants,  and  of  the 
misery  of  the  fishers  and  workers  in  linen.  The 
princes  and  counsellors  are  to  lose  their  wisdom  and 
the  people  to  be  filled  with  fear,  all  which  calamities 
seem  to  have  begun  in  the  desolation  of  the  Persian 
rule.  It  is  not  easy  to  understand  what  follows  as 
to  the  dread  of  the  land  of  Judah  which  the  Egyp- 
tians sliould  feel,  immediately  preceding  the  men- 
tion of  the  subject  of  the  article:  "In  that  day 
shall  five  cities  in  the  land  of  Egypt  speak  the  lan- 
guage of  Canaan,  and  swear  to  the  Lord  of  hosts; 
one  shall  be  called  Ir-ha-heres.  In  that  day  shall 
there  be  an  altar  to  the  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  a  pillar  at  the  border  thereof 
to  the  Lord.  And  it  shall  be  for  a  sign  and  for  a 
witness  unto  the  Lord  of  hosts  in  the  land  of 
Egypt;  for  they  shall  cry  unto  the  Lord  becaus« 
of  the  oppressors,  and  he  shall  send  them  a  aaviw 


1142  lEi 

»nd  a  great  one,  and  he  shall  deliver  them  "  (xix. 
i8-20).  The  partial  or  entire  conversion  of  Egypt 
Is  prophesied  in  the  next  two  verses  (21,  22).  The 
time  of  the  Greek  dominion,  following  the  Persian 
rule,  may  be  here  pointed  to.  There  was  then  a 
great  influx  of  Jewish  settlers,  and  as  we  know  of 
a  Jewish  town,  Onion,  and  a  great  Jewish  popula- 
tion at  Alexandria,  we  may  suppose  that  there  were 
other  large  settlements.  These  would  "  speak  the 
language  of  Canaan,"  at  first  literally,  afterwards 
in  their  retaining  the  religion  and  customs  of  their 
fathers.  The  altar  would  well  correspond  to  the 
temple  built  by  Onias ;  the  pillar,  to  the  synagogue 
of  Alexandria,  the  latter  on  the  northern  and  west- 
em  borders  of  Egypt.  In  this  case  Alexander 
would  be  the  deliverer.  We  do  not  know,  how- 
ever, that  at  this  period  there  was  any  recognition  of 
the  true  God  on  the  part  of  the  Egyptians.  If  the 
prophecy  is  to  be  understood  in  a  proper  sense,  we 
can  however  see  no  other  time  to  which  it  applies, 
and  must  suppose  that  Ir-ha-heres  was  one  of  the 
cities  partly  or  wholly  inhabited  by  the  Jews  in 
Egypt:  of  these  Onion  was  the  most  important, 
and  to  it  the  rendering,  "  One  shall  be  called  a  city 
of  destruction,"  would  apply,  since  it  was  destroyed 
by  Titus,  while  Alexandria,  and  perhaps  the  other 
cities,  yet  stand.  If  the  prophecy  is  to  be  taken 
tropically,  the  best  reading  and  rendering  can  only 
be  determined  by  verbal  criticism.  K  S.  P. 

FRI  (Oiipia;  Alex.  Ovpi;  [Vat.  Oupcia',  Aid. 
(with  preceding  word)  Mapfx.w6ioupi']  Jorus),  I 
Esdr,  viii.  02.  This  name  answers  to  Uriah  in 
Ezra  (viii.  33).  But  whence  did  our  translators 
get  their  form  ? 

FRI  or  IR  (n'^r  or  "^"IV  [adoi^er  of  Jehovah, 
Dietr. ;  Jehovah  is  watcher,  Fiirst] :  Ovpl  [Vat. 
-pet]  and*'np;  [Alex.  ver.  12,  Cipa,  Vat.  omits:] 
Urai  and  Vlr),  a  Benjamite,  son  of  Bela,  accord- 
ing to  1  Chr.  vii.  7,  12.  The  name  does  not  oc- 
cur in  any  of  the  other  genealogies  of  the  tribe. 
[Hum AM.]  A.  C.  H. 

IRI'JAH  (rf'JM'n^  [whom  Jehovah  sees,  or 
Jehovah  sees]:  Sapouj'a;  [Alex.  FA.  Sapoutoy:] 
Jerias),  son  of  Shelemiah,  "  a  captain  of  the  ward  " 

(n^(7S  v372),  who  met  Jeremiah  in  the  gate  of 
Jerusalem  called  the  "  gate  of  Benjamin,"  accused 
him  of  being  about  to  desert  to  the  Chaldaeans,  and 
led  him  back  to  the  princes  (Jer.  xxxvii.  13,  14). 

IR-NA'HASH  {^'n^-n^V  =  se7-pent-city : 
ir6\is  Naay;  [Comp.  'Hpvads:]  Urbs  Naas),  a 
name  which,  like  many  other  names  of  places,  oc- 
curs in  the  genealogical  lists  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv. 
12).  Tthinnah  Abi  Ir-nahash  —  "  father  of  Ir- 
nahash  "  —  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Eshton,  all  of 
them  being  descendants  of  Chelub  (ver.  11).  But 
it  seems  impossible  to  connect  this  special  genealogy 
with  the  general  genealogies  of  Judah,  and  it  has 
the  air  of  being  a  fragment  of  the  records  of  some 
other  family,  related,  of  course,  or  it  would  not  be 
here,  but  not  the  same.  May  not  "  Shuah,  the 
brother  of  Chelub"  (ver.  11),  be  Shuah  the  Ca- 
oaanite,  by  whose  daughter  Judah  had  his  three 
eldist  sons  (Gen.  xxxviii.  2,  &c.),  and  these  verses 
be  a  fragment  of  Canaanite  record  preserved 
amongst  those  of  the  great  Israelite  family,  who 
then  became  so  closely  related  to  the  Canaanites  ? 
TVue,  the  two  Shuahs   are  written  differently  in 

lebrew  —  '^^W  and  nmtil7,    but,  cousidermg 


IRON 

the  early  date  of  the  one  passage  and  the 

and  incomplete  state  of  the  other,  this  is  perhapi 

not  irreconcilable. 

No  trace  of  the  name  of  Ir-nahash  attached  to 
any  site  has  been  discovered.  Jerome's  interpre- 
tation (  Qu.  Ilebr.  ad  loc. )  —  whether  his  own  ot 
a  tradition  he  does  not  say  —  is,  that  Ir-nahash  is 
Bethlehem,  Nahash  being  another  name  for  Jesse. 
[Nahash.] 

I'RON  (V'^W'?^  U^arful,  perh.  God-fearing-] 
Kepae;  Alex,  lapicov;  [Comp.  ^Updv;  Aid.  'Epwj/:] 
Jeron),  one  of  the  cities  of  Naplitali,  named  be- 
tween   En-hazor  and  Migdal-el   (Josh.   xix.   38); 
hitherto  unknown,  though  possibly  Yartin.     Gr. 

IRON  (^?.12,  birzel:  Ch.  SbTn^?,  part  Id: 
<ri^7]pos),  mentioned  with  brass  as  the  earliest  of 
known  metals  (Gen.  iv.  22).  As  it  is  rarely  found 
in  its  native  state,  but  generally  in  combination 
with  oxygen,  the  knowledge  of  the  art  of  forging 
iron,  which  is  attributed  to  Tubal  Cain,  argues  an 
acquaintance  with  the  difficulties  which  attend  the 
smelting  of  this  metal.  Iron  melts  at  a  tempera- 
ture of  about  3000°  Fahrenheit,  and  to  produce 
this  heat  large  furnaces  supplied  by  a  strong  blast 
of  air  are  necessary.  But,  however  difficult  it  may 
be  to  imagine  a  knowledge  of  such  appliances  at 
so  early  a  period,  it  is  perfectly  certain  that  the  use 
of  iron  is  of  extreme  antiquity,  and  that  therefore 
some  means  of  overcoming  the  obstacles  in  ques- 
tion must  have  been  discovered.  What  the  process 
may  have  been  is  left  entirely  to  conjecture;  a 
method  is  employed  by  the  natives  of  India,  ex- 
tremely simple  and  of  great  antiquity,  which  though 
rude  is  very  effective,  and  suggests  the  possibility 
of  similar  knowledge  in  an  early  stage  of  civiliza- 
tion (Ure,  Diet.  Arts  and  Scietices,  art.  Steel). 
The  smelting  furnaces  of  .^thalia,  described  by 
Diodorus  (v.  13),  correspond  roughly  with  the  mod- 
ern bloomeries,  remains  of  which  still  exist  in  this 
country  (Napier,  Metalliiryy  of  the  Bible,  p.  140). 
Malleable  iron  was  in  common  use,  but  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  ancients  were  acquainted  with  cast- 
iron.  The  allusions  in  the  Bible  supply  the  fol- 
lowing facts. 

The  natural  wealth  of  the  soil  of  Canaan  is  indi- 
cated by  describing  it  as  "a  land  whose  stones  are 
iron"  (Dent.  viii.  0).  By  this  Winer  (Reaho.  art. 
Eisen)  understands  the  basalt  which  predominates 
in  the  Hauran,  is  the  material  of  which  Og's  bed- 
stead (Deut.  iii.  11)  was  made,  and  contains  a  large 
percentage  of  iron.  It  is  more  probable  that  the 
expression  is  a  poetical  figure.  Pliny  (xxxvi.  11), 
who  is  quoted  as  an  authority,  says  indeed  that 
basalt  is  "ferrei  coloris  atque  duritiae,"  but  doee 
not  hint  that  iron  was  ever  extracted  from  it.  The 
book  of  Job  contains  passages  which  indicate  that 
iron  was  a  metal  well  known.  Of  the  manner  of 
procuring  it,  we  learn  that  "iron  is  taken  from 
dust "  (xxviii.  2).  It  dot?s  not  follow  from  Job 
xix.  24,  that  it  was  used  for  a  writing  implement, 
though  such  may  have  been  the  case,  any  more 
than  that  adamant  was  employed  fcr  the  same  pur- 
pose (Jer.  xvii.  1 ),  or  that  shoes  were  shod  with 
iron  and  brass  (Deut.  xxxiii.  25).  Indeed,  iron  so 
frequently  occurs  in  {loetic  figures,  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  discrimuiate  l)etween  its  literal  and  meta- 
phorical sense.  In  such  passages  as  the  following 
in  which  a  "  tjoke  of  iron  "  (Deut.  xxviii.  48)  d© 
notes  hard  service;  a  '■'■  rod  of  iron  ''  (Ps  ii.  9), 
government;  a  "/?j7^r  of  iron  "  (Jo:  i  18. 


IRON  1148 

celebrated  as  workers  in  iron  in  very  ancient  'imet 

(^sch.  Prom.  733).  They  were  ideritifiea  by 
Strabo  with  the  Chaldaei  of  his  day  (xii.  549),  and 
the  mines  which  they  worked  were  in  the  moun- 
tains skirting  the  sea-coast.  The  produce  of  their 
labor  is  supposed  to  be  alluded  to  in  Jer.  xv.  12,  aa 
being  of  superior  quality.  Iron  mines  are  still 
in  existence  on  the  same  coast,  and  the  ore  is  found 
"  in  small  nodular  masses  in  a  dark  yellow  claj 
which  overlies  a  limestone  rock  "  (Smith's  Geog 
Diet.  art.  Chnhjbes). 

It  was  for  a  long  time  supposed  that  the  Kg3T)- 
tians  were  ignorant  of  the  use  of  iron,  and  that 
the  allusions  in  the  Pentateuch  were  anachronisms, 
as  no  traces  of  it  have  been,  found  in  their  monu- 
ments; but  in  the  sepu'chres  at  Thebes  butchera 
are  represented  as  sharpening  their  knives  on  a 
round  bar  of  metal  attached  to  their  aprons,  which 
from  its  blue  color  is  presumed  to  be  steel.  The 
steel  weapons  on  the  tomb  of  Kameses  III.  are  also 
painted  blue ;  those  of  bronze  being  red  (Wilkin- 
son, Anc.  Eg.  iii.  247).  One  iron  mine  only  has 
been  discovered  in  Egypt,  which  was  worked  by 
the  ancients.  It  is  at  Hammami,  between  the  NUe 
and  the  Red  Sea;  the  iron  found  by  Mr.  Burtvu 
was  in  the  form  cf  specular  and  red  ore  {Id  iii. 
246).  That  no  articles  of  iron  should  have  been 
found  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  is 
easily  destroyed  by  exposure  to  the  air  and  moist- 
ure. According  to  Pliny  (xxxiv.  43)  it  was  pre- 
served by  a  coating  of  white  lead,  gypsum,  and 
liquid  pitch.  Bitumen  was  probably  emploj'ed  for 
the  same  purpose  (xxxv.  52).  The  Egyptians  ob- 
tained their  iron  almost  exclusively  from  Assyria 
Proper  in  the  form  of  bricks  or  pigs  (Layard,  Nin. 
ii.  415).  Specimens  of  Assyrian  iron-work  over- 
laid with  bronze  were  discovered  by  Mr.  Layard, 
and  are  now  in  the  British  Museum  {Nin.  and 
Bab.  p.  191).  Iron  weapons  of  various  kinds  were 
found  at  Nimroud,  but  fell  to  pieces  on  exposure 
to  the  air.  Some  portions  of  shields  and  arrow- 
heads {Id.  194,  596)  were  rescued,  and  are  now  in 
England.  A  pick  of  the  same  metal  {Id.  194)  was 
also  found,  as  well  as  part  of  a  saw  (195),  and  the 
head  of  an  axe  (357),  and  remains  of  scale-armor 
and  helmets  inlaid  with  copper  {Nin.  i.  340).  It 
was  used  by  the  Etruscans  for  offensive  weapons, 
as  bronze  for  defensive  armor.  The  Assyrians  had 
daggers  and  arrow-heads  of  copper  mixed  with  iron, 
and  hardened  with  an  alloy  of  tin  (Layard,  Nin. 
ii.  418).  So  in  the  days  of  Homer  war-clubs  were 
shod  with  iron  {II.  vii.  141);  arrows  were  tipped 
with  it  {II.  iv.  123);  it  was  used  for  the  axles  of 
chariots  (//.  v.  723),  for  fetters  {Od.  i.  204),  for 
axes  and  bills  (//.  iv.  485  ;  Od.  xxi.  3,  81). 
Adrastus  {II.  vi.  48)  and  Ulysses  {Od.  xxi.  10) 
reckoned  it  among  their  treasures,  the  iron  weap- 
ons being  kept  in  a  chest  hi  the  treasury  with  the 
gold  and  brass  ( Od.  xjd.  61).  In  Od.  i.  184,  IMentea 
tells  Telemachus  that  he  is  travelling  from  Taphob 
to  Tamese  to  procure  brass  in  exchange  for  irou. 
which  Eustathius  says  was  not  obtained  from  the 
mines  of  the  island,  but  was  the  produce  of  pirat- 
ical excursions  (Millin,  Mineral.  Horn.  p.  115,  2d 
ed.).  Pliny  (xxxiv.  4>)  mentions  iron  as  used 
symbolically  for  a  statue  of  Hercules  at  Thebet 
,  (cf.  Dan.  ii.  33,  v.  4),  and  goblets  of  iron  as  among 

a  The  passage  of  Ezekiel  is  illustrated  oy  the  screens  I  ^V.*:-,    ,_     .     ....        .  .     tt-x  .      -.:,■■.    r^        • 

Ochind  which  the  archers  stand  in  the  representations  |  ^^^^    ^T"*'^'  ^^^^^^'^^  Hitrig,  Furst,  Ge»^l«, 
If  a  siege  on  the  Nimroud  sculptures.  J  o-^  Aufl.).     See  addition  at  the  end  of  the  vexjadn. 

b  •  This  is   the   generally   accepted    meaning    of  i  H 


IRON 

»  itrong  support ;  and  ^^  tJu'esliing  instilments  of 
lion"  (Am.  i.  3),  the  means  of  crcsl  oppression; 
the  hardness  and  heaviness  (Ecclus  xxii.  15)  of 
iron  are  so  clearly  the  prominent  ideas,  that  though 
it  may  have  been  used  for  the  instruments  in  ques- 
tion, such  usage  is  not  of  necessity  indicated. 
The  ^^  furnace  of  iron"  (Deut.  iv.  20;  IK.  viii. 
51)  ia  a  figure  which  vividly  expresses  hard  bond- 
age, as  represented  by  the  severe  labor  which  at- 
tended the  operation  of  smelting.  Iron  was  used 
for  chisels  (Deut.  xxvii.  5),  or  something  of  the 
kind ;  for  axes  (Deut.  xix.  5 ;  2  Iv.  vi.  5,  6 ;  Is.  x. 
34;  Hom.  II.  iv.  485);  for  harrows  and  saws  (2 
Sam.  xii.  31;  1  Chr.  xx.  3);  for  nails  (1  Chr. 
xxii.  3),  and  the  fastenings  of  the  Temple;  for 
weapons  of  war  (1  Sam.  xvii.  7;  Job  xx.  24),  and 
for  war-chariots  (Josh.  xvii.  16,  18;  Judg.  i.  19, 
iv.  3,  13).  The  latter  were  plated  or  studded  with 
it.  Its  usage  in  defensive  armor  is  implied  in  2 
Sam.  xxiii.  7  (cf.  Rev.  tx.  9),  and  as  a  safeguard 
in  peace  it  appears  in  fetters  (Ps.  cv.  18),  prison- 
gates  (Acts  xii.  10),  and  bars  of  gates  or  doors 
(Ps.  cvii.  16;  Is.  xlv.  2),  as  well  as  for  surgical 
purposes  (1  Tim.  iv.  2).  Sheet-iron  was  used  for 
cooking  utensils  (Ez.  iv.  3;  cf.  Lev.  vii.  9),«  and 
bars  of  hammered  iron  are  mentioned  in  Job  xl. 
18,  though  here  the  LXX.  perversely  render  ai^r]- 
pos  x^'^'^^j  "cast-iron."  That  it  was  plentiful  in 
the  time  of  David  appears  from  1  Chr.  xxii.  3.  It 
was  used  by  Solomon,  according  to  Josephus,  to 
clamp  the  large  rocks  with  which  he  built  up  the 
Temple  mount  {Ant.  xy.  11,  §  3);  and  by  Heze- 
kiah's  workmen  to  hew  out  the  conduits  of  Gihon 
(Ecclus.  xlviii.  17).  Images  were  fastened  in  their 
niches  in  later  times  by  iron  brackets  or  clamps 
(Wisd.  xiii.  15).  Agricultural  implements  were 
early  made  of  the  same  material.  In  the  treaty 
made  by  Porsena  was  inserted  a  condition  like  that 
imposed  on  the  Hebrews  by  the  Philistines,  that 
no  iron  should  be  used  except  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses (Plin,  xxxiv.  39). 

The  market  of  Tyre  was  supplied  with  bright  or 
polished  iron  by  the  merchants  of  Dan  and  Javan 
(Ez.  xxvii.  19).  Some,  as  the  LXX.  and  Vulg., 
render  this  "  wrought  iron :  "  so  De  Wette  "ge- 
Bchmiedetes  Eisen."  ^  The  Targum  has  "bars  of 
iron,"  which  would  correspond  with  the  stricturce 
of  Pliny  (xxxiv.   41).      But  Kimchi  {Lex.  s.  v.) 

expounds  niCS?37,  'dsholh,  as  "  pure  and  polished  " 

(=  Span,  acero,  steel),  in  which  he  is  supported  by 
R.  Sol.  Parchon,  and  by  Ben  Zeb,  who  gives 
"gliinzend"  as  the  equivalent  (comp.  the  Ho- 
meric aWcou  aiS-npos,  U-  vii.  473).  If  the  Javan 
alluded  to  were  Greece,  and  not,  as  Bochart  {Pha- 
kf),  ii.  21)  seems  to  think,  some  place  in  Arabia, 
there  might  be  reference  to  the  iron  mines  of  Mace- 
donia, spoken  of  m  the  decree  of  ^milius  Paulus 
(Liv.  xlv.  29);  but  Bochart  urges,  as  a  very  strong 
argument  in  support  of  his  theory,  that,  at  the  time 
»f  Ezekiel's  prophecy,  the  Tyrians  did  not  depend 
upon  Greece  for  a  supply  of  cassia  and  cinnamon, 
which  are  associated  with  iron  in  the  merchandise 
of  Dan  and  Javan,  but  that  rather  the  contrary 
was  the  case.  Pliny  (xxxiv.  41)  awards  the  palro 
to  the  iron  of  Serica,  that  of  Parthia  being  next 
li  excellence.     The  Chalybes  of  the  Pontus  wer* 


1144 


IRON 


fte  offerings  in  the  temple  of  Mars  the  Avenger,  at 
Rome.  Alyattes  the  Lydian  dedicated  to  the  ora- 
cle at  Deli^hi  a  small  goblet  of  iron,  the  workman- 
ihip  of  Glaucus  of  Chios,  to  whom  the  discovery  of 
the  art  of  soldering  this  metal  is  attributed  (Her, 
i.  25).  The  goblet  is  described  by  Pausanias  (x. 
16).  From  the  fact  tliat  such  offerings  were  made 
to  the  temples,  and  that  Achilles  gave  as  a  prize 
of  contest  a  rudely-shaped  mass  of  the  same  metal 
{11.  xxiii.  826),  it  has  been  argued  that  in  early 
times  iron  was  so  little  known  as  to  be  greatly 
esteemed  for  its  rarity.  That  this  was  not  the 
case  in  the  time  of  Lycurgus  is  evident,  and  Ho- 
mer attaches  to  it  no  epithet  which  would  denote 
its  nreciousness  (Millin,  p.  106).  There  is  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  discovery  of  brass  preceded 
that  of  iron  (Lucr.  v.  1292),  though  httle  weight 
can  be  attached  to  the  line  of  Hesiod  often  quoted 
as  decisive  on  this  point  {Ojj.  et  Dies,  150).  The 
Dactyli  Idaei  of  Crete  were  supijosed  by  the  an- 
cients to  >»ave  the  merit  of  being  the  first  to  dis- 
cover the  properties  of  iron  (Plin.  vii.  57;  Diod. 
Sic.  V.  64),  as  the  Cyclops  were  said  to  have 
invented  the  iron-smith's  forge  (Plin.  vii.  57). 
According  to  the  Arundelian  marbles,  iron  was 
known  b.  c.  1370,  while  Larcher  ( Chronol.  (t  Herod. 
p.  570)  assigns  a  still  earlier  date,  b.  c.  1537. 
Enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  allusions 
to  iron  in  the  Pentateuch  and  other  parts  of  the 
0.  T.  are  not  anachronisms. 

There  is  considerable  doubt  whether  the  ancients 
•were  acquainted  with  cast-iron.  The  rendering 
given  by  the  LXX.  of  Job  xl.  18,  as  quoted  above, 
seems  to  imply  that  some  method  nearly  like  that 
of  casting  was  known,  and  is  supported  by  a  pas- 
sage in  Diodorus  (v.  13).  The  inhabitants  of 
JEthalia  traded  with  pig-iron  in  masses  hke  large 
sponges  to  Dicaearchia  and  other  marts,  where  it 
was  bought  by  the  smiths  and  fashioned  into  vari- 
ous moulded  forms  {irXdcrixaTa  iravToMira). 

In  Ecclus.  xxxviii.  28,  we  have  a  picture  of  the 
interior  of  an  iron-smith's  (Is.  xliv.  12)  workshop: 
the  smith,  parched  with  the  smoke  and  heat  of  the 
furnace,  sitting  beside  his  anvil  and  contemplating 
the  unwrought  iron,  his  ears  deafened  with  the 
din  of  the  heavy  hammer,  his  eyes  fixed  on  his 
model,  and  never  sleeping  till  he  has  accomplished 
his  task.     [Steel.]  W.  A.  W. 

*  Iron  of  a  superior  quality  is  mined  and  worked 
at  the  present  day  near  the  village  of  Duma  in 
Mount  Lebanon.  It  is  especially  valuable  for  shoe- 
ing beasts  of  burden,  and  is  greatly  sought  for 
through  Northern  Syria.  It  is  probable  that  the 
merchants  of  Dan,  who  had  possessions  in  the  ex- 
treme north  of  Palestine  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Csosarea  Philippi,  derived  from  this  source  the 
"  bright  iron,"  which  is  probably  to  be  translated 
«*  wrought  iron,"  Ezr.  xxvii.  19. 

This  view  commends  itself  the  more  if  we  suppose 
Java  to  be  in  Arabia,  as  the  mention  of  the  two 
places  together  makes  it  probable  that  they  had  at 
least  a  common  entrepot  for  their  wares.  This 
would  be  possible  at  the  junction  of  the  roads  of 
Ga-lesyiia  from  the  north,  with  those  from  Gilead 
on  the  east  in  the  i^ossessions  of  Dan,  and  would 
explain  the  circumstance  that  to  Tyre  Dan  was  a 
wiirce  of  supply  of  iron  frcm  Mount  Lebanon,  and 
9f  cassia  and  calamus  from  Arabia. 

Still  further,  the  geographical  position  of  this 
entrepot  corresponds  with  the  language  of  the  con- 
'ext.  In  ver.  18  the  prophet  speaks  of  Damascus; 
in  ver.  19,  of  Dan  with  its  trade  with  Javan ;  in 


ISAAC 

ver.  20,  of  the  caravans  from  Dedan,  which  wonU 
come  in  toward  Tyie  to  the  southward  of  Dan* 
finally,  ver.  21,  of  those  from  Arabia,  which  wouW 
come  from  a  still  more  southerly  direction. 

G.  E.  P 

IR'PEEL  (bS^-l';  Iwhom  God  heals,  or  Got 
repairs,  builds]:  Ka(pa.v',  [Aid.]  Alex.  'Up(pa^\, 
Jarephel),  one  of  the  cities  of  Benjamin  (Josh, 
xviii.  27),  occurring  in  the  list  between  Kekem  and 
Taralah.  No  trace  has  yet  been  discovered  of  its 
situation.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  Ir  in  this 
name  is  radically  different  from  that  in  the  names 
Ir-nahash,  Ir-shemesh,  etc.  Taken  as  a  Hebrew 
name  it  is  Irpe-El  =  "  restored  by  God."         G. 

IR-SHE'MESH  (IT^^^  "^^V  =city  oj  the 
sun:  iriKeis  ^ajx^Jiavs'i  Alex.  ttoAzs  2a^€s:  IJer- 
semes,  id  est,  Cicitas  Solis),  a  city  of  the  D.inites 
(Josh.  xix.  41),  probably  identical  with  Beth- 
RHEMKSH,  and,  if  not  identical,  at  least  connected 
with  Mount  Heres  (Judg.  i.  35),  the  "mount 
,.«  the  sun."  Beth-shemesh  is  probably  the  later 
form  of  the  name.  In  other  cases  Beth  appears  to 
have  been  substituted  for  other  older  terms  [see 
Baal-meon,  etc.],  such  as  Ir  or  Ar,  which  is  un- 
questionably a  very  ancient  word.  G. 

I'RU  {T^^V  [watch,  Fiirst] :  "Hp,  Alex.  Upa] 
[Comp.  'Ipoi^:]  //w'),  the  eldest  son  of  the  great 
Caleb  son  of  Jephunneh  (1  Chr.  iv.  15).  It  is  by 
some  supposed  that  this  name  should  be  Ir,  the 
vowel  at  the  end  being  merely  the  conjunction 
"  and,"  properly  belonging  to  the  following  name. 

*  It  is  true,  T  more  frequently  connects  the 
nouns  in  such  an  enumeration ;  but  that  reason  for 
changing  Iru  to  Ir  is  not  decisive.  The  copula  may 
also  be  omitted  between  them  (see  1  Chr.  iv.  20, 
24,  Ac).  H. 

I'SAAC  ipr^T,,  or  pnip"^,  laughter  [jnocker, 
laughter,  Fiirst]  :  'Io-ocJk*  \_Jsnnc]),  the  son  whom 
Sarah,  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  promise,  bore 
to  Abraham  in  the  hundredth  year  of  his  age,  at 
Gerar.  In  his  infancy  he  became  the  object  of 
Ishmael's  jealousy ;  and  in  his  youth  (when  twenty- 
five  years  old,  according  to  Joseph.  Ant.  i.  13,  §  2) 
the  victim,  in  intention,  of  Abraham's  great  sacri- 
ficial act  of  faith.  When  forty  years  old  he  married 
Rebekah  his  cousin,  by  whom,  when  he  was  sixty, 
he  had  two  sons,  Esau  and  Jacob.  In  his  seventy- 
fifth  year  he  and  his  brother  Ishmael  buried  their 
father  Abraham  in  the  cave  of  Machpelah.  From 
his  abode  by  the  well  Lahai-roi,  in  the  South 
Country  —  a  barren  tract,  comprising  a  few  pas- 
tures and  wells,  between  the  hills  of  Judaea  and  the 
Arabian  desert,  touching  at  its  western  end  Phil- 
istia,  and  on  the  north  Hebron  —  Isaac  was  driven 
by  a  famine  to  Gerar.  Here  Jehovah  appeared  to 
him  and  bade  him  dwell  there  and  not  go  over  into 
Egj^Dt,  and  renewed  to  him  the  promises  made  to 
Abraham.  Here  he  subjected  himself,  hke  Abraham 
in  the  same  place  and  under  like  circumstances 
(Gen.  XX.  2),  to  a  rebuke  from  Abimelech  the 
Philistuie  king  for  an  equivocation.  Here  he  ac- 
quired great  wealth  by  his  flocks ;  but  was  repeat- 
edly dispossessed  by  the  Philistines  of  the  well* 
which  he  sunk  at  convenient  stations.  At  Beer- 
sheba  Jehovah  appeared  to  him  by  night  ano 
blessed  him,  and  he  built  an  altar  there:  there,  too 
like  Abraham,  he  received  a  visit  from  the  Philip 
tine  king  Abimelech,  with  whom  he  made  a  co>^ 
enant  of  peace.     After  the  deceit  by  which  Jaor*^ 


i 


k 


ISAAC 

lOqnind  his  father's  blessing,  Isaac  senl  his  son  to 
K^  a  wife  in  Padanaram ,  and  all  that  we  know 
of  him  during  the  last  forty-three  years  of  his  life 
b  that  he  saw  that  son,  with  a  large  and  prosper- 
ous family,  return  to  him  at  Hebron  (xxxv.  27) 
l-efore  he  died  there  at  the  age  of  180  years. 
He  was  buried  by  his  two  sons  in  the  cave  of 
Machpelah. 

In  the  N.  T.  reference  is  made  to  the  offering 
of  Isaac  (Heb.  xi.  17;  and  James  ii.  21)  and  to  his 
blessing  his  sons  (Heb.  xi.  20).  As  the  child  of 
the  promise,  and  as  the  progenitor  of  the  children 
of  the  promise,  he  is  contrasted  with  Ishmael  (Rom. 
ix.  7,  10;  Gal.  iv.  28;  Heb.  xi.  18).  In  our  Lord's 
remarkable  argument  with  the  Sadducees,  his  his- 
tory is  carried  beyond  the  point  at  which  it  is  left 
in  the  O.  T.,  into  and  beyond  the  grave.  Isaac, 
of  whom  it  was  said  (Gen.  xxxv.  29)  that  he  was 
gathered  to  his  people,  is  represented  as  still  Uving 
to  God  (Luke  xx.  38,  (fee);  and  by  the  same  Divine 
authority  he  is  proclaimed  as  an  acknowledged  heir 
of  future  glory  (Matt.  viii.  11,  &c.). 

II.  Such  are  the  facts  which  the  Bible  supplies 
of  the  longest-lived  of  the  three  Patriarchs,  the 
least  migratory,  the  least  prolific,  and  the  least 
favored  with  extraordinary  divine  revelations.  A 
few  events  in  this  quiet  life  have  occasioned  dis- 
cussion. 

(a.)  The  signification  of  Isaac's  name  is  thrice 
alluded  to  (Gen.  xvii.  17,  xviii.  12,  xxi.  6).  Josephus 
(Ant.  i.  12,  §  2)  refers  to  the  second  of  those  pas- 
sages for  the  origin  of  the  name ;  Jerome  (  (incest. 
Heb.  in  Gen.)  vehemently  confines  it  to  the  first; 
Ewald  (Gesch.  i.  42-5),  without  assigning  reasons, 
gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  all  three  passages  have 
been  added  by  different  writers  to  the  original 
record. 

(b.)  It  has  been  asked  what  are  the  persecutions 
sustained  by  Isaac  from  Ishmael  to  which  St.  Paul 
refers  (Gal.  iv.  29)?     If,  as  is  generally  supposed, 

he  refers  to  Gen.  xxi.  9,  then  the  word  pH^'p. 
waiCovTa,  may  be  translated  mocklnf/,  as  in  the 
A.  v.,  or  insulting,  as  in  xxxix.  14,  and  in  that 
case  the  trial  of  Isaac  was  by  means  of  "  cruel 
mockings "  {ifiiraiyixcav),  in  the  language  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (xi.  36).  Or  the  word  may 
include  the  signification  paying  idolatrous  tcorsMp, 
as  in  Ex.  xxxii.  6,  or  fighting,  as  in  2  Sam.  ii.  14. 
These  three  significations  are  given  by  Jarchi,  who 
relates  a  Jewish  tradition  (quoted  more  briefly  by 
Wetstein  on  Gal.  iv,  29)  of  Isaac  suflTering  personal 
violence  from  Ishnuiel,  a  tradition  which,  as  Mr. 
EUicott  thinks,  was  adopted  by  St.  Paul.  [Hagak, 
Amer.  ed.]  The  English  reader  who  is  content 
with  our  own  version,  or  the  scholar  who  may 
prefer  either  of  the  other  renderings  of  Jarchi,  will 
be  at  no  loss  to  connect  Gal.  iv.  29  with  Gen.  xxi.  9. 
But  Origen  {in  Gen.  Horn.  vii.  §  3),  and  Augustine 
{Sermo  iii.),  and  apparently  Professor  Jowett  (on 
Gal.  iv.  29),  not  observing  that  the  gloss  of  the 
LXX.  and  the  I^atin  versions  "•  playing  with  he, 
?on  Isaac''  forms  no  part  of  the  simple  statement 

in  Genesis,  and  that  the  words  r:n"'_>^,  iraiCovra, 
are  not  to  be  confined  to  the  meaning  "  playing, 
leera  to  doubt  (as  jNIr.  EUicott  does  on  othei 
pounds),  whetlier  the  passage  in  Genesis  beari  the 
construction  apparently  put  upon  it  by  St.  Paul. 
On  the  other  hand,  Rosenmiiller  (Schol.  {>%  Gen 
Kxi.  9)  even  goes  so  far  as  to  characterize  ediccKe  — 
"oersecuted"  — as  a  very  excellent  interpretation 


ISAAC 


1145 


of  pn^p.  (See  Drusiiis  on  Gen.  xxi.  9  in  CriL 
Sacr.,  and  Estius  on  Gal.  iv.  29.) 

(c.)  The  offering  up  of  Isaac  by  Abraham  ha. 
been  viewed  in  various  lights.  It  is  the  subject  of 
five  dissertations  by  Frischmuth  in  the  Thes.  TheoL 
Philul.  p.  197  (attached  to  Crit.  Sacri).  By  Bishop 
Warburton  (Div.  Leg.  b.  vi.  §  5)  the  whole  tran- 
saction was  regarded  as  "  merely  an  information  by 
action  (compare  Jer.  xxvii.  2;  Ez.  xii.  3;  Hos.  i.  2), 
instead  of  words,  of  the  great  sacrifice  of  Christ  for 
the  redemption  of  mankind,  given  at  the  earnest 
request  of  Abraham,  who  longed  impatiently  to  see 
Christ's  day."  This  view  is  adopted  by  Dean 
Graves  {On  the  Pentateuch,  vt.  iii.  §  4),  and  haa 
become  popukr.  But  it  is  pronounced  to  be  un- 
satisfactory by  Davison  {Primiticc  ISacriJice,  pt. 
iv.  §  2),  who,  pleading  for  the  progressive  com- 
munication of  the  knowledge  of  the  Christian  atone- 
ment, protests  against  the  assumption  of  a  con- 
temporar}'  disclosure  of  the  import  of  the  sacrifice 
to  Abraham,  and  points  out  that  no  expiation  or 
atonement  was  joined  with  this  emblematic  oblation, 
which  consequently  symbolized  only  the  act,  not 
the  power  or  virtue  of  the  Christian  sacrifice.  Mr. 
Maurice  {Patriarchs  and  Lawgivers,  iv.)  draws 
attention  to  the  offering  of  Isaac  as  the  last  and 
culminating  point  (compare  Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  430-4) 
in  the  divine  education  of  Abraham,  that  which 
taught  him  the  meaning  and  ground  of  self-sacri- 
fice. The  same  line  of  thought  is  followed  up  in  a 
very  instructive  and  striking  sermon  on  the  sacrifice 
of  Abraham  in  Buctrine  of  Sacrifice,  iii.  33-48. 
Some  German  writers  have  spoken  of  the  whole 
transaction  as  a  dream  (Eichhorn),  or  a  myth  (De 
Wette),  and  treat  other  events  in  Isaac's  hfe  as 
slips  of  the  pen  of  a  Jewish  transcriber.  Even  the 
merit  of  novelty  cannot  be  claimed  for  such  views, 
which  appear  to  have  been  in  some  measure  fore- 
stalled in  the  time  of  Augustine  {Sermo  ii.  de  Ten- 
tatione  AbrahiB).  They  are,  of  course,  irreconcilable 
with  the  declaration  of  St.  James,  that  it  was  a 
work  by  which  Abraham  was  justified.  Eusebius 
{Prcep.  Evang.  iv.  16,  and  i.  10)  has  preserved  a 
singular  and  inaccurate  version  of  the  offering  of 
Isaac  in  an  extract  from  the  ancient  Phoenician 
historian  Sanchoniathon ;  but  it  is  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  the  widely-spread  (see  Ewald,  Alterthiiiner, 
p.  79,  and  Thomson's  Bampton  Lectures,  1853,  p. 
38)  heathen  practice  of  sacrificing  human  beings 
received  any  encouragement  from  a  sacrifice  which 
Abraham  was  forbidden  to  accomplish  (see  Water- 
land,  Works,  iv.  203).  Some  writers  have  found 
for  this  transaction  a  kind  of  parallel  —  it  amounts 
to  no  more  —  in  the  classical  legends  of  Iphigenia 
and  Phrixus.  The  story  of  Iphigenia,  which  in- 
spired the  devout  Athenian  dramatist  with  sublime 
notions  of  the  import  of  sacrifice  and  suffering 
(.^sch.  Agam.  147  ff.),  supplied  the  Roman  infidel 
only  with  a  keen  taunt  against  religion  (Lucret.  i. 
102),  just  as  the  great  trial  which  perfected  the 
faith  of  Abraham  and  moulded  the  character  of 
Isaac,  draws  from  the  Romanized  Jew  of  the  first 
century  a  rhetorical  exhibition  of  his  own  luiac- 
quaintance  with  the  meaning  of  sacrifice  (see  Joseph. 
Ant.  i.  13,  §  3). 

((/.)  No  passage  of  his  life  has  produced  more 
reproach  to  Isaac's  character  than  that  which  is 
reco'-'^ed  in  Gen.  xxvi.  6-11.  Abraham's  conduct 
while  in  Egypt  (xii.)  and  in  Gerar  (xx.),  where  he 
concealed  the  closer  connection  between  himself  .and 
his  wife,  was  imitated  by  Isaac  in  Gerar.     On  th4 


1146 


ISAAC 


roe  hand,  this  has  been  regarded  by  avowed  ad- 
rersaries  of  Christianity  as  involvir  g  the  guilt  of 
"  lying  and  endeavoring  to  betray  the  wife's  chas- 
tity," and  even  by  Christians,  undoubtedly  zealous 
for  truth  and  right,  as  the  conduct  of  "  a  very  poor 
paltry  earthworm,  displaying  cowardice,  selfishness, 
readiness  to  put  his  wife  in  a  terrible  hazard  for 
his  own  sake."  But,  on  the  other  hand,  with 
more  re\erenco,  more  kindness,  and  quite  as  much 
probability,  Waterland,  who  is  no  indiscriminate 
apologist  for  the  errors  of  good  men,  after  a  minute 
examination  of  the  circun)stances,  concludes  that 
the  patriarch  did  "  right  to  evade  the  difficulty  so 
long  as  it  could  lawfully  be  evaded,  and  to  await 
and  see  w  hether  Divine  Providence  might  not,  some 
way  or  other,  interpose  before  the  last  extremity. 
The  event  answered.  God  did  interpose."  {Say^ 
ture  Vindicated,  in  Works,  iv.  188,  190.) 

(e.)  Isaac's  tacit  acquiescence  in  the  conduct  of 
his  sons  has  been  brought  into  discussion.  Perhaps 
p-airbairn  ( Typohgy,  i.  33-t)  seems  scarcely  justified 
by  facts  in  his  conclusion  that  the  later  days  of 
Isaac  did  not  fulfill  the  promise  of  his  earlier ;  that, 
instead  of  reaching  to  high  attainments  in  faith,  he 
fell  into  general  feebleness  and  decay,  moral  and 
bodily,  and  made  account  only  of  the  natural  ele- 
ment in  judging  of  his  sons.     The  inexact  transla 

tion  (to  modern  ears)  of  "^^^j  prey  taken  in  hunt- 
ing, by  "  venison  "  (Gen.  xxv.  28),  may  have  con- 
tributed to  form,  in  the  minds  of  English  readers, 
a  low  opinion  of  Isaac.  Nor  can  that  opinion  be 
supported  by  a  reference  to  xxvii.  4;  for  Isaac's 
desire  at  such  a  time  for  savory  meat  may  have 
ipiiing  either  from  a  dangerous  sickness  under 
h'hich  he  was  laboring  (Blunt,  Undesigned  Coin- 
tidences,  pt.  i.  ch.  vi.),  or  from  the  same  kind  of 
impulse  preceding  inspiration  as  prompted  Elisha 
(2  K.  iii.  15)  to  demand  the  soothing  influence  of 
music  before  he  spoke  the  word  of  the  Lord.  For 
sadness  and  grief  ai-e  enumerated  in  the  Gemara 
among  the  impediments  to  the  exercise  of  the  gift 
of  prophecy  (Smith's  Select  Discourses,  vi.  245). 
The  reader  who  bears  in  mind  the  pecuHarities  of 
Isaac's  character,  will  scarcely  infer  from  those 
passages  any  fresh  accession  of  mental  or  moral 
feebleness. 

III.  Isaac,  the  gentle  and  dutiful  son,  the  faith- 
ful and  constant  husband,  became  the  father  of  a 
house  in  which  order  did  not  reign.  If  there  were 
iny  very  prominent  points  in  his  character  they 
were  not  brought  out  by  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  was  placed.  He  appears  less  as  a  man  of  action 
than  as  a  man  of  suffering,  from  which  he  is  gen- 
erally dehvered  without  any  direct  effort  of  his  own. 
Thus  he  suffers  as  the  object  of  Ishmael's  mocking, 
of  the  intended  sacrifice  on  Moriah,  of  the  rapacity 
of  the  Philistines,  and  of  Jacob's  stratagem.  But 
the  thought  of  his  sufferings  is  effaced  by  the  ever- 
preeent  tokens  of  God's  favor;  and  he  suffers  with 
the  calmness  and  dignity  of  a  conscious  heir  of 
heavenly  promises,  without  uttering  any  complaint, 
and  generally  without  conmiitting  any  action  by 
which  he  would  forfeit  respect.  Free  from  violent 
passions,  he  was  a  man  of  constant,  deep,  and  tender 
affections.  Thus  he  mourned  for  his  mother  till 
her  place  was  filled  by  his  wife.  His  sons  were 
nurtured  at  home  till  a  late  period  of  their  lives ; 
and  neither  his  grief  for  Esau's  marriage,  nor  the 
anxiety  in  which  he  was  involved  in  consequence 
of  Jacob's  deceit,  estranged  either  of  them  from  his 
i^tionate  care.     His  life  of  sohtary  blameJessness 


ISAAC 

must  have  been  sustained  by  strong  habitual  piet] 
such  as  showed  itself  at  the  time  of  Kebekah's  bar 
renness  (xxv.  21;,  in  his  special  intercourse  wi^^ 
God  at  Gerar  and  Beer-sheba  (xxvi.  2,  23),  in  th< 
solemnity  with  which  he  Ijestows  his  blessing  and 
refuses  to  change  it.  His  life,  judged  by  a  worldly 
standard,  might  seem  inactive,  ignoble,  and  unfruit- 
ful ;  but  the  "  guileless  years,  prayers,  gracious  acts 
and  daily  thank-offerings  of  pastoral  life"  are  not 
to  be  so  esteemed,  although  the}  make  no  show  in 
history.  Isaac's  character  may  not  have  exercised 
any  commanding  hifluence  upon  either  his  own  or 
succeeding  generations  ;  but  it  was  sufficiently 
marked  and  consistent  to  win  respect  and  envy  from 
his  contemporaries.  By  his  posterity  his  name  is 
always  joined  in  equal  honor  with  those  of  Abraham 
and  Jacob;  and  so  it  was  even  used  as  part  of  the 
formula  which  Egyptian  magicians  in  the  time  of 
Origen  {Contra  Celsum,  i.  22)  employed  as  eflaca- 
ciousto  bind  the  demons  whom  they  adjured  (com p. 
Gen.  xxxi.  42,  53). 

If  Abraham's  enterprising,  unsettled  life  fore- 
shadowed the  early  history  of  his  descendants;  if 
Jacob  was  a  type  of  the  careful,  commercial,  un- 
warlike  character  of  their  later  days,  Isaac  may 
represent  the  middle  period,  in  which  they  lived 
apart  from  nations,  and  enjoyed  possession  of  the 
fertile  land  of  promise. 

IV.  The  typical  view  of  Isaac  is  barely  referred 
to  in  the  N.  T. ;  but  it  is  drawn  out  with  minute 
particularity  by  Philo  and  those  interjjreters  of 
Scripture  who  were  influenced  by  Alexandrian  phi- 
losophy. Thus  in  Philo,  Isaac  =  laughter  =  the 
most  exquisite  enjoyment  =  the  soother  and  cheerer 
of  peace-loving  souls,  is  foreshadowed  in  the  facts 
that  his  father  had  attained  100  3ears  (the  perfect 
number)  when  he  was  born,  and  that  he  is  spe- 
cially designated  as  given  to  his  parents  by  God. 
His  birth  from  the  mistress  of  Abraham's  house- 
hold symbolizes  happiness  proceeding  fi-om  pre- 
domhiant  wisdom.  His  attachment  to  one  wife 
(Kebekah  =  perseverance)  is  contrasted  with  Abra- 
ham's multiplied  connections  and  with  Jacob's  toil- 
won  wives,  as  showing  the  superiority  of  Isaac's 
heaven-born,  self-sufficing  wisdom,  to  the  accumu- 
lated knowledge  of  Abraham  and  the  painful  exjje- 
rience  of  Jacob.  In  the  intended  sacrifice  of  Isaac 
Philo  sees  only  a  sign  that  laughter  =  rejoicing  is 
the  prerogative  of  God,  and  is  a  fit  offering  to  Him, 
and  that  He  gives  back  to  obedient  man  as  nmch 
happiness  as  is  good  for  him.  Clement  of  Rome 
(ch.  31),  with  characteristic  soberness,  merely  re- 
fers to  Isaac  as  an  example  of  faith  in  God.  In 
TertuUian  he  is  a  pattern  of  monogamy  and  a  type 
of  Christ  bearing  the  cross.  But  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria finds  an  allegorical  meaning  in  the  incidents 
which  connect  Abimelech  with  Isaac  and  Bebekali 
(Gen.  xxvi.  8)  as  well  as  in  the  offering  of  Isaac. 
In  this  latter  view  he  is  followed  by  Origen,  and 
by  Augustine,  and  by  Christian  expositors  gener- 
aUy.  The  most  minute  particulars  of  that  tran- 
saction are  iv.vested  with  a  spiritual  meanhig  by 
such  writers  as  Eabanus  Maurus,  in  Gin.  §  iii. 
Abraham  is  made  a  type  of  the  First  Person  in  the 
blessed  Trinity,  Isaac  of  the  Second ;  the  two  ser- 
vants dismissed  are  the  Jewish  sects  who  did  not 
attain  to  a  perception  of  Christ  in  his  humiliation ; 
the  ass  bearing  the  wood  is  the  Jewish  nation,  to 
whom  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God  which 
they  failed  to  understand;  the  three  days  are  th« 
Patriarchal,  Mosaic,  and  Christian  dispensat'ong 
the  ram  is  Christ  on  the  cross;  the  thicket  the* 


ISAAC 

irho  pUced  him  there.  Modern  English  writers 
hold  firmly  the  typical  significance  -f  the  transac- 
tion, without  extending  it  into  such  detail  (see 
Pearson  on  the  Creed,  i.  243,  251,  ed.  1843;  Fair- 
bairn's  Typoloijy,  i.  332).  A  recent  writer  (A. 
Jukes,  Types  of  Geiiesis),  who  has  shown  much 
ingenuity  in  attaching  a  spiritual  meaning  to  tlie 
characters  and  incidents  in  the  book  of  Genesis, 
regards  Isiiac  as  representing  the  spirit  of  sonship, 
in  a  series  in  which  Adam  represents  human  na- 
ture, Cain  the  carnal  mind,  Abel  the  spiritual, 
Noah  regeneration,  Abraham  the  spirit  of  faith, 
Jacob  the  spirit  of  service,  Joseph  suffering  or 
glory.  With  this  series  may  be  compared  the 
view  of  Ewald  {Gesch.  i.  387-400),  in  which  the 
whole  patriarchal  family  is  a  prefigurative  group, 
comprising  twelve  members  with  seven  distinct 
modes  of  relation:  (1.)  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
are  three  fixthers,  respectively  personifying  active 
power,  quiet  enjoyment,  success  after  struggles,  dis- 
tinguished from  the  rest  as  Agamemnon,  Achilles, 
and  Ulysses  among  the  heroes  of  the  Iliad,  or  as 
the  Trojan  Anchises,  iEneas,  and  Ascanius,  and 
mutually  related  as  Romulus,  Renms,  and  Numa; 
(2.)  Sarah,  with  hagar,  as  mother  and  mistress 
of  the  household;  (b.)  Isaac  as  child;  (4.)  Isaac 
with  Rebekah  as  the  type  of  wedlock  (comp.  Al- 
terthiimer,  p.  233);  (5.)  Leah  and  Rachel  the 
plurality  of  coequal  wives;  (6.)  Deborah  as  nurse 
(compare  Anna  and  Caieta,  jEn.  iv.  654,  and  vii. 
1);  (7.)  I'Jiezer  as  steward,  whose  office  is  com- 
pared to  that  of  the  messenger  of  the  Olympic 
deities. 

V.  Jewish  legends  represent  Isaac  a?  an  angel 
made  before  the  world,  and  descending  to  earth  in 
human  form  (Origen,  in  Joann.  ii.  §  25);  as  one 
of  the  three  men  in  whom  human  suifulness  has 
no  place,  as  one  of  the  six  over  whom  the  angel 
of  death  has  no  power  (Eisenmenger,  Knt.  Jud.  i. 
343,  864).  He  is  said  to  have  been  instructed  in 
divine  knowledge  by  Shem  (Jarchi,  on  Gen.  xxv.). 
The  ordinance  of  evening  prayer  is  ascribed  to  him 
(Gen.  xxiv.  63),  as  that  of  morning  prayer  to 
Abraham  (xix.  27),  and  night  prayer  to  Jacob 
(xxviii.  11)   (Eisenmenger,  /'.'7^^  Jud.  i.  483). 

The  Arabian  traditions  included  in  the  Koran 
represent  Isaac  as  a  model  of  religion,  a  righteous 
person  inspired  with  grace  to  do  good  works,  ob- 
serve prayer,  and  give  alms  (ch.  21),  endowed  with 
the  divine  gifts  of  prophecy,  children,  and  wealth 
(ch.  19).  The  promise  of  Isaac  and  the  offering 
of  Isaac  are  also  mentioned  (ch.  11,  38).  Faith 
ui  a  future  resuri-ection  is  ascribed  to  Abraham; 
but  it  is  connected,  not  as  in  Heb.  xi.  19  with  the 
offering  of  Isaac,  but  with  a  fictitious  miracle  (ch. 
2).  W.  T.  B, 

*  A  few  additional  words  should  be  said  on  some 
of  the  points  introducefl  or  suggested  in  the  fore- 
going article. 

It  is  well  to  notice  in  regard  to  the  origin  of 
Isaac's  name,  that  while  it  was  given  by  divine 
command  (Gen.  xvii.  19),  the  reason  for  giving  it 
is  not  explicitly  stated.  The  historian  employs  the 
word  on  which  the  name  is  founded  just  before 
•er.  17),  in  speaking  of  Abraham's  joy  on  being 
assured  that  the  child  of  promise  was  about  to  be 
Dm  after  so  long  a  delay;  and  again,  shortly  after 
khat  (xviii.  12),  in  speaking  of  Sarah's  incredulity 
as  to  the  possibility  of  her  becoming  a  mother  at 
to  advanced  an  age.  We  may  infer,  therefore,  ^ 
that  the  name  vas  designed  to  embody  and  com  | 
loemorate  these  intidents  in  the  family-history.    It ; 


ISAAC  11 17 

represents,  indeed,  very  different  states  of  mind 
but  no  violence  is  done  thereby  to  the  Hebre» 
word,  which  readily  admits  of  the  twofold  combi 
nation.  No  doubt  Sarah  refers  once  more  to  thj 
signification  of  the  name,  on  the  occasion  of  for- 
mally giving  it  to  the  child  at  the  time  of  circum- 
cision (Gen.  xxi.  3  ff.);  but  in  that  instance  her 
object  was  simply  to  recognize  in  the  better  sense 
of  the  name  a  symbol  and  pledge  of  joy  both  to 
herself  and  to  the  multitude  of  others  who  should 
be  blessed  in  the  promised  seed.  Such  reasons  for 
the  name  are  certainly  not  inconsistent  with  each 
other,  and,  still  less,  are  they  so  inconsistent  as  to 
discredit  the  narrative  as  one  made  up  from  con- 
tradictory sources.  For  some  good  remarks  on  the 
significance  of  "  birth-names,"  the  readier  may  con- 
sult Wilkinson's  Person  tl  Names  of  the  Bible,  pp 
256-312  (Loud.  1865). 

It  will  be  noticed  above  that  some  of  the  opin- 
ions respecting  the  typical  character  of  Abraham's 
offering  up  of  Isaac  extend  the  analogy  to  numer- 
ous and  very  minute  correspondences.  It  is  of 
some  importance  here  to  distinguish  between  such 
opinions  of  interpreters  and  the  explicit  teaching 
of  Scripture  on  this  subject ;  so  as  not  to  make  the 
sacred  writers  answerable  for  views  or  principles  of 
exegesis  in  the  allegorizing  of  the  O.  T.  history, 
which  in  the  hands  of  some  expositors  have  led  to 
very  fanciful  conclusions.  It  seems  unreasonable 
to  deny  altogether  a  symbolic  significance  to  this 
sacrificial  act  and  its  concomitants,  both  on  account 
of  its  suitableness  in  itself  considered  to  shadow 
forth  Christian  ideas  and  relations,  and  abo  on 
account  of  some  hints  given  by  Paul  which  point 
in  that  direction.  The  most  extended  reference  to 
Isaac  in  the  N.  T.  is  thai,  in  Gal.  iv.  21-31.  Yet 
the  intimations  there  in  regard  to  his  typical  char- 
acter, leave  it  questionable  whether  the  Apostle 
meant  to  recognize  the  general  facts  of  his  history 
as  in  a  strict  sense  prophetic  of  the  N.  T.  dispen- 
sation, or  simply  to  use  the  facts  for  the  purpose 
of  illustration.  The  points  of  comparison  which 
the  Apostle  draws  out  in  that  passage  are  the  fol- 
lowing :  As  Ishmael  was  bom  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  nature,  so  the  Jews  are  a  mere  natural 
seed;  but  Christians  who  obtain  justification  in 
conformity  with  the  promise  made  to  Abraham, 
are  the  true  promised  seed,  even  as  Isaac  was. 
Further,  as  in  the  history  of  Abraham's  family, 
Islmiael  persecuted  Isaac,  the  child  of  promise,  so 
it  should  not  be  accounted  strange  that  under  the 
Gospel,  the  natural  seed,  that  is,  the  Jews,  should 
persecute  the  spiritual  seed,  that  is.  Christians. 
And  finally,  as  Isaac  was  acknowledged  as  the  true 
heir,  but  Ishmael  was  set  aside,  so  must  it  be  as 
to  the  difference  which  exists  between  Jews  and 
lielievers.  The  former,  or,  in  other  words,  those 
who  depend  on  their  own  merit  for  obtaining  the 
favor  of  God,  will  be  rejected,  while  those  who  seek 
it  by  faith  shall  obtain  the  heavenly  inheritance. 
It  may  be  remarked  that  this  parallelism  (whether 
illustrative  only  or  typical)  enables  the  Apostle 
skilfully  to  recapitulate  the  prominent  doctrines  of 
the  whole  epistle,  and  thus  to  leave  them  so  asso- 
ciated in  the  minds  of  the  Galatians  with  a  famil- 
iar and  strfking  pcrtion  of  sacred  history,  that  th« 
teachings  of  the  epistle  coiUd  never  be  easily  forgot* 
ten. 

No  mention  is  made  in  Genesis  of  Ishmael's  per 
secuting  Isaac ;  but  Ishmael's  mocking  at  the  teas! 
of  weaning  (Gen.  xxi.  8,  9)  reveals  the  spirit  ou! 
'^f  which  an  active  hostility  would  be  expected  t« 


1148  ISAAC 

now  in  due  time.  In  all  probability  Paul  refers 
to  such  effects  of  that  spirit,  well  known  to  the 
Jews  of  his  time,  from  traditionary  sources.  For 
other  examples  of  traditions  thus  recognized  as 
true,  see  under  Abiathau  (Amer.  ed.".  Beer 
(Lei/en  Abraham's,  pp.  49,  170)  shows  that  the 
Jews  found  in  IshmaePs  "  mocking"  a  significant 
intimation  of  the  alienation  and  strife  which  marked 
the  subsequent  relations  of  the  two  brothers  to  each 
other. 

Of  the  precise  age  of  Isaac  at  the  time  of  the 
great  trial  of  Abi-aham'a  faith,  we  obtain  no  knowl- 
edge from  the  Bible.  That  he  was  no  longer  a 
child,  but  was  at  least  approsiching  his  manhood, 
b  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  wood  was  laid  on 
him,  as  the  father  and  the  son  went  up  the  moun- 
tain.    He  is  called  at  that  time  a  lad  in  the  A.  V. 

(Gen.  xxii.  5),  but  the  same  Hebrew  terra  0^5) 
is  applied  also  to  the  servants  wlio  accompanied 
Abraham  on  this  journey.  When  Josephus  speaks 
of  him  as  then  twenty-five  years  old  {Ant.  i.  13, 
§  2),  it  is  a  conjecture  only,  without  any  proof 
from  Scripture  or  elsewhere  to  warrant  so  precise  a 
statement.  The  full  consent  of  Isaac  to  the  wishes 
and  design  of  Abraham  must  be  taken  for  granted, 
as  otherwise  a  resistance  could  have  been  made  by 
the  stronger  to  the  weaker,  rendering  it  difficult  to 
bind  the  victim  to  the  altar.  It  is  evident  from 
Heb.  xi.  19,  that  the  pious  Hebrews  regarded  this 
trial  of  Abraham's  character  as  illustrating  not  so 
much  a  blind  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  what- 
ever this  might  seem  to  require,  as  an  unwavering 
faith  hi  the  jxtwer  and  willingness  of  God  to  bring 
back  the  son  to  life  if  the  father's  hand  must  slay 
him.  The  question  of  the  place  of  sacrifice  is  dis- 
cussed under  MouiAH  (Amer.  ed.).  The  view 
maintained  there,  that  it  was  some  mount  near 
Jerusalem,  in  all  probability  the  temple-mount  itself 
(2  Chr.  iii.  I ),  is  also  that  of  Baumgarten  {Pent't- 
teuc/i,i.  227);  Knobel  {Die  Genesis  erkldr(,Tp.  174); 
Ewald  (Gesch.  i.  476,  comp.  ui.  313  f.,  3e  Aufl.); 
Hengstenberg  (Authentic  des  Pent.  ii.  195  ff.); 
Winer  (Reolw.  ii.  108);  Delitzsch  (Genesis,  p.  406 
ff.,  and  Edinb.  transl.  p.  249);  Kurtz  (Geschichie 
des  A.  Bundes,  i.  213  f.),  and  others. 

It  has  been  made  an  objection  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  Biblical  history  of  the  patriarchs  that  so 
many  similar  events  and  so  many  identical  names 
^f  persons  and  places  occur  in  the  account  of  the 
different  men.  But  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that 
the  dissimilarity  in  what  is  related  of  them  is  incom- 
l^aiably  greater  tliaii  the  agreement.  Their  personal 
characteristics  are  unlike,  bearing  unmistakable 
marks  of  originality  and  individuahty.  Isaac 
never  goes  beyond  the  boimdary  of  Palestine, 
though  Al)raham  and  Jacob  roamed  from  one 
extreme  part  of  the  East  to  another.  The  do- 
mestic e\ents  also  of  their  res^jective  families  were 
as  diverse  as  the  vicissitudes  of  human  condition 
eould  well  permit,  Abimelech's  lawless  seizure  of 
the  wives  of  the  two  strangers  (Gen.  xx.  2  ff.,  and 
ocvi.  6  ff.)  proves  only  that  the  same  passions  be- 
long to  men  in  successive  generations,  and  prompt 
to  the  same  acts  in  the  presence  of  the  same  temp- 
.^ations.  That,  leading  as  they  all  did  a  nomadic 
jfe,  they  should  occasionally  visit  the  same  places, 
was  natural  and  inevitable.  Abraham  and  Isaac 
H)pear  at  different  times  at  (}erar  and  Beer-sheba, 
but  the  fertility  of  these  places,  or  the  opportunity 
ior  obtahiing  water,  accounts  for  that  coincidence. 
Ihe  recurrence  of  the  same  personal  names,  e.  (/., 


ISA  40 

Abimelech  and  Phichol,  in  the  intercourse  oi  Abra 
ham  and  Isaac  with  the  Philistines,  has  its  perfect 
analogy  in  the  present  customs  of  the  East.  It  it 
generally  allowed  that  Ahimklech  (which  see) 
like  Pharaoh  in  Egypt,  and  Caesar  among  the  Ko 
mans,  was  a  royal  title,  and  not  the  name  of  a 
single  individual.  But  Phichol  also,  says  Thom- 
son (Land  and  Bock,  ii.  352),  "may  have  been  a 
name  of  office,  as  mudir  or  niushir  now  is  in  this 
country.  If  one  of  these  officers  is  spoken  of,  his 
name  is  rarely  mentioned.  I,  indeed,  never  knew 
any  but  the  official  title  of  these  Turkish  officers." 
It  is  alleged  as  a  difficulty  that  Beer-sheba  is  repre- 
sented as  receivuig  its  name  from  Abraham,  and 
then  again  from  Isaac,  in  ratification,  in  both  in- 
stances, of  a  similar  covenant  between  them  and 
the  native  chiefs  or  sheiks  of  the  region.  But  we 
have  here  an  example  merely  of  the  reaffirmation 
of  a  name  (as  in  other  instances,  e.  ,9.»Bethel) 
under  new  circumstances  such  as  made  the  name 
doubly  significant,  or  revived  it  after  having  fallen 
partially  into  disuse.  Peer-sheba,  being  well  known 
when  Genesis  was  written,  the  name  occurs  pro- 
leptically  in  xxi.  14.  But  it  was  first  so  called 
when  Abraham  established  there  a  treaty  of  peace 
with  Abimelech  respecting  the  well  in  dispute  be- 
tween them  (Gen.  xxi.  31).  A  similar  difficulty 
arose  between  Isaac  and  the  Abimelech  who  suc- 
ceeded the  other;  and  that  being  settled  by  a  like 
treaty  sealed  with  sacrifices  and  oaths,  Isaac  re- 
imposed  the  appropriate  name  in  token  of  the  same 
happy  issue  of  the  strife.  It  was  this  restoration 
of  the  name,  it  would  seem,  that  made  it  perma- 
nent through  all  time  (Gen.  xxvi.  33). 

Eor  an  outline  of  the  events  in  Isaac's  fife,  and 
a  discussion  of  some  of  the  historical  and  exeget 
ical  questions  which  the  narrative  presents,  the 
reader  may  see  Kurtz's  Geschichie  des  A.  Bundes, 
i.  218-239.  This  writer  regards  "  the  ground-type 
of  Isaac's  character  as  a  certain  elasticity  of  en- 
durance which  does  not  resist  evil,  does  not  con- 
tend ag<»inst  it,  but  overcomes  it  by  patience  and 
concession  (see  Gen.  xxvi.  17-22);  and,  in  this 
respect,  Isaac  is  truly  great  and  worthy  of  admira- 
tion. That  this  greatness  of  men  is  usually  un- 
recognized and  abused,  detracts  nothing  from  its 
worth;  and  that  in  Isaac  also  it  was  mixed  and 
marred  by  a  degree  of  weakness  and  want  of  self 
command  "  shows  that  human  virtue  has  its  una- 
voidable limitations.  Hess  has  sketched  the  patri- 
arch's life  with  mingled  praise  and  censure  in  his 
Geschichie  der  Patrinrchen,  ii.  3-64.  Vaihinger 
has  a  brief  article  on  Isaac  in  Herzog's  Real-Kn- 
cyk.  vii.  81-83;  and  also  Wunderlich,  in  Zeller's 
Bibl.  \Vdrle)b.  i.  730  ff.  The  portraiture  of  Isaac's 
life,  as  this  latter  writer  remarks,  does  not  indeed 
impress  us  as  that  of  an  extraordinary  personality: 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  are  to  remember  that 
the  design  of  Scripture  here  is,  not  to  present  men 
to  US,  even  the  elect  on&s.  as  they  should  be,  but  .as 
they  are.  A  spirit  of  humility  and  honesty  niu=t 
stamp  itself  on  biography  so  written.  It  is  not  t" 
be  forgotten  that  what  we  know  of  the  faulis  of 
good  men  in  the  Bible,  rests,  in  great  part,  on  con- 
fessions which  they  themselves  have  made,  and  no4 
on  the  accusation  of  others.  Bishop  Hall's  refieo- 
tions  on  "Isaac's  offering"  (Coiittin/)lntio7is,  iv. 
bk.  ii.)  are  characteristic  and  interesting-         H- 

*  ISAAC,  twice  used  (Am.  vii.  9,  16,  when 
the  form  is  pntt?"^)  as  a  poetic  synonym  for  Is 
rael,  i.  e  the  ten  "tribes.     Hence  "  the  high-placei 


ISAIAH 

of  Isaac  "  (ver.  9)  are  the  sanctuariea  of  idol  wor- 
ihip  to  which  the  Israelites  resorted  in  their  apostasy 
from  Jehovah.  The  LXX.  go  fuither,  and  find  a 
sarcasm  in  the  use  and  the  import  of  the  name 
{$coij.o\  rov  yeKwTos,  "  altars  of  laughter,"  but  t'.ie 
laughter  to  become  a  mnckury  in  the  day  of  God's 
visitation).  Tliis  hidden  meaning  is  far-fetched. 
Pusey  {Ainos,  p.  211)  regards  it  with  favor.     H. 

ISAI'AH  [3  syl.]  (^n^yK?";,  i.  e.  Yeshayahu 
[Jehovah's  help  or  sfdvation],  always  in  Heb.  Text; 
but  in  Rabbinical  superscriptions  of  the  Heb.  Bible 

Tl^VW^ :  'Hcratas'  fsaias).  The  Hebrew  name, 
our  shortened  form  of  which  occurs  of  other  per- 
sons [see  JESAiAir,  .Ikshaiaii],  sirrnifies  Salvation 
ofJdhu  (a  shortened  form  of  Jehovah).  Reference 
is  plainly  made  by  the  prophet  himself  (Is.  viii.  18 ),  to 
the  significance  of  his  own  name  as  well  as  of  those 

of  his  two  sons.  His  father  Amoz  (\^1DS,  'A^cos) 
must  not  be  confounded,  as  was  done  by  Clemens 
Alexandrmus  and  some  other  of  the  Fathers 
through    their   ignorance    of    Hebrew,    with    the 

prophet  Amos  (DID^,  in  LXX.  also  'Afidos),  who 
flourished  in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  Nothing 
whatever  is  known  of  Amoz.  He  is  said  by  some 
of  the  Rabbins  to  have  been  also  a  prophet,  and 
brother  of  king  Amaziah — the  latter  apparently 
a  mere  guess  founded  on  the  affinity  of  the  two 
names.  Kimchi  (a.  d.  1230)  says  in  his  commen- 
tary on  Is.  i.  1,  "  We  know  not  his  race,  nor  of 
what  tribe  he  was."' 

I.  The  first  verse  of  the  book  runs  thus :  "  The 
vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  wliich  he  saw 
concerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of 
Uzziah,  Jotham,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of 
Judah."  A  few  remarks  on  this  verse  will  open 
the  way  to  the  solution  of  several  inquiries  relative 
to  the  prophet  and  his  writings. 

1.  This  verse  is  not  the  preface  to  the  first  chapter 
only,  nor  to  any  small  portion  of  the  book,  as  is 
clear  from  the  enumeration  of  the  four  kings.  It 
plainly  prefaces  at  least  the  first  part  of  the  book 
(chs.  i.-xxxix.),  which  leaves  off"  in  Hezekiah's 
reign ;  and  as  there  appears  no  reason  for  limiting 
its  reference  even  to  the  first  part,  the  obvious  con- 
struction would  take  it  as  applying  to  the  whole 
book  (comp.  Hos.  i.  1;  Mic.  i.  1).  The  word  vision 
Heb.  is  a  collective  noun,  as  in  2  Chr.  xxxii.  32 ;  the 

]  ^n  is  never  found  in  the  plural.  As  this  is  the 
natural  and  obvious  bearing  of  the  verse, 

2.  We  are  authorized  to  infer,  that  no  part  of 
the  visum,  the  fruits  of  which  are  recorded  in  this 
book,  belongs  to  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  Hypoth- 
eses, therefore,  which  lengthen  Isaiah's  prophetic 
ministration  into  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  appear  to 
lack  historical  foundation.  A  rabbinical  tradition, 
it  is  true,  apparently  confirmed  by  the  diewpia-dT^- 
arau  of  Heb.  xi.  37,  which  can  he  referred  to  no 
other  known  f:ict,  reports  the  prophet  to  hix\e  been 
Bawn  asunder  "  in  the  trunk  of  a  tree  by  order  of 
Manasseh ;  but  the  hostility  of  the  party  opposed 
to  the  service  of  Jehovah,  which  gained  the  ascend- 
ency at  the  accession  of  that  prince,  had  been  suf- 
ficiently excited  by  the  prophet  during  tne  reign  of 
his  predecessor  to  prompt  them  to  the  murder, 
nlhout  our  lengthening  the  period  of  his  prophe- 


ISAIAH 


114S 


a  The  traditional  spot  of  the  martyrdom  is  a  very 
lid  mu'.b«si7-tree   which  stands   neai    the   Pool  of 


sying  beyond  the  limits  which  this  verse 
For  indeed  — 

3.  Isaiah  must  have  been  an  old  man  at  the  close 
of  Hezekiah's  reign.  The  ordinary  chronology  give? 
758  B.  c.  for  the  date  of  Jotham's  accession,  and 
G98  for  that  of  Hezekiah's  death.  'Hiis  gives  us  a 
period  of  GO  3ear3.  And  since  his  rairistry  com- 
menced before  Ily-ziah's  death  (how  long  we  know 
not),  supposing  him  to  have  been  no  more  than  2C 
years  old  when  he  began  to  prophesy,  he  would 
have  been  80  or  90  at  Manasseh 's  accession. 

4.  The  circle  of  hearers  upon  whom  his  ministry 
was  immediately  designed  to  operate  is  determined 
to  be  "  Judah  and  Jerusalem."  True,  we  have  in 
the  book  prophecies  relating  to  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  —  as  also  to  Moab,  Babylon,  and  other  hea- 
then states ;  but  neither  in  the  one  case  nor  the 
other  was  the  prophesjing  designed  for  the  benefit 
of  these  foreign  states,  or  meant  to  be  communi- 
cated to  them,  but  only  for  Judah,  now  becoming 
the  sole  home  of  Hebrew  blessings  and  hopes 
Every  other  interest  in  the  prophet's  inspired  view 
moves  round  Judah,  and  is  connected  with  her. 

5.  It  is  the  most  natural  and  obvious  supposi- 
tion that  the  "  visions  "  are  in  the  main  placed  in 
the  collection  according  to  their  chronological 
order ;  and  this  supposition  it  would  be  arbitrary 
to  set  aside  without  more  solid  reasons  than  the 
mere  impulses  of  subjective  fancy.  We  grant  that 
this  presumption  might  be  overruled,  if  good  cause 
were  shown ;  but  till  it  is  shown,  we  have  no  war- 
rant for  rejecting  the  principle  that  the  present 
arrangement  is  in  the  main  founded  upon  chrono- 
logical propriety,  only  departed  from  in  cases  where 
(as  is  very  natural  to  suppose)  similarity  of  char- 
acter occasioned  the  grouping  together  of  visions 
which  were  not  uttered  at  the  same  time. 

6.  If  then  we  compare  the  contents  of  the  book 
with  the  description  here  given  of  it,  we  recognize 
prophesyings  which  are  certainly  to  be  assigned  to 
the  reigns  of  Uzziah,  Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah ;  but  we 
cannot  so  certainly  find  any  belonging  to  the  reign 
of  Jotham.  The  form  of  the  expression  in  vi.  1, 
"the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died,"  fixes  the  time 
of  that  vision  to  the  close  of  Uzziah's  reign,  and 
not  to  the  commencement  of  Jotham's.  What 
precedes  ch.  vi.  may  be  referred  to  some  preceding 
part  of  Uzziah's  reign:  except  perhaps  the  first 
chapter;  this  may  be  regarded  as  a  general  sum- 
mary of  advice  founded  upon  the  whole  of  what 
follows,  —  a  kind  of  general  preface ;  corresponding 
at  the  commencement  of  the  book  to  the  paraenesis 
of  the  nine  chapters  at  its  close.  Ch.  vii.  brings 
us  at  once  from  "  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  " 
to  "  the  days  of  Ahaz."  We  have  then  nothing 
left  for  Jotham's  reign,  unless  we  suppose  that 
some  of  the  group  of  "  burdens  "  in  xiii.-xxiii. 
belong  to  it,  or  some  of  the  perhaps  miscellaneous 
utterances  in  xxviii.-xxxv.  It  may  be  that  proph- 
esyings then  spoken  were  not  recorded,  because, 
applying  to  a  state  of  things  similar  to  what  ob- 
tained in  the  latter  part  of  Uzziah,  they  were  them- 
selves of  a  similar  strain  with  chs.  ii.-v. 

7.  We  naturally  ask.  Who  was  the  compiler  of 
the  book?  The  obvious  answer  is,  that  it  waa 
Isaiah  himself  aided  by  a  scribe;  comp.  the  very 
interesting  glimpse  afforded  us  bv  Jer.  xxxvi.  1-5, 
of  the  relation  between  the  utterance  of  prophecies 
and  *heir  writing.     Isaiah  we  know  was  otherwis* 

Siloam  on  the  slopes  of  Ophel,  below  the  S.  S.  wai 
of  Jerusalea... 


1150 


ISAIAH 


in  author;  for  in  2  Chr.  xxvi.  22  we  read:  "Now 
ine  rest  of  the  acts  of  rjzziah  first  and  last  did 
tgaiah  tlie  son  of  Anioz  the  prophet  write";  and 
though  that  liistorical  work  has  perished,  the  fact 
remains  to  show  that  Isaiah's  mind  was  not  alien 
from  tlie  cares  of  written  composition  (comp.  also 
2  Chr.  xxxii.  32 :  and  observe  the  first  person  used 
in  viii.  1-5).  The  organic  structure  of  the  whole 
book  also,  which  we  hope  to  make  apparent,  favors 
the  same  belief.  On  the  whole,  that  Isaiah  was 
himself  the  compiler,  claims  to  be  accepted  as  the 
true  view.  The  principal  objection  deserving  of 
notice  is  that  founded  upon  xxxvii.  38.  It  has 
been  alleged  (Hitzig,  in  loc)  that  Sennacherib's 
murder  took  place  n.  c.  f)96,  two  years  after  Man- 
asseh's  accession;  others,  however,  question  this 
(comp.  Havernick's  Kinleitung):  at  all  events  the 
passage  is  quite  reconcilable  with  the  belief  of  Isaiah's 
being  the  coni[)ller,  if  we  suppose  him  to  have  lived 
two  or  three  years  after  Manasseh's  accession,  even 
without  our  having  recourse  to  the  expedient  of 
attributing  the  verse  in  question  and  the  one  before 
it  to  a  later  hand.  The  name  given  in  xxxvi.  11, 
13,  to  the  Hebrew  spokeii  in  Jerusalem,  "  the  Jews" 

language,"  H^'l^n'),  is  no  evidence  of  a  later  age; 
it  is  perfectly  conceivable  that  while  the  loritten 
language  remained  the  same  in  both  kingdoms,  as 
is  evidenced  by  the  prophetical  books,  the  spoken 
dialect  (comp.  Judg.  xii.  6)  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  may  have  diverged  so  far  from  that  of  the 
(now  perished)  kingdom  of  Israel  as  to  have  re- 
ceived a  distinct  designation ;  and  its  name  would 
naturally,  like  that  of  the  kingdom  itself,  be  drawn 
from  the  tribe  which  formed  the  chief  constituent 
of  the  population.  As  we  are  seeking  for  objective 
evidence,  we  may  neglect  those  wild  hypotheses 
which  some  have  indulged  in,  respecting  an  original 
work  and  its  subsequent  modifications;  for  since 
they  originate  in  the  denial  of  divine  inspiration 
conjoined  with  reliance  on  a  merely  subjective  ap 
preciation  of  the  several  writings,  such  hypotheses 
must  be  assigned  to  the  region  of  fancy  rather 
than  of  historic  investigation. 

8.  In  this  introductory  verse  we  have  yet  to 
notice  the  description  which  it  gives  of  Isaiah's 
prophesyings :  they  are  "the  vision  which  he  saw." 
When  we  hear  of  visions  we  are  apt  to  think  of  a 
mental  condition  in  which  the  mind  is  withdrawn 
altoiiether  from  the  perception  of  objects  actually 
present,  and  contemplates,  instead  of  these,  another 
set  of  objects  which  appear  at  the  moment  sensibly 
present  —  a  sort  of  dream  without  sleep.  Such  a 
vision  was  that  of  St.  Peter  at  Joppa.  Such  again 
we  recognize  in  Is.  vi.  —  the  only  instance  of  this 
kind  of  pure  vision  in  the  book;  in  Jeremiah,  Eze- 
kiel,  and  Zechariah,  they  abound.  But  Isaiah's 
menial  state  in  his  prophesying  appears  ordinarily 
to  have  been  different  from  this.  Outward  objects 
really  present  were  not  withdrawn  from  his  percep 
tion,  but  appear  to  have  lilended  to  his  view,  at 
times,  with  the  spiritual  which  was  really  present, 
though  not  recognizable  except  to  the  eye  of  faith 
(e.  f/,,  the  presence  of  Jehovah);  at  times,  with  the 
"uture,  whether  sensible  or  spiritual,  which  seemed 
o  tiie  prophet  as  if  actually  present.  In  this  view, 
lis  prophesyings  are  not  to  l)e  regarded  as  utter- 
ances, in  the  dehvery  of  which  the  Holy  Ghost  em- 
ployed the  intelbctital  and  physical  organs  of  the 
prophet  as  mere  instruments  wielded  by  itself,  but 
»  vision,  i.  e.,  thn  description  by  the  prophet  him 
lelf  under  divine  direction  (2  Tim.  iii.  .16)  of  that 


ISAIAH 

which  at  the  time  he  seemed  to  himself  to  &ee.  D 
this  view  be  just,  it  follows  that  in  the  description! 
which  the  prophet  gives  of  that  which  appearetl  t« 
be  before  him,  we  cannot  be  at  once  sure,  whether 
he  is  describing  what  was  actually  objectively  pres- 
ent, or  whetlier  the  oljects  delineated  as  present 
belonged  to  the  future.  For  example;  at  first  sight 
the  description  given  of  the  condition  of  Judah  in 
i.  5-9,  portraying  an  invasion,  might  be  undeutood 
of  what  was  actually  present,  and  so  might  lead  ut 
either  to  supplement  the  history  of  2  K.  with  a 
hypothetical  invasion,  or  put  forward  the  time  of 
the  prophesying  to  Ahaz  or  Hezekiah.  But  recol- 
lecting that  it  is  vision,  we  see  that  it  may  be  ttiken 
as  simply  predictive  and  threatening,  and  therefore 
as  stiU  spoken  in  Uzziah's  reign.  Similarly  iii.  8^ 
V.  13,  X.  28-32,  are  all  predictive.  So  in  the  sec- 
ond part  is  Ixiv.  11.  lurthor,  it  would  be  only  in 
accordance  with  this  method  of  prophetic  sight  if 
we  found  the  propliet  describing  some  future  time 
as  if  present,  and  from  that  standing-point  an- 
nouncing some  more  distant  future,  sometimes  as 
future,  and  sometimes,  again,  as  present.  And  in 
fact  it  is  thus  that  Isaiah  represents  the  coming 
fortunes  of  God's  people  in  the  second  part  of  his 
prophecy.  Comp.  xlii.  13-17,  xlix.  18,  xlv.  1-4, 
liii.  3-10,  11,  12,  Ixiii.  1-6,  as  illustrations  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  relations  of  past,  present,  and 
future  time  are  in  vision  blended  together. 

It  has  been  remarked  above  as  characteristic  of 
Isaiah's  ordinary  prophetic  vision,  that  the  actually 
present  is  not  lost  to  view.  In  fact  this  was  essen- 
tial to  his  proper  function.  His  first  and  immediate 
concern  was  with  his  contemporaries,  as  the  re- 
prover of  sin,  and  to  Iniild  up  the  piety  of  believers. 
Even  when  his  vision  the  most  contemplates  the 
future,  he  yet  does  not  lose  his  reference  to  the 
present,  but  (as  we  shall  see  even  in  the  second 
part)  he  makes  his  prophesyinifs  tell  by  exhortation 
and  reproof  upon  the  state  of  things  actually  around 
him.  From  all  this  it  residts,  that  we  often  find 
it  difficult  to  discriminate  his  i)redictions  from  his 
rebukes  of  present  disorders.  His  contemporaries, 
however,  would  be  under  no  such  difficulty.  The 
idolatrous  and  ungodly  Hebrew  would  promptly 
recognize  his  own  description ;  the  pious  would  be 
confirmed  and  cheered. 

II.  In  order  to  realize  the  relation  of  Isaiah's 
prophetic  ministry  to  his  own  contemporaries,  we 
need  to  take  account  both  of  the  foreign  relations 
of  Judah  at  the  time,  and  internally  of  its  social 
and  religious  aspects.  Our  materials  are  scanty, 
and  are  to  be  collected  partly  out  of  2  K.  and  2 
Chr.,  and  partly  out  of  the  remaining  writings  of 
contemporary  prophets,  Joel  (proliably),  Obadiah, 
and  JNIicah,  in  Judah ;  and  Ilosea,  Amos,  and  Jonah, 
in  Israel.  Of  these  the  moat  assistance  is  obtained 
from  Rlicah. 

1.  Under  Uzziah  the  political  position  of  Judah 
had  greatly  recovered  from  the  blows  suffered  under 
Amaziah;  the  fortifications  of  Jerusalem  itself  were 
restored;  castles  were  built  in  the  country;  new 
arrangements  in  the  army  and  equipments  of  de- 
fensive artillery  were  established;  and  considerable 
successes  in  war  gained  against  the  Philistines,  the 
Arabians,  and  the  Ammonites.  [Uzziah.]  Thia 
prosperity  continued  during  the  reign  of  Jotham. 
except  that,  towards  the  close  of  this  latter  reign, 
troubles  threatened  from  the  alliance  of  Israel  and 
Syria.  [Jotham.]  The  consequence  of  this  pros- 
perity was  an  influx  of  wealth,  and  this  with  th« 
'ncreased  means  of  miUtary  strength  withdrew  men* 


ISAIAH 


from  Jehovah,  and  led  them  t/>  trust  in 
irorldly  resources.  Moreover  great  disorders  existed 
In  the  internal  administration,  all  of  wliich,  whether 
moral  or  religious,  vt^ere,  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
commonwealth,  as  theocratic,  alike  amenable  to 
prophetic  rebuke.  It  was  the  very  busmess  of  Isaiah 
and  other  prophets  to  raise  their  voices  as  public 
reformers,  as  well  as  to  fulfill  the  work  which  be- 
longs to  religious  teachers  in  edifying  God's  true 
servants  and  calling  the  irreligious  to  repentance. 
Accordingly  our  prophet  steps  forward  into  public 
view  with  the  divine  message,  dressed  after  the 
manner  of  prophets  in  general  —  girded  in  coarse 
and  black,  or  at  least  dark  colored,  hair-cloth  (comp. 
Is.  XX.  2,  1.  3:  2  K.  i.  8;  Zech.  xiii.  4)  —  emblem- 
atically indicating  by  this  attire  of  mourning  that 
Jehovah  spoke  to  his  people  in  grief  and  resent- 
ment. [Sackcloth.]  From  his  house,  which 
appears  to  have  been  in  Jerusalem  (comp.  vii.  3, 
xxxvii.  5),  he  goes  forth  to  places  of  general  con- 
course, chiefly  no  doubt,  as  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
afterwards  did,  to  the  colonnades  and  courts  of  the 
Temple,  and  proclaims  in  the  audience  of  the  people 
"  the  word  of  Jehovah." 

2.  And  what  is  the  tenor  of  his  message  in  the 
time  of  Uzziah  and  Jotham  ?  This  we  read  in  chs. 
i.-v.  Chap.  i.  is  very  general  in  its  contents.  In 
perusing  it  we  may  fancy  that  we  hear  the  very 
voice  of  the  Seer  as  he  stands  (perhaps)  in  the 
Court  of  the  Israelites  denouncing  to  nobles  and 
people,  then  assemlJing  for  divine  worship,  the 
whole  estimate  of  their  character  formed  by  Jehovah, 
and  his  approaching  chastisements.  "  They  are  a 
sinful  nation;  they  have  provoked  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel  to  anger.  Flourishing  as  their  worldly 
condition  now  appears,  the  man  whose  eyes  are 
opened  sees  another  scene  before  him  (1-9)  —  the 
land  laid  waste,  and  Zion  left  as  a  cottage  in  a  vine- 
yard —  (a  picture  realized  in  the  Syro-Ephraimitish 
war,  and  more  especially  in  the  Assyrian  invasion 
—  the  great  event  round  which  the  whole  of  the 
first  part  of  the  book  revolves).  ^len  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  that  they  are,  let  them  hearken! 
they  may  go  on  if  they  will  with  their  ritual  worship, 
'  trampling  '  Jehovah's  courts  ;  nevertheless,  He 
loathes  them:  the  stain  of  innocent  blood  is  on 
tb<»ir  hands ;  the  weak  are  oppressed ;  there  is  bribery 
ana  corruption  in  tlie  administration  of  justice. 
Let  them  reform;  if  they  will  not,  Jehovah  will 
bum  out  their  sins  in  the  smelting  fire  of  his  judg- 
ment. Zion  shall  be  purified,  and  thus  saved, 
whilst  the  sinners  and  recreants  from  Jehovah  in 
her  shall  perish  in  their  much-loved  idolatries." 
This  discourse  suitably  heads  the  book;  it  sounds 
the  key-note  of  the  whole ;  fires  of  judgment  destroy- 
ing, but  purifying  a  remnant  —  such  was  the  burden 
ill  along  of  Isaiah's  prophesyings. 

Of  the  other  public  utterances  belonging  to  this 
period,  chs.  ii.-iv.  are  by  almost  all  critics  consid- 
ered to  be  one  prophesying  —  the  leading  thought 
of  which  is  that  the  present  prosperity  of  Judah 
should  be  destroyed  for  her  sins,  to  make  room  for 
the  real  qlory  of  piety  and  virtue ;  while  ch.  v. 
forms  a  distinct  discourse,  whose  main  purpor*  is 
that  Israel,  God's  vineyard,  shall  be  brought  to 
desolation.  The  idolatry  denounced  in  these  chap- 
ters is  to  be  taken  as  that  of  private  individuals, 
for  both  Uzziah  and  Jotham  ser\ed  Jehovah.  They 
•ire  prefaced  by  the  vision  of  the  exaltation  of  the 
taountain  on  which  Jehovah  dwells  above  all  other 
mountains,  to  become  the  source  of  light  and  moral 
bmnsforniation  to  all  mankind  (ii.  2-4). 


ISAIAH  1161 

Here  wt  are  met  by  the  fact  that  this  samfl 
vision  is  found  in  very  nearly  the  same  words  in 
Micah  iv.  1-3.  The  two  prophets  were  contem 
porary,  and  one  may  very  well  have  heard  the  other, 
and  adopted  his  words.  Compare  a  nearly  sim- 
ilar phenomenon  in  1  Pet.  v.  5-i),  compared  with 
•lam.  iv.  G-10 ;  for  Peter  and  James  had  no  doufet 
often  heard  each  other's  public  teaching  at  Jerusa- 
lem. Which  was  the  prior  speaker  of  the  words 
we  cannot  in  either  case  determine.  In  many  cases 
writers  of  Scripture  adopt  the  words  of  former 
inspired  wyvVe/'s;  why  not  speakers  also?  In  this 
instance,  Isaiah  or  Micah  may  without  improb- 
ability be  imagined  as  standing  by  whilst  the  otier 
announced  Jehovah's  word,  and  himself,  still  under 
divine  inspiration,  afterwards  repeating  tlifc  sams 
word.  As  among  the  prophets  in  the  Christian 
Church  some  were  directed  to  remain  in  silence, 
and  "judge"  whilst  others  spoke;  so  we  may  be- 
lieve that  occasions  frequently  occurred  in  which 
the  prophesying  of  one  sable-dressed  prophet  was 
listened  to,  and  ratified  by  other  prophets,  one  or 
more,  standing  by,  who  might  add  their  testimony: 
"  This  is  the  word  of  Jehovah  "  (comp.  1  K.  xxii. 
11,  12). 

After  thus  refreshing  pious  souls  with  delineating 
future  (Messianic)  glories,  Isaiah  is  recalled  by  the 
sad  present.  Far  distant  is  God's  people  as  yet 
from  the  high  calling  of  being  the  teacher  of  the 
world.  "  All  is  now  wrong.  Heathenism  is  flood- 
ing the  land  with  charmers  and  diviners,  with  silver 
and  gold,  with  horses  and  chariots,  and  with  idols  ! 
Jehovah,  forgive  them  not !  —  Jehovah's  day  of 
judgment  is  coming,  when  all  human  glory  shall 
disappear  before  his  glory,  and  in  consternation 
Hebrew  idolaters  shall  hurl  their  images  into  any 
corner.  Lo,  Jehovah-Zebaoth  will  take  away  every 
stay  of  order  and  well-being  in  the  state,  leaving 
only  the  refuse  of  society  to  rule  (if  indeed  they 
will)  the  desolated  city.  I^ook  at  them  only !  Tliej 
are  as  shameless  as  Sodom!  O  my  people,  thy 
leaders  lead  thee  astray,  thy  princes  oppress :  what 
mean  ye  that  ye  grind  the  faces  of  my  poor  ?  saith 
•Jehovah.  Look  again  at  their  ladies,  with  their 
jewels  and  their  head-gear,  and  their  fine  dresses 
and  their  trinkets !  .Jehovah  will  take  all  of  it  away, 
leaving  to  them  only  shame  and  sackcloth.  Yes, 
Zion  shall  lose  both  sons  and  daughters  (so  mam 
are  they  who  offend ! ),  and  bereaved  of  all  shall  sit 
on  the  bare  ground.  Yet  out  of  these  judgments 
shall  issue  purity  and  peace.  He,  the  Branch  of 
Jehovah's  appointing  (iv.  2),  shall  appear  in  glory 
and  the  redeemed  springing  out  of  the  earth  shaU 
shine  with  accordant  splendor  in  what  is  left  of 
Israel.  All  in  Zion  shall  then  be  holy,  and  the 
pillar  of  fire  by  night,  and  the  overshadowing 
cloud  by  day,  shall  as  of  yore  cheer  and  jir otect  — 
what  is  precious  must  needs  be  protected !  Sweet 
shall  be  the  security  and  refreshment  of  thos? 
days." 

Again  the  prophet  is  seen  in  the  public  con- 
course. At  first  he  invites  attention  by  reciting  t 
paralile  (of  the  vineyard)  in  calm  and  composed 
accents  (ch.  v.).  But  as  he  interprets  the  parable 
his  note  changes,  and  a  sixfold  "woe"  is  poured 
forth  with  terrible  invective.  It  is  levelled  against 
the  covetous  amassers  of  land,  breaking  down  those 
landmarks  which  fenced  the  small  hereditary  free- 
holders whose  perpetuity  formed  an  essential  ele- 
ment in  the  original  constitution  of  the  Hebrew 
commonwealth  (^comp.  1  K.  xxi.  3);  against  luxu- 
rious revellers;  against   bold   sinners   who   defied 


1152 


ISAIAH 


God's  works  of  judgment,  with  which  the  prophets 
threatened  tliem  (comp.  the  similar  association  of 
revelling  with  hardened  unbelief  in  Israel,  Am.  v. 
l8.  vi.  3-G);  against  those  who  confounded  moral 
distinctions  ;  against  self-conceited  skeptics  ;  and 
against  profligate  perverters  of  judicial  justice.  In 
fury  of  wrath  Jehovah  stretches  forth  his  hand. 
Here  there  is  an  awful  vagueness  in  the  images  of 
terror  which  the  propliet  accumulates,  till  at  length 
out  of  the  cloud  and  mist  of  wrath  we  hear  Jehovah 
hiss  for  the  stern  and  irresistible  warriors  (the 
Assyrians),  who  from  the  end  of  the  earth  should 
crowd  forward  to  spoil,  —  after  which  all  distinct- 
■ness  of  description  again  fades  away  in  vague 
images  of  sorrow  and  despair. 

What  effect  (we  may  a.sk)  would  such  denuncia- 
tions produce  upon  the  mass  of  Hebrew  hearers? 
It  was  not  from  Isaiah  only  that  the  same  persons 
heard  them.  Oppression,  denounced  by  him  (iii.  14, 
15,  V.  7-10),  was  denounced  also  by  Alicah  (ii.  1,  2); 
maladministration  of  justice  (Is.  1.  23,  v.  23)  is 
noted  also  by  Micah  (iii.  1-3,  9-11,  vii.  3);  the 
combhiation  of  idolatry,  diviners,  and  horses  found 
in  Is.  ii.  6-8,  15,  is  jmralleled  in  Mic.  v.  10-15. 
This  concurrence  of  prophetical  testimony  would 
not  be  without  weight  with  those  who  had  still 
some  faith  in  Jehovah.  But  the  worldly-minded, 
however  silent  when  flagrant  immorality  was  cen- 
sured, might  find  what  they  would  count  plausible 
ground  for  demurring,  when  the  prophet  put  the 
multiplication  of  gold,  silver,  horses,  and  chariots, 
in  the  same  category  with  idols,  or  when  with  un- 
sparing satire  he  particularized  articles  of  female 
adornment  as  objects  of  Jehovah's  wrath.  But 
God's  law  through  JNIoses  had  given  similar  injunc- 
tions (Deut.  xvii.  16,  17);  and  indeed  in  general 
there  is  not  a  single  page  of  the  prophetic  books 
in  which  the  Pentateuch  is  not  again  and  again 
referred  to.  The  Hebrew  commonwealth  was  not 
designed  to  be  a  commercial  state,  but  a  system 
of  small  hereditary  land- owners  under  a  theocracy. 
INIaterial  progress  and  ever  heifirhtening  embellish- 
ment, whether  in  the  court  or  in  society  in  general, 
with  the  men  or  with  the  women,  removed  it  further 
and  further  from  its  original  constitution,  and  from 
Jehovah  its  God.  Something  resembling  Spartan 
plainness  belonged  essentially  to  the  idea  of  the 
Hebrew  state. 

3.  In  the  year  of  Uzziah's  death  an  ecstatic 
vision  fell  upon  Isaiah,  which,  in  compiling  his 
prophecies  long  after,  he  was  careful  to  record,  both 
for  other  reasons,  and  also  because  he  had  then 
become  aware  of  the  failure  of  his  ministry  in  ref- 
erence to  the  bulk  of  his  contemporaries,  and  of  the 
desolation,  yet  not  without  hope,  which  awaited  his 
people.  We  see  in  the  case  of  St.  Peter  at  Joppa 
(Acts  X.  9-16)  that  such  a  state  of  ecstasis^  though 
unquestionably  of  divine  origin,  yet  in  its  form 
auiapts  itself  to  the  previous  condition,  whether  cor- 
poreal or  psychological,  of  the  patient.  Isaiah  at 
this  period  (as  we  must  infer  from  the  placing  of 
the  narrative)  had  been  already  for  some  time  en- 
gaged in  his  ministry;  and  we  may  venture  to 
surmise  he  lamented  his  little  success.  Seeing  what 
he  saw  around  him,  and  foreseeing  what  he  foresaw, 
could  he  do  otherwise  than  feel  deeply  how  little 
he  was  able  to  effect  for  the  welfare  of  his  beloved 
country?  In  this  vision  he  saw  Jehovah,  in  the 
Second  Person  of  the  Godhead  (John  xii.  41 ;  comp. 
Mai.  iii.  1),  enthroned  aloft  in  his  o^ti  earthly 
»abemacle,  attended  by  seraphim,  whose  praise  filled 
bbe  sanctuary  a?  it  were  with  the  sraoke  of  incenne. 


ISAIAH 

As  John  at  Patmos,  so  Isaiah  was  overwhelmed 
with  awe :  he  felt  his  own  sinfuhiess  and  that  of  all 
with  whom  he  was  connected,  and  cried  "  woe '' 
upon  himself  as  if  brought  before  Jehovah  to  receive 
the  reward  of  his  deeds.  But,  as  at  Patmos,  thf 
Son  of  Man  laid  his  hand  upon  John  saying,  '*  Feai 
not!''  so,  in  obedience  evidently  to  the  will  of 
Jehovah,  a  seraph  with  a  hot  stone  taken  from  th* 
altar  touched  his  lips,  the  principal  organ  of  good 
and  evil  in  man,  and  thereby  removing  his  sinful- 
ness, qualified  him  to  join  the  seraphim  in  what- 
ever service  he  might  be  called  to.  And  now  the 
condescending  invitation  of  the  Great  King  is 
heard :  "  Whom  shall  I  send  V  W^ho  will  go  tor 
us?"  "Here  am  I!  send  me."  Had  he  not 
borne  Jehovah's  commission  before  ?  No  doubt  he 
had ;  yet  now,  with  the  intenser  sense  of  the  reality 
of  divine  things  which  that  hour  brought  him,  he 
felt  as  if  he  had  not.  What  heaven-taught  minister 
does  not  understand  this?  And  what  was  to  be 
the  nature  of  his  work  ?  "  Make  the  understand- 
ing of  (his  people  (not  "  my  people  ")  torpid:  dull 
their  ears ;  close  up  their  eyes ;  the  more  they  hear 
thy  word,  the  more  hardened  they  shall  become; 
they  must  not,  they  shall  not,  receive  the  message 
so  as  to  repent."  A  heart-crushing  commission  for 
one  who  loved  his  people  as  Isaiah  did !  The  moan 
of  grief  at  length  finds  utterance :"  Lord,  how 
long?"  "Till  the  land  be  desolate — saving  a 
small  remnant,  utterly  desolate  —  a  remnant  of  a 
holy  seed,  which  will  be  a  stock  to  sprout  forth,  but 
again  and  agam  to  be  cut  back  and  burnt,  and  yet 
still  to  survive." 

This  vision  in  the  main  was  another  mode  of 
representing  what,  both  in  previous  and  in  subse- 
quent prophesyings,  is  so  continually  denounced  — 
the  almost  utter  destruction  of  the  Hebrew  people, 
with  yet  a  purified  remnant.  But  while  this  pre- 
diction was  its  principal  purport,  we  are  sure  that 
the  inspired  editor  of  his  prophesyings  so  many 
years  after,  beheld  in  it  also  the  sketch  of  the  fruits 
of  his  ministry,  which  at  the  time  when  the  revela- 
tion was  made  to  him  must  have  had  no  small 
effect  upon  his  own  private  feelings.  He  goes  afresh 
about  his  work,  despairingly  as  to  the  main  result 
for  the  present,  yet  with  seraph-like  zeal,  ardent 
and  heaven-purged,  and  not  without  hope  too,  for 
the  time  to  come.  The  "  holy  seed  "  was  to  be 
the  "  stock."  It  was  to  be  his  business  to  form 
that  holy  seed. 

It  is  a  touching  trait,  illustrating  the  prophet's 
own  feelings,  that  when  he  next  appears  before  us, 
some  years  later,  he  has  a  son  named  Shearjashub, 
«  Remnant-shall-retum."  The  name  was  evidently 
given  with  significance ;  and  the  fact  discovers  alike 
the  sorrow  which  ate  his  heart,  and  the  hope  in 
which  he  found  solace. 

4.  Some  years  elapse  between  chs.  vi.  and  vii., 
and  the  political  scenery  has  greatly  altered.  The 
Ass}Tian  power  of  Nineveh  now  thi-eatens  the  He- 
brew nation  ;  Tiglath-pileser  has  already  spoiled 
Pekah  of  some  of  the  fairest  parts  of  his  dominions 
—  of  the  country  east  of  Jordan  and  the  vale  of  tne 
Sea  of  Galilee,  removing  the  inhabitants  probably 
to  people  the  wide  and  as  yet  uninhabited  space 
inclosed  by  the  walls  of  Nineveh  (b.  c.  746).  Aflef 
the  Assyrian  army  was  withdrawn,  the  Syrian  king 
dom  of  Damascus  rises  into  notice;  its  monarch, 
Rezin,  combines  with  the  now  weakened  king  of 
Israel,  and  probably  with  other  small  states  around, 
to  consolidate  (it  has  been  conjectured)  a  powa 
which  shall  confront  Asshur.     Ahaz  keens  alool 


ISAIAH 

and  becomes  the  object  of  attack  to  the  allies ;  he 
has  been  already  twice  defeated  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  5, 
6);  and  now  the  allies  are  threatening  him  with  a 
combmed  invasion  (741 ).  The  news  that  "  Aram 
Is  encamped  in  Ephraim  "  (Is.  vii.  2)  fills  both  king 
and  people  with  consternation,  and  the  king  is  gone 
forth  fix)m  the  city  to  take  measures,  as  it  would 
seem,  to  prevent  the  upper  reservoir  of  water  from 
falling  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  Under  Je- 
hovah's direction  Isaiah  goes  forth  to  meet  the 
king,  surrounded  no  doubt  by  a  considerable  com- 
pany of  his  officers  and  of  spectators."  The  prophet 
is  directed  to  take  with  him  the  child  whose  name, 
Shearjashub,  was  so  full  of  mystical  promise,  to 
add  greater  emphasis  to  his  message.  "  Fear  not," 
he  tells  the  king,  "  Damascus  is  the  head  of  Syria, 
and  of  Syria  only ;  and  Kezin  head  of  Damascus, 
and  not  of  Jerusalem ;  and  within  G5  years  F^phraim 
shall  be  broken,  to  be  no  more  a  kingdom :  so  far 
shall  Ephraim  be  from  annexing  Judah '  Samaria 
again  is  head  only  of  Ephraim,  anr".  liemaliah's  son 
onlv  of  Samaria.  If  ye  will  be  estabUshed,  l)elieve 
this!" 

"  Dost  thou  hesitate  ?  Ask  what  sign  thou  wilt 
to  assure  thee  that  thus  it  shall  l)e."  The  young 
king  is  already  resolved  not  to  let  himself  into  the 
Ime  of  policy  which  Isaiah  is  urging  upon  him:  he 
is  bent  upon  an  alliance  with  Assyria.  To  ask  a 
sign  might  prove  embarrassing ;  for,  if  it  should  be 

given ?  Ahaz  therefore,  with  a  half-mocking 

show  of  reverence,  declines  to  "tempt  Jehovah." 
•'  0  house  of  David,  are  ye  not  satisfied  with  trying 
the  patience  of  an  honest  and  wisely  advising 
prophet,  that  you  will  put  this  contempt  also  upon 
the  God  who  speaks  through  me?  Jehovah  him- 
self, irrespective  of  your  deservings,  gives  you  a 
guarantee  that  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  i.s  not 
yet  to  perish.  Behold,  the  Vlryin  is  with  child, 
and  is  bearing  a  son,  and  thou,  O  mother  (comp. 
Gren.  xvi.  11),  shalt  call  his  name  Immanuel.  I  seem 
to  see  that  Child  already  born  !  Behold  Him  tliere ! 
Cream  and  honey,  abundance  of  the  best  food,  shall 
he  eat,  when,  ten  or  twenty  years  hence,  he  comes 
to  the  age  of  discretion ;  the  devastating  inroad  of 
Syria  and  Israel  shall  be  past  then ;  for  before  that, 
the  land  of  the  two  kings  thou  boldest  so  formidable 
shall  be  desolate.  But  —  here  the  threat  which 
mingles  with  the  promise   m  Shearjashub  appears 

"  upon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  family,  not  only 
in  thy  hfetime,  but  afterwards,  Jehovah  will  bring 
an  enemy  more  terrible  than  Jacob  has  ever  known, 
Asshur  —  Asshur,  whom  thou  wouldest  fain  hire 
to  help  (v.  20),  but  who  shall  prove  a  razor  that 
wUl  shave  but  too  clean ;  he  shall  so  desolate  the 
land  that  its  inhabitants  shall  be  sparse  and  few." 

«  The  reader  will  observe  the  particular  specification 
of  the  pla«e,  indicating  the  authenticity  of  the  nar- 
ratiTe.  (Comp.  Blunt's  Undesigned  Coincidences^  pt. 
iii.  no.  i.) 

*  That  the  birth  of  the  Messiah  is  here  pointed  to 
■cannot  be  doubted  ;  indeed  even  Ewald  sees  this.  But 
the  exact  interpretation  of  vv.  15,  16,  is  hard  to  de- 
termine. That  given  above  is  in  the  main  Ilengsten- 
berg's  (Christology,  vol.  ii.).  The  great  difficulty  which 
attaches  to  it  is  that  the  prophet  represents  Christ  as 
already  appearing,  reckoning  from  his  birth  at  the 
then  present  time,  forward  to  the  desolation  of  Sj  da 
and  Israel  within  a  few  years.  This  difficulty  is,  how- 
ever, alleviated  by  the  consideration  that  the  prophet 
states  the  future  as  exhibited  to  hin-  in  «  vision,"  and 
In  such  prophetic  vision  the  distances  between  events 
In  point  of  time  are  often  unperceived  by  the  «eor,  who 


ISAIAH 


1158 


I 


73 


Again  Isaiah  predicts  the  Assyrian  mvasion ; 
ch.  xxxvi.^ 

5.  As  the  Assyrian  empire  began  more  and  more 
to  threaten  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  with  utter 
overthrow,  it  is  now  that  the  prediction  of  the 
Messiah,  the  Restorer  of  Israel,  becomes  more 
ix)sitive  and  clear.  Micah  (v.  2)  points  to  Bethle- 
hem as  the  birthplace,  and  (v.  3)  speaks  of  "her 
that  travaileth  "  as  an  object  to  prophetic  vision 
seeming  almost  present.  W^ould  not  Micah  and 
Isaiah  confer  with  each  other  in  these  dark  days 
of  prevailing  unl)elief,  upon  the  cheering  liope  which 
tlie  Spirit  of  Christ  that  was  in  tiiem  suggested  to 
their  minds?  (comp.  Mai.  iii.  10). 

The  king  was  bent  upon  an  alliance  with  Assyria. 
This  Isaiah  stedfastly  opposes  (comp.  x.  20).  In  a 
theocracy  the  messenger  of  Jehovah  would  frequently 
apj^ear  as  a  political  adviser.  "  Neither  fear  Aram 
and  Isnwl,  for  they  will  soon  perish;  nor  trust  in 
Asshur,  for  she  will  be  thy  direst  oppressor."  Such 
is  Isiiah's  strain.  And  by  divine  direction  he  em- 
ploys various  expedients  to  make  his  testimony  the 
more  impressive.  He  procured  a  large  tablet  (viii. 
1 ),  and  with  witnesses  (for  the  purpose  of  attesting 
the  fact,  and  displaying  its  especial  significance)  he 
wrote  thereon  in  large  characters  suited  for  a  public 
notice  the  words'^  Hastenbooty  Speedspoil; 
which  tablet  was  no  doubt  to  be  hung  up  for  public 
view,  in  the  entrance  (we  may  suppose)  to  the 
Temple  (comp.  "  priest,"  ver.  2).  And  further: 
his  wife  —  who,  by  the  way,  appears  to  have  been 
herself  possessed  of  prophetic  gifts,  for  "  prophetess" 
always  has  this  meaning  and  nowhere  indicates  a 
prophet's  wife  merely— just  at  this  time  apparently 
gave  birth  to  a  son.  Jehovah  bids  the  prophet  give 
him  the  name  Hastenbooty  Speedsjml,  adding,  what 
Isaiah  «'as  to  avow  on  all  occasions,  that  before  the 
child  should  be  able  to  talk,  the  wealth  of  Damascus 
and  the  booty  of  Samaria  should  be  carried  away 
before  the  king  of  Assyria. 

The  people  of  Judah  was  split  into,  political  fac- 
tions. The  court  was  for  Assyria,  and  indeed 
formed  an  alliance  with  Tiglath-pileser ;  but  a  pop- 
ular party  was  for  the  Syro-Ephraimitic  connection 
formed  to  resist  Assyria  —  partly  actuated  by  their 
fears  of  a  confederacy  from  which  they  had  already, 
severely  suffered,  and  partly  perhaps  influenced  by 
sympathies  of  kindred  race,  drawing  them  to  Israd, 
and  even  to  Aram,  in  opposition  to  the  more  foreign 
Assyria.  "  Fear  none  but  Jehovah  only !  fear  Him, 
trust  Him;  He  will  be  your  safety."  Such  is  the 
purport  of  the  discourse  viii.  5-ix.  7;  in  which, 
however,  he  augurs  coming  distress  through  the 
rejection  of  his  counsels,  but  refreshes  himself  with 
the  thought  of  the  birth  of  the  Great  Deliverer.*^ 

perhaps  might  sometimes  in  his  own  private  interpre- 
tation of  the  vision  (comp.  1  Pet.  i.  10)  have  miscon- 
ceived the  relations  of  time  in  regard  to  events.  The 
very  clearness  with  which  the  future  event  was  ex- 
hibited to  him  might  deceive  him  in  judging  of  its 
nearness.  In  the  N.  T.  we  have  a  somewhat  similar 
phenomenon  in  the  estimate  formed  by  the  Apostles 
and  others  of  the  relation  of  time  between  Christ's 
coming  to  judge  Jerusalem  and  his  second  coming  at 
the  end  of  the  world. 

c  A.  V.  Maher-shalal-haeh-baz  ;  by  Luther  rendered 
Raubebald,  Eilebeute. 

d  With  reference  to  Tiglath-pileser's  having  recently 
removed  the  population  of  Galilee,  the  prophet  specifies 
that  "  as  the  former  time  brought  humiliation  In  the 
direction  of  Zebulun  and  Naph tali,"  located  on  the 
western  shore  of  the  Sea  of  <}alil*^e,  «'  so  the  latter  tinw 


1154 


ISAIAH 


The  inspired  advice  was  not  accepted.  Unbelief 
not  discerning  the  power  and  faithfulness  of  Jehovah 
would  argue  that  isolation  was  ruin,  and  accord- 
ingly involved  Judah  in  alliances  which  soon  brought 
her  to  almost  utter  destruction. 

6.  A  prophecy  was  delivered  at  this  time  against 
the  kingdom  of  Israel  (ix.  8-x.  4),  consisting  of 
four  strophes,  each  ending  with  the  terrible  refrain : 
"  for  all  this,  his  anger  is  not  turned  away,  but 
his  hand  is  stretched  out  still."  It  announces  that 
all  expedients  for  recovering  the  power  which  Israel 
had  lately  lost  were  nugatory;  they  had  forsaken 
Jehovah,  and  therefore  God-forsaken  (x.  4)  they 
should  perish.  As  Isaiah's  message  was  only  to 
Judah,  we  may  infer  that  the  object  of  this  utter- 
ance was  to  check  the  disposition  shown  by  many 
in  Judah  to  connect  Judah  with  the  policy  of  the 
sister  kingdom. 

7.  The  utterance  recorded  in  x.  5-xii.  6,  one  of 
the  most  highly  wrought  passages  in  the  whole 
book,  was  probably  one  single  outpouring  of  inspi- 
ration. It  stands  wholly  disconnected  M'ith  the  pre- 
ceding in  the  circumstances  which  it  presupposes; 
and  to  what  period  to  assign  it,  is  not  easy  to 
determine."  To  allay  the  dread  of  Assyria  which 
now  prevailed,  Isaiah  was  in  God's  mercy  to  his 
people  inspired  to  declare,  that  though  heavy  judg- 
ments would  consume  the  bulk  of  the  nation,  yet 
Shearjashub !  the  remnant  should  return  (x.  20-22 ; 
comp.  vii.  3),  and  that  the  Assyrian  should  be 
overthrown  in  the  very  hour  of  apparently  certain 
success  by  agency  whose  precise  nature  is  left  in 
awful  mystery  (x.  33,  34).  From  the  destruction 
of  Judah's  enemies  thus  representatively  foreshad- 
owed, he  then  takes  wing  to  predict  the  happy  and 
peaceful  reign  of  the  "  Twig  which  was  to  come 
forth  from  the  stump  of  Jesse,"  when  the  united 
commonwealth  of  Judah  and  Ephraim  should  be 
restoretl  in  glory,  and  Jah  Jehovah  should  be 


Bhould  bring  these  regions  honor."  A  mysterious 
oracle  then  !  But  made  clear  to  us  by  the  event  (Matt. 
IV.  16). 

«  Since  the  great  object  of  this  discourse  is  to  allay 
Judah's  fear  of  the  Assyrian  (x.  24),  it  can  hardly  be- 
long to  the  very  early  part  of  the  reign  (742  to  727)  of 
Ahaz  ;  for  then  the  more  immediate  fear  was  the  Syro- 
Ephraimite  alliance.  According  to  the  principle  of 
chronolopical  arrangement  which  we  suppose  to  have 
been  followed  by  Isaiah  in  his  compilation,  it  would 
be  before  the  death  of  Ahaz  (comp.  xiv.  28).  Ahaz 
had  "  hired  "  the  help  of  Tiglath-pileser  by  a  large 
present  (2  K.  xvi.),  and  the  Assyrian  had  come  and 
fulfilled  (738)  the  prediction  of  Isaiah  (viii.  4)  by  cap- 
turing and  spoiling  Damascus.  But  already,  in  the 
time  of  Ahaz,  Ass\  ria  began  to  occasion  uneasiness  to 
.Judah  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  20).  Shalmaneser  succeeded 
Tiglath-pileser  not  later  than  728,  and  might  not  care 
much  for  his  predw-essor's  engagements — if,  indeed, 
Tiglath-pileser  himself  felt  bound  by  them.  At  any 
rate,  so  encroaching  a  power,  bent  on  conquest,  must 
needs  be  formidable  to  the  feeble  kingdom  of  Judah, 
Syria  being  now  conquered  and  Israel  powerless. 
Ci  itics,  who  do  not  take  sufficient  account  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  future  events  are  represented  in  the  pre- 
dictions of  inspiration  as  already  taking  place,  have 
been  led  to  unsettle  the  chronology  by  observing  that 
Samaria  is  described  by  the  boasting  Assyrian  as  being 
already  as  Damascus,  and  that  the  invading  army  is 
already  lear  Jerusalem.  But  the  conquest  of  Samaria 
was  already  announced  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  Ahaz  (viii.  4)  as  equally  certain  with  that  of  Damas- 
CBB  ;  and  the  imagery  of  x.  28-32  is  probably  that  in 
which  the  imagination  of  (me  familiar  with  the  passes 
rf  tht  country  would  obvioasly  portray  an  inyader's 


ISAIAH 

celebrated  as  the  proved  strength  of  his 

Here  again  is  set  forth  a  great  delivsrance,  poMiblj 

the  foreshadowing  of  xxxvii. 

8.  The  next  eleven  chapters,  xiii.-xxiii.,  contain 
chiefly  a  collection  of  utterances,  each  of  which  ii 
styled  a  "  burden."  ^  As  they  are  detached  pieces, 
it  is  possible  they  have  been  grouped  together  wth- 
out  strict  obser\ance  of  their  chronological  order. 

{a.)  'i'he  first  (xiii.  1-xiv.  27)  is  against  Babylon; 
placed  first,  either  because  it  was  first  in  point  of 
utterance,  or  because  Bal>ylon  in  prophetic  vision, 
particularly  when  Isaiah  compiled  his  book,  headed 
in  importance  all  the  earthly  powers  opjjosed  to 
God's  people,  and  therefore  was  to  be  first  struck 
down  by  the  shaft  of  prophecy.  As  yet,  not  Baby- 
lon but  Nineveh  was  the  imperial  city;  but  Isaiah 
possessed  not  a  mere  foreboding  drawn  from  politi- 
cal sagacity,  but  an  assured  knowledge,  that  Baby- 
lon would  be  the  seat  of  dominion  and  a  leading 
antagonist  to  the  theocratic  people.  Not  oidy  did 
he  tell  Ilezekiah  a  few  years  later,  when  Nineveh 
was  still  the  seat  of  empire,  that  his  sons  should  be 
carried  captive  "  to  Babylon,"  but  in  this  "  burden" 
he  also  foretells  bdth  the  towering  ambition  and 
glory  of  that  city,  and  its  final  overthrow.^  The 
ode  of  triumph  (xi\-.  3-23)  in  this  burden  is  among 
the  most  poetical  passages  in  all  literature.  It  is 
remarkable  that  the  overthrow  of  Babylon  is  in  vv. 
24,  25,  associated  with  the  blow  inflicted  upon  the 
Ninevite  empire  in  the  destniction  of  Sennacherib's 
army  (for  here  again  this  great  miracle  of  divine 
judgment  looms  out  into  the  prophet's  view),  which 
very  disaster,  however,  probably  helped  on  the  rise 
of  Babylon  at  the  cost  of  its  northern  rival.  I'he 
explanation  seems  to  be  that  Babylon  was  regarded 
as  merely  another  phase  of  Asshur's  sovereignty 
(comp.  2  K.  xxiii.  29),  so  that  the  overthrow  of 
Sennacherib's  army  was  a  harbinger  of  that  more 
complete  destruction  of  the  power  of  Asshur  which 


approach.  The  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army  is 
the  centre  object  of  the  first  part  of  the  book  ;  and  the 
action  of  predictive  prophecy,  and  of  miracle  in  rela- 
tion to  it,  cannot  be  gainsaid  without  setting  aside  the 
authenticity  of  the  narrative  altogether. 

h  This  remarkable  word,   StS'D,   "  lifting  up,"  is 

variously  understood,  some  taking  it  to  refer  to  evils 
to  be  borne  by  the  parties  threatened,  others  a«  a  lift- 
ing up  of  the  voice  in  a  solemn  utterance.  A  hundred 
years  later  the  term  had  been  so  misused  by  false 
prophets,  that  Jeremiah  (xxiii.  33-40)  seems  to  forbid 
its  use.  See  1  Chr.  xv.  22,  where  in  text  and  margin 
of  A.  V.  it  is  rendered  "  song,"  "  carriage,"  and 
«  lifting  up." 

c  Compare  our  remarks  in  p.  1160.  Even  if  this 
were  conceded  to  be  the  production  of  a  later  prophet 
than  L<5aiah  (which  there  is  no  just  cause  whatever  for 
believing),  the  problem  which  it  presents  tc  skepticism 
would  remain  as  hard  as  ever;  for  whentt  shoijl  its 
author  learn  that  the  ultimate  condition  cf  Ba\  ylon 
would  be  such  as  is  here  delineated  ?  (xiii.  19-22].  In 
no  time  of  Hebrew  literature  was  there  i-eason  to  »n« 
ticipate  this  of  Babylon  in  particular  more  than  of 
other  cities.  In  vain  doe.s  skepticism  quote  xrii.  1 ; 
nothing  is  said  there  of  the  ultimate  condition  of 
Damascus;  and  it  is  obvious  enough  that  any  such 
blow  as  that  {e.  s- )  intiicted  by  Tiglath-pileser  would 
make  Damascus  for  a  while  appear  to  be  "no  city" 
compared  with  what  it  had  been,  anl  would  convert 
many  of  its  streets  into  desolation.  How  different  the 
language  used  of  Babylon  I  And  how  wonderfully 
verified  by  time  I  U'e  have  the  parallel  language  aol 
verification  in  reference  tr  Idirmaea  (;rx:uv.u 


ISAIAH 

this  burden  announces.  This  prophecy  is  a  note 
of  preparation  for  the  second  part  of  the  book ;  for 
the  picture  which  it  draws  of  Babylon,  as  having 
Jacob  in  captivity,  and  being  compelled  to  relin- 
quish her  prey  (xiv.  1-3),  is  in  brief  the  same  as  is 
more  fully  delineated  in  xlvii. ;  while  the  conclud- 
ing verses  about  Sennacherib's  army  (24-27)  stand 
in  somewhat  the  same  relation  to  tlie  rest  of  the 
"  burden,"  as  the  full  history  in  xxxvi.,  xxxvii 
stands  to  xl.-xlviii. 

(h.)  The  short  and  pregnant  "  burden  "  against 
Philistia  (xiv.  29-32)  in  the  year  that  Ahaz  died, 
was  occasioned  by  the  revolt  of  the  Philistines  from 
Judah  and  their  successful  inroad,  recorded  2  ('hr. 
xxviii.  18.  "  If  Judah's  rule  was  a  serpent,  that 
of  Assyria  would  prove  a  basilisk  —  a  flying  dragon; 
let  their  gates  howl  at  the  smoke  which  annoimced 
the  invading  army !  Meanwhile  Zion  would  repose 
safe  under  the  protection  of  her  king:  "  —  language 
plainly  predictive,  as  the  compiler  in  giving  the 
date  evidently  felt ;  corap.  xxxvii. 

(c.)  The  "  burden  of  Moab"  (xv.,  xvi.)  is  remark- 
able for  the  elegiac  strain  in  which  the  prophet 
bewails  the  disasters  of  Moal),  and  for  the  dramatic 
character  of  xvi.  1-6,  in  which  3-5  is  the  petition 
of  the  Moabites  to  Judah,  and  ver.  6  Judah's 
answer."    For  Moab's  relation  to  Israel  see  Moab. 

(d.)  Chapters  xvii.,  xviii.  This  prophecy  is 
headed  "  the  burden  of  Damascus;  "  and  yet  after 
ver.  3  the  attention  is  withdrawn  from  Damascus 
and  turned  to  Israel,  and  then  to  Ethiopia.  Israel 
appears  as  closely  associated  with  Damascus,  and 
indeed  dependent  upon  her,  and  as  liavitiij  adopted 
her  religious  rites,  "  strange  slips,"  ver.  10  (comp. 
2  K.  xvi.  10,  of  Ahaz),  which  shall  not  profit  her. 
This  brings  us  to  the  time  of  the  Syro-LLphraimitic 
alliance;  at  all  events  Kphraim  has  not  ?/e/ ceased 
to  exist.  Chap.  xvii.  12-14,  as  well  as  xviii.  1-7, 
point  again  to  the  event  of  xxxvii.  But  why  this 
here?  The  solution  seems  to  be  that,  though 
Assyria  would  be  the  ruin  l)oth  of  Aram  and  of 
Israel,  and  though  it  would  even  threaten  -ludah 
("us,"  ver.  14),  it  should  not  then  conquer  Judah 
(comp.  turn  of  xiv.  31,  32).  And  with  this  last 
thought  ch.  xviii.  is  inseparably  connected ;  for  it 
is  a  call  of  congratulation  to  Ethiopia  ("  woe  "  in 
ver.  1  of  A.  \''.  should  be  "ho!  "  as  Iv.  1;  also  in 
ver.  2  omit  "  saying  "),  whose  deputies,  predictively 
imagined  as  having  come  to  Palestine  to  learn  the 
progress  of  the  Assyrian  invasion  (comp.  xxxvii.  9), 
are  sent  back  by  the  prophet  charged  with  the  glad 
news  of  Asshur's  overthrow  described  in  vv.  4-6. 
In  ver.  7  we  have  the  conversion  of  Ethiopia;  for 
"  the  people  tall,  and  shorn  "  is  itself  "  the  present  " 
io  be  brought  unto  Jehovah.  (Comp.  Acts  viii. 
20-40,  and  the  present  condition  of  Ethiopia.) 

These  repeated  predictions  of  Zion's  deliverance 
&T»m  Asshur,  in  conjunction  with  Asshur's  triumph 
Dv?r  Zion's  enemies,  entered  deeply  into  the  essence 
»f  the  prophet's  public  ministry ;  the  great  aim  of 
f\  ich  was  to  fix  the  dependence  of  his  countrymen 
Hiiirely  upon  Jehovah. 


ISAIAH 


1150 


k 


«  A  good  deal  of  this  burden  is  an  enlargement  of 
Num  xxi.  27-30,  from  the  imitation  of  which  the 
olorlng  of  its  style  in  part  arises.  It  in  turn  reap- 
»ears  in  an  enlarged  edition  in  .Ter.  xlviii.  Th«<  two 
oncluding  verses  (Is.  xvi.  13,  14),  which  furnish  no 
«al  ground  for  doubting  whether  Isaiah  wrote  the 
whole  of  it,  recount  that  of  old  time  the  purport  of 
iiis  denunciation  has  been  decreed  (namely,  in  Num. 
txl.  and  xxiv.  17),   but  that  within   three  years  it 


(e.)  In  the  "  burden  of  Egypt  '  (xu  the  prophn 
seems  to  be  pursuing  the  same  object.  Both  Israd 
(2  K.  xvii.  4)  and  Judah  (Is.  xxxi.)  were  naturally 
disposed  to  look  towards  Egypt  for  succor  against 
Assyria.  Probably  it  was  to  counteract  this  ten- 
dency that  the  prophet  is  here  directed  to  prophesy 
the  utter  helplessness  of  E^ypt  under  (iod's  judg- 
ments: she  should  be  given  over  to  Asshur  (the 
"  cruel  lord  "  and  "  fierce  king  "  of  ver.  4,  not 
Psammetichus),  and  should  also  suffer  the  most 
dreadful  calamities  through  civil  dissensions  and 
through  drought,  —  unless  this  drought  is  a  iigure 
founded  upon  the  peculiar  usefulness  of  the  Nile, 
and  the  veneration  with  which  it  was  regarded 
(1-15).  But  the  result  should  be  that  numerous 
cities  of  Egypt  should  own  Jehovah  for  their  God, 
and  be  joined  in  brotherhood  with  his  worshippers 
in  Israel  and  in  Asshur ;  —  a  reference  to  Messianic 
times.^ 

{/'.)  In  the  midst  of  these  *'  burdens  "  stands  a 
passage  which  presents  Isaiah  in  a  new  aspect,  an 
aspect  in  which  he  appears  in  this  instance  only. 
It  was  not  uncommon  both  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  thf 
New  (comp.  Acts  xxi.  11)  for  a  prophet  to  add  t< 
his  s{X)ken  word  an  action  symbolizing  its  import 
Sargon,  known  here  only,  was  king  of  AssjTia, 
probably  between  Shalmaneser  and  Sennacherib. 
His  armies  were  now  in  the  south  of  Palestine  be- 
sieging Ashdod.  It  has  been  plausibly  conjectured 
that  Tirhakah,  king  of  Meroe,  and  Sethos,  the  king 
of  Egypt,  were  now  in  alliance.  The  more  em- 
phatically to  enforce  the  warning  already  conveyed 
in  the  "  burden  of  Egypt  "  —  not  to  look  thither- 
ward for  help  —  Isaiah  was  commanded  to  appear 
in  the  streets  and  temple  of  Jerusalem  stripped  of 
his  sackcloth  mantle,  and  wearing  his  vest  only, 
with  his  feet  also  bare.  '*  Thus  shall  Eg}^tians 
and  Ethiopians  walk,  captives  before  the  king  of 
Assyria."  For  three  years  was  he  directed  (from 
time  to  time,  we  may  suppose)  thus  to  show  him- 
self in  public  view,  —  to  make  the  lesson  the  more 
impressive  by  constant  repetition. 

((/.)  In  "the  burden  of  the  desert  of  the  sea,'' 
a  poetical  designation  of  Babylonia  (xxi.  1-10), 
the  images  in  which  the  fall  of  Babylon  is  indicated 
are  sketched  with  ^Eschylean  rapidity,  and  certainly 
not  less  than  ^schylean  awfuhiess  and  grandeur. 
As  before  (xiii.  17),  the  Modes  are  the  captors.  It 
is  to  comfort  Judah  sighing  under  the  "  treacherous 
spoiling  "  (v.  2)  and  continual  "  threshing  "  (v.  10) 
of  Asshur  —  Ninevite  and  Babylonian  —  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  moves  the  prophet  to  this  utterance." 

(h.)  "  The  burden  of  Dumah,"  —  in  which  the 
watchman  can  see  nothing  but  night,  let  them  ask 
him  as  often  as  they  will  —  and  "  of  Arabia  "  (xxi. 
11-17),  relate  apparently  to  some  Assyrian  inva- 
sion. 

(i.)  In  "the  burden  of  the  valley  of  vision^* 
(xxii.  1-14),  it  is  doubtless  Jerusalem  that  is  thus 
designated,  and  not  without  sadness,  as  having  been 
so  long  the  home  of  prophetic  vision  to  so  little 
result.     The  scene  presented  is  that  of  Jerusalem 


should  begin  to  be  fulfilled.  It  was  not  completely 
fulfilled  even  in  Jeremiah's  time. 

b  Comp.  the  close  of  the  "  burden  of  Tyre."  Th« 
"  city  of  destruction  "  (xix  18)  is  supposed  by  many 
to  be  Beth-shemesh  of  Jer.  xliii.  13,  specified  becaiwi 
hitherto  an  especial  seat  of  idolatry.  Onias's  misuse 
of  this  prediction  is  well  known.     [See  Ir-ha-heres. 

c  In  vv.  3  and  4  the  poet  dramatically  representi 
the  feelings  of  the  Babylonians. 


1156 


ISAIAH 


during  an  invasion ;  in  the  hostile  army  are  named 
Elam  and  Kir,  nations  which  no  doubt  contributed 
troops  both  to  the  Ninevite  and  to  the  Babylonian 
armies.  The  latter  is  probably  here  contemplated." 
The  homiletic  purpose  of  this  prediction  in  reference 
to  Isaiah's  contemporaries,  was  to  inculcate  a  pious 
and  humble  dependence  upon  Jehovah  in  place  of 
any  mere  fleshly  confidence. 

(k.)  The  passage  xxii.  15-25  is  singular  in  Isaiah 
as  a  prophesying  against  an  individual.  Comp.  the 
word  of  Amos  (vii.)  against  Amaziah,  and  of  Jere- 
miah (xx.)  against  Pashur.  Shebna  was  probably 
as  ungodly  as  they.  One  of  the  king's  highest 
functionaries,  he  seems  to  have  been  leader  of  a 
party  opposed  to  Jehovah  (v.  25,  "  the  burden  that 
is  upon  it").  Himself  a  stranger  in  Jerusalem  — 
perhaps  an  alien,  as  Ewald  conjectures  from  the 
un-Hebrew  form  of  his  name  —  he  may  have  been 
introduced  by  Hezekiah's  predecessor  Ahaz;  he 
made  great  parade  of  his  rank  (ver.  18;  comp.  2 
Sam.  XV.  1),  and  presumed  upon  his  elevation  so 
far  as  to  hew  out  a  tomb  high  up  in  the  cliffs 
(probably  on  the  western  or  southwestern  side  of 
Jerusalem,  where  so  many  were  excavated),  as  an 
ostentatious  display  of  his  greatness  (comp.  2  Chr. 
xxxii.  33,  maryin).  We  may  believe  him  to  have 
been  engaged  with  this  business  outside  the  walls 
when  Isaiah  came  to  him  with  his  message.  Shebna 
fancies  his  power  securely  rooted ;  but  Jehovah  will 
roll  him  up  as  a  ball  and  toss  him  away  into  a  far 
distant  land,  —  disyrace  that  he  is  to  his  master  ! 
his  stately  robes  of  office,  with  his  broad  magnificent 
girdle,  shall  invest  another,  Eliakim.  Ch.  xxxvi. 
3,  seems  to  indicate  a  decline  of  his  power,  as  it 
also  shows  Eliakim's  promotion  to  Shebna's  former 
post.  Perhaps  he  was  disgracetl  and  exiled  by 
Hezekiah,  after  the  event  of  xxxvii.,  when  the  sin- 
ners in  Zion  were  overawed  and  great  ascendency 
for  a  while  secured  to  the  party  which  was  true  to 
Jehovah.  If  his  fall  was  the  consequence  of  the 
Assyrian  overthrow,  we  can  better  understand  both 
the  denunciation  against  the  individual  and  the 
position  it  occupies  in  the  record. 

(/.)  The  last  "  burden  "  is  against  Tyre  (xxiii.). 
The  only  cause  specified  by  Isaiah  for  the  judgment 
upon  Tyre  is  her  pride  (ver.  9;  comp.  Ez.  xxviii. 
2,  6);  and  we  can  understand  how  the  Tyrians, 
proud  of  their  mjiterial  progress  and  its  outward 
displays,  may  have  looked  with  contempt  upon  the 
plainer  habits  of  the  theocratic  people.  But  this 
was  not  the  only  ground.  The  contagion  of  her 
idolatry  reached  Jerusalem  (1  K.  xi.  5,  33;  2  K. 
xi.  18,  xxiii.  13).  Otherwise  also  she  was  an  in- 
jurious neighbor  (Ps.  Ixxxiii.  7;  Joel,  iii.  6;  Am. 
i.  0).    It  therefore  behoved  Jehovah,  both  as  aven- 


«  That  it  is  not  Sennacherib's  invasion,  we  infer 
from  the  unrelieved  description  of  godlessness  and 
recklessness  (vv.  11,  12),  and  the  threatened  punish- 
ment unto  death  (ver.  14),  whereas  Hezekiah's  piety 
was 'conspicuous,  and  saved  the  city.  (Comp.  2  Chr. 
xxxvi.  12,  16.)  Moreover,  the  famine  in  2  K.  xxv.  3 
fclirows  light  on  Is.  xxii.  2.  That  vv.  9-11  agree 
with  2  Chr.  xxxii.  3-5  proves  nothing:  the  same 
measures  would  be  taken  in  any  invasion  (comp.  Is. 
vii.  8).  The  former  part  of  ver.  2  and  vv.  12,  13, 
describe  the  state  of  things  preceding  the  imagined 
or«8ent. 

h  "  Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldseans ;  this  people," 
*.  e.  the  Chaldseans,  "  was  not :  Asshur  founded  it  for 
Ul«  inhabitants  of  the  wilderness,"  assigning  a  loca- 
Itoti  to  the  Chaldseans,  heretofore  nomadic,  Job  i.  17 ; 
^  thsy,"  tile  Chaldseans,  "  set  tip  their  watch-towers  ; 


ISAIAH 

ging  his  own  worship,  and  as  the  guardian  and 
avenger  of  his  peculiar  people,  to  punish  Tyre 
Shalmaneser  appears  to  have  been  foiled  in  hia 
five  years'  siege;  Nebuchadnezzar  was  more  suc- 
cessful, capturing  at  least  the  mainland  part  of  the 
city;  and  to  this  latter  circumstance  ver.  13  refers.* 
In  vv.  15-17  it  seems  to  be  intimated  that  when 
the  pressure  of  Asshur  should  be  removed  (by  the 
Medo-Persian  conquest).  Tyre  should  revive.  Her 
utter  destruction  is  not  predicted  by  Isaiah  as  it 
afterwards  was  by  Ezekiel.  Ver.  18  probably 
points  to  Messianic  times:  comp.  Mark  vii.  26; 
Acts  xxi.  3 ;  Euseb.  H.  E.  x.  4. 

9.  The  next  four  chapters,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  form  cne 
prophecy  essentially  connected  with  the  preceding 
ten  "burdens'"  (xiii.-xxiii.),  of  which  it  is  in  effect 
a  general  summary;  it  pre.sents  previous  denunci- 
ations in  one  general  denunciation  which  include? 
the  theocratic  people  itself,  and  therewith  also  the 
promi.se  of  blessings,  especially  Messianic  blessings, 
for  the  remnant.  It  no  longer  particularizes  (Moab, 
xxv.  10,  represents  all  enemies  of  God's  people,  aa 
Edom  does  in  Ixiii.  1),  but  speaks  of  judgments 
upon  lands,  cities,  and  oppressors  in  general  terms, 
the  reference  of  which  is  to  be  gathered  from  what 
goes  before.^ 

The  elegy  of  xxiv.  is  interrupted  at  ver.  13  by  a 
glimpse  at  the  happy  remnant  (ver.  15,  fires  prob- 
ably means  east),  but  is  resumed  at  ver.  16,  till  at 
ver.  21  the  dark  night  passes  away  altogether  to 
usher  in  an  inexpressibly  glorious  day.^* 

In  xxv.,  after  commemorating  the  destruction  of 
nil  oppressors  ("  city  "  ver.  2,  contemplates  Baby- 
lon as  type  of  all),  the  prophet  gives  us  in  vv.  6-9 
a  most  glowing  description  of  Messianic  blessings, 
which  connects  itself  with  the  N.  T.  by  numberless 
links,  indicating  the  oneness  of  the  prophetic  Spirit 
("the  Spirit  of  Christ,"  1  Pet.  i.  11),  with  that 
which  dwells  in  the  later  revelation.^ 

In  xxvi.,  vv.  12-18  describe  the  new,  happy  state 
of  God's  people  as  God's  work  wholly  (comp.  13, 
"by  thee  only");  all  their  efforts  were  fruitless 
till  God  graciously  interposed.  The  new  condition 
of  Israel  is  figuratively  a  resurrection  (comp.  Eze- 
kiel's  vision  of  dry  bones,  Ez.  xxxvii.),  a  fruit  of 
omnipotent  agency;  as  indeed  the  glorified  state 
of  the  Church  hereafter  will  be  literally  a  resur- 
rection. 

In  xxvii.  1,  "  Leviathan  the  fleeing  serpent,  and 
leviathan  the  twisting  serj^ent,  and  the  dragon  in 
the  sea,"  are  perhaps  Nineveh  and  Babylon  — two 
phases  cf  the  same  Asshur  —  and  Egypt  (comp. 
ver.  13);  all,  however,  symbohzing  adverse  powers 
of  evil.  The  reader  will  observe  that  in  this  period 
of  his  ministry,   Isaiah  already  contemplates  the 


they  demolished  her  (Tyre's)  palaces  :  He  made  hei 
a  ruin."  In  the  face  of  all  external  evidence,  we  can- 
not accept  Ewald's  ingenious  conjecture  Cif  D''3SJ5? 

for  D"^"!!???. 

c  Thus'comp.  xxiv.  13-15,  xxvii.  9,  with  xvii  6-8  ; 
also  xxv.  2  with  xiii.  19 ;  also  xxv.  3-12  with  xviiL 
7,  xxiii.  18  ;  and  xxv.  5  with  xviii.  4-6. 

d  In  ver.  21,  "  Jehovah  shall  visit  the  host  ot  the 
height "  —  stars,  symbolic  of  rulers,  as  Mark  xiii.  25. 
The  "ancients  "  of  ver.  23  represent  the  Church,  like 
the  elders  in  Rev.  iv.  4. 

e  In  ver.  7  "  the  face,"  i.  «.  "  the  surface  cf  the 
covering,"  is  the  veil  itself  as  lying  upon  the  earth, 
"  of  the  covering."  In  ver.  11  we  have  the  fniitlen 
endeavors  of  Moab  to  escape  out  of  the  flord  of  Qod' 
wrath. 


ISAIAH 


delivers  ace  of  his  people  as  a  restoration 
fcom  captivity,  especitU.y  from  Assyria,  vv.  12,  13 
(comp.  xi.  11,  16),  as  he  does  in  the  second  part; 
—  Babylon  being  a  second  phase  of  Asshur. 

10.  Chs.  xxviii.-xxxv.  The  former  part  of  this 
«ection  seems  to  be  of  a  fragmentary  character, 
being,  as  Hengstenberg  with  mucli  probability  con- 
jectures, the  substance  of  discourses  not  fully  com- 
municated, and  spoken  at  different  times.  The 
latter  part  hangs  more  closely  together,  and  may 
with  considerable  certainty  be  assigned  to  the  time 
;f  Sennacherib's  invasion.  At  such  a  season  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  would  be  especially  awake. 

Ch.  xxviii.  1-6  is  clearly  predictive;  it  therefore 
preceded  Shalmaneser's  invasion,  when  Samaria, 
''the  crown  of  pride"  surmounting  its  beautiful 
hill,  was  destroyed.  But  the  men  of  Judah  also,  ver. 
7  (comp.  ver.  14),  ai'e  threatened.  And  here  we 
have  a  picture  given  us  of  the  way  in  which  .lebo- 
vah's  word  was  received  by  Isaiah's  contemporaries. 
Priest  and  prophet  were  drunk  with  a  spirit  of 
infatuation,  -^  "  they  erred  in  vision,  they  stumbled 
in  judgment,"  and  therefore  only  scoffed  at  his 
ministrations." 

In  the  lips  of  these  false  prophets,  prophesying, 
in  proportion  to  its  falsehood,  would  be  exaggerated 
in  the  wildness  and  incoherency  of  the  style.  Hence 
the  scoffing  prophets  and  priests  made  it  a  matter 
of  reproach  against  Isaiah  that  his  style  was  so 
plain  and  simple  —  as  if  he  were  dealing  with  little 
children,  ver.  9.  And  in  mockery  they  accumulate 
monosyllables  as  imitating  his  style  (tsav  la-tsav, 
tsav  la-tsav,  kav  la-kav,  kav  la-kav,  zeeir  sham, 
eeeir  sham,  ver.  10).  "  Twist  my  words "  (is 
Isaiah's  reply)  "into  a  mocking  jabber  if  ye  will; 
God  shall  in  turn  speak  to  you  by  the  jabber  of 
foreign  invaders!  "  (comp.  Deut.  xxviii.  49).  They 
trusted  that  they  had  made  a  "  vision  "  —  a  com- 
pact with  death  and  hell  (vv.  15,  18,  "agree- 
ment," Hebr.  vision),  and  that  through  the  meas- 
ures which  they,  seer  and  priest  together,  had 
adopted,  no  invasion  should  hurt  them.  But  the 
Btone  which  Jehovah  lays  in  Zion  (God's  own 
prophets)  alone  secures  those  who  trust  in  it;  ye 
shall  perish  (16-22).  Ver.  16  is  applied  in  the 
N.  T.  to  Christ;  he  is  now  the  prophet  who  saves 
those  who  beUeve  in  him.  This  glimpse  into  He- 
brew life  explains  to  us  in  part  the  cause  of  the 
liilure  of  the  prophetic  ministry.  The  travesty  of 
"  the  word  of  Jehovah  "  preoccupied  men's  minds, 
or  at  least  confused  them ;  while  further  the  con- 
flicting voices  of  different  prophets,  the  false  and 
the  true,  would  furnish  them,  as  in  all  ages  it  does 
to  the  worldly  and  the  skeptical,  a  ground  for  entire 
disbelief. 

"  Cannot  ye  wise  men  apply  to  the  conduct  of 
your  affairs  in  relation  to  God  that  shrewdness  and 
(jjsdora,  which  the  farmer  displays  in  dealing  with 
his  various  businesses,  and  which  God  has  given 
Jike  to  him  and  to  you?  "  (23-29). 


ISAIAH 


1167 


a  "  The  priest  and  the  prophet.'-  There  is  no  rea- 
son to  understand  these  as  connected  with  idolatry. 
There  were  always  (it  would  seem)  a  numerous  party 
who  assumed  the  hair-wove  manue  of  the  prophet 
("wearing  a  hairy  garment  to  deceive");  and  these 
sable-clad  men  perhaps  even  swarmed  in  the  streets 
of  Jerusalem.  [Elijah,  p.  703,  note  e.^  The  priests, 
»n  the  other  hand,  were  the  aristocr&oy  of  Jud^.a, 
and,  under  the  king,  to  a  great  extent  ruled  its  policy. 
Like  the  coalition  of  strategus  and  orator  at  Athens, 
•o  pries*/  and  prophet  played  into  each  other's  hands 
At    Jenieaiem.     Whatever  public   policy  tlie  priests 


Ch.  xxix.  Jerusalem  was  to  be  risited  witfc 
extreme  danger  and  terror,  and  then  sudden  de- 
liverance, vv.  1-8-  (Sennacherib's  invasion  again! 
But  the  threatening  and  promise  seemed  very  enig 
matical;  prophets,  and  rulers,  and  scholars,  coulo 
make  nothing  of  the  riddle  (9-12).  Alas)  thfl 
people  themselves  will  only  hearken  to  the  prcphetg 
and  priests  speaking  out  of  their  own  heart ;  even 
their  so-called  piety  to  Jehovah  is  regulated,  not 
by  his  true  organs,  but  by  pretended  ones,  ver.  13 
(comp.  the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  relation  to  their 
rabbins  and  to  Christ,  Matt.  xv.  8,  9);  but  all 
their  vaunted  policy  shall  be  confounded ;  the  wild 
wood  shall  become  a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful 
field  a  wild  wood ;  —  the  humble  pupils  of  Jeho\'ah 
and  these  self-wise  leaders  shall  interchange  their 
places  of  dishonor  and  prosperity,  vv.  13-24. 

One  instance  of  the  false  leading  of  these  proph- 
ets and  priests  (xxx.  1)  in  opposition  to  the  true 
prophets  (vv.  10,  11)  was  the  policy  of  courting 
the  help  of  Egypt  against  Assyria.  Against  this, 
Isaiah  is  commanded  to  protest,  which  he  does  both 
in  xxx.  1-17,  and  in  xxx.  1-3,  pointing  out  at  the 
same  time  the  fruitlessness  of  all  measures  of  hu- 
man policy  and  the  necessity  of  trusting  in  Jehovah 
alone  for  deliverance.  In  xxx.  18-33,  and  xxxi. 
4-9,  there  is  added  to  each  address  the  prediction 
of  the  Assyrian's  overthrow  and  its  consequences, 
xxx.  19-24,  in  terms  which,  when  read  in  the  light 
of  the  event,  seem  very  clear,  but  which  no  doubt 
appeared  to  the  worldly  and  skeptical  at  the  time 
mere  frenzy. 

As  the  time  approaches,  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
becomes  more  and  more  glowing ;  that  marvelous 
deliverance  from  Asshur,  wherein  God's  "  Name  " 
(xxx.  27)  so  gloriously  came  near,  opens  even 
clearer  glimpses  into  the  time  when  God  should 
indeed  come  and  reign,  in  the  Anointed  One,  and 
when  virtue  and  righteousness  should  everywhere 
prevail  (xxxii.  1-8,  15-20);  then  the  mighty  Jeho- 
vah should  be  a  king  dwelling  amongst  his  people 
(xxxiii.  17,  22);  he  should  himself  be  a  sea  of 
glory  and  defense  encircling  them,  in  which  all 
hostile  galleys  should  perish.  At  that  glorious 
display  of  Jehovah's  nearness  (namely,  that  afforded 
in  the  Assyrian's  overthrow),  they  who  had  re- 
jected Jehovah  in  his  servants  and  prophets,  the 
sinners  in  Zion,  should  be  filled  with  dismay,  dread- 
ing lest  his  terrible  judgment  should  alight  upon 
themselves  also  (xxxiii.  14).  With  these  glorious 
predictions  are  blended  also  descriptions  of  the 
grief  and  despair  which  should  precede  that  hour, 
xxxii.  9-14  (?)'»  and  xxxiii.  7-9,  and  the  earnest 
prayer  then  to  be  offered  by  the  pious  (xxxiii.  2). 

In  ch.  xxxiv.  the  prediction  must  certainly  be 
taken  with  a  particular  reference  to  Idumaea  (this  is 
shown  by  the  challenge  in  ver.  16,  to  compare  the 
fulfillment  with  the  prophecy);  we  are  however  led, 
both  by  the  placing  of  the  prophecy  and  by  Ixiii.  2, 
to  take  it  in  a  general  sense  as  well  as  typical.^ 

advised,  they  would  be  seconded  therein  by  prophets, 
"in  the  name  of  Jehovah."  Isaiah's  contemporary 
shows  us  in  what  an  unprincipled  manner  the  proph- 
ets abused  their  function  for  their  own  advantage  (Mic. 
iii.  5-7,  11):  "The  prophets  prophesied  falsely,  and 
the  priests  bare  rule  by  their  means"  (Jer.  v.  31). 
Hence  prophets  and  priests  are  so  often  named  to- 
gether (comp.  xxix.  9,  10). 

b  In  ver.  10,  read  "  some  days  over  a  year  shaU 
ye  be  troubled." 

c  The  reference  to  "  the  book  of  Jehovah,"  ver.  16 
as  containing  this  prediction,  deserves  nc  tice.     Am  tlM 


k 


1158  ISAIAH 

As  xixiv.  has  a  general  sense,  so  xxxv.  indicates 
in  general  terms  the  deliverance  of  Israel  as  if  out 
irf  captivity,  reJDicing  in  their  secure  and  happy 
march  through  the  wilderness.  It  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  description  is  meant  to  apply  to  any 
deliverance  out  of  temporal  captivity,  closely  as  the 
unagery  approaches  that  of  the  second  part.  It 
rather  seems  to  picture  the  march  of  the  spiritual 
Israel  to  her  eternal  Zion  (Heb.  xii.  22). 

11.  xxxvii.-xxxix.  —  At  length  the  season  so 
often,  though  no  doubt  obscurely  foretold,  arrived. 
The  Assyrian  was  near  with  forces  apparently  irre- 
sistible. In  the  universal  consternation  which  en- 
sued, all  the  hope  of  the  state  centred  upon  Isaiah ; 
the  highest  functionaries  of  the  state,  —  Shebnc 
too,  —  wait  upon  him  in  the  name  of  their  sove- 
reign, confessing  that  they  were  now  in  the  very 
extremity  of  danger  (xxxvii.  3),  and  entreating  his 
prayers ;  —  a  signal  token  this,  of  the  approved 
fidelity  of  the  prophet  in  the  ministry  which  he 
had  so  long  exercised.  The  short  answer  which 
Jehovah  gave  through  him  was,  that  the  Assyrian 
king  should  hear  intelUgence  which  would  send 
him  back  to  his  own  land,  thpre  to  perish.  The 
event  shows  that  the  intelligence  pointed  to  was 
that  of  the  destruction  of  his  army.  Accordingly 
Hezekiah  communicated  to  Sennacherib,  now  at 
Libnah,  his  refusal  to  submit,  expressing  his  assur- 
ance of  l)eing  protected  by  Jehovah  (comp.  ver.  10). 
This  drew  from  the  Assyrian  king  a  letter  of  defi- 
ance against  Jehovah  himself,  as  being  no  more 
able  to  defend  Jerusalem,  than  other  tutelary  gods 
had  been  to  defend  the  countries  which  he  had 
conquered.  On  Hezekiah  spreading  this  letter 
before  Jehovah  in  the  Temple  for  him  to  read  and 
answer  (ver.  17),  Isaiah  was  commissioned  to  send 
a  fuller  reply  to  the  pious  king  (21-35),  the  mani- 
fest object  of  which  was  the  more  completely  to 
signalize,  esi)ecially  to  God's  own  people  them- 
selves, the  meaning  of  the  coming  event."  How 
the  deliverance  was  to  be  effected,  Isaiah  was  not 
commissioned  to  tell;  but  the  very  next  night  (2 
K.  xix.  35)  brought  the  appalUng  fulfillment.  A 
divine  interposition  so  marvelous,  so  evidently 
miraculous,  was  in  its  magnificence  worthy  of 
being  the  kernel  of  Isaiah's  whole  book ;  it  is  in- 
deed that  without  which  the  whole  book  falls  to 
pieces,  but  with  which  it  forms  a  well-organized 
whole  (comp.  Ps.  Ixxvi.,  xlvi.,  xlviii.). 


prot.het'3  spoken  word  was  "  the  loord  of  Jehovah," 
go  his  written  word  is  here  called  "  the  book  of  Jeho- 
vah." It  shows  Isaiah's  estimate  of  his  prophetical 
writings.  So  xxx.  8  points  to  an  enduring  record  in 
which  he  was  to  deposit  his  testimony  concerning 
Egypt.  (In  xxx.  9,  for  "That  this  is,"  etc.,  read 
"  Because  this  is,"  etc.) 

a  How  like  Isaiah's  style  the  whole  passage  is ! 
xxxvii.  26  refers  to  the  numerous  predictions  of  As- 
shur's  conquests  and  overthrow  found  in  preceding 
parts  of  the  book  (comp.  xliv.  8;  xlvi.  9-11,  &c  ). 
Comp.  ver.  27  with  xli.  2.  "  Sign"  in  ver  30,  as  in 
vii.  14-16  ;  —  There  must  be  a  remnant ;  therefore  ye 
shall  now  be  delivered.  For  further  explanation, 
Ewald  refers  to  the  law  in  Lev.  xxv.  5,  11 :  "  Your 
condition  this  year  will  be  lilce  that  of  a  Sabbath  year  ; 
next  year  (the  land  being  even  then  not  quite  cleared 
of  invaders)  like  that  of  the  jubilee  year  :  as  at  the 
jubilee  the  Hebrew  commonwealth  starts  afresh,  re- 
itored  to  its  proper  condition,  so  now  reformation, 
the  ftnit  of  affliction,  shall  introduce  better  days  " 
ever.  81). 

'»  For  Hezekiah's  sickness  was  15  years  before  his 
whereas  tlie  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  army 


ISAIAH 

Chs.  xxxviii.,  xxxix.  chronologicalij  preeed«  thi 
two  previous  ones ;  ^  but  there  seems  to  be  a  tiro- 
fold  purpose  in  this  arrangement :  one  ethical,  to 
illustrate  God's  discipline  exercised  over  hia  most 
favored  servants,  and  the  other  litorary,  to  intro- 
duce by  the  prediction  of  the  Babylwiian  Captivity 
the  second  part  of  the  book.  As  the  two  preceding 
chapters  look  back  upon  the  prediction  of  the  first 
part,  and  therefore  stand  even  before  xxxviii.,  so 
xxxix.  looks  forward  to  the  subsequent  prophesy- 
ings,  and  is  therefore  placed  immediately  before 
them.c 

12.  The  last  27  chapters  form  a  prophecy,  whose 
coherence  of  structure  and  unity  of  authorship  are 
generally  admitted  even  by  those  who  deny  that  it 
was  wTitten  by  Isaiah.  The  point  of  time  and 
situation  from  which  the  prophet  here  speaks,  is 
for  the  most  part  that  of  the  Captivity  in  Babylon 
(comp.,  e.  r/.,  Ixiv.  10,  11).  But  this  is  adopted  on 
a  principle  already  noted  as  characterizing  "  vision," 
namely,  that  the  prophet  sees  the  future  as  if 
present.  That  the  present  with  the  prophet  in  this 
section  was  imagined  and  not  real,  is  indicated  by 
the  specification  of  sins  which  are  rebuked;  as 
neglect  of  sacrifices  (xliii.  22-24),  unacceptable 
sacrifices  (Ixvi.  3),  various  idolatries  (Ivii.  3-10) 
Ixv.  3,  4);  sins  belonging  to  a  period  before  the 
exile,  and  not  to  the  exile  itself. «^  But  that  this 
imagined  time  and  place  should  be  maintained 
through  so  long  a  composition,  is  unquestionably  a 
remarkable  phenomenon.  It  is,  however,  explained 
by  the  fact,  that  the  prophet  in  these  later  prophesy- 
ings  is  a  writer  rather  than  a  pubUc  speaker,  writing 
for  the  edification  of  God's  people  in  those  future 
days  of  the  approach  of  which  Isaiah  was  aware. 
For  the  punishment  of  exile  had  been  of  old  de- 
nounced in  case  of  disobedience  even  by  Moses 
himself  (Lev.  xxvi.  31-35),  and  thus  contemplated 
by  Solomon  (1  K.  viii.  46-60);  moreover,  Isaiah 
had  himself  often  reaUzed  and  predicted  it,  with 
reference  repeatedly  to  Babylon  in  particular  (xxxix. 
6,  7,  xxvii.  12,  13,  xxi.  2,  10,  xiv.  2,  3,  xi.  11,  12, 
vi.  11,  12);  which  was  also  done  by  Micah  (iv.  10, 
vii.  12,  13).  Apart  therefore  from  the  immediate 
suggestion  of  an  inspiring  afflatus,  it  was  a  thought 
already  fixed  in  Isaiah's  mind  by  a  chain  of  fore- 
going revelations,  that  the  Hebrews  would  l)e  de- 
ported to  Babylon,  and  that  too  within  a  genera- 
tion or  two.     We  dwell  upon  this,  because  it  must 


(so  chronologers  determine)  occurred  12  or  13  years 
before  the  same  date. 

c  Since  xxxviii.  9-20  is  not  in  2  K.,  and  on  the 
other  hand  in  2  K.  are  found  many  touches  not  found 
in  Is.  {e.  ^  2  K.  xviii.  14-16  ;  xx.  4,  5,  9,  &c.),  critics 
are  generally  agreed  that  neither  account  was  drawn 
from  the  other,  but  both  of  them  from  the  record 
mentioned  in  2  Chr.  xxxii.  32  as  "  the  vision  of  Isaiah 
the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amoz,  (found)  in  (not,  as  in 
A.  v.,  '  anfl  in ')  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and 
Israel "  ;  which  record  Isaiah  adopted  with  modifica- 
tions into  the  compilation  of  his  prophecies. 

<^  As  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  God's  own  people  that 
Isaiah  writes,  and  not  to  affect  heathen  nations  to 
whom  he  had  no  commission,  the  arguing  against 
idolatry,  of  which  we  have  so  much  in  this  part,  is  to 
be  ascribed  to  idolatrous  tendencies  among  the  He- 
brews themselves,  which  ceased  at  the  Captivity  ;  for 
the  deportation  probably  (Hengst.)  affected  chiefly  th« 
best  disposed  of  the  nation,  especially  the  prieste,  of 
whom  there  appears  to  have  been  a  disproportiouat* 
number  both  among  those  who  were  exiled  and  thoa* 
who  returned. 


ISAIAH 

M  •ckaoivledged,  and  we  have  already  made  the 
remark,  that  "  vision  "  even  in  its  most  heightened 
form  iitill  adapted  itself  more  or  less  to  the  previous 
men<^  condition  of  the  seer.  We  can  under- 
stand, therefore,  how  Isaiah  n'ight  be  led  to  write 
prophesyuiga,  such  as  should  serve  as  his  minis- 
terial bequest  to  his  people  when  the  hour  of  their 
captivity  should  have  fallen  upon  them. 

This  same  fact,  namely,  that  the  prophet  is  here, 
in  the  undisturbed  retirement  of  his  chamber,  giv- 
ing us  a  written  prophecy,  and  not  recording,  as  in 
the  early  part  of  the  book,  spoken  discourses,  goes 
far  to  explain  the  greater  profusion  of  words,  and 
the  clearer,  more  flowing,  and  more  complete  ex- 
position of  thoughts,  which  generally  characterize 
this  second  part;  whereas  the  first  part yregz(e»Y/// 
exhibits  great  abruptness,  and  a  close  compression 
and  terseness  of  diction,  at  times  almost  enigmati- 
cal —  as  an  indignant  man  might  speak  among 
gainsayers  from  whom  little  was  to  be  hoped.  This 
difference  of  style,  so  far  as  it  exists  (for  it  has  been 
greatly  exaggerated),  may  be  further  ascribed  to  the 
difference  of  purpose ;  for  here  Isaiah  generally  ap- 
pears as  the  tender  and  compassionate  comforter 
of  the  pious  and  afflicted ;  whereas  before  he  appears 
rather  as  accuser  and  denouncer.  There  exists  after 
all  sufficient  similarity  of  diction  to  indicate  Isaiali's 
hand  (see  Keil's  Einhitung,  §  72,  note  7). 

This  second  pait  falls  into  three  sections,  each, 
as  it  happens,  consisting  of  nine  chapters ;  the  two 
first  end  with  the  refrain,  "  There  is  no  peace, 
?aith  Jehovah  {or  "my  God  ''),  to  the  wicked;" 
4nd  the  third  with  the  same  thought  anipllfied. 

(1.)  The  first  section  (xl.-xlviii.)  has  for  its  main 
topic  the  comforting  assurance  of  the  deliverance 
from  Babylon  by  Koresh  (Cyrus)  who  is  even  named 
twice  (xli.  2,  3',  25,  xliv.  28,  xlv.  1-4,  13,  xlvi.  11, 
rlviii.  14,  15). «  This  section  abounds  with  argu- 
ments against  idolatry,  founded  mainly  (not  wholly. 
Bee  the  noble  passage  xliv.  9-20)  upon  the  gift  of 
prediction  possessed  by  Jehovah's  prophets,  espe- 
cially as  shown  by  their  predicting  Cyrus,  and  even 
taming  him  (xli.  2(5,  xliv.  8,  24-26,  xlv.  4,  1!),  21, 
tlvi.  8-11,  xlviii.  3-8,  15).  Idols  and  heathen 
diviners  are  taunted  with  not  being  able  to  predict 
(xli.  1-7,  21-24,  xliii.  8-13,  xlv.  20-21,  xlvii.  10- 
13).  This  power  of  foretelling  the  future,  as  shown 
In  this  instance,  is  insisted  upon  as  the  test  of 
divinity.''  It  is  of  importance  to  observe,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  prophet's  standing-point  in  this  second 
part,  that  in  speaking  both  of  the  Captivity  in 
Babylon  and  of  the  deliverance  out  of  it,  there  is 
(excepting  Cyrus's  name)  no  specification  of  partic- 
ular circumstances,  such  as  we  might  expect  to  find 
if  the  writer  had  written  at  the  end  of  the  exile ; 


ISAIAH  115^ 

the  delineation  is  of  a  general  kind,  borrowed  ftw- 
quently  from  the  history  of  Moses  and  Joshua.  Lei 
it  be  observed,  in  particular,  that  the  language 
respecting  the  wilderness  (e.  g.  xli.  17-20),  through 
which  the  redeemed  were  to  pass,  is  unmistakably 
ideal  and  symbolical. 

It  is  characteristic  of  sacred  prophecy  in  general, 
that  the  "vision  "  of  a  great  deliverance  leiuls  the 
seer  to  glance  at  the  great  dehveranc^  to  come 
through  Jesus  Christ.  This  associatit*..  of  ideals  is 
found  in  several  passages  in  the  firs'  ^^art  of  Isaiah, 
in  which  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian,  armj 
suggests  the  thought  of  Christ  (e.  g.  x.  24- xi.  16, 
xxxi.  8-xxxii.  2).  This  principle  of  association 
prevails  in  the  second  part  taken  as  a  whole  but 
in  the  first  section,  taken  apart,  it  appears  as  ye* 
imperfectly.  However,  xlii.  1-7  is  a  clear  predictior. 
of  the  Messiah,  and  that  too  as  viewed  in  pairt  in 
contrast  with  Cyrus;  for  the  "servant"  of  Jehovah 
is  meek  and  gentle  (ver.  2,  3),  and  will  establish 
the  true  religion  in  the  earth  (ver.  4).  Neverthe- 
less, since  the  prophet  regards  the  two  deliverances 
as  referable  to  the  same  type  of  thought  (conip.  Ixi. 
1-3),  so  the  announcement  of  one  (xl.  3-5)  is  held 
by  all  the  four  Evangelists,  and  by  John  Baptist 
himself,  as  predictive  of  the  announcement  of  the 
other,  c 

(2.)  The  second  section  (xhx.-lvii.)  is  distin- 
guished from  the  first  by  several  features.  The 
person  of  Cyrus  as  well  as  his  name,  and  the  speci- 
fication of  Babylon  (named  in  the  first  section  four 
times)  and  of  its  gods,  and  of  the  Chaldseans  (named 
before  five  times),  disappear  altogether.  Return 
from  exile  is  indeed  repeatedly  spoken  of  and  at 
length  (xlix.  9-26,  h.  9-lii.  12,  Iv.  12,  13,  Ivii.  14); 
but  in  such  general  terms  as  admit  of  being  applied 
to  the  spiritual  and  Messianic,  as  well  as  to  the 
literal  restoration.  And  that  the  Messianic  restora- 
tion (whether  a  spiritual  restoration  or  not)  is  prin- 
cipally intended,  is  clear  from  the  connection  of  the 
restoration  promised  in  xlix.  9-25  with  the  Messiah 
portrayed  in  xlix.  1-8;''  from  the  description  of 
the  suffering  Christ  (in  I.  5,  6)  in  the  midst  of  the 
promise  of  dehverance  (I.  1-11);  from  the  same 
description  in  lii.  13-hii.  12,  between  the  passages 
li.  1-lii.  12,  and  Uv.  1-17 ;  and  from  the  exhibition 
of  Christ  in  Iv.  4  (connected  in  ver.  3  with  the 
Messianic  promise  given  to  David),  forming  the 
foundation  on  which  is  raised  the  promise  of  Iv. 
3-13.  Comp.  also  the  interpretation  of  liv.  13  given 
by  Christ  himself  in  John  vi.  45,  and  that  of  Ixi. 
1-3  in  Luke  iv.  18.  In  fact  the  place  of  Cyrus  in 
the  first  section  is  in  this  second  section  held  by 
his  greater  Antitype.* 

(3.)  In  the  third  section  (Iviii.-lxvi.)  as  Cyrua 


«  The  point  has  been  argued  for,  and  the  evidence 
seems  satisfactory  (Haveraick,  Hengst.),  that  Koresh, 
a  word  meaning  Sun,  was  commonly  in  the  East,  and 
particularly  in  Persia,  a  title  of  princes,  and  that  it 
was  assiuued  by  Cyrus,  whose  original  name  was 
Agradates,  on  his  ascending  the  throne.  It  stands, 
however,  in  history  as  his  own  proper  name.  This 
Instance  of  particularizing  in  prophecy  is  paralleled  by 
tbe  specification  of  Josiah's  name  (1  K.  xiii.  2)  some 
150  years  before  his  time. 

ft  It  is  difficult  to  acquit  the  passages  above  cited 
XA  impudent  and  indeed  suicidal  mendacity,  if  they  i 
♦ere  not  written  before  Cyrus  appeared  on  the  political  i 
Kjen*.  I 

c  For  the  discussion  and  refutation  of  all  expositions  | 
uhlah  understand  by  "  the  servant  of  Jehovah  "  here 
»r  in  ine  second  section,  the  Jewish  people,  or  tht-  I 


pious  among  them,  or  the  prophetical  order,  or  some 
other  object  than  the  Messiah,  comp.  Heagstenberg'a 
Christology,  vol.  ii. 

d  In  this  passage  Christ  is  called  "  Israel,"  as  the 
concentration  and  consummation  of  the  covenant- 
people  —  as  he  in  whom  its  idea  is  to  be  reaUzed. 

e  That  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  object  which  in 
"vision"  the  prophet  saw  in  1.  6,  and  in  lii.  13,  liii- 
12  (connecting  lii.  13  with  liii.  12  as  one  passage),  will 
hardly  be  questioned  amongst  ourselves,  except  by 
those  whose  minds  are  prepossessed  by  the  notion  that 
predictive  revelatiou  is  inconceivable.  Meanwhile  all 
will  acknowledge  the  truth  of  Ewald's  remiirk  :  "In 
the  Servant  of  Jahve,  who  so  vividly  hovers  before  hie 
view,  the  prophet  discerns  a  new  clear  light  shijd 
aoroad  over  all  possible  situations  of  that  time  ;  l£ 
him  he  baas  the  balm  of  consolation,  the  ch  wr    »f 


1160  IS4IAH 

Dowhae  appears,  so  neither  does  "  Jehovah's  ser- 
vant "  occur  so  frequently  to  view  as  in  the  second. 
The  only  dehneation  of  the  latter  is  in  Ixi.  1-3 
Mid  in  Ixiii.  1-6,  9.  He  no  longer  appears  as  suf- 
fering, but  only  as  saving  and  avenging  Zion.« 
The  section  is  mainly  occupied  with  various  practi- 
cal exhortations  founded  upon  the  views  of  the 
future  already  set  forth.  In  the  second  the  parse- 
nesis  is  ahiiost  all  consoling,  taking  in  Iv.  1-7  the 
form  of  advice;  only  in  lii.  and  towards  the  close 
in  Ivi.  9-lvii.  14  is  the  language  accusing  and 
minatory.  In  this  third  section,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  prophesying  is  very  much  in  this  last-named 
strain  (cf.  Iviii.  1-7,  Ux.  1-8,  Ixv.  1-16,  Ixvi.  1-6, 
15-17,  24) ;  taking  the  form  of  national  self-bewail- 
ment  in  lix.  9-15  and  Ixiii.  15-lxiv.  12.  Still, 
interspersed  in  tliis  admonition,  accusation,  and 
threatening,  there  are  gleams,  and  even  bright 
tracts,  of  more  cheering  matter;  besides  the  con- 
ditional promises  as  arguments  for  well-doing  in 
hiii.  8  14  and  Ixvi.  1,  2,  we  have  the  long  passage 
of  general  and  unconditional  promise  in  hx.  20- 
bdii.  6,  and  the  shorter  ones  Ixv.  17-25,  Ixvi.  7-14, 
18-23 ;  and  in  some  of  these  passages  the  future  of 
Zion  is  depicted  with  brighter  coloring  than  almost 
anywhere  before  in  the  whole  book,  liut  on  the 
whole  the  predominant  feature  of  this  section  is 
exhortation  with  the  view,  as  it  should  seem,  of 
qualifying  men  to  receive  the  promised  blessings. 
There  was  to  be  "  no  peace  for  the  wicked,"  but 
only  for  those  who  turned  from  ungodliness  in 
Jacob ;  and  tliei-efore  the  prophet  in  such  various 
forms  of  exhortations  urges  the  topic  of  repentance, 

—  promising,  advising,  leading  to  confession  (Ixiv. 
6-12;  comp.  Hos.  xiv.  2,  3),  warning,  threatening. 
In  reference  to  the  sins  especially  selected  for  rebuke, 
we  find  specified  idolatry  Ixv.  3,  4,  11,  Ixvi.  17  (as 
m  the  second  section  Ivii.  3-10),  bloodshedding, 
and  injustice  (fix.  1-15),  selfishness  (Ixv.  5),  and 
merely  outward  and  ceremonial  religiousness  (Ixvi. 
1-3).  If  it  were  not  for  the  place  given  to  idolatry, 
we  might  suppose  with  Dr.  Henderson  that  the 
spirit  of  God  is  already  by  prophetic  anticipation 
rebuking  the  Judaism  of  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ, 

—  so  accurately  in  many  places  are  its  features  de- 
lineated as  denounced  in  the  N.  T.  But  the  speci- 
fication of  idolatry  leads  us  to  seek  for  the  imme- 
diate objects  of  this  paraenesis  in  the  prophet's  own 
time,  when  indeed  the  Pharisaism  displayed  in  the 
N.  T.  already  existed,  being  in  fact  in  all  ages  the 
natural  product  of  an  unconverted,  unspiritual  heart 
torabining  with  the  observance  of  a  positive  religion, 
and  in  all  ages  (comp.  e.  g.  Ps.  1.)  antagonistic  to 
true  piety. 

NVhile  we  can  clearly  discern  certain  dominant 
thoughts  and  aims  in  each  of  these  three  sections, 
we  must  not,  however,  expect  to  find  them  pursued 
with  the  regularity  which  we  look  for  in  a  modern 
sermon ;  such  treatment  is  wholly  alien  from  the 
spirit  of  prophecy,  which  always  more  or  less  is  in 
the  strict  sense  of  the  word  desultory.  Accordingly 
we  find  in  these,  as  in  the  earlier  portions  of  the 
book,  the  transitions  sudden,  and  the  exhortation 
every  now  and  then  varied  by  dramatic  interlocu- 


ITerlastJng  hope,  the  weaj<n  wherewith  to  combat  and 
lisme  down  those  who  understand  not  the  time,  the 
ine&aB  of  impressive  exhortation.  And  if  in  this  long 
piece  (xl.-lxvi.)  a  multitude  of  very  diverse  weighty 
Hioughts  emerge  into  view,  yet  this  is  the  dominant 
thought  which  binds  everything  together  "  {Propheten, 
tt.  D  ii^r 


ISAIAH 

tion,  by  description,  by  odes  of  thankagiring,  bj 
prayers. 

III.  Numberless  attacks  have  been  made  by 
German  critics  upon  the  integrity  of  the-whok 
book,  different  critics  pronouncing  different  portioni 
of  the  first  part  spurious,  and  many  concurring  U 
reject  the  second  part  altogether.  A  few  observa 
tions,  particularly  on  this  latter  point,  appear  there 
fore  to  be  necessary. 

1.  The  first  writer  who  ever  breathed  a  suspicioc 
that  Isaiah  was  not  the  author  of  the  la.st  twenty 
seven  chapters  was  Koppe,  in  remarks  upon  ch.  1., 
in  his  German  translation  of  Lowth's  Jsaiali,  pub- 
lished in  the  years  1779-1781.  This  was  pesently 
after  followed  up  by  Drderlein,  especialh'  in  his 
Latin  translation  and  commentary  in  1V89;  by 
Eichhom,  who  in  a  later  period  most  fully  develop^ 
his  views  on  this  point  in  his  Bebniischen  Pro- 
phete7i,  1816-1819;  and  the  most  fully  and  effect- 
ively by  Justi.  The  majority  of  the  German  critics 
have  given  in  their  adhesion  to  these  views:  as 
Paulus  (1793),  IJertholdt  (1812),  De  Wette  (1817), 
Gesenius  (1820,  1821),  Hitzig  (1833),  Knobel 
(1838),  IJmbreit  and  Kwald  (1841).  Defenders  of 
the  integrity  of  the  book  have  not,  however,  been 
wanting  —  particularly  Jalin  in  his  Einleitung 
(1802);  Moller  in  his  De  Antlientia  Oraculoi'um 
Jesrnce  (Copenhagen,  1825);  Kleinert  in  his  Ech- 
tiitit  des  Jesdias  (1829)  ;  Hengstenberg  in  his 
Christohyy,  vol.  ii. ;  Hiivemick,  J'Jinleitung,  B.  iii. 
(1849);  Stier  in  his  Jesaias  nicht  Pseudo-Jesaias 
(1850);  and  Keil,  Einleitung  (1853),  in  which  last 
the  reader  will  find  a  most  satisfactory  compendium 
of  the  controversy  and  of  the  grounds  for  the  gen- 
erally received  view. 

2.  The  catalogue  of  authors  who  gainsay  Isaiah's 
authorship  of  this  second  part  is,  in  point  of  num- 
bers, of  critical  ability,  and  of  profound  Hebrew 
scholarship,  sufficiently  imposing.  Nevertheless 
when  we  come  to  inquire  into  their  grounds  of  ob- 
jection, we  soon  cease  to  attach  much  value  to  thig 
formidable  array  of  authorities.  The  circumstance 
mamly  urged  by  them  is  the  unquestionable  fact 
that  the  author  has  to  a  considerable  view  taken 
his  standing-point  at  the  close  of  the  Babylonish 
Captivity  as  if  that  were  his  present,  and  from 
thence  looks  forward  into  the  subsequent  future. 
Now  is  it  possible  (they  ask)  that  in  such  a  maunw 
and  to  such  a  degree  a  Seer  should  step  out  of  his 
own  time,  and  plant  his  foot  so  finnly  in  a  later 
time?  We  must  grant  (they  urge)  that  he  might 
gaze  upon  a  future  not  very  distant,  as  if  present, 
and  represent  it  accordingly ;  but  in  the  case  before 
us  infallible  insight  and  prescience  must  be  predi- 
cated of  him ;  for  this  idea  of  an  Isaiah  who  knows 
even  Cyrus's  name  was  not  realized  for  two  cen- 
turies later,  and  a  chance  hit  is  here  out  of  the 
question.  "  This,  however,  is  inconceivable.  A 
prophet's  prescience  tnust  be  limited  to  the  notion 
of  foreboding  (Alinung),  and  to  the  deductions  from 
patent  facts  taken  in  combination  with  real  or  sup- 
posed truths.  Prophets  were  bounded  like  other 
men  by  the  horizon  of  their  own  age;  they  bor- 
rowed the  object  of  tlieir  soothsaying  firom  their 


o  Restoration  from  captivity  is  Spoken  <rf  in  iTiil 
12,  Ixi.  4-7,  Ixii.  4,  6,  10  ;  but  for  the  most  part  ig 
such  general  terms  as  misht  easily  be  understood  ai 
referring  to  spiritual  restoration  only  ;  but  since  th« 
literal  restoration  pre-required  repentance,  this  exbor 
tation  may  be  taken  with  a  ref«r"uce  to  IJ'erpl  cescora 
tion  as  well. 


I 


ISAIAH 

present;  and  excited  by  the  relationi  of  their  pres- 
jnt  they  spoke  to  their  cout^Miiporaries  of  what 
ifFected  other  people's  minds  or  theit  own,  occupy- 
ing themselves  only  with  tliat  future  whose  rewards 
or  punishments  were  likely  to  reach  cheir  contem- 
poraries. For  exegesis  the  position  is  impregnahle, 
that  the  prophetic  writings  are  to  be  interpreted 
•n  each  case  out  of  the  relations  belonging  to  the 
time  of  the  prophet;  and  from  this  follows  as  a 
corollary  the  critical  Canon:  that  that  time,  ///(«<• 
time-relations,  out  of  which  a  prophetic  writer  is 
explained,  are  his  time,  his  time-relations;  —  to  that 
time  he  must  be  referred  as  the  date  of  his  own 
existence"  (Hitzig,  p.  463-468). 

3.  This  is  the  main  argument.  Other  grounds 
which  are  alleged  are  confessedly  "  secondary  and 
external,"  and  are  really  of  no  great  weight.  The 
most  important  of  these  is  founded  upon  the  differ- 
ence in  the  complexion  of  style  which  has  already 
been  noticed ;  this  point  will  come  into  view  again 
presently.  A  number  of  particulars  of  diction  said 
to  be  non-Isaianic  have  been  accumulated ;  but  the 
reasoning  founded  upon  them  has  been  satisfactorily 
met  by  opposing  evidence  of  a  similar  kind  (see 
Keil,  Einleilung,  §  72)  It  is  not,  however,  on 
such  considerations  that  the  chief  stress  is  laid  by 
the  impugners  of  the  Isaianic  authorship  of  this 
portion  of  Scripture :  the  great  ground  of  objection 
is,  as  already  stated,  the  incompatibility  of  those 
phenomena  of  prediction  which  are  noted  in  the 
writings  in  question,  with  the  subjective  theories 
of  inspiration  (or  rather  non-inspiration)  which  the 
reader  has  just  had  submitted  to  him.  The  incom- 
patibility is  confessed.  But  where  is  the  solution 
of  the  difficulty  to  be  sought  ?  Are  those  theories 
so  certainly  true  that  all  evidence  must  give  way 
to  them?  This  is  not  the  place  for  combating 
them :  but,  for  our  own  part,  we  are  so  firmly  con- 
vinced that  the  theory  is  utterly  discredited  by  the 
facts  exliibited  to  us  in  the  Bil)le  throughout,  that 
we  are  content  to  lack  in  this  case  the  countenance 
of  its  upholders.  Their  judgment  in  the  critical 
question  before  us  is  determined,  not  by  their 
scholarship,  but  avowedly  by  the  prepossessions  of 
their  unbelief. 

4.  For  our  present  purpose  it  must  suffice  briefly 
to  indicate  the  following  reasons  as  establishing  the 


«  *  In  tlie  critical  discussions  respecting  the  propli- 
ecies  ascribed  to  Isaiah,  the  language  which  has  some- 
times been  used  has  led  to  a  misapprehension  of  the 
real  question  at  issue.  Such  terms  as  "spurious," 
"  Pseudo-Isaiah,"  have  been  very  naturally  uuderstooJ 
as  implying  that  the  portions  so  designated  are  re- 
girded  as  unworthy  of  a  place  among  the  writings  of 
tie  Hebrew  Prophets,  or  even  as  the  work  of  fraud. 
Sut  this  has  not  been  generally,  if  ever,  intended  by 
tho?e  who  have  used  such  expressions.  The  question 
is  essentially  one  of  authorship  and  date  ;  it  does  not 
ueces.sarily  affect  the  value,  the  inspiration,  or  the 
canonicity  of  the  portions  of  Scripture  under  consider- 
ation. Take,  for  example,  the  last  27  chapters  of 
Isaiah.  Whoever  was  the  author  of  that  wonderful  com- 
position, it  shines  by  its  own  light ;  and  its  splendor 
s  uot  lessened  by  the  supposition  that  the  name  of 
bhe  writer,  like  that  of  the  Book  of  J„  j,  must  remain 
unknown.  If  he  were  not  the  Isaia^  who  wrote  the 
earlier  prophecies  which  have  been  collected  in  th^ 
»ame  volume,  we  have  two  great  prophets  instead  oi 
one.  His  lofty  strains  of  exhortation,  warning,  anci 
lonsolation  do  not  lose  their  power  when  we  consider 
hem  specially  adapted  to  the  condition  of  his  inmie- 
liate  contemporaries,  rather  than  designed  for  the 
Mllac*bo«i  of  the  people  150  years  or  more  after  the 


ISAIAH  1161 

integrity  of  the  whole  book,  and  as  Tindicating  thi 

authenticity  of  the  second  part :  — 

(a.)  Exiernnlly.  —  The  uruinimous  testimony  of 
Jewish  and  Christian  tradition  —  Ecclus.  xlviii.  24, 
25,  which  manifestly  (in  the  words  TrapeKaXeai 
robs  TT^vQovvras  eV  2.i(i}v  and  U7re5et|e  —  t« 
vTr6Kpv(pa  irplu  ^  irapayeu^crOai  aurd)  refers  tc 
this  second  part.  The  use  apparently  made  of  the 
second  part  by  Jeremiah  (x.  1-16,  v.  25,  xxv.  31, 
1.,  li.),  Ezekiel  (xxiii.  40,  41),  and  Zephaniah  (ii.  15, 
iii.  10).  The  decree  of  Cyrus  in  Ezr.  i.  2-4,  which 
plainly  is  founded  upon  Is.  xHv.  28,  xlv.  1,  ]3,  ac- 
crediting Josephus's  statement  (Ant.  xi.  1,  §  2)  that 
the  Jews  showed  Cyrus  Isaiah's  predictions  of  him. 
The  inspired  testimony  of  the  N.  T.,  which  often 
(Matt.  iii.  3  and  the  parallel  passages;  Luke  i\. 
17;  Acts  viii.  28;  Rom.  x.  16,  20)  quotes  witb 
specification  of  Isaiah's  name  prophecies  found  ii 
the  second  part. 

{b. )  Internally.  —  The  unity  of  design  and  cor  - 
struction  which,  as  we  have  seen,  connects  theee 
last  twenty-seven  chapters  with  the  preceding  parts 
of  the  book.  —  The  oneness  of  diction  which  per- 
vades the  whole  book.  —  The  peculiar  elevation  and 
grandeur  of  style,  which,  as  is  universally  acknowl- 
edged, distinguishes  the  whole  contents  of  the 
second  part  as  much  as  of  the  first,  and  which 
assigns  their  composition  to  the  golden  age  of  He- 
brew literature.  —  The  absence  of  any  other  name 
than  Isaiah's  claiming  the  authorship.  At  the  time 
to  which  the  composition  is  assigned,  a  Zechariah 
or  a  IMalachi  could  gain  a  separate  name  and  book ; 
how  was  it  that  an  author  of  such  transcendent 
gifts,  as  "  the  Great  Unnamed  "  who  wrote  xl.-lxvi., 


could 


gain  none  j 


The  claims  which  the  writer 


makes  to  the  /bj'eknowledge  of  the  deliverance  by 
Cyrus,  which  claims,  on  the  opposing  view,  must 
be  regarded  as  a  fraudulent  personation  of  an  earlier 
writer.  —  Lastly,  the  jrredictions  ivhich  it  contains 
of  the  character,  suffeiings,  death,  ami  glorifica- 
tion  of' Jesus  Christ:  a  believer  in  Christ  cannot 
fail  to  regard  those  predictions  as  affixing  to  this 
second  part  the  broad  seal  of  Divine  Inspiration ; 
whereby  the  chief  ground  of  objection  against  its 
having  been  written  by  Isaiah  is  at  once  anni- 
hilated.« 

IV.  It  remains  to  make  a  few  observations  on 


death  of  the  author.  Those  who  feel  compelled  from 
internal  evidence  to  ascribe  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah 
to  a  writer  who  flourished  in  the  time  of  the  Captivity, 
do  not  on  that  account  value  the  work  the  less,  but 
regard  this  view  of  it  as  investing  it  with  new  interest 
Thus  Dr.  Noyes  calls  the  author  "  the  greatest  of  &]} 
the  Jewish  prophets  "  (New  Trans,  of  the  Hebreit 
Prophets,  4th  ed.,  i.  p.  xli.) ;  Dean  Stanley  speaks  of 
these  chapters  as  "  the  most  deeply  inspired,  the  most 
truly  Evangelical,  of  any  portion  of  the  Prophetical 
writings,  whatever  be  their  date,  and  whoever  their 
author "  {Hist,  of  the  Jewish  Church,  ii.  637) ;  and 
Dean  Milman  remarks  :  "  It  is  well  known  that  the 
later  chapters  of  Isaiah  are  attributed,  by  the  common 
consent  of  most  of  the  profoundly  learned  writers 
of  (Jermany  ...  to  a  different  writer,  whom  they 
call  the  great  nameless  Prophet,  or  the  second  Isaiah, 
who  wrote  during  the  exile.  I  must  acknowledge 
that  these  chapters,  in  my  judgment,  read  with  in- 
finitely greater  force,  sublimity,  and  reality  undei 
th's  view.  If  they  lose,  and  I  hardly  feol  that  they 
(V  'ose,  in  what  is  commonly  called  prophetic,  they 
nse  far  more  in  historical,  interest.  ...  As  to  whal 
are  usually  called  the  Mcssiauic  predictions  .  .  .  thej 
have  the  same  force  and  meaning,  whether  uttered  b; 
one  or  two  prophets,  at  one  or  ',wo  different  peiioda 


1162  ISAIAH 

[saiah's  style ;  though  in  truth  the  abundance  of  the 
materials  which  offer  themselves  makes  it  a  difficult 
n^atter  to  give  anything  Uke  a  just  and  definite 
view  of  the  subject,  without  trespassing  unduly 
upon  the  limits  necessarily  prescribed  to  us.  On 
this  point  we  cannot  do  better  than  introduce  some 
of  the  remarks  with  which  Ewald  prefaces  his 
translation  of  such  parts  of  the  book  as  he  is  dis- 
posed to  acknowledge  as  Isaiah's  {Propheten,  i. 
100-179):  — 

"  In  Isaiah  we  see  prophetic  authorship  reaching 
its  culminating  point.  Everything  conspired  to 
raise  him  to  an  elevation  to  which  no  prophet 
either  before  or  after  could  as  writer  attain.  Among 
Uie  other  prophets,  each  of  the  more  important 
ones  is  distinguished  by  some  one  particular  excel- 
lence, and  some  one  pecuhar  talent:  in  Isaiah,  all 
kinds  of  talent  and  all  beauties  of  prophetic  dis- 
course meet  together  so  as  mutually  to  temper  and 
qualify  each  other;  it  is  not  so  much  any  single 
feature  that  distinguishes  him  as  the  symmetry  and 
perfection  of  the  whole. 

"  We  cannot  fail  to  assume,  as  the  first  condition 
of  Isaiah's  peculiar  historical  greatness,  a  native 
power  and  a  vivacity  of  spirit,  which  even  among 
prophets  is  seldom  to  be  met  with.  It  is  but  rarely 
that  we  see  combined  in  one  and  the  same  spirit 
the  three  several  characteristics  of — first,  the  most 
profound  prophetic  excitement  and  the  purest  senti- 
ment; next,  the  most  indefatigable  and  successful 
practical  activity  amidst  all  i)erplexities  and  changes 
of  outward  life;  and,  thirdly,  that  facility  and  beauty 
in  representing  thought  which  is  the  jjrerogative 
of  the  genuine  poet:  but  this  threefold  combination 
we  find  realized  in  Isaiah  as  in  no  other  prophet ; 
and  from  the  traces  which  we  can  perceive  of  the 
unceasing  joint-working  of  these  three  jwwers  we 
must  draw  our  conclusions  as  to  the  original  great- 
ness of  his  genius.  —  Both  as  prophet  and  as  author 
Isaiah  stands  upon  that  calm,  sunny  height,  which 
in  each  several  branch  of  ancient  literature  one 
eminently  favored  spirit  at  the  right  time  takes 
possession  of;  which  seems  as  it  were  to  have  been 
waiting  for  Jiim  ;  and  which,  when  he  has  come 
and  mounted  the  ascent,  seems  to  keep  and  guard 
him  to  the  last  as  its  own  right  man.  In  the  senti- 
ments which  he  expresses,  in  the  topics  of  his  dis- 
courses, and  in  the  manner  of  expression,  Isaiah 
uniformly  reveals  himself  as  the  Kingly  Prophet. 

•'  In  reference  to  the  last  named  point,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  his  manner  of  representing  thought  is 


[Hist,  of  the  Jews,  i.  462,  note,  new  Amer.  ed.).  David- 
ion,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  (iii.  59), 
ifter  a  full  discussion  of  the  authorship,  concludes  as 
follows  :  "  Among  all  the  prophetic  writings,  the  first 
place  in  many  respects  is  due  to  those  of  the  younger 
Ituiah.  .  .  .  None  has  announced  in  such  strains  as 
his  the  downfJiU  of  all  earthly  powers  ;  or  [so]  unfolded 
to  the  view  of  thn  afflicted  the  transcendent  glory  of 
Jehovah's  salvation  which  should  arise  upon  the  rem- 
nant ot  Israel,  forsaken  and  persecuted.  None  has 
penetrated  so  far  into  the  essence  of  the  new  dispensa- 
tion. .  .  .  There  is  majesty  in  his  sentiments,  beauty 
und  force  in  his  language,  propriety  and  elegance  in 
nis  imagery."  Delitzsch,  one  of  the  most  orthodox 
ind  conservative  of  the  modern  German  theologians. 
In  his  elaborate  article  on  Isaiah  in  Fairbairu's  Im- 
\rrial  Bible  Dictionary,  maintains  that  all  the  proph- 
ecies in  th»>  book  which  bears  the  name  of  Isjiiah  are 
QOrrr  ^Jy  ascribed  to  him  ;  but  also  remarks  that,  on 
^hs  (,  ntrary  supposition,  "  the  prophetic  discourses 
4l.  xl.-lxvi.  would  not  necessarily  lose  anything  of 


ISAIAH 

elaborate  J.nd  artificial:  it  rather  shows  .'.  lofty  Auk 
plicity  and  an  unconcern  about  external  attractive- 
ness, abandoning  itself  freely  to  the  leading  and 
requirement  of  each  several  thought;  but  neverthft 
less  it  always  rolls  along  in  a  full  stream  which 
overpowers  all  resistance,  and  never  fails  at  the 
right  place  to  accomplish  at  every  turn  its  object 
without  toil  or  eftbrt. 

'  The  progress  and  development  of  the  discourse 
is  always  majestic,  achieving  much  with  few  words, 
which  though  short  are  yet  clear  and  transparent ; 
an  overflowing,  swelling  fulhiess  of  thought,  whidi 
miglit  readily  lose  itself  in  the  vast  and  indefinite, 
but  which  always  at  the  right  time  with  tight  rein 
collects  and  tempers  its  exuberance;  to  the  bottom 
exhausting  the  thought  and  completing  the  utter- 
ance, and  yet  never  too  diffuse.  This  severe  .self- 
control  is  the  most  admirably  seen  in  those  shorter 
utterances,  which,  by  briefly  sketched  images  and 
thoughts,  give  us  the  vague  apprehension  of  some- 
thing infinite,  whilst  nevertheless  they  stand  before 
us  complete  in  themselves  and  clearly  dehneated : 
e.  g.,  viii.  6-ix.  6,  xiv.  29-32,  xviii.  1-7,  xxi.  11,  12; 
while  in  the  long  piece,  xxviii.-xxxii.,  if  the  com- 
position here  and  there  for  a  moment  languishes, 
it  is  only  to  Uft  itself  up  again  afresh  with  all  the 
greater  might.  In  this  rich  and  thickly  crowded 
fullness  of  thought  and  word,  it  is  but  seldom  that 
the  simile  which  is  employed  appears  apart,  to  set 
forth  and  complete  itself  (xxxi.  4,  5);  in  general, 
it  crowds  into  the  delineation  of  the  object  which  it 
is  meant  to  illustrate  and  is  swallowed  up  in  it,  — 
aye,  and  frequently  simile  after  simile;  and  yet  the 
many  threads  of  the  discourse  which  for  a  momenl 
appeared  ravelled  together  soon  disentangle  them- 
selves into  perfect  clearness  ;  —  a  characteristic 
which  belongs  to  this  prophet  alone,  a  freedom  of 
hmguage  which  with  no  one  else  so  easily  succeeds. 

"  The  versification  in  like  manner  is  always  full, 
and  yet  strongly  marked  :  while  however  this 
prophet  is  little  concerned  about  anxiously  weigh- 
ing out  to  each  verse  its  proper  number  of  words ; 
not  unfrequently  he  repeats  the  same  word  in  two 
members  (xxxi.  8,  xxxii.  17,  xi.  5,  xiy.  13),  as  if, 
with  so  much  power  and  beauty  in  the  matter 
within,  he  did  not  so  much  require  a  painstaking 
finish  in  the  outside.  The  structure  of  the  strophe 
is  always  easy  and  beautifully  rounded. 

"  Still  the  main  point  lies  here,  —  that  we  can- 
not in  the  case  of  Isaiah,  as  in  that  of  other  proph- 
ets, specify  any  particular  pecuUarity,  or  any  favorite 


their  predictive  character  and  of  their  incomparable 
value.  Their  anonymous  author  might  pass  hence- 
forward, also,  as  the  greatest  evangelist  of  the  Old 
Testament.  We  have  no  doctrinal  reasons  which  would 
forbid  us  to  distinguish  in  the  book  of  Isaiah  proph- 
ecies of  Isaiah  himself,  and  prophecies  of  anonymous 
prophets  annexed  to  these."'  (Fairbairn,  i.  805,  806.) 
He  had  before  spoken  of  the  composite  character  of 
the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testiiment,  and  of  the 
book  of  Proverbs,  "  where,  under  the  name  of  Solomon, 
the  gnomic  pesirls  of  different  times  and  of  several 
authors  are  arranged  beside  one  another,  jufit  as  in 
the  Psalter  the  poets  of  many  centuries  are  collected 
under  the  banner  of  David,  the  father  of  lyric  poetry." 
So  Prof.  Stuart  ob.serves,  ^'  It  is  of  little  or  no  theolog- 
ical or  doctrinal  importance  which  way  thif  questioti 
is  decided"  {Crit.  Hist,  of  the  Old  Test  Canon,  p 
109).  On  this  subject  see  also  the  excellent  remark*  <jt 
Stanley,  in  his  Note  "  On  the  Authorship  of  the  Booki 
of  the  Old  Testament."  appended  to  Ttl.  U  of  bif 
History  of  the  Jewish  Cliui'h.  A. 


ISAIAH 

*o!or  as  attaching  to  his  genera.  -«tyle.  lie  is  not 
,he  especially  lyrical  proph& ,  or  the  especially  ele- 
giacal  j^'ophet^  or  (he  especially  oratorical  and 
kortatxyry  prophet,  as  we  should  describe  a  Joel,  a 
Hosea,  a  Aficah,  with  whom  there  is  a  greater 
prevalence  of  some  pnrticidar  color ;  but,  just  as 
the  subject  requires,  he  has  readily  at  corumand 
every  several  kind  of  style  and  every  several  change 
of  delineation ;  and  it  is  precisely  this  that,  in  point 
of  language,  establishes  his  greatness,  as  well  as  in 
general  forms  one  of  his  most  towering  points  of 
excellence.  His  only  fundamental  peculiarity  is 
the  lofty,  majestic  calmness  of  his  style,  proceeding 
out  of  the  perfect  command  which  he  feels  he  pos- 
sesses over  his  subject-matter.  This  calmness, 
however,  no  way  demands  that  the  strain  shall 
not,  when  occasion  requires,  be  more  vehemently 
excited  and  assail  the  hearer  with  mightier  blows ; 
but  even  the  extremest  excitement,  which  does  here 
and  there  intervene,  is  in  the  main  bridled  still  by 
the  same  spirit  of  calmness,  and,  not  overstepping 
the  limits  which  that  spirit  assigns,  it  soon  with 
lofty  self-control  returns  back  to  its  wonted  tone 
of  equablHty  (ii.  10-iii.  1,  xxviii.  11-2;J,  xxix.  9- 
14).  Neither  does  this  calmness  in  discourse  re- 
quire that  the  subject  shall  always  be  treated  only 
in  a  plain,  level  way,  without  any  variation  of  form ; 
rather,  Isaiah  shows  himself  master  in  just  that 
variety  of  manner  which  suits  the  relation  in  which 
his  hearers  stand  to  the  matter  now  in  hand.  If 
he  wishes  to  bring  home  to  their  minds  a  distant 
truth  which  they  like  not  to  hear,  and  to  judge 
them  by  a  sentence  pronounced  by  their  own 
mouth,  he  retreats  back  into  a  popular  statement 
of  a  case  drawn  from  ordinary  life  (vt.  1-6,  xxviii. 
23-29).  If  he  will  draw  the  attention  of  the  over- 
wise  to  some  new  truth,  or  to  some  future  prospect, 
he  surprises  them  by  a  brief  oracle  clothed  in  an 
enigmatical  dress,  leaving  it  to  their  penetration  to 
discover  its  solution  (vii.  14-16,  xxix.  1-8).  When 
the  unhappy  temper  of  people's  minds  which  noth- 
ing can  amend  leads  to  loud  lamentation,  his  speech 
becomes  for  a  while  the  strain  of  elegy  and  lament 
(i.  21-23,  xxii.  4,  5).  Do  the  frivolous  leaders  of 
the  people  mock  ?  —  he  outdoes  them  at  their  own 
weapons,  and  crushes  them  under  the  fearful  ear- 
nest of  divine  mockery  (xxviii.  10-13).  Even  a 
single  ironical  word  in  passing  will  drop  from  the 
lofty  prophet  (xvii.  3,  glory).  Thus  his  discourse 
varies  into  every  complexion :  it  is  tender  and  stern, 
didactic  and  threatening,  mourning  and  again  ex- 
ulting in  divine  joy,  mocking  and  earnest ;  but  ever 
ftt  the  right  time  it  returns  back  to  its  original 
elevation  and  repose,  and  never  loses  the  clear 
ground-color  of  its  divine  seriousness." 

In  this  dehneation  of  Isaiah's  style,  Ewald  con- 
templates exclusively  the  Isaiah  of  i.-xxxix.,  in 
which  part  of  the  book  itself,  however,  there  are 
several  paisages  of  which  he  will  not  allow  Isaiah 
to  be  the  author.  These  are  the  following:  xii., 
xiii.  2-xiv.  23,  xxi.  1-10,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  xxxiv.,  xxxv. 
In  reference  to  all  these  passages,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  first,  the  ground  of  objection  is  obvious 
upon  a  moment's  observation  of  the  content?  •  on 
."ationalistic  views  of  prophecy,  none  of  them  can 
36  ascribed  to  Isaiah.  For  the  proof  of  thjir  gen- 
lineness  it  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  Drechsler's 
Prophet  Jesaja,  or  to  Keil's  Kinleitung.  We 
:annot,  however,  help  noticing  the  estimate  which 
Ihe  honesty  of  Ewald's  sesthetical  judgment  forms 
tf  the  style  of  nearly  all  these  passages.  He  pro- 
louuces  the  magnifio^nt  denunciation  of  Babylon, 


ISAIAH  1168 

xiii.  2-xiv.  23,  to  be  referable  to  tho  game  authot 
as  the  prediction  of  Babylon's  overthrow  in  xxi.  1- 
10,  and  both  as  aUke  remarkable  for  "  the  poetica: 
facility  of  the  words,  images,  and  sentiments,' 
particularizing  xiv.  5-20  especially  as  "  an  ode  of 
high  poetical  finish,"  wiiich  in  the  last  strophe 
(vv.  20-23)  rises  to  -'prophetical  sublimity."  In 
xxiv.-xxvii.  he  finds  parts,  particularly  the  "  beau- 
tiful utterances"  in  xxv.  6-8,  xxvii.  9,  12,  13, 
which  he  considers  as  plainly  borrowed  from  oracles 
which  are  now  lost;  while  lastly,  in  xxxiv.,  xxxv. 
(which  in  his  20th  lecture  on  Hebrew  poetry  Bishop 
Lowth  selects  for  particular  comment  on  account 
of  its  peculiar  poetical  merit),  he  traces  much  that 
"  reechoes  words  of  the  geiuiine  Isaiah." 

If  we  refer  to  that  part  of  Ewald's  Propheten 
which  treats  of  xl.-lxvi.,  which  he  ascribes  to  "  the 
Great  Unnamed,"  the  terms  in  which  he  speaks  of 
its  style  of  composition  do  not  fall  far  sb(;rt  of  (hose 
which  he  has  employed  respecting  the  former  part. 
"  Cf-eative  as  this  prophet  is  in  his  views  and 
thoughts,  he  is  not  less  peculiar  and  new  in  his 
language,  which  at  times  is  highly  inspired,  and 
carries  away  the  reader  with  a  wonderful  power.  — 
Although,  after  the  general  manner  of  the  lat«r 
prophets,  the  discourse  is  apt  to  be  too  diffuse  in 
delineation ;  yet,  on  the  otlier  side,  it  often  moves 
confusedly  and  heavily,  owing  to  the  over-gushing 
fullness  of  fresh  thoughts  continually  streaming  in. 
But  whenever  it  rises  to  a  higher  strain,  as  e.  g., 
xl.,  xlii.  1-4,  it  then  attains  to  such  a  pure  lumin- 
ous sublimity,  and  carries  the  hearer  away  with 
such  a  wonderful  charm  of  diction,  that  one  might 
be  ready  to  fancy  he  was  listening  to  another 
prophet  altogether,  if  other  grounds  did  not  convince 
us  that  it  is  one  and  the  same  prophet  speaking, 
only  in  different  moods  of  feeUng.  /m  no  prophet 
does  the  mood  in  the  composition  of  pirlicular pas- 
sages so  much  vary,  as  throughout  the  three  several 
sections  into  which  this  pnrt  of  the  book  is  divided, 
while  under  vehement  excitement  Ihe  prophet  pur- 
sues the  most  diverse  objects.  It  is  his  business  at 
different  times,  to  comfort,  to  exhort,  to  shame,  to 
chasten;  to  show,  as  out  of  heaven,  the  heavenly 
image  of  the  Servant  of  the  Ix)rd,  and,  in  contrast, 
to  scourge  the  folly  and  base  groveling  of  image- 
worship  ;  to  teach  what  conduct  the  times  require, 
and  to  rebuke  those  who  linger  behind  the  occa- 
sion, and  then  also  to  draw  them  along  by  his  own 
example  —  his  prayers,  confessions,  and  thanks- 
givings, thus  smoothing  for  them  the  approach  to 
the  exalted  object  of  the  New  Time.  Thus  the 
complexion  of  the  style,  although  hardly  anywhere 
passing  into  the  representation  of  visions  properly  so 
called,  varies  in  a  constant  interchange ;  and  righth 
to  recognize  these  changes  is  the  great  problem  fc\- 
the  interpretation"  (Propheten,  vol.  ii.  407-409;. 

For  obvious  reasons  we  have  preferred  citin<r  thf 
aesthetical  judgments  of  so  accomplished  a  criti'' 
as  Ewald,  to  attempting  any  original  criticism  of 
our  own ;  and  this  all  the  more  willingly,  because 
the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  above  cited  pas- 
sages (the  reader  will  please  especially  to  mark  th« 
sentences  which  we  have  put  into  italics)  is  clear, 
that  in  point  of  style,  after  taking  account  of  the 
considerations  already  stated  by  U3.  we  can  find  no 
difficulty  in  recognizing  in  the  second  part  the 
presence  of  the  same  plastic  genius  as  we  discover 
in  the  first.  And,  altogether,  the  aesthetic  criti- 
cism of  all  the  diflferent  parts  of  the  book  brings 
us  to  the  conclusion  substantiated  by  the  evidence 
previously  accumulated;   namely,  that   the  whole 


1164  ISAIAH 

s»l  the  book  originated  in  one  mind,  and  that  mind 
one  of  the  most  sublime  and  variously  gifted  in- 
struments which  the  Spirit  of  God  has  ever  em- 
ployed to  pour  forth  its  voice  upon  the  woi'ld. 

V.  The  following  are  the  most  important  works 
on  Isaiah:  Vitringa's  Commentnrius  in  Libruni 
Prophetiarum  Isaice,  2  vols.  fol.  171-i,  a  vast  mine 
of  materials  ;  Kosenraiiller's  Scholia,  1818-1820 
[3d  ed.,  1829-34],  or  his  somewhat  briefer  Scholia 
in  Compendium  redacta,  1831,  which,  though  ra- 
tionalistic, is  [are]  sober,  and  valuable  in  partl'oular 
for  the  full  use  which  he  makes  of  Jerome  and  the 
Jewish  expositors  ;  Gesenius's  Philoloyisch-kriti- 
scher  und  historischer  Co7nment(ir,  1821  [and 
Uebersetzimg,  2e  Aufl.,  1829] ;  Hitzig's  Prophet 
Jesaja  Ubersetzt  und  ausyelefjt,  1833,  and  Knobel, 
1843  [3d  ed.  1861],  in  the  Kurzyefasztes  Excyet- 
isches  Handbuch  zum  Alt.  Testnm.,  which  are  all 
three  decidedly  skeptical,  but  for  lexical  and  his- 
torical materials  are  of  very  great  value ;  Ewald's 
Propketen  des  Alien  Bundes  [1840-41,  2e  Ausg. 
1867-68],  which,  though  likewise  skeptical,  is  ab- 
solutely indispensable  for  a  just  appreciation  of  the 
poetry;  the  second  volume  of  Hengsten  berg's  Christ- 
oloyy,  translated  in  Clark's  Foreign  Theological 
Library,  1856;  Drechsler's  Prophet  Jesnja  iiber 
setzt  und  erklart,  now  in  course  of  publication 
[completed  after  the  author's  death  by  F.  DeUtzsch 
and  A.  Hahn,  3  Theile,  1845-57],  and  Rud.  Stier's 
Jesnias  nicht  Psemh-Jesaias,  1850-51,  which  is  a 
Dommentary  on  the  last  27  chapters.  The  two 
chief  English  works  are  Bishop  Lowth's  Isaiah,  a 
new  translation,  with  Notes,  dntical,  Philolof/ical, 
and  Esq)lanatory,  1778  [13th  ed.,  1842],  (whose 
incessant  correction  of  the  Hebrew  text  is  con- 
stantly to  be  mistrusted),  and  Dr.  Ebenezer  Hen- 
derson's Translation  and  Commentary,  2d  ed., 
1857.  E.  H.  S. 

*  The  strong  internal  evidence  of  the  common 
origin  of  the  various  writings  attributed  to  Isaiah 
is  of  a  cumulative  character,  and  (esiieciaUy  as  re- 
quiring often  for  its  just  presentation  the  aid  of 
exegesis)  can  only  be  adequately  exhibited  at  con- 
siderable length.  A  few  of  the  more  prominent 
points  of  the  argument,  in  addition  to  those  above 
given,  may  be  here  alluded  to. 

It  is  a  consideration  of  no  little  weight,  that 
many  of  the  representations  which  are  most  strik- 
ingly characteristic  of  the  second  part  are  but  fur- 
ther developments  of  thoughts  that  are  more  or 
less  clearly  suggested  in  the  first.  Thus  the  Cap- 
tivity and  the  restoration,  so  largely  and  variously 
Iwelt  upon  in  the  disputed  portions,  are  distinctly 
predicted  in  ch.  vi.  11-13,  as  well  as  intimated  in 
^the^  passages  of  which  Isaiah  is  unhesitatingly 
idmitted  to  be  the  author.  Even  the  view  pre- 
sented of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  which  is  perhaps 
the  most  distinctive  feature  of  the  second  part,  and 
which,  combining  as  it  does  elements  at  first  sight 
wholly  irreconcilable  with  one  another,"  has  always 
been  the  stumbling-block  of  expositors,  is,  when 


a  *  For  an  exposition  of  the  phrase  Servant  of  Je- 
hovah, which  meets  perhaps  better  than  any  other  the 
demands  of  the  various  connections  in  which  this 
phrase  occurs,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  commen- 
tary of  Dr.  J   A.  Alexander  on  ch.  xlii.        D.  S.  T. 

b  *  Chap.  xiii.  and  xiv.  1-23  are  among  the  sections 
most  confidently  referred  to  the  later  period  of  the 
Daptivity.  But  if  anything  in  the  results  of  criticism 
tan  be  regarded  as  established,  it  is  that  Is.  xiv.  9-19 
I  the  original^from  which  are  derived  some  of  the  most 
taniarkable  images  and  expressions  in  £z.  xxxi.  14-18 


ISAIAH 

rightly  regarded,  but  a  further  unfolding  of  tin 
conception  which  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and  Knol)eI  find 
in  ch.  xi.  of  the  organic  relation  subsisting  between 
the  (ideal)  Messiah  and  his  people  —  the  same  con- 
ception, substantially,  which  Ewald,  Hitzlg,  and 
Knobel  find  in  viii.  8  and  ix.  6,  and  which  Ewald 
recognizes  even  in  vii.  14. 

In  xhv.  28-xlv.  ]  3  we  find  the  thought  expanded 
and  applied  to  Cyiiis  which  occurs  in  another  form 
with  a  different  apphcation  in  x.  6-7.  Compare 
here  also  xlvi.  11,  Uv.  16.  The  elements  of  the 
representation  of  the  new  heaven  and  the  new  earth 
in  Ixv.  ]  7-25  are  found  in  xi.  6-9  and  elsewhere. 

The  magnificent  representations,  ch.  be.  and  else- 
where, of  the  glory  of  Jehovah  being  made  the 
light  and  the  defense  of  his  people,  have  their  germ 
in  iv.  5. 

In  hke  manner  the  predictions  in  xliii.  6,  xlix. 
22,  and  Ixvi.  20  are  foreshadowed  in  xiv.  1,2.*  Com- 
pare also  xiv.  9-11  with  xix.  25,  and  xxix.  23 ^  xllv. 
9-20  with  ii.  8;  ixili.  17  with  vi.  10. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  characteristics  of 
style,  binding  together  the  various  portions  of  the 
book,  is  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  expression, 
The  Holy  One  of  Israel  This  designation  of  Je- 
hovah is  found  out  of  Isaiah  but  six  times ;  2  K.  xix. 
22;  Ps.  Ixxl.  22,  Ixxviii.  41,  Ixxxix.  18;  Jer.  1.  29, 
11.  5.  In  the  first  of  these  passages  it  is  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Isaiah  himself.  In  the  passages  of 
Jeremiah,  the  whole  intermediate  context  exhibits 
an  expansion  of  the  thoughts  of  Isaiah,  sometimes 
presented  even  in  his  own  language,  yet  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  suggest  that  Jeremiah  was  not  (as 
Hengstenberg  affirms)  imitating,  but  only  writing 
with  the  impression  full  upon  his  mind  of  the  ut- 
terances of  his  great  predecessor.  It  deserves  to 
be  noticed  that  by  such  critics  as  Ewald,  J.  Ols- 
hausen,  and  Hitzlg,  the  Psalms  where  the  expres- 
sion occurs  are  all  assigned  to  a  period  later  than 
the  time  of  Isaiah.  According  to  this  view  the 
expression  must  in  all  probability  have  originated 
with  Ip?.:ah. 

Another  remarkable  peculiarity  observable  in  the 
different  portions  of  Isaiah  is  the  frequent  use  of 
the  formula  to  be  named  in  the  sense  of  to  be. 
Such  coincidences  as  these  cannot  have  been  acci- 
dental. Gesenius,  with  whom  De  Wette  substan- 
tially agrees,  attempting  to  account  for  them,  con- 
jectures that  there  may  have  been  an  imitation  of 
the  earlier  writer  by  the  later,  or,  as  he  supposes 
with  more  probability,  an  attempt  by  a  later  hand 
to  bring  the  various  portions  of  the  book  into 
mutual  conformity.  But  the  former  supposition, 
if  consistently  carried  out  and  applied  to  all  cases 
of  marked  resemblance  occurring  in  these  wTltlngs, 
must  lead  to  results  which  no  one  capable  of  recog- 
nizing the  impress  of  Independent  thought  can  pos- 
sibly admit.  The  latter  supposition  is  simply  ab- 
surd. No  proper  parallel  to  such  a  procedure  am 
be  found  in  the  history  of  ancient  literature.  Ge- 
senius refers  indeed  to  the  traces  of  a  conforming 


and  xxxii.  18-32.  That  there  is  a  connection  between 
these  passages  can  hardly  be  denied.  Nor  is  there  any 
room  to  question  that  the  great  conception  embodied 
in  Isaiah  xiv.  is  an  original  conception.  We  need  not 
affirm  that  in  the  later  prophet  there  is  any  conscioui 
imitation.  But  in  the  many  and  varied  repetitions  of 
Ezekiel  we  hear  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  the  rever 
berations  of  that  majestic  strain  in  which  Isaiah  haa 
described  the  descent  of  the  king  of  Babylon  to  thf 
region  of  the  dead.  D.  S  T, 


ISAIAH 

%at»d  in  the  punctuation  of  SIH  and  '^V'i  in  the 
Pentateuch.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out 
bow  wide  is  the  diffc-euce  between  the  correction 
of  what  was  supposed  to  be  an  error  in  a  single 
letter,  and  the  radical  changes  which  upon  the  sup- 
position in  question  must  have  been  made  by  the 
•«  conforming  hand  "  in  such  passages  as  liv.  5,  kii. 
2,  4. 

To  say  nothing  of  the  difficulty  there  is  in  im- 
agining an  adequate  motive  for  such  a  procedure, 
the  procedure  itself  implies  a  habit  of  critical  ob- 
servation which  was  wholly  foreign  to  the  spirit  of 
the  times.  And  those  who  can  suppose  a  Jewish 
redacteur,  hving  two  or  tliree  centuries  before 
Christ,  to  have  thus  placed  himself  by  anticipation 
at  the  stand-point  of  modern  criticism,  ought  to 
find  no  difficulty  in  conceiving  that  a  prophet  writ- 
ing in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  should  take  his  position 
amidst  the  scenes  of  the  Captivity,  and  should  an- 
nounce the  name  of  the  deliverer." 

While  there  are  confessedly  marked  peculiarities, 
both  of  thought  and  diction,  exhibited  in  the  later 
portions  of  the  prophecies  attributed  to  Isaiah,  and 
to  some  extent  in  the  other  portions  also  of  which 
the  genuineness  has  been  called  in  question,  the 
uncertain  nature  of  the  argument  they  furnish  is 
sufficiently  shown  by  a  comparison  of  the  widely 
different  conclusions  which  different  critics  of  the 
same  school  have  formed  in  view  of  them.  A  very 
striking  comparison  of  this  kind  is  presented  by 
Alexander  in  his  Commtntary,  vol.  i.  pp.  xxvii., 
xxviii. 

The  array  of  linguistic  evidence  in  proof  of  a 
diversity  of  authorship,  which  has  gradually  grown 
within  the  last  century  into  the  formidable  propor- 
tions in  which  it  meets  us  in  the  pages  of  Knobel 
And  others,  rests  very  largely  upon  an  assumption 
which  none  of  these  critics  have  the  hardihood  dis- 
tinctly to  vindicate,  namely,  that  within  the  nar- 
row compass  of  the  Hebrew  Uterature  that  has 
come  down  to  us  from  any  given  period,  we  have 
the  means  for  arriving  at  an  accurate  estimate  of 
all  the  resources  which  the  language  at  that  time 
possessed.  When  we  have  eUminated  from  the  list 
of  words  and  phrases  relied  upon  to  prove  a  later 
date  than  the  time  of  Isaiah,  everything  the  value 
of  which  to  the  argument  must  stand  or  fall  with 
this  assumption,  there  remains  absolutely  nothing 
which  may  not  be  reasonably  referred  to  the  reign 


a  *  As  a  further  exhibition  of  the  correspondences 
in  thought,  illustration,  and  expression  which  occur 
in  the  different  portions  of  the  book,  the  reader  is  re 
ferred  to  the  following  passages,  which  are  but  a  part 
of  what  might  be  adduced :  i.  3,  v.  13,  xxix.  24,  xxx. 
20,  liv.  13;  i.  11  ff.,  xxix.  13,  Iviii.  2  ff. ;  1.  22,  25, 
xlviii.  10;  vi.  13,  Ixv.  8,  9;  ix.  19,  xlvii.  14;  ix.  20, 
xix.  2,  xlix.  26 ;  x.  20,  xlviii.  1,  2 ;  xxiv.  23,  xxx.  26, 
Ix.  19,  20;  -xxix.  5,  xli.  16;  xxix.  18,  xxxv.  5,  xlii.  7, 

18,  19 ;  xxx.  22,  Ixiv.  6  (see  Ges.  Lex.  under  71*^17, 

T    ■ 

furst  under  1^)  ;  xxx.  27,  30,  Ixiv.  1,  2,  Ixvi.  6,  14, 
15, 16 ;  xxxii.  15,  xxxv.  1,  Iv.  13.  D.  S.  T. 

b  *  Isaiah  certainly  began  his  public  work  as  early 
at  least,  as  the  last  year  of  Uzziah,  and  continued  it 
it  least  till  the  14th  of  Hezekiah.  This  gives  him  a 
minimum  period  of  47  years.  In  all  probability  his 
Ministry  lasted  several  years  longer.  D.  S.  T. 

c  *  That  the  prophet  throughout  his  later  writings 
nad  more  or  less  reference  continually  to  the  circum- 
It&nces  of  his  own  time,  is  abundantly  manifest,  and  de- 
lervee  to  be  particularly  noticed  here.  Those  who  deny 
tie  iceaoineness  of  these  productions,  while  they  admit 


ISAIAH  1161 

of  Hezekiah.  Indeed,  considering  all  the  circum^ 
stances  of  the  times,  it  might  justly  have  been  ex- 
pected that  the  traces  of  foreign  influence  upon 
the  language  would  be  far  more  conspicuous  in  a 
writing  of  this  date  than  they  actually  are  ?n  the 
controverted  portions. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  ministry  of  the 
prophet  must  have  extended  through  a  period,  ai 
the  lowest  calculation,  of  nearly  fifty  years;*  a 
period  signalized,  especially  during  the  reigns  of 
Ahaz  and  Hezekiah,  by  constant  and  growing  in- 
tercourse with  foreign  nations,  thus  involving 
continually  new  influences  for  the  corruption  of 
pubUc  morals  and  new  dangers  to  the  state,  and 
making  it  incumbent  upon  him  who  had  been  di- 
vinely constituted  at  once  the  political  adviser  of 
the  nation  and  its  religious  guide,  to  be  habitually 
and  intimately  conversant  among  the  people,  so  as  to 
descry  upon  the  instant  every  additional  step  taken 
in  their  downward  course  and  the  first  approachio 
of  each  new  peril  from  abroad,  and  to  be  able  to 
meet  each  successive  phase  of  their  necessities  with 
forms  of  instruction,  admonition,  and  warning,  not 
only  in  their  general  purport,  but  in  their  very  style 
and  diction,  accommodated  to  conditions  hitherto 
unknown,  and  that  were  still  perpetually  changing. 
Now  when  we  take  all  this  into  the  account,  and 
then  imagine  to  ourselves  the  prophet,  toward  the 
close  of  this  long  period,  entering  upon  what  was 
in  some  respects  a  novel  kind  of  labor,  and  writing 
out,  with  a  special  view  <^  to  the  benefit  of  a  remote 
posterity,  the  suggestions  of  that  mysterious  The- 
opneusiia  to  which  his  lips  had  been  for  so  many 
years  the  channel  of  comnmnication  with  his  con- 
temporaries, far  from  finding  any  difficulty  in  the 
diversities  of  style  perceptible  in  the  different  por- 
tions of  his  prophecy,  we  shall  only  see  fresh  occa- 
sion to  admire  that  native  strength  and  grandeur 
of  intellect,  which  have  still  left  upon  productions 
so  widely  remote  from  each  other  in  the  time  and 
circumstances  of  their  composition,  so  plain  an  im- 
press of  one  and  the  same  overmastering  individual- 
ity. Probably  there  is  not  one  of  all  the  languages 
of  the  globe,  whether  living  or  dead,  possessing  any 
considerable  Uterature,  which  does  not  exhibit  in- 
stances of  greater  change  in  the  style  of  an  author, 
writing  at  different  periods  of  his  life,  than  appears 
upon  a  comparison  of  the  later  prophecies  of  Isaiah 
with  the  earher.  D.  S.  T. 


(see  Bertholdt,  Eini.  pp.  1384,  1385)  that  Isaiah  and 
other  prophets  often  transfer  themselves  in  spirit  int« 
future  times,  lay  great  stress  upon  the  alleged  fact  thai 
the  writer  here  deals  exdusivfly  with  a  period  which 
in  the  age  of  Isaiah  was  yet  future.  But  in  addition 
to  the  considerations  in  relation  to  this  point  pre- 
sented in  the  preceding  article,  p.  1158  6,  the  passago 
Ivii.  11  may  be  adduced  as  plainly  implying  that  a< 
the  time  the  prophet  wrote,  Jehovah  had  as  yet  for 
borne  to  punish  his  rebellious  people,  and  that  his  for 
bearance  had  only  been  abused.  The  last  clause  of 
the  first  verse  is  also  most  naturally  explained  as  con 
taining  an  intimation  of  coming  judgment.  Still  fur 
ther,  the  only  explanation  of  ver.  9  which  satisfies  al" 
the  demands  of  the  passage  makis  it  to  refer  to  th< 
attempts  of  the  people,  in  the  age  preceding  the  Cap- 
tivity, to  strengthen  themselves  ly  foreign  alliances 
and  thdse  attempts  are  spoken  of  as  being  made  bj 
the  contemporaries  of  the  prophet.  It  is  also  stronglj 
implie(f  in  ^n.  5,  7,  and  still  more  strongly  in  Ixvi.  8 
6,  20  (last  clause),  that  the  Temple  was  yet  standing 

D.  S.  T 


1166 


ISAIAH 


•  Additional  Literature.  —  Caheu's  Bible  (He- 
brew), torn.  k.  Paris,  1838,  containing  a  French 
translation  and  notes,  also  a  translation  of  the 
Preface  of  Abarbanel  to  his  commentary  on  Isaiah, 
and  of  his  commentary  on  ch.  xxxiv.,  with  a  full 
crithcal  notice  by  Munk  of  the  Arabic  version  by 
cSaadias  Gaon,  and  of  a  Persian  MS.  version  in  the 
Royal  Libr.  at  Paris;  Hendewerk,  JJes  Proph. 
Jesaja  Weissnc/umjen,  chron.  geordnet,  iihers.  u. 
erklart,  2  Bde.'  Konigsb.  1838-43 ;  J.  Heinemann, 
Der  Proph.  Jesalas,  Berl.  1840.  original  text, 
comm.  of  Rashi,  Chaldee  paraphrase,  German 
translation  (in  the  Hebrew  character),  notes,  and 
Masora;  F.  Beck,  Die  cyro-jesdjanischen  Weissn- 
(juiujen  (Is,  xl.-lxvi.)  krit.  u.  exeget.  bearbeitet, 
Leipz.  1844;  Umbreit,  Prakt.  Comm.  ub.  d.  Proph. 
d.  Alien  Bundes,  Bd.  i.,  Jesaja,  2e  Aufl.  Hamb. 
1846;  E.  Meier,  Der  Proph.  Jesaja  erkldrt, 
le  Halfte,  Pforzh.  1850 ;  Bunsen's  Bibeliverk,  Theil 
ii.  le  Hiilfte,  Leipz.  1860,  translation,  with  popular 
cotes;  G.  K.  Mayer  (Rom.  Cath.),  Die  Messian- 
ischen  Prophezietn  d.  Jesalas,  Wien,  I860,  new 
title-ed.  1863;  J.  Steeg,  A'snie  xl.-lxvi.,  hi  the 
Nouvelle  Rev.  de  Theol.  (Strasb.)  1862,  x.  121- 
180,  translation,  with  brief  introduction  and  notes; 
F.  Dehtzsch,  BiOl.  Comvi.  ub.  d.  Proph.  Jesaia, 
Leipz.  1866  (Theil  iii.  Bd.  i.  of  Keil  and  Dehtzsch's 
Bibl.  Comm.  ub.  d.  A.  T.),  Eng.  trans,  in  2  vols. 
Edinb.  1867  (Clark's  Foreign  Theol.  Libr.);  S.  D. 
Luzzatto,  the  eminent  Italian  Hebraist,  II  profeta 
Isaia  iradotta  ...  col  comnienti  ebraici,  2  tom. 
Padova,  1865-67.  In  this  country  we  have  Albert 
Barnes,  The  Book  of  Isaiah  with  a  New  Trans, 
and  Notes,  3  vols.  Boston,  1840,  8vo,  abridged  ed. 
New  York,  1848,  in  2  vols.  12mo;  J.  A.  Alexan- 
der, The  Earlier  Pnphecles  of  haiah,  New  York. 
1846 ;  Later  Prophecies,  ibid.  1847  ;  both  re- 
printed in  Glasgow  imder  the  editorship  of  Dr. 
Eadie,  1848;  new  edition  with  the  title,  The 
Prophecies  of  Isaiah  translated  and  explained,  2 
vols.  New  York,  1865,  8vo;  abridged  ed.,  ibid.  1851. 
2  vols.  12mo.  This  may  be  regarded  as  the  most 
valuable  commentary  on  the  book  in  English.  See 
also  Dr.  Noyes's  Neio  Translation  of  the  Hebrew 
Prophets,  with  Notes,  vol.  i.,  3d  ed.,  Boston,  1867. 
Dr.  Cowlcs  promises  a  volume  on  Isaiah  in  contin- 
uation of  his  labors  on  the  Hebrew  Prophets.  A 
translation  of  ch.  xiii.,  xiv.,  with  explanatory  notes, 
by  Prof.  B.  B.  Edwards,  may  be  found  in  the  Bibl. 
Sacra  for  1849,  vi.  765-'785.  Gesenius's  Com- 
mentary on  Is.  XV.,  xvi.  is  translated  in  the  Bibl. 
Repos.  for  Jan.  1836,  and  on  Is.  xvii.  12-14,  xviii. 
1-7,  ibid.  July,  1836. 

lor  summaries  of  the  results  of  recent  investi- 
liation  respecting  the  book,  one  may  consult  par- 
ticularly Bleek's  Linl.  in  das  A.  T.  (1860),  pp. 
i  18-466;  Keil's  Einl.  in  das  A.  T.,  pp.  205-248, 
and  Davidson's  Introd.  to  the  0.  T.  (1863),  iii. 
2-86.  Umbreit' s  art.  Jesaja  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encykl.  vi.  507-521  is  valuable  as  a  critique  and  a 
biography.  The  elaborate  art.  on  Isaiah  in  Kitto's 
Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit.  is  by  Hengstenberg,  and  that 
in  Fairbaim's  Imperial  Bible  Diet.  i.  801-814,  by 
Delitzsch.  See  also  on  the  critical  questions  con- 
DBcted  with  the  book,  besides  the  various  Introduc- 
Mons  and  Commentaries,  A.  F.  Kleinert,  Ueber  d. 
Echtheit  sdmrntl.  in  d.  Buch  Jesaia  enthaltenen 
Weifmgungen,  Theil  i.  Berl.  1829,  called  by  Heng- 
*tenberg  "the  standard  work  on  the  subject";  C. 
P.  Caspari,  Beitrdge  zur  Einl.  in  das  Buch  Jesaia, 
Berl.  J 348,  apologetic;  Riietschi,  Plan  u.  Gang 
von  Is.  40-66,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Knt.  1854, 


ISCARIOT 

pp.  261-296;  Ensfelder,  Chronol.  de$  fircpk 
d'Esaie,  in  the  Strasb.  Rev.  de  Theol.  1863,  pp. 
16-42;  and  F.  Hosse,  Die  Weissagungen  der 
Proph.  Jesaia,  Berl.  1865  (a  pamphlet),  defending 
the  unity  of  authorship. 

On  the  "  Servant  of  God  "  in  Is.  xl.-lxvi.,  be 
sides  the  works  already  referred  to,  and  general 
treatises  like  Hengstenberg' s  Chiistologie,  St^elin'a 
Die  messianischen  Weissagungen  des  A.  7".  (1847), 
and  Hiivernick's  Vorlesungen  iib.  d.  Theol.  d.  A. 
T.  (2e  Aufl.  1863),  one  may  consult  Umbreit,  Der 
Knecht  Gottes,  Btitrag  zur  Christologie  des  A.  T.^ 
Hamb.  1840;  Bleek,  Erkldrring  von  Jesaja  52, 
13—53,  12,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1861,  pp. 
177-218 ;  P.  Kleinert,  Ueber  das  Subject  der 
Weissagung  Jes.  52,  13  —  53,  12,  ibid.  1862,  pp. 
699-752,  and  V.  F.  Oehler,  Der  Knecht  Jehovah's 
ini  Deuterojesajah,  2  Thle.  Stuttg.  1865;  comp. 
G.  V.  Oehler,  art.  Messias  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encykl.  ix.  420  f.  The  Introduction  to  voL  i.  of 
Dr.  Noyes's  New  Trans,  of  the  Hebrew  Prophets, 
3d  ed-  (1867),  contains  a  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject of  Jewish  prophecy  in  general  and  of  the 
Messianic  prophecies  in  particular.  Hengsten- 
Derg's  remarks  on  the  genuineness  of  Is.  xl.-lxvi. 
and  his  interpretation  of  Is.  Iii.  12-liii.  are  trans- 
lated from  the  first  edition  of  his  Christology  of 
the  0.  T.  in  the  Bibl.  Repos.  for  Oct.  1831  and 
April  1832. 

Stanley's  description  of  Isaiah  (Jewish  Church, 
ii.  494-504)  presents  him  to  us  as  one  of  the 
grandest  figures  on  the  page  of  history.  A  few 
sentences  may  be  quoted,  showing  the  universality 
of  Isaiah's  ideas  and  sympathies  and  the  reach 
of  his  prophetic  vision.  "  First  of  the  prophets, 
he  and  those  who  followed  him  seized  with  unre- 
served confidence  the  mighty  thought,  that  not  in 
the  chosen  people,  so  much  as  in  the  nations  outside 
of  it,  was  to  be  found  the  ultimate  well-being  of 
man,  the  surest  favor  of  God.  Truly  mi^at  the 
Apostle  say  that  Isaiah  was  "very  bold,"  —  "bold 
beyond "  (a7roTo\/iqi,  Rom.  x.  20)  aU  that  had 
gone  before  him  —  in  enlarging  trie  boundaries  of 
the  church ;  bold  with  that  boldness,  and  large  with 
that  largeness  of  view  which,  so  far  from  weaken- 
ing the  hold  on  things  divine,  strengthens  it  to  a 
degree  unknown  in  less  comprehensive  mhi^ls.  For 
to  him  also,  with  a  distinctness  which  makes  all 
other  anticipations  look  pale  in  comparison,  a  dis- 
tinctness which  grew  with  his  advancing  years,  was 
revealed  the  coming  of  a  Son  of  David,  who  should 
restore  the  royal  house  of  Judah  and  gather  the 
nations  under  its  sceptre.  .  .  .  Lineament  after 
lineament  of  that  Divine  Ruler  was  gradually  drawn 
by  Isaiah  or  his  scholars,  until  at  last  a  Figure 
stands  forth,  so  marvelously  combined  of  power 
and  gentleness  and  suffering  as  to  present  in  the 
united  proportions  of  his  descriptions  the  moral  fea- 
tures of  an  historical  Person,  such  as  has  been,  by 
universal  confession,  known  once,  and  once  only, 
in  the  subsequent  annals  of  the  world." 

H.  and  A. 

IS'CAH  (n2D"^  [one  who  looks  about,  or  peers'}  : 
'Uaxd'  Jescha),  daughter  of  Haran  the  brotha 
of  Abram,  and  sister  of  Milcah  and  of  Lot  (Geu. 
xi.  29).  In  the  Jewish  traditions  as  preserved  bj 
Josephus'(yl«^.  i.  6,  §  5),  Jerome  {QiixEst.  in  Gen- 
esim),  and  the  Targum  Pseudo-jonathan  —  not  tc 
mention  later  writers  —  she  is  identified  witl 
Sakai. 

ISCAR'IOT.     [Judas  Iscakiot.1 


ISDAEL 
BS'DABL  i'l(rba-f)\:  Gaddahel),  1  Esdr.  v.  33.  j 

[GiDDEL,  2.] 

ISH'BAH  (n^tp)  [praisinff]:  6  'U<x$d; 
[Vat.  Map^O;]  Alex.  le(Ta$a'-  lesba),  a  man  in 
the  line  of  Judah,  commemorated  as  tne  •'  father 
af  Eshtemoa"  (1  Chr.  iv.  17);  but  from  whom  he 
was  immediately  descended  is,  in  the  very  confused 
state  of  this  part  of  the  genealogy,  not  to  be  ascer- 
tained. The  most  feasible  conjecture  is  that  he 
was  one  of  the  sons  of  Mered  by  his  Egyptian  wife 
BiTHiAH.     (See  Bertheau,  Chronik,  ad  loc.) 

ISH'BAK  (p3t2^*:  \leadny  behind,  Ges.] . 
'leo-^i^K,  2o)8a«;  [Alex,  in  Chr.,  Ucr^oK'^  Jesboc), 
a  son  of  Abraham  and  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2;  1 
Chr.  i.  32),  and  the  progenitor  of  a  tribe  of  north- 
ern Arabia.  The  settlements  of  this  people  are 
very  obscure,  and  we  can  only  suggest  as  possible 
that  they  may  be  recovered  in  the  name  of  the 

valley  called  Sabak,  or,  it  is  said,  Sibak  (  .    vLu**  j, 

in  the  Dahna  (^UJOcXJI  and  ULiCjul), 
(Mamsid,  s.  v.).  The  Heb.  root  p^ti?  corre- 
sponds to  the  Arabic  roju*;  in  etymology  and 
signification:  therefore  identifications  with  names 
derived  from  the  root  ^^Xjuii  are  improbable. 
There  are  many  places  of  the  latter  derivation,  as 

Shebek  (v^JLyi*),  Shibak  (JL^Ci),  and  Esh- 

Shobak  ( siAOa^^wiJi  ) :  the  last  having  been  sup- 
posed (as  by  Bunsen,  Bibelwerk,  i.  pt.  ii.  53)  to 
preserve  a  trace  of  Ishbak.  It  is  a  fortress  in 
Arabia  Petraea ;  and  is  near  the  well-known  fortress 
of  the  Crusader's  times  called  El-Karak. 

The  Dahna,  in  which  is  situate  Sabak,  is  a  fer- 
tile and  extensive  tract,  belonging  to  the  Benee- 
Temeem,  in  Nejd,  or  the  highland,  of  Arabia,  on 
the  northeast  of  it,  and  the  borders  of  the  great 
desert,  reaching  from  the  rugged  tract  ("hazn") 
of  Yensoo'ah  to  the  sands  of  Yebreen.  It  contains 
much  pasturage,  with  comparatively  few  wells,  and 
is  greatly  frequented  by  the  Arabs  when  the  veg- 
etation is  plentiful  {Mushtarak  and  Mardsid,  s.  v.). 
There  is,  however,  another  Dahna,  nearer  to  the 
Euphrates  (ib.),  and  some  confusion  may  exist  re- 
f^arding  the  true  position  of  Sabak;  but  either 
Dahna  is  suitable  for  the  settlements  of  Ishbak. 
The  first-mentioned  Dahna  lies  in  a  favorable  por- 
tion of  the  widely-stretching  country  known  to 
have  been  peopled  by  the  Keturahites.  They 
extended  from  the  borders  of  Palestine  even  to  the 
Persian  Gulf,  and  traces  of  their  settlements  must 
be  looked  for  all  along  the  edge  of  the  Arabian 
peninsula,  where  the  desert  merges  into  the  culti- 
vable land,  or  (itself  a  rocky  undulating  plateau) 
rises  to  the  wild,  mountainous  country  of  Nejd. 
Ishbak  seems  from  his  name  to  have  preceded  or 
gone  before  his  brethren :  the  place  suggested  for 
his  dwelling  is  far  away  towards  the  Persian  Gulf, 
uid  penetrates  also  into  the  peninsula.  On  these, 
as  well  as  mere  etymological  grounds,  the  identifi- 
cation is  sufficieEtly  probable,  and  every  way  better 
than  that  which  connects  the  patriarch  with  Esh- 
8h6bak,  etc.  E.  S.  P. 


ISH-BOSHETH 


116T 


ISH'BI-BE'NOB  (nb?  12lip^,  Keri,  '^^V^, 
[dweUiny  in  rest\:  'Uafii;  [Alex.  Ico-jSt  ev  No)3:] 

Jesbi-betiob),  son  of  Kapha,  one  of  the  race  of 
Philistine  giants,  who  attacked  David  in  battl^ 
but  was  slain  by  Abishai  (2  Sam.  xxi.  IG,  17). 

H.  W.  P. 

ISH-BO'SHETH  (H^S  W^i^  [see  infra]: 
'U^oade;  [m  2  Sam.  ii.,  Alex.  Ufioadai  or  Ete)8., 
Comp.  'Icr^Saed;  in  2  Sam.  iii.,  iv.,  Vat.  Me/i^t- 
^oadei,  Alex.  MeiJ.(j}i&o(Tdai--]  Jsboseth),  the  young- 
est of  Saul's  four  sons,  and  his  legitimate  succes.sor. 
His  name  appears  (1  Chr.  viii.  33,  ix.  39)  to  h3.Yi 

been  originally  Esh-baal,  737!2'Ci7W,  the  ?nar* 
of  Baal.  Whether  this  indicates  that  Baal  was 
used  as  equivalent  to  Jehovah^  or  that  the  reverence 
for  Baal  still  lingered  in  Israelitish  families,  is  un- 
certain; but  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the 
name  (Ish-bosheth,  "  the  man  of  shame  ")  by  which 
he  is  commonly  known,  must  have  been  substituted 
for  the  original  word,  with  a  view  of  removing  the 
scandalous  sound  of  Baal  from  the  name  of  an 
IsraeUtish  king,  and  superseding  it  by  the  con- 
temptuous word  (Bosheth  —  "  shame  ")  which  was 
sometimes  used  as  its  equivalent  in  later  times 
(Jer.  iii.  21,  xi.  13;  Hos.  ix.  10).  A  similar  pro- 
cess appears  in  the  alteration  of  Jerubbaal  (Judg. 
viii.  35)  into  Jerubbesheth  (2  Sam.  xi.  21);  Meri- 
baal  (2  Sam.  iv.  4)  into  Mephi-bosheth  (1  Chr. 
viii.  31,  ix.  40).  The  three  last  cases  all  occur  in 
Saul's  family.  He  was  35  years  of  age  at  the  time 
of  the  battle  of  Gilboa,  in  which  his  father  and 
three  oldest  brothers  perished;  and  therefore,  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Oriental,  though  not  of 
European  succession,  ascended  the  throne,  as  the 
oldest  of  the  royal  family,  rather  than  Mephi- 
bosheth,  son  of  his  elder  brother  Jonathan,  who 
was  a  child  of  five  years  old.  He  was  immediately 
taken  under  the  care  of  Abner,  his  powerful  kins- 
man, who  brought  him  to  the  ancient  sanctuary 
of  Mahanaim  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  victorious  Philistines  ^2  Sam.  ii. 
8).  There  was  a  momentary  doubt  even  in  those 
remote  tribes  whether  they  should  not  close  with 
the  offer  of  David  to  be  their  king  (2  Sam.  ii.  7, 
iii.  17).  But  this  was  overruled  in  favor  of  Ish- 
bosheth  by  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  17),  who  then  for 
five  years  slowly  but  effectually  restored  the  domin- 
ion of  the  house  of  Saul  over  the  Transjordanic 
territory,  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  the  central  moun- 
tains of  l^phraim,  tlie  frontier  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
and  eventually  "over  all  Israel"  (except  the  tribfl 
of  Judah,  2  Sam.  ii.  U).  Ish-bosheth  was  then 
"  40  years  old  when  he  began  to  reign  over  Israel, 
and  reigned  two  years "  (2  Sam.  ii.  10).  Thia 
form  of  expression  is  used  only  for  thr  accession 
of  a  fully  recognized  sovereign  (comp.  in  the  case 
of  David,  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  and  v.  4). 

During  these  two  years  he  reigned  at  Mahanaim, 
though  only  in  name.  The  war?  and  negotiationa 
with  David  were  entirely  carried  on  by  Abner  (2 
Sam.  ii.  12,  iii.  6,  12).  At  length  Ish-bosheth 
accused  Abner  (whether  rightly  or  wrongly  does 
not  appear)  of  an  attempt  on  his  father's  concu- 
b'-T.e,  Kizpah;  which,  according  to  oriental  usage, 
amounted  to  treason  (2  Sam.  iii.  7 ;  comp.  1  K 
ii.  13;  2  Sam.  xvi.  21,  xx.  3).  Abner  resented 
this  suspicion  in  a  burst  of  passion,  which  Tented 
itself  in  a  solemn  vow  to  transfer  the  kingdoni  fron: 
the  house  of  Saul  to  the  house  of  David.     I»h 


1168 


ISHI 


bcsheth  was  too  much  cowed  to  answer;  and  when, 
nhortly  afterward?,  through  i\bner"s  negotiation, 
David  demanded  the  restoration  of  his  former  wife, 
Michal,  he  at  ones  tore  his  sister  from  her  reluctant 
husband,  and  conmiitted  her  to  Abner's  charge 
(2  Saun.  iii.  14,  15). 

The  death  of  Abner  deprived  the  house  of  Saul 
of  their  last  remaining  support.  When  Ish-bosheth 
heard  of  it,  "  his  hands  were  feeble  and  all  the 
Lsraehtes  were  troubled  "  (2  Sam.  iv.  1). 

Jn  this  extremity  of  weakness  he  fell  a  victim, 
probably,  to  a  revenge  for  a  crime  of  his  father. 
l"he  guard  of  Ish-bosheth,  as  of  Saul,  was  taken 
from  their  own  royal  tribe  of  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  xii. 
2.t).  But  amongst  the  sons  of  Benjamin  were 
reckoned  the  descendants  of  the  old  Canaanitish 
inhabitants  of  Beeroth,  one  of  the  cities  in  league 
with  Gibeon  (2  Sam.  iv.  2,  3).  Two  of  those  Bee- 
rothites,  Baana  and  Rechab,  in  remembrance,  it 
has  been  conjectured,  of  Saul's  slaughter  of  their 
kinsmen  the  Gibeonites,  determined  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  helplessness  of  the  royal  house  to  de- 
stroy the  only  representative  that  was  left,  except- 
ing the  child  Mephi-bosheth  (2  Sam.  iv.  4).  They 
were  "  chiefs  of  the  marauding  troops  "  which  used 
from  time  to  time  to  attack  the  territory  of  Judah 
(comp.  2  Sam.  iv.  2,  iii.  22,  where  the  same  word 

1*T15  is  used;  Yu\v.  prlncipes  litironum).  [Ben- 
jamin, vol.  i.  p.  278  n;  Gittaim,  vol.  ii.  p.  930.] 
They  knew  the  habits  of  the  king  and  court,  and 
acted  accordingly.  In  the  stillness  of  an  eastern 
hxjon  they  entered  the  palace,  as  if  to  carry  off  the 
wheat  which  was  piled  up  near  the  entrance.  The 
female  slave,  who,  as  usual  in  eastern  houses,  kept 
the  door,  and  was  herself  sifting  the  wheat,  had, 
in  the  heat  of  the  day,  falle^i  asleep  at  her  task 
(2  Sam.  iv.  5,  6,  in  LXX.  and  Vulg.).  They  stole 
in,  and  passed  into  the  royal  bedchamber,  where 
Ish-bosheth  was  asleep  on  his  couch.  They  stabbed 
him  in  the  stomach,  cut  off  his  head,  made  their 
escape,  all  that  afternoon,  all  that  night,  down  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan  (Arabah,  A.  V.  "plain;''  2 
Sam.  iv.  7),  and  presented  the  head  to  David  as  a 
welcome  present.  They  met  with  a  stem  recep- 
tion. David  rebuked  them  for  the  cold-blooded 
murder  of  an  innocent  man,  and  ordered  them  to 
be  executed ;  their  hands  and  feet  were  cut  off,  and 
their  bodies  susi)ended  over  [prob.  by  or  near]  the 
tank  at  Hebron.  The  head  of  Ish-bosheth"  was 
carefully  buried  in  the  sepulchre  of  his  great  kins- 
man Abner,  at  the  same  place  (2  Sam.  iv.  9-12).'' 

A.  P.  S. 

I'SHI  Ortp^_  [saving,  salutary]:  Jest).  1. 
('Iore;U£T7A;  Alex.  Ictrci.)  A  man  of  the  descend- 
mts  of  Judah,  son  of  Appaim  (1  Chr.  ii.  31);  one 
of  the  great  house  of  Hezron,  and  therefore  a  near 
sonnection  of  the  family  of  Jesse  (comp.  9-13). 
The  only  son  here  attril)uted  to  Ishi  is  Sheshan. 

2.  (Set;  [Vat.  266£:]  Alex.  Es;  [Comp.  'leo-f.]) 
In  a  subsequent  genealogy  of  Judah  we  find  another 
lahi,  with  a  son  Zoheth  (1  Chr.  iv.  20).  There  does 
not  api)ear  to  be  any  connection  between  the  two. 

3.  Cleo-/;  [V^at.  leo-dej/;]  Alex.  letre/.)  Four 
men  of  the  Bene-Ishi  [sons  of  I.],  of  the  tribe  of 
Simeon,  are  named  in   1   Chr.  iv.  42  as  having 


«  In  Dryden's  Absalom  and  Ahithophel,  "foolish 
Ishbosheth  "  is  ingeniously  taken  to  represent  Richard 
Uromwell. 

b  *  The  Jews  at  Hebron  claim  that  they  know  the 
•xact  place  ot  this  sepulchre.     They  are  accustomed 


ISHMAEL 

headed  an  expedition  of  500  of  their  brethren, 
who  took  IVIount  Seu:  from  the  Amalekites,  and 
made  it  their  own  abode. 

4.  (26i;  [Vat.  2e6i;]  Alex.  Uaei.)  One  of 
the  heads  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  on  the  east  of 
Jordan  (1  Chr.  v.  24). 

I'SHI  (*'tt7''S  :  6  av-hp  ^ov.  Vir  mem).  Thit 
word  has  no  connection  whatever  with  the  forego- 
ing. It  occurs  in  Hos.  ii.  16,  and  signifies  "  my 
man,"  "  my  husband."  It  is  the  Israelite  term^ 
in  opposition  to  Baat.i  [Amer.  ed.]  the  Canaauitfl 
term,  with  the  same  meaning,  though  with  a  sig- 
nificance of  its  own.  See  pp.  207-8,  210  a.  where 
the  difference  between  the  two  appellations  is  no- 
ticed more  at  length. 

ISHI'AH  (n^t^^,  i.  e.  Isshiyah  [whom  Je- 
hovah  lends,  perh.  with  the  idea  of  children  as  a 
trust]:  'leo-ta;  [Vat.  corrupt:  Jesia]),  the  fifth 
of  the  five  sons  of  Izrahiah ;  one  of  the  heads  of 
the  tribe  of  Issachar  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr 
vii.  3). 

The  name  is  identical  with  that  elsewhere  given 

as  ISHIJAH,  ISSHIAH,  JeSIAH. 

ISHFJAH  (TlKr^)  [as  above]:  'Uaia',  [Vat. 
FA.  Uoraeia;]  Alex.  Uarata-  Joswe),  a  lay  Israelite 
of  the  Bene-Harim  [sons  of  H.],  who  had  mairied  a 
foreign  wife,  and  was  compelled  to  reUnquish  hei 
(Ezr.  X.  31).     In  Esdras  the  name  is  Aseas. 

This  name  appears  in  the  A.  V.  imder  the  vari- 
ous forms  of  IsHiAH,  Isshiah,  Jesiah. 

ISH'MA  (Sl^tZ,'*'  [waste,  desert,  Ges.] :  'letr- 
fjidVi  [Vat.  FayfAa;]  Alex.  Ua/ma'-  Jesema),  a 
name  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  3). 
The  passage  is  very  obscure,  and  in  the  case  of 
many  of  the  names  it  is  difficult  to  know  whether 
they  are  of  persons  or  places.  Ishma  and  his  com- 
panions appear  to  be  closely  connected  with  Beth- 
lehem (see  ver.  4). 

ISH'MAEL  (bsr?^tt^^,  whom  God  hears: 
'Ifffxa-i^K'-  hmael),  the  son  of  Abraham  by  Hagar, 
his  concubine,  the  F>gyptian ;  born  when  Abraham 
was  fourscore  and  six  years  old  (Gen.  xvi.  15,  16;. 
Ishmael  was  the  first-born  of  his  father;  in  ch.  xv. 
we  read  that  he  was  then  childless,  and  there  is  no 
apparent  interval  for  the  l)irth  of  any  other  child; 
por  does  the  teaching  of  the  narrative,  besides  the 
precise  enumeration  of  the  sons  of  Abraham  as  the 
father  of  the  faithful,  admit  of  the  supposition. 
The  sa}ing  of  Sarah,  also,  when  she  gave  him 
Hagar,  supports  the  inference  that  until  then  he 
was  without  children.  When  he  "  added  and  took 
a  wife  "  (A.  V.  "  Then  again  Abraham  took  a  wife," 
XXV.  1),  Keturah,  is  uncertain,  but  it  is  not  likdj 
to  have  been  until  after  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and 
perhaps  the  death  of  Sarah.  The  conception  of 
Ishmael  occasioned  the  flight  of  Hagar  [HA<iAR]; 
and  it  was  during  her  wandering  in  the  wildernesg 
that  the  angel  of  the  I>ord  appeared  to  her,  com- 
manding her  to  return  to  her  mistress,  and  giving 
her  the  promise,  "  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  exceed- 
ingly, that  it  shall  not  be  immbered  for  multitude;  *' 
and,  "•  Behold,  thou  [art]  with  child,  and  shalt  beai 
a  son,  and  shalt  call  his  name  Ishmael,  because  th» 


to  offer  prayers  there  on  every  new  moon-day  (Sepp, 
Jerusalem  u.  das  keiliiie  Land.  i.  499).  The  o^ttna 
shows  a  trace  of  the  old  superstition  in  reRjird  to  lb( 
observance  of  such  days  (Is.  i.  13, 14  ;  Col.  ii.  lb,  ete.\ 


ISHMAEL 

latd  hath  heard  thy  affliction.  And  he  will  be  a 
wild  man ;  his  hand  [will  be]  against  every  man, 
and  every  man's  hand  against  him;  and  he  shall 
dwell  in  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren  "  (xvi. 
10-12). 

Ishmael  was  born  in  Abrahatn's  house,  when  he 
dwelt  in  the  plain  of  Mamre;  and  on  the  institu- 
tion of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  was  circum- 
cised, he  being  then  thirteen  years  old  (xvii.  25). 
With  the  institutioi)  of  the  covenant,  God  renewed 
his  promise  respectinc-  Ishmael.  In  answer  to 
Abraham's  entreaty,  when  he  cried,  "  0  that  Ish- 
mael might  live  before  thee!  "  God  assured  him  of 
the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  said,  "As  for  Ishmael,  I 
have  heard  thee:  behold,  I  have  blessed  him,  and 
will  make  him  fruitful,  and  will  multiply  him  ex- 
ceedingly ;  twelve  princes  «  shall  he  beget,  and  I  will 
make  him  a  great  nation  "  (xvii.  18,  20).  Before 
this  time,  Abraham  seems  to  have  regarded  his 
first-born  child  as  the  heir  of  the  promise,  his 
belief  in  which  was  counted  unto  him  for  right- 
eousness (xv.  6);  and  although  that  faith  shone 
yet  more  brightly  after  his  passing  weakness  when 
Isaac  was  first  promised,  his  love  for  Ishmael  is 
recorded  in  the  narrative  of  Sarah's  expulsion  of 
the  latter:  "  And  the  thing  was  very  grievous  in 
Abraham's  sight  because  of  his  son"  (xxi.  11). 

Ishmael  does  not  again  appear  in  the  narrative 
until  the  weaning  of  Isaac.  The  latter  was  bora 
when  Abraham  was  a  hundred  years  old  (xxi.  5), 
and  as  the  weaning,  according  to  eastern  usage, 
probably  took  place  when  the  child  was  between 
two  and  three  years  old,  Ishmael  himself  must  have 
been  then  between  fifteen  and  sixteen  years  old. 
The  age  of  the  latter  at  the  period  of  his  circum- 
cision, and  at  that  of  his  expulsion  (which  we  have 
now  reached),  has  given  occasion  for  some  literary 
speculation.  A  careful  consideration  of  the  pas- 
sages referring  to  it  fails,  however,  to  show  any 
discr«patii  between  them.  In  Gen.  xvii.  25,  it  is 
stated  tliat  he  was  thirteen  3ears  old  when  he  was 
circumcised ;  and  in  xxi.  14  (probably  two  or  three 
years  later),  "  Abraham  .  .  .  took  bread,  and  a 
bottle  of  water,  and  gave  [it]  unto  Hagar,  putting 
[it]  on  her  shoulder,  raid  the  child,  and  sent  her 
away."  ^  Here  it  is  at  least  unnecessary  to  assume 
that  the  child  was  put  on  her  shoulder,  the  con- 
struction  of  the    Hebrew    (mistranslated    by  the 


«  The  Heb.  rendered  "  prince "  in  tliis  case,  is 
S"^t^3,  which  signifies  both  a  "  prince "  and  the 
"  leader."  or  "  captain  "  of  a  tribe,  or  even  of  a  family 
(Gc6sa.).  It  here  seems  to  mean  the  leader  of  a  tribe, 
and  Ishmael's  twelve  sons  are  enumerated  in  Gen. 
ixv.  16  "  according  to  their  nations,"  more  correctly 

'  P6.-.pi<«j,"  n'"it2«. 

b  *  The  ambiguity  lies  in  the  A.  V.,  rather  than 
the  original.  According  to  the  Hebrew  construction 
(though  a  little  peculiar),  the  expression  "  putting  on 
hsr  shoulder  "  should  be  taken  as  parenthetic,  and 
that  of  "  the  child  "  be  made  the  object  of  the  first 
of  the  verbs  which  precede.  H. 

c  *This  allusion  to  "the  shrubs"  of  the  desert 
brings  out  a  picturesque  trait  of  the  narrative.     The 

word  so  rendered  (H'^ti?)  is  still  used  in  Arabic,  un- 

ehangxl.  It  is  used,  however,  with  some  latitude, 
being  a  general  designation  for  the  shrubby  or  bushy 
plants.     These  shrubby  plants,  which  are  of  various 

kinds,  are  called  generally    ^.^,  as  we  speak  of 

"  biuhes       The  kind,  however,  most  in  use,  and  more 

74 


ISHMAEL  1169 

LXX.,  with  whom  seems  to  rest  the  origin  of  th« 
question)  not  requiring  it;  and  the  sense  of  th# 
passage  renders  it  highly  improbable:  Hagar  cer- 
tainly carried  the  bottle  on  her  shoulder,  and  per- 
haps the  bread :  she  could  hardly  have  also  thus 
carried  a  child.  Again,  these  passages  are  quite 
reconcilable  with  ver.  20  of  the  last  quoted  chapter, 

where  Ishmael  is  termed  "^^211,  A.  V.  "lad' 
(comp.,  for  use  of  this  word.  Gen.  xxxiv.  19, 
xxxvii.  2,  xli.  12). 

At  the  "  great  feast  "  made  in  celebration  of  the 
weaning,  "  Sarah  saw  the  son  of  Hagar  the  Egyp- 
tian, which  she  had  borne  unto  Abraham,  mocking," 
and  urged  Abraham  to  cast  out  him  and  his  mother. 
The  patriarch,  comforted  by  God's  renewed  promise 
that  of  Ishmael  he  would  make  a  nation,  sent  them 
b(Jth  away,  and  they  departed  and  wandered  in  the 
wilderness  of  Beer-sheba.  Here  the  water  being 
spent  in  the  bottle,  Hagar  cast  her  son  under  one 
of  the  desert  shrubs,^  and  went  away  a  little  dis- 
tance, "  for  she  said.  Let  me  not  see  the  death  of 
the  child,"  and  wept.  "  And  God  heard  the  voice 
of  the  lad,  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  called  to 
Hagar  out  of  heaven,"  renewed  the  promise  al- 
ready thrice  given,  "I  will  make  him  a  great 
nation,"  and  "opened  her  eyes  and  she  saw  a  well 
of  water."  Thus  miraculously  saved  from  perish- 
ing by  thirst,  "  God  was  with  the  lad ;  and  he  grew, 
and  dwelt  in  the  wilderness;  and  became  an  archer." 
It  is  doubtful  whether  the  wanderers  halted  by  the 
well,  or  at  once  continued  their  way  to  the  "  wilder- 
ness of  Paran,"  where,  we  are  told  in  the  next 
verse  to  that  just  quoted,  he  dwelt,  and  where  "  his 
mother  took  him  a  wife  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt " 
(Gen.  xxi.  9-21).  This  wife  of  Ishmael  is  not 
elsewhere  mentioned;  she  was,  we  must  infer,  an 
Egyptian;  and  this  second  infusion  of  Hamitic 
blood  into  the  progenitors  of  the  Arab  nation, 
Ishmael's  sons,  is  a  fact  that  has  been  generally 
overlooked.  No  record  is  made  of  any  other  wife 
of  Ishmael,  and  failing  such  record,  the  Egyptian 
was  the  mother  of  his  twelve  sons,  and  daughter. 
This  daughter,  however,  is  called  the  "  sister  of 
Nebajoth  "  (Gen.  xxviii.  9),  and  this  Umitation  of 
the  parentage  of  the  brother  and  sister  certainly 
seems  to  pohit  to  a  different  mother  for  Ishmael's 
other  sons.'' 


than  any  other  specifically  designated,  is  the  Spartium 
junceum.  This  is  a  tall  shrub,  growing  to  the  height 
of  eight  or  ten  feet,  of  a  close  ramification,  but  mak- 
ing a  light  shade,  owing  to  the  small  size  and  lanc«- 
olate  shape  of  its  leaves.  Its  flowers  are  yellow,  and 
its  seeds  edible.  It  grows  in  stony  places,  usually 
where  there  is  little  moisture,  and  is  widely  diffused. 
We  should  expect  to  find  it,  of  course,  in  a  "  wilder- 
ness "  like  that  of  Beer-sheba.  But  whether  we  un- 
derstand by  JJ^W  this  particular  plant,  whose  light 
and  insufficient  shade  would  prove  the  only  mitigation 
of  the  heat  of  the  sun,  or,  in  general,  a  bush  or  shrub, 
the  allusion  to  it  in  Gen.  xxi.  15  is  locally  exact,  and 
explains  why  the  mother  sought  such  a  .shelt«r  for  thi 
child.  It  might  also  be  understood  of  Genista  mono- 
sperma,  the  Retem  of  the  Arabs,  which  furnished  a 
shade  to  the  prophet  Elyah  (1  K.  xix.  4,  5),  and  is 
spoken  of  in  Ps.  cxx.  4,  and  Job  xxx.  4.  This  species 
is  said  to  abound  in  the  desert  of  Sinai,  and  is  kin- 
dred 1-0  the    >s.^i  being,  in  fact,  mentioned  vrfth.  It 


e 


ir.  Job  xxx.  4.  G.  B.  P. 

d  According  to  Rabbinical  traditior,  Ishmael  put 
away  his  wife  and  took  a  second ;   and  the  Aribs, 


1170  ISHMAEL 

Of  the  later  life  of  Ishmael  we  know  little.  He 
iraa  present  with  Isaac  at  the  burial  of  Abraham ; 
*ud  Esau  contracted  an  alliance  with  him  when  he 
"  took  unto  the  wives  which  he  had  Mahalath  [or 
Rashemath  or  Basmatii,  Gen.  xxxvi.  3]  the 
daughter  of  Ishmael  Abraham's  son,  the  sister  of 
Nebajoth,  to  be  his  wife;  "  and  this  did  Esau  be- 
cause the  daughters  of  Canaan  pleased  not  Isaac 
and  Rebekah,  and  Jacob  in  obedience  to  their  wishes 
had  gone  to  Laban  to  obtain  of  his  daughters  a 
wife  (xxviii.  6-9).  The  death  of  Ishmael  is  re- 
corded in  a  previous  chapter,  after  tlie  enumeration 
of  his  sons,  as  having  taken  place  at  the  age  of  a 
hundred  and  thirty-seven  years ;  and,  it  is  added, 
"  he  died  in  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren  "  « 
(xxv.  17,  18).  The  alliance  with  Esau  occurred 
beiore  this  event  (although  it  is  mentioned  in  a 
previous  passage),  for  he  "went  .  .  .  unto  Ish- 
mael; "  but  it  cannot  have  been  long  before,  if  the 
chronological  data  be  correctly  preserved.** 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider,  (1),  the  place  of 
Ishmael's  dwelling  ;  and,  (2),  the  names  of  his 
children,  with  their  settlements,  and  the  nation 
sprung  from  them. 

1.  From  the  narrative  of  his  expulsion,  we  learn 
that  Ishmael  first  went  into  the  wilderness  of  Beer- 
sheba,  and  thence,  but  at  what  interval  of  time  is 
uncertain,  removed  to  that  of  Paran.  His  con- 
tinuance in  these  or  the  neighboring  places  seems 
to  be  proved  by  iiis  having  been  present  at  the 
burial  of  Abraham ;  for  it  must  be  remembered  that 
in  the  East,  sepulture  follows  death  after  a  few 
hours'  space;  and  by  Esau's  marrying  his  daughter 
at  a  time  when  he  (Esau)  dwelt  at  Beer-sheba:  the 
tenor  of  the  narrative  of  lx)th  these  events  favoring 
the  inference  that  Ishmael  did  not  settle  far  from 
the  neighborhood  of  Abraham  and  Isaac.  There 
are,  howcAcr,  other  passages  wl)ich  must  be  taken 
into  account.  It  is  prophesied  of  him,  that  "  he 
shall  dwell  hi  the  presence  of  all  his  brethren," 
and  thus  too  he  "  died  in  the  presence  of  all  his 
brethren"  (xxv.  IS).**  The  meaning  of  these 
oassages  is  confessedly  obscure;  but  it  seems  only 
to  signify  that  he  dwelt  near  them.  He  was  the 
first  Abrahamic  settler  in  the  east  country.  In 
eh.  xxv.  6  it  is  said,  "  But  unto  the  sons  of  the 
concubines,  which  Abraham  had,  Abraham  gave 
gifts,  and  sent  them  away  from  Isaac  his  son, 
while  he  yet  lived,  eastward,  unto  the  east 
country."  The  "east  country"  perhaps  was  re- 
stricted in  early  times  to  the  wildernesses  of  Beer- 
sheba  and  Paran,  and  it  afterwards  seems  to  have 
included  those  districts  (though  neither  supposition 
necessarily  follows  from  the  above  passage);  or, 
Ishmael  removed  to  that  east  country,  northwards, 
without  being  distant  from  his  father  and  his 
brethren  ;  each  case  being  agreeable  with  (len. 
xxv.  6.  The  appellation  of  the  "  east  country  " 
became  afterwards  applied  to  the  whole  desert  ex- 

probably  borrowing  from  the  above,  assert  that  he 
twice  married  ;  the  first  wife  being  an  Amalekite,  by 
whom  he  had  no  issue  ;  and  the  second,  a  Joktanite, 
of  the  tribe  of  Jurhum  {Mir-dt  ez-Zemdn,  MS.,  quot- 
.ng  a  tradition  of  Mohammad  Ibn-Is-hdk). 

«  *  The  meaning  is  different  in  the  Hebrew.     The 

verb   there   is    vC3,    and  means   not  "died"  but 

-  T' 

-  settled  "  or  "  dwelt "  ( =  )^V;,  Gen.  xvi.  12).    The       ^  ,  ^^^^^^  .^  ^^^  ^^^^  .^  ^^^  ^_  ^^  ^^^  .^  ^^^^^ 

Btatenient  is  really  made  not  of  Ishmael,  but  of  his  j  referred  to  in  the  allegory,  Gal.  iv.  25  ff.     See  aaditioi 
IfMCsudants.    Ishmael's  death  is  mentioned  in  ver.  17,  i  under  ISA^O.  E* 

>ut  not  in  rer.  18.  H. 


ISHMAEL 

tendmg  from  the  frontier  of  Palestine  east  to  the 
Euphrates,  and  south  probably  to  the  borders  of 
Egypt  and  the  Arabian  peninsula.  This  question 
is  discussed  in  art.  Beke-Kede»i  ;  and  it  is  inter- 
woven, though  obscurely,  with  the  next  subject, 
that  of  the  names  and  settlements  of  the  sons  of 
Ishmael.  See  also  Keturah,  etc.  ;  for  the 
"  brethren  "  of  Ishmael,  in  whose  presence  he  dwelt 
and  died,  included  the  sons  of  Keturah.c 

2.  The  sons  of  Ishmael  were,  Nebajoth  (expressly 
stated  to  be  his  first-born ),  Kedar,  Adbeel,  Mibsam, 
Mishma,  Dumah,  Massa,  Hadar,  Tema,  Jetur, 
Naphish,  Kedemah  (Gen.  xxv.  13-15);  and  he  had 
a  daughter  named  Mahalath  (xxviii.  9),  elsewhere 
wi-itten  Bashemath  (or  Basmath,  Gen.  xxxvi.  3), 
the  sister  of  Nebajoth,  before  mentioned.  The  sons 
are  enumerated  with  the  particular  statement  that 
"  these  are  their  names,  by  their  tovms,  and  by  their 
castles;  twelve  princes  according  to  their  nations " 
or  "  peoples  "  (xxv.  16).  In  seeking  to  identify  Ish- 
mael's sons,  this  passage  requires  close  attention : 
it  bears  the  interpretation  of  their  being  fathers  of 
tribes,  having  towns  and  castles  called  after  them ; 
and  identifications  of  the  latter  become  therefore 
more  than  usually  satisfactory.  "  They  dwelt  from 
Ilavilah  unto  Shur,  that  is  before  Egypt,  as  thou 
goest  unto  Assyria"  (xxv.  18),  and  it  is  certain, 
in  accordance  with  this  statement  of  their  limits 
[see  Havilah,  Shuk],  that  they  stretched  m  very 
early  times  across  the  desert  to  the  Persian  Gulf, 
Ijeopled  the  north  and  west  of  the  Arabian  penin- 
sula, and  eventually  formed  the  chief  element  of  the 
Arab  nation.  Their  language,  which  is  genei'ally 
acknowledged  to  have  been  the  Arabic  commonly 
so  called,  has  been  adopted  with  insignificant  ex- 
ceptions throughout  Arabia.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  Bible  requires  the  whole  of  that  nation  to  be 
sprung  from  Ishmael,  and  the  fact  of  a  large  ad- 
mixture of  Joktanite  and  even  Cushite  peoples  in 
the  south  and  southeast  has  been  regarded  as  a 
suggestion  of  skepticism.  Yet  not  only  does  the 
Bible  contain  no  warrant  for  the  assumption  that 
all  Arabs  ai-e  Ishmaelites;  but  the  characteristics 
of  the  Ishmaelites,  strongly  marked  in  all  the  more 
northern  tribes  of  Arabia,  and  exactly  fulfilling  the 
prophecy  "  he  will  be  a  wild  man ;  his  hand  [will 
be]  against  every  man,  and  every  man's  haiid  against 
him,"  become  weaker  in  the  south,  and  can  scarcely 
be  predicated  of  all  the  peoples  of  Joktanite  and 
other  descent.  The  true  Ishmaelites,  however,  and 
even  tribes  of  ^■ery  mixed  race,  are  thoroughly 
"  wild  men,"  living  by  warlike  forays  and  plunder; 
dreaded  by  their  neighbors ;  dwelling  in  tents,  with 
hardly  any  household  chattels,  but  rich  in  flocks 
and  herds,  migratory,  and  recognizing  no  law  bul 
the  authority  of  the  chiefs  of  their  tribes.  Even 
the  religion  of  Mohammad  is  held  in  light  esteem 
by  many  of  the  more  remote  tribes,  among  whom 
the  ancient  usages  of  their  people  obtain  in  almos* 


b  Abraham  at  the  birth  of  Ishmael  was  86  years  old, 
and  at  Isaac's  about  100.  Isaac  f  )ok  Rebekah  to  wife 
when  he  was  40  yeai-s  old,  when  Ishmael  would  be 
ibont  54.  Esau  was  bom  when  his  fether  was  60 ; 
and  Esau  was  more  than  40  when  he  married  Ish- 
niael's  daughter.  Therefore  Ishmael  was  then  at  Imst 
114  (54 -f- 20 +  40=  114),  leaving  23  years  before  hia 
death  for  Esau's  coming  to  him. 


ISHMABL 

11ml.  old  siuiplicity,  besides  idolatrous  practices 
fcltogether  repugnant  to  Moliammadanism  as  they 
Are  to  the  faith  of  the  patriarchs ;  practices  which 
may  be  ascribed  to  the  iniiuence  of  the  Canaaiiites, 
of  Moab,  Ammon,  and  ELdoni,  with  whom,  by  inter- 
mai-riages,  commerce,  and  war,  the  tribes  of  Ishmael 
nmst  have  had  long  and  intimate  relations. 

The  term  Ishmaelite  C^yS^^ptp^)  occurs  on 

three  occasions.  Gen.  xxxvii.  25,  27,  28,  xxxix.  1; 
Judg.  viii.  24;  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  6.  From  tlie  context 
of  the  first  two  instances,  it  seems  to  have  been  a 
general  name  for  the  Abrahamic  peoples  of  the  east 
country,  the  Bene-Kedem ;  but  the  second  admits 
also  of  a  closer  meaning.  In  the  third  instance  the 
name  is  applied  in  its  strict  sense  to  the  Ishmaelites. 
it  is  also  applied  to  J  ether,  the  father  of  Amasa,  by 
David's  sister  Abigail  (1  Chr.  ii.  17).  [Ithra; 
Jether.] 

The  notions  of  the  Arabs  respecting  Ishmael 

(  jL^ri  f  ^ft.t  j  are  partly  derived  from  the  Bible, 

partly  from  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  and  partly  from 
native  traditions.  The  origin  of  many  of  these 
traditions  is  obscure,  but  a  great  number  may  be 
ascribed  to  the  fact  of  Mohammad's  having  for 
political  reasons  claimed  Ishmael  for  his  ancestor, 
and  striven  to  make  out  an  impossible  pedigree; 
while  both  he  and  his  followers  have,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  accepting  this  assumed  descent,  sought 
to  exalt  that  ancestor.  Another  reason  may  be 
safely  found  in  Ishmael's  acknowledged  headship 
of  the  naturalized  Arabs,  and  this  cause  existed 
from  the  very  period  of  his  settlement.  [Arabia.] 
Yet  the  rivah-y  of  the  Joktanite  kingdom  of  south- 
em  Arabia,  and  its  intercourse  with  classical  and 
mediiEval  Europe,  the  wandering  and  unsettled 
habits  of  the  Ishmaelites,  their  having  no  literature, 
and,  as  far  as  we  know,  only  a  meagre  oral  tradition, 
all  contril)uted,  till  the  importance  it  acquired  with 
the  promulgation  of  El-Islam,  to  render  our  knowl  - 
edge  of  the  Ishmaelitic  portion  of  the  people  of 
Arabia,  before  Mohammad,  lamentably  defective. 
That  they  maintained,  and  still  maintain,  a  patri- 
archal and  primitive  form  of  life  is  known  to  us. 
Their  religion,  at  least  in  the  period  immediately 
preceding  Mohammad,  was  in  central  Arabia  chiefly 
the  grossest  fetishism,  probably  learnt  from  aborig- 
inal inhabitants  of  the  land ;  southwards  it  diverged 
to  the  cosmic  worship  of  the  Joktanite  Himyerites 
(though  these  were  far  from  being  exempt  from 
fetishism),  and  northwards  (so  at  least  in  ancient 
times)  to  an  approach  to  that  true  faith  which 
Ishmael  carried  with  him,  and  his  descendants  thus 
jrradually  lost.  This  last  point  is  curiously  illus- 
trated by  the  numbers  who,  in  Arabia,  became 
cither  Jews  (Caraites)  or  Christians  (though  of  a 
<fcry  corrupt  form  of  Christianity),  and  by  the  move- 
Jnent  in  search  of  the  faith  of  the  patriarchs  which 
«;ad  been  put  forward,  not  long  before  the  birth  of 
\iohammad,  by  men  not  satisfied  with  Judaism  or 
vhe  corrupt  form  of  Christianity,  with  which  alone 
'hey  were  acquainted.  This  movement  first  aroused 
Mohammad,  and  was  afterwards  the  main  cause  of 
his  success. 

The  Arabs  believe  thai  Ishmael  was  the  first 
bom  of  Abraham,  and  the  Jtiajority  of  their  doctors 
(but  the  point  is  in  dispute)  assert  that  this  son, 
md  not  Isaac,  was  offered  by  Abraham  in  sacrifice." 
rhe  some  of  this  sacrifice  is  Mount  'Arafat,  near 


ISHMAEL  1171 

Mekkeh.  the  last  holy  place  visited  by  pil^jinw,  il 

being  necessary  to  the  completion  of  pilgrimage  to 
be  present  at  a  sermon  delivered  there  on  the  9th 
of  the  Mohammedan  month  Zu-1-Hejjeh,  in  com 
memoration  of  the  offering,  and  to  sacrifice  a  victiu 
on  the  following  evening  after  sunset,  in  the  vallej 
of  Mine.  The  sacrifice  last  mentioned  is  observed 
throughout  the  Muslim  world,  and  the  day  on  which 
it  is  made  is  called  "The  Great  Festival"  (Mr. 
Lane's  Mocl.  I'^'jypt.  ch.  iii.).  Ishmael,  say  the 
Arabs,  dwelt  with  his  mother  at  Mekkeh,  and  both 
are  buried  in  the  place  called  the  "  Hejr,"  on  the 
northwest  (termed  by  the  Arabs  the  north)  side 
of  the  Kaabeh,  and  inclosed  by  a  curved  wall  called 
the  "Hateem."  Ishmael  was  visited  at  Mekkeh 
by  Abraham,  and  they  together  rebuilt  the  temple, 
which  had  been  destroyed  by  a  flood.  At  Mekkeh, 
Ishmael  married  a  daughter  of  Mudad  or  El-Mudad, 
chief  of  the  Joktanite  tribe  Jurhum  [Almodad; 
Arabia],  and  had  thirteen  children  {Mir-dt-ez- 
Zemdn,  MS. ),  thus  agreeing  with  the  Biblical  num- 
ber, including  the  daughter. 

Mohammad's  descent  from  Ishmael  is  totally 
lost,  for  an  unknown  number  of  generations  to 
'Adnan,  of  the  twenty-first  generation  before  the 
prophet:  from  him  downwards  the  latter' s  descent 
is,  if  we  may  believe  the  genealogists,  fairly  proved. 
But  we  have  evidence  far  more  trustworthy  than 
that  of  the  genealogists;  for  while  most  of  the 
natives  of  Arabia  are  unable  to  trace  up  their  pedi- 
(jrees,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  find  one  who  is 
ignorant  of  his  race,  seeing  that  his  very  life  often 
depends  upon  it.  The  law  of  blood-revenge  neces- 
sitates his  knowing  the  names  of  his  ancestors  for 
four  generations,  but  no  more ;  and  this  law  extend- 
ing from  time  immemorial  has  made  any  confusion 
of  race  almost  impossible.  This  law,  it  should  be 
remembered,  is  not  a  law  of  Mohammad,  but  an 
old  pagan  law  that  he  endeavored  to  suppress,  but 
could  not.  In  casting  doubt  on  the  prophet's  pedi- 
gree, we  must  add  that  this  cannot  affect  the  proofs 
of  the  chief  elem-ent  of  the  Arab  nation  being  Ish- 
maelite (and  so  too  the  tribe  of  Kureysh  of  whom 
was  Mohammad).  Although  partly  mixed  with 
Joktanites,  they  are  more  mixed  with  Keturahites, 
etc. ;  the  characteristics  of  the  Joktanites,  as  before 
remarked,  are  widely  diflferent  from  those  of  the 
Ishmaelites ;  and  whatever  theories  may  be  adduced 
to  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  the  Arabs,  from 
physical  characteristics,  language,  the  concurrence 
of  native  traditions  {before  Mohammadanism  made 
them  untrustworthy),  and  the  testimony  of  the 
Bible,  are  mainly  and  essentially  IshmaeUte.  [la 
MA  EL,  1.]  E.  S.  P. 

2.  One  of  the  sons  of  Azel,  a  descendant  of  Saul 
through  Merib-baal,  or  Mephi-bosheth  (1  Chr.  viii. 
38,  ix.  44).     See  the  genealogy,  under  Saul. 

3.  [Vat.  omits:  Ismahel.]  A  man  of  Judah, 
whose  son   or  descendant   Zebadiah   was  ruler 

(1^  3>  of  the  house  of  Judah  in  the  time  of  Je- 
hoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xix.  11). 

4.  [Vat.  M.  itrpoTjA.:  Ismahel.]  Another  man 
of  Judah,  son  of  Jehohanan ;  one  of  the  "  captains 

(**nti7)  of  hundreds  "   who   assisted   Jehoiada  in 
restoring  Joash  to  the  throne  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  1). 

5.  [Vat.  :S.auar}\;  FA.  Sa/iotTjA-]  A  i.riest, 
of  the  Bene-Pasnur  [sons  of  P.],  who  was  forced 


a  Wifh  this  and  some  other  exceptions,  the  Mu» 
Urns  have  adopted  the  chief  facts  of  the  hietoiy  of  Uh 
mael  recurded  in  the  Bible. 


1172  ISHMAEL 

by  Ezra  to  relinquish  his  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  22). 
[ISMAKL,  2.] 

6.  [Vat.i  in  2  K.  xxv.  25,  Mavar}\:  hmahel'] 
The  son  of  Nethaiiiah ;  a  perfect  marvel  of  craft 
and  villainy,  whose  treachery  forms  one  of  the  chief 
episodes  of  the  history  of  the  period  immediately 
succeeding  the  first  fall  of  Jerusalem.  His  exploits 
are  related  in  Jer.  xl.  7-xli.  15,  with  a  short  sum- 
mary in  2  K.  xxv.  23-25,  and  they  read  almost 
like  a  page  from  the  annals  of  the  late  Indian 
mutiny. 

His  full  description  is  "  Ishmael,  the  son  of 
Nethaniah,  the  son  of  Elishama,  of  the  seed  royal  "  « 
of  Judah  (Jer.  xli.  1;  2  K.  xxv.  25).  Whether  by 
this  is  intended  that  he  was  actually  a  son  of  Zede- 
kiah,  or  one  of  the  later  kings,  or,  more  generally, 
that  he  had  royal  blood  in  his  veins  —  perhaps  a 
descendant  of  Elishama,  the  son  of  Uavid  (2  Sam. 
v.  16)  —  we  cannot  tell.  During  the  siege  of  the 
city  he  had,  like  many  others  of  his  countrymen 
(Jer.  xl.  11 ),  fled  across  the  Jordan,  where  he  found 
a  refuge  at  the  court  of  Baalis,  the  then  king  of  the 
Bene-Ammon  (Jos.  Ani.  x.  9,  §  2).  Ammonite 
women  were  sometimes  found  in  the  harems  of  the 
kings  of  Jerusalem  (1  K.  xi.  1),  and  Ishmael  may 
have  been  thus  related  to  the  Ammonite  couit  on 
his  mother's  side.  At  any  rate  he  was  instigated 
by  Baalis  to  the  designs  which  he  accomplished  but 
too  successfully  (Jer.  xl.  14;  Ant.  x.  9,  §  3).  Several 
bodies  of  Jews  appear  to  have  been  lying  under 
arms  in  the  plains  on  the  S.  E.  of  the  Jordan,'^ 
during  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem,  watching  the 
progress  of  affairs  in  Western  Palestine,  conmianded 

by  '*  princes  "  ^  C^^tt"*),  the  chief  of  whom  were 
Ishmael,  and  two  brothers,  Johanan  and  Jonathan, 
eons  of  Kareah.  Immediately  after  the  departure 
of  the  Chaldsean  army  these  men  moved  across  the 
Jordan  to  pay  their  respects  to  Gkuamah,  whom 
the  king  of  Babylon  had  left   as  superuit«ndent 

("T'^pD)  of  the  province.     Gedaliah  had  taken  up 

his  residence  at  Mizpah,  a  few  miles  north  of 
Jerusalem,  on  the  main  road,  where  Jeremiah  the 
prophet  resided  with  him  (xl.  6 ).  The  house  would 
appear  to  have  been  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the 
town.  We  can  discern  a  high  inclosed  court-yard 
and  a  deep  well  within  its  precincts.  The  well  was 
\ertainly  (Jer.  xli.  9;  comp.  1  K.  xv.  22),  and  the 


«  n^l^^n  Vnr.  Jerome  (Qu.  Hebr.  on  2 
Chron.  xxviii.  7)  interprets  this  expression  as  meaning 
"  of  the  seed  of  Molech."  He  gives  the  same  meaning 
to  the  words  ''  the  King's  son  "  applied  to  Maaseiah 
in  the  above  passage.  The  question  is  an  interesting 
one,  and  has  been  recently  revived  by  Geiger  (  Urxchrift, 
etc.  p.  307),  who  extends  it  to  other  passages  and  per- 
fons.  [Molech.]  Jerome  (as  above)  further  siys  — 
perhaps  on  the  strength  of  a  tradition  —  that  Ishmael 
Vas  the  son  of  an  Egyptian  slave,  Gera  :  as  a  reason 
why  the  "  seed  royal  "  should  bear  the  meaning  he 
gives  it.  This  the  writer  has  not  hitherto  succeeded 
in  elucidating. 

h  So  perhaps,  taking  it  with  the  express  statement 
of  xl.  11,  we  may  interpret  the  words  "  the  forces 
which  were  in  the  field  "  (Jer.  xl.  7,  13),  where  the 

term  rendered  "  the  field  "  (n^ti?2)  is  one  used  tu 
denote  the  pasture  grounds  of  Moab  —  the  modern 
Belka  —  oftener  than  any  other  district.  See  Gen. 
VSJcyi.  35  ;  Num.  xxi.  20  ;  Ruth  i.  1,  and  passim ; 
t  Ohr.  Tiii.  8  ;  and  Stanley's  ,S'.  4'  P.  App.  §  15.  The 
persistent  use  of  the  word  in  the  semi-Moabite  book 
.■>f  Kuth  is  alone  enough  to  fix  its  meaning. 


ISHMAEL 

whole  residence  was  probably,  a  relic  of  the  lailitw; 

works  of  Asa  king  of  Judah. 

Ishmael  made  no  secret  of  his  intention  to  kill 
the  superintendent,  and  usurp  his  position.  Of 
this  Gedaliah  was  warned  in  express  terms  by  Jo- 
hanan and  his  companions;  and  Johanan,  in  a 
secret  inter\'ievv,  foreseeing  how  irreparable  a  mis- 
fortune Gedaliah's  death  would  be  at  this  juncture 
(xl.  15),  offered  to  remove  the  danger  by  kiUing 
Ishmael.  This,  however,  Gedaliah,  a  man  evi- 
dently of  a  high  and  unsuspecting  nature,  would 
not  hear  of  (xl.  16,  and  see  the  amphfication  in 
Joseph.  Ant.  x.  9,  §  3).  They  all  accordingly  took 
leave.  Thirty  days  after  {Ant.  x.  9,  §  4),  in  the 
seventh  month  (xli.  1),  on  the  third  day  of  the 
month  —  so  says  the  tradition  —  Ishmael  again 
appeared  at  Mizpah,  this  time  accompanied  by  ten 
men,  who  were,  according   to   the  Hebrew  text, 

"princes  of  the  king"  (TJ^J^H  *'5"^)>  though 
this  is  omitted  by  the  LXX.  and  by  Josephus. 
GedaUah  entertained  them  at  a  feast  (xU.  1).  Ac- 
cording to  the  statement  of  Josephus  this  was  a 
very  lavish  entertainment,  and  Gedaliah  became 
much  intoxicated.  It  must  have  been  a  private 
one,  for  before  its  close  Ishmael  and  hii  followers 
had  murdered  Gedaliah  and  all  his  attendants  with 
such  secrecy  that  no  alarm  was  given  outside  the 
room.  The  same  night  he  killed  all  Gedaliah's 
establishment,  including  some  Chaldsean  soldiers 
who  were  there.  Jeremiah  appears  fortunately  to 
have  been  absent,  and,  incredible  as  it  seems,  so 
well  had  Ishmael  taken  his  precautions  that  for  two 
days  the  massacre  remained  perfectly  unknown  to 
the  people  of  the  town.  On  the  second  day  Ishmael 
perceived  from  his  elevated  position  a  large  party 
coming  southward  along  the  main  road  from  She- 
chem  and  Samaria.  He  went  out  to  meet  them. 
They  proved  to  be  eighty  devotees,  who  with  rent 
clothes,  and  with  shaven  beards,  nmtilated  bodies, 
and  other  marks  of  heathen  devotion,  and  weeping  «< 
as  they  went,  were  bringing  incense  and  offerings  to 
the  ruins  of  the  Temple.  At  his  invitation  they 
turned  aside  to  the  residence  of  the  superintendent. 
And  here  Ishmael  put  into  practice  the  same  strat- 
agem, which  on  a  larger  scale  was  employed  by 
Mehemet  All  in  the  massacre  of  the  Mamelukes 
at  Cairo  in  1806.  As  the  unsuspecting  pilgrims 
passed  into  the  court-yard  «  he  closed  the  entrancea 


c  It  is  a  pity  that  some  different  word  is  not  em- 
ployed to  render  this  Hebrew  term  from  that  used  in 
xli.  1  to  translate  one  totally  distinct. 

d  This  is  the  LXX.  version  of  the  matter  —  avroi 
erroperoi/To  Ka\  e/cAouoi/.  The  statement  of  the  Hebrew 
Text  and  A.  V.  that  Ishmael  wept  is  unintelligi  bio. 

e  The  Hebrew  has  ")^  VH  —  "  the  city  "  (A.  W.  ve:. 

7).  This  has  been  read  by  Josephus  "nyH  —  "  ccun- 
yard."  The  alteration  carries  its  genuineness  in  its 
face.  The  same  change  has  been  made  by  the  Mfr* 
sorets  {Keri)  in  2  K.  xx.  4. 

*  It  is  safer  to  follow  the  text,  with  Hitzig,  Umbreit, 
De  Wette,  and  others.     It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the 

Hebrew  TflPl  7S  precedes  "T^^n,  t.  e.  they  came 
"into  the  midst  of  the  city,"  so  that  they  were  com- 
pletely in  Ishmael's  power  before  the  massacre  took 
place.  It  was  natural  to  mention  that  cir'-  imstance 
but  there  is  no  obvious  reason  for  speaking  thus  pr* 
cisely  of  "  the  midst  of  the  court-yard."  That  8|)ecifl- 
cation   also  seems  to  require   the  article  before  th> 

genitive.    The  "  pit "  (or  «  cistern,"  the  wcrd  is  nSjJ* 


ISHMAELITE 

oehfnd  them,  and  there  he  and  his  band  butchered  I 
ihe  whole  number:  ten  only  escaped  by  the  offer  I 
of  heavy  ransom  for  their  lives.  The  seventy 
corpses  were  then  thrown  into  the  well,  which,  as 
at  Cawnpore,  was  within  the  precincts  of  the 
house,  and  which  was  completely  filled  with  the 
bodies.  It  was  the  same  thing  that  had  been  done 
by  Jehu  —  a  man  in  some  respects  a  prototype  of 
[shmael  —  with  the  bodies  of  the  forty-two  relatives 
»f  Ahaziah  (2  K.  x.  14).  This  done  he  descended 
to  the  town,  surprised  and  carried  off  the  daughters 
of  king  Zedekiah,  who  had  been  sent  there  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  for  safety,  with  their  eunuchs  and 
their  Chaldsean  guard  (xli.  10,  16),  and  all  the 
people  of  the  town,  and  made  off  with  his  prisoners 
to  the  country.of  the  Ammonites.  Which  road  he 
took  is  not  quite  clear ;  the  Hebrew  text  and  LXX. 
say  by  Gibeon,  that  is  north;  but  Josephus,  by 
Hebron,  round  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
The  news  of  the  massacre  had  by  this  time  got 
abroad,  and  Ishmael  was  quickly  pursued  by  Jo- 
hanan  and  his  companions.  Whether  north  or 
south,  they  soon  tracked  him  and  his  unwieldy  booty, 
and  found  them  reposing  by  some  copious  waters 

(D"^2in  D"]75).  He  was  attacked,  two  of  his  bra- 
voes  slain,  the  whole  of  the  prey  recovered,  and 
Ishmael  himself,  with  the  remaining  eight  of  his 
people,  escaped  to  the  Ammonites,  and  thencefor- 
ward passes  into  the  obscurity  from  which  it  would 
have  been  well  if  he  had  never  emerged. 

Johanan's  foreboding  was  fulfilled.  The  result 
of  this  tragedy  was  an  immediate  panic.  The  small 
remnants  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth  —  the  cap- 
tains of  the  forces,  the  king's  daughters,  the  two 
prophets  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  and  all  the  men, 
women,  and  children  —  at  onc^  took  flight  into 
Egypt  (Jer.  xU.  17;  xliii.  5-7);  and  all  hopes  of 
a  settlement  were  for  the  time  at  an  end.  The  re- 
membrance of  the  calamity  was  perpetuated  by  a 
fast  —  the  fast  of  the  seventh  month  (Zech.  vii.  5; 
viii.  19),  which  is  to  this  day  strictly  kept  by  the 
Jews  on  the  third  of  Tishri.  (See  Reland,  Antiq. 
iv.  10;  Kimchi  on  Zech.  vii.  5.)  The  part  taken 
l^y  Baalis  in  this  transaction  apparently  brought 
upon  his  nation  the  denunciations  both  of  Jeremiah 
(xlix.  1-6),  and  the  more  distant  Ezekiel  (xxv.  1-7), 
but  we  have  no  record  how  these  predictions  were 
accomplished.  G. 

ISH^MAELITB.    [Ishmael,  p.  1171.] 
ISHMA'IAH    [3    syl.J    (^n^^Dt??*;,   t.   e. 
[shmaya'hu  [Jehovah  hears] :  'S.afxd'ias'  Jesmaias), 
3011  of  Obadiah :  the  ruler  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun 
in  the  time  of  king  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  19). 

ISH'MEELITE    and    ISH'ME  ELITES 

C^bs;^??:??';  and  D^bwr^t^:^.  respectively:  ['la- 

uaTjAiTTjs  (Vat.  -Aet-),  'la^ia-nKlTai'  Ismnhelithes. 
/s/iKtelltce] ),  the  form  —  in  agreement  with  the 
vowels  of  the  Hebrew  —  in  which  the  descendants 
of  Ishmael  are  given  in  a  few  places  in  the  A.  V. : 
the  former  in  1  Chr.  ii.  17;  the  latter  in  Gen. 
Kxvii.  25,  27,  28,  xxxix.  1. 

ISH'MERAl  [3  syl.]  0'}'^^'^,  [whom  Jeho- 
''ahkee2)s\:  'laaixapi;  [Vat.  Sajt-apec]  Alex.  lec- 
K/Jzpi'-  Jesamari),  a  Benjamite;  one  of  the  family 


ISLE 


1173 

In  the  tribe 


•nto  which  the  bodies  weni  thrown  may  have  been  in 
i  tM)urt-yard  or  elsewhere,  In  eastern  towns  there  are 
wwrroirs  for  public  use  as  well  as  private.  H. 


of  Elpaal.  and  named  as  a  chief 
(1  Chr.  r"   18). 

ISH'OD  ("I'lnti^'^S,  t.  6  Ish-hod  [num  of  re- 
noim]:  d  'IffjvS;  [Vat.  JaadeK',}  Alex.  2ou3:  vu 
rniii  decorum),  one  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  on 
the  east  of  Jordan,  son  of  Hammoleketh,  i.  e.  the 
Queen,  and,  from  his  near  connection  with  Gilead. 
evidently  an  important  person  (1  Chr.  vii.  18). 

ISHTAN  CjQtp';  [perh.  baU,  Ges.;  one 
strong,  Fiirst]  :  ^Uacpdv't  [Vat.  \<T(pav'^  Alex.  Eo- 
^av-  Jespha7n),  a  Bienjamite,  one  of  the  family  of 
Shashak;  named  as  a  chief  man  in  his  tribe  (1 
Chr.  viii.  22). 

ISH'TOB  (nir:i-tt?*'«  [see  infra-]:  'IctcS^; 
[Vat.  EiCTTOJ/S;]  Joseph.  "lo-TOJjBos:  Istob),  appar- 
ently one  of  the  small  kingdoms  or  states  which 
formed  part  of  the  general  country  of  Aram,  named 
with  Zobah,  Rehob,  and  Maacah  (2  Sam.  x.  6,  8). 
In  the  parallel  account  of  1  Chr.  xix.  Ishtob  is  omit- 
ted. By  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  6,  §  1 )  the  name  is  given 
as  that  of  a  king.  But  though  in  the  ancient  ver- 
sions the  name  is  given  as  one  word,  it  is  probable 
that  the  real  signification  is  "  the  men  of  Tob,"  a 
district  mentioned  also  in  connection  with  Ammon 
in  the  records  of  Jephthah,  a»^d  again  perhaps, 
under  the  shape  of  Tobie  or  Iubieni,  in  the  hia^ 
tory  of  the  Maccabees.  G. 

ISH'UAH  {TIW^  [even,  level,  Ges. ;  resting 
peaceful,  Dietr.]  :  'leo-irouo,  Alex.  Uo-ffai'  Jesua\ 
the  second  son  of  Asher  (Gen.  xlvi.  17).  In  the 
genealogies  of  Asher  in  1  Chr.  vii.  30  the  name; 
though  identical  in  the  original,  is  in  the  A.  V. 
given  as  Isuah.  In  the  lists  of  Num.  xxvi., 
however,  Ishuah  is  entirely  omitted. 

*  The  word  is  properly  Ishvah,  and  was  probably 
intended  by  the  translators  of  the  A.  V.  to  be  so 
read,  u  being  used  in  the  edition  of  1611  for  v. 

A. 

ISH'UAI  [3  syl.]  {'^^}^\,  i.  e.  Ishvi  [see 
above]:  'laovl;  Alex.  Uaovi:  Jessui),  the  third 
son  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  30),  founder  of  a  family 
bearing  his  name  (Num.  xxvi.  44;  A.  V.  "Je 
suites  ").  His  descendants,  however,  are  not  mer- 
tioned  in  the  genealogy  in  Chronicles.  His  nam* 
is  elsewhere  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Isui,  Jesui,  and 
(another  person)  Ishui. 

ISH'UI  0^^"^.,  i.  e.  Ishvi  [peaceful,  quiet, 
Dietr.]:  'Ucrcrioi]  [Vat.  U(T<tiov\;]  Alex,  larovei', 
Joseph.  'lecoCs:  Jessui),  the  second  son  of  Saul 
by  his  wife  Ahinoam  (1  Sam.  xiv.  49,  comp.  50) : 
his  place  in  the  family  was  between  Jonathan  and 
Melchishua.  In  the  list  of  Saul's  genealogy  in  1 
Chr.  viii.  and  ix.,  however,  the  name  of  Ishui  ia 
entirely  omitted ;  and  in  the  sad  narrative  of  the 
battle  of  Gilboa  his  place  is  occupied  by  Abinad.ib 
(1  Sam.  xxxi.  2).  W^e  can  only  conclude  that  he 
died  young. 

The  same  name  is  elsewhere  given  in  the  A.  V 
as  Isui,  and  Ishuai.  [In  all  these  names  u  may 
have  been  intended  by  the  translators  of  the  A.  V. 
to  be  read  as  v.     See  Ishuah.  —  A.]  G. 

ISLE  C'M :  j/rjo-os).  The  radical  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  word  seems  to  be  "  habitable  places,"  as 
opposed  to  water,  an'  in  this  sense  it  occurs  in  Is. 
xlii.  15.  Hence  it  means  secondarily  any  maritin« 
district,  whether  belonging  to  a  continent  or  to  an 
island :  thus  it  is  used  of  the  shore  of  the  Medi 


1174  ISMACHIAH 

cerraneaQ  (la.  xx.  6,  xxiii.  2,  6),  and  of  the  coasts 
of  Elishah  (Ez.  xxvii.  7),  i.  e.  of  Greece  and  Asia 
Minor.  In  this  sense  it  is  more  particularly  re- 
stricted to  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  some- 
times in  the  fuller  expression  "islands  of  the  sea" 
(Is.  xi.  11),  or  "isles  of  the  Gentiles"  (Gen.  x.  5; 
comp.  Zeph.  ii.  11),  and  sometimes  simply  as 
"Lsles"  (Ps.  Ixxii.  10;  Ez.  xxvi.  15,  18,  xxvii.  a, 
35,  xxxix.  6;  Dan.  xi.  18):  an  exception  to  tiiis, 
however,  occurs  in  Ez.  xxvii.  15,  where  the  shores 
of  the  Persian  gulf  are  intended.  Occasionally  the 
word  is  specifically  used  of  an  island,  as  of  Caphtor 
or  Crete  (Jer.  xlvii.  4),  and  Chittim  or  Cyprus  (Ez. 
xxvii.  6;  Jer.  ii.  10),  or  of  islands  as  opposed  to 
the  mainland  (Esth.  x.  1).  But  more  generally  it 
is  applied  to  any  region  separated  from  Palestine 
by  water,  as  fully  described  in  Jer.  xxv.  22,  "  the 
isles  which  are  beyond  the  sea,"  which  were  hence 
regarded  as  the  most  remote  regions  of  the  earth 
(Is.  xxiv.  15,  xlii.  10,  lix.  18:  compare  the  ex- 
pression in  Is.  Ixvi.  19,  "the  isles  afar  off"),  and 
also  as  large  and  numerous  (Is.  xl.  15;  Ps.  xcvii. 
1):  the  word  is  more  particularly  used  by  the 
prophets.  (See  J.  D.  MichaeUs,  Spicilef/ium,  i. 
131-142.)  W.  L.  B. 

ISMACHFAH  (^n;pI2P':,  i.  e.  Ismac- 
ya'hu  [whom  Jehovnh  supports] :  6  'S.afiaxia.  [Vat. 
"X^*"] '  J^^smachias),  a  Invite  who  was  one  of  the 
overseers  (D"^*T^pD)  of  oflferings,  during  the  revival 
under  king  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  13). 

IS'MAEL.  ].  ClafjLa-fiX:  Ismnel),  Jud.  ii. 
23.  Another  form  for  the  name  IsHiMAEL,  son  of 
Abraham. 

2.  ('lo-yito^Aos :  Hismaenis)^  1  Esdr.  ix.  22. 
[ISHMAEL,  5.] 

ISMAI'AH  [3  syl.]  (H^^Dtp';  [Jehovah 
hears']:  'S.afid'ias'  Samnias)^  a  Gibeonite,  one  of 
the  chiefs  of  those  warriors  who  relinquished  the 
cause  of  Saul,  the  head  of  their  tribe,  and  joined 
themselves  to  David,  when  he  was  at  Ziklag  (1 
Chr.  xii.  4).  He  is  described  as  "a  hero  {Gibbor) 
among  the  thirty  and  over  the  thirty  "  —  i.  e.  Da- 
vid's body-guard :  but  his  name  does  not  appear  in 
the  lists  of  the  guard  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  and  1  Chr. 
xi.  Possibly  he  was  killed  in  some  encounter  be- 
fore David  reached  the  throne. 

IS'PAH  (nQtr?';,  L  e.  Ishpah  [perh.  bakl, 
Ges.]:  'leacpd;  Alex.  E(7(pax'  Jespha),  a  Benja- 
mite,  of  the  family  of  Beriah;  one  of  the  heads 
of  his  tribe  (1  Chr.  viii.  16). 

IS'RAEL  (bsnt|:^>  [see  infra]:  'lapa-f,\). 
1.  The  name  given  (Gen.  xxxii.  28)  to  Jacob  after 
his  wrestling  with  the  Angel  (Hos.  xii.  4)  at  Peniel. 
In  the  time  of  Jerome  (  Qucest.  Hebr.  in  Gen.  0pp. 
iii.  357)  the  signification  of  the  name  was  com- 
monly believed  to  be  "  the  man  {or  the  mind)  see- 
ing God."  But  he  prefers  another  interpretation, 
ind  paraphrases  the  verse  after  this  manner:  "  Thy 
name  shall  not  be  called  Jacob,  Siipplanter,  but 
Israel,  Prince  with  God.  For  as  I  am  a  Prince,  so 
thou  who  hast  been  able  to  WTestle  with  Me  shalt 
be  called  a  Prince.  But  if  with  Me  who  am  God 
(or  an  Angel)  thou  hast  been  able  to  contend,  how 
OQUcu  more  [shalt  thou  be  able  to  contend]  with 
men,  i.  e.  with  Esau,  whom  thou  oughtest  not  to 
dread  ?  "     The  A.  Y.,  apparently  following  Jerome, 

krasislates  rT^^tt?,  "  as  a  prince  thou  hast  power:  " 
Kit  Rosenraiiller  and  Gesenius  give  it  the  simpler 


ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OP 

meaning,  "  thou  hast  contended."     Geseoiuf  inter 
prets  Israel  "soldier  of  God." 

2.  It  became  the  national  name  of  the  twelv* 
tribes  collectively.  They  are  so  called  in  Ex.  iii 
16  and  afterwards. 

3.  It  is  used  in  a  narrower  sense,  excluding 
Judah,  in  1  Sam.  xi.  8.  It  is  so  used  in  the  famous 
cry  of  the  rebels  against  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  1),  and 
against  his  grandson  (1  K.  xii.  16).  Thenceforth 
it  was  assumed  and  accepted  as  the  name  of  the 
Northern  Kingdom,  in  which  the  tribes  of  Judah, 
Benjamin,  Levi,  Dan,  and  Simeon  had  no  share. 

4.  After  the  Babylonian  Captivity,  the  returned 
exiles,  although  they  were  mainly  of  the  kingdo.r 
of  Judah,  resumed  the  name  Israel  as  the  design  i 
tion  of  their  nation;  but  as  individuals  they  au 
almost  always  described  as  Jews  in  the  Apocr}-fiha 
and  N.  T.  Instances  occur  in  the  Books  of  Chron 
icles  of  the  application  of  the  name  Israel  to  Judali 
{e.  (J.  2  Chr.  xi.  3,  xii.  6);  and  in  Esther  of  the 
name  Jews  to  the  whole  people.  The  name  Israel 
is  also  used  to  denote  laymen,  as  distinguished  from 
priests,  levites,  and  other  ministers  (Ezr.  vi.  16, 
ix.  1,  X.  25;  Neh.  xi.  3,  &c.).  W.  T.  B. 

ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OF.  1.  The  prophet 
Ahijah  of  Shiloh,  who  was  commissioned  in  the 
latter  days  of  Solomon  to  announce  the  division  of 
the  kingdom,  left  one  tribe  (Judah)  to  the  house 
of  David,  and  assigned  ten  to  Jeroboam  (1  K.  xi. 
35,  31).  These  were  probably  Joseph  (=Ephraim 
and  Manasseh),  Issachar,  Zebulun,  Asher,  Naphtali, 
Benjamin,  Dan,  Simeon,  Gad,  and  Keuben;  Levi 
being  intentionally  omitted.  Eventually,  the  greater 
part  of  Beiyamin,  and  probably  the  whole  of  Simeon 
and  Dan,  were  included  as  if  by  common  consent 
ill  the  kingdom  of»-Judah.  With  respect  to  the 
conquests  of  David,  Moab  appears  to  have  been 
attached  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel  (2  K.  iii.  4);  so 
much  of  Syria  as  remained  subject  to  Solomon  (see 
1  K.  xi.  24)  would  probably  be  claimed  by  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  northern  kingdom;  and  Amnion, 
though  connected  with  Kehoboam  as  his  mother's 
native  land  (2  Chr.  xii.  13),  and  though  afterwards 
tributary  to  Judah  (2  Chr.  xxvii.  5),  was  at  one 
time  allied  (2  Chr.  xx.  1),  we  know  not  how 
closely,  or  how  early,  with  Moab.  The  sea-coas1 
between  Accho  and  Japho  remained  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Israel. 

2.  The  population  of  the  kingdom  is  not  ex- 
pressly stated,  and  in  drawing  any  inference  from 
the  numbers  of  fighting-men,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  numbers  in  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  O.  T. 
are  strongly  suspected  to  have  been  subjected  to 
extensive,  perhaps  systematic,  corruption.  Forty 
years  before  the  disruption,  the  census  taken  b\ 
direction  of  David  gave  800,000  according  to  2  Sam, 
xxiv.  9,  or  1,100,000 «  according  to  1  Chr.  xxi.  5, 
as  the  number  of  fighting-men  in  Israel.  Jeroboam, 
B.  c.  957,  brought  into  the  field  an  army  of  800,- 
000  men  (2  Chr.  xiii  3).  The  small  number  of  the 
army  of  Jehoahaz  (2  K.  xiii.  7)  is  to  be  attributed 
to  his  compact  with  Hazael ;  for  in  the  next  reign 
Israel  could  spare  a  mercenary  host  ten  times  as 
numerous  for  the  wars  of  Amaziah  (2  Chr.  xxv.  6). 
Ewald  is  scarcely  correct  in  his  remark  tnat  f»t 
know  not  what  time  of  life  is  reckoned  as  the  mili- 
tary age  {Gesch.  Isr.  iii.  185);  for  it  is  defined  ii 


a  Bp.  Patrick  proposes  to  reconcile  these  two  nxaa 
bers,  by  adding  to  the  former  288,000  on  aeoonnt  o 
David's  standing  legions. 


ISBAEL,  KINGDOM  OF 

Kum.  i.  3,  and  again  2  Chr.  xxv.  5,  as  "  twenty 
fears  old  and  above."  If  in  b.  c.  957  there  were 
ictually  under  arms  800,000  men  of  that  age  in 
Israel,  the  whole  population  may  perhaps  have 
amounted  to  at  least  three  milUons  and  a  half.'* 
I^ter  observers  have  echoed  the  disap{K)intment 
with  which  Jerome  from  his  cell  at  Bethlehem  con- 
templated the  small  extent  of  this  celebrated  country 
{Ep.  120,  nd  Dardan.  §  4).  The  area  of  Palestine, 
as  it  is  laid  down  in  Kiepert's  Blbel-Atlns  (ed. 
Lionnet,  1859),  is  v^alculated  at  l."j,620  English 
•.Ljuare  miles.  Deducting  from  this  810  miles  for 
r,Iie  strip  of  coast  S.  of  Japho,  belonging  to  the 
I'hilistines,  we  get  12,810  miles  as  the  area  of  the 
[.ind  occupied  by  the  12  tribes  at  the  death  of 
Solomon :  the  area  of  the  two  kingdoms  being  — 
Israel,  9,375,  Judah,  3,435.  Hence  it  appears  that 
the  whole  area  of  Palestine  was  nearly  equal  to  that 
of  the  kingdom  of  Holland  (13,610  square  miles) ;  or 
rather  moi-e  than  that  of  the  six  northern  counties 
of  England  (13,136  square  miles).  The  kingdom 
of  Judah  was  rather  less  than  Northumberland, 
Durham,  and  Westmoreland  (3,683  square  miles, 
with  752,852  population  in  1851);  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  was  very  nearly  as  large  as  Yorkshire, 
I^ncashire,  and  Cumberland  (9,453  square  miles, 
with  4,023,713  population  in  1851). 

3.  SiiECHEM  was  the  first  capital  of  the  new 
kingdom  (1  K.  xii.  25),  venerable  for  its  traditions, 
and  beautiful  in  its  situation.  Subsequently  Tirzah, 
whose  loveliness  had  fixed  the  wandering  gaze  of 
Solomon  (Cant.  vi.  4),  became  the  royal  residence, 
if  not  the  capital,  of  Jeroboam  (1  K.  xiv.  17)  and 
of  his  successors  (xv.  33,  xvi.  8,  17,  23).  Samaria, 
uniting  in  itself  the  qualities  of  beauty  and  fertility, 
and  a  commanding  position,  was  chosen  by  Omri 
(1  K.  xvi.  24),  and  remained  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom  until  it  had  given  the  last  proof  of  its 
strength  by  sustaining  for  three  years  the  onset  of 
the  hosts  of  Assyria.  Jezreel  was  probably  only  a 
royal  residence  of  some  of  the  Israelitish  kings.  It 
may  have  been  in  awe  of  the  ancient  holiness  of 
Shiloh,  that  Jeroboam  forbore  to  pollute  the  secluded 
site  of  the  Tabernacle  with  the  golden  calves.  He 
chose  for  the  religious  capitals  of  his  kingdom  Dan, 
the  old  home  of  northern  schism,  and  Bethel,''  a 
l^enjamite  city  not  far  from  Shiloh,  and  marked  out 
by  history  and  situation  as  the  rival  of  Jerusalem. 

4.  The  disaffection  of  Ephraim  and  the  northern 
tribes,  having  grown  in  secret  under  the  prosperous 
but  burdensome  reign  of  Solomon,  broke  out  at  the 
critical  moment  of  that  great  monarch's  death.  It 
was  just  then  that  Ephraim,  the  centre  of  the 
movement,  found  in  Jeroboam  an  instrument  pre- 
pared to  give  expression  to  the  rivalry  of  centuries, 
with  sufficient  ability  and  application  to  raise  him 
to  high  station,  with  the  stain  of  treason  on  his 
name,  and  with  the  bitter  recollections  of  an  exile 
in  his  mind.  Judah  and  Joseph  were  rivals  from  the 
time  that  they  occupied  the  two  prominent  places, 
and  received  the  amplest  promises  in  the  blessing 
of  the  dying  patriarch  (Gen.  xlix.  8,  22).  When 
the  twelve  tribes  issued  from  Egypt,  only  Judah 
Mid  Joseph  could  muster  each  above  70,000  war- 
nora.    In  the  desert  and  in  the  conquest,  Caleb  and 


a  "  Mr.  Ricknian  noticed  that  in  1821  and  in  i831 
tti8  number  of  males  under  20  years  of  age,  and  the 
aumber  of  males  of  20  years  of  age  and  upwards,  were 
nearly  equal ;  and  this  proportion  has  been  since  re- 
farded  as  invariable  :  or,  it  has  been  assumed,  that 
ttie  males  of  the  age  of  20  and  upwards  are  equal  in 


ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OF        1176 

Joshua,  the  representatives  of  the  two  tribes,  staac 
out  side  by  side  eminent  among  the  leaders  of  the 
people.  The  blessing  of  Moses  (Deut.  xxriii.  13) 
and  the  divine  selection  of  Joshua  inaugurated  th« 
greater  prominence  of  Joseph  for  the  next  three 
centuries.  Othniel,  the  successor  of  Joshua,  was 
from  Judah ;  the  last,  Samuel,  was  born  among  th« 
Ephraimites.  Within  that  period  Ephraim  8ui>- 
plied  at  Shiloh  (Judg.  xxi.  19)  a  resting-place  for 
the  ark,  the  centre  of  divine  worship ;  and  a  ren- 
dezvous, or  capital  at  Shechem  (Josh.  xxiv.  1; 
Judg.  ix.  2)  for  the  whole  people.  Ephraim  arro- 
gantly claimed  (Judg.  viii.  1,  xii.  1)  the  exclusive 
right  of  taking  the  lead  against  invaders.  Koyal 
authority  was  offered  to  one  dweller  in  Ephraim 
(viii.  22),  and  actually  exercised  for  three  years  by 
another  (ix.  22).  After  a  silent,  perhaps  sullen, 
acquiescence  in  the  transfer  of  Samuel's  authority 
with  additional  dignity  to  a  Benjamite,  they  resisted 
for  seven  years  (2  Sam.  ii.  9-11)  its  passing  into 
the  hands  of  the  popular  Jewish  leader,  and  yielded 
reluctantly  to  the  conviction  that  the  sceptre  which 
seemed  almost  within  their  grasp  was  reserved  at 
last  for  Judah.  Even  in  David's  reign  their  jealousy 
did  not  always  slumber  (2  Sam.  xix.  43)  ;  and 
though  Solomon's  alliance  and  intercourse  with 
T)Te  must  have  tended  to  increase  the  loyalty  of 
the  northern  tribes,  they  took  the  first  opportunity 
to  emancipate  themselves  from  the  rule  of  his  son. 
Doubtless  the  length  of  Solomon's  reign,  and  the 
clouds  that  gathered  round  the  close  of  it  (1  K. 
xi.  14-25),  and  possibly  his  increasing  desjiotism 
(Ewald,  Gescli.  hr.  iii.  395),  tended  to  diminish 
the  general  popularity  of  the  house  of  David ;  and 
the  idolatry  of  the  king  ilienated  the  affection  of 
religious  Israelites.  But  none  of  these  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  disruption.  No  aspiration 
after  greater  liberty,  political  privileges,  or  aggran  • 
dizement  at  the  expense  of  other  powers,  no  spirit 
of  commercial  enterprise,  no  breaking  forth  of  pent- 
up  energy  seems  to  have  instigated  the  movement. 
Ephraim  proudly  longed  for  independence,  without 
considering  whether  or  at  what  cost  he  could  main- 
tain it.  Shechem  was  built  as  a  capital,  and  Tirzah 
as  a  residence,  for  an  Ephraimite  king,  by  the 
people  who  murmured  under  the  burden  impreed 
upon  them  by  the  royal  state  of  Solomon.  Ephraim 
felt  no  patriotic  pride  in  a  national  splendor  of 
which  Judah  was  the  centre.  The  dwelling-place 
of  God  when  fixed  in  Jerusalem  ceased  to  be  so 
honorable  to  him  as  of  old.  It  was  ancient  jealousy 
rather  than  recent  provocation,  the  opportune  death 
of  Solomon  rather  than  unwillingncs  to  incur 
taxation,  the  opportune  return  of  a  persecuted 
Ephraimite  rather  than  any  commanding  genius 
for  rule  which  Jeroboam  possessed,  that  finally 
broke  up  the  brotherhood  of  the  children  of  Jacob. 
It  was  an  outburst  of  human  feeUng  so  soon  aa 
that  divine  influence  which  restrained  the  spirit  of 
disunion  was  withdrawn  in  consequence  of  the 
idolatry  of  Solomon,  so  soon  as  that  stem  prophetic 
voice  which  had  called  Saul  to  the  throne  under  a 
protest,  and  David  to  the  throne  in  repentance,  was 
heard  in  anger  summoning  Jeroboam  to  divide  the 
kingdom. 


number  to  a  fourth  part  of  the  whole  population." — 
Censiis  of  Cheat  Britain^  1861,  Population  Tables^  II. 
Ages^  etc.,  p.  vi. 

b  0-  these  seven  places  see  Stanley's  S.  ^  P  ,  oh«pi 
iv.  V.  aul  xi. 


1176        ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OF 

*  6.  Disruption  where  there  can  be  no  expansion, 
or  dismemberment  without  growth,  is  fatal  to  a 
■tate  If  England  and  America  have  prospered 
■ince  1783  it  is  because  each  found  space  for  in- 
crease, and  had  vital  energy  to  fill  it.  If  the  sep- 
aration of  east  and  west  was  but  a  step  in  the 
decline  of  the  Roman  empire,  it  was  so  because 
each  portion  was  henmied  in  by  obstacles  which  it 
wanted  vigor  to  surmount.  The  sources  of  life  and 
strength  begin  to  dry  up;  the  state  shrinks  within 
itself,  withers,  and  falls  before  some  blast  which 
once  it  might  have  braved. 

The  kingdom  of  Israel  developed  no  new  power. 
It  was  but  a  portion  of  David's  kingdom  deprived 
of  many  elements  of  strength.  Its  ftx)ntier  was  as 
open  and  as  widely  extended  as  before ;  but  it  wanted 
a  capital  for  the  seat  of  organized  jwwer.  Its  ter- 
ritory was  as  fertile  and  as  tempting  to  the  spoiler, 
but  its  people  were  less  united  and  patriotic.  A 
corrupt  religion  poisoned  the  source  of  national  life. 
When  less  reverence  attended  on  a  new  and  un- 
consecrated  king,  and  less  respect  was  felt  for  an 
aristocracy  reduced  by  the  retirement  of  the  Levites, 
the  array  which  David  found  hard  to  control  rose 
up  unchecked  in  the  exercise  of  its  willful  strength ; 
and  thus  eight  houses,  each  ushered  in  by  a  revolu- 
tion, occupied  the  throne  in  quick  succession.  Tyre 
ceased  to  be  an  ally  when  the  alliance  was  no  longer 
profital>le  to  the  merchant-city.  Moab  and  Ammon 
yielded  tribute  only  while  under  compulsion.  A 
powerful  neighl)or,  Damascus,  sat  armed  at  the 
gate  of  Israel;  and,  beyond  Damascus,  might  be 
discerned  the  rising  strength  of  the  first  great 
monarchy  of  the  world. 

These  causes  tended  to  increase  the  misfortunes, 
and  to  accelerate  the  early  end  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel.  It  lasted  254  years,  from  b.  c.  975  to  n.  c. 
721,  about  two  thirds  of  the  duration  of  its  more 
compact  neighbor  Judah. 

But  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  division  into 
two  kingdoms  greatly  shortened  the  independent 
existence  of  the  Hebrew  race,  or  interfered  with  the 
purposes  which,  it  is  thought,  may  be  traced  in 
the  establishment  of  David's  monarchy.  If  among 
those  purposes  were  the  preservation  of  the  true 
religion  in  the  world,  and  the  preparation  of  an 
agency  adapted  for  the  diffusion  of  Christianity  in 
due  season,  then  it  must  be  observed  —  first,  that 
as  a  bulwark  providentially  raised  against  the  cor- 
rupting influence  of  idolatrous  Tyre  and  Damascus, 
Israel  kept  back  that  contagion  from  Judah,  and 
partly  exhausted  it  before  its  arrival  in  the  south ; 
next,  that  the  purity  of  divine  worship  was  not 
impaired  by  the  excision  of  those  tribes  which  were 
remote  from  the  influence  of  the  Temple,  and  by 
\he  concentration  of  priests  and  religious  Israelites 
urithin  the  southern  kingdom;  and  lastly,  that  to  the 
worshippers  at  Jerusalem  the  early  decline  and  fall 
of  Israel  was  a  solemn  and  impressive  spectacle  of 
judgment  —  the  working  out  of  the  great  problem 
of  Gk)d's  toleration  of  idolatry.  This  prepared  the 
heart  of  Judah  for  the  revivals  under  Hezekiah  and 
Josiah,  softened  them  into  repentance  during  the 
Captivity,  and  strengthened  them  for  their  absolute 
renunciation  of  idolatry,  when  after  seventy  years 
they  returned  to  Palestine,  to  teach  the  world  that 
there  is  a  spiritual  bond  more  efficacious  than  the 
accupancy  of  a  certain  soil  for  keeping  up  national 
ixistence,  and  to  become  the  channel  through  which 
Ciod's  greatest  gift  was  conveyed  to  mankind. 
[(Captivity.] 

6.  The  detailed  history  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel  I 


ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OP 

will  be  tbund  under  the  names  of  its  nineteec 
kings.  [See  also  Ephraim.]  A  summary  view 
may  be  taken  in  four  periods :  — 

(a.)  B.  c.  975-929.  Jeroboam  had  not  suffi 
cieiit  force  of  character  in  himself  to  make  a  last- 
ing impression  on  his  people.  A  king,  but  not  a 
founder  of  a  dynasty,  he  aimed  at  nothing  beyond 
securing  his  present  elevation.  Without  any  am- 
bition to  share  in  the  commerce  of  Tyre,  or  to 
con)pete  with  the  growing  power  of  Damascus,  or 
even  to  complete  the  humiliation  of  the  helpless 
monarch  whom  he  had  deprived  of  half  a  kingdom, 
Jeroboam  acted  entirely  on  a  defensive  policy.  He 
attempted  to  give  his  sul  jects  a  centre  which  they 
wanted  for  their  political  allegiance,  in  Shechem  or 
in  Tirzah.  lie  sought  to  change  merely  fo  much 
of  their  ritual  as  was  inconsistent  with  his  authority 
over  them.  IJut  as  soon  as  the  golden  calves  were 
set  up,  the  priests  and  Levites  and  many  religious 
Israelites  (2  Chr.  xi.  16)  left  their  country,  and 
the  disastrous  emigration  was  not  effectually  checked 
even  by  the  attempt  of  Baasha  to  build  a  fortress 
(2  Chr.  xvi.  6)  at  Kamah.  A  new  priesthood  waa 
introduced  (1  K.  xii.  31)  absolutely  dependent  on 
the  king  (Am.  vli.  13),  not  forming  as  under  the 
Mosaic  law  a  landed  aristocracy,  not  respected  by 
the  people,  and  unable  either  to  withstand  the  ojv 
pression  or  to  strengthen  the  weakness  of  a  king. 
A  priesthood  created,  and  a  ritual  devised  for  secu- 
lar purposes,  had  no  hold  whatever  on  the  conscience 
of  the  people.  To  meet  their  spiritual  cravings  a 
succession  of  prophets  was  raised  up,  great  in  their 
poverty,  their  purity,  their  austerity,  their  self- 
dependence,  their  moral  influence,  but  imperfectly 
organized ;  —  a  rod  to  correct  and  check  the  civil 
government,  not,  as  they  might  have  been  under 
happier  circumstances,  a  staff  to  support  it.  The 
army  soon  learned  its  power  to  dictate  to  the  iso- 
lated monarch  and  disunited  people.  Baasha  in 
the  midst  of  the  army  at  Gibbethon  slew  the  son 
and  successor  of  Jeroboanj;  Zimri,  a  captain  of 
chariots,  slew  the  son  and  successor  of  Baasha; 
Omri,  the  captain  of  the  host,  was  chosen  to  pun- 
ish Zimri ;  and  after  a  civil  war  of  four  }  ears  he 
prevailed  over  Tibni,  the  choice  of  half  the  people. 

(b.)  a.  c.  929-884.  For  forty-five  years  Israel 
was  governed  by  the  house  of  Omri.  That  saga- 
cious king  pitched  on  the  strong  hill  of  Samaria  as 
the  site  of  his  capital.  Damascus,  which  in  the 
days  of  Baasha  had  proved  itself  more  than  a  match 
for  Israel,  now  again  assumed  a  threatening  atti- 
tude. Edom  and  Moab  showed  a  tendency  to  in- 
dependence, or  even  aggression.  Hence  the  princes 
of  Omri's  house  cultivated  an  alliance  with  the 
contemporary  kings  of  Judah,  which  was  cemented 
by  the  marriage  of  Jehoram  and  Athaliah,  and 
marked  by  the  community  of  names  among  the 
royal  children.  Ahab's  Tyrian  alliance  strength- 
ened him  with  the  counsels  of  the  mascuhne  mind 
of  Jezebel,  but  brought  him  no  further  support. 
The  entire  rejection  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  under 
the  disguise  of  abandoning  Jeroboam's  unlawful 
syn)bolism,  and  adopting  Baal  as  the  god  of  a  lux- 
urious court  and  subservient  populace,  led  to  a  reac- 
tion in  the  nation,  to  the  moral  triumph  of  the 
prophets  in  the  person  of  Elijah,  and  to  the  extinc- 
tion of  the  house  of  Ahab  in  obedience  to  the  bid- 
ding of  EHsha. 

(c.)  B.  c.  884-772.  Unparalleled  triumphs,  but 
deeper  humiliation,  awaited  the  kingdom  of  Israd 
under  the  dynasty  of  Jehu.  The  worship  of  Faa. 
was  abolished  by  one  blow;  but,  so  long  as  Um 


ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OF 

Uiigdom  lasted,  the  people  never  rose  supe;rior  to 
the  debasing  form  of  religion  established  by  Jero- 
boam. Hazael,  the  successor  of  the  two  Benha- 
dads,  the  ablest  king  of  Damascus,  reduced  Jeho- 
ahaz  to  the  condition  of  a  vassal,  ani  triumphed 
for  a  time  over  both  the  disunited  Hebrew  king- 
doms. Almost  the  first  sign  of  the  restoration  of 
their  strength  was  a  war  between  them ;  and  Jeho- 
ash,  the  grandson  of  Jehu,  entered  Jerusalem  as 
the  conqueror  of  Amaziah.  Jehoash  also  turned 
the  tide  of  war  against  the  Syrians ;  and  Jeroboam 
II.,  the  most  powerful  of  all  the  kings  of  Israel, 
3aptured  Damascus,  and  recovered  the  whole  an- 
cient frontier  from  Hamath  to  the  Dead  Sea.  In 
the  midst  of  his  long  and  seemingly  glorious  reign 
the  prophets  Hosea  and  Amos  uttered  their  warn- 
ings more  clearly  than  any  of  their  predecessors. 
The  short-lived  greatness  expired  with  the  last  king 
of  Jehu's  line. 

(d.)  B.  c.  772-721.  Military  violence,  it  would 
seem,  broke  off  the  hereditary  succession  after  the 
obscure  and  probably  convulsed  reign  of  Zachariah. 
An  unsuccessful  usurper,  Shallum,  is  followed  by 
the  cruel  Menahem,  who,  being  unable  to  make 
head  against  the  first  attack  of  Assyria  under  Pul, 
became  the  agent  of  that  monarch  for  the  oppres- 
sive taxation  of  his  subjects.  Yet  his  power  at 
home  was  sufficient  to  insure  for  his  son  and  suc- 


ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OP      1177 

cessor  Pekahiah  a  ten  years'  reign,  cut  short  by  t 
bold  usurper,  Pekah.  Abandoning  the  northern 
and  transjordaiiic  regions  to  the  encroaching  power 
of  Assyria  under  Tiglath-pileser,  he  was  very  near 
subjugating  Judah,  with  the  help  of  Damascus, 
now  the  coequal  ally  of  Israel.  But  Assy  lia  inter- 
posing summarily  put  an  end  to  the  independence 
of  Damascus,  and  perhaps  was  the  indirect  cause 
of  the  assassination  of  the  baflBed  Pekah.  The 
irresolute  Hoshea,  the  next  and  last  usurper,  be- 
came tributary  to  his  invader,  Shalraaneser,  betrayed 
the  Assyrian  to  the  rival  monarchy  of  Egypt,  and 
was  punished  by  the  loss  of  his  liberty,  and  by  the 
capture,  after  a  three  years'  siege,  of  his  strong 
capital,  Samaria.  Some  gleanings  of  the  ten  tribes 
yet  remained  in  the  land  after  so  many  years  of 
religious  decline,  moral  debasement,  national  degra- 
dation, anarchy,  bloodshed,  and  deportation.  Even 
these  were  gathered  up  by  the  conqueror  and  car- 
ried to  Assyria,  never  again,  as  a  distinct  people, 
to  occupy  their  fwrtion  of  that  goodly  and  pleasant 
land  which  their  forefathers  won  under  Joshua  from 
the  heathen. 

7.  The  following  table  shows  at  one  view  the 
chronology  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah. 
Columns!,  2,  3,  7,  8,  9,  10  are  taken  from  the 
Bible.  Columns  4,  5,  6  are  the  computations  of 
eminent  modern  chronologists :  column  4  being  the 


Year  of 
preceding 

Dura- 
tion 

Kings 

OF 

Commencemeut 
of  Reign. 

Kings 

OF 

Dura- 
tion 

Year  of 
preceding 

Queen  MothM 

King  of 

of 

Israel. 

Judah. 

of 

King  of 

in  Judfth. 

Judah. 

Reign. 

A.  V. 

Clinton 

Vainer. 

Ileign. 
17 

Israel. 

22 

Jeroboam .     . 

975 

976 

975 

Rehoboam     . 

Naamah. 

958 

959 

957 

Abyah  .     .     . 

3 

18th     ". 

Michaiah  (?) 

955 

956 

955 

Asa       .     .     . 

41 

20th     . 

Maachah  (?) 

2nd    . 

2 

Nadab  .    .    . 

954 

955 

954 

3rd     . 

24 

Baasha      .     . 

953 

954 

953 

26th     . 

2 

Elah     .     .     . 

930 

930 

930 

27th     . 

0 

Zimri    .     .     . 

929 

930 

928 

12 

Omri     .     .     . 

929 

930 

928 

88th    . 

22 

Ahab    .     .     . 

918 

919 

918 

914 

915 

914 

Jehoshaphat . 

25 

4th     . 

Azubah 

17th    . 

2 

Ahaziah     .     . 

893 

896 

897 

I8th     . 

12 

Jehoram    .     . 

896 

895 

896 

892 

891 

889 

Jehoram    .     . 

8 

5th     . 

885 

884 

885 

Ahaziah     .     . 

1 

12th     . 

Athaliah. 

28 

Jehu     .     .     . 

884 

883 

884 

Athaliah    .     . 

6 

878 

877 

878 

Jehoa.«h    .     . 

40 

7th     . 

Zibiah. 

28rd     . 

17 

Jehoahaz  .     . 

856 

855 

856 

87th    . 

16 

Jehoash     .     . 

841 

839 

840 

839 

837 

838 

Amaziah    .     . 

29 

2d.     . 

Jehoaddan 

15th     . 

41 

Jeroboam  II. 

825 

823 

825 

810 

808 

809 

Uzziah  or  Aza- 

52 

27th     . 

Jecholiah 

11 

Interregnum. 

riah 

38th     . 

0 

Zachariah 

778 

771 

772 

0 

Shallum    .     . 

772 

770 

771 

39th 

10 

Menahem .     . 

772 

770 

771 

50th     . 

2 

Pekahiah  .     . 

761 

759 

760 

52d      . 

20 

Pekah  .     .     . 

759 

757 

758 

758 

756 

758 

Jotham     .     . 

16 

2d.    . 

Jenigh*. 

742 

741 

741 

Ahaz     .    .     . 

16 

17th 

9 

2d  Interreg- 
num. 

I2th 

9 

Hoshea      .    . 

730 

730 

729 

726 

726 

725 

Hezekiah  .    . 

29 

8rd     . 

AW. 

tth 

Samaria  taken 

721 

721 

721 

698 

697 

696 

Manasseh  .     . 

55 

Hephzibah 

643 

642 

641 

Amon   .     .     . 

2 

Meshulle- 
meth. 

641 

640 

639 

Josiah  .     .     . 

31 

Jedidah. 

610 

609 

609 

Jehoanaa 

0 

Hamutal. 

610 

609 

609 

Jehoiachim    . 

11 

Zebudah 

599 

598 

598 

Jehoiachit  or 
Coniah 

0 

Nehushta. 

599 

598 

598 

Zedekiah    .     . 

11 

HamataJ. 

588 

587 

586 

Jerusalem  de 

stroyej 

1178       ISRAEL,  KINGDOM  OF 

•cheme  adopted  in  the  margin  of  the  English  Ver- 
iion,  which  is  founded  on  the  calculations  of  Arch- 
bishop Ussher:  column  5  being  the  computation 
of  Clinton  {Fasti  Hellenici,  iii.  App.  §  5);  and 
column  6  being  the  computation  of  Whier  {Real- 
worterbuch). 

The  numerous  dates  given  in  the  Bible  as  the 
limits  of  tlie  duration  of  the  king's  reigns  act  as  a 
continued  check  on  each  other.  The  apparent  dis- 
crepancies between  them  have  been  unduly  exag- 
gerated by  some  writers.  To  meet  such  difficulties 
various  hypotlieses  have  been  put  forward ;  —  that 
an  interregnum  occurred;  that  two  kings  (father 
and  son)  reigned  conjointly;  that  certain  reigns 
were  dated  not  from  their  real  commencement,  but 
from  some  arbitrary  period  in  that  Jewish  year  in 
which  they  conmienced ;  that  the  Hebrew  copyists 
have  transcribed  the  numbers  incorrectly,  either  by 
accident  or  design ;  that  the  origuial  writers  have 
made  mistakes  in  their  reckoning.  All  these  are 
mere  suppositions,  and  even  the  most  probable  of 
them  must  not  be  insisted  on  as  if  it  were  a  histor- 
ical fact.  But  in  truth  most  of  the  discrepancies 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  simple  fact  that  the 
Hebrew  annalists  reckon  in  round  numbers,  never 
specifying  the  months  in  addition  to  the  years  of 
ihe  duration  of  a  king's  reign.  Consequently  some 
jf  these  writers  seem  to  set  down  a  fragment  of  a 
year  as  an  entire  year,  and  others  omit  such  frag- 
ments altogether.  Hence  in  computing  the  date 
of  the  commencement  of  each  reign,  without  attrib- 
uting any  error  to  the  writer  or  transcribers,  it  is 
necessary  to  allow  for  a  possible  mistake  amounting 
to  something  less  than  two  years  in  our  interpreta- 
tion of  the  indefinite  phraseology  of  the  Hebrew 
writers.  But  there  are  a  few  statements  in  the 
Hebrew  text  which  cannot  thus  be  reconciled. 

(a.)  There  are  in  the  Second  Book  of  Kings 
three  statements  as  to  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoram  king  of  Israel,  which  in  the  view  of 
Bome  writers  involve  a  great  error,  and  not  a  mere 
numerical  one.  His  accession  is  dated  (1)  in  the 
•econd  year  of  Jehoram  king  of  Judah  (2  K.  i. 
17);  (2)  in  the  fifth  year  before  Jehoram  king  of 
Judah  (2  K.  viii.  16);  (3)  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  Jehoshaphat  (2  K.  iii.  1).  But  these  state- 
ments may  be  reconciled  by  the  fact  that  Jehoram 
king  of  Judah  had  two  accessions  which  are  re- 
corded in  Scripture,  and  by  the  probable  supposi- 
tion of  Archbishop  Ussher  that  he  had  a  third 
and  earlier  accession  which  is  not  recorded.  These 
three  accessions  are,  (1)  when  Jehoshaphat  left  his 
kingdom  to  go  to  the  battle  of  Kamoth-Gilead,  in 
his  17th  year;  (2)  when  Jehoshaphat  (2  K.  viii. 
16)  either  retired  from  the  administration  of  affairs, 
or  made  his  son  joint  king,  in  his  23d  year;  (3) 
when  Jehoshaphat  died,  in  his  25th  year.  So  that. 
If  the  supposition  of  Ussher  be  allowed,  the  acces- 
sion of  Jehoram  king  of  Israel  in  Jehoshaphat' s 
18th  year  synchronized  with  (1)  the  second  year 
of  the  first  accession,  and  (2)  the  fifth  year  before 
Ohe  second  accession  of  Jehoram  king  of  Judah. 

(b.)  The  date  of  the  beginning  of  Uzziah's  reign 
(2  K.  XV.  1)  in  the  27th  year  of  Jeroboam  II.  can- 
not be  reconciled  with  the  statement  that  Uz/iah's 
felt  her,  Amaziah;  whose  whole  reign  was  2P  years 
3nly,  came  to  the  throne  in  the  second  year  of 
Joaeh  (2  K.  xiv.  1),  and  so  reigned  14  years  con- 
xmporaneously  with  Joash  and  27  with  Jeroboam. 
Ussher  and  others  suggest  a  reconciliation  of  these 
statements  by  the  supposition  that  Jeroboam's 
ceign  had  two  commencements,  the  first  not  men- 


ISRAELITISH 

tioned   in   Scripture,  on  his  association  with  bii 
father  Joash,  b.  c.  837.     But  Keil,  aftei  Capellua 

and  Grotius,  supposes  that  T^  is  an  enor  of  th« 

Hebrew  copyists  for  112,  and  that  instead  of  27th 
of  Jeroboam  we  ought  to  read  15th. 

(c.)  The  statements  that  Jeroboam  II.  reigned 
41  years  (2  K.  xiv.  23)  after  the  15th  year  of 
Amaziah,  who  reigned  29  years,  and  that  Jero- 
boam's son  Zachariah  came  to  the  throne  in  the 
38th  year  of  Uzziah  (2  K.  xv.  8),  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled without  supposing  that  there  was  an  inter- 
regnum of  11  years  between  Jeroboam  and  his  son 
Zachariah.  And  almost  all  chronologists  accept 
this  as  a  fact,  although  it  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
Bible.  Some  chronologists,  who  regard  an  inter- 
regnum as  intrinsically  improbable  after  the  pros 
perous  reign  of  Jeroboam,  prefer  the  supposition 
that  the  immber  41  in  2  K.  xiv.  23  ought  to  be 
changed  to  51,  and  that  the  number  27  in  xv.  1 
should  be  changed  to  14,  and  that  a  few  other  cor- 
responding alterations  should  be  made. 

(d.)  In  order  to  bring  down  the  dafc3  of  Pekah'a 
nmrder  to  the  date  of  Hoshea's  accession,  some 
chronologists  propose  to  read  29  years  for  20,  in 
2  K.  XV.  27.  Others  prefer  to  let  the  dates  stand 
as  at  present  in  the  text,  and  suppose  that  an  in- 
terregnum, not  expressly  mentioned  in  the  Bible, 
occurred  between  those  two  usurpers.  The  words 
of  Isaiah  (ix.  20,  21)  seem  to  indicate  a  time  of 
anarchy  in  Israel. 

The  Chronology  of  the  Kings  has  been  minutely 
investigated  by  Abp.  Ussher,  Chromhgia  Sacra, 
Pars  Posterior,  De  Annis  Begum,  Works,  xii. 
95-144;  by  Lightfoot,  Order  of  the  Texts  of  the 

0.  T.,  Works,  i.  77-130;  by  Hales,  New  Analysis 
of  Chriyiwlogy,  ii.  372-447 ;  by  Clinton,  /.  c.  ;  and 
by  H.  Browne,  Ordo  Sceclorum.  [See  also  D. 
Wolff,  Versuck,  die  Widerspi'Uche  in  den  Jahr- 
reilien  der  Koniye  Jtidc's  u.  Isr.  u.  andere  Dif- 
feremen  in  d.  bibl.  C/ironol.  auszuyleichen,  in  the 

Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1858,  pp.  625-688,  and  the 
references  under  Chkonology,  Amer.  ed.  —  A.] 

W.  T.  B. 

IS'RAELITE  (^^Snt??^  :  'leCparjA/rrjj  ; 
[Vat.  ItrpaTjAetTTjs  ;  Aid.  'lo-parjAiTTjs  ;]  Alex. 
Io-/xa7jA.€tT7js:  de  Jesraeli).  In  2  Sam.  xvii.  25, 
Ithra,  the  father  of  Amasa,  is  called  "  an  Israelite," 
or  more  coirectly  "  the  Israelite,"  while  in  1  Chr. 
ii.  17  he  appears  as  "  Jether  the  IshmaeUte."  The 
latter  is  undoubtedly  the  true  reading,  for  unless 
Ithra  had  been  a  foreigner  there  would  have  been 
no  need  to  express  his  nationality.  The  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  appear  to  have  read  ^bSV^T";,  "  Jezreelite." 
■  W.  A.  W. 

*  «*  Israelite "  also  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  as  the 
rendering  of  bSHCp^^  tt'^S,  "man  of  Israel," 
Num.  XXV.  14;  and  of  'lo-paTjAiTTjs  or  ^lapariXeirris 
(Tisch.  Treg. ),  John  i.  47,  Kom.  xi.  1.    "  Israelites  " 

is  the  translation  of  b.^'^tT^,  used  collectively,  in 
Ex.  ix.  7;  Lev.  xxiii.  42;  Josh.  iii.  17,  xiii.  6 
Judg.  XX.  21;  1  Sam.  ii.  14,  xiii.  20,  xiv.  21,  xxv. 

1,  xxix.  1;  2  Sam.  iv.  1;  2  K.  iii.  24,  vii.  13;  1 
Chron.  ix.  2;  — of  'l<rpa-i]\.  Bar.  iii.  4;  1  Mace,  i 
43,  53,  58,  iii.  46,  vi.  18;  — of  vloX  lapariKy  Jud 
vi.  14;  1  Mace.  vii.  23;  —  and  of  JapavKirtu  9 
-Aerrot,  Rom.  ix.  4;  2  Cor.  xi.  22.  A. 

*  ISRAELFTISH  (n^^Sntp'' :  'i^rpanx; 


ISSACHAR 

rii  Vat. -\fct-;  Alex,  once  uCparjKiTis:  J'sraeUtis). 
The  deaignation  of  a  certain  woman  (Lev.  xxiv.  10 
11)  whose  son  was  stoned  for  blasphemy.         A. 

IS'SACHAR  0:DWW^,  [see  infra],  i.  t. 
Isascar  —  such  is  the  invariable  spelling  of  the 
name  in  the  Hebrew,  the  Samaritan  Codex  and 
Version,  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Pseudo- 
jonathan,  but  the  INIasoretj  have  pointed  it  so  as 

to  supersede  the  second  S,  ")3ti7Ci7^,  Issa  [s]  car: 
'la-adxap'^  l^ec.  Text  of  N.  T.  'laacrx^p,  b"*-  Cod. 
< ',  'lo-axap  [Cod.  A,  and  Sin.  lao-axap] ;  Joseph. 
'laa-dxap^s-  Issachar).  the  ninth  sou  of  Jacob  and 
tlie  fifth  of  Leah ;  the  firstborn  to  Leah  after  the 
interval  which  occurred  in  the  births  of  her  children 
((jen.  XXX.  17;  comp.  xxix.  35).  As  is  the  case 
with  each  of  the  sons  the  name  is  recorded  as  be- 
stowed on  account  of  a  circumstance  connected  with 
the  birth.  But,  as  may  be  also  noticed  in  more 
than  one  of  the  others,  two  explanations  seem  to 
be  combined  in  the  narrative,  which  even  then  is 
not  in  exact  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 

the  name.  "  God  hath  given  me  my  hire  ("I3ti?, 
sdcdr)  .  .  .  and  she  called  his  name  Issachar,"  is 
the  record;  but  in  verse  18  that  "  hire  "  is  for  the 
surrender  of  her  maid  to  her  husband  —  while  in 
ver.  14-17  it  is  for  the  discovery  and  bestowal  of 
the  mandrakes.  Besides,  as  indicated  above,  the 
name  in  its  original  form  —  Isascar  —  rebels  against 
this  interpretation,  an  interpretation  which,  to  be 
consistent,  requires  the  form  subsequently  imposed 
on  the  word  Is-sachar.«  The  allusion  is  not  again 
brought  fox-ward  as  it  is  with  Dan,  Asher,  etc.,  in 
the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses.  In  the  former 
only  it  is  perhaps  allowable  to  discern  a  faint  echo 
of  the  sound  of  "  Issachar  "  in  the  word  shicmo  — 
"shoulder"  (Gen.  xlix.  15). 

Of  Issachar  the  individual  we  know  nothing.  In 
Genesis  he  is  not  mentioned  after  his  birth,  and 
the  few  verses  in  Chronicles  devoted  to  the  tribe 
contain  merely  a  brief  list  of  its  chief  men  and 
heroes  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  vii.  1-5). 

At  the  descent  into  Egypt  four  sons  are  ascribed 
to  him,  who  founded  the  four  chief  families  of  the 
tribe  (Gen.  xlvi.  1-3;  Num.  xxvi.  23.  25:  1  Chr. 
vii.  1).  Issachar's  place  during  the  journey  to 
Canaan  was  on  the  east  of  the  Tabernacle  with  his 
brothers  Judah  and  Zebulun  (Num.  ii.  5),  the 
group  moving  foremost  in  the  march  (x.  15),  and 
having  a  common  standard,  which,  according  to  the 
Rabbinical  tradition,  was  of  the  three  colors  of 
sardine,  topaz,  and  carbuncle,  inscribed  with  the 
names  of  the  three  tribes,  and  bearing  the  figure 
of  a  lion's  whelp  (see  Targum  Pseudojon-.  on  Num. 
ii.  3).  At  this  time  the  captain  of  the  tribe  was 
Nethaneel  ben-Zuar  (Num.  i.  8,  ii.  5,  vii.  18,  x.  15). 
He  was  succeeded  by  Igal  ben-Joseph,  who  went  as 
representative  of  his  tribe  among  the  spies  (xiii.  7), 
and  he  again  by  Paltiel  ben-Azzan,  who  assisted 
Joshua  in  apportioning  the  land  of  Canaan  (xxxiv. 
26).  Issachar  was  one  of  the  six  trilies  who  were 
to  stand  on  Mount  Gerizim  during  the  ceremony 
of  blessing  and  cursing  (Deut.  xxvii.  12).  He  was 
still  in  company  with  Judah,  Zebulun  being  opposite 
HI  Ebal.     The  number  of  the   fighting  mer   of 


ISSACHAR 


1179 


a  The  words  occur  again  almost  identically  in  2  Ch" 

CT.  7,  a.nd  Jer.  xxxi.  16  :  *l5tt7  W^  •=  "  there  is  a 

T  T  •• 

■««ard  for,"  A.  V.  ^'  shall  be  rewarded." 

An  «ipaD8ioa  of  the  «tory  of  the  mandrakes,  with 


Issachar  when  taken  in  the  census  at  Sinai  wag 
54,400.  During  the  journey  they  seem  to  haw 
steadily  increased,  and  after  the  mortality  at  Peo* 
they  amounted  to  64,300,  being  inferior  to  non« 
but  Judah  and  DaL  —  to  the  latter  by  300  aouli 
only.  The  numbers  given  in  1  Chr.  vii.  2,  4,  5 
probably  the  census  of  Joab,  amount  in  all  t« 
145,600. 

The  Promised  Land  once  reached,  the  connection 
between  Issachar  and  Judah  seems  to  have  closed, 
to  be  renewed  only  on  two  brief  occasions,  which 
will  be  noticed  in  their  turn.  The  intimate  rela- 
tion with  Zebulun  was  however  maintained.  The 
two  brother-tribes  had  their  portions  close  tOj^ether, 
and  more  than  once  they  are  mentioned  in  com- 
pany. The  allotment  of  Issachar  lay  abova  that  of 
Manasseh.  The  specification  of  its  boundaries  and 
contents  is  contained  in  Josh.  xix.  17-23.  But  to 
the  towns  there  named  must  be  added  Daberath, 
given  in  the  catalogue  of  Levitical  cities  (xxi.  28 : 
Jarmuth  here  is  probably  the  Keraeth  of  xix.  21), 
and  five  others —  Beth-shean,  Ibleam,  En-dor,  Taa- 
nach,  and  Megiddo.  These  last,  though  the  prop- 
erty of  Manasseh,  remained  within  the  hmits  of 
Issachar  (Josh.  xvii.  11;  Judg.  i.  27),  and  they 
assist  us  materially  in  determining  his  boundary. 
In  the  words  of  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  1,  §  22),  "it 
extended  in  length  from  Carmel  to  the  Jordan,  in 
breadth  to  jMount  Tabor."  In  fact  it  exactly  con- 
sisted of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  or  Jezreel.  The 
south  boundary  we  can  trace  by  En-gannim,  the 
modern  Jenin,  on  the  heights  which  form  the 
southern  inclosure  to  the  Plain;  and  then,  further 
westward,  by  Taanach  and  Megiddo,  the  authentio 
fragments  of  which  still  stand  on  the  same  heights 
as  they  trend  away  to  the  hump  of  Carmel.  On 
the  north  the  territory  also  ceased  with  the  plain, 
which  is  there  bounded  by  Tabor,  the  outpost  of  the 
hills  of  Zebulun.  East  of  Tabor  the  hill-country 
continued  so  as  to  screen  the  tribe  from  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  but  a  continuous  tract  of  level  on  the  S.  E. 
led  to  Beth-shean  and  the  upper  part  of  the  Jordan 
valley.  West  of  Tabor,  again,  a  little  to  the  south, 
is  ChesuUoth,  the  modern  Jksal,  close  to  the  tra- 
ditional "Mount  of  Precipitation;"  and  over  this 
the  boundary  probably  ran  in  a  slanting  course  till 
it  joined  Mount  Carmel,  where  the  Kishon  (Josh, 
xix.  20)  worked  its  way  below  the  eastern  bluff  of 
that  mountain  —  and  thus  completed  the  triangle 
at  its  western  apex.  Nazareth  lies  among  the  hills, 
a  few  [about  twoj  miles  north  of  the  so-called 
Mount  of  Precipitation,  and  therefore  escaped  being 
in  Issachar.  Almost  exactly  in  the  centre  of  this 
plain  stood  Jezreel,  on  a  low  swell,  attended  on  the 
one  hand  by  the  eminence  of  Mount  Gilboa,  on 
the  other  by  that  now  called  ed-Duhy,  or  "  little 
Hermon,"  the  latter  having  Shunem,  Nain,  and 
En-dor  on  its  slopes,  names  which  recall  some  of  lh« 
most  interesting  and  important  events  in  the  his- 
tory of  Israel. 

This  territory  was,  as  it  still  is,  among  the  richest 
land  in  Palestine.  Westward  was  the  famous  pMn 
which  derived  its  name,  the  "  seed-plot  of  God  "  — 
such  IS  the  signification  of  Jezreel  —  from  its  fer- 
tility, and  the  very  weeds  of  which  at  this  day 


curious  details,  will  be  found  in  the  Testamentwn 
hachar,  Fabricius,  Cod.  Pseudepigr.  i.  620-623.  Thej 
Were  ultimately  deposited  "  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,*' 
whatever  ohat  expro^^ion  may  mean. 


1180  ISSACHAR 

testify  to  its  enormous  powers  of  production  (Stan- 
ley 8.  4"  P.  p.  348).  [EsDKAELOx:  Jezreel.] 
On  the  north  is  Tabor,  which  even  under  the  burn- 
ing sun  of  that  climate  is  said  to  retain  the  glades 
and  dells  of  an  English  wood  {ibid.  p.  350).  On  the 
east,  behind  Jezreel,  is  the  opening  which  conducts 
in  the  plain  of  the  Jordan  —  to  that  Beth-shean 
which  was  proverbially  among  the  Rabbis  the  gate 
of  Paradise  for  its  fruitfuluess.  It  is  this  aspect  of 
the  territory  of  Issachar  which  appears  to  be  alluded 
to  in  the  Blessing  of  Jaeob.     The  image  of  the 

"  strong-boned  he-ass  "  (DT?^  "^^H)  —  the  large 
animal  used  for  burdens  and  field  work,  not  the 
lighter  and  swifter  she-ass  for  riding  —  "  couching 
down  between  the  two  hedge-rows,"  «  chewing  the 
cud  of  stolid  ease  and  quiet  —  is  very  applicable, 
not  only  to  the  tendencies  and  habits,  but  to  the 
very  size  and  air  of  a  rural  agrarian  people,  while 
the  sequel  of  the  verse  is  no  less  suggestive  of  the 
certain  result  of  such  tendencies  when  unrelieved 
by  any  higher  aspirations :  "  He  saw  that  rest 
was  good  and  the  land  pleasant,  and  he  bowed  his 
back  to  bear,  and  became  a  slaved  to  tribute"  — 
the  tribute  imposed  on  him  by  the  various  maraud- 
ing tribes  who  were  attracted  to  his  territory  by 
the  richness  of  the  crops.  The  Blessing  of  Moses 
completes  the  picture.     lie  is  not  only  »  in  tents  " 

—  in  nomad  or  semi-nomad  life  —  but  "  rejoicing  " 
h\  them,  and  it  is  perhaps  not  straining  a  point  to 
observe  that  he  has  by  this  time  begun  to  lose  his 
Individuality.  He  and  Zebulun  are  mentioned 
together  as  having  part  possession  in  the  holy 
mountain  of  Tabor,  which  was  on  the  frontier  line 
of  each  (Deut.  xxxiii.  18,  19).  We  pass  from  this 
to  the  time  of  Deborah :  the  chief  struggle  in  the 
great  victory  over  Sisera  took  place  on  the  ten-itory 
of  Issachar,  "  by  Taanach  at  the  waters  of  Megiddo  " 
(Judg.  V.  19);  but  the  allusion  to  the  tribe  in  the 
Bong  of  triumph  is  of  the  most  cursory  nature,  not 
consistent  with  its  having  taken  any  prominent 
part  in  the  action. 

One  among  the  Judges  of  Israel  was  from  Issa- 
char—  Tola  (Judg.  x.  1)  —  but  beyond  the  length 
of  his  sway  we  have  only  the  fact  recorded  that  he 
resided  out  of  the  limits  of  his  own  tribe  —  at 
Shamir  in  Mount  Ephraim.  By  Josephus  he  is 
omitted  entirely  (see  Ant.  v.  7,  §  6).  The  census 
of  the  tribe  taken  in  the  reign  of  David  has  ah-eady 
Deen  alluded  to.  It  is  contained  in  1  Chr.  vii.  1-5, 
ind  an  expression  occurs  in  it  which  testifies  to  the 
nomadic  tendencies  above  noticed.  Out  of  the 
whole  number  of  the  tribe  no  less  than  36,000  were 

marauding  mercenary  troops  —  "  bands  "  (D*'T*n2) 

—  a  term  applied  to  no  other  tribe  in  this  enumer- 
ation, though  elsewhere  to  Gad,  and  uniformly  to 
the  irregular  bodies  of  the  Bedouin  nations  round 
Israel.^"  This  was  probably  at  the  close  of  David's 
reign.  Thirty  years  before,  when  two  hundred  of 
the  head  men  of  the  tribe  had  gone  to  Hebron  to 


a  The  word  here  rendered  "hedge-rows"  is  one 
which  only  occurs  in  Judg.  v.  16.  The  sense  there  is 
evidently  similar  to  that  in  this  passage.  But  as  to 
what  that  sense  is  all  the  authorities  differ.  See 
Gesenius,  Ben  Zev,  etc.  The  rendering  given  seems 
to  be  nearer  the  resil  force  than  any. 

^   15^   DP^.      By    the    LXX.    rendered  avrjp 

^etopyo?.     Comp.  their  similar  rendering  of  iT^p^ 
iA.  V.  "  servants,"  and  "  husbandry  ")  in  Gen.  xxvi. 


ISSACHAR 


assist  in  making  David  king  over  tht  entire 
different  qualifications  are  noted  in  them  —  thej 
"  had  understanding  of  the  times  to  know  what 
Israel  ought  to  do  .  .  .  and  all  their  brethren  were 
at  their  commandment."  To  what  this  "  under 
standing  of  the  times  "  was  we  have  no  clew.  Bj 
the  later  Jewish  interpreters  it  is  explained  as  skifl 
in  ascertaining  the  periods  of  the  sun  and  moon, 
the  intercalation  of  months,  and  dates  of  solemn 
feasts,  and  the  interpretation  of  the  signs  of  the 
heavens  (Targum,  ad  loc.  ;  Jerome,  Qucest.  Hebi\ ). 
Josephus  {Ant.  vii.  2,  §  2)  gives  it  as  "  knowing 
the  things  that  were  to  happen ;  "  and  he  adds  that 
the  armed  men  who  came  with  these  leaders  were 
20,000.  One  of  the  wise  men  of  Issachar,  accord- 
ing to  an  old  Jewish  tradition  preserved  by  Jerome 
{QtuBst.  Hebr.  on  2  Chr.  xvii.  16),  was  Amasiah 
son  of  Zichri,  who  with  200,000  men  offered  him- 
self to  Jehovah  in  the  service  of  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr. 
xvii.  16)  :  but  this  is  very  questionable,  as  the 
movement  appears  to  have  been  confined  to  Judab 
and  Benjamin.  The  ruler  of  the  tribe  at  this  time 
was  Omri,  of  the  great  family  of  Michael  (1  Chr. 
xxvii.  18;  comp.  vii.  3).  May  he  not  have  been 
the  forefather  of  the  king  of  Israel  of  the  same 
name  —  the  founder  of  the  "  house  of  Omri"  and 
of  the  »  house  of  Ahab,"  the  builder  of  Samaria, 
possibly  on  the  same  hill  of  Shamir  on  which  the 
Issacharite  judge.  Tola,  had  formerly  held  his  court? 
But  whether  this  was  so  or  not,  at  any  rate  on^ 
dynasty  of  the  Israelite  kings  was  Issacharite 
Baasha,  the  son  of  Ahijah,  of  the  house  of  Issa- 
char, a  member  of  the  army  with  which  Nadab  and 
all  Israel  were  besieging  Gibbethon,  apparently  not 
of  any  standing  in  the  tribe  (comp.  1  K.  xvi.  2), 
slew  the  king,  and  himself  mounted  the  throne 
(1  K  XV.  27,  &c.).  He  was  evidently  a  fierce  and 
warlike  man  (xv.  29 ;  2  Chr.  xvi.  1 ),  and  an  idolater 
like  Jeroboam.  The  Issacharite  dynasty  lasted 
during  the  24  years  of  his  reign  and  the  2  of  hia 
son  Elah.  At  the  end  of  that  time  it  was  wrested 
from  him  by  the  same  means  that  his  father  had 
acquired  it,  and  Zimri,  the  new  king,  commenced 
his  reign  by  a  massacre  of  the  whole  kindred  and 
connections  of  Baasha  — he  left  him  "not  even  80 
much  as  a  dog"  (xvi.  11). 

One  more  notice  of  Issachar  remains  to  be  added 
to  the  meagre  information  already  collected.  It  is 
fortunately  a  favorable  one.  There  may  be  no  trutn 
in  the  tradition  just  quoted  that  the  tribe  was  in 
any  way  connected  with  the  refoiins  of  Jehosha- 
phat, but  we  are  fortunately  certain  that,  distant 
as  Jezreel  was  from  Jerusalem,  they  took  part  in 
the  passover  with  which  Hezekiah  sanctified  the 
opening  of  his  reign.  On  that  memorable  occasion ' 
a  multitude  of  the  people  from  the  northern  tribes, 
and  amongst  them  from  Issachar.  although  so  long 
estranged  from  the  worship  of  Jehovah  as  to  have 
forgotten  how  to  make  the  necessary  purifications, 
yet  by  the  enlightened  wisdom  of  Hezekiah  were 


c  The  word  "  bands,"  which  is  commonly  employed 
in  the  A.  V.  to  render  GeciPc/im,  as  above,  is  unfor- 
tunately used  in  1  Chr.  xii.  23  for  a  very  rtifiFerent 
term,  by  which  the  orderly  assembly  of  the  fighting 
men  of  the  tribes  is  denoted  when  they  visited  Hebron 

to  make  Davi  I  king.    This  term  is  "^117S"1  =  "  heads.' 

We  may  almost  suspect  a  mere  misprint,  especially  a» 
the  Vulgate  hajs  principes.  [The  marginal  rendeilnf 
Bhowr  ''•bat  it  is  not  a  misprint.] 


ISSHIAH 

iUi>wed  to  keep  the  feast,  and  they  did  keep  it 
levm  days  with  great  gladness  —  with  such  tu- 
multuous joy  as  had  not  been  known  since  the  time 
of  Solomon,  when  the  whole  land  was  one.  Nor 
did  they  separate  till  the  occasion  had  been  sig- 
nalized by  an  immense  destruction  of  idolatrous 
altars  and  symbols,  "in  Judah  and  Benjamin,  in 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh,"  up  to  the  very  confines 
of  Issachar's  own  land  —  and  then  "  all  the  children 
of  Isniel  returned  every  man  to  his  possession  into 
their  own  cities"  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  1).  ft  is  a  satis- 
factory farewell  to  take  of  the  tribe.  Within  five 
years  from  this  date  Shalmaneser  king  of  Assyria 
had  invaded  the  north  of  Palestine,  and  after  three 
years'  siege  had  taken  Samaria,  and  with  the  rest 
of  Israel  had  carried  Issachar  away  to  his  distant 
dominions.  There  we  must  be  content  to  leave 
them  until,  with  the  rest  of  their  brethren  of  all 
the  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel  (Dan  only  ex- 
cepted), the  twelve  thousand  of  the  tribe  of  Issa- 
char shall  be  sealed  in  their  foreheads  (Kev.  vii. 
7). 

2.  ("1312;^"):  'Iffffdxap:  [Issachar.'])  A 
Korhite  Levite,  one  of  the  doorkeepers  (A.  V. 
"porters")  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  seventh  son 
of  Obed-edom  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  5).  G. 

ISSHI'AH  (n^^^)  [whom  Jehovah  leads]). 
1.  (Vat.  omits;  Alex.  Ucrias:  Jesias.)  A  de- 
scendant of  Moses  by  his  younger  son  Eliezer;  the 
head  of  the  numerous  family  of  Rehabiah,  in  the 
time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  21;  comp.  xxiii.  17, 
xxvi.  2.5).     His  name  is  elsewhere  given  a^  Jesha- 

I.\n.       [ISHIAH.] 

2  Clffia;  Alex.  Aaia' Jesia.)  A  I^evite  of  the 
house  of  Kohath  and  family  of  Uzziel ;  named  in 
the  list  of  the  tribe  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  25). 

» ISSUE   OF   BLOOD.      [Blood,   Issue 

OF.] 

ISSUE,  RUIiTNING.  The  texts  Lev.  xv.  2, 
3,  xxii.  4,  Num.  v.  2  (and  2  Sara.  iii.  29,  where  the 
malady  «  is  invoked  as  a  curse),  are  probably  to  be 
interpreted  of  gonorrhoea.  In  l^ev.  xv.  3  a  distinc- 
tion is  introduced,  which  merely  means  that  the 
cessation  of  the  actual  flux  does  not  constitute  cer- 
emonial cleanness,  but  that  the  patient  must  bide 
the  legal  time,  7  days  (ver.  13),  and  perform  the 
prescribed  purifications  and  sacrifice  (ver.  14).  See, 
however,  Surenhusius's  preface  to  the  treatise  Zabim 
of  the  Mishna,  where  another  interpretation  is  given. 
As  regards  the  specific  varieties  of  this  malady,  it 
is  generally  asserted  that  its  most  severe  form  {g(m. 
cirulenta)  is  modern,  having  first  appeared  in  the 
15th  century.  Chardin  (  Voyages  en  Perse,  ii.  200) 
states  that  he. observed  that  this  disorder  was  prev- 
alent in  Persia,  but  that  ^its  effects  were  far  less 
severe  than  in  western  climates.  If  this  be  true, 
it  would  go  some  way  to  explain  the  alleged  absence 
of  the  gon.  virul.  from  ancient  nosology,  which 
found  its  field  of  observation  in  the  East,  Greece, 
•tc. ;  and  to  confirm  the  supposition  that  the  milder 
form  only  was  the  subject  of  Mosaic  legislation. 
But,  beyond  this,  it  is  probable  that  diseases  may 
ippear,  run  their  course,  and  disappear,  and,  for 
*ant  of  an  accurate  observation  of  their  symptoms, 
eave  no  trace  behind  them.     The  "bed,"  "seat," 


o  The  expressions  are,  "THCCap  3T,  or  DT  alone, 
•»•«  *inim«  'inbip  nn  ;  and  those  or  ^iie  LXX.. 


ITALIAN  BAND  1181 

etc.  (I^v.  XV.  5,  6,  (fee),  are  not  to  be  supposed 

regarded  by  that  law  as  contagious,  but  the  de 
filement  extended  to  tiiem  merely  to  give  greatei 
prominence  to  the  ceremonial  strictness  with  which 
the  case  was  ruled.  In  the  woman's  "  issue '" 
(ver.  19)  the  ordinary  menstruation  seems  alont 
intended,  supposed  prolonged  (ver.  25)  to  a  morbid 
extent.  The  Scriptural  handling  of  the  subjec. 
not  dealing,  as  in  the  case  of  leprosy,  in  symptoms, 
it  seems  gratuitous  to  detail  tbem  here:  those  who 
desire  such  knowledge  will  find  them  in  any  com- 
pendium of  therapeutics.  The  references  are  Jo- 
seph. B.  J.  v.  5,  §  6,  vi.  9,  §  3;  Mishna,  Celim.,  i. 
3,  8 ;  Maimon.  ad  Zabim,  ii.  2 :  whence  we  learn 
that  persons  thus  affected  might  not  ascend  the 
Temple-mount,  nor  share  in  any  religious  celebra- 
tion, nor  even  enter  Jerusalem.  See  also  Michaelis, 
Laws  of  Moses,  iv.  282.  H.  H 

ISTALCU'RUS.  In  1  Esdr.  viii.  40,  the 
"son  of  Istalcurus  "  {6  rod  ^IcrrahKoipov  [Vat. 
laraKaXKov] )  is  substituted  for  "  and  Zabbud  "  of 
the  corresponding  Hst  in  Ezra  (viii.  14).  The  Kiri 
has  Ziccur  instead  of  Zabbud,  and  of  this  there  !• 
perhaps  some  trace  in  Istalcurus. 

IS'UAH  {TIW^,,  i.  e.  Ishvah  [peaceful^ 
quiet]:  -Xovid;  [Vat.  Itroua;]  Alex.  Uaova'  Jer- 
sua),  second  son  of  Asher  (1  Chr.  vii.  30).  Else- 
where in  the  A.  V.  his  name,  though  the  same  in 
Hebrew,  appears  as  Ishuah. 

IS'UI  (*'l^^  i.  e.  Ishvi  [as  above]:  Vat. 
[Rom.  (not  in  Vat.)]  and  Alex.  'leoi^A:  Jessui)^ 
third  son  of  Asher  (Gen.  xlvi.  17);  founder  of  a 
family  called  after  him,  though  in  the  A.  V.  ap- 
pearing as  THE  Jesuites  (Num.  xxvi.  44).  Els». 
where  the  name  also  appears  as  Ishuai. 

*  IT  is  used  for  its  in  Lev.  xxv.  5  in  the  A.  V, 
ed.  1611  ("  That  which  groweth  of  it  owne  accord,'* 
etc.),  as  in  the  Genevan  version,  though  its  haa 
been  substituted  here  in  later  editions.  This  use 
of  it  was  not  uncommon  in  the  English  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  and  occurs  15  times  in  Shakespeare 
in  the  folio  edition  of  1623  (see  the  examples  in 
Eastwood  and  Wright's  Bible  Wwd-Book^  p.  273 
f.).  Its  is  not  found  in  the  original  edition  of  the 
A.  v.,  his  being  everywhere  used  in  its  place,  with 
the  single  exception  noted  above.  [His.]  It  waa 
just  beginning  to  come  into  use  in  the  time  of 
Sliakespeare,  in  whose  plays  it  occurs  10  timeg 
(commonly  spelt  its).  For  fuller  details,  see  East- 
wood and  Wright  as  above.  A. 

*  ITALIAN  BAND  or  COHORT  {(nrrupa 
■'IraAi/CTj),  Acts  x.  i.  This  topic  has  been  alluded 
to  under  Army  and  Italy,  but  demands  a  futlkr 
notice.  It  is  no  longer  questioned  that  the  Roman 
cohorts  were  distinguished  from  each  other  as  wdl 
as  the  legions,  not  by  numbers  only  but  by  names. 
Five  legions  are  known  to  have  been  called  Italian, 
and  at  least  one  cohort  (see  Vcmel's  Schulpi^o- 
gramme,  p.  7,  1850).  No  ancient  writer,  it  is  true, 
speaks  of  any  cohort  as  bearing  this  name,  stationed 
at  Caesarea.  It  certainly  was  not  a  cohort  detached 
from  the  Italica  Legio  or  PHina  Italica  mentioned 
by  Tacitus  (Hist.  i.  59,  64;  ii.  100,  &c.);  for  that 
legion  was  raised  by  Nero  (Dio  Cass.  1.  5,  24),  and 
hence  did  not  exist  at  the  time  of  Peter's  visit  to 
the  centurion,  about  a.  d.  40-43.     Yet  Luke's  ao- 


pv<rts  et  Tov  crtanaTOi,  the  Terb  yovoppveiv.  or  the  M^ 
yovopipvrji,  etc. 


1182  ITALY 

scracj  hw»,  though  not  confirmed  by  any  direct 
evidence,  is  not  left  wholly  unsupported.  It  so  hap- 
pens that  one  of  Gruter's  inscriptions  speaks  of  a 
'  Cohors  militum  Italicorum  voluntaria,  quae  est  in 
Syria"  (see  Akerman,  Numismatic  Illustr.  of 
the  Narrative  Portions  of  the  N.  T.  p.  34).  There 
was  a  class  of  soldiers  in  the  Roman  army  who  en- 
listed of  their  own  accord,  and  were  known  as 
"voluntarii"  in  distinction  from  conscripts  (see 
Pauly's  Real-Encyk.  vi.  274-4). 

It  is  supposed,  therefore,  with  good  reason,  that 
there  was  such  a  cohort  at  Csesarea,  at  the  time  to 
which  Luke's  narrative  refers,  and  that  it  was  called 
ItaUan  because  it  consisted  of  native  Italians; 
whereas  the  other  cohorts  in  Palestine  were  levied, 
for  the  most  part,  from  the  coxmtry  itself  (see  Jo- 
seph. Ant.  xiv.  15,  §  10;  B.  J.  i.  17,  §  1).  Ewald 
conjectures  that  this  Italian  cohort  and  the  Augus- 
tan cohort  (Acts  xxvii.  1)  may  have  been  the  same; 
but  the  fact  that  Luke  employs  different  names  is 
against  that  supposition,  and  so  much  the  more  be- 
cause different  cohorts  are  known  to  have  been  in 
Judaea  at  this  time  (Joseph.  Ant.  xix.  9,  §  2;  xx. 
8,  §  7).  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  as  Tholuck  ob- 
serves {Glaubw.  derKvang.  Geschichte,-p.  174),  that 
Luke  places  this  Italian  cohort  at  Caesarea.  That 
city  was  the  residence  of  the  Roman  procurator; 
and  it  was  important  that  he  should  have  there  a 
body  of  troops  on  whose  fidelity  he  could  rely. 
We  may  add  that,  if  the  soldiers  who  composed 
this  legion  were  Italians,  no  doubt  Cornelius  him- 
self who  commanded  them  was  an  Italian. 

Writers  on  this  topic  refer,  as  the  principal  au- 
thority, to  Schwartz,  Dissertntio  de  cuhorte  Jialica 
et  Aufjusta,  Altorf,  1720.  For  notes  or  remarks 
more  or  less  extended,  see  also  Wolf's  Curoe  Philo- 
hgicce,  ii.  1148  f;  Kuinoel,  Acta  Apost.  p.  3G0; 
Wieseler,  Chronologie  des  Apost.  Zeitalters,  p.  145 ; 
Biscoe,  History  of  the  Acts  Confirmed.,  pp.  217- 
224  (Oxford,  1840) ;  and  Conybeare  and  Howson's 
Life  ami  Letters  of  St.  Paul,  i.  143  (Amer.  ed.). 

IT'ALY  ClToAfa:  lltalia]).  This  word  is 
used  in  the  N.  T.  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  period, 
i.  e.  in  its  true  geographical  sense,  as  denoting  the 
whole  natural  peninsula  between  the  Alps  and  the 
Straits  of  Messina.  For  the  progress  of  the  history 
of  the  word,  first  as  applied  to  the  extreme  south 
tf  the  peninsula,  then  as  extended  northwards  to 
^he  right  bank  of  the  Po,  see  the  Diet,  of  Geogr. 
vol.  ii.  pp.  75,  76.  From  the  time  of  the  close  of 
the  Republic  it  was  employed  as  we  employ  it  now. 
In  the  N.  T.  it  occurs  three,  or  indeed,  more  cor- 
rectly speaking,  four  times.  In  Acts  x.  1,  the 
Italian  cohort  at  Caesarea  (^  (rirelpa  rj  Ka\ov/x4u7^ 
lTa\t/C7j,  A.  V.  "Italian  band  "),  consisting,  as  it 
ioubtless  did,  of  men  recruited  in  Italy,  illustrates 
ihe  miUtary  relations  of.  the  imperial  peninsula  with 
lihe  provinces.  [Army.]  In  Acts  xviii.  2,  where 
jve  are  told  of  the  expulsion  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
with  their  compatriots  "from  Italy,"  we  are  re- 
minded of  the  large  Jewish  population  which  many 
authorities  show  that  it  contau)ed.  Acts  xxvii.  1, 
where  the  begmning  of  St.  Paul's  voyage  "to 
Italy"  is  mentioned,  and  the  whole  subsequent 
larrative,  illustrate  the  trade  which  subsisted  be- 
tween the  peninsula  and  other  parts  of  the  Medi- 
terranean. And  the  words  in  Heb.  xiii.  24,  "  They 
Df  Italy  (ol  airh  rris  'IraXias)  salute  you,"  what- 
ever they  may  prove  for  or  against  this  being  the 
n^ion  ift  which  the  letter  was  written  (and  the 
natter  has  been  strongly  argued  both  ways),  are 


ITHNAN 

interesting  as  a  specimen  of  the  progress  oi  Chris 
tianity  in  the  west.  J.  S.  H. 

I'THAI  [2  syl.]  {\y^  [mth  Jehovah] :  Alpi 
[Vat.  Ajpet;  FA.  AiOei;  Alex.]  hOov;  [Aid.  'RBat 
Comp.  'Wai'}  Ethai),  a  Benjamite,  son  of  Eibaj 
of  Gibeah,  one  of  the  heroes  of  David's  guard  (1 
Chr.  xi.  31).  In  the  parallel  Ust  of  2  Sam.  xxiii 
the  name  is  given  as  Ittai.  But  Kennicott  de- 
cides that  the  form  Ithai  is  the  original  {Disserta- 
tion, ad  loc). 

ITH'AMAR  ("inn^S  \land  of  palmsl'.  'le- 
afxdp'  Ithamar),  the  yoimgest  son  of  Aaron  (Ex. 
vi.  23).  After  the  deaths  of  Nadab  and  Abihu 
(Lev.  X.  1),  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  having  been  ad- 
monished to  show  no  mark  of  sorrow  for  their 
brothers'  loss,  were  appointed  to  succeed  to  their 
places  in  the  priestly  ofiice,  as  they  had  left,  no 
children  (Ex.  xxviii.  1,  40,  43;  Num.  iii.  3,  4;  1 
Chr.  xxiv.  2).  In  the  distribution  of  services  be- 
longing to  the  Tabernacle  and  its  transport  on  the 
march  of  the  Israelites,  the  Gershonites  had  charge 
of  the  curtains  and  hangings,  and  the  Merarites  of 
the  pillars,  cords,  and  boards,  and  both  of  these 
departments  were  placed  under  the  superintendence 
of  Ithamar  (Ex.  xxxviii.  21;  Num.  iv.  21-33). 
These  services  were  continued  under  the  Temple 
system,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  its  stationary 
character,  but  instead  of  being  appropriated  to 
families,  they  were  divided  by  lot,  the  first  lot  be- 
ing t4,ken  by  the  family  of  Eleazar,  whose  descend- 
ants were  more  numerous  than  those  of  Ithamar 
(1  Chr.  xxiv.  4,  6).  The  high-priesthood  passed 
into  the  family  of  Ithamar  in  the  person  of  Eli, 
but  for  what  reason  we  are  not  informed.  It  re- 
verted into  its  original  line  in  the  person  of  Zadok, 
in  consequence  of  Abiathar's  participation  in  the 
rebellion  of  Adonijah.  Thus  was  fulfilled  the  proph- 
ecy delivered  to  Samuel  against  Eli  (1  Sam,  ii. 
31-35;  1  K.  ii.  26,  27,  35;  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  1, 
§3). 

A  descendant  of  Ithamar,  by  name  Daniel,  is 
mentioned  as  returning  from  captivity  in  the  time 
of  Artaxerxes  (Ezr.  viii.  2).  H.  W.  P. 

ITHIEL  (bS'^in'^W  [God  is  vnih  me]:  'Eflj- 

^A;  [Vat.  Alex.  At0j7?\;  FA.  Se^iTjA:]  Ethed). 
1.  A  Benjamite,  son  of  Jesaiah  (Neh.  xi.  7). 

2.  (LXX.  omit;  Vulg.  translates,  cum  quo  est 
Deus.)  One  of  two  persons  —  Ithiel  and  Ucal  — 
to  whom  Agur  ben-Jakeh  delivered  his  discourse 
(Prov.  XXX.  1).     [UcAL.] 

ITHIMAH   (npn";    [myhanagey.  'Udafid, 

[Vat.  EBofia;  FA.  Edcfial]  Alex.  Ude/xa'  Jeihma), 
a  Moabite,  one  of  the  heroes  of  David's  guard,  ac- 
cording to  the  enlarged  list  of  Chronicles  (1  Chr. 
xi.  46). 

ITH'NAN  ('ijn']  [bestowed,  given] ;  in  botu 

MSS.  of  the  LXX.  the  name  is  comipted  by  being 
attached  to  that  next  it:  ^Aaopia/vaiv,  Alex. 
I6pa(i(})''  Jeihnam),  one  of  the  towns  in  the  ex- 
treme south  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  23),  named  with 
Kedesh  and  Telem  (comp.  1  Sam.  xv.  4),  and 
therefore  probably  on  the  borders  of  the  desert,  if 
not  actually  in  the  desert  itself.  No  trace  of  its 
existence  has  yet  been  discovered,  nor  does  it  ap- 
pear to  have  been  known  to  Jerome.  The  villagt 
fdna  which  recalls  the  name,  is  between  Hebrot 
and  Seit-Jihrin,  and  therefore  much  too  fiw  north 

G. 


ITHRA 

ITH'RA  (M'T.n''  [abundance,  eminence] : 
'ledtp;  [Vat.  Alex.]  loOop;  Joseph.  ^«<.  vii.  10, 
I  1,  'uedpoos'  Jeira),  an  Israelite  (2  Sam.  xvii. 
25)  or  Ishmaelite  (1  Chr.  ii.  17,  "  Jether  the  Ish- 
meelite");  the  father  of  Amasa  by  Abigail,  Da- 
vid's sister.  He  was  thus  brother-in-law  to  David 
and  uncle  to  Joab,  Abishai,  and  Asahel,  the  three 
"sons  of  Zeruiah."  There  is  no  absolute  means 
of  settling  which  of  these  —  Israelite  or  Ishmaelite 
—  is  correct;  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
latter  is  so ;  the  fact  of  the  admixture  of  Ishmaelite 
i)lood  in  David's  family  being  a  fit  subject  for  no- 
tice in  the  genealogies,  whereas  Ithra's  being  an 
'sraelite  woTild  call  for  no  remark.     [Jetjieh.] 

G. 

*  Keil  and  Delitzsch  also  {Books  of  Samuel,  p. 
•433,  Eng.  transl.)  read  "  Ishmaelite"  for  "Israel- 
ite," 2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  Wordsworth  (Books  of 
Samuel,  p.  Ill)  suggests  that  if  "  Israelite "  be 
correct,  Ithra  may  be  so  called  because  he  belonged 
to  one  of  the  other  tribes,  and  not  to  that  of  Judah 
into  which  he  married.  [Abigail.]  As  to  the 
question  (not  an  easy  one  to  answer)  of  his  precise 
relationship  to  David  in  consequence  of  the  mar- 
riage, see  Nahash.  H. 

ITH'RAN  (^nn.';  [as  above]).  1.  {'idpdu, 
Udpd/M;  [Alex,  uepau;  Vat.  in  1  Chr.,  Te^pa/i:] 
Jetliram,  Jethran),  a  son  of  Dishon,  a  Horite  ((Jen. 
xxxvi.  26;  1  Chr.  i.  41);  and  probably  a  phylarch 
("duke,"  A.  Y.)  of  a  tribe  of  the  Horira,  as  was 
his  father  (Gen.  xxxvi.  30) ;  for  the  latter  was  ev- 
idently a  son  of  Seir  (w.  21  and  30),  and  not  a 
W)n  of  Anah  (ver.  25). 

2.  {'Uftpi;  [Vat.  06pa;  Alex.  Ie0ep;  Comp. 
Aid.  'UQpdv-^  Jethran),  a  descendant  of  Asher,  in 
the  genealogy  contained  in  1  Chr.  vii.  30-40. 

E.  S.  P. 

ITH'REAM  (D?"?n'!  {residue  of  the  peo- 
ple]: 'ue^pad/j.,  'leOpadfi;  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.,  Wa- 
pafi;]  Alex.  Eiedepaa/x,  Udpa/j.  ;  Joseph.  PeO- 
padixr}s-  Jethrnam),  a  son  of  David,  born  to  him 
m  Hebron,  and  distinctly  specified  as  the  sixth,  and 
as  the  child  of  "  Eglah,  David's  wife  "  (2  Sam.  iii. 
5;  1  Chr.  iii.  3).  In  the  ancient  Jewish  traditions 
Eglah  is  said  to  have  been  Michal,  and  to  have 
died  in  giving  birth  to  Ithream. 

ITH'RITE,  THE  {^"^fy^'H  [patronym.  from 
■^D.^]  :    i>   'Edipuios,    'Edevalos,    'U9pi ;     [Vat. 

A.ideipaios,  EOOeuaio^,  Udrjpei  (FA.  Idrjpei);] 
Alex.  0  EOpatos,  Tedpirrfs,  UOepi,  I6r]pei:  Jeth- 
rites,  Jethrceus),  the  native  of  a  place,  or  descend- 
ant of  a  man  called  lether  (according  to  the  He- 
brew mode  of  forming  derivatives):  the  designation 
Df  two  of  the  members  of  David's  guard,  Ira  and 
Gareb  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  38;  1  Chr.  xi.  40).  The 
Ithrite  (A.  V.  "  Ithrites "  [AldaXliJ,,  Vat.  Alex. 
-\f.ifx'-  Jethrei])  is  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  ii.  53  as 
among  the  "families  of  Kirjath-jearim ;  "  but  this 
does  not  give  us  much  clew  to  the  derivation  of  the 
term,  except  that  it  fixes  it  as  belonging  to  Judah. 
The  two  Ithrite  heroes  of  David's  guard  may  have 
3ome  from  .Iattik,  in  the  mountains  of  Judah, 
one  of  the  places  which  were  the  "haunt"  of  Da- 
/id  and  his  men  in  their  freebooting  wanderings, 
»nd  where  he  had  "friends"  (1  Sam.  xxx.  27; 
jomp.  31).  Ira  has  been  supposed  to  be  identical 
^ith  "Ira  the  Jairite,"  David's  priest  (2  Sam.  xx. 
W)  — the  S}Tiac  version  reading  "from  Jatir "  in 


ITTAI 


1188 


that  place.  But  n- thing  more  than  cor^ectiire  cae 
be  arrived  at  on  the  point. 

*ITS.     [His;  It.] 

IT'TAH-KA'ZIN  (r?|7  nnV:  M  ^«Jx., 

Karao-e/t;    Alex Kaa-ifi'-    ThacoMn),   one 

of  the  landmarks  of  the  boundary  of  Zebulun  (Josh, 
xix.  13),  named  next  to  Gath-hepher.  Like  that 
place  (A.  V.  "  Gittah-hepher  " )  the  name  is  prob- 
ably Eth-kazin,  with  the  Hebrew  particle  of  mo- 
tion (ah)  added  —  i.  e.  "to  Eth-kazin."  Taken  aa 
Hebrew  the  name  bears  the  inteq^retation  time,  or 
people,  of  a  judye  (Ges.  Thes.  p.  1083  b).  It  hag 
not  been  identified.  G. 

IT'TAI  [2  syl.]  C^PS  [in  time,  opport^mei^ 
present]).  1.  ('E0^,  and  so  Joseph  us;  [Vat.  Sed^ 
06j;]  Alex.  EdQef-  Kthai.)  "  IxTAi  the  Git- 
TiTE,"  i.  e.  the  native  of  Gath,  a  Philistine  in  the 
army  of  King  David.  He  appears  only  during  tne 
revolution  of  Absalom.  We  first  discern  him  on 
the  morning  of  David's  flight,  while  the  king  wsj 
standing  under  the  olive-tree  below  the  city,  watch- 
ing the  army  and  the  people  defile  past  him.  [bee 
David,  vol.  i.  p.  563  a.]  Last  in  the  procession 
came  the  600  heroes  who  had  formed  David's  band 
during  his  wanderings  in  Judah,  and  had  been 
with  him  at  Gath  (2  Sam.  xv.  18 ;  comp.  1  Sam. 
xxiii.  13,  xxvii.  2,  xxx.  9,  10;  and  see  Joseph.  Ant. 
vii.  9,  §  2).  Amongst  these,  apparently  command- 
ing them,  was  Ittai  the  Gittite  (ver.  19).  He  caught 
the  eye  of  the  king,  who  at  once  addressed  him  and 
besought  him  as  "a  stranger  and  an  exile,"  and  as 
one  who  had  but  very  recently  joined  his  service, 
not  to  attach  himself  to  a  doubtful  cause,  but  to 
return  "with  his  brethren"  and  abide  with  the 
king"  (19,  20).     But  Ittai  is  firm;  he  is  the  king's 

slave  ("m^^,  A.  V.  "servant"),  and  wherever  his 
master  goes  he  will  go.  Accordingly  he  is  allowed 
by  David  to  proceed,  and  he  passes  over  the  Kedron 
with  the  king  (xv.  22,  LXX.),  with  all  his  men, 
and    "all   the  little  ones  that  were   with    him." 

These  "little  ones"  (^^H'bS,  "all  the  chil- 
dren") must  have  been  the  families  of  the  band, 
their  "households"  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  3).  They  ac- 
companied them  during  their  wanderings  in  Judah, 
often  in  great  risk  (1  Sam.  xxx.  6),  and  they  were 
not  likely  to  leave  them  behind  in  this  fresh  com- 
mencement of  their  wandering  life. 

"When  the  army  was  numbered  and  organized  by 
David  at  IMahanaim,  Ittai  again  appears,  now  in 
command  of  a  third  part  of  the  force,  and  (for  the 
time  at  least)  enjoying  equal  rank  with  Joab  ind 
Abishai  (2  Sam.  xviii.  2,  5, 12).  But  here,  on  the 
eve  of  the  great  battle,  we  take  leave  of  this  vaJant 
and  faithful  stranger ;  his  conduct  in  the  fight  and 
his  subsequent  fate  are  alike  unknown  to  us.  Nor 
is  he  mentioned  in  the  lists  of  David's  captains  and 
of  the  heroes  of  his  body-guard  (see  2  Sam.  xxiii. ; 
1  Chr.  xi.),  lists  which  are  possibly  of  a  date  pre- 
vious to  Ittai's  arrival  in  Jerusalem. 

An  interesting  tradition  is  related  by  Jerome 
( QiuBst.  Hebr.  on  1  Chr.  xx.  2).  "  David  took 
the  crown  off  the  head  of  the  image  of  Milcom 
(A.  V.  '  their  king  ').  But  by  the  law  it  was  for- 
bidden to  any  Israelite  to  touch  either  gold  or 
silver  of  an  idol.     Wherefore  they  say  that  Ittai 

a  The  meaning  of  this  is  doubtful.  "  The  king  " 
may  be  Absalom,  or  it  may  be  ItUi's  former  king, 
Achish.     By  the  LXX   the  vtords  are  omitted 


1184  ITUR^A 

the  Gittite,  who  had  come  to  David  from  the  Phil- 
istines, was  the  man  who  snatched  the  crown  from 
the  head  of  Milcom ;  for  it  was  lawful  for  a  Hebrew 
to  take  it  from  the  hand  of  a  man,  though  not 
from  the  head  of  the  idol."  The  main  difficulty 
to  the  reception  of  this  legend  lies  in  the  fact  that 
if  Ittai  was  engaged  in  the  Ammonite  war,  which 
happened  several  years  before  Absalom's  revolt,  the 
expression  of  David  (2  Sam.  xv.  20),  "  thou  earnest 
but  yesterday,"  loses  its  force.  However,  these 
words  may  be  merely  a  strong  metaphor. 

From  the  expression  "thy  brethren"  (xv.  20) 
we  may  infer  that  there  were  other  Philistines  be- 
sides Ittai  in  the  six  hundred ;  but  this  is  uncertain. 
Ittai  was  not  exclusively  a  Philistine  name,  nor 
does  "  Gittite  "  —  as  in  the  case  of  Ol>ed-edom,  who 
was  a  Levite  —  necessarily  imply  Philistine  parent- 
age. Still  David's  words,  "  stranger  and  exile," 
eeera  to  show  that  he  was  not  an  Israelite. 

2.  i'Ea-eat;  [Vat.  EaOaet;  Comp.  Aid.  'E9ei:] 
/thai.)  Son  of  Ribai,  from  Gibeah  of  Benjamin; 
one  of  the  thirty  heroes  of  David's  guard  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  29).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Chr.  xi.  the 
name  is  given  as  Ithai.  G. 

ITUR^'A  i'lTovpala  [from  "l^t^";,  enchs- 
ure,  nomadic  camp^  Ges.]),  a  small  province  on 
the  northwestern  border  of  Palestine,  lying  along 
the  base  of  Mount  Hermon.  In  Luke  iii.  1  it  is 
♦tated  that  Philip  was  "  tetrarch  of  Ituraea  and  the 
»«gion  of  Tracbonitis; "  and  this  is  the  only  men- 
tion in  Scripture  of  the  district  under  its  Greek 
name.  But  the  country  became  historic  long  be- 
fore the  rule  of  the  Herodian  family  or  the  advent 

of  the  Greeks.  elExuu  (n^lt^^)  was  a  son  of  Ish- 
mael,  and  he  gave  his  name,  like  the  rest  of  his 
brethren,  to  the  little  province  he  colonized  (Gen. 
XXV.  15,  IG).  In  after  years,  when  the  Israelites 
had  settled  in  Canaan,  a  war  broke  out  between 
the  half-tribe  of  INIanasseh  and  the  Ilagarites  (or 
Ishmaelites),  Jetur,  Nephish,  and  Nodab.  The 
latter  were  conquered,  and  the  children  of  Manaa- 
seh  "  dwelt  in  the  land,  and  they  increased  from 
Bashan  unto  Baal -Hermon."  They  already  pos- 
sessed the  whole  of  Bashan,  including  Gaulanitis 
and  Trachonitis ;  and  now  they  conquered  and  col- 
onized the  little  province  of  Jetur,  which  lay  between 
Bashan  and  Mount  Hermon  (1  Chr.  v.  19-23). 
Subsequent  history  shows  that  the  Ishmaelites  were 
neither  annihilated  nor  entirely  dispossessed,  for  in 
the  second  century  B.  c,  Aristobulus,  king  of  the 
Jews,  reconquered  the  province,  then  called  by  its 
Greek  name  Ituraea,  and  gave  the  inhabitants  their 
choice  of  Judaism  or  banishment  (-Toseph.  Ant.  xiii. 
11,  §  3).  While  some  submitted,  many  retired  to 
their  own  rocky  fastnesses,  and  to  the  defiles  of 
Hermon  adjoining.  Strabo  says  that  in  his  day 
the  mountainous  regions  in  the  kingdom  of  Chalcis 
Yrere  inhabited  partly  by  Ituraeans,  whom  he  de- 
scribes as  KUKovpyai  Trdures  (xvi.  pp.  518,  520). 
Other  early  writers  represent  them  as  skillful  arch- 
ers and  daring  plundercs  (Cic.  Phil.  ii.  44;  Virg. 
Georg.  ii.  448;  Lucan.  Phar.  vii.  230).  Ituraea, 
with  the  adjoining  provinces,  fell  into  the  hands  of 
a  chief  called  Zeuodorus ;  but,  about  b.  c.  20,  they 
were  taken  from  him  by  the  Roman  emperor,  and 
given  to  Herod  the  Great  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  10, 
§  1),  who  bequeathed  them  to  his  son  Philip  {Ant. 
tvii.  8,  §  1;  Luke  iii.  1;  comp.  Joseph.  B.  J.  ii. 
8,  §  3). 
The  passages  above  referred  to  point  clearly  to 


ITUJR^A 

the  position  of  Ituraea,  and  show,  notwithstanding 
the  arguments  of  Reland  and  others  (Relard,  p. 
106;  Lightfoot,  Hm\  Heb.  s.  v.  Iturcea),  that  ii 
was  distinct  from  Auranitis.  Pliny  rightly  places  if 
north  of  Baslian  and  near  Damascus  (v.  23 ) :  «  and 
J.  de  Vitry  describes  it  as  adjoining  Trachonitis, 
and  lying  along  the  base  of  Libanus  between  Tibe- 
rias and  Damascus  ( Gesta  Dei,  p.  1074 ;  comp.  pp. 
771,  1003).     At  the  place  indicated  is  situated  the 

modern  province  of  J edur  (\.Jov^),  which  is 

just  the  Arabic  form  of  the  Hebrew  Jetur  ("l-ltS)*). 
It  is  bounded  on  the  east  by  Trachonitis,  on  the 
south  by  Gaulanitis,  on  the  west  by  Hermon,  and 
on  the  north  by  the  plain  of  Damascus.  It  is  table- 
land with  an  undulating  surface,  and  has  little  con- 
ical and  cup-shaped  hills  at  intervals.  The  southern 
section  of  it  has  a  rich  soil,  well  watered  by  nu- 
merous springs  and  streams  from  Hermon.  The 
greater  part  of  the  northern  section  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent. The  surface  of  the  ground  is  covered  with 
jagged  rocks;  in  some  places  heaped  up  in  huge 
piles,  in  others  sunk  into  deep  pits ;  at  one  place 
smooth  and  naked,  at  another  seamed  with  yawn- 
ing chasms  in  whose  rugged  edges  rank  grass  and 
weeds  spring  up.  The  rock  is  all  basalt,  and  tne 
formation  similar  to  that  of  the  Lejah.  [Argob.] 
The  molten  lava  seems  to  have  issued  from  the 
earth  through  innumerable  pores,  to  have  spread 
over  the  plain,  and  then  to  have  been  rent  and 
shattered  while  cooling  (Porter's  Ifandhook,  p.  465). 
Jedur  contains  thirty-eight  towns  and  villages,  ten 
of  which  are  now  entirely  desolate,  and  all  the  rest 
contain  only  a  few  families  of  poor  peasants,  living 
in  wretched  hovels  amid  heaps  of  ruins  (Porter's 
Damascus,  ii.  272  ff.).  J.  L.  P. 

*  Yet  there  is  some  dissent  from  this  view  of 
the  identity  of  Jetur  (Gen.  xxv.  I'y)  and  Jedur, 
and  hence  of  the  situation  of  Ituraa  as  being  on 
the  northeastern  slope  of  Jebel  Heisch,  one  of  the 
spurs  of  Hermon.  The  Gennan  traveller  in  the 
Ilaurdn,  Dr.  Wetzstein,  though  he  regards  Jetur 
and  Ituraea  as  unquestionably  the  same,  maintains 
that  Jetur  and  .Jedur,  or  Gedur,  are  not  identical, 
partly  on  account  of  the  difference  in  the  names 
(generally  considered  unimportant),  and  partly  be- 
cause the  Ituraeans,  as  described  by  ancient  writers, 
must  have  been  a  more  hardy  and  powerful  race 
than  the  inhabitants  of  a  few  villages  in  a  compar- 
atively low  region  hke  Gedur,  and  poorly  protected 
against  invasion  and  subjugation  He  places  Itu- 
raea further  south,  on  the  summits  and  on  the  east 
em  decUvity  of  the  central  mountains  of  the  Hau- 
rdn,  now  inhabited  by  a  portion  of  the  Druzes,  one 
of  the  most  warlike  tribes  of  the  East.  He  holds 
that  the  Biblical  Jetur,  though  now  lost,  was  among 
these  mountains,  and  belonged  to  an  Ishmaelitic 
tribe,  as  stated  in  Gten.  xxv.  12  ff.  He  argues, 
also,  that  a  little  district  like  Gedur,  so  near  to 
Damascus,  would  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  that 
city,  and  not  form  p.irt  of  an  independent  tetrarchy. 
The  farms  and  villages  there  at  present  are  owned 
by  patrician  families  of  Damascus.  See  this  aii-. 
thor's  Riisebericht  iiher  Haurdn  und  die  Tracho- 
nen,  pp.  88-92.  The  derivation  of  Gedtir  from 
Jetur,  says  the  writer  on  "  Ituraea,"  in  Zeller'* 
Bibt.  Worterb.,  s.  v.  (2*^  Aufl.),  has  not  yet  beec 
shown.     If  the  ancient  name  still  remains,  it  cer- 


«  *  Pliny  assigns  Itureea  to  Ccele-Syria  in  H.  V 
V.  19,  but  does  not  refer  to  it  in  v.  23.  H. 


IVAfl 

tsinlj  fevore  the  finding  of  Ituraea  in  Gedur,  a« 
does  also  its  being  assigned  by  some  of  the  ancient 
writers  to  Cujle-Spia.  Yet  Coele-Syria,  it  should 
be  said,  is  a  vague  designation,  and  was  bometimes 
used  so  as  to  embrace  nearly  all  inner  Syria  from 
Damascus  to  Arabia  (see  Winer's  Bibl.  Jiealw.  i. 
232,  3'e  Aufl.)-  Dr.  Ilobinson  {Phijs.  Geoyr.  p. 
319)  follows  the  common  representation.  See,  to 
the  same  effect,  Kauraer's  Palihtina^  p.  227,  4'*^ 
Aufl.  For  a  paper  on  "  Bashan,  Ituraea,  and  Ke- 
rath,"  by  INIr.  I'orter,  author  of  the  above  article, 
see  Bibl.  Hacm,  xiii.  783-808.  II. 

I'VAH,  or  ATA  {TVq,  or  S}!?  [desU-nc- 
tion,  ruins,  Ges.] :  'AjScJ,  [in.  Is.  (with  Ilena), 
'Aiayovydua,  Vat.  (with  Ilena)  Avayovyava; 
Comp.  'Auvdv',  in  2  K.  xviii.,  Vat.  omits,  Alex. 
Ava  ;  in  xix..  Vat.  OuSov,  Alex.  Aura'-]  Ava), 
wliich  is  mentioned  in  Scripture  twice  (2  K.  xviii. 
34,  xix.  13;  comp.  Is.  xxxvii.  13.  in  connection 
with  Ilena  and  Sepharvaim,  and  once  (2  K.  xvii. 
24)  in  connection  with  Babylon  and  Cuthah,  must 
be  sought  in  Babylonia,  and  is  probably  identical 
with  the  modern  Ilil,  which  is  the  "Is  of  Herodotus 
(i.  179).  This  town  lay  on  the  Euphrates,  between 
Sippara  (Sepharvaim)  and  Anah  (Ilena),  with 
which  it  seems  to  have  been  politically  united 
shortly  before  thj  time  of  Sennacherib  (2  K.  xix. 

13).  It  is  probably  the  Ahava  (SVTS)  of  Ezra 
(viii.  15).  The  name  is  thought  to  have  been 
originally  derived  from  that  of  a  Babylonian  god, 
/ua,  who  represents  the  sky  or  ^ther,  and  to 
whom  the  town  is  supposed  to  have  been  dedicated 
(Sir  H.  Eawlinson,  in   RawUnson's  Herodotm,  i. 

606,  note).  In  this  case  Iwah  (71^37)  would  seem 
to  be  the  most  proper  pointing.  The  pointing 
A\  a,  or  rather  Awa  (S^^),  shows  a  corruption  of 
articulation,  which  might  readily  pass  on  to  Ahava 
(Sins).     In  the  Talmud  the  name  appears  as 

Udh  (S^n"^)  •  and  hence  would  be  formed  the 
Greek  ''Is,  and  the  modern  Hit,  where  the  t  is 
merely  the  feminine  ending.  Isidore  of  Charax 
seems  to  intend  the  same  place  by  his  'Aet-TroAts 
{Mans.  Parth.  p.  5).  Some  have  thought  that  it 
occurs  as  1st  in  the  Egyptian  Inscriptions  of  the 
time  of  Thothmes  III.,  about  B.  c.  1450  (Birch,  in 
Otirt  jEfjypdaca,  p.  80). 

This  place  has  always  been  famous  for  its  bitu- 
men springs.  It  is  bitumen  which  is  brought  to 
Thothmes  III.  as  tribute  from  hi.  From  Is,  ac- 
cording to  Herodotus,  was  obtained  the  bitumen 
used  as  cement  in  the  walls  of  Babylon  {I.  s.  c). 
Isidore  calls  Aeipolis  "the  place  where  are  the 
bitumen  springs"  {^u9a  aa-cpaXTiTiSes  irriyal). 
These  springs  still  exist  at  Ilil,  and  sufficiently 
maik  the  identity  of  that  place  with  the  Ilerodo- 
tean  Is,  and  therefore  probably  with  the  Ivah  of 
Scripture.  They  have  been  noticed  by  most  of  our 
Mesopotamian  travellers  (see,  among  others,  Rich's 
First  Memoir  on  Babyhn,  p.  64,  and  Chesney's 
Euphrates  Expedition,  i.  55).  G.  R. 

IVORY  (1tt7,  shen,  in  all  passages,  except  1  K. 

t.  22,  and  2  Chr.  ix.  21,  where  D'^^nDtt?,  sherv- 
habbim,  is  so  rendered ).  Tlie  word  shea  literally 
signifies  the  "  tooth "  of  any  animal,  and  hence 
more  especially  denotes  the  substance  of  the  pro- 
jecting tusks  of  elephants.  By  some  of  the  an- 
cient nations  these  tusks  were  imagined  to  be 
76 


IVORY  1185 

horns  (Ez.  rsvii.  15;  Plin.  viii.  4,  xviii.  1),  though 
Diodorus  Siculus  (i.  55)  correctly  calls  them  teeth 
As  they  were  first  acquainted  with  elephants  through 
their  ivory,  which  was  an  important  article  of  com- 
merce, the  shape  of  the  tusks,  in  all  probability,  led 
them  into  this  error.  It  is  remarkable  that  no 
word  in  Biblical  Hebrew  denotes  an  elephant,  unless 
the  latter  portion  of  the  compound  shtnhabbwi  be 
supposed  to  have  this  meaning.  Gesenius  derives 
it  from  the  Sanscrit  ibhas,  "an  elephant;"  Keil 
(on  1  Iv.  X.  22)  from  the  Coptic  eboy ;  while  Sir 
Henry  Rawlinson  mentions  a  word  hnbba,  which  he 
met  with  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  and  which 
he  understands  to  mean  "the  hirge  animal,"  the 
term  being  applied  both  to  the  elephant  and  the 
camel  {Journ.  of  As.  Soc.  xii.  463).  It  is  sug- 
gested in  Gesenius'    Thesaurus  (s.   y.)   that   the 

original  reading  may  have  been  0*^31111  ^W, 
"  ivory,  ebony  "  (cf.  Ez.  xxvii.  15).  Hitzig  (Isaiah, 
p.  643),  without  any  authority,  renders  the  word 
"nubischen  Zahn."     The  Targum  Jonathan  on  ] 

K.  X.  22  has  b'^D'^  "jtT,  "elephant's  tusk,"  while 
the  Peshito  gives  simply  "  elephants."  In  the 
Targum  of  the  Pseudo  Jonathan,  Gen.  1.  1  is 
translated,  "  and  Joseph  placed  his  father  upon  a 

bier  of  ]'^D13tt7  "  {shiiuldphin),  which  is  conjec- 
tured to  be  a  valuable  species  of  wood,  but  for 
which  Buxtorf,  with  great  probability,  suggests  aa 

another  reading  7'^D"T  ]tZ7,  "ivory." 

The  Assyrians  appear  to  have  carried  on  a  great 
traffic  in  ivory.  Their  early  conquests  in  India 
had  made  them  familiar  with  it,  and  (according  to 
one  rendering  of  the  passage)  their  artists  supplied 
the  luxurious  Tyrians  with  carvings  in  ivory  from 
the  isles  of  Chittim  (Ez.  xxvii.  6).  On  the  obeUsk 
in  the  British  Museum  the  captives  or  tribute 
bearers  are  represented  as  carrying  tusks.  Among 
the  merchandise  of  Babylon,  enumerated  in  Rev 
xviii.  12.  are  included  "  all  manner  vessels  of  ivory.' 
The  skilled  workmen  of  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,  fash- 
ioned the  great  ivory  throne  of  Solomon,  and  over- 
laid it  with  pure  gold  (1  K.  x.  18;  2  Chr.  ix.  17). 
The  ivory  thus  employed  was  supplied  by  the  car- 
avans of  Dedan  (Is.  xxi.  13;  Ez.  xxvii.  15),  or  was 
brought  with  apes  and  peacocks  by  the  navy  of 
Tharshish  (1  K.  x.  22).  Tlie  Egyptians,  at  a  very 
early  period,  made  use  of  this  material  in  decora- 
tion. The  cover  of  a  small  ivory  box  in  the  Egyp- 
tian collection  at  the  Louvre  is  "  inscribed  with  the 
prsenomen  Nefer-ka-re,  or  Neper-cheres,  adopted  by 
a  dynasty  found  in  the  upper  line  of  the  tablet  of 
Abydos,  and  attributed  by  M.  Bunsen  to  the  fifth. 
...  In  the  time  of  Thothmes  III.  ivory  was  im- 
ported in  considerable  quantities  into  Egypt,  either 
*  in  boats  laden  with  ivory  and  ebony  '  from  Ethi- 
opia, or  else  in  tusks  and  cups  from  the  Ruten-nu. 
.  .  .  The  celebrated  car  at  Florence  has  its  linch- 
pins tipped  with  ivory  "  (Birch,  in  Trans,  of  Hay. 
Soc.  of  Lit.  iii.  2d  series).  The  specimens  of 
Egyptiah  ivory  work,  which  are  found  in  the  prin- 
cipal museums  of  Europe,  are,  most  of  them,  in 
the  opinion  of  Mr.  Birch,  of  a  date  anterior  to  the 
Persian  invasion,  and  sodae  even  as  old  as  the  18th 
dynasty. 

The  ivory  used  by  the  Egyptians  was  principally 
brought  from  Ethiopia  (Herod,  iii.  114),  though 
their  elephants  were  originally  from  Asia.  The 
Ethiopians,  according  to  Diodorus  Siculus  (i.  55), 
brought  to  Sesostris  "ebony  and  gold,   and  the 


1186  rvT 

leeth  of  elephants."  Among  the  tribute  paid  by 
them  to  the  Persian  lungs  were  "  twenty  large  tusks 
of  ivory"  (Herod,  iii.  97).  In  the  Periplus  of  the 
Red  Sea  (c.  4),  attributed  to  Arrian,  Coloe  ( Calai) 
Is  said  to  be  "  the  chief  mart  for  ivory."  It  was 
thence  carried  down  to  Adouli  {Zulla,  or  Thulla), 
a  port  on  the  Ked  Sea,  about  three  days'  journey 
from  Coloe,  together  with  the  hides  of  hippoj^wtanii, 
tortoise-shell,  apes,  and  slaves  (Plin.  vi.  34).  The 
elephants  and  rhinoceroses,  from  which  it  was  ob- 
tained, were  killed  further  up  the  country,  and  few 
were  taken  near  the  sea,  or  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Adouli.  At  Ptolemais  Theron  was  found  a  little 
ivory  like  that  of  Adouli  {PeripL.  c.  3).  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus  made  this  port  the  depot  of  the  ele- 
phant trade  (Plin,  vi.  34).  According  to  Pliny 
(viii.  10),  ivory  was  so  plentiful  on  the  borders  of 
Ethiopia  that  the  natives  made  door-posts  of  it,  and 
even  fences  and  stalls  for  their  cattle.  The  author 
of  the  Periplus  (c.  IG)  mentions  Hhapta  as  another 
station  of  the  i\ory  trade,  but  the  ivory  brought 
down  to  this  port  is  said  to  have  been  of  an  inferior 
quality,  and  "  for  the  most  part  found  in  the  woods, 
damaged  by  rain,  or  collected  from  animals  drowned 
by  the  overflow  of  the  rivers  at  the  equinoxes" 
(Smith,  Diet.  Geogr.  art.  Jihapta).  The  Egyptian 
merchants  traded  for  ivory  and  onyx  stones  to 
IJarygaza,  the  port  to  which  was  carried  down  the 
commerce  of  Western  India  from  Ozene  (Peripl. 
c.  49). 

In  the  early  ages  of  Greece  ivory  was  frequently 
empbyed  for  purposes  of  ornament.  The  trappmgs 
of  horses  were  studded  with  it  (Hom.  Jl.  v.  584); 
it  was  used  for  the  handles  of  keys  {Od.  xxi.  7), 
and  for  the  bosses  of  shields  (Hes.  Sc.  Here.  141, 
142).  The  "  ivory  house  "  of  Ahab  (1  K.  xxii.  39) 
was  probably  a  palace,  the  walls  of  which  were 
panelled  with  ivory,  like  the  palace  of  Menelaus 
described  by  Homer  (Ochjs.  iv.  73;  cf.  Eur.  Jph. 
AuL  583,  i\e(pauTod4Toi  SJ/iot.  Comp.  also  Am. 
iii.  15,  and  Ps.  xlv.  8,  unless  tbe  "  ivory  palaces  " 
in  the  latter  passage  were  perfume  boxes  made  of 
that  material,  as  has  been  conjectured).  Beds  inlaid 
or  veneered  witli  ivory  were  in  use  among  the  He- 
brews (Am.  vi.  4;  cf.  Hom.  Od.  xxiii.  200),  as  also 
among  the  Egyptians  (Wilkinson,  Anc.  Egypt,  iii. 
169).  The  practice  of  inlaying  and  veneering  wood 
with  ivory  and  tortoise-shell  is  described  by  Pliny 
(xvi.  84).  The  great  ivory  throne  of  Solomon,  the 
work  of  the  Tyrian  craftsmen,  has  lieen  already 
mentioned  (cf.  Rev.  xx.  11);  but  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  whether  the  "  tower  of  ivory"  of  Cant, 
vii.  4  is  merely  a  figure  of  speech,  or  whether  it 
had  its  original  among  the  things  that  were.  By  the 
luxurious  Phoenicians  ivory  was  employed  to  orna- 
ment the  boxwood  rowing  benches  (or  "hatches" 
according  to  some)  of  their  galleys  (Ez.  xxvii.  6). 
Many  specimens  of  Assyrian  carving  in  ivory  have 
been  found  in  the  excavations  at  Nimroud,  and 
among  the  rest  some  tablets  '*  richly  inlaid  with 
blue  and  opaque  glass,  lapis  lazuli,  etc."  (Bonomi, 
Nineveh  and  its  Palaces,  p.  334;  cf.  Cant.  v.  14). 
Part  of  an  ivory  staff,  apparently  a  sceptre,  and 
several  entire  elephants'  tusks  were  discovered  by 
Mr.  Layard  in  the  last  stage  of  decay,  and  it  was 
with  extreme  difficulty  that  these  interesting  relics 
30iild  be  restored  {Nin.  and  Bab.  p.  195). 

W.  A.  W. 

IVY  (Ki(r(r6s'  hedeva),  the  common  Fledern 
kelix,  cf  which  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans 
iararibe  two  or  three  kinds,  which  appear  to  be 


IZRAHITE,  THE 

only  varieties.  Mention  of  this  plant  is  maJe  only 
in  2  Mace.  vi.  7,  where  it  is  said  thai  the  Jewf 
were  compelled,  when  the  feast  of  Bacchus  wa« 
kept,  to  go  in  pVocession  carrying  ivy  to  this  deity, 
to  whom  it  is  well  known  this  plant  was  sacred. 
Ivy,  however,  though  not  mentioned  by  name,  haa 
a  peculiar  interest  to  the  Christian,  as  forming  the 
"  corruptible  crown  "  (1  Cor.  ix.  25)  for  which  the 
competitors  at  the  great  Isthmian  games  contended, 
and  which  St.  Paul  so  beautifully  contrasts  with 
the  "incorruptible  crown"  which  shall  hereafter 
encircle  the  brows  of  those  who  nm  worthily  the 
race  of  this  mortal  hfe.  In  the  Isthmian  contests 
the  victor's  garland  was  either  ivy  or  pine. 

W.  H. 

*  The  ivy  (such  as  is  described  above)  growa 
wild  also  in  Palestine.  G.  E.  P. 

IZ'EHAR  ['lo-trtfap:  Jesaar'].  The  form  in 
which  the  name  Izhar  is  given  in  the  A.  V.  of 
Num.  iii.  19  only.  In  ver.  27  the  family  of  the 
same  person  is  given  as  Izeharites.  The  Hebrew 
word  is  the  same  as  Izhar. 

IZ'EHARITES,  THE  OlH^^H :  b  'i<r- 
(t6mp  ;  Alex,  o  2ooo  :  JesanHtce).  A  family  of 
Kohathite  Levites,  descended  from  Izhar  the  son 
of  Kohath  (Num.  iii.  27);  called  also  in  the  A.  V. 
"  Izharites."  W.  A.  W. 

IZ'HAR  (spelt  Izehar  in  Num.  iii.  19,  of 
A.  V. ;  in  Heb.  always  ^H^^  [oi7,  and  perh.  one 
anointed  with  oil]:  'I<ro-eiop*and  [1  Chr.  vi.  38, 
xxiii.  12,  18,]  "ladap  [but  here  Vat.  Alex,  read 
l<r<raap ;  Vat.  in  Ex.  iii.  19,  laaaxap]  •  haar\ 
son  of  Kohath,  grandson  of  Levi,  uncle  of  Aaron 
and  Moses,  and  father  of  Korah  (Ex.  vi.  18,  21; 
Num.  iii.  19,  xvi.  1;  1  Chr.  vi.  2,  18).  But  in 
1  Chr.  vi.  22  Amminadab  is  substituted  for  Izhar^ 
as  the  son  of  Kohath  and  father  of  Korah,  in  the 
line  of  Samuel.  This,  however,  must  be  an  acci- 
dental error  of  the  scribe,  as  in  ver.  38,  where  the 
same  genealogy  is  repeated,  Izhar  appears  again  iv 
his  right  place.  The  Cod.  Alex,  in  ver.  32  readi 
Izliai-  [iffffaap]  in  place  of  Amminadab,  and  the 
Aldine  and  Complut.  read  Amminadab  between 
Izhar  and  Kore,  making  another  generation.  But 
these  are  probably  only  corrections  of  the  text. 
(See  BuiTington's  Genealogies  of  the  0.  T.)  Izhai 
was  the  head  of  the  family  of  the  Izharites  or 
Izeharites  (Num.  iii.  27;  1  Chr.  xxvi.  23,  29), 
one  of  the  four  families  of  the  Kohathites. 

A.  C.  H. 

IZ'HARITES,  THE  0"]nV^n  :  6  'laaapi, 
'liraadp,  6  'laaaapi;  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.  xxiv.  22, 
xxvi.  29,  lerorapet;]  Alex,  o  Iccoapt,  Itrtropi,  o 
iKaapi-  Jsaai-i,  Jsaaritce).  The  same  as  the  pre- 
ceding. In  the  reign  of  David,  Shelomith  was  the 
chief  of  the  family  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  22),  and  with  his 
brethren  had  charge  of  the  treasure  dedicated  for 
the  Temple  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  23,  29).      W.  A.  AV. 

IZRAHI'AH  (n^niT.  [Jehovah  causes  to 
sprout  f 01-th  or  appear']:  'le^pofo,  "ECpoAa',  [Vat. 
Zvf'«0  ^^^^'  ^^Cp^°-'  /2rff/<m),  amanof  Issachar, 
one  of  the  Bene-'Uzzi  [sons  of  U.],  and  father  of 
four,  or  five  —  which,  is  not  clear  —  of  the  princi- 
pal men  in  the  tribe  (1  Chr.  vii.  3). 

IZ'RAHITE,  THE  (nn^^H,  t.  r  "tht 
Izrach  "  [indigenous,  native,  Ges.,  Fiirst] :  6  ^Uffpai 
[Vat.  Eo-poe;]  Alex.  U(paf\-  Je-serites),  the  de». 
ignation  of  Shamhuth,  the  captain  of  the   fiflk 


IZRKEL 

nontiily  course  as  appointed  by  David  (1  Chr. 
ttvii  8).  In  its  present  form  the  Hebrew  will  not 
bear  the  interpretation  put  on  it  ir.  the  A.  V.  Its 
real  force  is  probably  Zeraliite,  that  is,  from  the 
great  Judaic  family  of  Zekaii  —  the  Zarhites. 

*  IZ'REEL  is  used  for  Jezreel  in  j:;sh.  xix. 
18  m  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611.  It  is  the  conmion  form 
In  the  Genevan  version.  A. 

IZ'RI  C*"!?^!!,  t.  e.  « the  Itsrite  [Jehovah 
creates,  Fiii-st] : "  *le<rpl',  [Vat.  Uadpei;]  Alex. 
leaSpi'-  Isari),  a  Levite,  leader  of  the  fourth  course 
or  ward  in  the  ser.ice  of  the  house  of  God  (1  Chr. 
xxr.  11).     In  ver.  3  he  is  called  Zeri. 


JA'AKAN  (ll^P.l  [one  sagacious,  intellifjent, 
Fiirst]:  '\aKifi\  [Vat]  Alex.  laKeifx.:  Jacan),  the 
forefather  of  the  Bene-Jaakan,  round  whose  wells 
the  children  of  Israel  encamped  after  they  left 
Mosera,  and  from  which  they  went  on  to  Hor- 
Hagidgad  (Deut.  x.  6).  Jaakan  was  son  of  Ezer, 
the  son  of  Seir  the  Horite  (1  Chr.  i.  42).  The 
name  is  here  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Jakan,  though 
without  any  reason  for  the  change.  In  Gen.  xxxvi. 
27  it  is  in  the  abbreviated  form  of  Akax.  The 
site  of  the  wells  has  not  been  identified.  Some 
suggestions  will  be  seen  under  Bene-Jaakan. 

G. 

JAAKCBAH   (nnp5>:   'Ia>fcai8(£;   Alex. 

laKOjSa:  Jacoba),  one  of  the  princes  (D"^Sl"^CpD) 
of  the  families  of  Simeon  (1  Chr.  iv.  30).  Except- 
ing the  termination,  the  name  is  identical  with  that 
of  Jacob. 

*  Fiirst  makes  this  name  =  "  to  Jacob,"  i.  e. 
reckoned  to  him.     It  is  the  unaccented  paragogic 

n^ ,  appended  to  a  class  of  proper  names  in  the 
later  Hebrew.     {Ilebr.  und  Chald.  Ilandtv.  s.  v.) 

H. 

JA'ALA  (M^3?!  [m'W  she-goat]  :  'U\-fj\ ; 
[Alex.  FA.  leoTjA. ']  Jahala).  Bene-Jaala  [sons 
of  J.]  were  among  the  descendants  of  »  Solomon's 
•laves"  who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Zerub- 
babel  (Neh.  vii.  58).     The  name  also  occurs  as  — 

JA'ALAH  (^^V1  [as  above]:  'IctjAcC;  Alex. 
U\a'.  Jala),  Ezr.  ii.  50;  and  in  Esdras  as  Jeeli. 

JA'ALAM  {'Oh'^l:  ichotn  God  hides,  Ges.: 
'Uy\6in:  Ihelon,  Ihelom),  a  son  of  Esau  by  his  wife 
Aholibamaii  (Gen.  xxxvi.  5,  14,  18;  cf.  1  Chr. 
I.  35),  and  a  phylarch  (A.  V.  "duke")  or  head  of 
A  tribe  of  Edom.  E.  S.  P. 

JA'ANAI  [3  syl.]  C>55^ :  [ichom  Jehovah 
iirwcers]  :  'laplv  ;  [Vat.  laveiv ;]  Alex,  lavai : 
lanni),  a  chief  man  in  the  tribe  of  Gad  (1  Chr. 
r.  12).  The  LXX.  have  connected  the  following 
name,  Shaphat,  to  Jaanai,  and  rendered  it  as  I.  ^ 
Ypa/jLfiaTevS' 

PJA'ARE-OR^GIM  (a^;i']W  "^H^!  [see 
infra]  :  'Apiupylfx  ;  [Vat.  Alex,  '-yeifi :]  *  Saltus 
polymitaiiiu),  according  to  the  present  text  of  2 
Sam.  xxi.  19,  a  Bethlehemite,  and  the  father  of 
Elhanan  who  slew  Goliath  (the  words  « the  brother 
<"  are  added  in  the  A.  V.).     In  the  parallel  pas- 


JAAZANIAH 


1187 


sage,  1  Chr.  x  t.  5,  besides  other  differencte  Jair  ii 
found  instead  of  Jaare,  and  Oregim  is  emitted. 
Oregim  is  not.  elsewhere  found  as  a  prosier  name 
nor  is  it  a  common  word;  and  occurring  as  it  doe* 
without  doubt  at  the  end  of  the  verse  (A.  V. 
"weavers"),  in  a  sentence  exactly  parallel  to  that 
in  1  Sam.  xvii.  7,  it  is  not  probable  that  it  shoidd 
also  occur  in  tlie  middle  of  the  same.  The  con- 
clusion of  Kennicott  {Dissertation,  80)  appears  a 
just  one  —  that  in  the  latter  place  it  has  been 
interpolated  from  the  former,  and  that  Jair  or  Jaor 
is  the  correct  reading  instead  of  Jaare.  [Eliianan, 
vol.  i.  p.  697  a.] 

Still  the  agreement  of  the  ancient  versions  with 
the  present  Hebrew  text  affords  a  certain  corrolwira- 
tion  to  that  text,  and  should  not  be  overlooked. 
[Jair.] 

The  Peshito,  followed  by  the  Arabic,  substitutes 
for  Jaare-Oregim  the  name  "  iNIalaph  the  weaver," 
to  the  meaning  of  which  we  have  no  clew.  The 
Targum,  on  the  other  hand,  doubtless  anxious  to 
avoid  any  apparent  contradiction  of  the  narrative 
in  1  Sam.  xvii.,  substitutes  David  for  Elhanan, 
Jesse  for  Jaare,  and  is  led  by  the  word  Oregim  to 
relate  or  possibly  to  invent  a  statement  as  to  Jesse's 
calling  —  "  And  David  son  of  Jesse,  weaver  of  the 
veils  of  the  house  of  the  sanctuary,  who  was  of 
Bethlehem,  slew  Goliath  the  Gittite."  By  Jerome 
Jaare  is  translated  by  satlus,  and  Oregim  by  j)olif- 
mitarius  (comp.  Qimst.  Ihbr.  on  both  passages). 
In  Josephus's  account  {Ant.  vii.  12,  §  2)  the  Israelite 
champion  is  said  to  have  been  "  Nephan  the  kins 
man  of  David  "  (Ne<^(i»/oy  6  avyyev^s  uvtov)',  the 
word  kinsman  perhaps  referring  to  the  Jewish  tra- 
dition of  the  identity  of  Jair  and  Jesse,  or  simply 
arising  from  the  mention  of  Bethlehem. 

In  the  received  Hebrew  text  Jaare  is  written 
with  a  small  or  suspended  R,  showing  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Masorets  that  letter  is  uncertain. 

JA'ASAU  0^V^_,  but  the  Kei-t  has  ^iDV\ 
i.  e.  Jaasai  [Jehovah  makes,  or  is  make?'] :  and  so 
the  Vulg.  Jasi),  one  of  the  Bene-Bani  who  had 
married  a  foreign  wife,  and  had  to  put  her  away 
(Ezr.  X.  37).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1  Esdras  the 
name  is  not  recognizable.  The  LXX.  had  a  different 

text  — /cal  iiroi'n<rau  =  ^WV^_\ 

JAA'SIEL  (bS'^bl^^  [whom  God  created]: 
'lao-j^A;  [Vat.  Aa-eirjp',]  Alex.  Ao-jtjA  :  Jasiel\ 
son  of  the  great  Abner,  ruler  ("T'*ri"3)  or  "prince" 

(Iti?)  of  his  tribe  of  Benjamin,  in  the  time  of 
David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  21). 

jAAZANi'AH    (^n;?Ts;>  and  n;?Tb?:j 

[whom  Jehovah  hears]).  1."  Ya'azan-ya'hu 
('le^oj'/as;  [Vat.  oCouia^']  Jezonias),  one  of  the 
"  captains  of  the  forces  "  who  accompanied  Johanan 
ben-Kareah  to  pay  his  respects  to  Gedaliah  at  Miz- 
pah  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (2  K.  xxv.  23),  and 
who  appears  afterwards  to  have  assisted  in  recover- 
ing Ishmael's  prey  from  his  clutches  (comp.  Jer. 
xli.  11).  After  that,  he  probably  went  to  Egypt 
with  the  rest  (.Jer.  xliii.  4,  5).  He  is  described  as 
the  "son  of  the  (not  'a')  Maachathite."  In  the 
narrative  of  Jeremiah  the  name  is  slightly  changed 
to  Jezaniah. 

2.  Ya'azan-ya'iiu  ('lexoj/fos;  Alex.  It^owof : 
Jezonias),  son  of  Shaphan :  leader  of  the  band  of 
seventy  of  the  eiders  of  Israel,  who  were  seen  bj 
Ezekiel  worshipping  before  the  idols  on  tlw  wall  o# 


1188 


JAAZER 


J»  court  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  (Ez.  viii.  11). 
It  ia  possible  that  he  is  identical  with  — 

3.  Ya'azan-yah'  CUxoyias'.Jezoniaa),  son  of 

Azur;  one  of  the  "  princes  "  C^T*^)  of  the  people 
against  whom  Ezekiel  was  directed  to  prophesy 
(Ez.  xi.  1). 

4.  Ya'azan-yah'  CU^ovias'  Jezonins),  a  Re- 
3habite,  son  of  Jeremiah.  He  appears  to  have  been 
the  sheikh  of  the  tribe  at  the  time  of  Jeremiah's 
interview   with  them   (Jer.   xxxv.   3).     [Jkhox- 

ADAl).] 

JA'AZER  and  JA'ZER  [helper^  Ges.;  or 
place  hed(/ed  about,  Yurst:  see  infra].  (The  form 
of  this  name  is  much  varied  both  in  the  A.  V.  and 
the  Hebrew,  though  the  one  does  not  follow  the 
other.  In  Num.  xxxii.  it  is  twice  given  Jazer  and 
once  Jaazer,  the  Hebrew  being  in  all  three  cases 

"^.TVl  [?]?  *'•  *•  Ya'ezzer.  Elsewhere  in  Numbers 
and  in  Josh.  xiii.  it  is  Jaazer;  but  in  Josh,  xxi.,  in 
2  Sam.  xxiv.,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  Jazer:  the  He- 
brew in  all  these  is  "T.^^^,  Ya'ezer.  In  Chronicles 
it  is  also  Jazer;  but  here  the  Hebrew  is  in  the 
extended  form  of  "^^'f^^  Ya'ezeir,  a  form  which 
the  Samar.  Codex  also  presents  in  Num.  xxxii. 
The  LXX.  have  'la^Tjp,  but  once  [2  Sam.  xxiv,  5] 
'EAte^ep,  Alex.  EAta^T/p  —  including  the  affixed 
Heb.  particle,  [and  in  1  Chr.  vi.  81,  Vat.  Ta^ep; 
xxvi.  31,  Vat.  PtaC^jp,  Alex.  TaCnp']  Vulg.  Jazer, 
Jaser,  [Jezer] ).  A  town  on  the  east  of  Jordan, 
in  or  near  to  Gilead  (Num.  xxxii.  1,  3;  1  Chr. 
xxvi.  31).  We  first  hear  of  it  in  possession  of  the 
Amorites,  and  as  taken  by  Israel  after  Heshbon, 
and  on  their  way  from  thence  to  Bashan  (Num. 
xxi.  32).«  It  was  rebuilt  subsequently  by  the  chil- 
dren of  Gad  (xxxii.  35),  and  was  a  prominent  place 
in  their  territory  (Josh.  xiii.  25;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  5). 
It  was  allotted  to  the  Merarite  Levites  (.losh.  xxi. 
39;  1  Chr.  vi.  31),  but  in  the  time  of  David  it 
would  appear  to  have  been  occupied  by  Hebronites, 
i.  e.  descendants  of  Kohath  (1  Chr.  xx\i.  31).  It 
•leems  to  have  given  its  name  to  a  district  of  de- 
pendent or  "  daughter  "  towns  (Num.  xxi.  32,  A.  V. 
"villages;"  1  Mace.  v.  8^,  the  *'land  of  Jazer" 
(Num.  xxxii.  1).  In  the  "burdens"  proclaimed 
v>ver  Moab  by  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  Jazer  is  men- 
tioned 80  as  to  imply  that  there  were  vineyards 
there,  and  that  the  cultivation  of  the  vine  had  ex- 
tended thither  from  Sibmaii  (Is.  xvi.  8,  9;  Jer. 
xlviii.  32).  In  the  latter  passage,  as  the  text  at 
present  stands,  mention  is  made  of  the  "  Sea  of 

Jazer"  ('^.'f^ll  D"^).  This  may  have  been  some 
pool  or  lake  of  water,  or  possibly  is  an  ancient  cor- 
ruption of  the  text,  the  LXX.  having  a  different 
reading  —  ir6\is  'I.  (See  Gesenius,  Jesuia,  i. 
550.) 

Jazer  was  known  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  and 
its  position  is  laid  down  with  minuteness  in  the 
Onomastlcon  as  10  (or  8,  s.  voc.  "A^up)  Koman 
miles  west  of  Philadelphia  {Amman),  and  15  from 
Heshbon,  and  as  the  source  of  a  river  which  falls 
.nto  the  Jordan.  Two  sites  bearing  the  names  of 
Churbet  Szdr  and  es-Szir,  on  the  road  westward 
of  Amman,  were  pointed  out  to  Seetzen  in  1806 
[Rehen,  1854,  i.  397,  398).  The  latter  of  these  was 
passed  also  by  Burckhardt  {Syr.  364)  at  2i  hours 


«  m  Num.  xxi,  24,  where  the  present  Ilebrew  text 
las  ty  (A  V.  "  Btrong  »),  the  L3CX.  hare  read  "la^jjp. 


JABBOK 

below  Fuhets  going  south.  The  ruins  appt^ar  ti 
have  been  on  the  left  (east)  of  the  road,  and  bdoi* 
them  and  the  road  is  the  source  of  the  ]Va/'v  Szit 

(wjyoj,  or  Mojeb  ea-Szir  (Seetzen),  answering 

though  certainly  but  imperfectly,  to  the  Troro/iis 
luL€yi(TTos  of  Eusebius.  Seetzen  conjectures  that 
the  sea  of  Jazer  may  have  been  at  the  source  oi 
this  brook,  considerable  marshes  or  pools  sometimes 
existing  at  these  spots.  (Comp.  his  early  sugges- 
tion of  the  source  of  the  Wcu/y  ISerkn,  p.  393.) 
Szir,  or  Seir,  is  shown  on  the  map  of  Van  de  Ve!de 
as  9  Koman  miles  W.  of  Amman,  and  about  12 
from  Heshbon.  And  here,  until  further  investifi;*- 
tion,  we  must  be  content  to  place  Jazer.  G. 

JAAZI'AH  (^n^T37^  t.  e.  Yaaziyaliu  [whom 
Jehovah  consoles]:  'O^o;  [Vat.  OCe»aO  Oziau), 
apparently  a  third  son,  or  a  descendant,  of  Merari 
the  Levite,  and  the  founder  of  an  independent 
house  in  that  family  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  26,  27);  neitheJ 
he  nor  his  descendants  are  mentioned  elsewhere 
(comp.  the  Hsts  in  xxiii.  21-23;  Ex.  vi.  19,  &c.). 

The  word  Beno  (1^3),  which  follows  Jaaziah, 
should  probably  be  translated  "  his  son,"  t.  e.  the 
son  of  Merari. 

JAA'ZIEL  (bS'^Tp^  {whom  God  consoles]: 
OC»^A  [Vat.  FA.  -fri-] ;  Alex.  ItjouA  :  Jaziel)^ 
one  of  the  Levites  of  the  second  order  who  were 
appointed  by  David  to  perform  the  musical  service 
before  the  ark  (1  Chr.  xv.  18).  If  Aziel  in  ver. 
20  is  a  contracted  form  of  the  same  name  —  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  it  (comp.  Jesharelah 
and  Asharelah,  1  Chr.  xxv.  2,  14)  —  his  business 
was  to  "  sound  the  psaltery  on  Alamoth." 

*  In  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611  the  name  is  written 
Jaziel,  as  in  the  Bishops'  Bible  and  the  Vul- 
gate. A. 

JA^BAL  (bs;  [a  stream] :  'i^^q^a  ;  [Alex. 
IwjSeA:]  Jabel),  the  son  of  Lamech  and  Adah 
(Gen.  iv.  20)  and  brother  of  Jubal.  Though  de- 
scended from  a  dweller  in  a  city  (ver.  17),  he  is 
described  as  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in  tents 
and  have  cattle.  Bochart  {llieroz.  i.  ii.  c.  44,  near 
the  end)  points  out  the  difference  between  his  mode 
of  life  and  Abel's.  Jabal's  was  a  migratory  life, 
and  his  possessions  probably  included  other  animals 
besides  sheep.  The  shepherds  who  Mere  before  him 
may  have  found  the  land  on  which  they  dwelt  suf- 
ficiently productive  for  the  constant  sustenance  of 
their  flocks  in  the  neighborhood  of  their  fixed 
abodes.  ■  W.  T.  B. 

JAB'BOK  (pinl  [streaming  forth,  floicing, 
Sim.  Ges.]:  ['loiSJ/t;  in  Gen.  xxxii.  22,  Rom.] 
'Ia)3wx-  •^''^^<^»  [-^t^oc]),  a  stream  which  inter- 
sects the  mountain- range  of  Gilead  (comp.  Josh, 
xii.  2,  and  5),  and  falls  into  the  Jordan  about  mid- 
way between  the  sea  of  Galilee  and  the  Dead  Sea. 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  interpreting  two  or  three 
passages  of  Scripture  in  which  the  Jabbok  is  spoken 
of  as  "  the  border  of  the  children  of  Ammon." 
'Hie  following  facts  may  perhaps  throw  some  lighl 
upon  them :  —  The  Ammonites  at  one  time  pos- 
sessed the  whole  country  between  the  rivers  AmoD 
and  Jabbok,  from  the  Jordan  on  the  west  to  th« 
wilderness  on  the  east.  They  were  driven  out  of  it 
by  Sihon  king  of  the  Amorites ;  and  he  was  in  turu 
expelled  by  the  Israelites.  Yet  long  subsequent  tc 
these  events,  the  country  t»'as  popularly  called  •«  tht 


JABESH 

And  of  the  Ammonites,"  and  was  even  claimed  by 
them  (Jiidg.  xi.  12-22).  For  this  reason  the  Jab- 
bok  is  still  called  "  the  border  of  the  children  of 
Anmion  "  m  Deut.  iii.  16,  and  Josh.  xii.  2.  Again, 
when  the  Ammonites  were  driven  out  by  Sihon 
&x)m  their  ancient  territory,  they  took  possession 
of  the  eastern  plain,  and  of  a  considerable  section 
of  the  eastern  defiles  of  Gilead,  around  the  sources 
and  upiier  branches  of  the  Jabbok.  Kabbath-Am- 
mon,  their  capital  city  (2  Sam.  xi.),  stood  within 
the  mountauis  of  Gilead,  and  on  the  banks  of  a 
tributary  to  the  Jabbok.  This  explains  the  state- 
ment in  Num.  xxi.  24  — "  Israel  possessed  his 
(Sihon's)  land  from  Arnon  unto  Jabbok,  unto  the 

children  of  Amnion  {^'^l^iV  "^Djl'l^?),  for  the 
border  of  the  children  of  Amnion  was  strong"  — 
the  border  among  the  defiles  of  the  upper  Jabbok 
was  strong.  Tliis  also  illustrates  Deut.  ii.  37, 
"  Only  unto  the  land  of  the  children  of  Amnion 
thou  earnest  not,  unto  every  place  of  the  torrent 

Jabbok  (p!il^  bna  T"b2),  and  unto  the  cities 
in  the  mountains,  and  every  place  which  the  Lord 
our  God  forbad." 

It  was  on  the  south  bank  of  the  Jabbok  the  in- 
terview took  place  between  Jacob  and  Esau  (Gen. 
xxxii.  22);  and  this  river  afterwards  became,  to- 
wards its  western  part,  the  boundary  between  the 
kingdoms  of  Sihon  and  Og  (Josh.  xii.  2,  5).  Euse- 
bius  rightly  places  it  between  Gerasa  and  Phila- 
delphia (Omin.  8.  v.);  and  at  the  present  day  it 
separates  the  province  of  Bdka  from  Jtbel  Ajlun. 
Its  modern  name  is  Wady  Zurka.  It  rises  in  the 
plateau  east  of  Gilead,  and  receives  many  tributaries 
from  both  north  and  south  in  the  eastern  declivities 
of  the  mountain-range  —  one  of  these  conies  from 
Gerasa,  another  from  Kabbath-Ammon ;  but  all  of 
them  are  mere  winter  streams.  The  Zurka  cuts 
through  Gilead  in  a  deep,  narrow  defile.  Through- 
out the  lower  part  of  its  course  it  is  fringed  with 
thickets  of  cane  and  oleander,  and  the  banks  above 
are  clothed  with  oak-forests.  Towards  its  mouth 
the  stream  is  perennial,  and  in  winter  often  im- 
passable. J.  L.  1*. 

*  For  other  notices  of  the  Jabbok,  its  history 
and  scenery,  the  reader  may  see  Robinson's  Phys. 
O'eogr.  pp.  57,  150  f.;  Tristram's  Land  of  Israel, 
pp.  476,  563  (2d  ed.);  Stanley's  5.  c/  P.  p.  230 
(Anier.  ed.);  Porter's  Handbook  of  Syria,  p.  310  f.; 
and  Lynch's  Expedition  to  the  Dead  Sea,  p.  253. 
The  ford  of  Jablxik  which  Jacob  crossed  with  his 
family  on  his  return  from  Mesopotamia  (Gen.  xxxii. 
13  fF.)  is  pointed  out  at  Kalaat  Serka,  on  the  great 
Damascus  road  through  Gilead.  A  legend  which 
contradicts  the  Biblical  account  assigns  the  passage 
to  the  Jordan,  north  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  See 
Ritter's  Geogr.  of  Palestine,  Gage"s  transl.  ii.  228. 
The  depression  which  marks  the  valley  of  the  Zerka 
(Jabbok)  can  be  seen  from  the  heights  near  Bethel 
(Rob.  Res.  i.  444,  2d  ed.).  H. 

JA'BESII  (trn;  \dry,  parched]  :  'la^/s ; 
O^'at.  lojSets;]  Alex.  A/3ety,  la^Sets ;  Joseph. 
la)8»j<ros:  Jabes).  1.  Father  of  SiiALLUJr,  the 
1 5th  king  of  Israel  (2  K.  xv.  10,  13,  14). 

2.  [Vat.  Ia)8€{s;  Alex,  in  1  Sam.,  Eta/3eiy:  in 
»  Chr.,  Ia)8€ts.]  The  short  form  of  the  Lame 
^ABEsir-GiLEAD  (1  Chr.  X.  12  only).  [The  short 
•rm  also  occurs  in  1  Sam.  xi.  1,  3,  5,  9.  10,  xxxi. 
l2,13.-A.]  '    .    .      . 

JA'BESH-GIL'EAD    (ip^!!   tT^;,    also 


JABEZ 


11&9 


tr'^rsj,  1  Sam.  xi.  1,  9,  <fec.,  dry,  from  12?5^,  to  bt 
dry  [1  Sam.  xi.  1,  2  Sam.  xxi.  12,]  'laBh  [Vat 
Alex,  -^ets]  FaAaoS;  [1  Sam.  xi.  9,  loiSiS  (Vat 
-^6<s);  Alex.  Eiafieis  FaAoaS;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  11 
2  Sam.  ii.  4,  5,  lafiis  (Vat.  -^ety,  Alex.  EtojStt? 
Trjs  raXoMSiTiSos  (Vat.  -Sei-);  1  Chr.  x.  11 
roAa(£5:]  Jabes  Galaad),  or  Jabesh  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Gilead.  [Gilead.]  In  its  widtst  sense 
Gilead  included  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  (1  Chr 
xxvii.  21)  as  well  as  the  tribes  of  Gad  and  Reuben 
(Num.  xxxii.  1-42)  east  of  the  Jordan — and  of 
the  cities  of  Gilead,  Jabesh  was  the  chief.  It  is  first 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  cruel  \engeance 
taken  upon  its  inhabitants  for  not  coming  up  to 
Mizpeh  on  the  occasion  of  the  fierce  war  between 
the  children  of  Israel  and  the  tribe  of  Pjenjamin. 
Every  male  of  the  city  was  put  to  the  sword,  and 
all  virgms  —  to  the  number  of  400  —  seized  to  be 
given  in  marriage  to  the  600  men  of  IJenjamin  that 
remained  (Judg.  xxi.  8-14).  Nevertheless  the  city 
survived  the  loss  of  its  males ;  and  being  attacked 
subsequently  by  Nahash  the  Ammonite,  gave  Saul 
an  opportunity  of  displaying  his  prowess  in  its 
defense,  and  silencing  all  objections  made  by  the 
children  of  lielial  to  his  sovereignty  (1  Sam.  xi. 
1-15).  Neither  were  his  exertions  in  behalf  of  this 
city  unrequited;  for  when  he  and  his  three  sons 
were  slain  by  the  Philistines  in  IVIount  Gilboa  (1 
Sam.  xxxi.  8),  the  men  of  Jabesh-Gilead  came  by 
night  and  took  down  their  corpses  from  the  walb 
of  Beth-shan  where  they  had  been  exposed  as 
trophies;  then  burnt  the  bodies,  and  buried  the 
bones  under  a  tree  near  the  city  —  observing  a  strict 
funeral  fast  for  seven  days  (ibid.  13).  David  does 
not  forget  to  bless  them  for  this  act  of  piety  towards 
his  old  master,  and  his  more  than  brother  (2  Sam. 
ii.  5);  though  he  afterwards  had  their  remains 
translated  to  the  ancestrsd  sepulchre  in  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14).  As  to  the  site  of 
the  city,  it  is  not  defined  in  the  O.  T.,  but  Euse- 
bius  {OnomasL  s.  v.)  places  it  beyond  Jordan,  6 
miles  from  Pella  on  the  mountain-road  to  Gerasa; 
where  its  name  is  probably  preserved  in  the  Wa<lif 
Yabes,  which,  flowing  from  the  east,  enters  the 
Jordan  below  13eth-shan  or  Scythopolis.  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Robinson  (Bibl.  Res.  iii.  319),  the  ruin 
ed-Deir,  on  the  S.  side  of  the  Wady,  still  marks 
its  site.  E.  S.  Ff. 

JA'BEZ  (V5V!l  [plio  causes  sorrow,  Ges.; 
possibly  a  Iiigh  place,  Yurst] :  'lo^ty;  [Vat.  Tor 
/leaap;]  Alex.  rafiTjs:  Jabes),  apparently  a  place 

at  which  the  families  of  the  scribes  (Q"^"1SD) 
resided,  who  belonged  to  the  families  of  the  Kenites 
(1  Chr.  ii.  55).  It  occurs  among  tlie  descendants 
of  Salma,  who  was  of  Judah,  and  closely  connected 
with  Bethlehem  (ver.  51),  possibly  the  father  of 
Boaz ;  and  also  —  though  how  is  not  clear  —  with 
Joab.  The  Targum  states  some  curious  particulars, 
which,  however,  do  not  much  elucidate  the  diffi- 
culty, and  which  are  probably  a  mixture  of  trust- 
worthy tradition  and  of  mere  invention  based  on 
philo{./^ical  grounds.  Rechab  is  there  identified 
with  Rechabiah  the  son  of  Eliezer,  Moses'  younger 
son  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  25),  and  Jabez  with  Othniel  the 
Kenezzite,  who  bore  the  name  of  Jabez  "  because 

he  founded  by  his  counsel  ((115*37)  a  school 
(S!5'^2l"jn)  jf  disciples  called  Tirathi(-es,  Shim- 
eatnites,  ana  Sucathites."    See  ilso  the  quotations 


1190  JABIN 

ftom  Talnud,  Temurah,  in  Buxtorfs  Lex.  col.  966, 
where  a  similar  derivation  is  given. 

2.  ['l7o;8^s;  Alex.  layfir)s,  Ta^ris-]  The  name 
occurs  again  in  the  genealogies  of  Judah  (1  Chr. 
iv.  9, 10)  in  a  passage  of  remarkable  detail  inserted 
m  a  genealogy  again  connected  M'ith  Bethlehem 
(ver.  4).     Here  a  different  force  is  attached  to  the 

name.  It  is  made  to  refer  to  the  sorrow  ()3t^^, 
otzeb)  with  which  his  mother  bore  him,  and  also  to 
his  prayer  that  evil  may  not  grieve  C*!2?^)  him. 
Jabez  was  "  more  honorable  than  his  brethren," 
though  who  they  were  is  not  ascertainable.  It  is 
very  doubtful  whether  any  connection  exists  be- 
tween this  genealogy  and  that  in  ii.  50-55.  Several 
names  appear  in  both  — Hur,  Kjihratah,  Bethlehem, 
Zareathites  (in  A.  V.  iv.  2  inaccurately  '« Zorath- 
ites"),  Joab,  Caleb;  and  there  is  much  similarity 
between  others,  as  Kechab  and  Rechah,  I'Ishton  and 
I^htaulites ;  but  any  positive  connection  seems  un- 
demonstrable.  The  Targum  repeats  its  identifica- 
tion of  Jabez  and  Othniel. 

These  passages  in  the  Targums  are  worthy  of 
remark,  not  only  because  they  exempUfy  the  same 
habit  of  playing  on  words  and  seeking  for  deriva- 
tions which  is  found  in  the  above  and  many  other 
passages  of  the  Bible,  both  early  and  late,  but  also 
because,  as  K;ften  as  not,  the  puns  do  not  now  exist 
in  the  Kabbinical  Hebrew  in  which  these  para- 
phrases are  written,  although  they  appear  if  that 
Kabbinical  Hebrew  is  translated  back  into  Biblical 
Hebrew.  There  are  several  cases  of  this  in  the 
Targum  above  quoted,  namely,  on  1  Chr.  ii.  55  (see 
Tirathim,  Socathim,  etc.),  and  others  in  the  Tar- 
gum on  Kuth,  in  the  additions  to  the  genealogy  at 
the  end  of  that  book.    One  example  will  show  what 

is  intended.  "  Obed  (1^37)  was  he  who  sei-ved 
the  L«rd  of  the  world  with  a  perfect  heart." 
**  Served  "  in  Biblical  Hebrew  is  "TS^'',  from  the 
■ame  root  as  Obed,  but  in  the  dialect  of  the  Tar- 
gum it  is  n^Dl,  so  that  the  allusion  (like  that 
in  Coleridge's  famous  pun)  exists,  as  it  stands, 
neither  for  the  eye  nor  the  ear.  G. 

JA'BIN  (l**?^  [Intellif/ent,  Fiirst;  one  whom 
God  observes,  Ges.]:  'lojSis;  [Vat.  Alex,  la^eis: 
Jabin]).  1.  King  of  Ilazor,  a  royal  city  in  the 
north  of  Palestine,  near  the  waters  of  Merom,  who 
organized  a  confederacy  of  the  northern  princes 
against  the  Israelites  (Josh.  xi.  1-3).  He  assembled 
an  army,  which  the  Scripture  narrative  merely  com- 
pares to  the  sands  for  n)ultitude  (ver.  4),  but  which 
Josephus  reckons  at  300,000  foot,  10,000  horse,  and 
20,000  chariots.  Joshua,  encouraged  by  God,  sur- 
prised this  vast  army  of  allied  forces  "  by  the  waters 
of  Merom"  (ver.  7;  near  Kedesh,  according  to 
Josephus),  utterly  routed  them,  cut  the  hoof-sinews 
;>f  their  horses,  and  burnt  their  chariots  with  fire 
at  a  place  which  from  tliat  circumstance  may  have 
derived  its  name  of  Miskephotii-Maim  (Her\ey, 
On  the  Gene(do(jies,  p.  228).  [Miskeimiotii- 
Maim.]  It  is  probable  that  in  consequence  of  this 
battle  the  confederate  kings,  and  Jabin  among 
*Jiem,  were  reduced  to  vassalage,  for  we  find  im- 
mediately afterwards  that  Jabin  is  safe  in  his  capital. 
But  during  the  ensuing  wars  (which  occupied  some 


a  In  Josh.  xt.  46,  after  the  words  "  from  Ekron," 
h*  LXX.  add  'Irftva!,  Jabneb,  instead  of  <^even  unto 


JABNEEL 

time.  Josh.  xi.  18),  Joshua  "  turned  back,*'  toA 
perhaps  on  some  iresh  rebellion  of  Jabin,  inflicted 
on  him  a  signal  and  summary  vengeance,  makln|^ 
Hazor  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  not  burn- 
ing the  conquered  cities  of  Canaan  (xi.  1-14 
Joseph.  Ant.  v.  1,  §  18;  Ewald,  Uesch.  ii.  328). 

2.  [In  Judg.,  'lo^Siv  (Vat.  -^uv);  Alex,  lafxuv. 
la$€iv^  in  1*8.,  'loySejV]  A  king  of  Hazor,  whosi 
general  Sisera  was  defeated  by  Barak,  whose  army 
is  described  in  much  the  same  tenns  as  that  of  his 
predecessor  (Judg.  iv.  3,  13),  and  who  suffered  pre- 
cisely the  same  fate.  "We  have  already  pointed  out 
the  minute  similarity  of  the  two  narratives  (Josh, 
xi.;  Judg.  iv.,  v.),  and  an  attentive  comparison  of 
them  with  Josephus  (who  curiously  omits  the  name 
of  Jabin  altogether  in  his  mention  of  Joshua's 
victory,  although  his  account  is  full  of  details) 
would  easily  supply  further  points  of  resemblance. 
[Barak;  Deuokah.]  It  is  indeed  by  no  means 
impossible  that  in  the  course  of  160  years  Hazor 
should  have  risen  from  its  ashes,  and  even  rcas- 
sumed  its  preeminence  under  sovereigns  who  still 
bore  the  old  dynastic  name.  But  entirely  inde- 
pendent considerations  show  that  the  period  be- 
tween Joshua  and  Barak  could  not  have  been  150 
years,  and  indeed  tend  to  prove  that  those  two 
chiefs  were  contemporaries  (Heney,  Gene(d.  p. 
228) ;  and  we  are  therefore  led  to  regard  the  two 
accounts  of  the  destruction  of  Hazor  and  Jabm  as 
really  applying  to  the  same  monarch,  and  the  same 
event.  What  is  to  prevent  us  from  supposing  that 
Jabin  and  his  confederate  kings  were  deieated  both 
by  Joshua  and  by  Barak,  and  that  distinct  accounts 
of  both  victories  were  preserved  ?  The  most  casual 
reader  of  the  narrative  cannot  but  be  struck  by  the 
remarkable  resemblance  between  the  two  stories. 
There  is  no  ground  whatever  to  throw  doubts  on 
the  histoi-iad  veracity  of  the  earlier  narrative,  as  is 
done  by  Hasse  (p.  129),  JMaurer  (ad  loc.\  Studer 
(on  Judf/es,  p.  90),  and  Ue  Wette  (AV«/.  p.  231), 
according  to  Keil,  on  Josh.  xi.  10-15;  and  by 
Kosenmliller  (iSdwl.  Jos.  xi.  11);  but  when  the 
chronological  arguments  are  taken  into  considera- 
tion, we  do  not  (in  spite  of  the  diflSculties  which 
still  remain)  consider  Havemick  successful  in  re- 
moving the  improbabilities  which  beset  the  com- 
mon supposition  that  this  Jabin  Uved  long  after 
the  one  which  Joshua  defeated.  At  any  rate  we 
cannot  agree  with  A\'iner  in  denouncing  any  attempt 
to  identify  them  with  each  other  as  the  we  plus 
ultra  of  uncritical  audacity.  l\  W.  ¥. 

JAB'NEEL  (bS35^  [God  pertnils  or  causes 
to  build] ).     The  name  of  two  towns  in  Talestine. 

1.  (In  0.  T.  Af^vd;  [Vat.  Aeuvo;]  Alex.  Ia)8- 
j/7jA;  in  Apocr. 'la/ivem:  Jebneel,Jamnia.)  Or.e 
of  the  points  on  the  northern  boundary  of  Judah, 
not  quite  at  the  sea,  though  near  it «  ( Josli.  xt. 
11).  There  is  no  sign,  however,  of  its  ever  having 
been  occupied  by  Judah.  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  1,  § 
22)  attributes  it  to  the  Danites.  There  was  a  con- 
stant struggle  going  on  between  that  tribe  and  ti* 
Philistines  for  the  possession  of  all  the  plac*'^  in 
the  lowland  plain  [Dan],  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  the  next  time  we  meet  with  Jabneel  it  should 
be  in  the  hands  of  the  latter  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  6).  Uz- 
ziah  dispossessed  them  of  it,  and  demohshed  it* 
fortificiitions.     Here  it  is  in  the  shorter  form  of 


the  eea ; "  probably  reading  712^^  foif  the 
word  m$\ 


JABNEEL 

Iabker.  In  its  Greek  garb,  Iamxia,  it  is  fre- 
joently  mentioned  in  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  iv. 
15,  V.  58,  X.  G9,  XV.  40),  in  whose  time  it  was 
again  a  strong  place.  According  to  Josephus  {Ant. 
xii.  8,  §  G)  (jorgias  was  governor  of  it;  but  tlie 
text  of  the  Slaccabees  (2  Mace.  xii.  32)  has  Idu- 
msea.  At  this  time  tliere  was  a  harbor  on  the 
coast,  to  which,  and  the  vessels  lying  there,  Judas 
Bet  fire,  and  the  conflagration  was  seen  at  Jerusa- 
lem, a  distance  of  about  25  miles  (2  Mace.  xii.  9). 
The  harbor  is  also  mentioned  by  Pliny,  who  in  con- 
sequence speaks  of  the  town  as  double  —  duce  Jam- 
nes  (see  the  quotations  in  Keknd,  p.  823).  Like 
Ascalon  and  Gaza,  the  harbor  bore  the  title  of 
Majumas,  perhaps  a  Coptic  word,  meaning  the 
*'  place  on  the  sea  "  (Helaiid,  p.  590,  &c. ;  Kaumer, 
p.  174,  note,  J 84,  note;  Kenrick,  Phoenicia,  pp.  27, 
29).  At  the  time  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Jabneh 
was  one  of  the  most  populous  places  of  Judsea,  and 
contained  a  Jewish  school  of  great  fame,«  whose 
learned  doctors  are  often  mentioned  in  the  Talmud. 
The  great  Sanhedrim  was  also  held  here.  In  this 
holy  city,  according  to  an  early  Jewish  tradition, 
was  buried  the  great  Gamaliel.  His  tomb  was 
visited  by  Parchi  in  the  14th  century  (Zunz,  in 
Asher's  Benj.  of  Tudtla,  ii.  439,  440;  also  98). 
[n  the  time  of  Eusebius,  however,  it  had  dwindled 
to  a  small  place,  voKixvi],  merely  requiring  casual 
mention  ( Onomasiicon).  In  the  Gth  century,  under 
Justinian,  it  became  the  seat  of  a  Christian  bishop 
(Epiphanius,  ado.  Ilcer.  lib.  ii.  730).  Under  the 
Crusaders  it  bore  the  corrupted  name  of  Ibelin,  and 
gave  a  title  to  a  line  of  Counts,  one  of  wliom,  Jean 
d'Ibelin,  about  1250,  restored  to  efficiency  the  fa- 
mous code  of  the  "  Assises  de  Jerusalem  "  (Gibbon, 
ch.  58  ad  Jin. ;  also  the  citations  in.itaumer,  Pa- 
{(istina,  p.  185). 

The  modern  village  of  Yebna,  or  more  accurately 

Ibna  (LLoJ,  stands  about  two  miles  from  the 
sea,  on  a  slight  eminence  just  south  of  the  Nahr 
Rtibin.  It  is  about  11  miles  south  of  Jaffa,  7 
from  Randeh,  and  4  from  Akir  (Ekron).  It  prob- 
ably occupies  its  ancient  site,  for  some  remains  of 
old  buildings  are  to  be  seen,  possibly  relics  of  the 
fortress  which  the  Crusaders  built  there  (Porter, 
Handbook,  p.  274).  G. 

*  Raumer  {Paldstina,  p.  203,  4te  Aufl.)  r^ards 
Jabneel  and  Jabneh  as  probably  the  same.  Fiirst 
(Handw.  i.  479)  denies  that  they  are  the  same,  re- 
garding Jabneh  indeed  as  represented  by  Yebna, 
but  the  site  of  Jabneel  as  lost.  The  traveller  go- 
ing from  Esdud  (Ashdod)  to  Yafa  (Joppa)  passes 
near  Yebna,  conspicuous  on  a  hill  to  the  right,  at 
the  foot  of  which  is  a  well  from  which  the  water  is 
raised  by  a  large  wheel.  The  women  of  the  vil- 
lage may  be  seen  here  in  picturesque  groups,  with 
their  water-skins  and  jars,  at  almost  any  hour.  A 
•lab  of  antique  marble  forms  the  front-piece  of  the 
watering-trough,  and  other  similar  fragments  lie 
scattered  here  and  there.  At  a  little  distance  fur- 
tlier  south  occur  a  few  remains  of  a  Roman  aque- 
iuct.  The  Gamaliel  whose  tomb  is  shown  at  Yebna 
'see  above)  must  be  understood  to  be  Gamaliel  the 
"ounger,  a  grandson  of  the  great  Gamaliel  who 
»as  Paul's  teacher.     (See  Sepp's  Jerus.  und  das 


JACHIN 


1191 


i 


b  •  Ora«tz  ( Gesehichte  der  Juden,  iv.  13)  speaks  of 
this  idea  of  a  renowned  Jewish  school  at  Jabneh  be- 
tot«  th()  CvU  of  Jerusalem  as  unfounded.  All  its  celjb- 
ity,  if  not  its  existence,  was  subsequent  to  that  event. 

II.      i  from  Jamnia  oi  »d.bneei 


heU.  Land,  ii.  501.)  The  origin,  studies,  and  fiune 
of  the  Jewish  school  established  at  Jamnia  or 
Yebna  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  foim 
an  important  chapter  in  the  history  of  rabbinieal 
and  Biblical  literature.  Lightfoot  furnishes  an  out- 
line of  the  subject  {0pp.  ii.  pp.  141-144,  Amsterd. 
1686).  The  best  modern  account  of  this  seminary 
and  its  influence  on  the  philosophy  and  religious 
ideas  of  the  .lews  is  probably  that  of  Dr.  H. 
Graetz  in  the  opening  chapter  of  his  Ges^chichte 
del'  Jyden,  vol.  iv.  (Berlin,  1853).  The  reader  may 
see  also  Jost's  Gesehichte  der  hraeUlen,  iii.  185  fT. ; 
and  Dean  Milman's  History  of  the  Jews,  vol.  ii. 
bk.  xvii.  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 

2.  ('Ie<^0a/xai;  Alex.  la^irqX;  [Comp.  'Io)8- 
viiiK'^  Jebnael.)  One  of  the  landmarks  on  the 
boundary  of  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix.  33,  only).  It  is 
named  next  after  Adami-Nekeb,  and  had  appar- 
ently Lakkum  between  it  and  the  "  outgoings ''  of 
the  boundary  at  the  Jordan.  But  little  or  no  clew 
can  be  got  from  the  passage  to  its  situation. 
Doubtless  it  is  the  same  place  M'hich,  as  ^lafiveia 
{Vda,  §  37),  and  'lafivid  {B.  J.  n.  20,  §  6),  is 
mentioned  by  Josephus  among  the  villages  in  Upper 
Galilee,  which,  though  strong  in  themselves  (Trer- 
pwSeis  oijcas)y  were  fortified  by  him  in  anticipation 
of  the  arrival  of  the  Romans.  The  other  villages 
named  by  him  in  the  same  connection  are  Meroth, 
Achabare,  ^r  the  rock  of  the  Achabari,  and  Seph. 
Schvvarz  (p.  181)  mentions  that  the  later  name  of 
Jabneel  was  Kefr  Yamah,^  the  village  by  the  sea. 
Taking  this  with  the  vague  indications  of  Josephus, 
we  should  be  disposed  to  look  for  its  traces  at  the 
N.  W.  part  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  in  the  hill  coun- 
try. G. 

JAB'NEH  ((13  ;  ^  [he  lets  or  causes  to  build] : 
'lajSi/Tjp;  [Vat.  A)8ej/j/7jp;]  Alex,  labels'-  Jabnia), 
2  Chr.  xxvi.  G.     [JABNiiKL.] 

JA'CHAN  O^Vl  [affliction  or  afflicted]: 
'Iwoxaj';  [Vat.  Xj^uo;]  Alex,  laxav'  Jnchan)^ 
one  of  seven  chief  men  of  the  tribe  of  Gad  (1  Chr 
V.  13). 

JA'CHIN  (r?J  [he  shall  establish]  :  in 
Kings,  ^laxovfi,  Alex,  laxovv;  but  in  Chr.  Ka- 
T6pd(i)(ris  in  both  MSS.;  Josephus,  'laxi"'  Jfichin, 
Jachiin),  one  of  the  two  pillars  which  were  set  up 
"in  the  porch  "  (1  K.  vii.  21)  or  before  the  templo 
(2  Chr.  iii.  17)  of  Solomon.  It  was  the  "right- 
hand  "  one  of  the  two;  by  which  is  probably  meant 
the  south  (comp.  1  K.  vii.  39).  However,  both  the 
position  and  the  structure  of  these  famous  columns 
are  full  of  difficulties,  and  they  will  be  most  suit- 
ably examined  in  describing  the  Temple.  Inter- 
preted as  a  Hebrew  word  Jachin  signifies  firmness 
[See  BoAZ  2.] 

JA'CHIN  {TT-  [as above]:  'Axefi', 'laxetV, 
'lax'i';  [in  Num.,  Vat.  Alex.  Ioxe«'>  i"  Gen. 
and  Ex.,]  Alex,  lax^in'  Jnchin).  1.  Fourth  son 
of  Simeon  (Gen.  xlvi.  10;  Ex.  vi.  15);  founder  of 
the  family  of  the  Jachinites  (Num.  xxvi.  12). 

2.  [In  1  Chr.  ix.  and  Neh.,  'loxiV,  Vat.  Alex, 
laxetv;  in  1  Chr.  xxiv.,  'Ax^/*,  ^'^a*-  Axet/**  ^^^• 
''ax^iv.]  Head  of  the  21st  course  of  priests  in 
the  time  of  David.  Some  of  the  course  returned 
from  Babylon  (1  Chr.  ix.  10,  xxiv.  17;  Neh.  xi. 


h  Cat  .he  name  in  the  Vat.  LXX.  (given  above)  b« 
.  a  corruption  o.'  this  ?     It  can  hardly  be  corrupted 


1192 


JACHINITES,  THE 


W)  [JoiARiB.]  Jacimus,  the  original  name  of 
Alcimus  (1  Mace.  vii.  5,  &c.;  Joseph.  A?it.  xii.,  ix. 
J  7),  who  was  the  first  of  his  family  that  was  high- 
priest,  may  possibly  have  been  in  Hebrew  Jachin, 
though  the  «  more  properly  suggests  Jakim. 

'Axeifi,  AcniM  (Matt.  i.  14),  seems  also  to  be 
the  same  name.  A.  C.  H. 

JA'CHINITES.THE  OT^^'O  [see above]: 
laxivi  [Vai.  -ret];  Alex,  o  laxfiyf-  J'amUia  Ja- 
chimtai-um\  the  family  founded  by  Jacjiin,  sou 
of  Simeon  (Num.  xxvi.  12). 

JACINTH  {vaKivQos'  hyacinthus),  a  precious 
stone,  fui-ming  one  of  the  foundations  of  the  walls 
of  the  new  Jerusalem   (Kev.  xxi.  20).     It  seems 

to  be  identical  with  the  Hebrew  leshem  (UW]), 
A.  V.  "  ligure  "),  which  was  employed  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  high-priest's  breastplate  (Ex.  xxviii.  19). 
The  jacinth  or  hyacinth  is  a  red  variety  of  zircon, 
which  is  found  in  square  prisms,  of  a  white,  gray, 
red,  reddish-brown,  yellow,  or  pale-green  color.  Li- 
gurite  is  a  crystallized  mineral  of  a  yellowish-green 
or  apple-green  hue,  found  in  Liguria,  and  thence 
deriving  its  name.  It  was  reputed  to  possess  an 
attractive  power  similar  to  that  of  amber  (Theo- 
phrast.  Laj>p.  28),  and  perhaps  the  Greek  Ai7t;pioj', 
which  the  LXX.  gives,  was  suggested  by  an  appar- 
ent reference  to  this  quahty  (as  if  from  Aej'xfiJ', 
"to  lick").  The  expression  in  Kev.  ix.  17,  -'of 
jacinth,"  applied  to  the  breastplate,  is  descriptive 
simply  of  a  hyacinlhine,  i.  e.  dark-purple  color,  and 
has  no  reference  to  the  stone.  W.  L.  B. 

JA'COB  {'D.pV'^  =  suppl(inter:  'loKdifi:  Ja- 
cob), the  second  son  of  Isaac  and  Rebekah.  He 
was  born  with  Esau,  when  Isaac  was  59  and  Abra- 
ham 159  years  old,  probably  at  the  well  Lahai-roi. 
His  history  is  related  in  the  latter  half  of  the  book 
of  Genesis.  He  grew  up  a  quiet,  domestic  youth, 
the  favorite  son  of  his  mother.  He  bought  the 
birthright  from  his  brother  Ksau ;  and  afterwards, 
at  his  mother's  instigation,  acquired  the  blessing 
intended  for  Esau,  by  practicing  a  well-known  de- 
ceit on  Isaac.  Hitherto  the  two  sins  shared  the 
wanderings  of  Isaac  in  the  South  Country;  but 
now  Jacob,  in  his  78th  year,  was  sent  from  the 
family  home,  to  avoid  his  brother,  and  to  seek  a 
wife  among  his  kindred  in  Padan-aram.  As  he 
passed  through  IJethel,  God  appeared  to  him. 
After  the  lapse  of  21  years  he  returned  from  Padan- 
aram  with  two  wives,  two  concubines,  eleven  sons, 
and  a  daughter,  and  large  property.  He  escaped 
from  the  angry  pursuit  of  Laban,  from  a  rencontre 
with  Esau,  and  from  the  vengeance  of  the  Canaan- 
.tes  provoked  by  the  murder  of  Shechem ;  and  in 
each  of  those  three  emergencies  he  was  aided  and 
itrengthened  by  the  interposition  of  God,  and  in 
lign  of  the  grace  won  by  a  night  of  wrestling  with 
God  his  name  was  changed  at  Jabbok  into  Israel 
("soldier  of  God").  Deborah  and  Rachel  died 
before  he  reached  Hetron ;  and  it  was  at  Hebron, 
in  the  122d  year  of  his  age,  that  he  and  Esau 
buried  their  father  Isaac.  Joseph,  the  favorite  son 
■>f  Jacob,  was  sold  into  Egypt  eleven  years  before 
the  death  of  Isaac;  and  Jacob  had  probably  ex- 
ceeded his  130th  year  when  he  went  thither,  being 
encouraged  in  a  divine  vision  as  he  passed  for  the 
last  time  through  Beer-sheba.  He  was  presented 
'o  Pharaoh,  and  dwelt  for  seventeen  years  in  Ram- 
Mes  and  Goshen.  After  giving  his  solemn  blessing 
40  £phrainl  and  Manasseh,  and  his  own  sons  one 


JACOB 

by  one,  and  charging  the  ten  to  complete  then 
reconciliation  with  Joseph,  he  died  in  his  147tli 
year.  His  body  was  embalmed,  carried  with  greaf 
care  and  pomp  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  depos- 
ited with  his  fathers,  and  his  wife  Leah,  iii  the  cave 
of  Machjielah. 

The  example  of  Jacob  is  quoted  by  the  first  and 
the  last  of  the  minor  prophets.  Hosea,  in  the  lat- 
ter days  of  the  kingdom,  seeks  (xii.  3,  4,  12)  to 
convert  the  descendants  of  Jacob  from  their  state 
of  alienation  from  God,  by  recalling  to  their  mem- 
ory the  repeated  acts  of  God's  favor  slicwn  to  their 
ancestor.  And  Malachi  (i.  2)  strengthens  the  de- 
sponding hearts  of  the  returned  exiles  by  assuring 
them  that  the  love  which  God  bestowed  upon  Jacob 
was  not  withheld  from  them.  Besides  the  fr«^uent 
mention  of  his  name  in  conjunction  with  tl  0f«  of 
the  other  two  Patriarchs,  there  are  distinct  refer- 
ences to  events  in  the  life  of  Jacob  in  four  books 
of  the  N.  T.  In  Rom.  ix.  11-13,  St.  Paul  adduces 
the  history  of  Jacob's  birth  to  prove  that  the  favor 
of  God  is  independent  of  the  order  of  natural  de- 
scent. In  Heb.  xii.  16,  and  xi.  21,  the  transfer  of 
the  birthright  and  Jacob's  dying  benediction  are 
referred  to.  His  vision  at  Bethel,  and  his  posses- 
sion of  land  at  Shechem  are  cited  in  St.  John  i. 
51,  and  iv.  5,  12.  And  St.  Stephen,  in  his  speech 
(Acts  vii.  12-16),  mentions  the  famine  which  was 
the  means  of  restoring  Jacob  to  his  lost  son  in 
Eg^-pt,  and  the  burial  of  the  patriach  in  Shechem. 

Such  are  the  events  of  Jacob's  life  recorded  in 
Scripture.  Some  of  them  require  additional  no- 
tice. 

1.  For  the  sale  of  his  birthright  to  Jacob,  Esau 
is  branded  in  the  N.  T.  as  a  "  profane  person  " 
(Heb.  xii.  16).  The  following  sacred  and  impor- 
tant privileges  have  been  mentioned  as  connected 
with  primogeniture  in  patriarchal  times,  and  as 
constituting  the  object  of  Jacob's  desire,  (a.)  Su- 
perior rank  in  the  family:  see  Gen.  xlix.  3,  4.  (6.) 
A  double  portion  of  the  lather's  property ;  so  Aben 
Ezra:  see  Deut.  xxi.  17,  and  Gen.  xlviii.  22.  (c.) 
The  priestly  office  in  the  patriarchal  church :  see 
Num.  viii.  17-19.  In  favor  of  this,  see  Jerome 
ad  Evang.  Kp.  Lxxiii.  §  6 ;  Jarchi  in  Gen.  xxv. ; 
Estius  in  Ihhr.  xii.;  Shuckford's  Cimnexion,  bk. 
vii.;  Blunt,  Undes.  Coincid.  pt.  i.  1,  §§  2,  3;  and 
against  it,  Vitringa,  Ob$.  Sac,  and  J.  D.  Michaelis, 
Mosuisch.  liecld,  ii.  §  64,  cited  by  Rosenmiiller  in 
Gen.  xxv.  {d.)  A  conditional  promise  or  adumbra- 
tion of  the  heavenly  inheritance:  see  Cartwright 
in  the  Crit.  Sacr.  on  Gen.  xxv.  (e.)  The  promise 
of  the  Seed  in  which  all  nations  should  be  blessed, 
though  not  included  in  the  birthright,  may  have 
been  so  regarded  by  the  patriarchs,  as  it  was  by 
their  descendants,  Rom.  ix.  8,  and  Shuckford,  viii. 

The  whole  sulyect  has  been  treated  in  separate 
essays  by  Vitringa  in  his  Obs.  Sac.  pt.  i.  11,  §  2; 
also  by  J.  H.  Hottinger,  and  by  J.  J.  Schroder, 
cited  by  Winer. 

2.  With  regard  to  Jacob's  acquisition  of  his 
father's  blessing,  ch.  xxvii.,  few  persons  will  accept 
the  excuse  oflered  by  Augustine,  Serm.  iv.  §  22, 
23,  for  the  deceit  which  he  practiced  —  that  it  waj 
merely  a  figurative  action,  and  that  his  personatior. 
of  Rsau  was  justified  by  his  previous  jurchaseof 
Esau's  birthright.  It  is  not  however  necessary 
with  the  view  of  cherishing  a  Christian  hatr-d  of 
sin,  to  heap  opprobrious  epithets  upon  a  fallibia 
man  whom  the  choice  of  God  has  rendered  ven- 
erable in  the  eyes  of  believers.  ^Vaterland  (iv  208" 
speaks  of  the  conduct  of  Jacob  in  language  whkk 


JACOB 

II  tiiither  wantuig  in  reverence  nor  likely  to  en- 
jourage  the  extenuation  of  guilt.  "I  do  not  know 
whether  it  be  justi/iable  in  every  particular:  1  sus- 
pect that  it  is  not.  There  W:3re  several  very  good 
and  laudable  circumstances  in  what  Jacob  and  Ke- 
bekah  did ;  but  I  do  not  take  upon  me  to  acquit 
them  of  all  blame."  And  Blunt  (Uncles.  Coinc.) 
observes  that  none  "  of  the  patriarchs  can  be  set 
up  as  a  model  of  Christian  morals.  Tliey  lived 
under  a  code  of  laws  that  were  not  absolutely  good, 
perhaps  not  so  good  as  the  Le\itical :  for  as  this 
was  but  a  preparation  for  the  more  perfect  law  of 
Christ,  s )  possibly  was  the  patriarchal  but  a  prep- 
aration for  the  Law  of  Closes.''  The  circumstances 
which  led  to  this  unhappy  transaction,  and  the 
retribution  which  fell  upon  all  parties  concerned  in 
it,  have  been  carefully  discussed  by  Benson,  llulsenn 
Lectures  (1822)  on  Scripture  Difficulties,  xvi.  and 
xvii.  See  also  Woodgate's  Historical  Sermons^  ix. ; 
and  Maurice,  Patriarchs  and  Laiocjivers,  v.  On  the 
fulfillment  of  the  prophecies  concerning  Esau  and 
Jacob,  and  on  Jacob's  dying  blessing,  see  Bp.  Newton, 
Dissertations  on  the  Prophecies,  §§  iii.  and  iv. 

3.  Jacob's  vision  at  Bethel  is  considered  by 
Miegius  in  a  treatise,   De  Scald  Jncobi,  in  the 

Thesaurus  novus  Theokxjico-Philolofjicus,  i.  195. 
See  also  Augustine,  Serin,  cxxii.  His  stratagem 
with  Labau's  cattle  is  commented  on  by  Jerome, 

Qucest.  in  Gen.  0pp.  iii.  352,  and  by  Nitschmann, 
De  coryU)  Jacobi  in  Tlies.  nor.  Theol.-Phil.  i.  201. 

4.  Jacob's  polygamy  is  an  instance  of  a  patri- 
archal practice  quite  repugnant  to  Christian  moral- 
ity, but  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  that  the 
time  had  not  then  come  for  a  full  expression  of  the 
will  of  God  on  this  subject.  The  mutual  rights  of 
husband  and  wife  were  recognized  in  the  history 
of  the  Creation;  but  instances  of  polygamy  are 
frequent  among  persons  mentioned  in  the  sacred 
records  from  Lamech  (Gen.  iv.  19)  to  Herod 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  1,  §  2).  In  times  when  frequent 
wars  increased  the  number  of  captives  and  orphans, 
and  reduced  nearly  all  service  to  slavery,  there  may 
have  been  some  reason  for  extending  the  recognition 
and  protection  of  the  law  to  concubines  or  half- 
wives  as  Bilhah  and  Zilpah.  And  in  the  case  of 
Jacob,  it  is  right  to  bear  in  mind  that  it  was  not 
his  original  intention  to  marry  both  the  daughters 
of  Laban.  (See  on  this  subject  Augustine,  Contra 
Faustum,  xxii.  47-54.) 

5.  Jacob's  wrestling  with  the  angel  at  Jabbok  is 
the  subject  of  Augustine's  Sernw  v. ;  compare  with 
it  De  Cicitate  Dei,  xvi.  39. 

In  Jacob  may  be  traced  a  combination  of  the 
quiet  patience  of  his  father  with  the  acquisitiveness 
which  seems  to  have  marked  his  mother's  family; 
and  in  I-'sau,  as  in  Ishmael,  the  migratory  and  in- 
dependent character  of  Abraham  was  developed  into 
the  enterprising  habits  of  a  warlike  hunter-chief. 
Jacob,  whose  history  occupies  a  larger  space,  leaves 
on  the  reader's  mind  a  less  favorable  impression 
than  either  of  the  other  patriarchs  with  whom  he 
is  joined  in  equal  honor  in  the  N.  T.  (Matt.  viii. 
11).  But  in  considering  his  character  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  we  know  not  what  limits  were 
»et  in  those  days  to  the  knowledge  of  God  and  the 
umctifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Soirit.  A  timid, 
Jioughtful  boy  would  acquire  no  sejf-reliance  in  a 
Deluded  home.  There  was  little  scope  for  the 
sxercise  of  intelligence,  wide  synjpathy,  generosity, 
"rankness.  Growing  up  a  stranger  to  the  great 
joys  and  g~«at  sorrows  of  natural  life  —  deaths,  and 
•ladlock,  and  births ;  ir.'u-ed  to  caution  and  restrauit 


JACOB 


1198 


in  the  presence  of  a  more  vigorous  brother;  secret^ 
stimulated  by  a  behef  that  God  designed  for  him 
some  superior  blessing,  Jacob  was  perhaps  in  a  fsui 
way  to  become  a  narrow,  selfish,  deceitful,  disap- 
pointed man.  But,  after  dwelling  for  more  than 
half  a  life-time  in  soHtude,  he  is  driven  from  home 
by  the  provoked  hostility  of  his  more  powerful 
brother.  Then  in  deep  and  bitter  sorrow  the  out- 
cast begins  life  afresh  long  after  youth  has  passed, 
and  finds  himself  brought  first  of  all  unexpectedly 
into  that  close  personal  communion  with  God  which 
elevates  the  soul,  and  then  into  that  enlarged  inter- 
course with  men  which  is  capable  of  drawing  out 
all  the  better  feelings  of  human  nature.  An  unseen 
world  was  opened.  God  revived  and  renewed  to 
him  that  slumbering  promise  over  which  he  had 
brooded  for  threescore  years,  since  he  learned  it  in 
childhood  from  hie  mother.  Angels  conversed  Av^th 
him.  Gradually  he  felt  more  and  more  the  watch- 
ful care  of  an  ever  present  spiritual  Father.  Face 
to  face  he  wrestled  with  the  liepresentative  of  the 
Almighty.  And  so,  even  though  the  moral  conse- 
quences of  his  early  transgressions  hung  about  him, 
and  saddened  him  with  a  deep  knowledge  of  all  the 
evil  of  treachery  and  domestic  envy,  and  partial 
judgment,  and  filial  disobedience,  yet  the  increasing 
revelations  of  God  enlightened  the  old  age  of  the 
patriarch;  and  at  last  the  timid  "  supplanter,"  the 
man  of  subtle  devices,  waiting  for  the  salvation  of 
Jehovah,  dies  the  "  soldier  of  God  "  uttering  the 
messages  of  God  to  his  remote  posterity. 

For  reflections  on  various  incidents  in  Jacob's 
life,  see  Bp.  Hall's  Contemplations,  Ik.  iii.  Many 
rabbinical  legends  concerning  him  may  be  found 
in  Eisenmenger's  Entd.  Judenthum,  and  in  the 
Jerusalem  Targum.  In  the  Koran  he  is  often 
mentioned  in  conjunction  with  the  other  two  patri- 
archs (ch.  2,  and  elsewhere).  AV.  T.  B. 

*  Some  of  the  other  writers  on  the  subject  of 
this  article  may  be  mentioned :  Hess,  Geschichte  der 
Patriarchen,  ii.  67-423,  the  fullest  of  his  Scripture 
histories.  Kurtz,  Geschichte  des  A.  Bundes,  i.  239- 
338,  valuable  as  a  historical  sketch,  and  for  its 
vindication  of  the  narrative  against  objections. 
Ranke,  Untersuchungen  iiber  den  Pentateuch,  i. 
50  ff.  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israels,  i.  489- 
519  (3te  Aufl.).  Drechsler,  especially  on  Jacob's 
and  F^au's  character.  Die  Kinheit  und  Echtheii 
der  Genesis,  pp.  230-237.  Winer,  Bealw.  i.  522  fF. 
Auberlen,  "  Jakob  "  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  vi. 
373-378.  Wunderlich,  "  Jakob  "  in  Zeller's  Bibl 
Worlerb.  i.  649-050.  Heim,  Bibelstunden,  1845. 
Kitto,  Daily  Biblical  Illustrations,  with  additions 
by  J.  L.  Porter,  i.  294-335  (ed.  1866).  Thomson, 
Land  and  Book,  ii.  23-29,  354  f ,  398  f.  Blunt. 
Veracity  of  the  Book  of  Moses,  ch.  viii.  Milman, 
History  of  the  Jews,  i.  75-108.  Stanley,  I^ectureA 
on  the  History  of  the  Jeicish  Church,  i.  58-89 
(Amer.  ed.).  Quarry,  Genesis  and  it3  Authorship, 
pp.  482-508,  566-575  (Lond.  1866).  Theiwrtions 
of  Genesis  relating  to  Jacob  are  fully  and  ably 
treated  here  in  opposition  to  critics  of  the  Colenao 
school.  See  Hauan  (Amer.  ed.)  for  supposed  dif- 
ficulties connected  with  Jacob's  flight  from  Meso- 
potamia. 

Dean  Stanley  takes  decided  ground  against  those 
who  entertain  a  disparaging  view  of  Jacob's  char- 
acter as  compared  with  that  of  Esau.  We  quote 
a  part  of  his  reply  to  that  adverse  opinion :  "  Tak- 
ing the  tM'O  from  first  to  last,  how  entirely  is  the 
I  judgment  of  Scripture  and  the  judgment  of  po«^- 
I  terity  confi-med  by  the  result  of  the  whole.     Th« 


1194  JACUBUS 

mere  impulsive  hunter  vanishes  away,  light  as  air: 
he  did  eat  and  drink,  and  rose  up  and  went  his 
iray.  Thus  Esau  despised  his  birthright.'  The 
substance,  the  strength  of  the  chosen  family,  the 
true  inheritance  of  the  promise  of  Abraham,  was 
Interwoven  with  the  very  essence  of  the  character 
of  the  'plain  man,  dwelling  in  tents,'  steady,  perse- 
vering, moving  onward  with  deliberate  settled  pur- 
pose, through  years  of  suffering  and  of  prosperity, 
of  exile  and  retuni,  of  bereavement  and  recovery. 
The  birthright  is  always  before  him.  liacbel  is 
won  from  Lal)an  by  hard  services,  '  and  the  seven 
years  seemed  unto  him  but  a  few  days  for  the  love 
he  had  to  her.'  Isaac  and  Kebekah,  and  Rebekah's 
nnrse,  are  remembered  with  a  faithful,  filial  remem- 
brance; Joseph  and  IJenjamin  are  long  and  pas- 
sionately lo\ed  with  a  more  than  parental  affection, 
—  bringing  down  his  gray  hairs  for  their  sakes  '  in 
sorrow  to  the  grave.'  This  is  no  character  to  be 
contemned  or  scoffed  at;  if  it  was  encompassed 
with  much  infinnity,  yet  its  very  complexity  de- 
mands our  reverent  attention ;  in  it  are  bound  up, 
as  his  double  name  expresses,  not  one  man,  but 
two;  by  toil  and  stru<.';gle,  Jacob,  the  Supplanter, 
is  gradually  transformed  into  Israel,  the  Prince  of 
God ;  the  harsher  and  baser  features  are  softened 
and  purified  away;  he  looks  back  over  his  long  ca- 
reer with  the  fullness  of  experience  and  humility. 
*  I  am  not  worthy  of  the  least  of  all  the  mercies  and 
of  all  the  truth  which  thou  hast  shown  unto  thy 
servant '  (Gen.  xxxii.  10).  Alone  of  the  patriarchal 
family,  his  end  is  recorded  as  invested  with  the  so- 
lemnity of  warning  and  of  prophetic  song,  'Gather 
yourselves  together,  ye  sons  of  Jacob;  and  hearken 
unto  Israel  jour  fiither.'  We  need  not  fear  to 
acknowledge  that  the  God  of  Abraham  and  the 
God  of  Isaac  was  also  the  God  of  Jacob."  (Jewish 
Church,  p.  59  f.)  H. 

JACU'BUS  CldKovPoi;  [Vat.  lopcroujSoos :] 
Acctihus),  1  Ksilr.  ix.  48.     [Akkuu,  4.] 

JA'DA  (Vl^  [knoim,  skWj'ut] :  'laSa^,  and  at 
\er.  32,  AaSaf,  [Vat.  l5ov5a,]  Alex.  USSue  ' 
[/arfa]),  son  of  Onam,  and  brother  of  Shammai, 
in  the  genealogy  of  the  sons  of  Jerahmeel  by  his 
wife  Atarah  (I'Chr.  ii.  28,  32).  This  genealogy 
is  very  corrupt  in  the  LXX.,  especially  in  the 
Vatican  Codex.  A.  C.  II. 

JA'DAU    [2  syl.]   (I^T^  but  the  Ken  has 

^^'^,  I.  e.  Yaddai  [favwite,  friend,  Fiirst]  :  'laSo^; 
n^at.  A5ia :]  Jeddu),  one  of  the  Bene-Nebo  who 
had  taken  a  foreign  wife,  and  was  compelled  by 
Ezra  to  relinquish  her  [Ezr.  x.  43). 

JADDU'A  (17^"^^  \knoiimy.  'laSo^,  'I5o.5o; 
[in  Neh.  xii.  22,  Yat.  laSoy,  FA.i  ASouO  Jeddoa), 
son,  and  successor  in  the  high-priesthood,  of  Jon- 
athan or  Johanan.  He  is  the  last  of  the  high- 
priests  mentioned  in  the  0.  T.,  and  probably  alto- 
gether the  latest  name  in  the  canon  (Neh.  xii.  11, 
22),  at  least  if  1  Chr.  iii.  22-24  is  admitted  to  be 
corrupt  (see  Geneal.  of  our  Loi-d,  pp.  101,  107). 
Ilis  name  marks  distinctly  the  time  when  tlie  latest 
additions  were  made  to  the  book  of  Nehemiah  and 
the  canon  of  Scripture,  and  j^erh a jjs  aflfords  a  clew 
to  the  age  of  Malachi  the  prophet.  All  that  we 
learn  concerning  him  in  Scripture  is  the  fact  of  his 
Teing  the  son  of  Jonathan,  and  high-priest.  We 
^ther  also  pretty  certainly  that  he  was  priest  in 
the  reign  of  the  last  Persian  king  Darius,  and  that 
V  wai  8tiU  high-priest  after  the  Persian  dynasty 


JABL 

was  overthrown,  t.  c.  in  the  reigi  of  Alexander  thi 
Great.  For  the  expression  "  Dar  us  the  Persian  *■ 
must  have  been  used  after  the  accession  of  the 
Grecian  dynasty,  and  had  another  high-priest  suc- 
ceeded, his  name  would  most  likely  ha>e  been  men- 
tioned. Thus  far  then  the  book  of  Nehemiah  bean 
out  the  truth  of  Josephus's  history,  which  makes 
Jaddua  high-priest  when  Alexander  invaded  Jud«a. 
But  the  story  of  his  interview  with  Alexander 
[HiGii-Pi;ii-:sT,  vol.  ii.  p.  1072  b]  does  not  on  that 
account  deserve  credit,  nor  his  account  of  the  build- 
ing of  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  during  Jad- 
dua's  pontificate,  at  the  instigation  of  Sanballat 
both  of  which,  as  well  as  the  accompanying  circum- 
stances, are  probably  derived  from  some  apocryi)hal 
book  of  Alexandrian  growth,  since  lost,  in  whiiii 
chronology  and  history  gave  way  to  romance  and 
Jewish  vanity.  Josephus  seems  to  place  the  death 
of  Jaddua  after  that  of  Alexander  (A.  J.  xi.  8,  §  7). 
Eusebius  assigns  20  years  to  Jaddua's  pontificate 
{Gentol  of  our  Lwd,  323  AT.;  Selden,  de  Succ; 
Prideaux,  etc.).  A.  C.  II. 

JADDU'A  {V^1''_  [as  above] :  'uSSoia  [Vat. 
FA.i  omit;]  Alex.  USSovk'-  Jeddua),  one  of  the 
chief  of  the  people,  i.  e.  of  the  laymen,  who  sealed 
the  covenant  with  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  21). 

JA'DON  (I'T^;  [jitdije-]  :  Evdpuv  in  both 
MSS.  [rather,  in  the  Roman  ed.;  Vat.  Alex.  FA.i 
omit] :  Jadvn),  a  man,  who  in  company  with  the 
Gibeonites  and  the  men  of  Mizpah  assisted  to  repair 
the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  7).  His  title,  "  the 
Meronothite"  (comp.  1  Chr.  xxvii.  30),  and  the 
mention  of  Gibeonites,  would  seem  to  point  to  a 
place  Meronoth,  and  that  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Giheon;  but  no  such  place  has  yet  been  traced. 

Jadon  ClaSuy)  is  the  name  attributed  by  Jose- 
phus {Afit.  viii.  8,  §  5)  to  the  man  of  God  from 
Judah,  who  withstood  Jeroboam  at  the  altar  at 
Bethel  —  probably  intending  Iddo  the  seer.  By 
Jerome  (Qu.  Iltbr.  on  2  Chr.  ix.  29)  the  name  is 
given  as  Jaddo. 

JA'EL  (^3?**  [climber,  Fiirst,  and  hence  tciUl 
ffoni]:  Hex.  Syr.  Annel:  'la^A;  Joseph.  'IoAtj: 
Jahel),  the  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite.  Heber  was 
the  chief  of  a  nomadic  Arab  clan,  who  had  sep- 
arated from  the  rest  of  his  tribe,  and  had  pitched 
his  tent  under  the  oaks,  which  had  in  consequence 
received  the  name  of  "oaks  of  the  wanderers" 
(A.  V.  plain  of  Zaanaim,  Judg.  iv.  11),  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Kedesh-Naphthah.  [Heber; 
Kenites.]  The  tribe  of  Heber  had  secured  the 
quiet  enjoyment  of  their  pastures  by  adopting  a 
neutral  position  in  a  troublous  period.  Their 
descent  irom  Jethro  secured  them  the  favorable 
regard  of  the  Israelites,  and  they  were  suflS  jiently 
important  to  conclude  a  formal  peace  with  Jabin 
king  of  Hazor. 

In  th3  headlong  rout  which  followed  the  defeat 
of  the  Canaanites  by  Barak,  Sisera,  abandoning  his 
chariot  the  more  easily  to  avoid  notice  (comp.  Horn. 
Jl.  V.  20),  fled  unattended,  and  in  an  opposite 
direction  from  that  taken  by  his  army,  to  the  tent 
of  the  Kenite  chieftainess.  "The  tent  of  Jael" 
is  expressly  mentioned  either  because  the  harem 
of  Heber  was  in  a  separate  tent  (Rosenmiiller, 
Moi-genl.  iii.  22),  or  because  the  Kenite  himself 
was  absent  at  the  time.  In  the  sacred  seclusion 
of  tliis  almost  inviolable  sanctuary,  Sisera  migbl 
well  have  felt  himself  absolutely  socure  from  fh« 
incursions  of  the  enemy  (Calmet,  Fraym.  xxt.» 


L 


JAEL 

ind  although  he  intended  to  take  refuge  among  the 
Kenites,  he  would  not  have  ventured  so  openly  to 
dolate  all  idea  of  oriental  propriety  by  entering  a 
woman's  apartments  (D'llerbelot,  B'tbL  Orient. 
s.  V.  "  Haram"),  had  he  not  received  Jael's  express, 
earnest,  and  respectful  entreaty  to  do  so.  He  ac- 
cepted the  invitation,  and  she  flung  a  mantle  «  over 
him  as  he  lay  wearily  on  the  floor.  When  thirst 
prevented  sleep,  and  he  asked  for  water,  she  brou2;ht 
him  butter-milk  in  her  choicest  vessel,  thus  ratify- 
ing with  the  semblance  of  officious  zeal  the  sacred 
l)ond  of  eastern  hospitality.  Wine  would  ha\'e 
been  less  suitable  to  quench  his  thirst,  and  may 
possibly  have  been  eschewed  by  Ileber's  clan  (Jer. 
.Kxxv.  2).  Butter-milk,  according  to  the  quotations 
in  Ilarmer,  is  still  a  favorite  Arab  beverage,  and 
that  this  is  the  drink  intended  we  infer  from 
Judges  v.  25,  as  well  as  from  the  dii-ect  statement 
of  Josephus  {yaKa  SiecpOophs  i}Sr],  Ant.  v.  5,  §  4), 
although  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  with  Josephus 
and  the  Rabbis  (D.  Kimchi,  Jarchi,  etc.),  that  Jael 
purposely  used  it  because  of  its  soporific  qualities 
(Bochart,  Ilieroz.  i.  473).  But  anxiety  still  pre- 
vented Sisera  from  composing  himself  to  rest,  until 
he  had  exacted  a  promise  from  his  protectress  that 
she  would  faithfully  preserve  the  secret  of  his  con- 
cealment ;  till  at  last,  with  a  feeling  of  perfect 
security,  the  weary  and  unfortunate  general  resigned 
himself  to  the  deep  sleep  of  misery  and  fetigue. 
Then  it  was  that  Jael  took  in  her  left  hand  one 
of  the  great  wooden''  pins  (A.  V.  "nail")  which 
fastened  down  the  cords  of  the  tent,  and  in  her 
right  hand  the  mallet  (A.  V.  '<  a  hammer")  used 
to  drive  it  into  the  ground,  and  creeping  up  to  her 
Bleeping  and  confiding  guest,  with  one  terrible  blow 
dashed  it  through  Sisera's  temples  deep  into  the 
earth.  With  one  spasm  of  fruitless  agony,  with 
one  contortion  of  sudden  pain,  "  at  her  feet  he 
bowed,  he  fell ;  where  he  bowed,  there  he  fell  down 
dead  "  (Judg.  v.  27).  She  then  waited  to  meet 
the  pursuing  Barak,  and  led  him  into  her  tent  that 
she  might  in  his  presence  claim  the  glory  of  the 
deed! 

Many  have  supposed  that  by  this  act  she  ful- 
filled the  saying  of  Deborah,  that  God  would  sell 
Sisera  into  the  hand  of  a  woman  (Judg.  iv.  9; 
Joseph,  v.  5,  §  4);  and  hence  they  have  supposed 
that  Jael  was  actuated  by  some  divine  and  hidden 
influence.  But  the  Bible  gives  no  hint  of  such  an 
inspiration,  and  it  is  at  least  equally  probable  that 
Deborah  merely  intended  to  intimate  the  share  of 
the  honor  which  would  be  assigned  by  posterity  to 
her  own  exertions.  If  therefore  we  eliminate  the 
still  more  monstrous  supposition  of  the  Rabbis  that 
Sisera  was  slain  by  Jael  because  he  attempted  to 
offer  her  violence  —  the  murder  will  appear  in  all 
its  hideous  atrocity.  A  fugitive  had  asked,  and 
received  dakheel  (or  protection)  at  her  hands,  —  he 
was  miserable,  defeated,  weary,  —  he  was  the  ally 
of  her  husband,  —  he  was  her  invited  and  honored 
guest,  —  he  was  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  haram,  — 
nbove  all,  he  was  confiding,  defenseless,  and  asleep; 
fet  she  broke  her  pledged  faith,  violated  her  solemn 
hospitality,  and  murdered  a  trustful  and  unpro- 
ected  slumberer.  Surely  we  require  the  clearest 
fid  most  positive  statement  that  Jael  was  insti- 
gated to  such  a  murder  by  divine  suggestion. 

a  "Mantle"  is  heie  inaccurate;  the  word  is 
n!3'^X2't^n—  with  the  definite  article.  But  as  the 
wm  10  not  foimd  elsewhere,  it  is  nOw  possible  te"  rec- 


JAH  1196 

But  it  may  be  asked,  "Has  not  the  deed  of 
Jael  been  pi-aised  by  an  inspired  authority?'' 
"  Blessed  above  women  shall  Jael  the  wife  of  Hebei 
the  Kenite  be,  blessed  shall  she  be  above  women  in 
the  tent "  (Jadg.  v.  24).  Without  stopping  to  ask 
when  and  where  Deborah  claims  for  herself  any 
infallibihty,  or  whether,  in  the  passionate  moment 
of  patriotic  triumph,  she  was  likely  to  pause  in  such 
wild  times  to  scrutinize  the  moral  bearings  of  an 
act'  which  had  been  so  splendid  a  benefit  to  herself 
and  her  people,  we  may  question  whether  any  moral 
commendation  is  directly  intended.  What  Debo- 
rah stated  was  a  fact,  namely,  that  the  wives  of 
the  nomad  Arabs  would  undoubtedly  regard  JacJ 
as  a  public  benefactress,  and  praise  her  as  a  popular 
heroine. 

The  suggestion  of  Gesenius  (Tltes.  p.  608  A), 
HoUmann,  and  others,  that  the  Jael  alluded  to  in 
Judg.  V.  6  is  not  the  wife  of  Heber,  but  some  un- 
known Israelitish  judge,  appears  to  us  extremely 
unlikely,  especially  as  the  name  Jael  must  almost 
certainly  be  the  name  of  a  woman  (Prov.  v.  19,  A. 
V.  "  roe  ").  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  phrase  "  in  the  days  of  Jael  "  is  one  which 
we  should  hardly  have  expected.  F.  W.  F. 

*  This  view  of  Gesenius  that  Jael  (Judg.  v.  6), 
is  the  name  of  a  judge  otherwise  unknown,  is  also 
that  of  Filrst,  Bertheau,  Wordsworth,  and  others. 
The  name  is  masculine,  and  very  properly  used  of 
a  man,  though  such  names  were  often  borne  by 
women.  Cassel  {Rlchter  und  Ruth,  p.  50)  denies 
that  the  wife  of  Heber  can  be  meant  in  this  in- 
stance, since  Deborah  was  contemporary  with  her, 
and  would  hardly  designate  her  own  days  as  those 
of  Jael.  But  to  suppose  with  him  that  Shamgar 
mentioned  in  the  other  line  is  called  Jael  (="  active," 
"  chivalrous")  merely  as  a  compHmentary  epithet, 
seems  far-fetched.  From  the  order  of  the  names, 
if  this  Jael  was  one  of  the  judges,  we  should  be  led 
to  place  his  time  between  Shamgar  and  Barak,  and 
so  have  a  more  distinct  enumeration  of  the  long 
series  of  years  during  which  the  land  was  afflicted 
before  the  deUverance  achieved  by  Deborah  and  her 
allies.  ,  H. 

JA'GUR  (T^'^O^  [lodging-place] :  'Acrwp ;  Alex. 
layoup:  Jagur),  a  town  of  Judah,  one  of  those 
furthest  to  the  south,  on  the  frontier  of  Edom  (Josh. 
XV.  21).  Kabzeel,  one  of  its  companions  in  the 
list,  recurs  subsequently;  but  Jagur  is  not  again 
met  with,  nor  has  the  name  been  encountered  in 
the  imperfect  explorations  of  that  dreary  region. 
The  Jagur,  quoted  by  Schwarz  (p.  99)  from  th# 
Talmud  as  one  of  the  boundaries  of  the  territory  of 
Ashkelon,  must  have  been  further  to  the  N.  W. 

G. 

JAH  (n^:  Kvpios-  Dominus).  The  abbre^ 
viated  form  of  "Jehovah,"  used  only  in  poetrj- 
It  occurs  frequently  in  the  Hebrew,  but  with  a  sin- 
gle exception  (Ps.  Ixviii.  4)  is  rendered  "Lord"  in 
the  A.  V.  The  identity  of  Jah  and  Jehovah  ia 
strongly  marked  in  two  passages  of  Isaiah  (xii.  2, 
xxvi.  4),  the  force  of  which  is  greatly  weakened  by 
the  English  rendering  "the  Lord."  The  former 
of  these  should  be  translated  "  for  my  strength  and 
song  is  Jaii  Jehovah  "  (comp.  Ex.  xv.  2);  and 
the  latter,  "  trust  ye  in  Jehovah  for  ever,  for  in 


ognize  what  the  Semicah  was.     Probably  some  part 
of  the  regular  furniture  of  the  tent. 

ft  Tiao-craAos,   LXX.  ;   but  according   tt   Jo»*pIliil 


1196 


JAHATH 


Jah  Jehovah  is  the  rock  of  agw."  "  Praise  ye 
the  Lord,"  or  Hallelujah,  should  be  in  all  caaes 
"praise  ye  Jali."  In  Ps.  Ixxxix.  8  [9]  Jah  stands 
In  parallelism  with  "Jehovah  the  God  of  hosts" 
in  a  passage  which  is  wTongly  translated  in  our 
version.  It  should  be  "  0  Jehovah,  God  of  hosts, 
who  like  thee  is  strong,  O  Jah !  "        \V.  A.  W. 

JA'HATH  {r\'n'^_  [oneiiess,  union']  :  'Ue, 
['Iee0;  Vat.  UfO,  Hxa:  Jahaih]).  1.  Son.  of 
Libni,  the  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Levi  (1  Chr. 
vi.  20,  A.  v.).  He  was  ancestor  to  Asaph  (ver. 
43). 

2.  ['l€0:  Leheih.]  Head  of  a  later  house  in 
the  family  of  Gershom,  being  the  eldest  son  of 
Shimei,  the  son  of  Laadan.  The  house  of  Jahath 
existed  in  David's  time  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  10,  11). 

A.  C.  IL 

3.  ('Ie0;  Alex,  omits:  [Jnhath.'])  A  man  in 
the  genealogy  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  2),  son  of  Keaiah 
ben-Shobal.  His  sons  were  Ahumai  and  Lahad, 
the  families  of  the  Zorathites.  If  Keaiah  and 
Haroeh  are  identical,  Jahath  was  a  descendant  of 
Caleb  ben-Hur.     [Hakoeh.] 

4.  (['Ic{0;  Vat.]  Alex,  li/ad.)  A  Levite,  son  of 
Shelomoth,  the  representative  of  the  Kohathite 
femily  of  IzHAR  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  22). 

5.  ['l€0;  Vat.  t?;  Comp.  'Ioe0.]  A  Merarite 
Levite  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  one  of  the  overseers 
of  the  rejwirs  to  the  Temple  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  12). 

JA'HAZ,  also  JAHA'ZA,  JAHA'ZAH, 
and  JAH'ZAH.  Under  these  four  forms  are 
given  in  the  A.  V.  the  name  of  a  place  which  in 

the  Hebrew  appears  as  V"?!  and  n^ri^,  the  H 
being  in  some  cases  —  as  Num.  and  Deut.  —  the 
particle  of  motion,  but  elsewhere  an  integral  addi- 
tion to  the  name.  It  has  been  uniformly  so  taken 
by  the  LXX.,  who  have  'lacffd,  and  twice  'laca 
[once,  namely,  Judg.  xi.  20,  where  Alex,  reads 
la-paTjX].  Jahaz  is  found  Num.  xxi.  23;  Deut. 
ii.  32;  Judg.  xi.  20;  Is.  xv.  4;  Jer.  xlviii.  34.    In 

the  two  latter  only  is  it  V*^*^*  without  the  final 

n.     The  Samaritan   Cod.   has    niJn*» :   Vulg. 

Jcua. 

At  Jahaz  the  decisive  battle  was  fought  between 
the  children  of  Israel  and  Sihon  king  of  the  Amo- 
rites,  which  ended  in  the  overthrow  of  the  latter 
and  in  the  occupation  by  Israel  of  the  whole  pas- 
toral country  included  between  the  Arnon  and  the 
Jabbok,  the  Belka  of  the  modern  Arabs  (Num. 
Kxi.  23;  Deut.  ii.  32;  Judg.  xi.  20).  It  was  in 
the  allotment  of  Keuben  (Josh.  xiii.  18),  though 
not  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of  Num.  xxxii.; 
Mid  it  was  given  with  its  suburbs  to  the  Merarite 
Lovites  (1  Chr.  vi.  78:  and  Josh.  xxi.  3G,  though 
here  omitted  in  the  ordinary  Hebrew  text). 

Jaliazah  occurs  in  the  denunciations  of  Jeremiah 
and  Isaiah  on  the  inhabitants  of  the  »  plain  coun- 
try," i.  e.  the  Mishor,  the  modern  Belka  (Jer.  xlviii. 
2J,  34;  Is.  XV.  4);  but  beyond  the  fact  that  at  this 
period  it  was  in  the  hands  of  Moab  we  know  noth- 
uig  of  its  history. 

Prom  the  terms  of  the  narrative  in  Num.  xxi. 
and  Deut.  ii.,  we  should  expect  that  Jahaz  was  in 
whe  extreme  south  part  of  the  temtory  of  Sihon, 
but  yet  north  of  the  river  Arnon  (see  Deut.  ii.  24, 
86;  and  the  words  in  31,  «♦  begin  to  possess  "),  and 
Q  exactly  this  position  a  site  named  Jazaza  is 
naentioned  by  Schwarz  (227),  though  by  him  only. 


JAHDAl 

But  this  does  not  agree  with  the  stats  inents  ol 

Eusebius  (Onom.  'Ifo-ca),  who  says  it  was  existiii| 
iz  his  day  between  Medeba  and  Arj^ovSj  by  which 
he  probably  intends  Dibon,  which  would  plac« 
Jahaz  considerably  too  far  to  the  north.  ljk« 
many  others  relating  to  the  places  east  of  the  Dead 
Sea,  this  question  must  await  further  research 
(See  Ewald,  Geachichte,  ii.  266,  271.)  G. 

JAHA'ZA  i'nV'n'^,  i.  e.  Yahtzah  [trodden 
down,  threshing-fiooi-]  :  Bacrdv,  Alex,  laaaa 
Jassn),  Josh.  xiii.  18,     [Jahaz.] 

JAHA'ZAH  ir^VTIl  [as  above]:  in  Jer, 
"Pe(f}ois,  in  both  MSS.;  [FA.i  VacpaO,  Comp.  'latr- 
ad-]  Jrtser,  Jasn),  Josh.  xxi.  36  (though  orcitted 
in  the  Rec.  Hebrew  Text,  and  not  recognizable  in 
the  LXX.  [perhaps  represented  by  'lo^^p]),  Jer. 
xlviii.  21.     [Jahaz.] 

JAHAZI'AH  (^iTH!,  i.  e.  Yacb'zeyah 
[lehom  Jehovah  behold$,  Ges.]:  'lottos;  [Vat. 
FA.i  Aa^eia']  Jaasia),  son  of  Tikvah,  apparently 
a  priest;  commemorated  as  one  of  the  four  who 
originally  sided  with  Ezra  in  the  matter  of  the 
foreign  wives  (Ezr.  x.  15).  In  Esdras  the  namt 
becomes  Ezechias. 

JAHA'ZIEL  (bS**Tn^  [whom  God  strength- 
ens]). 1.  Cle^j^A;  [Vat.'FA.  le^TjA:]  Jeheziel.) 
One  of  the  heroes  of  Benjamin  who  deserted  the 
cause  of  Saul  and  joined  David  when  he  was  at 
Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii.  4). 

2.  CoCtVJA  [Vat.  FA.'-2  oCfiV^']  Jodel.)  A 
priest  in  the  reign  of  David,  whose  office  it  was,  in 
conjunction  with  Benaiah,  to  blow  the  trumpet  at 
the  ministrations  before  the  ark,  when  David  had 
brought  it  to  Jerusalem  (1  Cor.  xvi.  6).      [High- 

I'KIKST.] 

3.  Cle^^i^A, 'loCtilA;  [Vat.  oCtr?A,  lao-T?;]  Alex. 
Io^jtjA:  [Jahaziel.])  A  Kohathite  Levite,  third 
son  of  Hebron.  His  house  is  mentioned  in  the  enu- 
meration of  the  Levites  in  the  time  of  David  (1 
Chr.  xxiii.  19;  xxi  v.  23).  A.  C.  H. 

4.  CoCi^A;  [Vat.  OCf'rjA;  Comp-  'leC'^A-'] 
Jahnziel.)  Son  of  Zechariah,  a  Levite  of  the 
Bene-Asaph,  who  was  inspired  by  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah  to  animate  Jehoshaphat  and  the  army  of 
Judah  in  a  moment  of  great  danger,  namely,  when 
they  were  anticipating  the  invasion  of  an  enormous 
horde  of  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Mehunims,  and 
other  barbarians  (2  Chr.  xx.  14).  Ps.  Ixxxiii.  is 
entitled  a  Psalm  of  Asaph,  and  this,  coupled  with 
the  mention  of  Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  and  others, 
in  hostility  to  Israel,  has  led  some  to  connect  it 
with  the  above  event.  [Gebal.]  But,  however 
desirable,  this  is  very  uncertain. 

5.  ('aC«^A;  [Vat.  Alex,  omit:]  Ezechiel.)  The 
"  son  of  Jahaziel "  was  the  chief  of  the  Bene-She- 
caniah  [sons  of  S.]  who  returned  from  Babylon 
with  lizra,  according  to  the  present  state  of  the 
Hebrew  text  (Ezr.  viii.  5).  But  according  to  the 
LXX.,  and  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Esdr.  (viii.  32), 
a  name  has  escaped  from  the  text,  and  it  should 
read,  "of  the  Bene-Zathoe  (probably  Zattu). 
Shecaniah  son  of  Jahaziel."  In  the  latter  plac« 
the  name  appears  as  Jezelus. 

JAHT>AI  [2  syl.]  (*'"!jn^  t.  e.  Yehdai  [whim 
Jehovah  leads]:  'ASSot;  [Vat.  Itjo-ou;]  Alex.  lo- 
Sot":  Jahoddai),  a  man  who  appears  to  be  thrust 
abruptly  into  the  peuealogy  of  Caleb,  as  the  fatha 
of  six  sons  (1  Dhr.  ii.  47).     Vwious  suggertiooi 


JAHDIEL 

tgtttdiag  the  name  have  been  made :  as  that  Ga- 
tes, the  name  preceding,  should  be  Jabdai;  that 
Jahdai  was  a  concubine  of  Caleb,  etc. :  but  these 
are  mere  groundless  suppositions  (see  Burrington, 
i.  2iG ;  IJertheau,  ad  lac. ). 

JAH'DIEL  (bS^^n^  lichom  God  makes 
joi(f'td]:  'U5i^\;  [Vat.  leAetTjA:]  Jediel),  one  of 
the  heroes  who  were  heads  of  the  half-tribe  of 
Manasseh  on  the  east  of  Jordan  (I  Chr.  v.  24). 

JAH'DO   0"^!!^   [united,  together]:   leSSat, 

as  if  the  name  had  orighially  been  "^in''  ;  conip. 
Jaasau,  Jadau;  [Vat.  loupei;  Comp.  'leSSci:] 
Jeddo),  a  Gadite  nained  in  the  genealogies  of  his 
tribe  (1  Chr.  v.  1-4)  as  the  son  of  Buz  and  father 
of  Jeshishai. 

JAHXEEL  (bsbn^  [hoping  in  God]  : 
'Axot^A;  Alex.  AAoTjA,  AAAtjA:  Jahelel,  [Jalel]), 
the  third  of  the  three  sons  of  Zebuhm  (Gen.  xlvi. 
14;  Num.  xxvi.  2G),  founder  of  the  family  of  the 
Jahi.kkmtes.  Nothing  is  heard  of  him  or  of 
his  descendants. 

JAH'LEELITES,  THE  Obw^n^n :  d 
'AAAtjAi  [Vat.  -Aet] :  Jalelitm).  A  branch  of  the 
tribe  of  Zebulon,  descendants  of  Jahleel  (Num. 
xxvi.  26).  W.  A.  W. 

JAH'MAI  [2  syl.]  C'ttn];  [whom  Jehova/i 
guards] :  'la/tot;  [Vat.  Ei'iKau  ;  Alex.  Ufiou' 
Jemni),  a  man  of  Issachar,  one  of  the  heads  of 
the  house  of  Tola  (1  Chr.  vii.  2). 

JAH'ZAH  (H-^n^  [a  2)lnce  stamped,  thresh- 
ing-floor]: 'laera;  [Vat.  omits:]  Jassa),  1  Chr.  vi. 
78.*  [.Jaiiaz.] 

JAH'ZEEL  (bSVn>  [God  apportions]  : 
'Ao-t-^A;  [Vat.i  in  Num.",  2orjA:]  Jasiel),  the  first 
of  the  four  sons  of  Naphtali  (Gen.  xlvi.  24),  founder 

of  the  family  of  the  Jaitzeei.ites  (v^^H^n, 
Num.  xxvi.  48).  His  name  is  once  again  men- 
tioned (1  Chr.  vii.  13)  in  the  slightly  different  form 
of  Jahziel. 

JAH'ZEELITES,  THE  O^^^H-L^  =  ^ 
'Ao-tr/Ai';  [Vat.l  2a7jA6J,  2.  m.  Ao-TjAet:]  Jesielitce). 
A  branch  of  the  Naphtalites,  descended  from  Jah- 
reel  (Num.  xxvi.  48). 

JAH'ZERAH  (nnyn!  [^fiom  God  leach 
iack]:  'ECipds  [or  'ECipi;' Vat.  leSetas;  Alex. 
U(pias'']  Jezra),  a  priest,  of  the  house  of  Immer; 
ancestor  of  Maasiai  (read  Maaziah),  one  of  the 
courses  which  returned  (1  Chr.  ix.  12).  [.Jehoia- 
RiB.]     In  the  duplicate  passage  in  Neh.  xi.  13  he 

is  called  "^in^j  Ahasai,  aad  all  the  other  names 
are  much  varied.  A.  C.  H. 

*  JAILOR.  [Prison;  Punishments.] 
JAH'ZIEL  (Ss^^n>  [God  allots  or  appor- 
ilo7u<\:  'lao-f^A;  [Vat.  Ui(rer]\:]  Jasiel),  the  form 
In  whip.h  the  name  of  the  first  of  Naphtali 's  sons, 
elsewhere  given  Jauzkel,  appears  in  1  Chr.  vii. 
13  only. 

JA'IR  ('^''S''  [ichom  Jehov'h  enlightens] : 
latp;   [Vat.  commonly  laeioi  Alex,   laeip,  -Tjp, 


a  This  verse  would  seem  not  to  refer  to  the  original 
wnqueiit  of  these  villages  by  Jair,  as  the  A.  V.  re--^- 
iMits,  bat  rather  to  their  recapture.    The  accurate  ren- 


JAIRITE,  THE  1191 

Tp:]  Jair),  1.  A  man  who  on  his  father's  ud« 
was  descended  from  Judah,  and  on  his  mother* 
from  Manasseh.  His  father  was  Segub,  son  of 
Hezron  the  son  of  Pharez,  by  his  third  wife,  the 
daughter  of  the  great  Machir,  a  man  so  great  that 
his  name  is  sometimes  used  as  equivalent  to  that 
of  Manasseh  (I  Chr.  ii.  21,  22).  Thus  on  l)oth 
sides  he  was  a  mem  Iter  of  the  most  powerlul  family 
of  each  tribe.  By  ^Aloses  he  is  called  the  »'  son  of 
Manasseh''  (Num.  xxxii.  41;  Deut.  iii.  14),  and 
according  to  the  Chronicles  (1  Chr.  ii.  23),  he  was 
one  of  the  "  sons  of  Machir  the  father  of  Gilead." 
This  designation  from  his  mother  rather  than  his 
father,  perhaps  arose  from  his  having  settled  in  the 
tribe  of  Manasseh,  east  of  Jordan.  During  the 
conquest  he  performed  one  of  the  chief  feats  re- 
corded.  He  took  the  whole  of  the  tract  of  Argob 
(Deut.  iii.  14  [comp.  Josh.  xiii.  30]),  the  naturally 
inaccessible  Trachonitis,  the  modern  Lejah  —  and 
in  addition  possessed  himself  of  some  nomad  vii 
lages  in  Gilead,  which  he  called  after  his  own 
name,  Havvoth-Jair  (Num.  xxxii.  41;  1  Chr. 
ii.  23).«  None  of  his  descendants  are  mentioned 
with  certainty ;  but  it  is  perhaps  allowable  to  con- 
sider luA  THE  Jairite  as  one  of  them.  Possibly 
another  was  — 

2.  ['Ia"f/j;  Vat.  laetp;  Alex.  laetp,  Aetp.] 
"Jair  the  Gileadite,"  who  judged  Israel  for 
two  and  twenty  years  (Judg.  x.  3-5).     He  had 

thirty  sons  who  rode  thirty  asses  (Q^'H'^^),  and 

possessed  thirty  "  cities  "  (D'^'H**!?)  hi  the  land  of 
Gilead,  which,  like  those  of  their  namesake,  were 
called  Havvoth-Jair.  Possibly  the  original  twenty- 
three  formed  part  of  these.  Josephus  {Ant.  v.  7, 
§  6)  gives  the  name  of  Jair  as  'Iaejp7;y;  he  decUvrea 
him  to  have  been  of  the  tribe  of  Jlanasseh,  and  his 
burial  place,  Camon,  to  have  been  in  Gilead. 
[Havoth-Jair.] 

3.  ['Icitpos;  Vat.  FA.  lactpoy;  Alex.  larpos.] 
A  Benjamite,  son  of  Kish  and  father  of  Mordecai 
(Esth.  ii.  5).  In  the  Apocrypha  his  name  is  given 
as  Jairus. 

4.  ('T*^*'  \xchom  God  awakens] :  a  totally  dif- 
erent  name  from  the  preceding ;  'lotp;  [Vat.  Io€ip;] 
Alex.  A5e/p:  Snltus.)  The  father  of  Elhanan,  one 
of  the  heroes  of  David's  army,  who  killed  I-achmi 
the  brother  of  Goliath  (1  Chr.  xx.  5).  In  the  orig- 
inal   Hebrew  text    {Cethib)   the    name    is   Jaor 

(ni^**).  In  the  parallel  narrative  of  Samuel  (9 
Sam.  xxi.  19)  Jaare-Oregim  is  substituted  for  Jair. 
The  arguments  for  each  will  be  found  under  Elha- 
nan and  Jaare-Oregim. 

In  the  N.  Test.,  as  in  the  Apocrypha,  we  en- 
counter Jair  under  the  Greek  form  of  Jairus. 

G- 

JA'IRITE,  THE  Ol^JH  [patronym.]:  4 
'laplv  [Vat.  -€tj/];  Alex,  o  laeipei:  Jairites). 
Ira  the  Jairite  was  a  priest  (]n3,  A.  V.  «'  chief 
ruler")  to  David  (2  Sam.  xx.  26).  If  "priest" 
is  to  be  taken  here  in  its  sacerdotal  sense,  Ira  must 
have  been  a  descendant  of  Aaron,  in  whose  line 
however  no  Jair  is  mentioned.  But  this  is  not 
imperative   [see  Priest],  and  he  may  therefore 

dering  is  said  to  be,  ^' And  Geshur  and  Aram  took  th« 
Ilavvoth-Jair  from  them,  with  Kenath  and  her  daagh 
ter-towus,  sixty  cities  "  (Bertheau,  Clironik,  p.  161. 


1198  JAIRUS 

have  sprang  from  the  great  Jair  of  Manasseh,  or 
some  lesser  person  of  the  name. 

JU'RUS  [3  syl.].  1.  Cldeipos:  [Jninis]),  a 
ruler  of  a  synagogue,  probably  in  some  town  near 
the  western  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  He  was 
the  father  of  the  maiden  whom  Jesus  restored  to 
life  (Matt.  ix.  18;  Mark  v.  22;  Luke  viii.  41).  The 
name  is  probably  the  Grecized  form  of  the  Hebrew 
Jaiu. 

*  It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  daughter 
of  Jairus  was  really  dead  and  raised  to  life  again 
by  the  power  of  Jesus,  or  lay  only  in  a  state  of  in- 
sensibility. Among  others  Olshausen  (Bibl.  Comm. 
i.  321  ff.)  and  Kobinson  (Lex.  of  the  N.  T.,  p. 
362)  entertain  the  latter  view.  The  doubt  has 
arisen  chiefly  from  the  fact  that  the  Saviour  said 
of  the  damsel,  "  She  is  not  dead,  but  sleepeth  " 
(see  Matt.  ix.  24).  The  usual  verb  for  describing 
death  as  a  sleep,  it  is  true,  is  a  different  one  {koi- 
udu,  see  John  xi.  11  f.);  but  the  one  which  the 
Saviour  employed  in  this  instance  {KaOevdei)  is 
also  used  of  the  dead  in  1  Thess.  v.  10,  where 
"  whether  we  wake  or  sleep "  is  equivalent  to 
''  whether  we  are  alive  or  dead."  Hence  we  may 
attach  the  same  figurative  sense  to  the  word  as 
applierl  in  the  passage  before  us.  It  was  a  pecu- 
liarly expressive  way  of  saying  that  in  its  relation 
to  Christ's  power  death  was  merely  a  slumber :  he 
had  only  to  speak  the  word,  and  the  lifeless  rose  at 
once  to  consciousness  and  activity.  I3ut  there  are 
positive  reasons  for  understanding  that  Christ  per- 
fonued  a  miracle  on  this  occasion.  The  damsel  Liy 
dying  when  the  father  went  in  pursuit  of  Jesus  (Luke 
viii.  42) ;  shortly  after  that  she  was  reported  as  dead 
(Mark  v.  35);  and  was  bewailed  at  the  house  with 
the  lamentation  customary  on  the  decease  of  a  per- 
son (^lark  V.  38  ff.).  The  idea  that  she  was  asleep 
merely  was  regarded  as  absurd  (Matt.  ix.  24),  and 
Luke  states  expressly  (viii.  55)  that  "her  spirit 
came  again  "  to  her  on  being  commanded  to  arise. 
The  parents  and  the  crowd  "  were  astonished  with 
a  great  astonishment"  at  what  they  beheld  or 
heard  related  (Mark  v.  42),  and  the  Saviour  per- 
mitted that  impression  to  remain  with  them. 

One  other  circumstance  in  this  account  deserves 
notice.  Our  Lord  on  arriving  at  the  house  of  Jai- 
rus found  the  mourners  already  singing  the  death- 
dirge,  and  the  ''  minstrels  "  (ayATjTaj,  "  flute-play- 
ers ")  performing  their  part  in  the  service  (^latt. 
ix.  23).  On  that  custom,  see  Do  Wette's  Ilebr. 
Archaolofjle,  §  263  (4'e  Aufl.). 

Mr.  Lane  mentions  that  it  is  chiefly  at  the  funer- 
als of  the  rich  among  the  modem  Egyptians  that 
musicians  are  employed  as  mourners.  {Modern 
£ffyj)tinns,  ii.  287,  297.)  It  is  not  within  the 
ability  of  evsry  family  to  employ  them,  as  they  are 
professional  actors,  and  their  presence  involves  some 
expense.  The  same  thing,  as  a  practical  result, 
was  true,  no  doubt,  in  ancient  times."  Hence 
"the  minstrels  "  very  pro{)erly  appear  in  this  par- 
ticular history.  Jairus,  the  father  of  the  damsel 
whom  Christ  restored  to  life,  being  a  ruler  of  the 
synagogue,  was  a  person  of  some  rank  among  his 
countrymen.  In  such  a  family  the  most  decent 
style  of  performing  the  last  sad  ofllces  would  be 
ibserved.  Further,  the  narrative  allows  of  hardly 
uiy  interval  between  the  daughter's  death  and  the 


a  *  Even  if  the  rule  was  stricter,  circumstances 
iroald  control  the  practice.  The  poor  must  often  with- 
hold the  prescribed  tribute.  The  Talmud  ( Chethiiboth, 
»T.  8)  says,  with  relerence  to  the  death  of  a  wife  • 


JAKEH 

commencement  of  the  wailing.  This  agrees  mil 
the  present  oriental  custom ;  for  when  the  death  ot 
a  person  is  expected,  preparations  are  often  made  so 
as  to  have  the  lament  begin  almost  as  soon  as  th« 
last  breath  is  drawn.  H. 

2.  Cldtpos',  [Vat.  UeipoS'])  Esth.  xi.  2.  [Jaie, 
3.]  W.  T.  B. 

JA'KAN  or?;';;:  [=]\IV,,  inteWf/ent,  saga- 
cious]: 'Akuu;  [Vat.  nuuu;]  Alex.  [Iuukuv  Kai] 
OvKa/x'-  J(ican),  son  of  Ezer  the  Horite  (1  Chr.  L 
42).  The  name  is  identical  M'ith  that  more  com- 
monly expressed  in  the  A.  V.  as  Jaakan.  And 
see  Akan. 

JA'KEH  (nf?^,  and  in  some  MSS.  SP  [see 
infra'},  which  is  followed  by  a  IMS.  of  the  Targum 
in  the  Cambridge  Univ.  Libr.,  and  was  evidently 
the  reading  of  the  Vulgate,  M-here  the  whole  clause 
is  rendered  symbolically  —  "  "N'erba  congregantis 
filii  vomentis'').  The  A.  V.  of  Prov.  xxx.  1,  fol- 
lowing the  authority  of  the  Targum  and  Syriac, 
has  represented  this  as  the  proper  name  of  the 
father  of  Agur,  whose  sayings  are  collected  in  Prov. 
xxx.,  and  such  is  the  natural  interjiretation.  But  be- 
yond this  we  have  no  clew  to  the  existence  of  either 
Agur  or  Jakeh.  Of  course  if  Agur  be  Solomon, 
it  follows  that  Jakeh  was  a  name  of  David  of  some 
mystical  significance.  But  for  this  there  is  not  a 
shadow  of  support.  Jarchi,  punning  on  the  two 
names,  explains  the  clause,  "  the  words  of  Solomon, 
who  gathered  understanding  and  vomited  it,"  evi- 
dently having  before  him  the  reading  Sp^,  which 

he  derived  from  Sip,  "  to  vomit."  This  explana- 
tion, it  needs  scarcely  be  said,  is  equally  character- 
ized by  elegance  and  truth.     Others,  adopting  the 

form  np^,  and  connecting  it  with  nn|v')  (or  as 

Fiirst  gives  it,  TJlp^),  yikk'hdh,  "obedience," 
apply  it  to  Solomon  in  his  late  repentance.  But 
these  and  the  like  are  the  merest  conjectures.  If 
Jakeh  be  the  name  of  a  person,  as  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe,  we  know  nothing  more  aboui 
him;  if  not,  there  is  no  limit  to  the  symbolical 
meanings  which  may  be  extracted  from  the  clause 
hi  which  it  occurs,  and  which  change  with  the  ever- 
shifting  ground  of  the  critic's  point  ot  view.  That 
the  passage  was  early  corrupted  is  clear  from  the 
rendering  of  the  LXX.,  who  insert  oh.  xxx.  1-14 
in  the  middle  of  ch.  xxiv.  The  first  clause  they 
translate  robs  i/xovs  \6yovs,  vU,  <pofii6i}Ti,  Koi 
8e^dixevos  avTovs  jx^ravSii  —  "My  son,  fear  my 
words,  and,  having  received  them,  repent:  "  a  mean- 
ing which  at  first  sight  seems  hard  to  extract  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  which  has  therefore  been  al)an- 
doned  as  hopelessly  corrupt.  But  a  slight  alteration 
of  one  or  two  letters  and  the  vowel-points  will,  if 
it  do  no  more,  at  least  show  how  the  LXX.  arrived 
at  their  extraordinary   translation.      They   must 

have  read  Ct2:\is;i  HPip  "^^^  n^lIlH  ^H^"!,  in 
which  the  letters  of  the  last  word  are  slightly  trans- 
posed, in  order  to  account  for  /neTavSei,  In  sup- 
port of  this   alteration   see  Zech.   xi.    5,   when 

^Dr^S"^  is  rendered  fierefxcKovTo.^     The  I'argum 


"  Etiam  pauperrimus  inter  Israelitas  prsebebit  ei  mm 
minus  quam  duas  tibias  et  unam  lamentatricem.'' 

H. 
b  This  conjecture  incidentally  throws  light  on  tn« 
IiXX.    of   Prov.    xiv.    15,   epxerai    «ls   n«-^avoia.if,    m 


JAKEH 

ind  Syriac  point  to  different  readings  alsc»  though 
aot  where  Jakeh  is  concerned. 

Hitzig  {(lie  Spriiche  Salomons),  unable  to  find 
Miy  other  explanation,  lias  recourse  to  an  alteration 
Df  the  text  as  violent  as  it  is  unauthorized.     He 

j)roposes  to  read  Sy^^  '^'7'^"^-  ^^'  "*'^®  ^°"  °^ 
her  whose  obedience  is  jNIassa:  "  which,  to  say  the 
least  of  it,  is  a  very  remarkable  way  of  indicating 
"  the  queen  of  Massa."     But  in  order  to  arrive  at 

this  reading  he  first  adopts  the  rare  word  Hnp^ 
(which  only  occurs  in  the  const,  state  in  two  pas- 
sages, Gen.  xlix.  10,  and  Prov.  xxx.  17),  to  which 
he  attaches  the  unusual  form  of  the  pronominal 
suffix,  and  ekes  out  his  explanation  by  the  help  of 
an  elliptical  and  highly  poetical  construction,  which 
is  strangely  out  of  place  in  the  bald  prose  heading 
of  the  chapter.  Yet  to  this  theory  Bertheau  yields 
a  coy  assent  ("nicht  ohne  Zcgern,"  die  Spr.  Sal. 
Kinl.  p.  xviii.);  and  thus  Agur  and  Lemuel  are 
brothers,  both  sons  of  a  queen  of  JNIassa,  the  for- 
mer being  the  reigning  monarch  (Prov.  xxxi.  1). 

St^^,  massd,  "prophecy  "  or  "burden,"  is  consid- 
ered as  a  proper  name  and  identical  with  the  region 
named  INIassa  in  Arabia,  occupied  by  the  descen- 
dants of  a  son  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  14;  1  Chr.  i. 
30),  and  mentioned  in  connection  with  Dumah. 
This  district,  Hitzig  conjectures,  was  the  same 
which  was  conquered  and  occupied  by  the  500  Sim- 
eonites,  whose  predatory  excursion  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah  is  narrated  in  1  Chr.  iv.  41-43.  They 
are  there  said  to  have  annihilated  the  Amalekites 
in  Mount  Seir,  and  to  have  seized  their  country. 
That  this  country  was  INIassa,  of  which  Lemuel  was 
king,  and  that  Agur  was  a  descendant  of  the  con- 
quering Simeonites,  is  the  opinion  of  Hitzig,  ap- 
proved by  Bunsen.  But  the  latter,  retaining  the 
received  text,  and  considering  Jakeh  as  a  proper 

name,  takes  Mt^JSH,  hammassa,  as  if  it  were 

"^St^^rr,  liammassdi,  a  gentilic  name,  "  the  man 
of  Massa,"  supporting  this  by  a  reference  to  Gen. 
XV.  2,  where  ptt?^"?,  Dammeseic,  is  apparently 
used  in  the  same  manner  {Bihelwerh^  i.,  clxxviii.). 
There  is  good  reason,  however,  to  suspect  that  the 
word  in  question  in  the  latter  passage  is  an  inter- 
polation, or  that  the  verse  is  in  some  way  corrupt, 
as  the  rendering  of  the  Chaldee  and  Syriac  is  not 
supported  by  the  ordinary  usages  of  Hebrew,  though 
it  is  adopted  by  the  A.  V.,  and  by  Gesenius,  Kno- 


JAMES 


1199 


'^"'^^y^  r^J,  which  they  probably  read  b^^** 
2^^''S7,   Valeat  quantum. 

a  *  liere,  as  generally  in  the  English  edition  of  this 
work.  Cod.  B,  or  the  Vatican  manuscript  1209,  is  con- 
founded with  the  lloman  edition  of  1587.  The  Vat- 
lean  manuscript  (B)  does  not  contain  the  books  of 
Maccabees.  A. 

6  The  name  itself  will  perhaps  repay  a  few  mo- 
ments' consideration.  As  borne  by  the  Apostles  and 
their  contemporaries  in  the  N.  T.,  it  was  of  course 
Jacob,  and  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  in  them  it 
reappears  for  the  first  time  since  the  patriarch  himself. 
[b  the  unchangeable  East  St.  James  is  still  St.  Jacob 
—  Mar  Yakoob ;  but  no  sooner  had  the  name  left  the 
•hores  of  Palestine  than  it  underwent  a  series  of  cu- 
rious and  interesting  changes  probably  unparalleled 
in  any  otr.er  case.  To  the  Greeks  it  became  'IaKw/3os, 
fith  the  accent  on  the  first  syllable ;  to  the  Ijatins, 
facoti-t,  doubtless  similarly  accented,  since  in  Italian 
t  ll  Idconio  or  Giacomc  [also  Jdcopo],     In  Spain  it 


bel,  and  others.  In  any  case  the  instances  sre  not 
analogous.  W.  A.  W. 

JA'KIM  (ap;  [whom  Godlflsvp-]:  'laKtfi; 
[Vat.]  luKf ifi-  Jncim).  1.  Head  of  the  12th 
course  of  priests  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  12).  The  Alex.  LXX.  gives  the  name  Elia- 
kim  (EAta/cejju).      [JKlioiAitin;  Jaciiix.] 

2.  [Alex.  Ia/cet;U.]  A  Benjamite,  one  of  tne 
Bene-Shimhi  [sons  of  S.]  (1  Chr.  viii.  19). 

A.  C.  H. 

JA'LON  Cl'lV  \locl(jing,  abidinf/]:  'lafidivi 
[Vat.  Ajucoj/;]  Alex.  laXtou'-  Jdlon),  one  of  the 
sons  of  Ezrah,  a  person  named  in  the  gencali^iea 
of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  17). 

JAM'BRES.  [See  Jaxxes  and  Jamches  J 
JAM'BRI.  Shortly  after  the  death  of  Judas 
Maccabaeus  (b.  c.  161),  "the  children  of  Jambri" 
are  said  to  have  made  a  predatory  attack  on  a  de- 
tachment of  the  jNLiccaboean  forces  and  to  have  suf- 
fered reprisals  (I  IMacc.  ix.  3G-41).  The  nama 
does  not  occur  elsewhere,  and  the  variety  of  read- 
ings is  considerable:  'lafx^pi.  Cod.  B;  «  [la/j.^piv,'] 
lafifipeiu,  Cod.  A;  [Sin.  A/LL^pei,  la/x^pr,]  alii, 
'A/jL^pol,  'AfilSpl;  Syr.  Ambvei.  Josephus  {Ant. 
xiii.  1,  §  2)  reads  ol  *Aixapaiov  TrarSes,  and  it 
seems  almost  certain  that  the  true  reading  is  ''Afipi 
(-eO,  a  form  which  occurs  elsewhere  (1  K.  xvi.  22; 
Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  12,  §  5,  'A^aplvos ;  1  Chr.  xxvii. 

18,  Heb.  ''"IP?,  Vulg.  Amri;  1  Chr.  ix.  4,  'A/t- 
i8pat/t). 

It  has  been  conjectured  (Drusius,  ISIichaelis, 
Grimm,  1  Mace.  ix.  30)  that  the  original  text  was 

■^"IXiS  *^32,  "  the  sons  of  the  Amorites,"  and  that 
the  reference  is  to  a  family  of  the  Amorites  who 
had  in  early  times  occupied  the  town  INIedeba  (ver. 
36)  on  the  borders  of  lieuben  (Num.  xxi.  30,  31). 

B.  F.  W. 
JAMES  {'laKOi^os'  Jacobus),^  the  name  of 

several  persons  mentioned  in  the  N.  T. 

1.  James  thk  Son  of  Zebedek.  This  is  tlie 
only  one  of  the  Apostles  of  whose  life  and  death 
we  can  write  with  certainty.  The  little  that  we 
know  of  him  we  have  on  the  authority  of  Scripture. 
All  else  that  is  reported  is  idle  legend,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  one  tale,  handed  down  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  to  Eusebius,  and  by  Euse- 
bius  to  us.  With  this  single  exception  the  line  of 
demarcation  is  drawn  clear  and  sharp.     There  is 


assumed  two  forms,  apparently  of  different  origins : 
lago  —  in  modem  Spanish  Diego,  Portuguese,  Tiago 
—  and  Xajme  or  Jayme,  pronounced  Hayme,  with  a 
strong  initi»«i  guttural.  In  France  it  became  Jacques  ; 
but  another  form  was  Jame,  wbich  appears  in  th8 
metrical  life  of  St.  Thomas  a  Becket  by  Gamier  (a.  i» 
1170-74),  quoted  in  Robertson's  Becket,  p.  139,  note 
From  this  last  the  transition  to  our  James  is  ewaj. 
When  it  first  appeared  in  English,  or  through  what 
channel,  the  writer  has  not  been  able  to  trace.  Pos 
sibly  it  came  from  Scotland,  where  the  n;ime  was  a 
favorite  one.  It  exists  in  Wycliffe's  Bible  (1381).  In 
Russia,  and  in  Germany  and  the  countries  more  im- 
mediately related  thereto,  the  name  has  retained  its 
original  form,  and  accordingly  there  alone  there  would 
seem  to  be  no  distinction  between  Jacob  and  James ; 
which  -was  the  case  even  in  mediaeval  Latin,  where 
Jacob  and  Jacobus  were  always  discriminated.  Ita 
modem  dress,  however,  sits  very  lightly  on  the  name; 
and  we  sea  in  "Jacobite ''  and  "Jacobin  "  bow  ready 
it  is  to  throw  it  off,  and,  like  a  true  Oriental,  totaiJ 
its  original  form.  €1 


1200  JAMES 

no  fear  of  confounding  the  St.  James  of  the  New 
Testament  with  the  hero  of  Compostella. 

Of  St.  James's  early  life  we  know  nothing.  "We 
first  hear  of  him  A.  d.  27,  when  he  was  called  to 
be  our  Lord's  disciple ;  and  he  disappears  from  view 
A.  D.  44,  when  he  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  hands 
of  Ilciod  i\gripi)a  I.  W'c  proceed  to  thread  to- 
gether the  several  pieces  of  information  which  the 
inspired  writers  have  given  us  respecting  him  dur- 
ing these  seventeen  years. 

I.  His  IfisUn-y.  —  In  the  spring  or  summer  of 
the  year  27,  Zebedee,"  a  fisherman,  but  possessed 
at  least  of  competence  (Mark  i.  20),  was  out  on  the 
Sea  of  Galilee,  with  his  two  sons,  James  and  John, 
and  some  boatmen,  whom  either  he  had  hired  for 
the  occasion,  or  who  more  probably  were  his  usual 
attendants.  He  was  engaged  in  his  customary  oc- 
cupation of  fishing,  and  near  him  was  another  boat 
belonging  to  Simon  and  Andrew,  with  whom  he 
and  his  sons  were  in  partnership.  Finding  them- 
selves unsuccessful,  the  occupants  of  both  boats 
came  ashore,  and  began  to  wash  their  nets.  At 
this  time  the  new  1  eacher,  who  had  now  been  min- 
istering about  six  months,  and  with  whom  Simon 
and  Andrew,  and  in  all  probability  John,  were  al- 
ready well  acquainted  (John  i.  41),  appeared  upon 
the  beach,  lie  requested  leave  of  Simon  and  An- 
drew to  address  the  crowds  that  flocked  around  him 
from  their  boat,  which  was  lying  at  a  convenient 
distance  from  the  shore.  The  discourse  being  com- 
pleted, and  the  crowds  dispersing,  Jksus  desired 
Simon  to  put  out  into  the  deeper  water,  and  to  try 
another  cast  for  fish.  Though  reluctant,  Simon 
did  as  he  was  desired,  through  the  awe  which  he 
ah-eady  entertained  for  One  who,  he  thought,  might 
possibly  be  the  promised  JNIessiah  (John  i.  41,  42), 
and  whom  even  now  he  addressed  as  "Rabbi" 
(^TTio-TciTa,  Luke  v.  5,  the  word  used  by  this  Evan- 
gelist for  'Pafi$i).  Astonishe<l  at  the  success  of 
his  draught,  he  beckoned  to  his  partners  hi  the 
other  boat  to  come  and  help  him  and  his  brother 
in  landing  the  fish  caught.  The  same  amazement 
communicated  itself  to  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  and 
flashed  conviction  on  the  souls  of  all  the  four  fish- 
ermen. They  had  doubted  and  mused  before;  now 
they  believed.  At  His  call  they  left  all,  and  became, 
once  and  for  ever,  His  disciples,  hereafter  to  catch 
men. 

This  is  the  call  of  St.  James  to  the  discipleship. 
It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  regarded  the  events 
narrated  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  (Matt.  iv. 
18-22;  Mark  i.  lG-20)  as  identical  with  those 
related  by  St.  Luke  (Luke  v.  1-11),  in  accordance 
with  the  opinion  of  Hammond,  Lightfoot,  Maldo- 
iiatus,  I>ardner,  Trench,  Wordsworth,  etc. :  not  as 
distinct  from  them,  as  supposed  by  Alford,  Gres- 
well,  etj. 

For  »  full  year  we  lose  sight  of  St.  James.  He 
a  then,  in  the  spring  of  28,  called  to  the  apostle- 
ghip  with  his  eleven  brethren  (Matt.  x.  2;  Mark 
iii.  14;  Luke  vi.  13;  Acts  i.  13).  In  the  list  of 
th:  Apostles  given  us  by  St.  Mark,  and  in  the  book 
of  Acts,  his  name  occurs  next  to  that  of  Simon 
Peter:  in  the  Gospels  of  St.  IMatthew  and  St.  Luke 
it  comes  third.  It  is  clear  that  in  these  lists  the 
laraes  are  not  placed  at  random.  In  all  four,  the 
Dames  of  Peter,  Andrew,  James,  and  John  are 
placed  first ;  and  it  is  plain  that  these  four  Apostles 


<*  An   ecclesiastical   ti-adition,    of  uncertain    date, 
places  the  residence  of  Zebedee  and  the  birth  of  St. 
at  Japhia,  now  Ya/a,  near  Nazar«th.     Hence 


JAMES 

were  at  the  head  of  the  twelve  throughout.  Thus 
we  see  that  Peter,  James,  and  John,  alone  were 
admitted  to  the  miracle  of  the  raising  of  Jaims's 
daughter  (Mai-k  v.  37;  Luke  viii.  51).  The  same 
three  Apostles  alone  were  permitted  to  be  present 
at  the  Transfiguration  (Matt.  xvii.  1;  Mark  ix.  2 
Luke  ix.  28).  The  same  three  alone  >ere  allowe*) 
to  witness  the  Agony  (Matt.  xxvi.  37;  Mark  xiv. 
33).  And  it  is  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Andrew 
who  ask  our  Lord  for  an  explanation  of  his  dark 
sayings  with  regard  to  the  end  of  the  world  and 
his  second  coming  (Mark  xiii.  3).  It  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  in  all  these  places,  Avith  one  exception 
(Luke  ix.  28),  the  name  of  James  is  put  before 
that  of  John,  and  that  John  is  twice  described  as 
"the  brother  of  James"  (Mark  v.  37;  Matt.  xvii. 
1).  This  would  appear  to  imply  that  at  this  time 
James,  either  from  age  or  character,  took  a  higher 
position  than  his  brother.  On  the  last  occasion  on 
which  St.  James  is  mentioned  we  find  this  position 
reversed.  That  the  prominence  of  these  three 
Apostles  was  founded  on  personal  character  (as  out 
of  every  twelve  persons  there  must  be  two  or  three 
to  take  the  lead),  and  that  it  was  not  an  office  held 
by  them  "  quos  Dominus,  ordinis  servandi  causa, 
coeteris  praeposuit,"  as  King  James  I.  has  said 
{Prmfnt.  Mon.  in  Apol.  pro  Jur.  Fid.),  can 
scarcely  be  doubted  (cf.  Eusebius,  ii.  14). 

It  would  seem  to  have  been  at  the  time  of  the 
appointment  of  the  twelve  Apostles  that  the  name 
of  Boanerges  [Boankhoks]  was  given  to  the  sons 
of  Zebedee.  It  might,  however,  like  Simon's  name 
of  Peter,  have  been  conferred  before.  This  name 
plainly  was  not  bestowed  upon  them  because  they 
heard  the  voice  like  thunder  from  the  cloud  (Jerome), 
nor  because  "divina  eorum  praedicatio  magnum 
quendam  et  illnstrem  sonitum  per  terrarum  orbem 
datura  erat "  (Vict.  Antioch.),  nor  is  /te-yaAo/c^- 

fwKas  Kol  BeoXoycoTaTOvs  (Theoph.),  but  it  was, 
ike  the  name  given  to  Simon,  at  once  descriptive 
and  prophetic.  The  "  Bockman  "  had  a  natural 
strength,  which  was  described  by  his  title,  and  he 
was  to  have  a  divine  strength,  predicted  by  the 
same  title.  In  the  same  way  the  "  Sons  of  Thunder  " 
had  a  burning  and  impetuous  spirit,  which  twice 
exhibits  itself  in  its  unchastened  form  (Luke  ix.  54; 
3Iark  X.  37),  and  which,  when  moulded  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  taking  different  shapes,  led  St.  James 
to  be  the  first  apostolic  martyr,  and  St.  John  to 
become  in  an  especial  manner  the  Apostle  of  Love. 
The  first  occasion  on  which  this  natural  char- 
acter manifests  itself  in  St.  James  and  his  brother 
is  at  the  commencement  of  our  Lord's  last  journey 
to  Jerusalem  in  the  year  30.  He  was  passing 
through  Samaria;  and  now  courting  rather  than 
avoiding  publicity,  he  "  sent  messengers  before  his 
face "  into  a  certain  village,  "  to  make  ready  tor 
him"  (Luke  ix.  52),  i.  e.  in  all  probability  to  an- 
nounce him  as  the  jNIessiah.  The  Samaritans,  with 
their  old  jealousy  strong  upon  them,  refused  to 
receive  him,  because  he  was  going  to  Jerusalem 
instead  of  to  Gerizim ;  and  in  exasperation  James 
and  John  entreated  their  Master  to  follow  the 
example  of  Elyah,  and  call  down  fire  to  consimie 
them.  The  rebuke  of  their  Lord  is  testified  to  by 
all  the  New  Testament  MSS.  The  words  of  the 
rebuke,  "  Ye  know  not  what  manner  of  spirit  y« 
are  of,"  rest  on  the  authority  of  the  Codex 


that  Tillage  is  commonly  known  to  the  memben  ol 
the  Latin  Church  in  that  distsct  as  San  Uiatowf 
[Japhia.] 


JAIVIES 

mii  •  few  MSS.  of  minor  value.  Pie  rest  of  the 
verse,  "  For  the  Son  of  JNIan  ia  not  oome  to  destroy 
men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,"  is  an  insertion 
vrithout  authority  of  MSS.  (see  Alford,  in  loc.).^ 

At  the  end  of  the  same  journey  a  similar  spirit 
appears  again.  As  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem  our 
Ix)rd  declare<I  to  his  Apostles  the  circumstances  of 
his  coming  Passion,  and  at  the  same  time  strength- 
ened tliem  l)y  the  promise  that  they  should  sit  on 
twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
I'hcse  words  seem  to  have  made  a  great  impression 
u[)on  Salome,  and  slie  may  have  thought  her  two 
sons  quite  as  fit  as  tlie  sons  of  Jonas  to  be  the  chief 
luinisters  of  their  Lord  in  the  mysterious  kingdom 
which  he  was  about  to  assume.  She  approached 
therefore,  and  besought,  perhaps  with  a  special 
leference  in  her  mind  to  Peter  and  Andrew,  that 
her  two  sons  might  sit  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
the  left  in  his  liingdom,  i.  e.  according  to  a  Jewish 
form  of  expression '^  (Joseph.  Ant.  vi.  11,  §  9),  tliat 
they  niiglit  be  next  to  the  King  in  honor.  The 
two  brothers  joined  with  her  in  the  prayer  (Mark 
X.  35).  The  Lord  passed  by  their  petition  with  a 
mild  reproof,  showing  that  the  request  had  not 
arisen  from  an  evil  heart,  but  from  a  spirit  which 
aimed  too  high.  He  told  them  that  they  should 
drink  His  cup  and  be  baptized  with  His  baptism 
of  suffering,  but  turned  their  minds  away  at  once 
from  the  thought  of  future  preeminence:  in  His 
kingdom  none  of  his  Apostles  were  to  be  lords  over 
the  rest.  The  indignation  felt  by  the  ten  would 
show  that  they  regarded  the  petition  of  the  two 
brothers  as  an  attempt  at  infringing  on  their  priv- 
ileges as  nmch  as  on  those  of  Peter  and  Andrew. 

From  the  time  of  the  Agony  in  the  Garden,  A.  D. 
30,  to  the  time  of  his  martyrdom,  A.  u.  44,  we 
know  nothing  of  St.  .lames,  except  that  after  the 
ascension  he  persevered  in  prayer  with  the  other 
Apostles,  and  the  women,  and  the  Lord's  brethren 
(Acts  i.  13).  In  the  year  44  Herod  Agrippa  L, 
son  of  Aristohulus,  was  ruler  of  all  the  dominions 
which  at  the  death  of  his  grandfather,  Herod  the 
Great,  had  been  divided  between  Archelaus,  An- 
tipas,  Philip,  and  Lysanias.  He  had  receival  from 
Caligula,  Trachonitis  in  the  year  37,  Galilee  and 
Peraea  in  the  year  40.  On  the  accession  of  Clau- 
dius, in  the  year  41,  he  received  from  him  Idumsea, 
Samaria,  and  Judaia.  This  sov'creign  was  at  once 
a  supple  statesman  and  a  stern  Jew  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xviii.  6,  §  7,  xix.  5-8):  a  king  with  not  a  few  grand 
and  kingly  qualities,  at  the  same  time  eaten  up 
with  Jewish  pride  —  the  type  of  a  lay  Pharisee. 
"  He  was  very  ambitious  to  oblige  the  people  with 
donations,"  and  "  he  was  exactly  carefid  in  the 
observance  of  the  laws  of  his  country,  keeping  him- 
self entirely  pure,  and  not  allowing  one  day  to  pass 
over  his  head  without  its  appointed  sacrifice  "  {Ant. 
xix.  7,  §  3).  Policy  and  inclination  would  alike 
lead  such  a  monarch  "to  lay  hands"  {not  "stretch 
forth  his  hands,"  A.  V.  Acts  xii.  1)  "on  certain 
of  the  church;"  and  accordingly,  when  the  pass- 
over  of  the  year  44  had  In-ought  St.  James  and  St. 
Peter  to  Jerusalem,  he  seized  them  both,  considering 


a  *  See  note  d  under  Elijah,  vol.  i.  p.  707  f.    A. 

^  The  same  form  is  common  throughout  the  East. 
See  Lane's  Arab.  Nig/Us,  vol.  iii.  p.  212,  &c. 

c  The  grcjit  Armenian  convent  at  Jerusalem  on  the 
BO-called  Mount  Zion  is  dedicated  to  "  St.  Jlames  the 
Bon  of  Zebedee."  The  church  of  the  convent,  or  rather 
a  small  chapel  on  its  northeast  side,  occupies  the  tni- 
ditior.%.  sita  of  his  martyrdom.  This,  however,  can 
76 


JAMBS  1201 

doubtless  that  if  he  cut  off  the  »  Son  of  Thunder  " 
and  the  "  Rockman  "  the  new  sect  would  be  mors 
tractable  or  more  weak  under  the  presidency  of 
James  the  Just,  for  whose  character  he  probably 
had  a  lingering  and  sincere  respect.  James  was 
apprehended  first  —  his  natural  impetuosity  of  tem- 
per would  seem  to  have  urged  him  on  even  beyond 
Peter.  And  "Herod  the  king,"  the  historian 
simply  tells  us,  "  killed  James  the  brother  of  John 
with  the  sword  "  (Acts  xii.  2).  This  is  all  that 
we  know  for  certain  of  his  death.*'  We  may  notice 
two  things  respecting  it  —  first,  that  James  is  now 
described  as  the  brother  of  John,  whereas  previously 
John  had  been  described  as  the  brother  of  James 
showing  that  the  reputation  of  John  had  increased, 
and  that  of  James  diminished,  by  the  time  that 
St.  Luke  wrote:  and  secondly,  that  he  perished  not 
by  stoning,  but  by  the  sword.  The  Jewish  law 
laid  down  that  if  seducers  to  strange  worship  were 
few,  they  should  be  stoned;  if  many,  that  they 
should  be  beheaded.  Either  therefore  Herod  in- 
tended that  James's  death  should  be  the  Ijeginning 
of  a  sanguinary  persecution,  or  he  merely  followed 
the  Roman  custom  of  putting  to  death  from  prefer- 
ence (see  Lightfoot,  in  loc.-). 

The  death  of  so  prominent  a  champion  left  a 
huge  gap  in  the  ranks  of  the  infant  society,  which 
was  filled  partly  by  St.  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord,  who  now  steps  forth  into  greater  prominence 
in  Jerusalem,  and  partly  by  St.  l*aul,  who  had  now 
been  seven  years  a  convert,  and  who  shortly  after- 
wards set  out  on  his  first  apostolic  journey. 

H.  Chronolo(jical  recnpitulntion.  —  In  the  spring 
or  summer  of  the  year  27  James  was  called  to  be 
a  disciple  of  Christ.  In  the  spring  of  28  he  was 
appointed  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  and  at  that 
time  probably  received,  with  his  brother,  the  title 
of  Boanerges.  In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year  he 
was  admitted  to  the  miraculous  raising  of  Jairus's 
daughter.  In  the  spring  of  the  year  29  he  wit- 
nessed the  Transfiguration.  Very  early  in  the  year 
30  he  urged  his  Lord  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven 
to  consume  the  Samaritan  village.  About  three 
months  later  in  the  same  year,  just  before  the  final 
arrival  in  Jerusalem,  he  and  his  brother  made  their 
ambitious  request  through  tlieir  mother  Salome. 
On  the  night  before  the  Crucifixion  he  was  present 
at  the  Agony  in  the  Garden.  On  the  day  of  the 
Ascension  he  is  mentioned  as  persevering  with  the 
rest  of  the  Apostles  and  disciples  in  prayer.  Shortly 
before  the  day  of  the  Passover,  in  the  year  44,  he 
was  put  to  death.  Thus  during  fourteen  out  oi 
tlie  seventeen  years  that  elapsed  between  his  call 
and  his  death  we  do  not  even  catch  a  glimpse  of 
him. 

III.  Tradition  respecting  him. — Clement  of 
Alexandria,  in  the  seventh  book  of  tlie  //ijjx>(yposeis, 
relates,  concerning  St.  James's  martyrdom,  that 
the  prosecutor  was  bo  moved  by  witnessing  his  bold 
confession  that  he  declared  himself  a  Christian  on 
the  spot :  accused  and  accuser  were  therefore  hurried 
off  together,  and  on  the  road  the  latter  begged  St. 
James  to  grant  him  forgiveness ;  after  a  moment's 

hardly  be  the  actual  site  (Williams,  Holy  City.  ii.  558). 
Its  most  interesting  possession  is  the  chair  of  the 
Apostl",  a  venerable  relic,  the  age  of  which  is  perhaps 
traceable  as  far  back  as  the  4th  century  (Williams, 
560).  But  as  it  would  seem  that  It  is  believed  to  hav* 
belonged  to  "  the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusjilera,"  it  ii 
doubtful  to  which  of  the  two  Jameses  t'le  tradltloB 
would  attach  it. 


1202  JAMES 

hesitation,  the  Apostle  kissed  liim,  saying,  "  Peace 
be  to  thee!"  and  they  were  beheaded  together. 
This  tradition  is  preserved  by  Eusebius  {11.  E.  ii.  G). 
There  is  no  internal  evidence  against  it,  and  the 
external  evidence  is  sufficient  to  make  it  credible, 
for  Cleuiejit  flourished  as  early  as  A.  i).  195,  and 
he  states  expressly  that  the  account  was  given  him 
by  those  who  went  before  him. 

For  legends  respecting  his  death  and  his  con- 
nection with  Spain,  see  the  Koman  Breviary  (in 
Fest.  S.  Jac.  Jp.),  in  which  the  healing  of  a 
paralytic  and  the  conversion  of  Hermogenes  are 
attributed  to  him,  and  where  it  is  asserted  that  he 
preached  the  Gospel  in  Spain,  and  that  his  remains 
were  translated  to  Compostella.  See  also  the  fourth 
cook  of  the  Apostolical  History  written  by  Abdias, 
the  (pseudo)  first  bishop  of  Babylon  (Abdiae,  Baby- 
luniceprimi  F.phcopi  ab  AjX)s(ulis  constituli,  de  his- 
toria  Ccrtam'mis  Aposiolici  Libvi  decern,  Paris, 
15G6);  Isidore,  De  vita  et  obifu  SS.  utHusque  Test. 
No.  LXXIII.  (Hagenore,  1529);  Pope  Callixtus 
ll.'s  Four  Sermons  on  St.  James  the  Apostle  {Bibl. 
Pair.  Magn.  xv.  p.  324);  Mariana,  De  adventu 
Jacobi  Jpostoli  Majuris  in  Ilispaniam  (Col.  Agripp. 
1G09);  Baronius,  Marlyrobgium  Romanum  ad. Jul. 
25,  p.  325  (Antwerp,  1589);  BoUandus,  Ada  Sanc- 
torum ad  Jtd.  25,  torn.  vi.  pp.  1-124  (Antwerp, 
1729);  Estius,  Comni.  in  Act.  Ap.  c.  xii. ;  Annot. 
tn  dijicilioi'a  hca  S.  Script.  (Col.  A.gripp.  1622); 
Tillemont,  Memoires  pour  servir  a  Niistoire  ec- 
clesiastique  des  six  premiers  siecles,  torn.  i.  p.  899 
(Brussels,  1706).  As  there  is  no  shadow  of  foun- 
dation for  any  of  the  legends  here  referred  to  we 
pass  them  by  without  further  notice.  I'^ven  Baronius 
shows  himself  ashamed  of  them  ;  Estius  gives  them 
up  as  hopeless;  and  Tillemont  rejects  them  with 
as  much  contempt  as  his  position  would  allow  him 
to  show.  Epiphanius,  without  giving  or  probably 
having  any  authority  for  or  against  his  statement, 
reports  that  St.  James  died  unmarried  (S.  Epiph. 
Adv.  Ilcer.  ii,  4,  p.  491,  Paris,  1622),  and  that, 
like  his  namesake,  he  lived  the  life  of  a  Nazarite 
{ibid.  iii.  2,  13,  p.  1045). 

2.  Jajiks  the  Son  of  Alpii.eus.  Matt.  x.  3; 
Mark  iii.  18;  Luke  vi.  15;  Acts  i.  13. 

3.  Jamkstiie  BiJOTiiEuoFTiiE  Lord.  Matt, 
xiii.  55;  Mark  vi.  3;  Gal.  i.  19. 

4.  James  the  Son  of  ]\Lm;y,  Matt,  xxvii.  56; 
Luke  xxiv.  10.  Also  called  the  Little,  Mark 
tv.  40. 

5.  James  the  Brother  of  Jude.    Jude  1. 

6.  Jasies  the  Brother  (?)  of  Jude.  Luke 
vi.  16;  Actsi.  13. 

7.  Jajies.  Acts  xii.  17,  xv.  13,  xxi.  18;  1  Cor. 
XV.  7;  Gal.  ii.  9,  12. 

8.  James  the  Servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.     James  i.  1. 

We  reger^'e  the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the 
epistle  for  the  present. 

St.  Paul  identifies  for  us  Nos.  3  and  7  (see  Gal. 
Ii.  9  and  12  compared  with  i.  19). 

If  we  may  translate  'lowSos  'laKcijSou,  Judas  the, 
brother,  rather  than  the  son  of  James,  we  may  con- 
2lude  that  5  and  6  are  identical.  And  that  we 
may  so  translate  it,  is  proved,  if  proof  were  needed, 
by  Winer  (Grammar  of  the  Idioms  of  the  N.  T., 
translated  by  Agnew  and  Ebbeke,  New  York,  1850, 
§§  Ixvi.  and  xxx.),  by  Hiinlein  {Ilamlb.  der  Ami. 
in  die  Schri/ten  des  Neuen  Test.,  Erlangen,  1809), 
by  Arnaud  {Recherches  critiques  sur  tEpitre  de 
Jude,  Strasboirg,  18511. 

We  may  identify  o  and  G  with  3    because  we 


JAIMES 

know  that  James  the  Lord's  brother  had  a  brotbrt 
named  Jude. 

We  may  identify  4  with  3  because  we  know 
James  the  son  of  !Mary  had  a  brother  named  Josea^ 
and  so  also  had  James  the  Lord's  brDther. 

Thus  there  remain  two  only,  James  the  sou  of 
Alphaius  (2.),  and  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord 
(3.).  Can  we,  or  can  we  not,  identify  them?  This 
requires  a  longer  consideration. 

I.  By  comparing  Matt,  xxvii.  56  and  Mark  xv. 
40,  with  John  xix.  25,  we  find  that  the  "Virgin  Maiy 
had  a  sister  named  like  herself,  Mary,  who  v^-as  the 
wife  of  Clopas,  and  who  had  two  sons,  James  the 
Little,  and  Joses.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
"Mary  the  wife  of  Clopas"  in  John  xix.  25  need 
not  be  the  same  person  as  "  his  m  "ther's  sister  " 
(Kitto,  Lange,  Davidson),  but  the  Gieek  will  not 
admit  of  this  construction  without  the  addition  or 
the  omission  of  a  Kai.  By  referring  to  jNlatt.  xiii 
55  and  Mark  vi.  3  Me  find  that  a  James  and  a 
Joses,  with  two  other  brethren  called  Jude  and 
Simon,  and  at  least  three  (Trocrai)  sisters,  were 
living  with  the  Virgin  Mary  at  Nazareth.  By 
referring  to  Luke  vi.  IG  and  Acts  i.  13  we  find  that 
there  were  two  brethren  named  James  and  Jude 
among  the  Apostles.  It  would  certainly  be  natural 
to  think  that  we  had  here  but  one  family  of  four 
brothers  and  three  or  more  sisters,  the  children  of 
Clopas  and  Mary,  nephews  and  nieces  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.  There  are  ditficulties,  however,  in  the  way 
of  this  conclusion.  For,  (1)  the  four  brethren  in 
Matt.  xiii.  55  are  describefl  as  the  brothers  (aScA- 
(poi)  of  Jesus,  not  as  His  cousins;  (2)  they  are 
found  living  as  at  their  home  with  the  Virgin 
Mary,  which  seems  unnatural  if  she  were  their 
aunt,  their  mother  being,  as  we  know,  still  alive; 
(3)  the  James  of  Luke  vi.  15  is  described  sis  the  son 
not  of  Clopas,  but  of  AIphaBus;  (4)  the  "brethren 
of  the  Lord  "  (who  are  plainly  James,  Joses,  Jude, 
and  Simon)  appear  to  be  excluded  from  the  Apos- 
tolic band  by  their  declared  luiLeJief  in  his  Me.s- 
siahship  (John  vii.  3-5)  and  by  l)eiiig  formally  dis- 
tinguished from  the  disciples  by  the  Gosijcl-writers 
(Matt.  xii.  48;  Mark  iii.  33;  John  ii.  12;  Acts  i. 
14);  (5)  James  and  Jude  are  not  designated  as  the 
Lord's  brethren  in  the  lists  of  the  Apostles;  (6) 
Mary  is  designated  as  mother  of  James  aiid  Joses, 
whereas  she  would  have  been  called  mother  of  James 
and  Jude,  had  James  and  Jude  been  Apostles,  and 
Joses  not  an  Apostle  (Matt,  xxvii.  5G). 

These  are  the  six  chief  objections  which  may  be 
made  to  the  hypothesis  of  there  being  but  one 
family  of  brethren  named  James,  Joses,  Jude,  and 
Simon.     The  following  answers  may  Ije  given :  — 

Objection  1.  —  "  They  are  called  brethren.''^  It 
is  a  sound  rule  of  criticism  that  words  are  to  he 
understood  in  their  most  simple  and  hteral  accepta- 
tion; but  there  is  a  limit  to  this  rule.  When 
greater  difficidties  are  caused  by  adhering  to  the 
Hteral  meaning  of  a  word,  than  by  interpreting  it 
more  liberally,  it  is  the  part  of  the  critic  to  inter- 
pret more  liberally,  rather  than  to  cling  to  the 
ordinary  and  literal  meaning  of  a  word.  Now  it  is 
clearly  not  necessary  to  understand  aBeXtpol  as 
"brothers"  in  the  nearest  sense  of  brotherhood. 
It  need  not  mean  more  than  relative  (comp.  LXX. 
Gen.  xiii.  8,  xiv.  14,  xx.  12,  xxix.  12,  xxxi,  23; 
Lev.  XXV,  48;  Deut.  ii.  8;  Job  xix.  12,  xiii.  11; 
Xen.  Cyrop.  i.  5,  §  47;  Isocr.  Paneg.  20;  Plat 
Phced.  57,  Crit.  16;  see  also  Cic,  ad  Ati..  15;  Tac. 
Ann.  iii.  38 ;  Quint.  Curt.  vi.  10,  §  34 ;  cdmp.  Suicei 
and  Schleusner,  in  voc.).    But  perhaps  the  circom 


JAMES 

Itiooes  of  the  case  would  lead  us  to  translate  it 
brethren?     On   the  contrary,  such  a  translation 
aR)ears   to  produce  very  grave  difficulties.     For, 
first,  it   introduces  two  sets  of  four  first-cousins, 
bearing  the  same  names  of  James,  Joses,  Jude,  and 
Simon,  who  appear  ufwu  the  stage  witliout  any- 
tliing  to  show  which  is  the  son  of  Clopas,  and  which 
his  cousin ;  and  secondly,  it  drives  us  to  take  our 
choice    between    three    doubtful   and   improbable 
hypotlieses  as  to  the  parentage  of  this  second  set 
of  James,  Joses,  Jude,  and  Simon.    'i"hei-e  are  three 
such   hjpotlieses  :     (n.)   Tlie  Eastern   hypothesis, 
that  they  were  the  children  of  Joseph  by  a  former 
wife.     Til  is  notion   originated    in  the  apocryphal 
(iospel  of  Peter  (Orig.  in  Matt.  xiii.  55.  Op.  tom. 
in.  p.  4G2,  1-:.  ed.   Delarue),  and  was  adopted  by 
St.  Kpiphanius,  St.  Hilary,  and    St.  Ambrose,  and 
handed  on  to  the  later  Greek  Church  (Kpiph.  ILer. 
xxvii.  ],  02).  tom.  i.  p.  115;  Hil.  in  Matt,  i.,  St. 
Ambr.  Op.  tom.  ii.  p.  2G0,  E.I.  Bened.).     {b.)  The 
Helvidian    hypothesis,    put    forward    at    first   by 
Bonosus,  Ilelvidius,  and  Jovinian,  and  revived  by 
Strauss  and  Herder  in  Germany,  and  by  Davidson 
and  Alford  in  England,  that  James,  Joses,  Jude, 
Simon,  and  the  three  sisters,  were  children  of  Joseph 
and  ]\lary.    This  notion  is  opposed,  whether  rightly 
or  WTongly,  to  the  general  sentiment  of  the  (Thris- 
tian  body  in  all  ages  of  the  Church ;  like  the  other 
two  hypotheses,  it  creates  two  sets  of  cousins  with 
the  same  name:  it  seems  to  be  scarcely  compatible 
with  our  Lord's  recommending  His  mother  to  the 
care  of  St.  John   at   His  own  death  (see  Jerome 
Op.  tom.  ii.  p.  10);  for  if,  as  has  been  suggested,' 
though  with  great  improbability,  her  sons  might 
at  that  time  have  been  unbelievers  (Blom.  Disp 
Theol  p.  67,  Lugd.  Bat. ;  Neander,  Planting,  etc., 
IV.  1),  Jesus  would  have  known  that  that  unbelief 
was  only  to  continue  for  a  few  days.     That  the 
7rpft)T(^TOKoy  vi6s  of  Luke  ii.  7,  and  the    ^wy  o5 
It€k:6  of  Matt.  i.  25,  imply  the  birth  of  after  chil- 
dren, is  not  now  often  urgerl  (see  Pearson,  On  the 
Creed,  i.  304,  ii.  220).   (c.)  Tlie  Levirate  hypothesis 
may  be  passed  by.     It  was  a  mere  attempt  made 
m  the  eleventh  century  to  reconcile  the  Greek  and 
Utin    traditions    by  supposing  that   Joseph    and 
Clopas  Mere  brothers,  and  that  Joseph  raised  up 
seed  to  his  dead  brother  (Theoph.  in  Matt.  xiii.  55; 
Op.  tom.  i.  p.  71,  E.  ed.  Venet.  17(U). 

Objection  2.  —  «'  The  four  brothers  and  their 
asters  are  always  found  living  and  moving  about 
with  the  Virgin  Mary."  If  they  were  the  children 
of  Clopas,  the  Virgin  Mary  was  their  aunt.  Her 
own  husband  would  appear  without  doubt  to  have 
died  at  some  tiriie  between  A.  n.  8  and  a.  d.  26. 
Nor  have  we  any  reason  for  believing  Clopas  to 
have  been  alive  during  our  Lord's  ministry.  (We 
need  not  pause  here  to  prove  that  the  Cleophas  of 
Luke  xxiv.  is  an  entirely  different  person  and  name 
trom  Clopas.)  What  difficulty  is  there  in  sup- 
posing that  the  two  widowed  sisters  should  have 
hved  tf>gjther,  the  more  so  as  one  of  them  had  but 
one  son,  and  he  was  often  taken  from  her  by  his 
ministerial  duties?  And  would  it  not  be  most 
natural  that  two  families  of  first  cousins  thus  livint^ 
together  should  be  popularly  looked  upon  as  one 
araily,  and  spoken  of  as  brothers  and  sisters  instead 
Jf  cousins?  It  is  noticeable  that  St.  Mary  is  no- 
where called  the  mother  of  the  four  brothers. 

Objection  3.  -  »  James  the  Apostle  is  said  to  be 
the  son  of  Alphaeus,  not  of  Clopas."  But  Alphjeus 
W)d  Clopas  are  the  same  name  rendered  into  the 
•reek  language  in  two  different  hut  ordinary  and 


JAMES 


1208 


recognized  ways,  from  the  Aramaic  S^^bpT  x 
^^Xv,  (See  Mill,  Accounts  of  our  Jjyrd't 
Brethren  vindicated,  etc.  p.  236,  who  compares  th* 
two  forms  Clovis  and  Aloysius ;  Arnaud,  litdierche* 
etc.). 

Objection  4.  —  Dean  Alford  considers  John  vii 
5,  compared  with  vi.  67-70,  to  decide  that  none  of 
the  brothers  of  the  Lord  were  of  tlie  numl)er  of  the 
Twelve  {Prokfj.  to  Kp.  of  James,  Gr.  I'est.  iv.  88, 
and  Comm.  tn  loc).     If  this  verse,  as  he  states, 
makes  "the  crowning  difficulty"  to  the  hypothesis 
of  the  identity  of  James  the  son  of  Alphaaus.  the 
Apostle,  with  James  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  the 
difficulties  are  not  too  formidable  to  be  overcome. 
iMany  of  the  disciples  having  left  Jksus,  St.  Peter 
Inirsts  out  m  the  name  of  the  Twelve  with  a  warm 
expression  of  faith  and  love;  and  after  that  — very 
hkely  (see  Greswell's  Jlarmomj)  full  six  months 
afterwards  — the  ICvangelist   states  that  "neither 
did  his  brethren  believe  on  Him."     Does  it  follow 
from  hence  that  all  his  brethren  disbelieved  ?     Let 
us  compare  other  passages  in  Scripture.     St.  Mat- 
thew and  St.  Mark  state  that  the  thieves  railed  on 
our  Lord  upon  the  Cross.    Are  we  therefore  to  dis- 
believe St.  Luke,  who  says  that  one  of  the  Uiievea 
was  penitent,  and  did  not  rail?   (Luke  xxiii.  3l»,  40). 
St.  Luke  and  St.  John  say  that  the  soldiers  offered 
vmegar.     Are  we  to  believe  that  all  did  so?  or,  aa 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  tell  us,  that  only  one 
did  it?     (Luke  xxiii.  36;  John  xix.  20;  Mark  xv. 
30;  Matt,  xxvii.  48).     St.  Matthew  tells  us  that 
"  his  disciples  "  had  indignation  when  Mary  poured 
the  ointment  on  the  Lord's  head.     Are  we  to  sup- 
pose  this  true  of  all?  or  of  Judas  Iscariot,  and 
perhaps  some  others,  according  to  John  xii.  4  and 
Mark  xiv.  4  ?    It  is  not  at  all  necessary  to  suppose 
that  St.  John  is  here  speaking  of  all  the  brethren. 
If  Joses,  Simon,  and   the  three  sisters  disbelieved, 
It  would  be  quite  sufficient  ground   for  the  state- 
ment of  the  I'A-angelist.     The  same  may  be  said 
of  IMatt.  xii.  47,  lAIark  iii.  32,  where  it  is  reported 
to  Him  that  his  mother  and  his  brethren,  desig- 
nated by  St.  Mark  (iii.  21)  as  ol  Trap'  aurov,  were 
standing  without.     Nor  does  it  necessarily  follow 
that  the  disbelief  of  the  brethren  was  of  such  a 
nature  that  James  and  Jude,  Apostles  thou-'h  they 
were,  and  Nouched  for  half  a  year  before'by  the 
warm-tempered  Peter,  could  have  had  no  share  in 
it.    It  might  have  been  similar  to  that  feeling  of 
unfoithful   restlessness  which   i^erhaps   moved"  St. 
John  Baptist  to  send  his  disciples  to  make  their 
inquiry  of  the  Lord  (see  Grotius  in  loc,  and  Lard- 
ner,  vi.  p.  497,  Lond.  1788).    ^Vith  regard  to  John, 
u.  12,  Acts  i.  14,  we  may  say  that  "  his  brethren  " 
are  no  more  excluded  from  the  disciples  in  the  first 
passage,  and  from  the  Apostles  in  the  second,  bv 
being  mentioned  parallel  with  them,  than  '» the 
other  Apostles,  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and 
Cephas "  (1  Cor.  ix.  5),  excludes  Peter  from  the 
Apostolic  band. 

Objection  5.  —  »  If  the  title  of  brethren  of  the 
Lord  had  belonged  to  James  and  Jude,  they  would 
have  been  designated  by  it  in  the  list  of  the  Apostles." 
The  omission  ;f  a  title  is  so  slight  a  gi-ound  for  an 
argument  that  we  may  pass  this  by. 

Objection  8.  -That  Mary  tie  wife  of  Oopai 
should  be  designated  by  tlie  title  of  Mary  th« 
mother  of  James  and  Joses,  to  the  exclusion  of 
Jude,  if  James  and  Jude  were  Apostles,  appears  t« 
Dr.  Davidson  (Jntrod.  to  N.  T..  iii.  2U5.  Lrmdca 


1204  JAMES 

1851)  and  to  Dean  Alford  {Prol.  to  Ep.  of  James, 
6.  T.,  iv.  90)  extremely  improbable.  There  is  no 
improbability  in  it,  if  Joses  was,  as  would  seem 
likely,  an  elder  brother  of  Jude,  and  next  in  order 
to  James. 

II.  ^^^e  have  hitherto  argued  that  the  hj^iothesis 
which  most  naturally  accounts  for  the  facts  of  Holy 
Scripture  is  that  of  the  identity  of  James  the  Little, 
the  Apostle,  with  James  the  Lord's  brother.  We 
have  also  argued  that  the  six  main  objections  to 
this  view  are  not  valid,  inasmuch  as  they  may  either 
be  altocjether  met,  or  at  l)est  throw  us  back  on  other 
hypotheses  which  create  greater  difficulties  than 
that  under  consideration.  We  proceed  to  point 
out  some  further  confirmations  of  our  original 
hypothesis. 

1.  It  would  be  unnatural  that  St.  Luke,  in  a  list 
of  twelve  persons,  in  which  the  name  of  James 
twice  occurred,  with  its  distinguishing  patronymic, 
should  describe  one  of  the  last  persons  on  his  list 
as  brother  to  "  James,"  without  any  further  desig- 
nation to  distinguish  him,  unless  he  meant  the 
James  whom  he  had  just  before  named.  The  James 
whom  he  had  jupt  before  named  is  the  son  of 
Alphaius ;  the  person  designated  by  his  relationship 
to  him  is  Jude.  ^^'e  have  reason  therefore  for  re- 
garding Jude  as  the  brother  of  the  son  of  Alphaeus; 
on  other  grounds  (^Latt.  xiii.  55;  ^Lark  vi.  3)  we 
have  reason  for  regarding  him  as  the  brother  of  the 
I^rd :  therefore  we  have  reason  for  regarding  the 
son  of  Alpha;u8  as  the  brother  of  the  Lord. 

2.  It  would  be  unnatural  that  St.  Luke,  after 
having  recognized  only  two  Jameses  throughout  his 
Gospel  and  down  to  the  twelilh  chapter  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and  having  in  that  chapter  nar- 
rated the  death  of  one  of  them  (James  the  son  of 
Zebedee),  should  go  on  in  the  same  and  following 
chapters  to  speak  of  "  James,"  meaning  thereby 
not  the  other  James,  with  whom  alone  his  readers 
are  acquainted,  but  a  different  James  not  yet  men- 
tioned by  him.  Alford's  example  of  Philip  the 
Evangelist  {Prole f/.  to  the  Kp.  of  James,  p.  89)  is 
in  no  manner  of  way  to  the  point,  except  as  a  con- 
trast. St.  Luke  introduces  Philip  the  Evangelist, 
Acts  vi.  5,  and  after  recounting  the  death  of 
Stephen  his  colleague,  continues  the  history  of  the 
Bame  I'hilip. 

3.  James  is  represented  throughout  the  Acts  as 
exercising  great  authority  among,  or  even  over, 
Apostles  (Acts  xii.  17,  xv.  13,  xxi.  18);  and  in 
6t.  Paul's  Epistles  he  is  placed  before  even  Cephas 
)Uid  John,  and  declared  to  be  a  pillar  of  the  Church 
with  them  (Gal.  ii.  9-12).  It  is  more  likely  that 
an  Apostle  would  hold  such  a  position,  than  one 
who  had  not  been  a  believer  till  after  the  Resur- 
rection. 

4.  St.  Paul  says  (Gal.  i.  19),  "Other  of  the 
Apostles  saw  I  none,  save  James  the  Lord's  brother" 
{eTfpov  Se  roiv  a.Tro(TT6\(»iV  ovk  elSou  el  fj-i]  'la- 
Kco^ov  rhv  aS€\<phv  rov  Kvpiov).  This  passage, 
though  seeming  to  assert  distinctly  that  James  the 
Lord's  brother  was  an  Apostle,  and  therefore  iden- 
tical with  the  son  of  Alphwus,  cannot  be  taken  as 
a  direct  statement  to  that  effect,  for  it  is  possible 
'hat  airo(rT6\cii}v  may  be  used  in  the  looser  sense, 
though  this  is  not  agreeable  with  the  line  of  defense 
which  St.  Paul  is  here  maintaining,  namely,  that 
he  had  received  his  commission  from  God,  and  not 
trom  the  Twelve  (see  Thorndike,  i.  p.  5,  Oxf.  1844) 
And  again,  el  tiif  mny  qualify  the  whole  sentence 
}nd  not  only  the  word  ottoo-tc^Aoji/  (Mayerhoff,  Hist 
VriL  EiiUeiU  in  die  Petrin.  Sdir.  p.  52,  Hamb 


JAMES 

1833;  Neander,  Michaelis,  Winer,  Alfoid).  Stil 
this  is  not  often,  if  ever,  the  case,  when  e<  ^^  fol- 
lows €Tcpov  (Schneckenburger,  Adnot.  ad  Ejfist 
Jac.  perpet.  p.  144,  Stuttg.  1832:  see  alvo  Winer; 
Gramm.  5th  ed.,  p.  047,  and  Meyer,  Komm.  in  loc. ;. 
and  if  St.  Paul  had  not  mtended  to  include  St 
James  among  the  Apostles,  we  should  rather  have 
expected  the  singular  anSaroKou  than  the  plural 
Tuu  airo(rT6\uu  (Arnaud,  Jiec/ieir/ies,  etc.).  The 
more  natural  interpretation  of  the  verse  would 
appear  to  be  that  which  includes  James  among  the 
Twelve,  identifying  him  with  the  son  of  Alphoeus. 
But,  as  we  have  said,  such  a  conclusion  does  not 
necessarily  follow.  Compare,  however,  this  verse 
with  Acts  ix.  27,  and  the  probability  is  increased 
by  sevend  degrees.  St.  Luke  there  asserts  that 
Barnabas  brought  Paul  to  the  Ajwsiles,  nphs  Toi« 
airoa-rSKovs.  St.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  asserts 
that  during  that  visit  to  Jerusalem  he  saw  Peter, 
and  none  other  of  the  Apostles,  save  James  the 
Lord's  brother.  Peter  and  James,  then,  were  the 
two  Apostles  to  whom  Barnabas,  brought  Paul.  Of 
course,  it  mny  be  said  here  also  that  an6<TTo\oi  is 
used  in  its  lax  sense;  but  it  appears  to  be  a  more 
natural  conclusion  that  James  the  Lord's  brother 
was  one  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  being  identical 
with  James  the  sou  of  Alphaeus,  or  James  the 
Little. 

III.  We  must  now  turn  for  a  short  time  from 
Scripture  t<j  the  early  testimony  of  uninspired 
writers.  Here,  as  among  modem  writers,  we  find 
the  same  three  hypotheses  which  we  have  already 
mentioned :  — 

For  the  identity  of  James  the  lord's  brother 
with  James  the  Apostle,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  we 
find  Papias  of  Hierapolis,  a  contemporary  of  the 
Apostles"  (see  Routh,  Pclig.  Saa:  i.  IG,  43,  230, 
Oxon,  1846),  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Ilypoty- 
jyoseis,  bk.  vii.  apud  Euseb.  //.  E.  ii.  1),  St.  Chry- 
sostom  {in  Gal.  i.  19). 

Parallel  with  this  opinion  there  existed  another 
in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  that  James  was  the  son 
of  Joseph  by  a  former  marriage,  and  therefore  not 
identical  with  the  son  of  Alpha'us.  This  is  first 
found  in  the  apocryphal  Gospel  of  Peter  (see  Origen, 
in  Matt.  xiii.  55),  in  the  Protevangelium  of  James, 
and  the  Pseudo- Apostolical  Constitutions  of  the 
third  century  (Thilo,  Cod.  Apoa:  i.  228;  Const. 
Apost.  vi.  12).  It  is  adopted  by  Eusebius  {Comm^ 
in  Esai.  xvii.  6;  //.  E.  i.  12,  ii.  1).  Perhaps  it  is 
Origen's  opinion  (see  Comm.  in  Joh.  ii.  12).  St. 
Epiphanius,  St.  Hilary,  and  St.  Ambrose,  we  have 
already  mentioned  as  being  on  the  same  side.  Sc 
are  Victorinus  (Vict.  Phil,  in  Gal.  apud  Maii 
Script,  vet.  nov.  Coll.  [torn.  iii.  pars  ii.]  Romae, 
1828)  and  Gregory  Nyssen  {Opj).  tom.  ii.  p.  844. 
D,  ed.  Par.  1618).  and  it  became  the  recognized 
belief  of  the  Greek  Lhi'rch. 

Meantime  the  hypoti  <<is  maintaining  the  iden- 
tity of  tlie  tw^o  was  maintained;  and  being  warmly 
defended  by  St.  Jerome  {in  Matt.  xii.  49),  and 
supported  by  St.  Augustine  ( Contra  Faust,  xxii 
35,  Ac),  it  became  the  recognized  behef  of  the 
Western  Church. 

The  third  hypothesis  was  unknown  until  it  waa 
put  forward  by  Bonosus  in  Macedonia,  and  by  Ilel- 
vidius  and  Jovinian  in  Italy,  as  an  opinion  which 
seemed  to  them  conformable  with  Scripture.  Theil 
followers  were  called  Antidicomarianites.     The  fad 


a  *  Here,  too,  the  older  Papias  is  confounded  wltt 
his  later  namesake.     See  note,  vol.  i.  p.  829.         H. 


JAMBS 

rf  their  having  a  name  given  them  shows  that  their 
Dumbers  must  have  been  considerable;  they  date 
firom  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century. 

English  theological  writers  have  been  divided 
between  the  first  and  second  of  these  views,  with, 
however,  a  preference  on  the  whole  for  tha  first 
hypothesis.  See,  for  example,  Lardner,  vi.  495, 
Lond.  1788;  Pearson,  Minor  IVuiks,  i.  350,  Oxf. 
1844,  and  On  the  Creed,  i.  308,  ii.  224,  Oxf.  1833; 
Thorndike,  i.  5,  Oxf.  1844;  Home's  Jntrod.  to  II. 
S.  iv.  427,  Loud.  1834,  &c.  On  the  same  side  are 
Lightfoot,  Witsius,  Lampe,  Baumgarten,  Semler, 
Gabler,  Eichhorn,  Hug,  Bertholdt,  Guericke, 
Schneckenburger,  iNIeier,  Steiger,  Gieseler,  Theile, 
Lange.  Taylor  {0pp.  torn.  v.  p.  20,  Lond.  1849), 
Wilson  ( 0pp.  tom.  vi.  p.  G73,  Oxf.  1859),  Cave  {Life 
of  St.  James)  maintain  the  second  hypothesis,  with 
Vossius,  Basnage,  Valesius,  etc.  The  third  is  held 
by  Dr.  Davidson  {fntr.  K.  T.  vol.  iii.)  and  by  Dean 
Alford  {Greek  Test.  iv.  87).« 

The  chief  treatises  on  the  subject  are  Dr.  jMiU's 
Accozmia  of  our  Lord's  brethren  vindicated,  Cam- 
bridge, 1843;  Alford,  as  above  referred  to;  Lange's 
Article  in  Ilerzog's  Real-Kncyklopiidie  fiir  jyrotes- 
tantisclie  TIteolxjie  und  KircJie,  Stuttgart,  1856; 
Neander's  Pfanzung  und  Leitung ;  Schn'ecken- 
burger's  Annotatio  ad  £pist.  Jac.  peipetua,  Stutt- 
i;art,  1832;  Arnaud'a  Recherches  critiques  sur 
I'EpUre  de  Jude,  Strasbourg,  1851;  Schaff's  Das 
Verhdltniss  des  Jacobus  Bruders  des  Ilerrn  und 
Jacobus  Alp/idi,  Berlin,  1842;  Gabler's  De  Jacobo, 
Epistoke  eidem  aacriptce  Auctori,  Altorf,  1787. 

Had  we  not  identified  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus 
with  the  brother  of  the  Lord  we  should  have  but 
little  to  write  of  him.  When  we  had  said  that  his 
name  appears  twice  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  our  history  of  him  would  be  complete.  In 
like  manner  the  early  history  of  the  Lord's  brother 
would  be  confined  to  the  fact  that  he  lived  and 
moved  from  place  to  place  with  his  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  with  the  Virgin  iNIary;  and,  except  the 
appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  to  him,  we  should 
have  nothing  more  to  recount  of  him  until  after 
the  death  of  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  in  the  year 
44,  or  at  least,  till  St.  Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusalem 
ifter  his  conversion,  in  the  year  40.  Of  James  the 
tittle,  who  would  probably  be  distinct  from  each 
of  the  above  (for  an  argument  against  the  identity 
of  the  Jameses  is  the  doubt  of  the  identity  of 
Alphajus  and  Clopas),  we  should  know  nothing, 
except  that  he  had  a  mother  named  INIary,  who 
was  the  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  wife  of 
Clopas. 

James  the  Little,  the  son  of  Alpii^us, 
THE  BROTH EK  OF  THE  LoRD.  — Of  Jamcs'  father 

SDbn,  rendered  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark 
A'phaus  CAAt^aTos),  and  by  St.  John  Clopas 
KAa-rSs),  we  know  nothing,  except  that  he  mar- 
•itd  Mary,  the  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  had 
by  her  four  sons  and  three  or  more  daughters.^ 
He  appears  to  have  died  before  the  commencement 
)f  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  after  his  death  it  would 

Ifieem  that  his  wife  and  her  sister,  a  widow  like  her- 
*elf,  and  in  poor  circumstances,  lived  together  in 
one  house,  generally  at  Nazareth  (Matt.  xiii.  55), 
but  sometimes  also  at  Capernaum  (John  ii.  12)  and 
Jerusalem  (Acts  i.  14).     It  is  probable  that  these 


JAMES  1206 

cousins,  or,  as  they  were  usually  called,  brothers  anrf 
sisters,  of  the  Lord  were  older  than  himself;  as  o) 
one  occasion  we  find  them,  with  his  mother,  indig- 
nantly declaring  that  He  was  beside  himself,  and 
going  out  to  "  lay  hold  on  Him  "  and  compel  Him 
to  moderate  his  zeal  in  preaching,  at  least  suf- 
ficiently "  to  eat  bread "  (Mark  iii.  20,  21,  31). 
This  looks  like  the  conduct  of  elders  towards  one 
younger  than  themselves. 

Of  James  individually  we  know  nothing  till  the 
spring  of  the  year  28,  when  we  find  him,  together 
with  his  younger  brother  Jude,  called  to  the  Apos- 
tolate.  It  has  been  noticed  that  in  all  the  four 
lists  of  the  Apostles  James  holds  the  same  place, 
heading  perhaps  the  third  class,  consisting  of  him- 
self, Jude,  Simon,  and  Iscariot;  as  Philip  he:uls  the 
second  class,  consisting  of  himself,  Bartholomew, 
Thomas,  and  Matthew;  and  Simon  Peter  the  first, 
consisting  of  himself,  Andrew,  James,  and  John 
(Alford,  in  Matt.  x.  2).  The  fact  of  Jude  being 
described  by  reference  to  James  {'lov^as  ''laKcifiov) 
shows  the  name  and  reputation  which  he  had, 
either  at  the  time  of  the  calling  of  the  Apostles  or 
at  the  time  when  St.  Luke  wrote. 

It  is  not  likely  (though  far  from  impossible)  that 
James  and  Jude  took  part  with  their  brothers  and 
sisters,  and  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  trying  "  to  lay 
hold  on"  Jesus  in  the  autumn  of  the  same  year 
(Mark  iii.  21);  and  it  is  likely,  though  not  certain, 
that  it  is  of  the  other  brothers  and  sisters,  without 
these  two,  that  St.  John  sa}  s,  "  Neither  did  his 
brethren  believe  on  Him "  (John  vii.  5),  in  the 
autumn  of  A.  D.  29. 

We  hear  no  more  of  James  till  after  the  Cnici- 
fixion  and  tlie  Resurrection.  At  some  time  in  the 
forty  days  that  intervened  between  the  Kesurrection 
and  the  Ascension  tlie  Lord  appeared  to  him.  This 
is  not  related  by  the  Evangelists,  but  it  is  men- 
tioned by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  xv.  7);  and  there  never 
has  been  any  doubt  that  it  was  to  this  James  rather 
than  to  the  son  of  Zebedee  that  the  manifestation 
was  vouchsafed.  AVe  may  conjecture  that  it  was 
for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  him  for  the  high 
position  which  he  was  soon  to  assume  in  Jerusalem, 
and  of  giving  him  the  instructions  on  "  the  things 
pertaining  to  the  kingdom  of  Goo"  (.\ct3  i.  3) 
which  were  necessary  for  his  guidance,  that  tho 
I>ord  thus  showed  himself  to  James.  We  cannot 
fix  the  date  of  this  appearance.  It  was  probably 
only  a  few  days  before  the  Ascension ;  after  which 
we  find  James,  Jude,  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
together  with  the  Virgin  INIary,  Simon,  and  Joses, 
in  Jerusalem,  awaiting  in  faith  and  prayer  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Pentecostal  gift. 

Again  we  lose  sight  of  James  for  ten  years,  and 
when  he  appears  once  more  it  is  in  a  far  highei 
position  than  any  that  he  has  yet  held.  In  the 
year  37  occurred  the  conversion  of  Saul.  Three 
years  after  his  conversion  he  paid  his  first  visit  to 
Jerusalem,  but  the  Christians  recollected  what  they 
had  suffered  at  his  hands,  and  feared  to  have  any- 
thing to  do  with  him.  Barnabas,  at  this  time  of  fai 
higher  reputation  than  himself,  took  him  by  tht 


o  The  author  of  the  article  on  the  "  Br»tbren  of 
•or  Lord  "  takes  a  different  view  from  the  one  given 
Iwre.     [BaiyrHEB,  vol  i.  p.  329] 


S^.  Mary 
the  Virgin. 


Joachim  (?)  =  Anna  (?) 


Mary  =  Clopas  or  Alphteui. 


James.  Joses.    Jude.    Simon.  Three  or 
inorff 
daught«n 


1206  JAMES 

liand,  and  introduced  him  to  Peter  and  James 
(Acts  ix.  27;  Gal.  i.  18,  19),  and  by  their  authority 
he  was  admitted  into  the  society  of  the  Christians, 
and  allowed  to  associate  freely  with  them  during 
the  fifteen  days  of  his  stay.  Here  we  find  James 
on  a  level  with  Peter,  and  with  him  deciding  on 
the  admission  of  St.  Paul  into  fellowship  with  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem;  and  from  henceforth  we 
always  find  him  equal,  or  in  his  own  department 
superior,  to  the  very  chiefest  Apostles,  Peter,  John, 
and  Paul.  For  by  this  time  he  had  been  appointed 
(at  what  exact  date  we  know  not)  to  preside  over 
the  infant  Church  in  its  most  important  centre,  in 
a  position  equivalent  to  that  of  IJishop.  This  pre- 
eminence is  evident  throughout  the  after  history 
of  the  Apostles,  whether  we  read  it  in  the  Acts,  in 
the  Epistles,  or  in  ecclesiastical  writers.  Thus  in 
the  year  44,  when  Pet^r  is  released  from  prison,  he 
desires  that  information  of  his  escape  may  be  given 
to  "James,  and  to  the  brethren"  (Acts  xii.  17). 
In  the  year  49  he  presides  at  the  Apostolic  Council, 
and  delivers  the  judgment  of  the  Assembly,  with 
the  expression  5ih  iyij  Kpiuo)  (Acts  xv.  13,  19 ;  see 
St.  Chrys.  in  loc).  In  the  same  year  (or  perhaps 
in  the  year  51,  on  his  fourth  visit  to  Jerusalem) 
St.  Paul  recognizes  James  as  one  of  the  pillars  of 
the  Church,  together  with  Cephas  and  John  (Gal. 
ii.  9),  and  places  his  name  before  them  both. 
Shortly  afterwards  it  is  "  certain  who  came  from 
James,''  that  is,  from  the  mother  church  of  Jeru- 
salem, designated  by  the  name  of  its  Bishop,  who 
lead  Peter  into  tergiversation  at  Antioch.  And  in 
the  year  57  Paul  pays  a  formal  visit  to  James  in 
the  presence  of  all  his  presbyters,  after  having  been 
previously  welcomed  with  joy  the  day  before  by  the 
brethren  in  an  unofficial  manner  (Acts  xxi.  18). 

Entirely  accordant  with  the.se  notices  of  Scripture 
is  the  universal  testimony  of  Christian  antiquity  to 
the  high  office  held  by  James  in  the  Church  of 
Jerusalem.  That  he  was  formally  appointed  Bishop 
of  Jerusalem  by  the  Lord  himself,  as  reported  by 
Epiphanius  {[hens,  kxviii.);  Chrysostom  {Horn. 
xi.  in  1  Cor.  vii.);  Proolus  of  Constantinople  (De 
Trad.  Die.  LUwf/.);  and  Photius  (h'p.  157),  is  not 
likely.  I'^usebius  follows  this  account  in  a  passage 
of  his  history,  but  says  elsewhere  that  he  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  Apostles  (//.  E.  ii.  23).  Clement 
of  Alexandria  is  the  first  author  who  speaks  of  his 
Episcopate  ( flij/Mitif/Msels,  bk.  vi.  ap.  l<2useb.  //.  J'J. 
ii.  1),  and  he  alludes  to  it  as  a  thing  of  which  the 
chief  Apostles,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  might  well 
have  been  ambitious.  The  same  Clement  reports 
that  the  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  delivered  the 
gift  of  knowledge  to  James  the  Just,  to  John,  and 
Peter,  who  delivered  it  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
and  they  to  the  Seventy.  This  at  least  shows  the 
estimation  in  which  James  was  held.  But  the 
author  to  whom  we  are  chiefly  indebted  for  an  ac- 
count of  the  life  and  death  of  James  is  Ilegesippus 
(z.  e.  Joseph),  a  Christian  of  Jewish  origin,  who 
lived  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  His 
narrative  gives  us  such  an  insight  into  the  position 
of  St.  James  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  that  it  is 
best  to  let  hira  relate  it  in  his  own  words :  — 

Tradition  respecting  James,  as  given  by  ITege- 
vppus.  —  "  With  •  the  Apostles  James,  the  brother 
>f  the  Lord,  succeeds  to  the  charge  of  the  Church  — 
that  James,  who  has  been  called  Just  from  the  time 
of  the  Lord  to  our  own  days,  for  there  were  many 
of  the  name  of  James.  lie  was  holy  from  his 
mother's  womb,  he  drank  not  wine  or  strong  drink, 
•or  did  he  eat  animal  foo<l :  a  razor  came  not  upon 


JAMBS 

his  head;  he  did  not  anoint  himself  with  oil}  b( 
did  not  use  the  bath.  He  alone  might  go  into  thi 
holy  place;  for  he  wore  no  woollen  clothes,  but  linen 
And  alone  he  used  to  go  into  the  Temple,  and  ther< 
he  was  commonly  found  upon  his  knees,  praying 
for  forgiveness  for  the  people,  so  that  his  luiees 
grew  dry  and  thin  [generally  translated  hnriT]  like 
a  camel's,  from  his  constantly  bending  them  in 
prayer,  and  entreating  forgiveness  for  the  people. 
On  account  therefore  of  his  exceeding  righteousness 
he  was  called  '  Just,'  and  '  Oblias,'  which  means  in 
Greek  <  the  bulwark  of  the  people,'  and  '  righteous- 
ness,' as  the  prophets  declare  of  him.  Some  of  the 
seven  sects  then  that  I  have  mentioned  inquired 
of  him,  '  What  is  the  door  of  Jesus  V '  And  ha 
said  that  this  man  was  the  Saviour,  wherefore  soma 
believed  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  Kow  the  fore- 
mentioned  sects  did  not  believe  in  the  Pesurrection, 
nor  in  the  coming  of  one  who  shall  recompense 
every  man  according  to  his  works;  but  all  who 
became  believers  believed  through  James.  When 
many  therefore  of  the  rulers  believed,  there  was  a 
disturbance  among  the  Jews,  and  Scribes,  and 
Pharisees,  saying,  '  There  is  a  risk  that  the  whole 
people  will  expect  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ.'  They 
came  together  therefore  to  James,  and  said,  '  We 
pray  thee,  stop  the  people,  for  they  have  gone  astray 
after  Jesus  as  though  he  Avere  the  Christ.  We  pray 
thee  to  persuade  all  that  come  to  the  Passover  con- 
cerning Jesus :  for  we  all  give  heed  to  thee,  for  we 
and  all  the  people  testify  to  thee  that  thou  art  just, 
and  acceptest  not  the  person  of  man.  Persuade 
the  people  therefore  not  to  go  astray  about  Jesus, 
for  the  whole  people  and  all  of  us  give  heed  to  thee. 
Stand  therefore  on  the  gable  of  the  Temple,  that 
thou  mayest  be  visible,  and  that  thy  words  may  be 
heard  by  all  the  people ;  for  all  the  tril^es  and  even 
the  Gentiles  are  come  together  for  the  Passover.' 
Therefore  the  forementioned  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
placed  James  u^wn  the  gable  of  the  Temple,  and 
cried  out  to  him,  and  said,  '  0  Just  one,  to  whom 
we  ought  all  to  give  heed,  seeing  that  the  people 
are  going  astray  after  Jesus  who  was  crucified,  tell 
us  what  is  the  door  of  Jesus  ?  '  And  he  answered 
with  a  loud  voice,  '  Why  ask  ye  me  about  Jesus 
the  Son  of  Man  ?  He  sits  in  heaven  on  the  right 
hand  of  great  power,  and  will  come  on  the  clouds 
of  heaven.'  And  many  v^ere  convinced  and  gave 
glory  on  the  testimony  of  James,  crying  Hosannah 
to  the  Son  of  David.  Whereupon  the  same  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  said  to  each  otlier,  » We  have  dono 
ill  in  bringing  forward  such  a  witness  to  Jesus ;  but 
let  us  go  up,  and  throw  him  down,  that  they  may 
be  terrified,  and  not  believe  on  him.'  And  they 
cried  out,  saying,  '  Oh !  oh !  even  the  Just  is  gone 
astray.'  And  they  fulfilled  that  which  i.<»  written 
in  Isaiah,  '  Let  us  take  away  the  just  man,  for  he 
is  displeasing  to  us ;  therefore  shall  they  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  their  deeds.'  They  went  up  therefore,  and 
threw  down  the  Just  one,  and  said  to  one  another, 
<  Let  us  stone  James  the  Just.'  And  they  began 
to  stone  him,  for  he  was  not  killed  by  the  fall ;  but 
he  turned  round,  and  knelt  down,  and  cried,  » I 
beseech  thee,  Lord  God  Father,  forgi\e  them,  for 
they  know  not  what  they  do.'  And  whilst  thej 
were  stoning  him,  one  of  the  priests,  of  the  sons 
of  Rechab,  a  son  of  the  Rechabites  to  whom  Jere- 
miah the  prophet  bears  testimony,  cried  out  and 
said,  '  Stop!  What  are  you  about?  The  Just  one 
is  praying  for  you ! '  Then  one  of  them,  who  wai 
I  a  fuller,  took  th**  club  with  which  he  pressed  the 
I  clothes,  and  brought  it  down  on  the  head  of  tbi 


JAMES 

imt  one  And  so  he  bore  bis  witness.  And  tbey 
blried  bim  on  the  spot  by  the  'levnpie,  and  the 
column  still  remains  by  the  Temple.  This  man  was 
a  true  witness  to  Jews  and  Greeks  that  Jksus 
is  the  Christ.  And  immediately  Vespasian  com- 
menced Ibe  siege  "  (Euseb.  ii.  23,  and  Koutb,  ltd. 
Sacr.  p.  208,  Oxf.  1846). 

Vox  the  difficulties  which  occur  in  this  extract, 
reference  may  be  made  to  Routh's  Rellquue  Sacra 
(vol.  i.  p.  228),  and  to  Canon  Stanley's  Apostolical 
Age  (p.  319,  Oxf.  1847).  It  represents  St.  James 
to  us  in  his  life  and  in  his  death  more  vividly  than 
any  modern  words  could  picture  him.  We  see 
him,  a  married  man  {perhaps  (1  Cor.  ix.  5),  but  in 
all  other  respects  a  rigid  and  ascetic  follower  after 
righteousness,  keeping  the  Nazarite  rule,  like  Anna 
the  prophetess  (Luke  ii.  37),  serving  the  Lord  in 
the  Temple  "  with  fastings  and  prayers  night  and 
day,"  regarded  by  the  Jews  themselves  as  one  who 
had  attained  to  the  sanctity  of  the  priesthood, 
though  not  of  the  priestly  family  or  tribe  (uidess 
indeed  we  argue  from  this  that  Clopas  did  belong 
to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  draw  thence  another  argu- 
ment for  the  identity  of  James  the  son  of  Clopas 
and  James  the  Lord's  brother),  and  as  the  very 
type  of  what  a  righteous  or  just  man  ought  to  be. 
If  any  man  could  have  converted  the  Jews  as  a 
nation  to  Christianity,  it  would  have  been  James. 

Josephus'  narrative  of  his  death  is  apparently 
somewhat  different.  He  sayg  that  in  the  interval 
between  the  death  of  Festus  and  the  coming  of 
Albinus,  Ananus  the  high-priest  assembled  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  "  brought  before  it  James  the 
brother  of  him  who  is  called  Christ,  and  some 
others,  and  having  charged  tliem  with  breaking  the 
laws,  delivered  them  over  to  be  stoned."  But  if 
we  are  to  reconcile  this  statement  with  that  of 
Hegesippus,  we  must  suppose  that  they  were  not 
actually  stoned  on  this  occasion.  The  historian 
adds  that  the  better  part  of  the  citizens  disliked 
what  was  done,  and  complained  of  Ananus  to 
Agrippa  and  Albinus,  whereupon  Albinus  threat- 
ened to  punish  him  tor  having  assembled  the  San- 
hedrim without  his  consent,  and  Agrippa  deprived 
him  of  the  high-priesthood  {Ant.  xx.  9).  The 
words  '^  brother  of  him  who  is  called  Christ,"  are 
iudged  by  Le  Clerc,  Lardner,  etc.,  to  be  spurious. 

Epiphanius  gives  the  same  account  that  Hege- 
sippus does  in  somewhat  different  words,  having 
evidently  copied  it  for  the  most  part  from  him. 
He  adds  a  few  particulars  which  are  probably  mere 
assertions  or  conclusions  of  his  own  (flceres.  xxix. 
4,  and  Ixxviii.  13).  He  considers  James  to  have 
oeen  the  son  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife,  and  calcu- 
lates that  he  must  have  been  96  years  old  at  the 
time  of  his  death ;  and  adds,  on  the  authority,  as 
he  says,  of  Eusebius,  Clement,  and  others,  that  he 
wore  the  ireTaKou  on  his  forehead,  in  which  he 
probably  confounds  him  with  St.  John   (Polycr. 


a  The  monument  —  part  excavation,  part  edifice  — 
which  i?  now  commonly  known  as  the  "  Tomb  of  St. 
James,"  is  on  the  east  side  of  the  so-called  Valley  of 
Jehoshikphat,  and  therefore  at  a  considerable  distance 
from  the  spot  on  which  the  Apostle  was  killed,  whi.h 
the  narrative  of  Hegesippus  would  seem  to  fix  as  some- 
where under  the  southeast  corner  of  the  wall  of  the 
Haram,  or  perhaps  further  dosvn  the  slope  nearer  the 
'Fountain  of  the  Virgin."  [En-rogel.]  It  cannot  at 
iny  rate  be  said  to  stand  "  by  the  Temple."  The  tra- 
iition  about  the  monument  in  question  is  that  St. 
/ames  took  refuge  there  afler  the  capture  of  Christ, 
Uul  remained,  eating  and  drinking  nothing,  until  our 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OP        1207 

apud  Euseb.  II.  E.  v.  24.  But  see  Cotta,  Dt  hm 
jiont.  App.  Joan.  Jac.  et  Marci,  Tub.  1766). 

Gregory  of  Tours  reports  that  he  was  buried, 
not  where  he  fell,  but  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,"  in 
a  tomb  in  which  he  had  already  buried  Zacharias 
and  Simeon  {De  (/lor.  3 fart.  i.  27).  Eusebius 
tells  us  that  his  chair  was  preserved  down  to  his 
time;  on  which  see  Heinichen's  Excursus  (Exc.  xL 
ad  Euseb.  II.  E.  vii.  19,  vol.  iv.  p.  957,  ed.  Burton). 

We  must  add  a  strange  Tahnudic  legend,  which 
appears  to  relate  to  James.  It  is  found  in  tht 
Midrash  Koheleth,  or  Commentary  on  Ecclesiastea 
and  also  in  the  Tract  Abodah  Zarah  of  the  Jeru- 
salem Talmud.  It  is  as  follows :  "  K.  Eliezer,  th( 
son  of  Dama,  was  bitten  by  a  .serpent ;  and  ther« 
came  to  him  Jacob,  a  man  of  ('aphar  Secama,  to 
heal  him  by  the  name  of  Jesu  the  son  of  I'andera; 
but  R.  Ismael  suffered  him  not,  saying,  '  That  is 
not  allowed  thee,  son  of  Dama.'  He  answered, 
'  Suffer  me,  and  I  will  produce  an  authority  against 
thee  that  it  is  lawful ; '  but  he  could  not  produce 
the  authority  before  he  expired.  And  what  wais 
the  authority  ?  —  This :  '  Which  if  a  man  do,  he 
shall  live  in  them '  (Lev.  xviii.  5).  But  it  is  not 
said  that  he  shall  die  in  them."  The  son  of  Pan- 
dera  is  the  name  that  the  Jews  have  always  given 
to  our  Ix)rd,  when  representing  him  as  a  magician. 
Ihe  same  name  is  given  in  Epiphanius  {Ilmres. 
Ixxviii.)  to  the  grandflither  of  Joseph,  and  by  John 
Damascene  {De  Eide  Orth.  iv.  15)  to  the  grand- 
father of  Joachim,  the  suppo.sed  father  of  the  Virgin 
3Iary.  For  the  identification  of  James  of  Secama 
(a  place  in  Upper  Galilee)  with  James  the  Just, 
see  Mill  {Historic.  Criticism  of  the  Gospel,  p.  318, 
Camb.  1840).  The  passage  quoted  by  Origen  and 
Eusebius  from  Josephus,  in  which  the  latter  speaks 
of  the  death  of  James  as  being  one  of  the  causes 
of  the  destruction  of  .Jerusalem,  seems  to  be  spuri- 
ous (Orig.  in  Matt.  xiii.  55;  luiseb.  //.  E.  ii.  23). 

It  is  possible  that  there  may  be  a  reference  to 
James  in  Heb.  xiii.  7  (see  Theodoret  in  loc),  which 
would  fix  his  death  at  some  time  previous  to  the 
writing  of  that  epistle.  Ilis  apprehension  by  Ana- 
nus was  probably  about  the  year  62  or  63  (Lardner, 
Pearson,  Mill,  AVhitby,  Le  Clerc,  Tillemont).  Theri 
is  nothing  to  fix  the  date  of  his  martyrdom  as  nar 
rated  by  Hegesippus,  except  that  it  must  have  been 
shortly  before  the  commencement  of  the  siege  of 
Jerusalem.  We  may  conjecture  that  he  Avas  be- 
tween 70  and  80  years  old.''  F.  M. 

JAMES,   THE   GENERAL    EPISTI/E 

OF.  I.  Its  Genuineness  and  Canonicity.  —  In  the 
third  book  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  Eusebius 
makes  his  well-known  division  of  the  books,  or 
pretended  books,  of  the  New  Testament  into  four 
clas.ses.  Under  the  head  of  6/joKoyovfx.eva  ho 
places  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  and  the  First  Epistle 

Lord  appeared  to  him  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection 
(See  Quaresmius,  etc.,  quoted  in  Tobler,  Siloak,  etc 
299.)  The  legend  of  his  death  there  seems  to  be  first 
mentioned  by  Maundeville  (a.  d.  1320  :  see  Early  Trav. 
176).  By  the  old  travellers  it  is  often  called  th« 
"  Church  of  St.  James." 

'>  It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  Jacobit* 
churches  of  the  Plist  —  consisting  of  the  Arm«*niau8, 
tne  Copts,  and  other  Monophysite  or  Eutychian  bodiuc 
—  do  not  derive  their  title  from  St.  Jame.3,  but  froir 
&  .ater  person  of  the  same  name.  Jacob  BaralSM* 
who  dipi  Bishop  of  Edessa  in  ^8. 


1208       JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF 

rf  St.  Peter.  In  the  class  of  auTiXeySfieva  he 
places  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the  Second  and 
Third  Epistles  of  St.  John,  and  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Jude.  Amongst  the  v66a  he  enumerates  the  Acts 
of  St.  Paul,  the  Shepherd,  the  Apocalypse  of  St. 
Peter,  the  ICpistle  of  Barnabas,  tlie  Doctrine  of  the 
Apostles,  the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews.  The  aiperiKd 
«»onsist  of  the  Gospels  of  Peter,  Thomas,  Matthias, 
and  others,  the  Acts  of  Andrew,  John,  and  others. 
The  avTi\ey6fAeya,  amongst  which  he  places  the 
Epistle  of  St.  James,  are,  he  says,  yvdspifxa  o/xwy 
rots  TToKKois,  whether  the  expression  means  that 
they  were  acknowledged  by,  or  merely  that  they 
were  known  to,  tlie  majoiity  (//.  K.  iii.  25).  Else- 
where he  refers  the  epistle  to  the  class  of  v6Qa,  for 
this  is  the  meaning  of  uodevfrai  /xcy,  which  was 
apparently  misunderstood  by  St.  Jerome  (De  Vir. 
lUust. ) ;  but  he  bears  witness  that  it  was  publicly 
read  in  most  churches  as  genuine  (//.  E.  ii.  23), 
and  as  such  accepts  it  himself.  This  then  was  the 
state  of  the  question  in  the  time  of  Eusebius ;  the 
epistle  was  accepted  as  canonical,  and  as  the  writ- 
ing of  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord,  by  the  ma- 
jority, but  not  universally.  Origen  bears  the  same 
testimony  as  Eusebius  (tom.  iv.  p.  30G),  and  prob- 
ably, like  him,  himself  accepted  the  epistle  as  gen- 
uine (tom.  iv.  p.  535,  &c.).  It  is  found  in  the  Syriac 
version,  and  appears  to  be  referred  to  by  Clement 
of  Rome  {ad  Cor.  x. ),  Hennas  (lib.  ii.  Mand.  xii.  5 ), 
Irenaeus  {Adv.  Hceres.  [lib.  iv.  c]  16,  §  2),  and  is 
quoted  by  almost  all  the  Fathers  of  the  4th  cen- 
tury, e.  ff.  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Epiphanius,  Chrysostom  (see  Davidson,  Introd.  to 
N.  T.,  iii.  p.  338).  In  3!)7  the  Council  of  Car- 
thage accepted  it  as  canonical,  and  from  that  time 
there  has  been  no  further  question  of  its  genuine- 
ness on  the  score  of  external  testimony.  But  at 
the  time  of  the  Keformation  the  question  of  its 
authenticity  was  again  raised,  and  now  upon  the 
ground  of  internal  evidence.  Erasmus  and  Car- 
dinal Cajetan  in  the  Church  of  liome,  Cyril  Lucar 
in  the  Greek  Church,  Luther  and  the  jNIagdeburg 
Centuriators  among  Protestants,  all  objected  to  it. 
Luther  seems  to  have  withdrawn  his  expression 
that  it  was  "  a  right  sti*awy  epistle,"  compared 
with  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  and  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  after  that  expression  had 
l>een  two  years  before  the  world.  The  chief  olyec- 
tion  on  internal  grounds  is  a  supposed  opposition 
between  St.  Paul  and  St.  James,  on  the  doctrine 
of  Justification,  concerning  which  we  shall  presently 
make  some  remarks.  At  present  we  need  only  say 
that  it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  non-universal  re- 
ception of  the  epistle  in  the  Early  Church,  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  meant  only  for  Jewish  believers, 
and  was  not  likely  therefore  to  circulate  widely 
among  Gentile  Christians,  for  whose  spiritual  neces- 
sities it  was  primarily  not  adapted ;  and  that  the 
objection  on  internal  grounds  proves  nothing  ercept 
against  the  objectors,  for  it  really  rests  on  a  mis- 
take. 

II.  Its  Author.  —  Tlie  author  of  the  epistle  must 
oe  either  James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  according  to 
the  subscription  of  the  Syriac  version ;  or  James 
tb.8  son  of  Alphfeus,  according  to  Dr.  Davidson's 
view  {Introd.  to  N.  T.,  iii.  312);  or  James  the 
brother  of  the  Ix)rd,  which  is  the  general  opinion 
(see  Euseb.  //.  K  ii.  23;  Alford,  G.  T.  iv.  p.  28); 
or  an  unknown  James  (Luther).  The  likelihood 
of  this  last  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  when  the 
janonieal  character  of  the  epistle  is  admitted, 
tha  son  of  Zebedee  could  not  have  written 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OP 

it,  I>ecause  the  date  of  his  death,  only  seven  jttn 
after  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  does  not  gi\i 
time  for  the  growth  of  a  sufficient  number  of  Jew- 
ish Christians,  fv  rrj  diaaTropa.  Internal  endenc* 
(see  Stanley,  Ajwst.'Aye,  p.  292)  points  unmistak- 
ably to  Ja'iies  the  Just  as  the  writer,  and  we  have 
already  identified  James  the  Just  with  the  son  of 
Alphaeus. 

The  Jewish  Christians,  whether  residing  at  Jeru- 
salem or  living  scattered  among  the  Gentilis,  and 
only  visiting  that  city  from  time  to  time,  were  the 
especial  charge  of  James.  To  them  he  addressed 
this  epistle;  not  to  the  unbelieving  Jews  (Lardn^r, 
Macknight,  Hug,  etc.),  but  only  to  believers  in 
Christ,  as  is  UJidoubtedly  proved  by  i.  1,  ii.  1,  ii. 
7,  V.  7.  The  rich  men  of  v.  1  may  be  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews  (Stanley,  p  299),  Itut  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  the  epistle  wa-  wiitten  to  them.  Ifc  ie 
usual  for  an  orator  to  denounce  in  the  second  per- 
son. It  was  written  from  Jerusalem,  which  St.  James 
does  not  seem  to  have  ever  left.  The  time  at  which 
he  wrote  it  has  been  fixed  as  late  as  62,  and  as  early 
as  45.  Those  who  see  in  its  writer  a  desire  ts 
counteract  the  effects  of  a  misconstruction  of  St. 
Paul's  doctrine  of  Justification  by  faith,  in  ii.  14- 
26  (Wiesinger),  and  those  who  see  a  reference  to 
the  immediate  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  v.  1 
(Macknight),  and  an  allusion  to  the  name  Chris- 
tians in  ii.  7  (De  Wette),  argue  in  favor  of  the 
later  date.  The  earlier  date  is  advocated  by  Schneck- 
enburger,  Neander,  Thiersch,  Davidson,  Stanley, 
and  Alford ;  chiefly  on  the  ground  that  the  epistle 
could  not  have  been  written  by  St.  James  after  the 
Council  in  Jerusalem,  without  some  allusion  to 
what  was  there  decided,  and  because  the  Gentile 
Christian  does  not  yet  api^ear  to  be  recognized. 

III.  Its  Object.  —  The  main  object  of  the  epistle, 
is  not  to  teach  doctrine,  but  to  improve  morality. 
St.  James  is  the  moral  teacher  of  the  N.  T. ;  not 
in  such  sense  a  moral  teacher  as  not  to  be  at  the 
same  time  a  maintainer  and  teacher  of  Christian 
doctrine,  but  yet  mainly  in  this  epistle  a  moral 
teacher.  There  are  two  ways  of  explaining  this 
characteristic  of  the  epistle.  Some  commentators 
and  writers  see  in  St.  James  a  man  who  had  not 
realized  the  essential  principles  and  peculiarities  of 
Christianity,  but  wa.s  in  a  transition  state,  half-Jew 
and  half-Christian.  Schneckenburger  thinks  that 
Christianity  had  not  peneti-ated  his  spiritual  life. 
Neajider  is  of  much  the  same  opinion  {Pjianzung 
uiul  Leitung,  p.  579).  And  the  same  notion  may 
perhaps  be  traced  in  Prof.  Stanley  and  Dean  Alfoi-d. 
But  there  is  another  and  much  more  natural  way 
of  accounting  for  the  fact.  St.  James  was  writing 
for  a  special  class  of  persons,  and  knew  what  that 
class  especially  needed;  and  therefore,  under  the 
guidance  of  God"s  Spirit,  he  adapted  his  instruc- 
tions to  their  capacities  and  wanfs.  Those  for 
whom  he  wrote  were,  as  we  have  said,  the  Jewish 
Christians  whether  in  Jerusalem  or  abroad.  St. 
James,  living  in  the  centre  of  Judaism,  saw  what 
were  the  chief  sins  and  vices  of  his  countrymen; 
and,  fearing  that  his  flock  might  share  in  them,  he 
lifted  up  his  voice  to  warn  them  against  the  con- 
tagion from  which  they  not  only  might,  but  did  in 
part,  suflTer.  This  was  his  main  object;  but  there 
is  another  closely  connected  with  it.  As  Christians, 
his  readers  were  exposed  to  trials  which  they  did 
not  bear  with  the  patience  and  faith  that  would 
have  become  them.  Here  then  are  the  two  object* 
of  the  Epistle —  (1.)  To  warn  against  the  sin*  to 
which  as  Jews  they  were  most  liable;  (2. )  To  oonack 


1 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OP 

md  exhjit  them  under  the  sufferings  to  which  as 
Christians  they  \7ere  most  exposed.  The  warnings 
ind  consolations  are  mixed  together,  for  the  writer 
does  not  seem  to  have  set  himself  down  to  compose 
an  essay  or  a  letter  of  which  he  had  previously 
arranged  the  heads ;  but,  like  one  of  the  old  prophets, 
to  have  poured  out  what  was  uppermost  in  his 
thoughts,  or  closest  to  his  heart,  without  waiting 
to  connect  his  matter,  or  to  throw  bridges  across 
from  sul)ject  to  subject.  While,  in  the  purity  of 
liis  Greek  and  the  vigor  of  his  thoughts,  we  mark 
a  man  of  education,  in  the  abruptness  of  his  transi- 
tions and  the  unpolished  roughness  of  his  style  we 
inriy  trace  one  of  tlie  family  of  the  Davideans,  who 
disarmed  Doniitian  by  the  simplicity  of  their  minds 
and  by  exhibiting  their  hands  hard  with  toil 
(Hegesipp.  npud  Kuseb.  'in.  20). 

The  Jewish  vices  against  which  he  warns  them 
are— Formalism,  which  made  the  service  {df>r}<TKela) 
of  God  consist  in  washings  and  outward  ceremonies, 
whereas  he  rominds  them  (i.  27)  that  it  consists 
rather  in  active  love  and  purity  (see  Coleridge's 
Aids  to  Rejlectum,  Aph.  23 ;  note  also  Active  Lo.ve 
=  Bp.  Butler's  "Benevolence,"  and  Purity  =Bp. 
Butler's  "  Temperance  " ) ;  fanaticism,  which  under 
the  cloak  of  religious  zeal  was  tearing  Jerusalem  to 
pieces  (i.  20);  fatalism,  which  threw  its  sins  on 
God  (i.  13);  meanness,  which  crouched  before  the 
rich  (ii.  2);  falsehood,  which  had  made  words  and 
oatns  playthings  (iii.  2-12);  partizanship  (iii.  14); 
evil-speaking  (iv.  11);  boasting  (iv.  16);  oppres- 
sion (v.  4).  The  great  lesson  which  he  teaches 
them,  as  Christians,  is  patience  —  patience  in  trial 
(i.  2);  patience  in  good  works  (i.  22-25);  patience 
under  provocations  (iii.  17);  patience  under  oppres- 
sion (v.  7);  patience  under  persecution  (v.  10);  and 
the  ground  of  their  patience  is,  that  the  coming 
of  the  I^rd  draweth  nigh,  which  is  to  right  all 
wrongs  (v.  8). 

IV.  There  are  two  points  in  the  epistle  which 
demand  a  somewhat  more  lengthened  notice.  These 
are  (a)  ii.  14-28,  which  has  been  represented  as  a 
formal  opposition  to  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith,  and  (6)  v.  14,  15,  which  is  quoted 
as  the  authority  for  the  sacrament  of  extreme 
unction. 

(a.)  Justification  being  an  act  not  of  man  but 
of  God,  both  the  phrases  "justification  by  faith  " 
and  "justification  by  works  "  are  inexact.  Ju^'ti- 
fication  must  either  be  by  grace,  or  of  reward. 
Therefore  our  question  is.  Did  or  did  not  St.  James 
hold  justification  by  grace?  If  he  did,  there  is  no 
contradiction  between  the  Apostles.  Now  there  is 
aot  one  word  in  St.  James  to  the  effect  that  a  man 
tan  earn  his  justification  by  works;  and  this  would 
be  necessary  in  order  to  prove  that  he  held  justifi- 
cation of  reward.  Still  St.  Paid  does  use  the  ex- 
pression "justified  by  faith"  (Horn.  v.  1),  and  St. 
James  the  expression,  "justified  by  works,  not  by 
faith  only."  And  here  is  an  apparent  opposition. 
But,  if  we  consider  the  meaning  of  the  two  Apostles, 
we  see  at  once  that  there  is  no  contradiction  either 
intended  or  possible.  St.  Paul  wa?  opposing  the 
Judai'.ing  party,  which  claimed  to  earn  acceptance 
by  good  works,  whether  the  works  of  the  Mosaic 
aw,  or  works  of  piety  done  by  themselves.  In 
opposition  to  these,  St.  Paul  lays  down  the  great 
truth  that  acceptance  cannot  be  earned  by  man  at 
all,  but  is  the  free  gift  of  God  to  the  Christian 
wan,  for  the  sake  of  the  merits  of  oesus  Christ, 
ippropriated  by  each  individual,  and  made  his  own 


JAMES,  EPISTLE  OP     120fi 

other  hand,  was  opposing  the  old  Jewi.sh  tenet  tha' 
to  be  a  chikl  of  Abraham  was  all  in  all ;  that  god 
liness  was  not  necessary,  so  that  the  belief  waj 
correct.  This  presumptuous  confidence  had  tran»- 
feiTed  itself,  with  perhaps  double  force,  to  the 
Christianized  Jews.  They  had  said,  "  Ix)rd,  Lord," 
and  that  was  enough,  without  doing  His  Father's 
will.  They  had  recognized  the  Messiah:  what  more 
was  wanted  ?  They  had  faith  :  what  more  was 
required  of  them  ?  It  is  plain  that  their  "  faith  " 
was  a  totally  different  thing  from  the  "faith  "  of 
St.  Paul.  St.  Paul  tells  us  again  and  again  that 
his  "faith  "is  a  "faith  that  worketh  by  love;  " 
but  the  very  characteristic  of  the  "  faith  "  which 
St.  James  is  attacking,  and  the  very  reason- why  he 
attacked  it,  was  that  it  did  not  work  by  love,  but 
was  a  bare  assent  of  the  head,  not  influencing  the 
heart,  a  faith  such  as  devils  can  have,  and  tremble. 
St.  James  tells  us  that  *■'■  fides  informis''''  is  not 
suflScient  on  the  part  of  man  for  justification ;  St. 
Paul  tells  us  that  ^^ fides  Jin-niata"  is  sufficient: 
and  the  reason  why  fides  informis  will  not  justify 
us  is,  according  to  St.  James,  because  it  lacks  that 
special  quality,  the  addition  of  which  constitutes  it 
fides  formata.  See  on  this  subject  Bull's  Har- 
monia  ApostoUca  et  Kxnmen  Censures ;  Taylor's 
Sermon  on  "  Faith  ivorkinff  by  Love,'^  vol.  viii. 
p.  284,  Lond.  1850;  and,  as  a  corrective  of  Bull'a 
view,  Laurence's  Bampton  Lectures,  iv.,  v.,  vi. 

(6.)  With  respect  to  v.  14,  15,  it  is  enough  to 
say  that  the  ceremony  of  extreme  unction  and  the 
ceremony  described  by  St.  James  differ  both  in  their 
subject  and  in  their  object.  The  subject  of  extreme 
unction  is  a  sick  man  who  is  about  to  die;  and  ita 
object  is  not  his  cure.  The  subject  of  the  ceremony 
described  by  St.  James  is  a  sick  man  who  is  not 
about  to  die;  and  its  object  is  his  cure,  together 
with  the  spiritual  benefit  of  absolution.  St.  James 
is  plainly  giving  directions  with  respect  to  the 
manner  of  administering  one  of  those  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Spirit  with  which  the  Church  was 
endowed  only  in  the  Apostolic  age  and  the  age 
immediately  succeeding  the  Apostles. 

The  following  editions,  etc.,  of  St.  James'  Epistle 
may  be  mentioned  as  worthy  of  notice.  The  edition 
of  13enson  and  Michaelis,  Ilalae  Magdeburgicae, 
1746;  Semler's  Paraphrasis,  Halae,  1781;  Mori 
Prcelectiones  in  Jacobi  et  Petri  Epistolas,  Lipsiap 
1794 ;  Schneckenburger's  Annotatio  ad  Epist.  Jac 
perpetua,  Stuttg.  1832;  Davidson's  Introduction 
to  the  New  Test.  iii.  296  ff.,  Lond.  1851;  Alford's 
Greek  Test.  vol.  iv.  p.  274,  Lond.  1859  [4th  ed., 
186G]. 

The  following  spurious  works  have  been  attrib- 
uted to  St.  James:  (1.)  The  Proieva7iffelium.  (2.) 
Ilisforia  de  Nativitate  Mai-ice.  (3.)  De  Miradtlit  ' 
Infiantim  Domini  iiostri,  etc.  Of  these,  the  Pro- 
tevangelium  is  worth  a  passing  notice,  not  for  it« 
contents,  which  are  a  mere  parody  on  the  early 
chapters  of  St.  Luke,  transfer!  ing  the  events  whicb 
occurred  at  our  Lord's  birth  to  the  birth  of  St. 
Mary  his  mother,  but  because  it  appears  to  have 
been  known  so  early  in  the  Church.  It  ia  possible 
that  Justin  Martyr  {Dial,  cum  Tryph.  c.  V8),  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria  (Strom,  lib.  viii.)  refer  tc 
it.  Origen  speaks  of  it  (in  Matt.  xiii.  55);  Gr^- 
ory  Nyssen  (0pp.  p.  346,  ed.  Paris),  Epiphaniu* 
(fleer  Ixxix.),  John  Damascene  (Oi'at.  i.,  ii.  ir 
Nativ.  Marice),  Photiu*?  ( Orat.  in  Nativ.  Maria), 
and  others  allude  to  it.  It  was  first  published  ii 
Latin  in  1552,  in  Greek  in  1564.     The  oldest  MS. 


oy  the  instrumentality  of  faith.  —  St.  James,  on  the  I  of  it  now  existuig  is  of  the  10th  jentury.     (Sei 


1210     JAMES,  EPISTLE  OF 

Thilo's  Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testamenti,  torn. 
I.  pp.  45,  108,  159,  337,  Lips.  1832.)  F.  M. 

*  It  deserves  notice  that  this  epistle  of  James, 
like  that  of  Jude,  but  unUke  that  of  the  other 
apostolic  writings,  never  alludes  to  the  outward 
facts  of  the  Saviour's  life.  Yet  James  speaks  ex- 
pressly of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (see  i.  1,  ii.  1, 
V.  7,  8,  14,  15);  and  the  faith  as  shown  by  works 
on  which  he  lays  such  emphasis  is  that  which  rests 
on  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  men.  At  the  same 
time  the  language  of  James  "  offers  the  most  strik- 
ing coincidences  with  the  language  of  our  Lord's 
discourses."  Compare  James  i.  5,  6  with  Matt.  vii. 
7,  xxi.  22;  i.  22  with  Matt.  vii.  21;  ii.  13  with 
Matt.  V.  7;  iii.  1  with  Matt,  xxiii.  8;  iii.  12  with 
Matt  vii.  16;  and  v.  12  with  INIatt.  v.  34-37.  See 
Westcott's  Jntroduciion  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels, 
p.  186  (Amer.  ed.). 

In  speaking  of  the  sources  from  which  the  Apostle 
Paul  derives  his  favorite  metaphors,  Dr.  Howson 
points  out  in  this  respect  a  striking  difference  be- 
tween him  and  the  Apostle  James.  The  figures 
of  Paul  are  drawn  almost  exclusively  from  the 
practical  relations  or  business  of  men,  as  military 
life,  architecture,  agiicultuie,  and  the  contests  of 
the  gymnasium  and  race-course :  while  the  figures 
of  Janies  are  taken  from  some  of  the  varied  aspects 
or  phenomena  of  nature.  It  is  remarked  that  there 
is  more  imagery  of  this  latter  kind  in  the  one  short 
epistle  of  James  than  in  all  Paul's  epistles  put 
together.  This  trait  of  his  style  appears  in  his 
allusions  to  «' '  the  waves  of  the  sea  driven  with  the 
wind  and  tossed'  (i.  6),  'the  flower  of  the  grass' 
(ver.  10),  '  the  sun  risen  with  a  burning  heat '  (ver. 
11),  «the  fierce  winds'  (iii.  4),  *the  kindling  of  the 
fire'  (ver.  5),  'the  beasts,  birds,  and  serpents  and 
things  in  the  sea '  (ver.  7),  « the  fig,  olive,  and  vine,' 

*  the  salt  water  and  fresh '  (ver.  12),  '  the  vapor  that 
tppeareth  for  a  little  time  and  then  vanisheth 
•way'  (iv.  14),  'the  moth-eaten  garments'  (v.  2), 

•  the  rust'  (ver.  3), 'the  early  and  latter  rain' 
(ver.  7),  'and  the  earth  bringing  forth  her  fruit' 
(ver.  18)."  (Lectures  on  the  Character  of  St.  Paul, 
pp.6,7,I^nd.  1864.) 

Among  the  commentaries  on  this  epistle  (see 
above)  may  be  mentioned  Gebser,  Der  Brief  Jacobi 
ubersetzt  n.  erkldrt,  in  which  special  reference  is 
made  to  the  views  of  the  ancient  Greek  and  Latin 
interpreters  (1828);  Theile,  Comm.  in  Jijmt.  Jacobi 
(1833);  Kern,  Der  Brief  Jacobi  untersucht  u. 
erkUirt  (1838);  Cellerier,  ^tiide  et  Commeniaire 
$ur  VEpitre  de  St.  Jacques  (1850);  Wiesinger, 
Olshausen's  Bibl.  Comm.  vi.  pt.  1.  (2te  Aufl.,  1854): 
Huther,  in  Meyer's  Komvi.  iiber  das  N.  T.  xv. 
;2te  Aufl.,  1863):  De  Wette,  Kxeyet.  Ilandb.xdl. 
Iii.  pt.  i.  (3te  Aufl.,  by  Bruckner,  1865);  Lange 
•ud  Oosterzee,  Lange's  Bibelwerk,  xiii.  (1862)  and 
Amer,  transl.  with  additions  by  Dr.  J.  I.  Mombert, 
pp.  1-148  (1868);  Neander,  Der  Biief  Jacobi, 
prdktisch  erUiutert,  with  Luther's  version  coirected 
by  K.  F.  Th.  Schneider,  pp.  1-162;  Webster  and 
Wilkinson,  Greek  N.  Test.,  with  notes  grammatical 
and  exegetical,  ii.  1-5  and  10-30  (I.ond.  1861); 
Rev.  T,  Trapp,  Commentary  on  the  N.  Testament 
(pp.  693-705),  quaint  in  style  but  terse  and  sen- 
tentious (Webster's  ed.  Lond.  1865);  and  Bouman, 
Comm.  perpetuus  in  Jacobi  Epistolam,  Traj.  ad 
Rhen.  1865.  For  a  list  of  some  of  the  older  works, 
lee  Reuss's  Geschichte  des  N.  Test.  p.  131  (3te 
Ausg.  1860). 

Valuable  articles  on  the  epistle  of  James  will  be 
\)und  in  Herzog's  ReaUEncyk.  vi.  417  flf.  by  Lange; 


JANGLING 

in  Zeller's  Bihl.  Wih'terb.  i.  658  ff.  by  ZeOcr  (thi 
analysis  specially  good);  and  in  Kitto's  Cyd.  of 
Bibl.  Literature,  by  Dr.  Eadie  (3d  ed.  1866).  Fm 
a  compendious  view  of  the  critical  questions  relating 
to  the  authorship,  destination,  and  doctrines  of  the 
letter,  see  Bleek's  Linleituny  in  das  N.  Test.  pp. 
539-553  (1862).  Rev.  T.  D.  Maurice  gives  an  out- 
line of  the  apostle's  thoughts  in  his  Unity  of  the 
Neio  Testament,  pp.  316-331.  See  also  Stanley's 
Sernions  and  Essays  on  the  Apostolic  Aye,  pp.  297- 
324.  The  monographic  literature  is  somewhat  ex- 
tensive. The  theologian,  George  Chr.  Knapp,  treats 
of  "  The  Doctrine  of  Paul  and  James  respecting 
Faith  and  Works,  compared  with  the  Teaching  of 
our  Lord,"  in  his  Scripta  Varii  Argumtnti,  i. 
411-456.  See  a  translation  of  the  same  by  Prof. 
W.  Thompson  in  the  Biblical  Jiejwsitm-y,  iii.  189- 
228.  Neander  has  an  essay  in  his  Gelegenheits- 
schriften  (3te  Ausg.  1827)  entitled  Paulus  und 
Jacobus,  in  which  he  illustrates  the  "  Unity  of  the 
Evangelical  Spirit  in  diff'erent  Forms."  Some  ex- 
tracts from  this  essay  are  appended  to  the  above 
translation.  Prof.  E.  P.  Barrows  has  written  on  the 
"  Alleged  Disagreement  between  Paul  and  James  " 
on  the  subject  of  justification,  in  the  Bibl  Sacra, 
ix.  761-782.  On  this  topic  see  also  Neander'g 
Pflanzung  u.  Leitung,  ii.  858-873  (Robinson's 
transl.  p.  498  fF.);  Lechler's  Das  apostol.  und 
nachapost.  Zeitalter,  pp.  252-263;  and  Schaff''B 
Histoiy  of  the  Ajwsfolic  Church,  p.  625  ff".  (N.  Y. 
1853).  Stier  has  pubhshed  Der  Brief  des  Jacobus 
in  32  Betrachtungen  ausgelegt  (1845).  For  some 
other  similar  works  or  discussions,  see  Lange's 
Bibelwerk  as  above  (p.  24  f. ),  or  Dr.  Schaff''8  transl. 
of  Lange's  Commentary  (p.  33  f.)  H. 

JA'MIN  (V^J  {light  side  or  hand] :  'la/iCiV, 
'lo/if .*.•■*»  'lo-tiiv;  [Vat.  lafxfiv,  and  so  Alex.  exc.  in 
Num.:]  Jamin).  1.  Second  son  of  Simeon  (Gen. 
xlvi.  10;  Ex.  vi.  15;  1  Chr.  iv.  24),  founder  of  the 
family  {inishpacah)  of  the  Jaminites  (Num.  xxvi. 
12). 

2.  (['lo/irv;  Vat.  Ia/ie«»/;]  Alex,  lafiuv.)  A 
man  of  Judah,  of  the  great  house  of  Hezron ;  second 
son  of  Ram  the  Jerahmeelite  (1  Chr.  ii.  27). 

3.  [Comp.  'la/icjV.]  One  of  the  Levites  who 
under  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  read  and  expounded  the 
law  to  the  people  (Neh.  viii.  7).  By  the  LXX. 
[Rom.,  Vat.,  Alex.]  the  greater  part  of  the  names 
in  this  passage  are  omitted. 

JA'MINITES,  THE  C'S'^JH  [patronym.] : 
6  ^lafxivi  [Vat.  -i/et] :  familia  Jaminitarum),  the 
descendants  of  Jamin  the  son  of  Simeon  (Num. 
xxvi.  12). 

JAM'LECH  Cn"!??!  U^e,  i.  e.  God,  maker 
king]:  'le/ioXdx?  [Comp.  Aid.]  Alex.  'A/xoA^k: 
Jemlech),  one  of  the  chief  men  (D^S^iT?,  A.  V 
"princes")  of  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (1  Chr!  iv.  34), 
probably  in  the  time  of  Hczekiah  (see  \er.  41). 

JAM'NIA  i'lafivia,  'Icf^vem,  and  so  Josephus; 
[in  1  Mace.  iv.  15,  Alex.  loyj/c/a,  Sin.  la/juveia:] 
J  omnia),  1  Mace.  iv.  15,  v.  68,  x.  69,  xv.  40. 
[Jabneel.] 

JAM'NITES,  THE  {oi  h  'la/ivc/o,  ol  'lo/t- 
vlrai:  Jamnitce),  2  Mace.  xii.  8,  9,  40.     [Ja» 

NEEL.] 

*  JANGLING  in  1  Tim.  i.  6  (A.  V.),  whei« 
"  vain  jangling  "  represents  the  Greek  fiaraio^oyia 
does  not  signify  "  wrangling,"  but  "  babhfiii^*' 


JANNA 

« idle  talk."  This  use  of  the  word  a  well  illustrated 
by  a  quotation  from  Chaucer  s  Panon's  Tale,  given 
In  Eastwood  and  Wright's  Bible  Word-Book: 
»♦  Jan(jelyh<j  is  whan  a  man  spekith  to  raoche  bifom 
folk,  and  clappith  as  a  mille,  and  taketh  no  keep 
what  he  saith."  A. 

JAN'NA  Cloi/j/a  [Lachm.  and  Tisch.  'lavvai']\ 
son  of  Joseph,  and  father  of  Melchi,  in  the  geneal- 
ogy of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  24).  It  is  perhaps  only  a 
»rariation  of  Joannas  or  John.  A.  C.  II. 

JAN'NES  and  JAM'BRES  {'lavvrjs,  'lo/i- 
jSpJjs),  the  names  of  two  Egyptian  magicians  who 
opposed  Jloses.  St.  Paul  alone  of  the  sacred  writers 
mentions  them  by  name,  and  says  no  more  than 
that  they  "  withstood  IMoses,"  and  that  their  folly 
in  doing  so  became  manifest  (2  Tim.  iii.  8,  9).  It 
appears  from  the  Jewish  commentators  that  these 
names  were  held  to  l>e  those  of  the  magicians  who 
opposed  Closes  and  Aaron,  spoken  of  in  Exodus  (or 
perliaps  their  leaders),  of  whom  we  there  read  that 
they  first  imitated  the  wonders  wrought  by  Moses 
and  Aaron,  but,  afterwtrds  foiling,  confessed  that 
the  power  of  God  was  with  those  whom  they  had 
withstood  (chap.  vii.  11,  where  the  Targum  of 
Jonathan  inserts  these  names,  22,  viii.  18,  19). 
With  this  St.  Paul's  words  perfectly  agree. 

Jambres  is  written  in  some  codices  Ma/x^pris' 
both  forms,  the  latter  being  slightly  varied,  are  found 

in  the  Jewish  commentaries  (D")iD^,  D"1DD)  : 
the  former  appears  to  be  the  earlier  form.  We 
have  been  unable  to  discover  an  Egyptian  name 
resembling  Jambres  or  IMambres.  The  termination 
is  like  that  of  many  Egyptian  compounds  ending 
with  RA  "the  sun;"  as  Men-kau-ra,  Mevx^pvs 
(Manetho,  IVth  Dyn.). 

Jannes  appears  to  be  a  transcription  of  the 
Egyptian  name  Aan,  probably  pronounced  Ian.  It 
was  the  nomen  of  two  kings:  one  of  the  Xlth 
Dynasty,  the  father  or  ancestor  of  Sesertesen  I.  of 
the  Xllth ;  the  other,  according  to  our  arrangement, 
fourth  or  fifth  king  of  the  XVth  Dyn.,  called  by 
Manetho  'idi/uasor  'lavias  (Jos.)  or  Sraai/ (Afr.). 
(See  //(irce  ^fjypiiaccr.,  pp.  374,  175.)  There  is 
also  a  king  bearing  the  name  Annu,  whom  we 
assign  to  the  lid  Dyn.  (flor.  jEg.  p.  101).  The 
signification  of  Aiin  is  doubtful :  the  cognate  word 
Aant  means  a  valley  or  plain.  The  earlier  king 
Aan  may  be  assigned  to  the  twenty-first  century 
B.  c. ;  the  latter  one  we  hold  to  be  probably  the 
second  predecessor  of  Joseph's  Pharaoh.  This  shows 
that  a  name  which  may  be  reasonably  supposed  to 
be  the  original  of  Jannes,  was  in  use  at  or  near  the 
period  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt.  The  names  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  were  extremely  numerous  and 
very  fluctuating  in  use :  generally  the  most  prevalent 
at  any  time  were  those  of  kings  then  reigning  or 
not  long  dead. 

Our  result  as  to  the  name  of  Jannes  throws  light 
upon  a  curious  question  raised  by  the  supposition 
that  St.  Paul  took  the  names  of  the  magicians  from 
a  prevalent  tradition  of  the  Jews.  This  conjecture 
is  as  old  as  the  time  of  Theodoret,  who  makes  the 
Upposed  tradition  oral.  (Ta  /xevroi  tcvtcov  6u6- 
uoTo  ovK  iK  T7JS  Odus  7pa(^^y  ixifi(iQr)Kiv  6  6(7os 
%w6<rTo\oi-j  a.\A.'  e/c  t^s  aypdcpov  rwu  'lov^aicov 
itda(rKa\las '•  ((d  loc).  This  opinion  would  be  of 
Ittle  importance  were  it  not  for  the  circumstance 
fhat  these  names  were  known  to  the  Greeks  and 
Somans  at  too  early  a  period  for  us  to  suppose  that 
Jieir  icforniatioa  waa  derived  from  St.  Paul's  men- 


JANOHAH  1211 

tion  (see  Plin,  77.  JNT.  xxx.  1 ;  Apul.  Apot.  p.*  S4 
Bipont. ;  Numenius  ap.  Euseb.  Prcep.  Evan.  ix.  8) 
It  has  therefore  been  generally  supposed  that  Sfc 
Paul  took  these  names  from  Jewish  tradition.  H 
seems,  however,  inconsistent  with  the  character  of 
an  inspired  record  for  a  baseless  or  incorrect  current 
tradition  to  be  cited ;  it  is  therefore  satisfactory  to 
find  there  is  good  reason  for  thinking  these  names 
to  be  authentic.  Whether  Jannes  and  Jambres 
were  mentioned  in  some  long-lost  book  relating  to 
the  early  history  of  the  Israelites,  or  whether  there 
were  a  veritable  oral  tradition  respecting  them,  can- 
not now  be  determined.  The  former  is  the  more 
probable  supposition  —  if,  as  we  believe,  the  names 
are  correct  —  since  oral  tradition  is  rarely  exact  in 
minute  particulars. 

The  conjecture  of  Majus  {Observ.  Sacr.  ii.  42 
ft'.,  ap.  Whier,  RealwoH.  s.  v.),  that  Jannes  and 
Jambres  are  merely  meaningless  words  put  for  lost 
proper  names,  is  scarcely  worth  refuting.  The 
words  are  not  sufficiently  similar  to  give  a  color 
to  the  idea,  and  there  is  no  known  instance  of  the 
kind  in  the  Bible. 

The  Kabbins  state  that  Jannes  and  Jambres  were 
sons  of  Balaam,  and  among  various  forms  of  their 
names  give  Johannes  and  Ambrosius.  There  was 
an  apocryphal  work  called  Jannes  mid  Mambres, 
condemned  by  Pope  Gelasius. 

The  Arabs  mention  the  names  uf  several  magi- 
cians who  opposed  Moses;  among  them  are  none 
resembling  Jannes  and  Jambres  (D'Herbelot,  art. 
Moussa  Ben  Anii'an). 

There  are  several  dissertations  on  this  subject 
(J.  Grotius,  Diss,  de  .Janne  et  Jambre,  Ilafn.  1707 ; 
J.  G.  Michaelis,  Id.  Hal.  1747;  Zentgrav,  Jd. 
Argent.  1669;  Lightfoot,  Sermon  on  Jannes  and 
Jambres,  etc.  [Fabricius,  Cod.  psevdepiyr.  Vet, 
Test.  i.  813-825]). 

There  is  a  question  of  considerable  interest  as  to 
these  Egyptian  magicians  which  we  cannot  here 
discuss:  Is  their  temporary  success  attributable 
to  pure  imposture  ?  The  passages  relating  to  them 
in  the  Bible  would  lead  us  to  reply  affirmatively,  as 
we  have  already  said  in  speaking  of  ancient  Egyp- 
tian magic.     [Egyit.]  R.  S.  P. 

JANO'AH  {Ty\T  [rest,  quiet]:  ^  'Avidx'^ 
Alex.  lavo}x'  Jfinoe),  a  place  apparently  in  tho 
north  of  GaUlee,  or  the  "  land  of  Naphtali  "  —  one 
of  those  taken  by  Tiglath-Pileser  in  his  first  incur- 
sion into  Palestine  (2  K.  xv.  29).  No  trace  of  it 
appears  elsewhere.  By  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
(Onom.  "lanon"),  and  even  by  Reland  (Pal.  p 
826),  it  is  confounded  with  Janohah,  in  the  centra 
of  the  country.  G. 

JANO^IAH  (nn'lD^,  i.  e.  Yanochah  [witi 

n-—  local,  unto  rest} :  'lavaKcJ,  but  in  next  verse 
Mox£«>»  Alex.  lovw;  [Comp.  'lavcoxd'-]  Janoe),  a 
place  on  the  boundary  of  Ephraim  (possibly  that 
between  it  and  Manasseh).  It  is  named  between 
Taanath-Shiloh  and  Atarotb,  the  enumeration  pro- 
ceeding from  west  to  east  (Josh.  xvi.  6,  7).  Euse- 
bius {Onomasficon,  "lano")  gives  it  as  twelve 
miles  east  of  Neapolis.  A  little  less  than  that  dis- 
tance from  Nablus,  and  about  S.  E.  in  direction, 
two  miles  from  Akrabeh,  is  the  village  of  Yanun^ 
^  doubtless  identical  with  the  ancient  Janohah.  II 
.  seems  to  have  been  first  visited  in  modem  times  bj 
Van  de  Velde  (ii.  303,  May  8,  1852;  see  also  I{ob. 
iii.  297).  It  is  in  a  valley  descending  sharply  east- 
I  ward  towards  the  Jordan.     The  modem  YiUapn  k 


1212  JANUM 

rwy  small,  but  the  ancient  ruins  "  extensive  and 
Interesting."  "I  Iiave  not  seen,'-  says  V.,  " any 
of  Israel's  ancient  cities  in  sucli  a  condition :  entire 
bouses  and  walls  exist,  covered  witli  immense  heaps 
of  eartli."  IJut  there  are  also  ruins  on  the  hill 
N.  E.  of  Ynnun,  called  Kliirbet  1'.,  which  may  be 
the  site  of  the  original  place  (Kob.  p.  297).      G. 

JA'NUM  {U^T,  following  the  Keri  of  the 
Masorets,  but  in  the  original  text,  Cvtib,  it  is 
D'^3'^,  Janim  \slumher]  :  ^Ufid'Cv  [Vat.  -ejj/]  ;  Alex. 
Avovjj.:  Janurn).  a  town  of  Judah  in  the  mountain 
district,  apparently  not  far  from  Hebron,  and  named 
between  Esheaii  and  Beth-tappuah  (Josh.  xv.  53). 
It  was  not  known  to  ICusebius  and  Jerome  (see 
Onomnst.  "lanun"),  nor  does  it  appear  to  have 
been  yet  met  with  by  any  modern  investigator. 

G. 

JATHETH  {^\!::-  'ld(pee:  Japheth),  one 
of  the  three  sons  of  Noah.  From  the  order  in 
which  their  names  invariably  occur  (Gen.  v.  32,  vi. 
10)  we  should  naturally  infer  that  Japheth  was  the 
youngest,  but  we  learn  from  ix.  24  that  Ham  held 
that  positioriT^nd  the  precedence  of  Japheth  before 
this  one  of  the  three  is  indicated  in  the  order  of 
the  names  in  x.  2,  6.  It  has  been  generally  sup- 
posed from  X.  21  that  Japheth  was  the  eldest;  but 
it  should  be  obsened  that  the  word  ffacKl  in  that 
passage  is  better  connected  with  "  brother,"  as  in 
the  Vulg.  ^^fratre  Japhet  mnjore.'^  Not  only  does 
the  usage  of  the  Hebrew  language  discountenance 
the  other  construction,  but  the  sense  of  the  passage 
requires  that  the  age  of  Shem  rather  than  of  Ja- 
pheth should  be  there  sijecified.  We  infer  therefore 
that  Japheth  was  the  second  son  of  Noah.  I'he 
origin  of  the  name  is  referred  by  the  sacred  writer 

to  the  root  pathnk  (nn5),  "  to  extend,"  as  pre- 
dictive of  the  wide  spread  of  his  descendants  over 
the  northern  and  western  regions  of  the  world  (Gen. 
ix.  27).     The  name  has  also  been  referred  to  the 

root  ynphah  C^^^)?  "to  be  fair,"  as  significant  of 
the  light  complexion  of  the  Japhetic  races  (Gesenius, 
Thi^s.  p.  1138;  Knobel,  Volkert.  p.  22).  From 
the  resemblance  of  the  name  to  the  mythological 
Idpctus,  some  writers  have  sought  to  establish  a 
connection  between  thein.  lapetus  was  regarded 
by  the  Greeks  as  the  ancestor  of  the  human  race. 
The  descendants  of  Japheth  occupied  the  "  isles  of 
the  Gentiles  "  (Gen.  x.  6),  i.  e.  the  coast-lands  of 
the  Mediterranean  Sea  in  Europe  and  Asia  Minor, 
whence  they  spread  northwards  over  the  whole 
continent  of  Europe  and  a  considerable  portion  of 
Asia.     [Javan.]  W.  L.  B. 

JAPHFA  (l?^r;  I  fair,  splendid]:  ^ayyal; 
Alex.  la<payai  ;  [Comp.  'lacpcpie  ;  Aid.  'A</)<6:] 
Japkie).  The  boundary  of  Zebulun  ascended  from 
Daberath  to  Japhia,  and  thence  passed  to  Gath- 
bepher  (Josh.  xix.  12).  Daberath  appears  to  be 
ill  the  slopes  of  Mount  Tabor,  and  (iath-hepher 
nay  possibly  be  el-.\[tshhad,  2  miles  N.  of  Naza- 
reth. Six  miles  "W.  of  the  former,  and  2  miles  S. 
pf  Na/areth,  is  l'f//W,«  which  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
dentical  with  Japhia  (Kob.  ii.  343-44):  at  least 

a  It  should  be  remarked  that  Yafa^  LsLj*  is  the 
jiodem  representative  of  both  ID**,  i.  «.  Joppa,  and 
tf^C\  Japhia  two  names  originally  yery  distint.*. 


JAPHO 

this  is  much  more  probable  than  Chhife  (Sjeand 
nopolis)  in  the  bay  of  Akka  —  the  suggestion  of 
Eusebius  {Onomast.  "lapheth  "),  and  endorsed  bj 
Keland  {PuL  p.  826)  — an  identification  which  it 
neither  etymologically  nor  topographically  admissi- 
ble. YaJ'a  may  also  be  the  same  with  the  '\a<pi 
which  was  occupied  by  Josephus  during  his  strug- 
gle with  the  Romans  —  "a  very  large  village  of 
Lower  Galilee,  fortified  with  walls  and  full  of  peo- 
ple "  ( Vita,  §  45;  comp.  37,  and  B.  J.  ii.  20,  §  6), 
of  whom  15,000  were  killed  and  2,130  taken  prison- 
ers by  the  Komans  {B.  J.  iii.  7,  §  31);  though  if 
Jefat  be  Jotapata  this  can  hardly  '.ie,  as  the  two 
are  more  than  ten  miles  apart,  and  he  expressly 
says  that  they  were  neighbors  to  each  other. 

A  tradition,  which  first  appears  in  Sir  John 
Maundeville,  makes  Yafa  the  birthplace  of  Zebe- 
dee  and  of  the  Apostles  James  and  John,  his  sons. 
Hence  it  is  called  by  the  Latin  monks  of  Nazareth 
"  San  Giacomo."  See  Quaresmitis,  L'lua'dntio,  ii. 
843;  and  Jiarly  Trnv.,  p.  18G;  Maundeville  calls 
it  the  "  Castle  of  Saflft-a."  So  too  Von  Harfl^,  a.  d. 
1498:  "  Saffra,  eyn  caste«,l  van  wylcheme  Alpheus 
und  Sebedeus  geboreu  waren "  {Pilf/erfahrt,  p. 
195).  G. 

JAPHrA(V''DJ  [shininff,  splendid]:  'U<pea; 
Alex.  Ia<^i6:  Jophiu).^  1.  King  of  Lachish  at  the 
time  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by  the  IsraeUtes 
(Josh.  X.  3);  one  of  the  five  "kings  of  the  Amo- 
rites "  who  entered  into  a  confederacy  against 
Joshua,  and  who  were  defeated  at  Beth-horon,  and 
lost  their  lives  at  Makkedah.  The  king  of  Lachish 
is  mentioned  more  than  once  in  this  narrative  (ver. 
5,  23),  but  his  name  occurs  only  as  above. 

2.  CU(pi(s,  'Io<^«e;  [Vat.  in  1  Chr.  lavove, 
lauovov  (so  FA.);]  Alex.  A<^£f,  [la<^jf:]  Jnplda.) 
One  of  the  sons  of  Da\'id,  tenth  of  the  fourteen 
born  to  him  by  his  wives  after  his  establishment  in 
Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  v.  15;  1  Chr.  iii.  7,  xiv.  6). 
In  the  Hebrew  form  of  this  name  there  are  no  va* 
riatio-.iS.  The  Teshito  has  Nephia,  a»)d,  in  1  Chr. 
iii.,  Nepheg.  In  the  list  given  by  Josephus  {AnU 
vii.  3,  §  3)  it  is  not  recognizable:  it  may  be  'Hj^ 
yo^V*  or  it  may  be  "Uva4.  There  do  not  appear 
to  be  any  traditions  concerning  Japhia.  The  gene- 
alogy is  given  under  David,  vol.  i.  p.  500.     G. 

JAPHXET  (tsbs^  {wh<ym  God  delivers]: 
'la<p\r)r;  [Vat.  *aAi7x»  Ia(/)oAT?A:]  Alex.  la<pa- 
\t}t  '  Jep/ilnt),  a  descendant  of  Asher  through 
Beriah,  his  youngest  son ;  named  as  the  father  of 
three  Bene-Japhlet  (1  Chr.  vii.  32,  33). 

JAPHXETI  Ot?b;p^n  =  the  Japhletite; 
[patron.,  see  above:]  'AirraA//*  [Vat.  -Xfifi] ;  Alex. 
Tou  U^a\6i:  Jephleti).  The  "boundary  of  the 
Japhletite  "  is  oi.e  of  the  landmarks  on  the  south 
boundarv-line  of  Ephmim  (Josh.  xvi.  3),  west  of 
Beth-ht/ion  the  lower,  ai.d  between  it  and  Ataroth. 
Who  "  the  Japhletite  "  was  who  is  thus  perpetu- 
ated we  cannot  ascertain.  Possibly  the  name  pre- 
serves the  memory  of  some  ancient  tribe  who  at  a 
remote  age  dwelt  on  these  hills,  just  as  the  former 
presence  of  other  tribes  in  the  neighborhood  ma^ 
be  inferred  from  the  names  of  Zemaraim,  Ophci 
(the  Ophnite),  Cephar  ha-Anmionai,  and  others 
[Benjamin,  p.  277,  note  b.]  We  can  hardly  sup- 
pose at  Y  connection  with  Japhlet  of  the  remot« 
Asher.  No  trace  of  the  name  has  yet  been  discov 
t»red  in  ihe  district.  G. 

JATHO    (*10J    \heauty\  ;   'loirmj .    Jcppe] 


i 


JARAH 

rhii  word  occurs  in  the  A.  V.  but  once,  Josh.  xix. 
id.  It  is  the  accurate  representation  of  the  He- 
Drew  vord  which  on  its  other  occurrences  is  ren- 
dered in  the  better  Itnown  fonn  of  Jopi'A  (2  Chr. 
ii.  16;  Ezr.  iii.  7;  Jon.  i.  3).     In  its  modern  garb 

it  is  Yafa  (Li Li),  whijh  is  also  the  Arabic  name 
of  Japhia,  a  very  different  word  in  Hebrew. 
[Joppa;  Joppe.] 

JA'RAH  (^nV^  and  in  some  MSS.  H'^V! 
[honey] :  'laSi:  Jnra),,  a  man  among  the  descend- 
ants of  Saul;  son  of  Micah,  and  gi-eat-grandson 
of  Meribbaal,  or  Mephi-bosheth  (1  Chr.  ix.  42, 
comp.  40).  In  the  parallel  list  of  ch.  viii.  the  name 
is  materially  altered  to  Jeiioadaii. 

JA'REB  i'^','^  [an  adversary,  hostile]:  'la- 

f^c/ju,  as  if  D71t»  ^"  ^°*^  ^°^-  '^-  ^'^  *"^  X.  6 ; « 
though  Theodoret  gives  'lapelfi  in  the  former  pas- 
sage, and  'lapelfA  in  the  latter  [and  Comp.  in  x.  G 
has  'Iapi;8] ;  and  Jerome  has  Jarib  for  the  Greek 
equivalent  of  the  LXX.)  is  either  to  be  explained 
as  the  proper  name  of  a  country  or  person,  as  a 

noun  in  apposition,  or  as  a  verb  from  a  root  2^"1, 
rub,  "  to  contend,  plead."  All  these  senses  are 
represented  in  the  A.  V.  and  the  marginal  reatl- 
ing?,  and,  as  has  been  not  unfrequently  the  case, 
Ihe  least  preferable  has  been  inserted  in  the  text. 
Had  Jareb  been  the  proper  name  of  the  king  of 
Assyria,  as  it  would  be  if  this  rendering  were  cor- 
rect, the  word  preceding  ("TJ/?P)  melee,  "king") 
would  have  required  the  article.  R.  D.  Kirachi 
saw  this  difficulty,  and  therefore  explained  Jareb 
IS  the  name  of  some  city  of  Assyria,  or  as  another 
name  of  the   country  itself.       The   Syriac   gives 

♦•^♦-«',  yorob,  as  the  name  of  a  country,  which  is 
applied  by  Ephrem  Syrus  to  Egypt,  reference  being 
made  to  Hoshea  king  of  Israel,  who  had  sent  to  So 
the  king  of  Egypt  for  assistance  in  his  conspiracy 
against  Shalmanezer  (2  K.  xvii.  4).  So  also  the 
'lop6i)3  or  'lopeZ/i  of  Theodoret  is  Egypt.  The 
clause  in  which  it  occurs  is  supposed  by  many  to 
refer  to  Judah,  in  order  to  make  the  parallelism 
complete;  and  with  this  in  view  Jarchi  interprets 
it  of  Ahaz,  who  sent  to  Tiglath-Pileser  (2  K.  xvi. 
8)  to  aid  him  against  the  combined  forces  of  Syria 
and  Israel;  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  two  clauses  do  not  both  refer  to  Ephraim,  and 
the  allusion  would  then  be,  as  explained  by  Jerome, 
to  Pul,  who  was  subsidized  by  Alenahem  (2  K.  xv. 
19),  and  Judah  would  be  indirectly  included.  The 
rendering  of  the" Vulgate,  "avenger"  ("ad  regem 
M^/orew"),  which  follows  Symmachus,  as  well  as 
those  of  Aquila  {SiKa(6ixeyou)  and  Theodotion, 
"judge,"  are  justified  by  Jerome  by  a  reference  to 
Jerubbaal,  the  name  of  Gideon,  which  he  renders 
"  ulciscatur  se  Baal,"  or  " judicet  eum  Baal,"  "let 
Baal  avenge  himself,"  or  "  let  Baal  judge  him."  * 
The  Targumist  evidently  looked  upon  it  as  a  verb, 

the  apocopated  future  Hiphil  of  H^"^,  rub,  and 
translated  the  clause,  "  and  sent  to  the  king  that, 
he  might  come  to  avenge  them."  If  it  be  a  He- 
brew word,  it  is  most  probably  a  noun  formed  from 

iie  above-mentioned  root,  like  2'^"]'*,  ydnb  (Is. 
dix.  25;  Ps.  xxxv.  1),  and  is  applied  to  the  land 


JARHA  1218 

of  Assyria,  or  to  its  king,  not  in  tlie  sense  in  which 
it  is  understood  in  the  Targum,  but  as  indicatin2 
their  determined  hostility  to  Israel,  and  their  gen 
erally  aggressive  character.  Cocceius  had  this  idsa 
before  him  when  he  translated  "  rex  adveisarius." 
Michaelis  {Stippl.  ad  Lex.  Ileb.),  dissatisfied  with 
the  usual  explanations,  looked  for  the  true  meanin:; 

of  Jareb  in  the  Syriac  root  *^'^* ,  ireb,  "  to  be 
great,"  and  for  "king  Jareb"  substituted  "the 
great  king,"  a  title  frequently  applied  to  the  kings 
of  Assyria.  If  it  were  the  proper  name  of  a  place, 
he  says  it  would  denote  that  of  a  castle  or  palace  in 
which  the  kings  of  Assyria  resided.  But  of  this 
there  can  be  no  proof,  the  name  has  not  descended 
tu  us,  and  it  is  better  to  take  it  in  a  symbolical 
sense  as  indicating  the  hostile  character  of  Assyria. 
That  it  is  rather  to  be  applied  to  the  country  than 
to  the  king  may  be  inferred  from  its  standing  in 
parallehsm  with  Asshur.  Such  is  the  opinion  of 
Eiirst  ( Handw.  s.  v. ),  who  illustrates  the  symbolical 
usage  by  a  compai'ison  with  Kahab  as  applied  to 
Egypt.  At  the  same  time  he  hazards  a  conjecture 
that  it  may  have  been  an  old  Assyrian  word, 
adopted  into  the  Hebrew  language,  and  so  modified 
as  to  express  an  intelligible  idea,  while  retaining 
sometliing  of  its  original  form.  Ilitzig  {die  12  kl. 
Proph.)  goes  further,  and  finds  in  a  mixed  dialect, 
akin  to  the  Assyrian,  axerhjarbam,  which  denotes 
"to  struggle  or  fight,"  and  jarbech,  the  JEthiopic 
for  "a  hero  or  bold  warrior;"  but  it  would  be 
desirable  to  have  more  evidence  on  the  point.  - 

Two  mystical  interpretations,  alluded  to  by  Je 
rome  as  current  among  commentators  in  his  time, 
are  remarkable  for  the  singularly  opposite  conclu- 
sions at  which  they  arrived ;  the  one  referring  th» 
word  to  the  Devil,  the  other  to  Christ.  Rivetua 
(quoted  by  Glassius,  Pliilol.  Sacr.  iv.  tr.  3)  was  of 
opinion  that  the  title  Jareb  or  "avenger"  was  as- 
sumed by  the  powerful  king  of  Assyria,  as  that  of 
"  Defender  of  the  Faith  "  by  our  own  monarchs. 

W.  A.  W 

JARRED  (T^.'?  [descent,  low  ground],  i.  c.  Je- 

red,  as  the  name  is  given  in  A.  V.  of  Chr.,  but  in 

pause  1^'^,  from  which  the  present  form  may  have 

been  derived,  though  more  probably  from  the  Vul 
gate:  'idped,  Alex,  also  laper',  N.  T.  'lapeS  and 
[Lachm.]  'idpeO  [Tisch.  'laper]  ;  Joseph.  'Iap45r]s'' 
Jnred),  one  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs,  the 
fifth  from  Adam ;  son  of  Mahalaleel,  and  father  of 
Enoch  (Gen.  v.  15,  16,  18,  19,  20;  Luke  iii  37 1 
In  the  lists  of  Chronicles  the  name  is  given  in  tUP 
A.  V.  [as]  Jered. 

JARESFAH    {'n^PT)Vl     [v^hom    Jehovah 

nourishes]:  'lapaaria;  [Vat.  laffapaia'-]  Jersia)^ 
a  Benjamite,  one  of  the  Bene-Jeroham  [sons  of  J.] ; 
a  chief  man  of  his  tribe,  but  of  whom  nothing  ii 
recorded  (1  Chr.  viii.  27). 

JAR'HA  {Vrp,l  [see  at  end  of  the  art.J : 

'Iwxi^A;  [Comp.  'lepee;  Aid.  'Upad:]  Jeraa),  ihi 
Egyptian  servant  of  Sheshan,  about  the  time  of 
Eli,  to  whom  his  master  gave  his  daughter  and 
heir  in  marriage,  and  who  thus  became  the  foundej 
of  a  chief  house  of  the  Jerahmeelites,  which  con- 
tinued at  least  to  the  time  of  king  Hezekiah,  and 


a  As  an  tnitance  Ot  the  contrar;    see  Ne/3p(62  for '      b  In  another  place  he  gives  "  Jarib ;   d^ndican* 

I  Tel  ulciacena  "  (de  Nom.  Hehr  ) 


1214 


JARIB 


from  which  spnmg  several  illustrious  persons «  such 
as  Zabad  in  the  reign  of  David,  and  Azariah  in 
the  reign  of  Joash  (1  Chr.  ii.  31  ff.).  [Azariah 
6:  Zabad.]  It  is  a  matter  of  somewhat  curious 
mquiry.  what  was  the  name  of  Jarha's  wife.  In 
ver.  31  we  read  "the  children  of  Sheshan,  Alilai," 
and  in  ver.  34,  "  Sheshan  had  no  sons,  but  daugh- 
ters." In  ver.  35,  Sheshan's  daughter  "  bare  him 
Attai,"  whose  grandson  was  Zabad;  and  in  ch.  xi. 
41,  "Zabad  the  son  of  Ahlai."  Hence  some  have 
imagined  that  Jarha  on  his  marriage  with  Sheshan's 
daughter  had  the  name  of  Ahlai  (interpreted  a 
"  brother-to-me  " )  given  him  by  Sheshan,  to  signify 
his  adoption  into  Israel.  Others,  that  Ahlai  and 
Attai  are  merely  clerical  variations  of  the  same 
name.  Others,  that  Ahlai  was  a  son  of  Sheshan, 
born  after  the  marriage  of  his  daughter.  But  the 
view  which  the  A.  V.  adopts,  as  appears  by  their 

rendering  W  \!3!2  in  ver.  31,  the  diildren  of  She- 
shan, instead  of  sows,  is  imdoubtedly  the  right  one,^ 
namely,  that  Ahlai  is  the  name  of  Sheshan's  daugh- 
ter. Her  descendants  were  called  after  her,  just 
as  Joab,  and  Abishai,  and  Asahel,  were  always 
called  "  the  sons  of  Zeruiah,"  and  as  Abigail  stands 
at  the  head  of  Amasa's  pedigree,  1  Chr.  ii.  17.  It 
may  be  noticed  as  an  undesigned  coincidence  that 
Jarha  the  Egyptian  was  living  with  Sheshan,  a  Je- 
rahmeelite,  and  that  the  Jerahmeelites  had  their 
possessions  on  the  side  of  Judah  nearest  to  Egypt, 
1  Sam.  xxvii.  10;  comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  20,  21; 
Josh.  XV.  21;  1  Chr.  iv.  18.  [Jkuahmeel;  Je- 
HUDijAii.]  The  etymology  of  Jarha's  name  is 
quite  unknown  (Ges.  T/ies. ;  Fiirst,  Concord.^  etc. 
[in  his  Wortei-b.,  Egyptian];  Burrington's  Ge- 
neal. ;  Beeston,  Genenl. ;  Hervey's  GeneaL,  p.  34 ; 
Biirtheau,  on  1  Chr.  ii.  24,  &c.).  A.  C  H. 

JA'RIB  (H^n;:  [adheinnff]:  'laplfi;  [Vat. 
lapeiv(]  Alex.  lap(i$:  Jarib).  1.  Named  in  the 
list  of  1  Chr.  iv.  24  only,  as  a  son  of  Simeon.  He 
occu'pies  the  same  place  as  Jachin  in  the  parallel 
lists  of  Gen.  xlvi.,  Ex.  vi.,  and  Num.  xxvi.,  and 
the  name  is  possibly  a  corruption  from  that  (see 
Burrington,  i.  55). 

2.  ['Iapi3;  Vat.  Ape/S.]     One  of  the  "chief 

men"  (Q^tTM"^,  " heads  ")  who  accompanied  Ezra 
on  his  journey  from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  (Ezr. 
Tiii.  16),  whether  Invite  or  laj-man  is  not  clear. 
In  1  Esdras  the  name  is  given  as  Joribas. 

3.  ['laptjS;  Vat.  Aid.  'lape/jn;  FA.  Iwpej/t.] 
A  priest  of  the  house  of  Jeshua  the  son  of  Jozadak, 
who  had  married  a  foreign  wife,  and  was  compelled 
by  Ezra  to  put  her  away  (Ezr.  x.  18).  In  1  Esdras 
the  name  is  Jouinus. 

4.  i'lapifi;  Alex.  Iwapt/3;  [Sin.  Icuopci/S:]  1 
Mace.  xiv.  2d.)  A  contraction  or  corruption  of  the 
Dame  Joarib,  which  occurs  correctly  in  ch.  ii.  1. 

JAR'IMOTH  Clapifxde  [Vat.  -pei-] :  Lari- 
moih),  1  Esdr,  ix.  23.     [JEREaiOTH.] 

JAR'MUTH  (n^n-)>  {height,  hill]).  1. 
{'Upifioid,  ['Upfiov9;  Vat.  in  Josh.  x.  and  xii. 
•pet-;  Alex,  in  Josh.  xii.  11,  lepifiov]  in  Neh., 
Vat.  Alex.  FA.i  omit,  FA.»  lpiij.ov0:  Jerimoih, 
lerimuth.])  A  town  in  the  Shefdah  or  low  coun- 
ay  of  Judah,  named  with  AduUam,  Socoh,  and 
»thers  (Josh.  xv.  35).     Its  king,  Piram,  was  one 


a  Bertheau's  remark,  that  none  of  the  persons 
named  in  this  long  genealogy  recur  elsewhere,  is  sin- 
fularijr  misplaced. 


JASHEN 

of  the  five  who  conspired  to  punish  Gibeon  fat  b*^ 
ing  made  alliance  with  Israel  (Josh.  x.  3,  6),  and 
who  were  routed  at  Beth-horon  and  put  to  dcatK 
by  Joshua  at  Makkedah  (ver.  23).  In  this  narra- 
tive, and  also  in  the  catalogue  of  the  "  royal  cities  " 
destroyed  by  Joshua,  Jarmuth  is  named  next  U 
Hebron,  which,  however,  was  quite  in  the  moun- 
tains. In  Neh.  xi.  29  it  is  named  as  having  been 
the  residence  of  some  of  the  children  of  Judah 
after  the  return  from  captivity.  Eusebius  and  Je- 
rome either  knew  two  places  of  this  name,  or  an 
error  has  crept  into  the  text  of  the  Onomasticon ; 
for  under  "Jarimuth"  they  state  it  to  be  near 
Eshtaol,  4  miles  from  Eleuthero{X)lis ;  while  under 
"  Jirmus"  they  give  it  as  10  miles  from  Eleuther- 
opolis,  on  the  road  going  up  to  Jerusalem.  A  site 
named  Yarmuk,  with  a  contiguous  eminence  called 

TtU-Ermtkl,  was  visited  by  Bobinson  (ii.  17),  and 
Van  de  Velde  (ii.  193;  Memoir,  p.  324).  It  is 
about  IJ  miles  from  Beit-neiif,  which  again  is  some 
8  miles  from  Beit-gibrin,  on  the  left  of  the  road  to 
Jerusalem.  Shinceikeh  (the  ancient  Socoh)  lies  on 
a  neighboring  hill.  We  have  yet  to  discover  the 
principles  on  which  the  topographical  divisions  of 
the  ancient  Hebrews  were  made.  Was  the  Shefe- 
Inh  —  the  "low  country"  —  a  district  which  took 
its  designation  from  the  plain  which  formed  its 
major  portion,  but  which  extended  over  some  of  the 
hill-country  ?  In  the  hill-country  Jarmuth  is  un- 
doubtedly situated,  though  specified  aa  in  the  plain. 

Yarmuk  has  been  last  visited  by  Tobler  (3<e  Wan- 
derung,  pp.  120,  462,  463). 

2.  (-^  'Pcfifide;  Alex.  [Aid.]  'UpfidO:  [Jara- 
moth.])  A  city  of  Issachar,  allotted  with  its  sub- 
urbs to  the  Gershonite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  29).  In 
the  specification  of  the  boundaries  of  Issachar,  no 
mention  is  made  of  Jarmuth  (see  Josh.  xix.  17-23), 
but  a  Remeth  is  mentioned  there  (ver.  21);  and 
in  the  duplicate  list  of  Levitical  cities  (1  Chr.  vi. 
73)  Ramotii  occupies  the  place  of  Jarmuth.  The 
two  names  are  modifications  of  the  same  root,  and 
might  without  difficulty  be  interchanged.  This 
Jarmuth  does  not  appear  to  have  been  yet  iden- 
tified.     [Ramotu.]  G. 

JARO'AH  (n'l-!;:  [moon] :  'Uat  Alex.  ASol; 
[Comp.  'lapove'.]  J(tra),  a  chief  man  of  the  tribe 
of  Gad  (1  Chr.  v.  14). 

JAS'AEL  Clao-OTjXos;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Ao-a- 
ijAos:  Aznbus),  1  Esdr.  ix.  30.     [Sheal.] 

JA'SHENdt?;;:  [s^ecpfw^]:  'A<rc£v;  [Comj* 
'laa-fv']  Jassen).  Bene-Jashen  —  "sons  of  Ja- 
shen  "  — are  named  in  the  catalogue  of  the  heroes 
of  David's  guard  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  32.  In  the 
Hebrew,  as  accented  by  the  Masorets,  the  words 
have  no  necessary  connection  with  the  names  pre- 
ceding or  following  them;  but  in  the  A.  V.  they 
are  attached  to  the  latter  —  "  of  the  sons  of  Jashen, 
Jonathan."  The  passage  has  every  appearance  of 
being  imperfect,  and  accordingly,  in  the  parallel 
list  in  Chronicl^,  it  stands,  "  the  sons  of  Hashem 
the  Gizonite"  (1  Chr.  xi.  34).  Kennicott  has 
examined  it  at  length  (Dissertation,  pp.  198-203), 
and.  on  grounds  which  cannot  here  be  stated,  hai 
shown  good  cause  for  believing  that  a  name  ha« 
escaped,  and  that  the  genuine  text  was,  "of  the 
Bene-Hashem,   Gouni;    Jonathan    ben-Shamha.'' 

b  *  This  design  of  the  translators  is  not  certain ;  fai 
the  A.  V.  often  renders  D^32  "children,"  wbrra  I 
should  be  « sons."  ^  H 


JASHER,  BOOK  OF 

b  the  list  given  by  Jerome  in  his  Qucestiones  He- 
IroMxe,  Jashen  and  Jonathan  are  both  omitted. 

JA'SHER,  BOOK  OF  ("IpJH  npD),  or, 
B8  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  gives  it,  the  hook  of  the 
upri(/ht,  a  record  alluded  to  in  two  passages  only 
of  the  O.  T.  (Josh.  x.  13,  and  2  Sam.  i.  18),  and 
consequently  the  subject  of  much  dispute.  The 
former  passage  is  omitted  in  the  LXX.,  while  in 
the  latter  the  expression  is  rendered  fiifi\iov  tov 
eudovs'  the  Vulgate  has  tiber  justovum  in  both 
instances.     The  Peshito  Syriac  in  Josh,  has  "  the 

b('ok  of  praises  or  hymns,^^  reading  "T^t^n  for 

"IttJ'^n,  and  a  similar  transposition  will  account  for 
the  rendering  of  the  same  version  in  Sam.,  "the 
book  of  vls/a'r."  The  Targum  interprets  it  "  the 
book  of  the  law,"  and  this  is  followed  by  Jarchi, 
who  gives,  as  the  passage  alluded  to  in  Joshua,  the 
prophecy  of  Jacob  with  regard  to  the  future  great- 
ness of  Ephraim  (Gen.  xlviii.  19),  which  was  ful- 
filled when  the  sun  stood  still  at  Joshua's  bidding. 
Fhe  same  Rabbi,  in  his  commentary  on  Samuel, 
lefers  to  Genesis  "the  book  of  the  upright,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,"  to  explain  the  allusion  to 
the  book  of  Jasher;  and  Jerome,  while  discussing 
the  etymology  of  "Israel,"  which  he  interprets  as 
"  rectus  Dei,"  «  incidentally  mentions  the  fact  that 
Genesis  was  called  "the  book  of  the  just"  (liber 
Genesis  appellatur  eudeau,  id  est,  justorum),  from 
its  containing  the  histories  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Israel  {Comm.  in  Jes.  xliv.  2).  The  Talmudists 
attribute  this  tradition  to  R.  Johanan.  R.  Eliezer 
thought  that  by  the  book  of  Jasher  was  signified 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  from  the  expressions  in 
Deut.  vi.  18,  xxxiii.  7,  the  Latter  being  quoted  in 
proof  of  the  skill  of  the  Hebrews  in  archery.  In 
the  opinion  of  R.  Samuel  ben  Nachman,  the  book 
of  Judges  was  alluded  to  as  the  book  of  Jasher 
{Aboda  Zara,  c.  ii.);  and  that  it  was  the  book  of 
the  twelve  minor  prophets  was  held  by  some  He- 
brew writers,  quoted  without  name  by  Sixtus  Se- 
nensis  (Bibl.  Sanct.  lib.  ii.).  R.  Levi  ben  Gershom 
recognizes,  though  he  does  not  follow,  the  tradition 
given  by  Jarchi,  while  Kimchi  and  Abarbanel  adopt 
'he  rendering  of  the  Targum.  This  diversity  of 
ipinions  proves,  if  it  prove  nothing  more,  that  no 
tOok  was  known  to  have  survived  which  could  lay 
aaim  to  the  title  of  the  book  of  Jasher. 

Josephus,  in  relating  the  miracle  narrated  in 
.(oshua  X.,  appeals  for  confirmation  of  his  account 
to  certain  documents  deposited  in  the  Temple  {Ant. 
V.  1,  §  17),  and  his  words  are  supposed  to  contain 
a  covert  allusion  to  the  book  of  Jasher  as  the  source 
of  his  authority.  But  in  his  treatise  against  Apion 
(lib.  i.)  he  says  the  Jews  did  not  possess  myriads 
of  books,  discordant  and  contradictory,  but  twenty- 
two  only;  from  which  Abicht  concludes  that  the 
books  of  Scripture  were  the  sacred  books  hinted  at 
in  the  former  passage,  while  Masius  understood  by 
the  same  the  Annals  which  were  written  by  the 
prophets  or  by  the  royal  scribes.  Theodoret  ( Qucest. 
xiv.  in  Jesum  Nave)  explains  the  words  in  Josh, 
r.  13,  which  he  quotes  as  rh  ^i^Xiov  rb  evpedev 
(prob.  an  error  for  evdes,  as  he  has  in  Qimst.  iv. 
*fi^2  Beg.),  as  referring  to  the  ancient  record  from 
t^hich  the  compiler  of  the  book  of  Joshua  derived 
the  materials  of  his  history,  and  applies  the  passage 
m  2  Sam.  ii.  18  to  prove  tha.  other  documents, 


>  Dr.  Donaldson  hal  overlooked  this  passage  when 
tie  iMerted  that  his  own  analysis  of  the  word  '^  Israel  " 


JASHER,  BOOK  OP        121c 

written  by  the  prophets,  were  made  uso  of  in  tbt 
composition  of  the  historical  books.  Jerome,  ot 
rather  the  author  of  the  Qiusstiones  IlebraiccB^ 
understood  by  the  book  of  Jasher  the  books  of 
Samuel  themselves,  inasmuch  as  they  contained  the 
history  of  the  just  prophets,  Samuel,  Gad,  and 
Nathan.  Another  opinion,  quoted  by  Sixtus  Se 
nensis,  but  on  no  authority,  that  it  was  the  book  of 
eternal  predestination,  is  scarcely  worth  more  than 
the  bare  mention. 

That  the  book  of  Jasher  was  one  of  the  writings 
which  perished  in  the  Captivity  was  held  by  R. 
I^vi  ben  Gershom,  though  he  gives  the  traditional 
explanation  above  mentioned.  His  opinion  haa 
been  adopted  by  Junius,  Hettinger  {Thes.  Phil.  ii. 
2,  §  2),  and  many  other  modern  wi'iters  (Wolfii 
Bibl.  Ileb.  ii.  223).  What  the  nature  of  the  book 
may  liave  been  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  two 
passages  in  which  it  is  mentioned  and  their  context, 
and,  this  being  the  case,  there  is  clearly  wide  room 
for  conjecture.  The  theory  of  Masius  (quoted  by 
Abicht)  was,  that  in  ancient  times  whatever  was 
worthy  of  being  recorded  for  the  instruction  of  pos- 
terity, was  written  in  the  form  of  Annals  by 
learned  men,  and  that  among  these  Annals  or 
records  was  the  book  of  Jasher,  so  called  from  the 
trustworthiness  and  methodical  arrangement  of  the 
narrative,  or  because  it  contained  the  relation  of 
the  deeds  of  the  people  of  Israel,  who  are  elsewhere 
spoken  of  under  the  symbolical  name  Jeshurun.  Of 
the  later  hypothesis  Fiirst  approves  {Ilandw.  s.  v.). 
Sanctius  {Coinm.  ad  2  Beg.  i.)  conjectured  that  it 
was  a  collection  of  pious  hymns  written  by  differ-^ 
ent  authors  and  sung  on  various  occasions,  and' 
that  from  this  collection  the  Psalter  was  compiled. 
That  it  was  written  in  verse  may  reasonably  be  in- 
ferred from  the  only  specimens  extant,  which  exhibit 
unmistakable  signs  of  metrical  rhythm,  but  that 
it  took  its  name  from  this  circumstance  is  not  sup- 
ported by  etymology.  Lowth,  indeed  {Pval.  pp. 
30G,  307),  imagined  that  it  was  a  collection  of  na- 
tional songs,  so  called  because  it  probably  com- 
menced with  "T^tt?"^  TS,  dz  ydshir,  "then  sang," 
etc.,  like  the  song  of  IMoses  in  Ex.  xv.  1 ;  his  view 
of  the  question  was  that  of  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
translators,  and  was  adopted  by  Herder.  But, 
granting  that  the  form  of  the  book  was  poetical,  a 
difficulty  still  remains  as  to  its  subject.  That  th? 
book  of  Jasher  contained  the  deeds  of  national  be 
roes  of  all  ages  embalmed  in  verse,  among  which 
David's  lament  over  Saul  and  Jonathan  had  an  ap- 
propriate place,  was  the  opinion  of  Calovius.  A 
fragment  of  a  similar  kind  is  thought  to  appear  in 
Num.  xxi.  14.  Gesenius  conjectured  that  it  was 
an  anthology  of  ancient  songs,  which  acquired  its 
name,  "the  book  of  the  just  or  upright,"  from 
being  written  in  praise  of  upright  men.  He  quotes 
but  does  not  approve,  the  theory  of  Illgen  that, 
like  the  Hamasa  of  the  Arabs,  it  celebrated  the 
achievements  of  illustrious  warriors,  and  from  thig 
derived  the  title  of  "  the  book  of  valor."  But  the 
idea  of  warlike  valor  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  root 
ydshar.  Dupin  contended  from  2  Sam.  i.  18,  that 
the  contents  of  the  book  were  of  a  military  nature; 
but  Montanus,  regarding  rather  the  etymology, 
considered  it  a  collection  of  political  and  moral  pre- 
cepts. Abicht,  taking  the  lament  of  David  as  a 
sample  of  the  whole,  maintained  that  the  fragment 


had  hitherto  escaped  the  notice  of  all  commmitaton 
(Jashar,  p.  23). 


1216        JASHER,  BOOK  OF 

quoted  in  the  book  of  Joshua  was  part  of  a  fUneral 
ode  conijwsed  upon  the  death  of  that  hero,  and 
narrating  his  achievenients.  At  the  same  time  he 
uoes  not  conceive  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  one 
book  only  is  alluded  to  in  both  instances.  It  must 
be  admitted,  however,  that  there  is  very  slight 
ground  for  any  conclusion  beyond  that  which  af- 
fects the  form,  and  that  nothing  can  be  confidently 
asserted  with  regard  to  the  contents. 

But,  though  conjecture  might  almost  be  thought 
to  have  exhausted  itself  on  a  subject  so  barren  of 
premises,' a  sciiolar  of  our  own  day  has  not  despaired 
of  being  able,  not  only  to  decide  what  the  book  of 
Jasher  was  in  itself,  but  to  reconstruct  it  from  the 
fragments  which,  according  to  his  theory,  he  traces 
throughout  the  several  books  of  the  O.  T.  In  the 
preface  to  his  Jashnr,  or  Fraf/metita  Ardiefypa 
Carminum  Ilehralcin'um  in  Maswethico  Veteris 
Testamenti  textu  2>assim  tesselata,  Dr.  Donaldson 
advances  a  scheme  for  the  restoration  of  this  ancient 
record,  in  accordance  with  his  own  idea  of  its  scope 
and  contents.  Assuming  that,  during  the  tranquil 
imd  prosperous  reign  of  Solomon,  an  unwonted  im- 
pulse was  given  to  Hebrew  literature,  and  that  the 
worshipi)ers  of  Jehovah  were  desirous  of  possessing 
something  on  which  their  faith  might  rest,  the 
book  of  "  Jashar,"  or  *'  uprightness,"  he  asserts, 
was  written,  or  i-ather  compiled,  to  meet  this  want. 
Its  object  was  to  show  that  in  the  beginning  man 
was  upright,  but  had  by  carnal  wisdom  forsaken 
the  spiritual  law;  that  the  Israelites  had  been 
chosen  to  preserve  and  transmit  this  law  of  upright- 
ness ;  that  David  had  been  made  king  for  his  relig- 
ious integrity,  leaving  the  kingdom  to  his  son 
Solomon,  in  whose  reign,  after  the  dedication  of  the 
Temple,  the  prosperity  of  the  chosen  jieople  reached 
its  culminating  point.  The  compiler  of  the  book 
was  probably  Nathan  the  prophet,  assisted  jierhaps 
by  Gad  the  seer.  It  was  thus  "  the  first  offspring 
of  the  prophetic  schools,  and  ministered  spiritual 
food  to  the  greater  prophets."  Rejecting,  therefore, 
the  authority  of  the  Masoretic  text,  as  founded 
entirely  on  tradition,  and  adhering  to  his  own 
theory  of  the  origin  and  subject  of  the  book  of 
.Jasher,  Dr.  Donaldson  proceeds  to  show  that  it 
contains  the  religious  marrow  of  Holy  Scripture. 
In  such  a  case,  of  course,  absolute  pi'oof  is  not  to 
be  looked  for,  and  it  would  be  impossible  here  to 
discuss  what  measure  of  probability  should  be 
ewsigned  to  a  scheme  elaborated  with  considerable 
ingenuity.  Whatever  ancient  fragments  in  the 
sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  exhibit  the  nature 
of  uprightness,  celebrate  the  victories  of  the  true 
Israelites,  predict  their  prdsperity,  or  promise  future 
blessedness,  have,  according  to  this  theory,  a  claim 
to  be  considered  among  the  relics  of  the  book  of 
Jasher.  Following  such  a  principle  of  selection,  the 
fragments  fall  into  seven  groups.  The  first  part, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  show  that  man  was  created 

upright  0^^5  ydshdr),  but  fell  into  sin  by  carnal 
msdom,  contains  two  fragments,  an  Elohistic  and  a 
Jehoviotic,  both  poetical,  the  latter  being  the  more 
full.  The  first  of  these  includes  Gen.  i.  27,  28,  vi. 
I,  2,  4,  5,  viii  21,  \i.  6,  3;  the  other  is  made  up 
jf  Gen.  ii.  V-9,  15-18,  25,  iii.  1-19,  21,  23,  24. 
The  second  part,  consisting  of  four  fragments,  shows 
how  the  descendants  of  Abraham,  as  bemg  upright 

(D^")C7;,  yeshdrim),  were  adopted  by  God,  while 
ihe  neighboring  nations  were  rejected.  Fragment 
ri)  Gea.  ix.  18-27;  fragment  (2)  Gen.  iv.  2-8 


JASHER,  BOOK  OP 

8-16;  fragment  (3)  Gen.  xvi.  1-4,  15,  16,  «ri! 
9-lG,  18-26,  xxi.  1-14,  20,  21 ;  fragment  (4)  Gen 
XXV.  20-34,  xxvii.  1-10,  14,  18-20,  25-40,  iv.  18 
19,  XX vi.  34,  xxxvi.  2,  iv.  23,  24,  xxxvi.  8,  xxviii 
9,  xxvi.  35,  xxvii.  46,  xxviii.  1-4,  11-19,  xxix.  1 
&c.,  24,  29,  xxxv.  22-26,  xxxiv.  25-29,  xxxv.  9-14, 
15,  xxxii.  31.  In  the  third  part  is  related  undei 
the  figure  of  the  deluge  how  the  Israelites  escaped 
from  Egypt,  wandered  forty  }ears  in  the  wilderness, 
and  finally,  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  built  a  temple 
to  Jehovah.  The  passages  in  which  this  is  found 
are  Gen  vi.  5-14,  vii.  6,  11,  12,  viii.  6,  7,  viii.  8, 
12,  v.  29,  viii.  4;  1  K.  \'i.,  viii.  43;  Deut.  vi.  18; 
Ps.  V.  8.  The  three  fragments  of  the  fourth  part 
contaiu  the  divine  laws  to  be  observed  by  the  up- 
right people,  and  are  found  (1)  Deut.  v.  1-22;  (2) 
vi.  1-5;  l^v.  xix.  18;  Deut.  x.  12-21,  xi.  1-5,  7-9; 
(3)  viii.  1-3,  vi.  6-18,  20-25.  The  blessings  of  the 
upright  and  their  admonitions  are  the  subject  of 
the  fifth  part,  which  contoins  the  songs  of  Jacob 
(Gen.  xlix.),  Balaam  (Num.  xxiii.,  xxiv.),  and  Moses 
(Deut.  xxxii.,  xxxiii.).  The  wonderful  victories  and 
deliverances  of  Israel  are  celebrated  in  the  sixth 
part,  in  the  triumphal  songs  of  Moses  and  Miriam 
(Ex.  XV.  1-19),  of  Joshua  (Josh.  x.  12-13),  and  of 
Deborah  (Judg.  v.  1-20).  The  seventh  is  a  col- 
lection of  various  hymns  composed  in  the  reigns 
of  David  and  Solomon,  and  contains  David's  song 
of  triumph  over  Goliath  (1  Sam.  ii.  1-10) ;«  his 
lament  for  Saul  and  Jonathan  (2  Sam.  i.  19-27), 
and  for  Abner  (2  Sam.  iii.  33,  34);  his  psalm  of 
thanksgiving  (Ps.  xviii.,  2  Sam.  xxii.) ;  his  triumphal 
ode  on  the  conquest  of  the  Edomites  (Ps.  Ix.),  and 
his  prophecy  of  Messiah's  kingdom  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
1-7),  together  with  Solomon's  epithalamium  (Ti. 
xlv.),  and  the  hymn  sung  at  the  dedication  of  the 
Temple  (Ps.  Ixviii.). 

Among  the  many  strange  results  of  this  arrange- 
ment, Shem,  Ham,  and  Japhet  are  no  longer  the 
sons  of  Noah,  who  is  Israel  under  a  figure,  but  of 
Adam;  and  the  circumstances  of  Noah's  life  related 
in  Gen.  ix.  18-27  are  transferred  to  the  latter. 
Cain  and  Abel  are  the  sons  of  Shem,  Abraham  is 
the  son  of  Abel,  and  Esau  becomes  Lamech  the  son 
of  Methuselah. 

There  are  also  extant,  under  the  title  of  "  the 
Book  of  Jasher,"  two  Babbinical  works,  one  a  moral 
treatise,  written  in  a.  i>.  1394  by  B.  Shabbatai 
Carmuz  Levita,  of  which  a  copy  in  MS.  exists  in 
the  Vatican  Library:  the  other,  by  K.  Tham,  treats 
of  the  laws  of  the  Jews  in  eighteen  chapters,  and 
was  printed  in  Italy  in  1544,  and  at  Cracow  in 
1586.  An  anonymous  work,  printed  at  Venice  and 
Prague  in  1625,  and  said  to  have  made  its  first 
appearance  at  Naples,  was  believed  by  some  Jews 
to  be  the  record  alluded  to  in  Joshua.  It  contains 
the  historical  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua, 
and  Judges,  with  many  fabulous  additions.  L*. 
Jacob  translated  it  into  German,  and  printed  hia 
version  at  Frankfort  on  the  Maine  in  1674.  It  if 
said  in  the  preface  to  the  1st  ed.  to  have  beep  -iis 
covered  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by  Sidrus, 
one  of  the  officers  of  Titus,  who,  while  searching  a 
house  for  the  purpose  of  plunder,  found  in  a  secret 
chamber  a  vessel  containing  the  books  of  the  Law, 
the  Prophets,  and  Hagiographa,  with  many  others, 
which  a  venerable  man  was  reading.  Sidrus  too* 
the  old  man  under  his  protection  and  built  for  hiir 


a  *  The  song  in  1  Sam.  ii.  1-10  is  not  Darid's,  bui 
Ilannah's  thanksgiTing  song  for  the  birth  o'  Sarnvwl 


i 


JASHOBEAM 

ft  house  at  Seville,  where  the  books  were  safely 
deposited.  The  book  u>  question  is  prob-^bly  the 
production  of  a  Spanish  Jew  of  the  Icith  century 
(Abicht,  Dt  Libr.  R'Cli,  in  TAes.  N(w.  Theol.-PhiL 
i.  525-534).  A  cl'imsy  forgery  in  English,  which 
first  appeared  in  1751  under  the  title  of  "the  Hook 
of  Jasher,"  deserves  notice  solely  for  the  unmerited 
success  with  which  it  was  palmed  off  upon  the 
public.  It  professed  to  be  a  translation  from  the 
Hebrew  into  English  by  Alcuin  of  Britain,  who 
discovered  it  in  Persia  during  his  pilgrimage.  It 
was  reprinted  at  Bristol  in  1827,  and  was  again 
published  in  1833,  in  each  case  accompanied  by  a 
tictitioua  commendatory  note  by  WickUffe.  [On  this 
forgery,  see  Home's  Introduction,  iv.  741  fF.,  10th 
cd.  — A.]  W.  A.  W. 

JASHO'BEAM  (D^^K?;;  [the  people  re- 
turn] :  'leore/SaSo,  [SoySoKci/i,  'lo-^Soc^C  C^'^*^- 
2o)3aA);  Alex.  lo-jSaa/t,  Ua^aafi,  la-^oa/j.']  Jes- 
haam,  {.Jesboam']).  Possibly  one  and  the  same 
follower  of  David,  bearing  this  name,  is  described 
as  a  Hachmonite  (1  Chr.  xi.  11),  a  Korhite  (1  Chr. 
xii.  6),  and  son  of  Zabdiel  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  2).  He 
came  to  David  at  Ziklag.  His  distinguishing  ex- 
ploit was  that  he  slew  300  (or  800,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  8) 
men  at  one  time.  He  is  named  first  among  the 
:hief  of  the  mighty  men  of  David  (1  Chr.  xi.  11); 
and  he  was  set  over  the  first  of  the  twelve  monthly 
courses  of  24,000  men  who  served  the  king  (xxvii. 
2).     In   2  Sam.   xxiii.  8,  his  name  seems  to  be 

erroneoualy  transcribed,    nil^^S    ^XD^    (A.  V. 

"  that  sat  in  the  seat  "),  instead  of  D'^Jjt?"''^ ;  and 
in  the  same  place  "  Adino  the  P^znite  "  is  possibly 
a  corruption  either  of  *in*'3n*nS  "l^"^!?,  "  he 
!ift  up  his  spear  "  (1  Chr.  xi.  11),  or,  as  Gesenius 
conjectures,  of  "13^3?n  ID'l^^  which  he  trans- 
lates, "  he  shook  it,  even  his  spear."    [Eznite.] 

W.  T.  B. 

JA'SHUB    (^^t27J    {he  who  returns]  :  in  the 

Cetib  of  1  Chr.  vii.  1  it  is  y^W*^ ;  in  the  Samaritan 

Cod.  of  Num.  xxvi.  31^  V  :  'lao-ou/S;  [Vat.  in  1 
Chr.,  laa-aovp']  Jasnb).  1.  The  third  son  of 
Issachar,  and  founder  of  the  family  of  the  Jashubites 
(Num.  xxvi.  24;  1  Chr.  vii.  1).  In  the  list  of  Gen. 
xlvi.  the  name  is  given  (possibly  in  a  contracted  or 
erroneous  form,  Ges.  Thes.  p.  583)  as  Job;  but  in 
tne  Samaritan  Codex  —  followed  by  the  LXX.  — 
•Jashub. 

2.  [Vat.  A5om<rouS,  FA.  AaaaovB,  by  union 
with  the  preceding  word.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Bani, 
.V  layman  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  who  had  to  put  away 
hij  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  29).  In  Esdras  the  name 
ifl  Jasubus. 

JASHXTBI-LE'HEM    {nr)h    ^^E?;,   in 

some  copies  'V  '^'D.W^  [see  below]  :  koI  atrea-Tperl/ev 
au-'ous,  in  both  MSS. :  et  qui  reversi  sunt  in 
La  hem),  a  person  or  a  place  named  among  the 
deocendants  of  Shelah,  the  son  of  Judah  by  Bath- 
r-hua  the  Canaanitess  (1  Chr.  iv.  22).  The  name 
does  not  occur  again.  It  is  probably  a  place,  and 
we  should  infer  from  its  connection  with  Maresha 
and  Chozeba  —  if  Chozeba  be  Chezib  or  Achzib  — 
that  it  lay  on  the  western  side  of  the  tribe,  in  or 
n«ir  the  Shefelah.  The  Jewish  explanations  o( 
thig  and  the  following  verse  are  verv  curious.    Tney 


JASON 


1217 


I 


77 


j  may  be  seen  in  Jerome's  Qhcs;:l.  ffebr.  on  thia 
passage,  and,  in  a  slightly  different  form,  in  the 
j  Targum  on  the  Chronicles  (ed.  Wilkins,  29,  30). 
j  The  mention  of  Moab  gives  the  key  to  the  whole. 
I  Chozeba  is  Elimelech  ;  Joash  and  Saraph  are 
j  Mahlon  and  Chihon,  who  "  had  the  dominion  in 
i  ]Moab  "  from  marrying  the  two  Moabite  damsels: 
I  Jashubi-Lehem  is  Naomi  and  Ruth,  who  returned 

(Jashubi,  from  ^^127,  "to  return")  to  bread,  or 
to  Beth-lehem,  after  the  famine:  and  the  "ancient 
words  "  point  to  the  book  of  Ruth  as  the  source  of 
the  whole.  G. 

JA'SHUBITES,  THE    C^^^J^JH     [patro 

nym.]  ;  Samaritan,  '^2Ii7"^'^n  :  6  'lacTovfii  [Vat. 
-^ei] :  familia  Jnstibitarum).  The  family  founded 
by  Jashub  the  son  of  Issachar  (Num.  xxvi.  24). 
[Jashub,  1.]- 

JA'SIEL  (bS^Ji?^;:  [6W  creates] :  'leo-o-t^A; 
[Vat.  Eo-oreiTjA;  PA.  Eo-etTjA ;]  Alex.  E(r(rn]\: 
Jasiel),  the  last  named  on  the  increased  hst  of 
David's  heroes  in  1  Chr.  xi.  47.  He  is  described 
as  the  Mesobaite.  Nothing  more  is  known  of 
him. 

JA'SON  Clao-ajj/),  a  common  Greek  name 
which  was  frequently  adopted  by  Hellenizing  Jews 
as  the  equivalent  oi  Jesus,  Joshua  ('ItjctoGs;  comp. 
Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  5,  §  1),«  probably  with  some  ref- 
erence to  its  supposed  connection  with  laaOai  (i-  e. 
the  Henler).  A  parallel  change  occurs  in  Alcimv* 
(Eliakim);  while  Nicolaus,  Dositheus,  Metielaus, 
etc.,  were  direct  translations  of  Hebrew  names. 

1.  Jason  the  son  of  Eleazar  (cf.  Ecclus.  L 
27,  'ir/croCs  vlhs  'Xipax  'EAea^ap,  Cod.  A.)  was 
one  of  the  commissioners  sent  by  Judas  Maccabteua 
to  conclude  a  treaty  with  the  Romans  b.  c.  161 
(1  Mace.  viii.  17;  Joseph.  A7it.  xii.  10,  §  6). 

2.  Jason  the  father  of  Antipater,  who 
was  an  envoy  to  Rome  at  a  later  period  (1  Mace. 
xii.  16,  xiv.  22),  is  probably  the  same  person  as 
No.  1. 

3.  Jason  of  Cyrene,  a  Jewish  historian  who 
wi-ote  "  in  five  books  "  a  history  of  the  Jewish  war 
of  liberation,  which  supplied  the  chief  materials  for 
the  second  book  of  the  Maccabees.  [2  Mac 
CABEES.]  His  name  and  the  place  of  his  residence 
seem  to  mark  Jason  as  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  and  it  ia 
probable  on  internal  grounds  that  his  history  WiS 
written  in  Greek.  This  narrative  included  the  wars 
under  Antiochus  Eupator,  and  he  must  therefoie 
have  written  after  b.  c.  162 ;  but  nothing  more  is 
known  of  him  than  can  be  gathered  from  2  Mace, 
ii.  19-23. 

4.  [In  2  Mace.  iv.  13,  Alex.  Eiaa-cov.]  Jason 
THE  High-Priest,  the  second  son  of  Simon  IL, 
and  brother  of  Onias  HI.,  who  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing the  high-priesthood  from  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
(c.  175  B.  c. )  to  the  exclusion  of  his  elder  brother 
(2  Mace.  iv.  7-2(5;  4  Mace  iv.  17;  Joseph.  Ant 
xii.  5,  §  1).  He  lal)ored  in  every  way  to  introduce 
Greek  customs  among  the  people,  and  that  with 
great  success  (2  Mace.  iv. ;  Joseph,  l.  c).  In  order 
to  give  permanence  to  the  changes  which  he  de- 
signed, he  established  a  gymnasium  at  Jerusalem, 
and  even  the  priests  neglected  their  sacred  functions 
■to  take  part  in  the  games  (2  Mace.  iv.  9, 14\  and  at 


a  Jason  and  Jesus  cccur  together  as  Jewish  namM 
in  the  history  of  Aristeas  (Ilody,  J)e  Text,  p   vii  ) 


1218 


JASPER 


ast  he  went  so  far  as  to  send  a  deputation  to  the 
Tyrian  games  in  honor  of  Hercules.  [Hercules.] 
After  three  years  (cir.  b.  c.  172)  he  was  in  turn 
supplanted  in  the  king's  favor  by  his  own  emissary 
Menelaus  [MenelausJ,  who  obtained  the  oflSce  of 
high-priest  from  Antiochus  by  the  offer  of  a  larger 
bribe,  and  was  forced  to  take  refuge  among  the 
Ammonites  (2  INIacc.  iv.  26).  On  a  report  of  the 
death  of  Antiochus  (c.  170  n.  c.)  he  made  a  violent 
attempt  to  recover  his  power  (2  Mace.  v.  5-7),  but 
was  repulsed,  and  again  fled  to  the  Ammonites. 
Afterwards  he  was  compelled  to  retire  to  Egypt, 
and  thence  to  Sparta,  whither  he  went  in  the  hope 
of  receiving  protection  "  in  virtue  of  his  being  con- 
nected with  them  by  race"  (2  Mace.  v.  9;  comp. 
1  Mace.  xii.  7;  Frankel,  Monatsschiifi,  1853,  p. 
456),  and  there  "perished  in  a  strange  land"  (2 
Mace.  /.  c. ;  cf.  Dan.  xii.  30  ff.;  1  Mace.  i.  12  ff.), 

B.  F.  W. 
5.  Jason  the  Tiiessalonian,  who  entertained 
Paul  and  Silas,  and  was  in  consequence  attacked  by 
the  Jewish  mob  (Acts  xvii.  5,  6,  7,  9).  He  is 
probably  the  same  as  the  Jason  mentioned  in  Rom. 
xvi.  21,  as  a  companion  of  the  Apostle,  and  one  of 
his  kinsmen  or  lellow-tribesmen.  Lightfoot  con- 
jectured that  Jason  and  Secundus  (Acts  xx.  4) 
were  the  same.  W.  A.  W. 

JASPER  (npl?7^:  Idairis:  jnspis),  a  pre- 
cious stone  frequently  noticed  in  Scripture.  It 
was  the  last  of  the  twelve  inserted  in  the  high- 
priest's  breastplate  (Ex.  xxviii.  20,  xxxix.  13),  and 
the  first  of  the  twelve  used  in  the  foundations  of 
the  new  Jerusalem  (IJev.  xxi.  19):  the  difference  in 
the  orcki'  seems  to  show  that  no  eml)lematical  im- 
portance was  attached  to  that  feature.  It  was  the 
Btone  employed  in  the  superstructure  (eVSJ^vyo-is) 
of  the  wall  of  the  new  Jerusalem  (Kev.  xxi.  18). 
It  further  appears  among  the  stones  which  adorned 
the  king  of  Tyre  (Ez.  xxviii.  13).  Lastly,  it  is  the 
emblematical  image  of  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
Being  (Kev.  iv.  3).  The  characteristics  of  the 
stone,  as  far  as  they  are  specified  in  Scripture 
(Rev.  xxi.  11),  are  that  it  was  "most  precious,"  and 
"like  crystal "  {KpvaTaKXi^uiv) ;  not  exactly  "  clear 
as  crystal,"  as  in  A.  V.,  but  of  a  cr3-stal  hue;  the 
term  is  applied  to  it  in  this  sense  by  Dioscorides 
(v.  160;  \iQos  Idartris,  6  fiev  tls  ifrri  (r/mapaySi- 
(cov,  6  Se  KpvaraWctiSrjs) '•  we  may  also  infer  from 
Kev.  iv.  3,  that  it  was  a  stone  of  brilliant  and  trans- 
parent light.  The  stone  which  we  name  "jasper" 
does  not  accord  with  this  description:  it  is  an 
opaque  species  of  quartz,  of  a  red,  yellow,  green, 
or  mixed  brownish-yellow  hue,  sometimes  striped 
and  sometimes  spotted,  in  no  respect  presenting 
the  characteristics  of  the  crystal.  The  only  feature 
in  the  stone  which  at  all  accords  with  the  Scriptu- 
ral account  is  that  it  admits  of  a  high  polish,  and 
this  appears  to  be  indicated  in  the  Hebrew  name. 
With  regard  to  the  Hebrew  term,  the  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  render  it  by  the  "onyx"  and  "beryl"'  re- 
spectively, and  represent  the  jasper  by  the  term 
ya/i(tlom  (A.  V.  "emerald").  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  diamond  would  more  adequately 
answer  to  the  description  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion, and  unless  that  beautiful  and  valuable  stone 
is  represented  by  the  Hebrew  yashpheh  and  the 
Greek  Ida-ins,  it  does  not  appear  at  all  in  the  pas- 
sages quoted;  for  the  term  rendered  "diamond" 
in  \\x.  xxviii.  18  really  refers  to  the  emerald.  We 
are  disposed  to  think,  therefore,  that  though  the 
aames  yishph^M,  idairiSs  and  jaq)er  are  identical, 


JATTIB 

the  stones  may  have  been  di  Jr. rent  and  Uukt  till 
diamond  is  meant.     [See  Chalcedi  ny.] 

W.  L.  B. 
JASUTBUS  Clao-oC8os:  Jasub),  1  Esdr.  ii 
30.     [Jashub.  2.] 

JA'TAL  CAtc^p,  both  MSS.;  [rather,  Rom 
Alex.;  Vat.  is  corrupt;  Aid.  'lardK'.]  Azer),  1 
Esdr.  v.  28;  but  whence  was  the  form  in  A.  V. 
adopted?  [From  the  Aldine  edition,  after  the 
Genevan  version  and  the  Bishop«'  Bible.  A.] 
[Ater,  1.] 

JATH'NIEL  (^S*«2r);:  b^-ftom  God  besiowt] : 
'Uuoui)\:  Alex.  NoOaj/a;  [Comp. 'la^avo^Ai  Aid. 
Na0aj/e^A:]  Jathanael),  a  Korhite  Invite,  and  a 
doorkeeper  (A.  V.  "  porter  ")  to  the  house  of  Jeho- 
vah, i.  e.  the  tabernacle ;  the  fourth  of  the  family 
of  Meshelemiah  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  2). 

JAT'TIR  ("l^n^  in  Josh.  xv.  48;  elsewhere 

"iri^  [eminent,  extraordinary] :  ^uOep,  A/Ac6/i, 
reedv,  'Uedp  [Vat.  ueeap];  Alex.  UBep,  Eiedep: 
Jet/ier),  a  town  of  Judah  in  the  mountain  district 
(Josh.  XV.  48),  one  of  the  group  containing  Socho, 
Eshtemoa,  etc. ;  it  was  among  the  nine  cities  which 
with  their  suburbs  were  allotted  out  of  Judah  to 
the  priests  (xxi.  14;  1  Chr.  vi.  67),  and  was  one 
of  the  places  in  the  south  in  which  David  used  to 
haunt  in  his  freebooting  days,  and  to  his  friends  in 
which,  he  sent  gifts  from  the  spoil  of  the  enemies 
of  Jehovah  (1  Sam.  xxx.  27).  By  Eusebius  and 
Jerome  ( Onomnsticon,  Jether)  it  is  spoken  of  as  a 
very  large  place  ui  the  middle  of  Daroma,  near 
Malatha,  and  20  miles  from  Eleutheropolis.  It  is 
named  by  hap-Parchi,  the  Jewish  traveller;  but 
the  passage  is  defective,  and  little  can  be  gathered 
from  it  (Zunz  in  Asher's  Bevj.  of  Ttidela,  ii.  442) 
By  Robinson  (i.  494-95)  it  is  identified  with  'Atfir, 
6  miles  N.  of  JNIolada,  and  10  miles  S.  of  Hebron, 
and  having  the  probable  sites  of  Socho,  Eshtemoa, 
and  other  southern  towns  within  short  distances. 
This  identification  may  be  accepted,  notwithstand- 
ing the  discrepancy  in  the  distance  of  ^Attir  from 
Eleutheropolis  (if  Beit-Jibrin  be  Eleutheropolis) 
—  which  is  by  road  nearer  30  than  20  Roman 
miles.  We  may  suspect  an  error  in  the  text  of  the 
Onomast.,  often  very  corrupt;  or  Eusebius  may 
have  confounded  ^Attir  with  Jutta,  which  does  lie 
exactly  20  miles  from  B.  Jibrin.  And  it  is  by  no 
means  absolutely  proved  that  B.  Jibrin  is  Eleuther- 
opolis. Robinson  notices  that  it  is  not  usual  for 
the  Jod  with  which  Jattir  commences  to  change 
into  the  Ain  of  'Attir  {Bibl.  Bes.  i.  494,  note). 

The  two  Ithrite  heroes  of  David's  guard  were 
probably  from  Jattir,  living  memorials  to  him  of 
his  early  difficulties.  G. 

*  Ruins  still  exist  on  the  ancient  site.  "  It  is  sit- 
uated on  a  green  knoll,  in  an  amphitheatre  of  browTi 
rocky  hills,  studded  with  natural  caves.  .  .  .  We 
counted  upwards  of  thirty  arched  crypts  .  .  .  some 
larger  and  some  shorter ;  but  most  of  them  without 
end  walls,  and  having  perhaps  lieen  merely  passages 
or  streets  with  houses  over  them.  The  arches  are 
round,  slightly  domed,  or  sometimes  a  little  pointed 
built  of  well-dressed  stones,  generally  two  or  three 
feet  square.  Those  which  ha.l  the  gable  ends  in- 
tact had  square  beveled  doorways,  at  one  end  flat- 
headed,  about  6  feet  high,  and  3^  feet  wide.  Th« 
tunnels  are  generally  18  or  20  feet  long,  though  , 
measured  one  upwards  of  40  feet.  Some  ancient 
carvings   remain  on  the  doorways.  ...  On   tba 


JAVAN 

ride  of  the  hill  lay  the  under  stone  of  a  very  lar^  ] 
Ml  press  —  an  undeniable  evidence  of  the  existence 
Df  olive-trees  of  old,  wli^re  neither  traee  of  tree  or 
ghrub  remains.  In  several  places  we  could  perceive 
the  ancient  terracing  in  the  hills,  and  there  were 
many  wells,  all  run  dry,  and  partially  choked  with 
rubbish.  The  eastern  face  of  the  knoll  consisted 
chiefly  of  natural  caves  once  used  as  dwellings, 
enlarged,  and  with  outside  extensions  of  arched 
crypts  in  front.  .  •  .  The  only  modern  building  in 
sight  was  a  little  ^Vi-ltj,  or  tomb  of  a  Moslem 
saint,  on  the  crest  of  the  hill "  (Tristram,  Land 
o//sme/,  p.  388  f.,  2d  ed.).  H. 

JA^AN  ("JV :  'l<vvav;  [in  Is.  and  Ez.,  'EA- 
\oLs\  in  Dan.  and  Zech.''EAA77i'es:  Grcecia,  Greed] 
Jdvan).  1.  A  son  of  Japheth,  and  the  father  of 
^lishah  and  Tarshish,  Kittim  and  Dodanim  (Gen. 
f..  2,  4).  The  name  appears  in  Is.  Ixvi.  19,  where 
it  is  coupled  with  Tarshish,  Pul,  and  Lud,  and 
more  particularly  with  Tubal  and  the  "  isles  afar 
off,"  as  representatives  of  the  Gentile  world:  again 
in  Ez.  xxvii.  13,  where  it  is  coupled  with  Tubal 
and  Meshech,  as  carrying  on  considerable  commerce 
with  the  Tyi'ians,  wlio  imported  from  these  coun- 
tries slaves  and  brazen  vessels:  in  Dan.  viii.  21,  x. 
20,  xi.  2,  in  reference  to  the  Macedonian  empire; 
and  lastly  in  Zech.  ix.  13,  in  reference  to  the  Gra?co- 
Syrian  empire."  From  a  comparison  of  these  vari- 
ous passages  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Javan  was 
regarded  as  the  representative  of  the  Greek  race: 
the  similarity  of  the  name  to  that  branch  of  the 
Hellenic  family  with  which  the  Orientals  were  best 
acquainted,  namely,  the  lonians,  particularly  in  the 
older  form  in  which  their  name  appears  ('lawj/),  is 
too  close  to  be  regarded  as  accidental :  and  the  oc- 
currence of  the  name  in  the  cuneiform  inscriptions 
of  the  time  of  Sargon  (about  b.  c.  709),  in  the 
form  of  Yavnan  or  Yunan,  as  descriptive  of  the 
isle  of  Cyprus,  where  the  Assyrians  first  came  in 
contact  ^ith  the  power  of  the  Greeks,  further 
shows  that  its  use  was  not  confined  to  the  Hebrews, 
but  was  widely  spread  throughout  the  East.  The 
name  was  probably  introduced  into  Asia  by  the 
Phoenicians,  to  whom  the  lonians  were  natiirally 
better  known  than  any  other  of  the  Hellenic  races, 
on  account  of  thei?  conmiercial  activity  and  the 
high  prosperity  of  their  towns  on  the  western  coast 
r>f  Asia  Minor.  The  extension  ot  the  name  west- 
ward t<j  the  general  body  of  the  Greeks,  as  they 
became  known  to  the  Hebrews  through  the  Phoeni- 
'flans,  was  but  a  natural  process,  analogous  to  that 
which  we  have  already  had  to  notice  in  the  case  of 
(]!hittim.  It  can  hgirdly  be  imagined  that  the  early 
Hebrews  themselves  had  any  actual  acquaintance 
^»ith  the  Greeks :  it  is,  however,  worth  mentioning 
as  illustrative  of  the  communication  which  existed 
between  the  Greeks  and  the  East,  that  among  the 
artists  who  contributed  to  the  ornamentation  of 
E.sarhaddon's  palaces  the  names  of  several  Greek 
•rtists  appear  in  one  of  the  inscriptions  (Rawlin- 
son's  Herod,  i.  483).  At  a  later  period  the  He- 
brews must  have  gained  considerable  knowledge  of 
the  Greeks  through  the  Egyptians.  Psammetichus 
(b.  c.  664-GlO)  employed  lonians  and  Carians  as 
mercenaries,  and  showed  them  so  much  favor  that 
the  war-caste  of  Egypt  forsook  him  in  a  body :  the 
Greeks  were  settled  near  Bubastis.  in  a  part  of  the 
wuntry  with  which  the  Jews  were  familiar  {Herod. 


JAVAN,  SONS  OP 


1219 


ii.  154).  Tlie  same  policy  was  followed  by  th« 
succeeding  monarchs,  especially  Amasis  (571-525), 
who  gave  the  Greeks  Naucratis  as  a  commercial 
emporium.  It  is  tolerably  certain  that  any  infor- 
mation which  the  Hebrews  acquired  in  relation  to 
the  Greeks  must  have  been  through  the  indirect 
meancj  to  which  we  have  adverted:  the  Greeks 
themselves  were  very  slightly  acquainted  with  the 
southern  coast  of  Syria  until  the  invasion  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great.  The  earliest  notices  of  Palestine 
occur  in  the  works  of  Hecataeus  (b.  c.  549-48G), 
who  mentions  only  the  two  towns  Canytis  and  Car- 
dytus;  the  next  are  in  Herodotus,  who  describes 
the  country  as  Syria  Palaestina,  and  notices  inci- 
dentally the  towns  Ascalon,  Azotus,  Ecbatana 
(BataniEaV),  and  Cadytis,  the  same  as  the  Canytis 
of  Hecataeus,  probably  Gaza.  These  towns  were 
on  the  border  of  Egypt,  with  the  exception  of  the 
uncertain  Ecbatana;  and  it  is  therefore  highly 
probable  that  no  Greek  had,  down  to  this  late  pe- 
riod, travelled  through  Palestine. 

2.  [Rom.  Vat.  Alex,  omit;  Comp.  ^laovdv; 
Aid.  ^Icuvdv.  Groecut.]  A  town  in  the  southeni 
part  of  Arabia  ( Yemen),  whither  the  Phoenicians 
traded  (Ez.  xxvii.  19):  the  connection  with  Uzal 
decides  in  favor  of  this  place  rather  than  Greece, 
as  in  the  Vulg.  The  same  place  may  be  noticetl 
in  Joel  iii.  6:  the  parallelism  to  the  Sabaeans  in 
ver.  8,  and  the  fact  that  the  Phoenicians  bought 
instead  of  selling  slaves  to  the  Greeks  (Ex.  xxvii. 
13),  are  in  favor  of  this  view.  W.  L.  B. 

*JA'VAN,  SONS  OF  (D'^3Vn  ''a?: 
vloL  tS)v  "E.KKi\vwv' filii  Grcecorum),  in  the  A.  V., 
"  the  Grecians,"  and  in  the  margin,  "sons  of  the 
Grecians,"  Joel  iii.  6  (iv.  6  Hebr.).  That  the  loni- 
ans or  Greeks  are  meant'  in  this  passage  of  Joel, 
and  not  a  place  or  tribe  in  Arabia  (see  Javan,  2), 
is  the  generally  adopted  view  of  scholars  (Hitzig, 
Havernick,  Kiietschi,  Delitzsch).  According  to 
this  supposition,  it  is  true,  the  Sidonians  and  Tyr- 
ians  are  said  by  Joel  to  sell  their  Jewish  captives 
to  the  Greeks,  and  by  Ezekiel  (xxvii.  13),  to  pur 
chase  slaves,  probably  among  them  Greek  slaves,  from 
the  Greeks  themselves.  The  one  statement,  how- 
ever, does  not  exclude  the  other.  The  traffic  of 
the  Phoenician  slave-dealers,  like  that  of  modem 
slave-dealers,  would  consist  almost  inevitably  of 
both  the  buying  and  selling  of  slaves.  Greek 
female  slaves  were  in  great  request  among  the  ori- 
ental nations,  especially  the  Persians  (see  Herod, 
iii.  134),  and  Tyre  and  Sidon  were  the  ports  to 
which  they  would  naturally  be  brought  in  the  pros 
ecution  of  this  trade.  The  Greeks  loved  liberty 
for  themselves,  but,  especially  in  the  ante-historic 
times  to  which  Joel  belonged,  were  not  above  en- 
slaving and  selling  those  of  their  own  race  for  the 
sake  of  gain.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  notorious 
that  <.he  Greeks  at  all  periods  were  accustomed  to 
capture  or  buy  men  of  other  nations  as  slaves, 
either  for  their  own  use,  or  to  sell  them  to  foreign- 
ers. On  the  slave-traffic  of  the  Phoenicians  and 
the  Greeks,  see  the  statements  of  Dr.  Pusey,  Joel, 
p.  134  f. 

Th*^  name  of  the  Arabian  Javan  (Ez.  xxvii.  19  • 
had  no  doubt  the  same  origin  as  the  Ionian  or 
Greek  Javan.  But  what  that  origin  was  is  not 
certain.  Some  conjecture  that  Javan  in  Arabia 
was   originally  a  Greek   colony  which  had   gont 


a  *  The  A.  V.  has  "Javan  "  in  al?  the  passagas  re-    and  Zech.  ix.  13,  where  it  is  "  Greece,"  while  in  Amo^ 
%rrert  to  except  those  in  Daniel,  where  it  is  "  Wrecia,"    iii.  6  (which  also  belongs  here)  it  ia  "  Grecians  "   H 


I 


1220 


JAVELIN 


thither  'jy  the  way  of  Egypt  at  an  early  period, 
»nd  hence  were  known  from  the  country  whence 
they  emigrated  (Tuch,  Genesis,  p.  210  f.,  and  Hii- 
remick,  Ezechiel,  p.  469),  Some  think  that  Javan 
(as  an  Indo-Germanic  word,  Sansk.  juvan,  comp. 
juvenis)  meant  "new"  or  "yomig,"  and  was  ap- 
pUed  to  the  later  or  new  brandies  of  this  Indo- 
Germanic  stock  in  the  west  as  distinguished  from 
the  old  parent-stock  in  the  remoter  east.  (See 
Riietschi  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  vi.  432,  and 
Pott,  Eiymol.  Forschunyen,  i.  xli.)  Javan  in  the 
ethnographic  table  (Gen.  x.  4)  may  be  taken,  if 
necessary,  as  the  name  of  the  race,  and  not  of  its 
founder,  and  thus,  consistently  both  with  the  view 
last  stated,  and  with  history,  the  lonians  or  Greeks 
are  said  to  spring  from  the  Japheth  branch  of 
Noah's  family.  All  the  modern  researches  in  eth- 
nography and  geography,  as  Ritter  has  remarked, 
tend  moi  e  and  more  to  confirm  this  "  table  of  the 
nations  "  in  the  10th  ch.  of  Genesis.  H. 

JAVELIN.     [Arms.] 

JA'ZAR  (^'loC^p;  [so  Sin.;  Comp.  TaC^p; 
Alex.  laCrfV'   Gazer),  1  Mace.  v.  8.     [Jaazek.J 

JA'ZER  ['laCrip;  2  Sam.,  'EAte^ep;  Alex,  in 
2  Sam.  E\iaCris;  in  1  Chr.,  Vat.  TaCep,  PiaCyp 
(Alex.  TaQqp)'-  Jozer,  Jasev,  Jezer],  Num.  xxxii. 
1,  3;  Josh.  xxi.  39;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  5;  1  Chr.  vi.  81, 
xxvi.  31;  Is.  xvi.  8,  G;  Jer.  xlviii.  32.     [Jaazer.] 

JA'ZIZ  (T'^p  [shining, bnlliant]:  'lo^i'C?  \y^^- 
lo^et^;]  Alex.  lojcr^tC:  Jnziz),  a  Hagarite  who 
had  charge  of  the   "  flocks,"  i.  e.  the  sheep  and 

goats  O^^SJn),  of  king  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  31), 
which  were  probably  pastured  on  the  east  of  Jor- 
dan, in  the  nomad  country  where  the  forefathers 
of  Jaziz  had  for  ages  roamed  (comp.  ver.  19-22). 

JE'ARIM,  MOUNT  (Dny^— IH:  ,r6\is 
'lapiu;  [Vat.  lap€iv(]  Alex.  lapifx:  Mom  Jar im), 
a  place  named  in  specifying  the  northern  boundary 
of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  10).  The  boundary  ran  from 
Mount  Seir  to  "  the  shoulder  of  Mount  Jearim, 
which  is  Cesalon  "  —  that  is,  Cesalon  was  the 
landmark  on  the  mountain.  Kesla  stands,  7  miles 
due  west  of  Jerusalem,  "  on  a  high  point  on  the 
north  slope  of  the  lofty  ridge  between  Wady  Ghurab 
and  W.  fsmail.  The  latter  of  these  is  the  south- 
western continuation  of  W.  Beit  Ilanina,  and  the 
former  runs  parallel  to  and  northward  of  it,  and 
they  are  separated  by  this  ridge,  which  is  probably 
Mount  Jearim "  (Kob.  iii.  154).  If  Jearim  be 
taken  as  Hebrew  it  signifies  ''  forests."  Forests 
in  our  sense  of  the  word  there  are  none:  but  we 
have  the  testimony  of  the  latest  traveller  that 
"  such  thorough  woods,  both  for  loneliness  and 
obscurity,  he  had  not  seen  since  he  left  Germany  " 
(Tobler,  Wanderumj,  1857,  p.  178).  Kirjath- 
Jearim  (if  that  be  Kuriet  el-Knnh)  is  only  2^ 
miles  off  to  the  northward,  separated  by  the  deep 
and  wide  hollow  of  Wady  Ghurab.     [Chesalon.] 

G. 

JEAT'ERAI  [3  syl.]  C^'^HW';,  {lohim  Je- 
hovah leads']  :  'Ie0p(  [Vat.  -pei]  :  Jethrai),  a  Ger- 
Bhonite  Levite,  son  of  Zerah  (1  Chr.  vi.  21);  appa- 
rently the  head  of  his  family  at  the  time  that  the 
wrvice  of  the  Tabernacle  was  instituted  by  David 
(comp.  ver.  31).  In  the  revereed  genealogy  of  the 
descendants  of  Gershom,  Zerah's  son  is  stated  as 

Etuni  (^3nS,  ver.  41).     The  two  names  have 


JEBU8 

quite  similarity  enough  to  allow  of  the  one  befam 

a  corruption  of  the  other,  though  the  fact  is  noi 
ascertainable. 

JEBERECHI'AH  (^n;?-}5";,  with  the  fina. 

u  [whomJehmmhUlesseA]:  Bapax'i-as'-  Baradiias), 
father  of  a  certain  Zechariah,  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz 
mentioned  Is.  viii.  2.  As  this  form  occurs  nowhere 
else,  and  both  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  have  Bere- 
chiah,  it  is  probably  only  an  accidental  corruption. 

Possibly  a  "^  was  in  some  copy  by  mistake  attached 

to  the  preceding  ^2,  so  as  to  make  it  plural,  and 
thence  was  transferred  to  the  following  word,  Bere- 
chiah.  Berechiah  and  Zechariah  are  both  conmion 
names  among  the  priests  (Zech.  i.  1).  These  are 
not  the  Zacharias  and  Barachias  mentioned  as 
father  and  son,  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  a.s  it  is  certain  that 
Zechariah,  the  son  of  Jehoiada,  in  the  reign  of  Joash, 
is  there  meant.  They  may,  however,  be  of  the 
same  family;  and  if  Berechiah  was  the  father  of 
the  house,  not  of  the  individuals,  the  same  person 
might  be  meant  in  Is.  viii.  2  and  Matt,  xxiii. 
35.  It  is  singular  that  Josephus  [B.  J.  iv.  5,  §  4) 
mentions  another  Zacharias,  son  of  Baruch,  v»ho 
was  slain  by  the  Jews  in  the  Temple  shortly  befoia 
the  last  siege  of  Jerusalem  began.  (See  Whiston'g 
note,  ad  be. )  A.  C.  H. 

JE'BUS  (0^2^  [see  infray.  'Ufiovs'-  Jehns), 
one  of  the  names  of  Jerusalem,  the  city  of  the  Jeb- 
usites,  also  called  Jehusi.  It  occurs  only  twice: 
first  in  connection  with  the  journey  of  the  Levite 
and  his  unhappy  concubine  from  Bethlehem  to 
Gibeah  (Judg.  xix.  10,  11);  and  secondly,  in  the 
narrative  of  the  capture  of  the  place  by  David  in  1 
Chr.  xi.  4,  5.  In  2  Sam.  v.  6-9  the  name  Jerusa- 
lem is  employed.  By  Gesenius  ( Thes.  189,  D^S) 
and  Furst  {ILindwb.  477)  Jehus  is  interpreted  to 
mean  a  place  dry  or  down-trodden  like  a  threshing- 
floor;  an  interpretation  which  by  Ewald  (iii.  155) 
and  Stanley  (S.  (f  P.  p.  177)  is  taken  to  prove  that 
Jebus  must  have  been  the  southwestern  hill,  the 
"  dry  rock "  of  the  modem  Zion,  and  "  not  the 
Mount  Moriah,  the  city  of  Solomon,  in  whose  centre 
arose  the  perennial  spring."  But  in  the  great  un- 
certainty which  attends  these  ancient  names,  this 
is,  to  say  the  least,  very  doubtful.  Jebus  was  the 
city  of  the  Jebusites.  Either  the  name  of  tlie  town 
is  derived  from  the  name  of  the  tribe,  or  the  reverse. 
If  the  former,  then  the  interpretation  just  quoted 
falls  to  the  ground.  If  the  latter,  then  the  origin 
of  the  name  of  Jebus  is  thrown  back  to  the  very 
beginning  of  the  Canaanite  race  —  so  far  at  any 
rate  as  to  make  its  connection  with  a  Hebrew  root 
extremely  uncertain.  G. 

*  Jebus  and  Jerusalem  need  not  be  nnderstootl 
as  interchangeable  or  coextensive  names  in  2  Sam. 
v.  6,  but  differing  only  as  a  part  from  tbc  whole, 
like  Zion  and  Jerusalem  in  Joel  ii.  32  (iii.  5,  Ilebr.). 
For  evidence  that  Jebus  was  the  southwest  hill, 
afterward  called  Mount  Zion  or  the  City  of  David, 
see  Dr.  Wolcott's  addition  to  Jerusalem  (Amer. 
ed.).  It  has  seemed  hitherto  almost  incredil)le  that 
the  Jebusites  could  have  kept  this  acropolis  for  so 
long  a  time,  while  the  Hebrews  dwelt  almost  undei 
its  shadow  (Judg.  i.  21 ).  Recent  excavations  have 
throwTi  light  on  this  singular  fact.  Jebus  was  a 
place  of  extraordinary  strength;  for  though  Zion 
appears  at  present  almost  on  a  level  with  aotxa 
parts  of  the  city,  it  is  now  proved  Ijeyond  a  que» 


JEBUSI 

kiM  tnat  it  was  originally  an  isolated  summit,  pre- 
ciaay  as  implied  in  tne  account  of  itr.  capture  by 
David.  It  was  protected  not  only  by  the  deep 
ravine  of  Hiimom  on  the  south  and  west,  and  the 
Tyropceon  on  the  east,  but  by  a  valley  which  ran 
from  the  Jaffd  gate  to  the  lyropoeon  on  the  north 
Bide  of  the  mount.  This  last  valley  hs,s  been  laid 
bare,  showing  at  different  points  a  depth  of  26  and 
33  feet  below  the  present  surface,  and  in  one  in- 
stance a  depth  of  nearly  80  feet  below  the  brow  of 
Zion.  At  one  spot  a  fragment  of  the  ancient 
northern  rampart  of  Zion  was  brought  to  light. 
"  It  was  built  close  against  the  cliff,  and  though 
only  rising  to  the  top  of  the  rock  behind,  it  was 
yet  39  feet  high  toward  the  ravine  in  front " 
(Recent  Researches  in  Jerusalem,  reprinted  from 
the  British  Quarterly  Review,  October,  1867,  in  the 
7'heol.  Eclectic,  v.  393;  and  Ordnance  Survey  of 
Jerusalem,  p.  61,  Lond.  1865).  It  is  not  surprisinir, 
therefore,  that  the  subjugation  of  this  stronghold 
should  be  reserved  for  the  prowess  of  David,  and  be 
recorded  as  one  of  his  greatest  exploits  (2  Sam 
v.6-8). 

The  occurrence  of  this  name  in  the  account  of 
the  Levite's  homeward  journey  (Judg.  xix.  10  ff.) 
suggests  a  remark  or  two  on  the  local  allusions 
which  occur  in  the  narrative.  Jebus  or  Jerusalem 
is  a  short  2  hours  from  Bethlehem,  and  hence,  the 
party  leaving  the  latter  place  somewhat  late  in  the 
afternoon  (as  appears  more  clearlv  from  the  Hebrew 
than  in  the  A.  V.,  see  Judg.  .xx.  9,  11),  they  would 
be  off  against  Jebus  near  the  close  of  the  day,  as 
stated  in  ver.  11.  Their  journey  lay  along  the 
west  side  of  that  eityr  and  this  maybe  a  reason 
why  it  is  spoken  of  as  Jebus  rather  than  Jerusalem. 
The  servant  proposed  that  they  should  remain  here 
over  night,  as  the  time  now  left  was  barely  sufficient 
to  enable  them  to  reach  the  next  halting-place. 
But  the  Invite  objected  to  this,  and  insisted  that 
they  should  proceed  further  and  lodge  either  in 
Gibeah  or  in  Kamah,  an  association  of  the  places 
which  implies  that  they  were  near  each  other  and 
on  the  route  of  the  travellers.  One  of  these  exists 
still  under  its  ancient  name  Er-Ram,  and  the  other, 
such  explorers  as  Robinson,  Van  de  Velde,  Porter, 
identify  with  Tuleil  el-Ful:  both  of  them  on 
heights  which  overlook  the  road,  nearly  opposite 
each  other,  2^  or  3  hours  further  north  from  Jebus. 
Accordingly  we  read  that  as  the  Levite  and  his 
company  drew  near  Gibeah  "  the  sun  went  down 
upon  them,"  in  precise  accordance  with  the  time 
and  the  distance.  Here  occurred  the  horrible  crime 
which  stands  almost  without  a  parallel  in  Jewish 
history.  Shiioh  was  the  Levite's  destination,  and 
on  the  morrow,  pursuing  still  further  this  northern 
road,  he  would  come  in  a  few  hours  to  that  seat 
of  the  Tabernacle,  or  "  house  of  the  Lord,"  as  it  is 
called,  ver.  18.  H. 

JEB'USI  {^U^'D.^Jl^theJthusite:  'U^ovaai, 
Ufiods,  [so  Tisch.;  l-q/Sovs,  Holmes,  Bos;  Alex. 
U^ous']  Jebusoius,  [Jebus]),  the  name  employed 
for  the  city  of  Jebus,  only  in  the  ancient  document 
describing  the  landmarks  and  the  towns  of  the 
allotment  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  (Josh.  xv.  8, 
xviii.  16,  28).  In  the  first  and  last  place  the  ex- 
planatory words,  "  which  is  Jerusalem,"  are  added 
In  the  first,  however,  our  translators  have  gi^n  ir 
i8  "  the  Jebusite." 

A  parallel  to  this  mode  of  designating  the  town 
»y  iU  inhabitant^}  is   found  in  this  very  list  in 


JEBUSITE 


1221 


Zemaraim  (xviii.  22),  Avim  (23),  Ophui  /24),  and 
Japhletite  (xvi.  3),  &g.  G. 

JEBUSITE,  JEB'USITES,  THE.     Al 

though  these  two  tbrms  are  indiscriminately  em 
ployed  in  the  A.  V.,  yet  in  the  original  the  name, 
whether  applied  to  individuals  or  to  the  nation,  is 
never  found  in  the  plural ;  always  singular.     The 

usual  form  is  "^D^^^n ;  but  in  a  few  places  — 
namely,  2  Sam.  v.  6,  xxiv.  16,  18 ;  1  Chr.  xxi.  18 
only  —  it  is  ''p3^n.  Without  the  article,  ^D^i"), 
it  occurs  in  2  Sam.  v.  8 ;  1  Chr.  xi.  6 ;  Zech.  ix.  7. 
In  the  two  fir^t  of  these  the  force  is  nmch  increased 
by  removing  the  article  introduced  in  the  A.  V., 
and  reading  "and  smiteth  a  Jebusite."  We  do 
not  hear  of  a  progenitor  to  the  tribe,  but  the  name 
which  would  have  been  his,  had  he  existed,  has 
attached  itself  to  the  city  in  which  we  meet  with 
the  Jebusites  in  historic  times.  [Jebus.]  The 
LXX.  give  the  name  'U^ovaaios'-,  [in  Judg.  xix. 
11,  'le^oval,  Vat.  -(xeiv;  in  Ezr.  ix.  1,  'Ufiovtrif 
Vat.  Alex,  -crei']   Vulg.  Jebusceus. 

1.  According  to  the  table  in  Genesis  x.  "the 
Jebusite  "  is  the  third  son  of  Canaan.  His  place 
in  the  list  is  between  Heth  and  the  Amorites  (Gen. 
X.  16 ;  1  Chr.  i.  li),  a  position  which  the  tribe 
maintained  long  after  (Num.  xiii.  29;  Josh.  xi.  3); 
and  the  same  connection  is  traceable  in  the  words 
of  Ezekiel  (xvi.  3,  45),  who  addresses  Jerusalem  as 
the  fruit  of  the  union  of  an  Amorite  with  a  Hittite. 
But  in  the  formula  by  which  the  Promised  Land 
is  so  often  designated,  the  Jebusites  are  uniformly 
placed  last,  which  may  have  arisen  from  their  small 
number,  or  their  quiet  disposition.  See  Gen.  xv. 
21 ;  Ex.  iii.  8,  17,  xiii.  5,  xxiii.  23,  xxxiii.  2,  xxxiv. 
11;  Deut.  vii.  1,  xx.  17;  Josh.  iii.  10,  ix.  1,  xii. 
8,  xxiv.  11;  1  K.  ix.  20;  2  Chr.  viii.  7;  Ezr.  ix. 
1;  Neh.  ix.  8. 

2.  Our  first  glimpse  of  the  actual  people  is  in 
the  invaluable  report  of  the  spies  —  "  the  Hittite, 
and  the  Jebusite,  and  the  Amorite  dwell  in  the 
mountain  "  (Num.  xiii.  29).  This  was  forty  years 
before  the  entrance  into  Palestine,  but  no  change 
in  their  habitat  had  been  made  in  the  interval;  for 
when  Jabin  organized  his  rising  against  Joshua  he 
sent  amongst  others  "  to  the  Amorite,  the  Hittite, 
the  Perizzite,  and  the  Jebusite  in  the  mountain  " 
(Josh.  xi.  3).  A  mountain-tribe  they  were,  and  a 
mountain-tribe  they  remained.  "  Jebus,  which  is 
Jerusalem,"  lost  its  king  in  the  slaughter  of  Beth- 
horon  (Josh.  x.  1,  5,  26;  comp.  xii.  10)  —  was 
sacked  and  burnt  by  the  men  of  Judah  (Judg. 
i.  21),  and  its  citadel  finally  scaled  and  occupied 
by  David  (2  Sam.  v.  6);  but  still  the  Jebusites 
who  inhabited  Jeru-salem,  the  "  inhabitants  of  the 
land,"  could  not  be  expelled  from  their  mountain- 
seat,  but  contiimed  to  dwell  with  the  children  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin  to  a  very  late  date  (Josh.  xv. 
8,  63;  Judg.  i.  21,  xix.  11).  This  obstinacy  is 
characteristic  of  mountaineers,  and  the  few  traits 
we  possess  of  the  Jebusites  show  them  as  a  warUke 
people.  Before  the  expedition  under  Jabin,  Adoni- 
Zedek,  the  king  of  Jerusalem,  had  himself  headed 
the  attack  on  the  Gibeonites,  which  ended  in  the 
slaughter  of  Beth-horon,  and  cost  him  his  life  on 
that  eventful  evening  under  the  trees  at  Makkedah." 
That  th'?y  were  established  in  the  strongest  naturaj 


In  ver.  5  the  king  of  Jerusalem  is  styled  one  oi 


the  ■   five   kings  of  the  Amorites. 
(botl  MSS.)  have  tuv  'le^ovaamv  " 


'     But  the  LXX 
of  the  .lebusitM '- 


1222  JECAMIAH 

'ortress  of  the  country  in  itself  says  much  for  their 
•ourage  and  power,  and  when  they  lost  it,  it  was 
through  hravado  rather  than  from  any  cowardice 
Du  their  part.     [Jeuusalp:m.] 

After  this  they  emerge  from  the  darkness  but 
once,   in   the   person  of  Araunah«  the  Jebusite, 

"Araunah  the  king"  (Tfb^Il  nDl^S),  who 
appears  before  us  in  true  kingly  dignity  in  his  well- 
known  transaction  with  David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  23; 
1  Chr.  xxi.  23).  The  picture  presented  us  in  these 
well-known  passages  is  a  very  interesting  one.  We 
Bee  the  fallen  Jebusite  king  and  his  four  sons  on 
their  threshing-floor  on  the  bald  top  of  Moriah, 

treading  out  their  wheat  {Wl :  A.  V.  "threshing") 

by  driving  the  oxen  with  the  heavy  sledges  (D**!l"lD, 
A.  V.  "threshing  instruments")  over  the  corn, 
round  the  central  heap.  We  see  Araunah  on  the 
approach  of  David  fall  on  his  face  on  the  ground, 
and  we  hear  him  ask,  "  Why  is  my  lord  the  king 
come  to  his  slave?"  followed  by  his  willing  sur- 
render of  all  his  property.  But  this  reveals  no 
traits  peculiar  to  the  Jebusites,  or  characteristic  of 
them  more  than  of  their  contemporaries  in  Israel, 
or  in  the  other  nations  of  Canaan.  The  early 
judges  and  kings  of  Israel  threshed  wheat  in  the 
wine-press  (Judg.  vi.  11),  followed  the  herd  out  of 
the  field  (1  Sam.  xi.  5),  and  were  taken  from  the 
sheep-cotes  (2  Sam.  vii.  8),  and  the  pressing  courtesy 
of  Araunah  is  closely  paialleled  by  that  of  Ephron 
the  Ilittite  in  his  negotiation  with  Abraham. 

We  are  not  favored  with  further  traits  of  the 
Jebusites,  nor  with  any  clew  to  their  religion  or 
rites. 

Two  names  of  individual  Jebusites  are  preserved. 
In  Adoni-zkdkk  the  only  remarkable  thing  is  its 
Hebrew  form,  in  which  it  means  "  Lord  of  justice." 

That  of  Araunah  is  much  more  uncertain  — so 
much  so  as  to  lead  to  the  belief  that  we  possess  it 
more  nearly  in  its  original  shape.  In  the  short  nar- 
rative of  Samuel  alone  it  is  given  in  three  forms  — 
"  the  Avamah  "  (ver.  16);  Araneah  (18);  Aravnab, 
or  Araunah  (20,  21).  In  Chronicles  it  is  Arnan, 
while  by  the  LXX.  it  is  'Opvd,  and  by  Josephus 
'Op6vva.    [Araunah;  Ornan.] 

In  the  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles  the  ashes 
of  Barnabas,  after  his  martyrdom  in  Cyprus,  are 
said  to  have  been  buried  in  a  cave,  "  where  the 
race  of  the  Jebusites  formerly  dwelt;"  and  previ- 
ously to  this  is  mentioned  the  arrival  in  the  island 
of  a  "  pious  Jebusite,  a  kinsman  of  Nero  "  (Act. 
Apost.  Apoa\  pp.  72,  73,  ed.  Tisch.).  G. 

JECAMI'AH  (^^7PP^^  i.  e.  Jekamiah,  as 
the  name  is  elsewhere  given  [fie  who  assembles  the 
jjeople]:  'le/ce/i/a,  [Vat.]  Alex.  Uneuia:  Jecemia), 
one  of  a  batch  of  seven,  including  Salathiel  and 
Pedaiah,  who  were  introduced  into  the  royal  line, 
on  the  failure  of  it  in  the  person  of  Jehoiachim 
(1  Chr.  iii.  18).  They  were  all  apparently  sons  of 
Neri,  of  the  line  of  Nathan,  since  Salathiel  certainly 
was  80  (Luke  iii.  27).  [Genealogy  of  Jesus 
Christ,  p.  885  b.^  A.  C.  H. 

JECHOLI'AH  (^n^bD^  [Jehacah  is 
i'U<//i/;?/],  with  the  final  u:  'Ux^xia,  [Vat.  Xa\em,] 
Alw.  lexe/xa;  Joseph.  'Ax'aAas:  Jechelia),  wife 


a  By  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  13,  §  9)  Araunah  is  said 
JO  have  been  one  of  David's  ciiief  friends  {ev  tois  /utdL- 
Kta-ra  AavtSow),  and  to  have  been  expressly  spared  by 
Jm  when  the  citadel  was  taken.    If  there  is  any  truth 


JEDAIAH 

of  Amaziah  khig  of  .Judah,  and  mother  of  Azaruft 

or  Uzziah  his  successor  (2  K.  xv.  2).  BoUi  thii 
queen  and  Jehoaddan,  the  mother  of  her  husband 
are  specified  as  »  of  Jerusalem."  In  the  A.  V.  of 
Chronicles  her  name  is  given  as  Jecoliah. 

JECHONI'AS  i'Uxouias:  Jechonias).  1, 
The  Greek  form  of  the  name  of  king  Jechoniah, 
followed  by  our  translators  in  the  books  renderec 
from  the  Greek,  namely,  Esth.  xi.  4;  Bar.  i.  3,  9 
Matt.  i.  11,  12. 

2.  1  Esdr.  viii.  92.     [Siiechaniah.] 
*  3.  1  Esdr.  i.  9.     So  A.  V.  ed.  1611,  etc  ,  cor- 
rectly.   Later  editions  read  Jeconias.    The  same 
as  Conaniah,  q.  v.  A. 

JECOLFAH  (n;^5^  [see above]:  'lex^A^a; 
[Vat.  Xaaia  :]  Jechelia\  2  Chr.  xxvi.  3.  In 
the  original  the  name  diflers  from  its  form  in  the 
parallel  passage  in  Kings,  only  in  not  having  the 
final  u.     [Jecholiah.] 

JECONI'AH  (n;^?*;;  excepting  once, 
•in^DD"^,  with  the  final  li,  Jer.  xxiv.  1;  and  once 
in  Cetib,  n^31D^  Jer.  xxvii.  20  [Jehovah  estab- 
lishes]: 'Uxovias-  Jechonias),  an  altered  form  of 
the  name  of  Jehoiachin,  last  but  one  of  the  kings 
of  Judali,  which  is  found  in  the  following  passages: 
1  Chr.  iii.  16,  17 ;  Jer.  xxiv.  1,  xxvii.  20,  xxviii.  4, 
xxix.  2;  Esth.  ii.  6.  It  is  still  further  abbreviated 
to  Coniah.     See  also  Jechonias  and  Joacim. 

JECONI'AS  CUxoulas--  Jechonias),  1  Esdr. 
i.  9.    [Jechonias,  3.] 

JEDAIAH  [3  syl]  (n;^!^  [Jehovah 
knows]:  ['leSia,]  'icoSaf,  'leSoua*  'loSta,  [etc.:] 
Jedei,  Jadaia,  [Idaia,  Jodaia]).  1,  Head  of  the 
second  course  of  priests,  as  they  were  divided  in  the 
time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  7).  Some  of  them 
survived  to  return  to  Jerusalem  after  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  as  appears  from  Ezr.  ii.  36,  Neh.  vii,  39 
—  "  the  children  of  Jedaiah,  of  the  house  of  Jeshua, 
973."  The  addition  "of  the  house  of  Jeshua" 
indicates  that  there  were  two  priestly  families  of  the 
name  of  Jedaiah,  which,  it  appears  from  Neh.  xii. 
6,  7,  19,  21,  was  actually  the  case.  If  these  sons 
of  Jedaiah  had  for  their  head  Jeshua,  the  high- 
priest  in  the  time  of  Zeinibbabel,  as  the  Jewish 
tradition  says  they  had  (Lewis's  Orig.  Heb.  bk.  ii. 
ch.  vii.),  this  may  be  the  reason  why,  in  1  Chr.  ix 
10,  and  Neh.  xi.  10,  the  course  of  Jedaiah  is  named 
before  that  of  Joiarib,  though  Joiarib's  was  the  first 
course.  But  perhaps  Jeshua  was  another  priest 
descended  from  Jedaiah,  from  whom  this  branch 
sprung.  It  is  certahily  a  corrupt  reading  in  Neh. 
xi.  10  which  makes  Jedaiah  son  of  Joiai-ib.  1  Chr. 
ix.  10  preserves  the  true  text.  In  Esdras  the  name 
is  Jeddu. 

2.  [ol  iyvuKSres  aur^v:  Idaia.]  A  priest  in 
the  time  of  Jeshua  the  high-priest  (Zech.  vi.  10, 
14).  A.  C.  H. 

JEDA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (H^T  [praise  of  Je- 
hovah, Ges.]).  This  is  a  different  name  from  the 
last,  though  the  two  are  identical  in  the  A.  V. 

1.  CleSta;  [Vat.  iSial]  Alex.  E8ia:  Idaia.) 
A  man  named  in  the  genealogies  of  Simeon  as  a 
forefather  of  Ziza,  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the  tribe, 


in  tliis,  David  no  doubt  made  his  friendship  during 
his  wanderings,  when  he  also  acquired  that  of  Urial 
the  Hittite,  Ahimelech,  Sibbechai,  and  others  of  hit 
associates  who  belonged  to  the  old  nations. 


JEDDTT 

ipparently  in  the  time  of  king  Hezekiah  (1  Chr. 
V.  37). 

2.  CitSota;  [FA.  leSSeta:]  Jedaia.)  Son  of 
Harumaph;  a  man  who  did  liis  part  in  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  (Neh.  iii.  10 ). 

JED'DU  CleSSov:  Jeddus),  1  Esdr  v.  24. 
[Jedaiah,  1.] 

JEDE'US  CuSaTos-  Jeddeus),  1  Esdr.  ix.  30. 
[Adaiah,  5.] 

JEDFAEL  (bSl?*'']^  [knoicn  of  God]  : 
'leStTjA  ;  [Vat.  A5eir)\,  kpniA  ;  Alex.  Ia5i7]\, 
AStTjA.,  *A5iTjp:]  Jaditl,  IJadi/iel]).  1.  A  chief 
patriarch  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  from  whom 
Bpruns;  many  Benjamite  houses  of  fathers,  number- 
ing 17,200  mighty  men  of  valor,  in  the  days  of 
David  (1  Chr.  vii.  6,  11).  It  is  usually  assumed 
that  Jediael  is  the  same  as  Ashbel  (Gen.  xlvi.  21; 
Num.  xxvi.  38;  1  Chr.  viii.  1).  But  though  this 
may  be  so,  it  cannot  be  affii*med  with  certainty. 
[Becher;  Bela.]  Jediael  might  be  a  later  de- 
scendant of  Benjamin  not  mentioned  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  who,  from  the  fruitfulness  of  his  house 
and  the  decadence  of  elder  branches,  rose  to  the 
first  rank. 

2.  ['loSiTjA;  Vat.  ldepr]\'  JadiheL]  Second 
son  of  INIeshelemiah,  a  Levite,  of  the  sons  of 
Ebiasaph  the  son  of  Korah.  One  of  the  door- 
keepers of  the  Temple  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr. 
xxvi.  1,  2).  A.  C.  H. 

3.  ['leStTjA;  Vat.  FA.  Ekdeir}\--  Jedihel.]  Son 
of  Shimri ;  one  of  the  heroes  of  David's  guard  in 
the  enlarged  catalogue  of  Chronicles  (1  Chr.  xi. 
45).  In  the  absence  of  further  information,  we 
cannot  decide  whether  or  not  he  is  the  same 
person  as  — 

4.  CPcoMa;  Alex.  [AM.l 'UBi-f^x:  [Jedihel]). 
One  of  the  chiefs  (lit.  "heads")  of  the  thousands 
of  Manasseh  who  joined  David  on  his  march  from 
Aphek  to  Ziklag  when  he  left  the  Philistine  army 
on  the  eve  of  Gilboa,  and  helped  him  in  his  revenge 
on  the  marauding  Amalekites  (1  Chr.  xii.  20; 
comp.  1  Sam.  xxix.,  xxx.). 

JEDI'DAH  (ni'^l"),  darling  [or  only  one]  : 
'USia;  [Vat.  leSeta;]  Alex.  ESiSa;  [Comp.  'leS- 
5tSo:]  Idida),  queen  of  Anion,  and  mother  of  the 
good  king  Josiah  (2  K.  xxii.  1).  She  was  a  native 
of  Bozkath  near  Lachish,  the  daughter  of  a  certain 
Adaiah.  By  Josephus  {Ant.  x.  4,  §  1)  her  name 
is  given  as  'Ie§is. 

JEDIDI'AH  (nnn":  [darling  of  Jehovah]: 
'IcSSeSi;  [Vat.  iSeSet;]  Alex.  EteSiSia:  AmabiUs 
Doniino)i  the  name  bestowed,  through  Nathan  the 
prophet,  on  David's  son  Solomon  (2  Sam.  xii.  25). 

Bath-sheba's  first  child  had  died  —  "  Jehovah 
struck  it"  (ver.  15).  A  second  son  was  born,  and 
David  —  whether  in  allusion  to  the  state  of  his 
external  affairs,  or  to  his  own  restored  peace  of 
mind  —  called  his  name  Shelomoh  ("Peaceful"); 
and  Jehovah  loved  the  child,  i.  e.  allowed  him  to 
live.  And  David  sent  by  the  hand  of  Nathan,  to 
obtain  through  him  some  oracle  or  token  of  the 
Divine  favor  on  the  babe,  and  the  babe's  name  was 
ealled  Jedid-Jah.  It  is  then  added  that  this  was 
done  "because  of  Jehovah."  The  clew  to  the 
meaning  of  the«e  last  words,  and  indeed  of  the 


«  The  reason  why  "son  of  Jeduthun  "  is  especially 
ittac^ed  to  the  name  of  Obed-Edom  in  this  verse,  is  to 
tbttnipiish  hira  from  the  other  Obed-Edom  the  Gittite 


JEDUTHUN  1238 

whole  circumstance,  seems  to  reside  in  the  Sad 
that  "  Jedid  "  and  "  David  "  are  both  derived  from 
the  same  root,  or  from  two  very  closely  related  (see 

Gesen.  Thes.  565  a  — '"  "^l"^,  idem  quod  1^'^  ). 
To  us  these  plays  on  words  have  little  or  no  signifi- 
cance; but  to  the  old  Hebrews,  as  to  the  modern 
Orientals,  they  were  full  of  meaning.  To  David 
himself,  the  "darling"  of  his  family  and  his  peo- 
ple, no  more  happy  omen,  no  more  precious  seal  of 
his  restoration  to  the  Divine  favor  after  his  late 
fall,  could  have  been  afforded,  than  tliis  announce- 
ment by  the  prophet,  that  the  name  of  his  child 
was  to  combine  his  own  name  with  that  of  Jeho- 
vah—  Jedid-Jah,  "darling  of  Jehovah." 

The  practice  of  bestowing  a  second  name  on 
children,  in  addition  to  that  given  immediately  on 
birth  —  such  second  name  having  a  religious  bear- 
ing, as  Noor-ed-Din,  Saleh-ed-Din  (Saladin),  etc. 
—  still  exists  in  the  East.  G. 

*  JEDFTHUN.    [JEDUTHU^^] 

JEDU'THUN  (]^n^l%  except  in  1  Chr. 
xvi.  38;  Neh.  xi.  17;  Ps.  xxxix.  title;  and  Ixxvii. 
title,  where  it  is  ^^n"^"!"^,  {.  e.  Jedithun  [prais- 
ing, or  he  who  praises] :  'Uovddou  and  ^UiOovv, 
or  -ovfi;  [Vat.  Ideidwu,  -Bcofx,  dov/x,  etc:]  Idi- 
thun;  [1  Esdr.  i.  15,  'ESSiuovs,  Vat.  EBSeivovs- 
Jeddiinus] ),  a  Levite  of  the  family  of  Merari,  who 
was  associated  with  Heman  the  Kohathite,  and 
Asaph  the  Gershonite,  in  the  conduct  of  the  musi- 
cal service  of  the  tabernacle,  in  the  time  of  David; 
according  to  what  is  said  1  Chr.  xxiii.  6,  that  David 
divided  the  Levites  "  into  courses  among  the  sons 
of  Levi,  namely,  Gershon,  Kohath,  and  Merari." 
The  proof  of  his  being  a  Merarite  depends  upon 
his  identification  with  Ethan  in  1  Chr.  xv.  17,  who, 
we  learn  from  that  passage  as  well  as  from  the 
genealogy  in  vi.  44-  (A.  V.),  was  a  Merarite  [He- 
man].  But  it  may  be  added  that  the  very  circum- 
stance of  Ethan  being  a  JMerarite,  which  Jeduthun 
must  have  been  (suice  the  only  reason  of  there 
being  three  musical  cliiefs  was  to  have  one  for  each 
division  of  the  Levites),  is  a  strong  additional  proof 
of  this  identity.  Another  proof  may  be  found  in 
the  mention  of  Hosah  (xvi.  38,  42),  as  a  son  of 
Jeduthun  «  and  a  gatekeeper,  compared  with  xxvi. 
10,  where  we  read  that  Hosah  was  of  the  children 
of  Merari.    Assuming  then  that,  as  regards  1  Chr. 

vi.  44,  XV.  17, 19,  ]^*^"^^  is  a  mere  clerical  variation 

for  ^^n"^"!"^  —  which  a  comparison  of  xv.  17,  19 
with  xvi.  41,  42,  xxv.  1,  3,  6,  2  Chr.  xxxv.  15, 
makes  almost  certain  —  we  have  Jeduthuu's  de- 
scent as  son  of  Kishi,  or  Kushaiah,  from  jMahli, 
the  son  of  Mushi,  the  son  of  Merari,  the  son  of 
Levi,  being  the  fourteenth  generation  from  Levi 
inclusive.  His  office  was  generally  to  preside  over 
the  music  of  the  temple  service,  consisting  of  the 
nebel,  or  nablium,  the  cinnor,  or  harp,  and  the 
cymbals,  together  with  the  human  voice  (the  trum- 
pets being  confined  to  the  priests).  But  his  pecu- 
liar part,  as  well  as  that  of  his  two  colleagues 
Heman  and  Asaph,  was  "  to  sound  with  cymbaU 
-f  brass,"  while  the  others  played  on  the  nabliurr 
-nd  the  harp.     This  appointment  to  the  office  WM 

by  election  of  tie  chiefs  of  the  Levites  (D'^'^tt^) 


(2  Sam.  ^    10)  mentioned  in  the  sane  Terse  Tfibo 
probably  a  Kohathite  (Josh.  xxi.  24' 


1224  JEBLI 

ti  David's  command,  each  of  the  three  divisions 
probably  choosing  one.  I'he  first  occasion  of  Jedu- 
thun's  ministering  was  wlien  David  brought  up 
the  ark  to  Jerusalem.  He  tlien  took  his  place  in 
the  procession,  and  played  on  the  cymbals.  Jiut 
when  the  division  of  the  Levitical  services  took 
place,  owing  to  the  tabernacle  being  at  Gibeon  and 
the  ark  at  Jerusalem,  while  Asaph  and  his  brethren 
were  appointed  to  minister  before  the  ark,  it  fell  to 
Jeduthun  and  Heman  to  be  located  with  Zadok  the 
priest,  to  give  thanks  "  before  the  tabernacle  of  the 
Ijord  in  the  high  place  that  was  at  Gibeon,"  stiU 
by  playing  the  cymbals  in  accompaniment  to  the 
other  musical  instnnnents  (comp.  Vs.  cl.  5).  In 
the  account  of  Josiah's  Passover  in  2  Chr.  xxxv. 
reference  is  made  to  the  singing  as  conducted  in 
accordance  with  the  arrangements  made  by  David, 
and  by  Asaph,  Heman,  and  Jeduthun  the  king's 

seer  (Tfb^H  ilTn).  [Hemax.]  Perhaps  the 
phrase  rather  means  the  king's  adviser  in  matters 
connected  with  the  musical  service.  The  sons  of 
Jeduthun  were  employed  (1  Chr.  xxv.)  partly  in 
music,  namely,  six  of  them,  who  prophesied  with 
the  harp  —  Gedaliah,  head  of  the  2d  ward,  Zeri, 
or  Izri,  of  the  •ith,  Jeshaiah  of  the  8th,  Shimei 
of  the  10th,«  Hashabiah  of  the  12th,  and  Mat- 
tithiah  of  the  14th  ;  and  partly  as  gatekeepers 
(A.  V.  "porters")  (xvi.  42),  namely,  Obed-Edom 
and  Hosah  (v.  ^38),  which  last  had  thirteen  sons 
and  brothers  (xxvi.  11).  The  triple  division  of  the 
Levitical  nuisicians  seems  to  have  lasted  as  long 
as  the  Temple,  and  each  to  have  been  called  after 
their  respective  leaders.  At  the  dedication  of  Sol- 
omon's temple  "  the  Levites  which  were  the  sing- 
ers, all  of  them  of  Asaph,  of  Heman,  of  Jeduthun  " 
performed  tlieir  i)roper  part.  In  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah,  again,  we  find  the  sons  of  Asaph,  the  sons  of 
Heman,  and  the  sons  of  Jeduthun,  taking  their 
part  in  purifying  the  Temple  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13,  14) 
they  are  mentioned,  we  have  seen,  in  Josiah's  reign, 
and  so  late  as  in  Nehemiah's  time  we  still  find  de- 
scendants of  Jeduthun  employed  about  the  singing 
(Neh  xi.  17:  1  Chr.  ix.  KJ).  His  name  stands  at 
the  head  of  the  3'Jth,  G2d,  and  77th  Psalms,  indi- 
cating probably  that  they  were  to  be  sung  by  his 
choir.  A.  C.  H. 

*  In  the  title  of  Ps.  xxxix.  Jeduthun  no  doubt 
appears  as  the  precentor  or  choir-master  under 
whose  lead  the  psalm  was  to  be  sung.  But  in  the 
titles  of  Ps.  Ixii.  and  Ixxvii.  (where  the  preposition 

is  ^3?,  and  not  V,  as  in  the  other  case)  Jeduthun 
probably  denotes  a  body  of  singers  nained  after 
this  chorister,  and  consisting  in  part,  at  least,  of 
his  sons  or  descendants  (see  2  Chr.  xxix.  14),  though 
not  excluding  others.  The  A.  V.  does  not  recog- 
nize this  ditterence  of  the  prepositions.  Of  all  the 
conjectui-es,  that  is  least  satisfactory,  says  Hupfeld, 
which  makes  Jeduthun  the  name  of  a  musical  in- 
strument, or  of  a  pjirticular  melody.     The  ready 

interchange  of  "^y  ^"^  ^  accounts  for  the  two-fold 
orthography  of  the  name.  H. 

JEE'LI  CletrjAt  [Vat.  -Aei] ;  Alex.  leijAt: 
Cdi\  1  Esdr.  v.  33.     [Jaalah.] 


JEGi^R  SAHADXJTHA 

JEEXUS  Cle^Aos;  Alex.  Ui^k:  Jthdm),  1 
Esdr.  viii.  92.     [Jehiel.] 

JEE'ZER  ("I.T?^^  [f(ither,0T  author  of  help] 
'Axie(ep:  Iluzer)^  the  form  assumed  in  the  list  in 
Numbers  (xxvi.  30)  by  tlie  name  of  a  descendant 
of  jNIanasseh,  eldest  son  of  Gilead,  and  founder  of 
one  of  the  chief  families  of  the  tribe.  [Jeeze 
KITES.]  In  parallel  lists  the  name  is  given  aa 
Abi-ezek,  and  the  family  as  the  Abiezkites  — 
the  house  of  Gideon.  Whether  this  change  haa 
arisen  from  the  accidental  addition  or  omission  of 
a  letter,  or  is  an  intentional  variation,  akin  to  that 
in  the  case  of  Abiel  and  Jehiel,  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained.    The  LXX.  perhaps  read  "IT^TIS. 

JEE'ZERITES,  THE  C^"]T:^>'n  [patio- 
nym.]:  'Ax'eCepi:  [Vat.  M.  Ax'6^<-ip6j:]  famiiia 
Hitzeritarum),  the  family  of  the  foregoing  (Num- 
xxvi.  30). 

JE'GAR  SAHADUTHA  (SHJlTryb  HD^, 
heap  of  testimony  :  ^ovvhs  ttjs  paprvpias  [ses  be- 
low] :  iuinulns  /!es^js),  the  Aramaean  name  given  by 
Laban  the  Syrian  to  the  heap  of  stones  wliich  he 
erected  as  a  memorial  of  the  compact  between 
Jacob  and  himself,  while  Jacob  commemorated  the 
same  by  setting  up  a  pillar  (Gen.  xxxi.  47),  as  waa 
his  custom  on  several  other  occasions.  Galeed,  a 
"  witness  heap,"  which  is  given  as  the  Hebrew 
equivalent,  does  not  exactly  represent  Jegar-saha- 
dutha.  The  LXX.  have  presened  the  distinction 
accurately  hi  rendering  the  latter  by  l3ovuhs  rris 
/xapTvpias  [Alex,  paprvs],  and  the  former  by  j9. 
paprvs  {Alex,  paprvp^i]-  The  Vulgate,  oddly 
enough,  has  transposed  the  two,  and  translated 
Galeed  by  "  acervus  testimonii,"  and  Jegar  Saha- 
dutha  by  "  tumulus  testis."  But  in  the  mind  of 
the  writer  they  were  evidently  all  but  identical, 
and  the  manner  in  which  he  has  adapted  the  name 
to  the  circumstances  narrated,  and  to  the  locality 
which  was  the  scene  of  the  transaction,  is  a  curious 
instance  of  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  Hebrews, 
of  which  there  are  many  examples  in  the  ().  T.,* 
so  to  modify  an  already  existing  name  that  it  might 
convey  to  a  Hebrew  an  intelligible  idea,  and  at  the 
same  time  preserve  essentially  its  original  form. 
There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  name  Gil- 
ead is  derived  from  a  root  which  points  to  the 
natural  features  of  the  region  to  which  it  is  applied, 
and  to  which  it  was  in  all  probaliility  attached  be- 
fore the  meeting  of  Jacob  and  I.aban,  or  at  any 
rate  before  the  time  at  which  the  historian  was 
writing.  In  fact  it  is  so  used  in  verses  23  and  25 
of  this  chapter.  The  memorial  heaj)  erected  by 
Laban  marked  a  crisis  in  Jacob's  life  which  severe^l 
him  from  all  further  intercourse  with  his  Syrian 
kindred,  and  henceforth  his  wanderings  were  mainly 
confined  to  the  land  which  his  descendants  were  to 
inherit.  Such  a  crisis,  so  commemorated,  waa 
thought  by  the  historian  of  sufficient  importance 
to  have  left  its  impress  ui>on  the  whole  region,  and 
in  Galeed  "the  witness  heap  "  was  found  the  orig- 
inal name  of  the  mountainous  district  Gilead. 

A  similar  etymology  is  given  for  Mizpeh  in  ths 
parenthetical  clause  consisting  of  the  latter  part  of 


o  Omitted  in  ver.  3,  but  necessary  to  make  up  the 
si>nB. 

&  The  double  account  of  the  origin  of  Beer-sheba 
'Gen.  X3i.  81,  xxvi.  32),  the  explanation  of  Zoar  (Gten 
Ox.  a^  22)  and  of  the  name  of  Moses  (Ex.  ii.  10).  are 


illustrations  of  this  ;  and  there  are  many  such.  Thli 
tendency  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Hebrews.  It  exists  ii 
every  language,  but  has  not  yet  been  i-ecognized  \o  tin 
case  of  Hebrew. 


JEHALELEEL 

nr  4S  Mid  49,  which  is  not  unhkelj  to  have  been 
wggested,  though  it  is  not  so  stated,  by  the  sim- 

iarity  between  HQlJ^i,  mifspeh,  and  n3'!|D, 
malsfsclioh,  tlie  "standing  stone"  or  "statue" 
which  Jacob  set  up  to  be  his  memorial  of  the  tran- 
saction, as  the  iieap  of  stones  was  Laban's.  On 
Jhis  pillar  or  standing  stone  he  swore  by  Jehovah, 
the  "  fear  of  his  father  Isaac,"  as  Laban  over  his 
heap  invoked  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  Nahor,  the 
(Jod  of  their  father  Terah;  each  marking,  by  the 
most  solemn  form  of  adjuration  he  could  employ, 
Ills  own  sense  of  the  grave  nature  of  the  compact. 

W.  A.  W. 

JEHALE'LEEL  (^Sbbn^  [he  who  jiraises 
God]:  'AAerjA;  [Vat-  Te<Ter)'\a\\  Alex.  laAAfArjA: 
Jaleletl).  Four  men  of  the  Bene-Jehaleleiil  are 
introduced  abruptly  into  the  genealogies  of  Judah 
(1  Chr.  iv.  16).  The  name  is  identical  with  that 
rendered  in  the  A.  V.  JEHALELEii.  Neither  form 
is,  however,  quite  correct. 

JEHAL'ELEL  (^S^^n>  [as above]:  'Ua- 
eX-i]\;  [EAA17;]  Alex.  la\\'r}\:  Jalaleel),  a,  Mera- 
rite  Levite,  whose  son  Azariah  took  part  in  the 
restoration  of  the  Temple  in  Hezekiah's  time  (2 
Chr.  xxix.  12). 

JEHDE'IAH  [3  syl.]  (^in^-^rn.;;,  i.  e.  Yechde- 
ya'hu  [whom  Jehovah  makes  Joyous]).  1.  ('leSia; 
[Vat.  laSeja;]  Alex.  laSaia,  Apadeia:  Jehec/eia.) 
The  representative  of  the  Eene-Shubael,  —  descend- 
ants of  Gershom,  son  of  Moses  —  in  the  time  of 
David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  20).  But  in  xxvi.  24,  a  man 
of  the  name  of  Shebuel  or  Shubael,  is  recorded  as 
the  head  of  the  house;  unless  in  this  passage  the 
family  itself,  and  not  an  individual,  be  intended. 

2.  ('laSias:  Jadias.)  A  Meronothite  who  had 
charge  of  the  she-asses  —  the  riding  and  breeding 
stock  —  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  30). 

JEHEZ'EKEL  (bsptri^  \whom  God  m-ikes 
stroiKj]  :  5  'E^e/fi^A:  flezechiel),  a  priest  to  whom 
was  given  by  David  the  charge  of  the  twentieth  of 
the  twenty-four  courses  in  the  service  of  the  house 
of  Jehovah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  10). 

The  name  in  the  original  is  almost  exactly  sim- 
ilar to  EZEKIEL. 

JEHI'AH  i'n'ri)  [perh.  =  b«*'n\  see 
below,  Ges.]:  'le/a;  Alex.  Ua'ia'-  Jehias).  He 
and  Obed-edom  were   "  doorkeepers  for  the  ark " 

(C^n^'2"',  the  word  elsewhere  expressed  by  "  por- 
ters") at  tlie  time  of  its  establishment  in  Jerusa- 
lem (1  Chr.  XV.  2'4).  The  name  does  not  recur, 
'•ut  it  is  possible  it  may  be  exchanged  for  the  simi- 
lar Jehiel  or  Jeiel  in  xvi.  5. 

JEHI'EL  (bs^n^  [God  Ikes]  :  Jahlel). 
1-  ('leiirjA  [Vat.  FA.  in  xv.  20  corrupt;  Vat.  xvi. 
5,  EteiTjA.])  One  of  the  Invites  appointed  by 
David  to  assist  in  the  service  of  the  house  of  God 
(1  Chr.  XV.  18,  20;  xvi.  5). 

2.  [Vat.  It/A.]  One  of  the  sons  of  Jehosha- 
phat,  king  of  Judah,  who  was  put  to  death  by  his 
Drother  Jehoram  shortly  after  his  becoming  king 
(2  Chr.  xxi.  2). 

^.  CletirjA.)  One  of  the  rulers  of  the  house  of 
Sod  at  the  time  of  the  reforms  of  Josiah  (2  Chr. 
\xxv.  8).     [Syelus.] 

4.  ('l6i^,A;  [Vat.  ItjA,  Beo-iTjA.])  A  Gershoc 
*m  f>evite,  head  of  the  13ene-Laadan  in  the  time  d 


JEHIZKIAH  1226 

David  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  8),  who  had  chai^  of  th« 
treasures  (xxix.  8).  His  family  —  Jehieli,  i.  e 
•Jehielite,  or  as  we  should  say  now  Jehielites  —  ia 
mentioned,  xxvi.  21. 

5.  (lerjA,  Alex.  Upiri\.)  Son  of  Hachmoni,  or 
of  a  Hachmonite,  named  in  the  list  of  David's  offi- 
cers (1  Chr.  xxvii.  32)  as  "with  (D'^)  the  king's 
sons,"  whatever  that  may  mean.  The  mention  of 
Ahithophel  (33)  seems  to  fix  the  date  of  this  list 
as  before  the  revolt.  In  Jerome's  Qucestiones  He- 
braicce  on  this  passage,  Jehiel  is  said  to  be  David's 
sou  Chileab  or  Daniel;  and  "  Achamoni,"'  uiter- 
preted  as  Sapientissiimis,  is  taken  as  an  alias  of 
David  himself. 

6.  (In  the  original  text,  vSirT^,  Jehuel  —  the 
A.  V.  follows  the  alteration  of  the  Keri:  'let^A* 
[Vat.  EuTjA.])  A  Levite  of  the  Bene- Ileman,  who 
took  part  in  the  restorations  of  king  Hezekiah  (2 
Chr.  xxix.  14). 

7.  [Vat.  EirjA.J  Another  Levite  at  the  same 
period  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  13),  one  of  the  "  overseers  " 

(D^'l^'pQ)  of  the  articles  offered  to  Jehovah.  His 
parentage  is  not  mentioned. 

8.  Clet^A;  [Vat.  le/xa;]  Alex.  leeJTjA.)  Father 
of  Obadiah,  who  headed  218  men  of  the  Bene-Joab 
in  the  return  from  Babylon  with  li^ra  (L^r.  viii.  9). 
In  Esdras  the  name  is  Jezelus,  and  the  number 
of  his  clan  is  stated  at  212. 

9.  Cle-^A,  Alex.  UetrjX:  Jehiel.)  One  of  the 
Bene-Elam,  father  of  Shechaniah,  who  encouraged 
Ezra  to  put  away  the  foreign  wives  of  the  people 
(Ezr.  X.  2).     In  Esdras  it  is  Jeelus. 

10.  ('lai7?A  ;  [Vat.  IcuyA;]  Alex.  A/e/rjA : 
Jehiel.)  A  member  of  the  same  family,  who  had 
himself  to   part    with    his    wife    (Ezr.    x.    26). 

[HiEKIELUS.] 

11.  Cle^A,  Alex.  leiTjA:  Jehiel.)  A  priest,  one 
of  the  Beno-Ilarim,  who  also  had  to  put  away  his 
foreign  wife  (PLzr.  x.  21).      [Hiereel.] 

JEHI'EL,«  a  perfectly  distinct  name  from  the 
last,  though  the  same  in  the  A.  V.     1.  (bs*^^*? . 

so  the  Keri,  but  the  Cetib  has  v'S137'',  i.  e.  Jeuel;; 
'if'^A;  [Vat.  EttrjA;]  Alex.  lei-qx:  Jehiel),  a  man 
described  as  Abi-Gibeon  —  father  of  Gibeon ;  a 
forefather  of  king  Saul  (1  Chr.  ix.  35).  In  viii.  29 
the  name  is  omitted.  The  presence  of  the  stubborn 
letter  Ain  in  Jehiel  forbids  our  identifying  it  with 
Abiel  in  1  Sam.  ix.  1,  as  some  have  been  tempted 
to  do. 

2,  (Here  the  name  is  as  given  in  No.  1;  [Vat. 
FA.  leto.])  One  of  the  sons  of  Hotham  the  Aroerite; 
a  member  of  the  guard  of  David,  included  in  the 
extended  list  of  1  Chr.  xi.  44. 

JEHIE'LI  (^V^'^n^l '  'I«^A;  Alex.  [ver.  22, 
leTjA :]  Jehieli),  according  to  the  A.  V.  a  Gershonite 
Invite  of  the  family  of  Laadan.  The  Bene-Jehieli 
had  charge  of  "^he  treasures  of  the  house  of  Jehovah 
(1  Chr.  xxvi.  21,  22).  In  other  hsts  it  is  given 
as  Jehiel.  The  name  appears  to  be  strictly  a 
patronymic  —  Jehielite. 

JEHIZKI'AH  (^njPTn";,  l  e.  Yechizki- 
ya'hu;  same  name  as  Hezekiah   [zohom  Jehovah 


«  Here  our  translators  represent  Ain  by  H,  unleai 
they  simply  follow  the  Vulgate.  Comp.  Jboqw 
Mehonim. 


1226 


JEHOADAH 


jfrettiftkeiM]  :  EC^Klas-  Ezechias),  son  of  Shallutn, 
3ne  of  the  heads  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  in  the 
time  of  Ahaz,  who,  at  the  instance  of  Ocled  the 
prophet,  nobly  withstood  the  attempt  to  bring  into 
Samaria  a  lar^e  number  of  captives  and  much 
booty,  which  tlie  IsraeUte  array  under  king  Pekah 
had  taken  iu  the  campaign  against  Judah.  By  the 
exertions  of  Jehizkiahu  and  liis  fellows  the  captives 
were  clothed,  fed,  and  tended,  and  returned  to 
Jericho  en  route  for  Judah  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  12;  corap. 
B,  13,  15). 

JEHO'ADAH  (^:^^''^^^  L  e.  Jehoaddah 

1  wham  Jehovah  adorns^  (ies. ;  J.  unveils^  Fiirst]  : 
'laSa ;  Alex.  lojtaSa :  Joada),  one  of  the  de- 
icendants  of  Saul  (1  Chr.  viii.  36);  great  grandson 
to  Merib-baal,  i.  e.  jNIephi-bosheth.  In  the  dupli- 
rate  genealogy  (ix.  42)  the  name  is  changed  to 
Jakah. 

JEHOAD'DAN  (]517'*in^ ;  but  in  Kings  the 

original  text  has  ^"^*Tl7in^  :  and  so  the  LXX. 
'iwoSi'iU)  [Vat.  IcoadetfJi,  Aid.]  Alex.  'icoaSetV;   [in 

2  Chr.,]  'IcoaSoeV,  [Vat.  Icoyaa,  Alex.  IwaS  eV-] 
Jondan,  Joadam).  "  Jchoaddan  of  Jerusalem  " 
was  queen  to  king  Joash,  and  mother  of  Amaziah 
of  Judah  (2  K.  xiv.  2;  2  Chr.  xxv.  1). 

JEHO'AHAZ  (TnS'in^  {whom  Jehovah 
Iwlds  or  2)7-ese7^ves] :  'Iwd^xa^;  [Vat.  in  2  K., 
laiaxas '■  Jonchaz]).  1.  The  son  and  successor 
of  Jehu,  reigned  17  years  n.  c.  85G-840  over  Israel 
in  Samaria.  His  inglorious  history  is  given  in  2 
K.  xiii.  1-9.  Throughout  his  reign  (ver.  22)  he 
was  kept  in  subjection  by  Ilazael  king  of  Damascus, 
who,  following  up  the  successes  which  he  had  pre- 
viously achieved  against  Jehu,  compelled  Jehoahaz 
to  reduce  his  army  to  50  horsemen,  10  chariots, 
and  10,000  infantry.  Jehoahaz  maintained  the 
idolatry  of  Jeroboam ;  but  in  the  extremity  of  his 
humihation  he  besought  Jehovah;  and  Jehovah 
gave  Israel  a  deliverer  —  probably  either  Jehoash 
(vv.  23  and  25),  or  Jeroboam  II.  (2  K.  xiv.  24,  25) 
(see  Keil,  Commentary  on  Kin<js).  The  prophet 
Elisha  survived  Jehoahaz ;  and  Evvald  (fJesch.  Isr. 
iii.  557)  is  disposed  to  place  in  his  reign  the  incur- 
sions of  the  Syrians  mentioned  in  2  K.  v.  2,  vi.  8, 
and  of  the  Ammonites  mentioned  in  Amos  i.  13. 

2.  [Vat.  in  2  K.,  Iwaxas,  and  so  Alex.  2  K. 
xxiii.  34.]  Jehoahaz,  otherwise  called  Shallum, 
the  fourth  (ace.  to  1  Chr.  iii.  15),  or  third,  if  Zede- 
kiah's  age  be  correctly  stated  (2  Chr.  xxxvi.  11), 
son  of  Josiah,  whom  he  succeeded  as  king  of  Judah. 
He  was  chosen  by  the  people  in  preference  to  his 
elder  (comp.  2  K.  xxiii.  31  and  30)  brother,  b.  c. 
610,  and  he  reigned  three  months  in  Jerusalem. 
His  anointing  (ver.  30)  was  probably  some  ad- 
ditional ceremony,  or  it  is  mentioned  with  peculiar 
emphasis,  as  if  to  make  up  for  his  want  of  the 
ordinary  title  to  the  throne.  He  is  descrilied  by 
his  contemporaries  as  an  evil-doer  (2  K.  xxiii.  32) 
and  an  oppressor  (Ez.  xix.  3),  and  such  is  his  tra- 
.Utional  character  in  Josephus  (Atit.  x.  5,  §  2);  but 
ais  deposition  seems  to  have  been  lamented  by  the 
^eople  (Jer.  xxii.  10,  and  Ez.  xix.  1).  Pharaoh- 
necho  on  his  return  from  Carchemish,  perhaps 
resenting  the  election  of  Jehoahaz,  sent  to  Jeru- 
«?lem  to  depose  him,  and  to  fetch  him  to  Riblah. 
There  he  was  cast  into  chains,  and  from  thence  he 
jras  taken  into  Egyi)t,  where  he  died  (see  Prideaux, 
Connection,  anno  610;  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isi:  iii.  719; 
«ir«eimiiiller.  Schol.  in  Jerem.  xxii.  11). 


JEHOHA.NAU 

*  Ine  history  of  Jehoahaz  appears  to  intimat* 
more  than  it  records.  "  Something  there  had  beer 
in  his  character,"  says  Stanley,  "or  in  the  popular 
mode  of  his  election,  which  endeared  him  to  th# 
country.  A  lamentation,  as  for  his  father,  went 
up  from  the  princes  and  prophets  of  the  land  foi 
the  lion's  cul),  that  was  learning  to  catch  his  prey 
caught  in  the  pitfall,  and  led  off  in  chains  —  by  a 
destiny  even  sadder  than  death  in  battle.  '  Weep 
not  for  the  dead,  nor  bemoan  him,  but  weep  sore 
for  him  that  goeth  away'  (Jer.  xxii.  10).  He  was 
the  first  king  of  Judah  that  died  in  exile."  {Jemsh 
Church /n.  582  I)  H. 

3.  The  name  given  (2  Chr.  xxi.  17,  where,  how- 
ever, the  LXX.  have  'OxoC'os  [Vat.  OxoC^ias,  but 
Comp.  Aid-  'lojctxa^])  during  his  father's  lifetime 
(Bertheau)  to  the  youngest  son  of  Jehoram  king 
of  Judah.  As  king  he  is  known  by  the  name  of 
Ahaziah,  which  is  written  Azariah  in  the  present 
Hebrew  text  of  2  Chr.  xxii.  6,  perhaps  through  a 
transcriber's  error.  W.  T.  B. 

JEHO'ASH  (tt'S'in;*  [gift  of  Jehwah]: 
'Icoas:  Joas),  the  original  uncontracted  form  of  the 
name  which  is  more  commonly  found  compressed 
into  Joash.  The  two  forms  appear  to  be  used 
quite'  indiscriminately;  sometimes  both  occur  in 
one  verse  (e.  g.  2  K.  xiii.  10,  xiv.  17). 

1.  The  eighth  king  of  Judah ;  son  of  Ahaziah 
(2  K.  xi.  21,  xii.  1,  2,  4,  6,  7,  18,  xiv.  13). 
[JoAsn,  1.] 

2.  The  twelfth  king  of  Israel;  son  of  Jehoahaz 
(2  K.  xiii.  10,  25,  xiv.  8,  9,  11,  13,  15,  16,  17). 
[Joash,  2.] 

JEHOHA'NAN  (l^n^'^n^  =  Jehovah's  gift, 
answering  to  Theodore :  'iwaudv'-  Jo/?fmnn),  anamc 
much  in  use,  both  in  this  form  and  in  the  con- 
tracted shape  of  Johanan,  in  the  later  periods  of 
Jewish  history.  It  has  come  down  to  us  as  John, 
and  indeed  is  rendered  by  Josephus  'luayvris  {Ant. 
viii.  15,  §  2). 

1.  CluvdOau;  [Vat.  \ccvas-]  Alex.  Iccvav-)  A 
Levite,  one  of  the  doorkeepers  (A.  V.  "porters") 
to  the  house  of  Jehovah,  i.  e.  the  Tabernacle,  ac- 
cording to  the  appointment  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi. 
3;  comp.  xxv.  1).  He  was  the  sixth  of  the  seven 
sons  of  Meshelemiah;  a  Korhite,  that  is  descended 
from  Korah,  the  founder  of  that  great  Kohathite 
house.  He  is  also  said  (ver.  1)  to  have  been  of 
the  Bene-Asaph;  but  Asaph  is  a  contraction  for 
Ebiasaph,  as  is  seen  from  the  genealogy  in  ix.  19. 
The  well-known  Asaph  too  was  not  a  Kohathite 
but  a  Gershonite. 

2.  ['Iwai'ttj'.]  One  of  the  principal  men  of 
Judah,  under  king  Jehoshaphat;  he  commandefl 
280,000  men,  apparently  in  and  about  Jenis.alem 
(2  Chr.  xvii.  15;  comp   13  and  19).    He  is  named 

second  on  the  list,  and  is  entitled  "^t^H,  "the 
captain,"  a  title  also  given  to  Adnah  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  though  there  rendered  "  the  chief." 
He  is  probably  the  same  person  as  — 

3.  Father  of  Ishmael,  one  of  the  "  captaini 
O^tt?,  as  before)  of  hundreds"  —  evidently  resid- 
ing in  or  near  Jerusalem  —  whom  Jehoiada  thi 
priest  took  into  his  confidence  about  the  restoration 
of  the  line  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  1). 

4.  ['Iwavdv;  VA.  Iwvauav.]  One  of  the  Bene 
Bebai  [sons  of  B.],  a  lay  Israelite  who  was  forced 
by  Ezra  to  put  away  his  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  28' 
In  Esdras  the  name  is  Johakm*- 


JEHOIACHIN 

6.  Vluai/du.]  A  priest  (Neh.  xii.  1*<^  •  the  reiv 
naentative  of  the  house  of  Amariah  (x)mp.  2), 
luring  the  high-priesthood  of  Joiakim  (ver.  12), 
Aat  is  to  say  in  the  generation  after  the  fii'st  return 
from  Captivity. 

6.  (Vat.  I.XX.  omits  [so  Alex.  FA.^;  Comp. 
VA.-^  'Icaaudv]')  A  priest  who  took  part  in  the 
musical  service  of  thanksgiving,  at  the  dedication 
of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah  (Neh.  xii. 
42).     In  two  other  cases  tliis  name  is  given  in  the 

A.  V.  as  JOItANAN. 

JEHOI'ACHIN  {'\^^'i^n,=  appointed  of 

Jehovah ;  once  only,  Ez.  i.  2,  contracted  to  ]'^?^'1'^  '■ 
ill  Kings  'Iwaxf/Lc>  Chron.  'lexoj'tas,  Jer.  and  Ez. 
'I«a»ce{/i;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Iwa/cetTj  throughout  [ex- 
cept in  Chron.];  Joseph.  'Iwctxt/ios:  Joachin). 
Elsewhere  the  name  is  altered  to  Jkconiah,  and 
(JoNiAH.     See  also  Jechonias,   Joiakim,  and 

fOACIM. 

Son  of  Jehoiakim  and  Nehushta,  and  for  three 
months  and  ten  days  king  of  Judah,  after  the  death 
of  his  father,  being  the  nineteenth  king  from  David, 
or  twentieth,  counting  Jehoahaz.  According  to 
2  K.  xxiv.  8,  Jehoiachin  was  eighteen  years  old  at 
his  accession;  but  2  Chr.  xxxvi.  9,  as  well  as  1 
VjfAv.  i.  40,  has  the  far  more  probable  reading  eight 
years,«  which  fixes  his  birth  to  the  time  of  his 
father's  captivity,  according  to  Matt.  i.  11. 

Jehoiachin  came  to  the  throne  at  a  time  when 
Egypt  was  still  prostrate  in  consequence  of  the 
victory  at  Carchemish,  and  when  the  Jews  had 
been  for  three  or  four  years  harassed  and  distressed 
by  the  inroads  of  the  armed  bands  of  Chaldaeans, 
Ammonites,  and  Moabites,  sent  against  them  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  consequence  of  Jehoiakim's  re- 
bellion. [Jehoiakim.]  Jerusalem  at  this  time, 
therefore,  was  quite  defenseless,  and  unable  to  ofFei 
any  resistance  to  the  regular  army  which  Nebu- 
chadnezzar sent  to  besiege  it  in  the  8th  year  of  his 
reign,  and  which  he  seems  to  have  joined  in  person 
after  the  siege  was  commenced  (2  K.  xxiv.  10,  11). 
In  a  very  short  time,  apparently,  and  without  any 
losses  from  famine  or  fighting  which  would  indicate 
a  serious  resistance,  Jehoiachin  surrendered  at  dis- 
cretion ;  and  he,  and  the  queen-mother,  and  all  his 
servants,  captains,  and  officers,  came  out  and  gave 
themselves  up  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  carried 
them,  with  the  harem  and  the  eunuchs,  to  Babylon 
(Jer.  xxix.  2;  Ez.'xvii.  12,  xix.  9).  All  the  king's 
treasures,  and  all  the  treasure  of  the  Temple,  were 
seized,  and  the  golden  vessels  of  the  Temple,  which 
the  king  of  Babylon  had  left  when  he  pillaged  it  in 
the  fourth  of  Jehoiakim,  were  now  either  cut  up  or 
carried  away  to  Babylon,  with  all  the  nobles,  and 
men  of  war,  and  skilled  artizans,  none  but  the 
poorest  and  weakest  being  left  behind  (2  K.  xxiv. 
13;  2  Chr.  xxxvi.  19).  According  to  2  K.  xxiv. 
14,  16,  the  number  taken  at  this  time  into  captivity 
was  10,000,  namely,  7,000  soldiers,  1,000  craftsmen 
»nd  smiths,  and  2,000  whose  calling  is  not  specified. 
But,  according  to  Jer.  lii.  28  (a  passage  which  is 
omitted  in  the  LXX.),  the  number  carried  away 
faptive  at  this  time  (called  the  seventh  of  Nebuchad- 
Vzzar,  instead  of  the  eighth,  as  in  2  K.  xxiv.  12) 
«vas  3,023.  Whether  this  difference  arises  from  any 
Borruption  of  the   numerals,    or   whether   only  a 


JEirOIAOHIX 


1227 


o  Snch  is  the  text  of  the  Vat.  LXX. ,  the  A.  V. 
bfiOWg  the  Alex,  and  Vulgate  in  reading  "  eighteen." 


portion  of  those  originally  taken  captive  wore  aC' 
tually  carried  to  Babylon,  the  others  being  left  with 
Zedekiah,  upon  his  swearing  allegiance  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, cannot  perhaps  l)e  decided.  The  numbers 
in  Jeremiah  are  certainly  very  small,  only  4,600  in 
all,  whereas  the  numbers  who  returned  from  cap- 
tivity, as  given  in  Ezr.  ii.  and  Neh.  vii.  were  42.360. 
However,  Jehoiachin  was  himself  led  away  captivo 
to  Babylon,  and  there   he   remained   a   prisoner, 

actually  in  prison  (S  v3  n*'^)?  and  wearing  prison 
garments,  for  thirty-six  years,  namely,  till  the  death 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  when  Evil-Merodach,  succeed- 
ing to  the  throne  of  Babylon,  treated  him  with 
much  kindness,  brought  him  out  of  prison,  changed 
his  garments,  raised  him  above  the  other  subject  or 
captive  kings,  and  made  him  sit  at  his  own  table. 
Whether  Jehoiachin  outlived  the  two  years  of  Evil- 
Merodach's  reign  or  not  does  not  appear,  nor  have 
we  any  particulars  of  his  life  at  Babylon.  The 
general  description  of  him  in  2  K.  xxiv.  9,  "  He 
did  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  according  to  all 
that  his  father  had  done,"  seems  to  apply  to  his 
character  at  the  time  he  was  king,  and  but  a  child; 
and  so  does  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  (xxii.  24-30 : 
Ez.  xix.  5-9).  We  also  learn  from  Jer.  xxviii.  4, 
that  four  years  after  Jehoiachin  had  gone  to  Baby- 
lon, there  was  a  great  expectation  at  Jerusalem  of 
his  return,  but  it  does  not  appear  whether  Jehoi- 
achin himself  shared  this  hope  at  Babylon.  [Han- 
ANiAH,  4.]  The  tenor  of  Jeremiah's  letter  to  the 
elders  of  the  Captivity  (xxix.)  would,  however,  indi- 
cate that  there  was  a  party  among  the  Captivity, 
encouraged  by  false  prophets,  who  were  at  this  time 
looking  forward  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  overthrow 
and  Jehoiachin's  return;  and  perhaps  the  fearful* 
death  of  Ahab  the  son  of  Kolaiah  {ib.  v.  22),  and 
the  close  confinement  of  Jehoiachin  through  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's reign,  may  have  been  the  result  of 
some  disposition  to  conspire  against  Nebuchadnez- 
zar on  the  part  of  a  portion  of  the  Captivity.  But 
neither  Daniel  nor  Ezekiel,  who  were  Jehoiachin's 
fellow-captives,  make  any  further  allusion  to  him, 
except  that  Ezekiel  dates  his  prophecies  by  the 
year  "  of  King  Jehoiachin's  captivity "  (i.  2,  viii. 
1.  xxiv.  1,  &c.);  the  latest  date  being  "  the  twenty- 
seventh  year"  (xxix.  17,  xl.  1).  We  also  lean, 
from  Esth.  ii.  6,  that  Kish,  the  ancestor  of  Mor- 
decai,  was  Jehoiachin's  fellow-captive.  But  the 
apocryphal  books  are  more  communicative.  Thus 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Baruch  (i.  3)  introduces 
"  Jechonias  the  son  of  Jehoiakim  king  of  Judah" 
into  his  narrative,  and  represents  Baruch  as  reading 
his  prophecy  in  his  ears,  and  in  the  ears  of  the 
king's  sons,  and  the  nobles,  and  elders,  and  pecple, 
at  Babylon.  At  the  hearing  of  Baruch's  words,  ih 
is  added,  they  wept,  and  fasted,  and  prayed,  and 
sent  a  collection  of  silver  to  Jenisalem,  to  Joiakim, 
the  son  of  Hilkiah,  the  son  of  Shallam  the  high- 
priest,  with  which  to  purchase  burnt- offerings,  and 
sacrifice,  and  incense,  bidding  them  pray  for  the 
prosperity  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Behhazzar  hie 
son.  The  history  of  Susanna  and  the  Elders  also 
apparently  makes  Jehoiachin  an  important  person- 
age; for,  according  to  the  author,  the  husband  of 
Susanna  was  Joiakim,  a  man  of  great  wealth,  and 
the  cnief  person  among  the  captives,  to  whose  house 
all  tne  people  resorted  for  judgment,  a  description 


The  words  tr"^K  and  "155,  ^^PPlJ^d  to  Jehoiakim  in 
Jer.  xxii.  2S,  80,  imply  sex'  rather  than  age,  and  aw 
both  actuallj  used  of  infants.     See  Gea    Th.es.  s.  tw 


1228 


JEHOIADA 


winch  8ui(s  Jehoiachin.  Africanus  (Ep.  ad  OHg.  ; 
Routh,  Rel.  Sac.  ii.  113)  expressly  calls  Susanna's 
husband  ''  king,"  and  says  that  the  king  of  Babylon 
Dad  made  him  his  royal  companion  {avvQpovos)- 
He  is  also  mentioned  1  Esdr.  v.  5,  but  the  text  seems 
to  be  corrupt.  It  probably  should  be  "  Zorobabel, 
the  son  of  Salathiel,  the  son  of  Joacini,"  i.  e.  Jehoi- 
achin. It  does  not  appear  certainly  from  Scripture, 
whether  Jehoiachin  was  married  or  had  any  chil- 
dren. That  Zedekiah,  who  in  1  Chr.  iii.  16  is 
called  "  his  son,"  is  the  same  as  Zedekiah  his  uncle 
('ialied  "his  brother,"  2  Chr.  xxxvi.  10),  who  was 
his  successor  on  the  throne,  seems  certain.     But  it 

is  not  impossible  that  Assir  ("^D  2*  =  captive),  who 
is  reckoned  among  the  "  sons  of  Jeconiah  "  in  1 
Chr.  iii.  17,  may  have  been  so  really,  and  either 
have  died  young  or  been  made  an  eunuch  (Is.  xxxix. 
7).    This  is  quite   in   accordance  with  the   term 

"  childless,"  ''"J'^'^?,  applied  to  Jeconiah  by  Jere- 
miah (xxii.  30).  [Genealogy  of  Christ,  vol. 
i.  p.  886  6.] 

Jehoiachin  was  the  last  of  Solomon's  line,  and  on 
its  failure  in  his  jjerson,  the  right  to  the  succession 
passed  to  the  line  of  Nathan,  whose  descendant, 
Shealtiel,  or  Salathiel,  the  son  of  Neri,  was  conse- 
quently inscribed  in  the  genealogy  as  of  "  the  sons 
of  Jehoiachin."  Hence  his  pla'^e  in  the  genealogy 
of  Christ  (Matt.  i.  11,  12).  For  the  variations  in 
the  Hebrew  forms  of  Jeconiah 's  name  see  Hanan- 
lAH,  8;  and  for  the  confusion  in  Cireek  and  Latin 
writers  between  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin,  'lojo- 
■X^^ifx  and  'la>o«e//A,  see  Genealogy  of  Jesus 
Chkist,  and  Hervey's  Gtneoh(jy,  pp.  71-73. 

N.  B.  Tlie  compiler  of  1  Esdr.  gives  the  name 
of  Jechonias  to  Jelioahaz  the  son  of  Josiah,  who 
reigned  three  months  after  Josiah's  death,  and  was 
deposed  and  carried  to  Egypt  by  Pharaoh-Necho 
(1  Esdr.  i.  34;  2  K.  xxiii.  30).  He  is  followed  in 
this  blunder  by  Epiphanius  (vol.  i.  p.  21),  who  says 
"  Josiah  begat  Jechoniah,  who  is  also  called  Shal- 
lum.  This  Jechoniah  b^at  Jechoniah  who  is  called 
Zedekiah  and  Joakim."  It  has  its  origin  doubtless 
in  the  confusion  of  the  names  when  written  in 
Greek  by  writers  ignorant  of  Hebrew.  A.  C.  H. 

JEHOI'ADA  {Vr^n^  =^lcnoiiyn  of  Jehovah  : 
'lojSae;  Alex.  IcaaSae,  IcaiaSa,  IcoiaSae,  and  also 
Rs  Vat.;  Joseph.  'IcoaSos:  Joiada).  In  the  later 
books  the  name  is  contracted  to  Joiada. 

1.  Father  of  Benaiah,  David's  well  known 
warrior  (2  Sam.  viii.  18;  IK.  i.  and  n.  passim;  1 
Chr.  xviii.  17,  &c.).  From  1  Chr.  xxvii.  5,  we 
learn  that  Benaiah's  father  was  the  chief  priest,  and 
he  is  therefore  doubtless  identical  with  — 

2.  ClwaSas;  [Vat.  TwaSas;  FA.  TwaSoe;  Alex. 
laSae.])  Leader  (T'?^)  of  the  Aaronites  (accu- 
rately "of  Aaron")  i.  c.  the  priests;  who  joined 
David  at  Hebron,  bringing  with  him  3,700  priests 
(I  Chr.  xii.  27). 

3.  According  to  1  Chr.  xxvii.  34,  son  of  Benaiah, 
Bud  one  of  David's  chief  counsellors,  apparently 
having  succeeded  Ahithophel  in  that  office.  But 
In  all  probability  Benaiah  the  son  of  Jehoiada  is 
meant,  by  a  confusion  similar  to  that  which  has 
strisen  with  regard  to  Ahimelech  and  Abiathar  (1 
Chr.  xviii.  16;  2  Sam.  viii.  17). 

4.  High-priest  at  the  time  of  Athaliah's  usurpa- 
fion  of  the  throne  of  Judah  (b.  c.  884-878),  and 
iuring  the  greater  portion  of  the  40  years'  reign  of 
laish      It  does  not  appear  when  he  first  became 


JEHOIADA 

high-priest,  but  it  may  have  been  as  early  aa  Um 
latter  part  of  Jehoshaphat's  reign.  Anyhow,  h» 
probably  succeeded  Amariah.  [High-pkiest.] 
He  married  Jehosheba,  or  Jehoshabeath,  daugh- 
ter of  king  Jehoram,  and  sister  of  king  Ahaziah 
(2  Chr.  xxii.  11);  .^nd  when  Athaliah  slew  all  th« 
seed  royal  of  Judah  after  Ahaziah  had  been  put  to 
death  by  Jehu,  he  and  his  wife  stole  Joash  from 
among  the  king's  sons,  and  hid  him  for  six  years 
in  the  Temple,  and  eventually  replaced  him  on  the 
throne  of  his  ancestors.  [Joash;  Athaliah.] 
In  effecting  this  happy  revolution,  by  which  both 
the  throne  of  David  and  the  worship  of  the  true 
God  according  to  the  law  of  Moses  were  rescued 
from  imminent  danger  of  destruction,  Jehoiada  dis- 
played great  ability  and  prudence.  Waiting  pa- 
tiently till  the  tyranny  of  Athaliah,  and,  we  may 
presume,  her  foreign  practices  and  preferences,  had 
produced  disgust  in  the  land,  he  at  length,  in  the 
7th  year  of  her  reign,  entered  into  secret  alliance 
with  all  the  chief  partisans  of  the  house  of  David 
and  of  the  true  religion.  He  also  collected  at  Je- 
rusalem the  Levites  from  the  different  cities  of 
Judah  and  Israel,  probably  under  cover  of  provid- 
ing for  the  Temple  services,  and  then  concentrated 
a  large  and  concealed  force  in  the  Temple,  by  the 
expedient  of  not  dismissing  the  old  courses  of 
priests  and  Levites  when  their  successors  came  to 
relieve  them  on  the  Sabbath,  By  means  of  the 
consecrated  shields  and  spears  which  David  had 
taken  in  his  wars,  and  which  were  preserved  in  the 
treasury  of  the  Temple  (comp.  1  Chr.  xviii.  7-11, 
xxvi.  20-28;  1  K.  xiv.  26,  27),  he  supphed  the 
captains  of  hundreds  with  arms  for  their  men. 
Having  then  divided  the  priests  and  I^evites  into 
three  bands,  which  were  posted  at  the  principal  en- 
trances, and  filled  the  courts  with  people  favorable 
to  the  cause,  he  produced  the  young  king  before  the 
whole  assen)bly,  and  crowned  and  anointed  him, 
and  presentetl  to  him  a  copy  of  the  Law,  according 
to  Dent.  xvii.  18-20.  [Hilkiah.]  The  excite- 
ment of  the  moment  did  not  make  him  forget  the 
sanctity  of  God's  house.  None  but  the  priests  and 
ministering  Levites  were  permitted  by  him  to  enter 
the  Temple;  and  he  gave  strict  orders  that  Atha- 
liah should  be  canied  without  its  precincts  before 
she  was  put  to  death.  In  the  same  spirit  he  in- 
augurated the  new  reign  by  a  solemn  covenant  be- 
tween himself,  as  high  priest,  and  the  people  and 
the  king,  to  renounce  the  Baal-worship  which  had 
been  introduced  by  the  house  of  Ahab,  and  to 
serve  Jehovah.  This  was  followed  up  by  the  im- 
mediate destruction  of  the  altar  and  temple  of 
Baal,  and  the  death  of  Mattan  his  priest.  He  then 
took  order  for  the  due  celebration  of  the  Temple 
sen'ice,  and  at  the  same  time  for  the  perfect  retis- 
tablishment  of  the  monarchy ;  all  which  seems  to 
have  been  effected  with  great  vigor  and  8ucces.s,  and 
without  any  cruelty  or  violence.  The  young  king 
himself,  under  this  wise  and  virtuous  counsellor, 
ruled  his  kingdom  well  and  prosperously,  and  waa 
forward  in  works  of  piety  during  the  lifetime  of 
Jehoiada.  The  reparation  of  the  Temple  in  the 
23d  year  of  his  reign,  of  which  a  full  and  interest- 
ing account  is  given  2  K.  xii.  and  2  Chr.  xxiv.,  waa 
one  of  the  most  important  works  at  this  period 
At  length,  however,  Jehoiada  died,  b.  c.  834,  an^ 
though  far  advanced  in  years,  too  soon  for  the  wel 
fare  of  his  country,  and  the  weak,  unstable  charac 
ter  of  Joash.  llie  Jext  of  2  Chr.  xxiv.  15,  sujv 
ported  by  the  LXX.  und  Josephus,  makes  him  13( 
years  old  when  he  died.     But  supposing  him  it 


JBHOIAKIM 

tt?e  lived  to  the  35th  year  of  Joash  (which  only 
eaves  5  years  for  all  the  subsequent  e-ents  of  the 
reign),  he  would  in  that  case  have  been  95  at  the 
time  of  the  insurrection  against  Athaliah ;  and  15 
years  before,  when  Jehoram,  wnose  daughter  was 
his  wife,  was  only  32  years  old,  he  would  have  been 
80 :  than  which  nothing  can  be  more  improbable. 
There  must  therefore  be  some  early  corruption  of 

the  numeral.     Perhaps  we  ought  to  read  D^3J2)ty 

ntt^btr^  (83),   instead   of  dWA  HSD.      Even 

103  (as  suggested,  Geneal.  of  our  Loril^  p.  304) 
would  leave  an  improbable  age  at  the  two  above- 
named  epochs.  If  83  at  his  death,  he  would  have 
been  33  years  old  at  Joram's  accession.  For  his 
signal  services  to  his  God,  his  king  and  his  coun- 
try, which  have  earned  him  a  place  among  the  very 
foremost  well-doers  in  Israel,  he  had  the  unique 
honor  of  burial  among  the  kings  of  Judah  in  the 
city  of  David.  He  was  probably  succeeded  by  his 
son  Zechariah.  In  Josephus's  list  {Ant.  xviii.  § 
6),  the  name  of  iriAEAS  by  an  easy  corruption  is 
transformed  into  *IAEA2,  and  in  the  Sedtr  Olam 
into  Phadea. 

In  Matt,  xxiii.  35,  Zechariah  the  son  of  Jehoiada 
is  mentioned  as  the  "son  of  Barachias,"  i.  e.  Be- 
rechiah.«  This  is  omitted  in  Luke  (xi.  51),  and 
has  probably  been  inserted  from  a  confusion  between 
this  Zechariah  and  2,  the  prophet,  who  was  son  of 
Berechiah ;  or  with  the  son  of  Jeberechiah  (Is.  viii. 
2). 

5.  [Vulg.  pro  Joiade.']  Second  priest,  or  sagan, 
to  Seraiah  the  high -priest.  He  was  deposed  at  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  probably  for 
adhering  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah ;  when  Zephan- 
iah  was  appointed  sagan  in  his  room  ^  (Jer.  xxix. 
25-29;  2  K.  xxv.  18).  This  is  a  clear  instance  of 
the  title  "  the  priest  "  being  applied  to  the  second 
priest.  The  passage  in  Jeremiah  shov/s  the  nature 
of  the  sagan's  authority  at  this  time,  when  he  was 

doubtless  "  ruler  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  "  (T*^? 

nin"^  n'^S).  [HiGH-PKiEST.]  Winer  (liealtv.) 
has  quite  misunderstood  the  passage,  and  makes 
Jehoiada  the  same  as  the  high-priest  in  the  reign 
of  Joash. 

6.  (^'^t'^'''  *•  ^'  Joia<ia=  'lotSa;  [Vat.  laeiaa;] 
A-lex.  loeiSa'-  Jojada),  son  of  Paseach,  who  as- 
wsted  to  repair  the  "  old  gate  "  of  Jerusalem  (Neh. 
lii.  6).  A.  C.  H. 

JEHOFAKIM  (D*')/^n^  [Jehovah  sets  up 
or  appoints]  :  'leaaKlfi,  or  -et/x;  Joseph.  'Iwa/ciyuoy: 
Joak'un) ^  ISth  (or,  counting  Jehoahaz,  19th)  king 
of  Judah  from  David  inclusive  —  25  years  old  at  his 
accession,  and  originally  called  Eliakim.  He  was 
the  son  of  Josiah  and  Zebudah,  daughter  of  Pe- 
daiah  of  Rumah,  possibly  identical  with  Arumah 
of  Judg.  ix.  41  (where  the  Vulg.  has  Rumah),  and 
in  that  case  in  the  tribe  of  Manasseh.  His 
younger  brother  Jehoahaz,  or  Sh'allum,  as  he  is 
called  (Jer.  xxii.  11),  was  in  the  first  instance  made 
cing  by  the  people  of  the  land  on  the  death  of  his 


«  *  The  words  corresponding  to  "  son  of  Barachias  " 
«  Matt,  xxiii.  35  are  omitted  in  the  Sinai  tic  nianu- 
■cript  a  prima  mariK,  and  a  few  other  authorities. 
ffat  they  are  retained  in  the  text  by  Tischendorf  (8th 
vi.),  and  are  in  all  probability  genuine.  A. 

b  It  is,  however  possible  that  Jehoiada  vacated  the 
aiSoe  hs  death 


JBHOIAKIM  122S 

father  Josiah,  probably  with  the  intention  of  fol- 
lowing up  Josiah's  policy,  which  was  to  side  with 
Nebuchadnezzar  against  Egypt,  being,  as  Prideaui 
thinks,  bound  by  oath  to  the  kings  of  Babylon  (i. 
50).  Pharaoh-Necho,  therefore,  having  borne  down 
all  resistance  with  his  victorious  army,  immediately 
deposed  Jehoahaz,  and  had  him  brought  in  chains 
to  Riblah,  where,  it  seems,  he  was  on  his  way  to 
Carcheraish  (2  K.  xxiii.  33,  34;  Jer.  xxii.  10-12). 
He  then  set  Eliakim,  his  elder  brother,  upon  the 
throne,  changed  his  name  to  Jehoiakim,  and  hav- 
ing charged  him  with  the  task  of  collecting  a  trib- 
ute of  100  talents  of  silver,  and  1  talent  of  gold  = 
nearly  40,000/.,  in  which  he  mulcted  the  land  for 
the  part  Josiah  had  taken  in  the  war  with  Babylon, 
he  eventually  returned  to  Egypt  taking  Jehoahaa 
with  him.  who  died  there  in  captivity  (2  K.  xxiii. 
34;  Jer.  xxii.  10-12 ;  Ez.  xix.  4).*^  Pharaoh-Necho 
also  himself  returned  no  more  to  Jerusalem,  for 
after  his  great  defeat  at  Carchemish  in  the  fourth 
year  of  Jehoiakim  he  lost  all  his  Syrian  possessions 
(2  Iv.  xxiv.  7;  Jer.  xlvi..  2),  and  his  successor 
Psammis  (Herod,  ii.  clxi.)  made  no  attempt  to 
recover  them.  Egypt,  therefore,  played  no  part  in 
Jewish  politics  during  the  seven  or  eight  years  of 
Jehoiakim's  reign.  After  the  battle  of  Carchemish 
Nebuchadnezzar  came  into  Palestine  as  one  of  the 
Egyptian  tributary  kingdoms,  the  capture  of  which 
was  the  natural  fruit  of  his  victory  over  Necho. 
He  found  Jehoiakim  quite  defenseless.  After  a 
short  siege  he  entered  Jerusalem,  took  the  king 
prisoner,  bound  him  in  fetters  to  carry  him  to  Bab- 
ylon, and  took  also  some  of  the  precious  vessels  of 
the  Temple  and  carried  them  to  the  land  of  Shinar 
to  the  temple  of  Bel  his  god.  It  was  at  this  time, 
in  the  fourth,  or,  as  Daniel  reckons,  in  the  third 
year  of  his  reign,''  that  Daniel,  and  Hananiah, 
Mishael,  and  Azariah,  were  taken  captives  to  Bab- 
ylon ;  but  Nebuchadnezzar  seems  to  have  changed 
his  purpose  as  regarded  Jehoiakim,  and  to  have  ac- 
cepted his  submission,  and  reinstated  him  on  the 
throne,  perhaps  in  remembrance  of  the  fidelity  of 
his  father  Josiah.  What  is  certain  is,  that  Jehoi- 
akim became  tributary  to  Nebuchadnezzar  after  hia 
invasion  of  Judah,  and  continued  so  for  three  years, 
but  at  the  end  of  that  time  broke  his  oath  of  alle- 
giance and  rebelled  against  him  (2  K.  xxiv.  1). 
What  moved  or  encouraged  Jehoiakim  to  this  re- 
bellion it  is  difficult  to  say,  unless  it  were  the  rest- 
less turbulence  of  his  own  bad  disposition  and  the 
dislike  of  paying  tribute  to  the  king  of  Babylon, 
which  he  would  have  rather  lavished  upon  his  own 
luxury  and  pride  (Jer.  xxii.  13-17),  for  there  ia 
nothing  to  bear  out  Winer's  coryecture,  or  Joee- 
phus's  assertion,  that  there  was  anything  in  the 
attitude  of  Egypt  at  this  time  to  account  for  such 
a  step.  It  seems  more  probable  that,  seeing  Egypt 
entirely  severed  from  the  affairs  of  Syria  since  the 
battle  of  Carchemish,  and  the  king  of  Babylon 
wholly  occupied  with  distant  wars,  he  hoped  to 
make  himself  independent.  But  whatever  was  the 
motive  of  this  foolish  and  wicked  proceeding,  which 
was  contrary  to  the  repeated  warniiigs  of  the 
prophet   Jeremiah,  it  is  certain   that  it  brought 


c  It  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative  in  2  K 
xxiii.  (which  is  the  fullest)  whether  Necho  wen* 
straight  to  Egypt  from  Jerusalem,  or  whether  th« 
calamitous  campaign  on  the  Euphrates  intervened. 

(1  It  is  possible  that  this  diversity  of  reckoning  maj 
be  caused  by  some  reckoning  a  year  for  JeboahU' 
reign,  while  some  omitted  it. 


1230  JEHOIAKIM 

miaery  and  ruin  upon  the  king  and  his  country. 
Though  Nebuchadiiezzar  was  not  able  at  that  time 
to  come  in  person  to  chastise  his  rebellious  vassal, 
he  sent  against  him  numerous  bands  of  Chaldaeans, 
with  Syrians,  Moabites,  and  Ammonites,  who  were 
all  now  subject  to  Babylon  (2  K.  xxiv.  7),  and  who 
cruelly  harassed  the  whole  country.  It  was  per- 
haps at  this  time  that  the  great  drought  occurred  j 
described  in  Jer.  xiv.  (comp.  Jer.  xv.  4  with  2  K.  i 
xxiv.  2,  3).  The  closing  years  of  this  reign  nmst 
have  been  a  time  of  extreme  misery.  The  Am- 
monites appear  to  have  overrun  the  land  of  Gad 
(Jer.  xlix.  1),  and  the  other  neighboring  nations  to 
have  taken  advantage  of  the  helplessness  of  Israel 
to  ravage  their  land  to  the  utmost  (Ez.  xxv.). 
There  was  no  rest  or  safety  out  of  the  walled  cities. 
We  are  not  acquainted  with  the  details  of  the  close 
of  the  reign.  Probably  as  the  time  approached 
for  Nebuchadnezzar  himself  to  come  against  Judaea 
the  desultory  attacks  and  invasions  of  his  troops 
became  more  concentrated.  Either  in  an  engage- 
ment with  some  of  these  forces,  or  else  by  the  hand 
of  his  own  oppressed  subjects,  who  thought  to  con- 
cihate  the  Babylonians  by  the  nmrder  of  their 
king,  Jehoiakim  came  to  a  violent  end  in  the  11th 
year  of  his  reign.  His  body  was  cast  out  igno- 
miiiiously  on  the  ground ;  perhaps  throwTi  over  the 
walls  to  convince  the  enemy  that  he  was  dead ;  and 
then,  after  being  left  exposed  for  some  time,  was 
dragged  away  and  buried  "  with  the  burial  of  an 
ass,"  without  pomp  or  lamentation,  "  beyond  the 
gates  of  Jerusdem  "  (Jer.  xxii.  18,  19,  xxxvi.  30). 
Within  three  months  of  his  death  Nebuchadnezzar 
arrived,  and  put  an  end  to  his  dynasty  by  carrying 
Jehoiachin  off  to  Babylon.  [Jehoiachix.]  All 
the  accounts  we  have  of  Jehoiakim  concur  in  as- 
cribing to  him  a  vicious  and  irreligious  character. 
The  writer  of  2  K.  xxiii.  37  tells  us  that  "  he  did 
that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,"  a 
statement  which  is  repeated  xxiv.  9,  and  2  Chr. 
xxxvi.  5.  The  latter  writer  uses  the  yet  stronger 
expression,  "  the  acts  of  Jehoiakim,  and  the  abom- 
inations which  he  did  "  (ver.  8).  But  it  is  in  the 
writings  of  Jeremiah  that  we  have  the  fullest  por- 
traiture of  him.  If,  as  is  probable,  the  19th  chap- 
ter of  Jeremiah  belongs  to  this  reign,  we  have  a 
detail  of  the  abominations  of  idolatry  practiced  at 
Jerusalem  under  the  king's  sanction,  with  which 
Ezekiel's  vision  of  what  was  going  on  six  years 
later,  within  the  very  precincts  of  the  Temple,  ex- 
actly agrees;  incense  offered  up  to  "abominable 
beasts;"  "women  weephig  for  Thammuz;"  and 
men  in  the  hmer  court  of  the  Temple  "  with  tlieir 
backs  towards  the  temple  of  the  Lord  "  worshipping 
"the  sun  towards  the  east"  (Ez.  viii.).  The  vin- 
dictive pursuit  and  murder  of  Urijah  the  son  of 
Shemaiah,  and  the  indignities  offered  to  his  corpse 
by  the  king's  command,  in  revenge  for  his  faithful 
prophesying  of  evil  against  Jerusalem  and  Judah, 

a  The  pa.?8age  seems  to  be  corrupt.  The  words 
Tov  a8eK4)ov  avrov  seem  to  be  repeated  from  the  preced- 
ing line  but  one,  and  ZapaKrji/  is  a  corruption  of  Ovpiav. 
SvAAa/Swj'  avriyayev  is  a  paraphrase  of  the  Alexandrian 
Codex  of  Jer.  xxxiii.  23  (xxvi.  23,  A.  V.),  avveM^oa-av 
ouToi/,  KOL  e^T^'oyov. 

f>  Nothing  can  be  more  improbable  than  an  invasion 
3f  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  this  time.  All  the 
Syrian  possessions  of  Egypt  fell  into  the  power  of 
^bylon  soon  after  the  victory  at  Carcheuiish,  and  the 
•dng  of  Egypt  retired  thenceforth  into  his  own  coun- 
iry.  His  Asiatic  wars  eeem  to  have  engrossed  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's attention  for  the  next  7  years;  and  in 


JEHOIAKIM 

are  samples  of  his  irreligion  and  tyranny  oonibined 
Jeremiah  oidy  narrowly  escaped  the  same  fate  (Jer 
xxvi.  20-24).  The  curious  notice  of  him  in  1 
Esdr.  i.  38,  that  he  put  his  nobles  in  chains,  and 
caught  Zaraces  his  brother  in  Egypt «  and  brought 
him  up  thence  (to  Jerusalem),  also  points  to  hi? 
cruelty.  His  daring  impiety  in  cutting  up  and 
burning  the  roll  containing  Jeremiah's  prophecy, 
at  the  very  moment  when  the  national  fast  was 
being  celebrated,  is  another  specimen  of  his  charac- 
ter, and  drew  down  upon  him  the  sentence,  "  He 
shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  David  " 
(Jer.  xxxvi.).  His  oppression,  injustice,  covetous- 
ness,  luxury,  and  tyranny,  are  most  severely  re- 
buked (xxii.  13-17),  and  it  has  been  frequently 
observed,  as  indicating  his  thorough  selfishness  and 
indiflerence  to  the  sufferings  of  his  people,  that,  at 
a  time  when  the  land  was  so  impoverished  by  the 
heavy  tributes  laid  upon  it  by  l""gypt  and  Babylon 
in  turn,  he  should  have  squandered  large  sums  in 
building  luxurious  palaces  for  himself  (xxii.  14,  15). 
Josephus's  history  of  Jehoiakim's  reign  is  consis- 
tent neither  with  Scripture  nor  with  itself.  His 
account  of  Jehoiakim's  death  and  Jehoiachin's  ac- 
cession appears  to  be  only  his  own  inference  from 
the  Scripture  narrative.  According  to  Josephus 
{Ant.  X.  6)  Nebuchadnezzar  came  against  Judaea 
in  the  8th  year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  and  compelled 
him  to  pay  tribute,  which  he  did  for  three  years, 
and  then  revolted  in  the  11th  year,  on  hearing  that 
the  king  of  Babylon  was  gone  to  invade  Egypt.* 
He  then  inserts  the  account  of  Jehoiakim's  burn- 
ing Jeremiah's  prophecy  in  his  5th  year,  and  con- 
cludes by  saying,  that  a  little  time  afterwards  the 
king  of  Babylon  made  an  expedition  against  Jehoi- 
akim, who  admitted  Nebuchadnezzar  into  the  city 
upon  certain  conditions,  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
immediately  broke;  that  he  slew  Jehoiakim  and  the 
flower  of  the  citizens,  and  sent  3,000  captives  to 
Babylon,  and  set  up  Jehoiachin  for  king,  but  al- 
most immediately  afterwards  was  seized  with  fear 
lest  the  young  king  should  avenge  his  father's  death, 
and  so  sent  back  his  army  to  besiege  Jerusalem; 
that  Jehoiachin,  being  a  man  of  just  and  gentle  dis- 
position, did  not  like  to  expose  the  city  to  danger  on 
his  own  account,  and  therefore  surrendered  himself, 
his  mother,  and  kindred,  to  the  king  of  Babylon's 
officers  on  condition  of  the  city  suffering  no  harm ; 
but  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  direct  violation  of 
the  conditions,  took  10,832  prisoners,  and  made 
Zedekiah  king  in  the  room  of  Jehoiachin,  whom 
he  kept  in  custody  —  a  statement  the  principal  por- 
tion of  which  seems  to  have  no  foundation  what- 
ever in  facts.  The  account  given  above  is  derived 
from  the  various  statements  in  Scripture,  and 
seems  to  agree  perfectly  with  the  probabilities  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  movements  and  with  what  the 
most  recent  discoveries  have  brought  to  light  con- 
cerning him.     [Nebuchadnezzar.]     The  reigu 


like  manner  the  king  of  Egypt  seems  to  have  confined 
himself  to  Ethiopian  wars.  The  first  hint  we  have 
of  Egypt  aiming  at  recovering  her  lost  influence  in 
Syria  is  at  the  accession  of  Pharaoh-Hophra,  in  th« 
4th  of  Zedekiah.  [Hananiah,  4.]  lie  made  several 
abortive  attempts  against  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Zede- 
kiah's  reign,  and  detached  the  Ammonites,  MoabiteS; 
Edomites,  Tyrians,  and  Zidonians  from  the  Babylonish 
alliance  (Jer.  xxvii.).  In  consequence,  Nebuchadnez 
zar,  after  thoroughly  subduing  these  nations,  and 
devoting  13  years  to  the  siege  of  Tyre,  at  length  in 
vaded  and  subdued  Egypt  in  the  35th  ytar  of  hU  T^gt 
(Ez.  xxix.  17). 


JBHOIAKIM 

rf  Jdioiakim  extends  from  b.  c.  609  to  b.  ^.  598, 
X  aa  some  reckon,  51)9. 

The  name  of  Jehoiakim  appears  in  a  conti'acted 
jorra  in  Joiakiai,  a  high-priest.  A.  C  H. 

*  Hardly  any  snigle  act  of  Jehoiakim  reveals  so 
much  of  his  own  character  and  that  of  his  times 
as  his  burning  of  Jeremiah's  -roll."  It  was  the 
'•roll,"  on  which  Baruch,  the  prophet's  amanuensis 
and  the  sharer  of  his  dungeon,  had  written  the 
warnings  uttered  by  Jeremiah,  to  arouse  the  king 
and  nobles  to  a  sense  of  their  danger.  An  attempt 
was  made  to  read  these  warnings  to  the  people,  on 
une  of  the  public  fasts.  "  On  that  day,"  as  Stanley 
describes  the  scene,  »  a  wintry  day  in  December, 
Haruch  appeared  in  the  chamber  of  a  friendly  noble, 
(iemariah,  the  son  of  Shaphan,  which  was  appar- 
ently over  the  new  gateway  already  mentioned. 
There,  from  the  window  or  balcony  of  the  chamber, 
or  from  the  platform  or  pillar  on  which  the  kings 
had  stood  on  solemn  occasions,  he  recited  the  long 
alternation  of  lament  and  invective  to  the  vast  con- 
gregation assembled  for  the  national  fast.  jNIicaiah, 
the  son  of  his  host,  alarmed  by  what  he  heard, 
descended  the  Temple  hill,  and  communicated  it  to 
the  princes  who,  as  usual  through  these  disturbed 
reigns,  were  seated  in  council  in  the  palace  in  the 
apartments  of  the  chief  secretary.  One  of  them, 
Jehudi,  the  descendant  of  a  noble  house,  acted  ap- 
parently as  an  agent  or  spokesman  of  the  rest,  and 
was  sent  to  summon  Baruch  to  their  presence.  He 
sat  down  in  the  attitude  of  an  eastern  teacher  (Jer. 
xxxvi.  15,  comp.  Luke  iv.  20),  and  as  he  went  on 
his  recital  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of  his 
hearers.  They  saw  his  danger;  they  charged  him 
and  his  master  to  conceal  themselves,  and  deposited 
the  sacred  scroll  in  the  chamber  where  they  had 
heard  it,  whilst  they  announced  to  the  fierce  and 
lawless  king  its  fearful  contents.  A  third  time  it 
was  recited  —  this  time  not  by  Baruch,  but  by  the 
courtier  Jehudi  —  to  the  king  as  he  sat  warming 
himself  over  the  charcoal  brazier,  with  his  princes 
standing  round  him.  Three  or  four  columns  ex- 
hausted the  royal  patience.  He  seized  a  knife, 
Buch  as  eastern  scribes  wear  for  the  sake  of  erasures, 
cut  the  parchment  into  strips,  and  threw  it  into 
the  brazier  till  it  was  burnt  to  ashes.  Those  who 
had  heard  from  their  fathers  of  the  effect  produced 
on  Josiah  by  the  recital  of  the  warnings  of  Deuter- 
onomy, might  well  be  startled  at  the  contrast. 
None  of  those  well-known  signs  of  astonishment 
and  grief  were  seen ;  neither  king  nor  attendants 
rent  their  clothes.  It  was  an  outrage  long  remem  - 
oered.  Baruch,  in  his  hiding-place,  was  over- 
whelmed with  despair  (.Jer.  xlv.  3)  at  this  failure 
of  his  mission.  But  Jeremiah  had  now  ceased  to 
waver.  He  bade  his  timid  disciple  take  up  the 
[)en,  and  record  once  more  the  terrible  messages. 
The  country  was  doomed.  It  was  only  individuals 
who  could  be  saved. 

"  But  the  Divine  oracle  could  not  be  destroyed  in 
the  destruction  of  its  outward  framework.  It  was 
the  new  form  of  the  vision  of  the  '  Bush  burning, 
but  not  consumed ' ;  a  sacred  book,  the  form  in 
which  Divine  truths  were  now  first  begirniing  to  be 
known,   burnt   as  sacred  books   have  been   burnt 


a  It  is,  however,  very  singular  that  the  names  after 
3hemaiah  in  Neh.  xii.  6,  including  Joiarib  and  Jedaiah. 
have  the  appearance  of  being  added  on  to  the  previ- 
^^lsly  existing  list,  which  ended  with  Shemuiah,  as 
lOM  that  in  Neh.  x.  2-8.  For  Joiarib's  is  introduced 
«1th  iha  copula  "  and  ;  "  it  is  quite  out  of  its  right 


JEHOIARIB  1281 

again  and  again,  in  the  persecutions  of  the  fouitb 
or  of  the  sixteenth  century,  yet  multiplied  by  that 
very  cause ;  springing  from  the  llames  to  do  theii 
work,  living  in  the  voice  and  life  of  men,  even  when 
their  outward  letter  seemed  to  be  lost.  '  Then  took 
,'eremiah  another  roll,  and  gave  it  to  Baruch  the 
scribe,  the  son  of  Neriah,  who  wrote  therein  from 
the  mouth  of  Jeremiah  all  the  words  of  the  book 
which  Jehoiakim,  the  king  of  Judah,  had  burned 
in  the  fire,  and  there  were  added  besides  unto  them 
many  Uke  words '  (Jer.  xxxvi.  32).  In  this  record 
of  the  prophet's  feeUng,  thus  emphasized  by  his 
own  repetition,  is  contained  the  germ  of  the  '  Lib 
erty  of  Unlicensed  Printing,'  the  inexhaustible 
vitality  of  the  written  word."  (History  of  tit 
Jewish  Church,  ii.  591  ff.)  H. 

JEHOI'ARIB  (n^lV^n^,  1  Chr.  ix.  10, 
xxiv.  7,  only;  elsewhere,  both  in  Hebrew  and  A.  V., 
the  name  is  abbreviated  to  Joiakib  [Jehovah  a 
dejmder]:  'Iwapl/j.;  [Vat.  Iwapciyu,  lape:/*;]  Alex. 
'lojapeijS  and  'Iapei/3:  Joiarib),  head  of  the  first 
of  the  24  courses  of  priests,  according  to  the  ar- 
rangement of  king  David  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  7).  Some 
of  his  descendants  returned  from  the  Babylonish 
Captivity,  as  we  learn  from  1  Chr.  ix.  10,  Neh.  xi. 
10.  [Jedaiah.]  Their  chief  in  the  days  of 
Joiakim  the  son  of  Jeshua  was  Mattenai  (Neh.  xii. 
6,  19).  They  were  probably  of  the  house  of  Eleazar. 
To  the  course  of  Jehoiarib  belonged  the  Asmonean 
family  (1  Mace.  ii.  1),  and  Josephus,  as  he  informs 
us  (Ant.  xii.  6,  §  1,  and  Life,  §  1).  [High- 
priest.]  Prideaux  indeed  {Connection,  i.  129), 
following  the  Jewish  tradition,  affirms  that  only  4 
of  the  courses  returned  from  Babylon,  Jedaiah, 
Inmier,  Pashur,  and  Harim  —  for  which  last,  how- 
ever, the  Babylonian  Talmud  has  Joiarib  —  because 
these  4  only  are  enumerated  in  Ezr.  ii.  36-39,  Neh. 
vii.  39-42.  And  he  accounts  for  the  mention  of 
other  courses,  as  of  Joiarib  (1  Mace.  ii.  1),  and 
Abiah  (Luke  i.  5),  by  saying  that  those  4  courses 
were  subdivided  into  6  each,  so  as  to  keep  up  the 
old  number  of  24,  which  took  the  names  of  the 
original  courses,  though  not  really  descended  from 
them.  But  this  is  probably  an  invention  of  the 
Jews,  to  account  for  the  mention  of  only  these  4 
families  of  priests  in  the  list  of  Ezr.  ii.  and  Neh. 
vii.  And  however  difficult  it  may  be  to  say  with 
certainty  why  only  those  4  courses  an;  mentioried 
in  that  particular  list,  we  have  the  positive  authority 
of  1  Chr.  ix.  10,  and  Neh.  xi.  10,  for  asserting  that 
Joiarib  did  return;  and  we  have  two  other  lists  of 
courses,  one  of  tlie  time  of  Nehemiah  (Neh.  x.  2-8), 
the  other  of  Zerubbabel  (Neh.  xii.  1-7);  the  fonner 
enumerating  21,  the  latter  22  courses;  and  the 
latter  naming  Joiarib  as  one  of  them,"  and  adding, 
at  ver.  19,  the  name  of  the  chief  of  the  course  of 
Joiarib  in  the  days  of  Joiakim.  So  that  there  can 
be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Joiarib  did  return. 
The  notion  of  the  Jews  does  not  receive  any  con- 
firmation from  the  statement  in  the  Latin  version 
of  Josephus  {Cont.  Apion.  ii.  §  8),  that  there  were 
4  courses  of  priests,  as  it  is  a  manifest  corruption 
of  the  text  for  24,  as  Whiston  and  others  have 
shown  (note  to  Life  of  Josephus,  §  1).  The  sub- 
joined table  gives  the  three  Usts  of  courses  which 

order  as  the  first  course  ;  and.  moreover,  these  names 
are  entirely  omitted  in  the  LXX.  till  we  come  lo  the 
times  of  Joiakim  at  ver  12-21.  Still  the  utmost  that 
could  bp  'ionc'uded  from  *-hi3  is,  that  Joiarib  returned 
later  than  tb«  time  of  Za'-ubbabeL 


1232  JEHONADAB 

returned,  with  the  original  list  in  David's  time  to  I 
eom]:>are  tliem  by :  — 

COURSES  OF  PRIESTS. 


In  DavJd'i 

In  list  in 

InNehemiah'B 

la  Ze  rub  ba- 

reign, 

Ezr.  ii.,  Neh. 

time, 

bel's  time, 

1  Chr.  xxiv. 

vii. 

Neh.  X. 

Neh.  xii. 

1.  Jehoiarib, 

_ 

_ 

Joiarib. 

IChr.ix.lO, 

Neh.  xi.  10. 

2.  Jcdaiah. 

Children  of 
Jedaiah. 

— 

Jedaiah. 

3.  Harim. 

Children  of 

Uarim. 

Rehum 

llariin. 

(Uarim,  V.  15). 

4.  Seorim. 

— 





5.  Mulchijah. 

Children  of 
Piishur,  1 
Chr.  jx.  12. 

Malchijah. 

— 

6.  Mijamin. 

Mijamin. 

Miamin 
(Miniamin,v. 

Meremoth. 

7.  Hakkoz. 

_ 

Meremoth, 

son  of  Hak- 

koz, Neh. 
iii.  4. 
Abijah. 

8.  Abi.iah. 

_ 

Abijah. 

j>.  Jeshuah. 

House  of 
JeshuaC?) 
Ezr.  ii.  M. 
Neh.  vii.  39. 

10.  Shecaniah. 

~ 

Shebaniah. 

Sheehaniah 

(Siiebaniah, 

vcr.  14). 

11.  Eliashib. 

— 



12.  Jokim. 





_ 

13.  Huppah. 







14.  Jeshebeab. 







15.  Bilfjah. 



Bilgai. 

Bil-ah. 

16.  Immer. 

Children  of 
Iminor. 

Amaiiah. 

Amariah. 

17.  Hezir. 

._ 



18.  Ai)hse8. 



_ 



19.  Pethnhiah. 

— 





20.  Jeheztkel. 



_ 

_ 

21.  Jachin, 

_ 

_ 

Neh.  xi.  10. 

1  Chr.  IX.  10. 

22.  Garnul. 

__ 



_ 

23.  Deluiah. 

__ 





»4.  Maaaiah. 

Maaziah. 

Maadiah 
(Moadiah.v. 

ir>. 

The  courses  which  cannot  be  identified  with  the 
original  ones,  but  which  are  enumerated  as  existing 
after  the  return,  are  as  follows:  — 


Neh.  X. 

Neh.  xii. 

Neh.  xi.,  1  Chr.  ix. 

Seraiab. 

Seraiah. 

Seraiah  (?) 

Azariah. 

Ezra. 

Azjiriah. 

Jeremiah. 

Jeremiah. 



Pashur. 





Hattush. 

Hattush. 



Malluch. 

Malluch. 



Obadiah. 

Iddo. 

Adaiah  (?) 

Daniel. 



__ 

Ginnethon. 

Ginnetho. 



Baruch. 





Meshuilam. 





Shemaiah. 

Shemaiah. 
Snllu. 
Amok. 
Ililkiah. 

Jedaiah  (2). 

For  some  account  of  the  courses,  see  Lewis's 
Orig.  Ilebr.  bk.  ii.  ch.  vii. 

In  Esdras  the  name  is  given  Joakib. 

A.  C.  H. 

JEHON'ADAB,    and    JON'ADAB    (the 
longer  form,  S^^in*^,  is  employed  in  2  K.  x.  and 

Jer.  XXXV.  8,  14,  16,  18;  the  shorter  one,  ^7?*^^' 
ji  Jer.  XXXV.  6,  10,  19  [Jifuwah  incites,  Ges.J : 
'Iwi'rtSojS:  [./(ynndal)]),  the  son  of  Rechab,  founder 
of  the  Kectiabites.  It  appears  from  1  Chr.  ii.  55, 
that  his  father  or  ancestor  Rechab  ("the  rider") 


JEHONADAB 

belonged  to  a  branch  of  the  Kenites ;  the  Arabiai 
tribe  which  entered  Palestine  with  the  Israelites 
One  settlement  of  them  was  to  be  found  in  tht 
extreme  north,  under  the  chieftainship  of  Hebei 
(Judg.  iv.  11),  retaining  their  Bedouin  customs 
under  the  oak  which  derived  its  name  from  their 
nomadic  habits.  The  main  settlement  was  in  the 
south.  Of  these,  one  branch  had  nestled  in  the 
cliifs  of  Engedi  (Judg.  i.  16:  Num.  xxiv.  21). 
Another  had  returned  to  the  frontier  of  their  native 
wilderness  on  the  south  of  Judah  (Judg.  i.  16).  A 
third  was  established,  under  a  fourfold  division,  at 
or  near  the  town  of  Jabez  in  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  55). 
To  these  last  belonged  Rechab  and  his  son  Jeho- 
nadab.  The  Bedouin  habits,  which  were  kept  up 
by  the  other  branches  of  the  Kenite  trilje,  were 
inculcated  by  Jehonadab  with  the  utmost  minute- 
ness on  his  descendants;  the  more  so,  perhaps, 
from  tlieir  being  brought  into  closer  connection 
with  the  inhabitants  of  the  settled  districts.  Th« 
vow  or  rule  which  he  prescribetl  to  them  is  pre- 
served to  us:  "  Ye  shall  drink  no  wine,  neither  ye 
nor  your  sons  for  ever.  Neither  shall  ye  buUd 
houses,  nor  sow  seed,  nor  plant  vineyard,  nor  have 
any:  but  all  your  days  ye  shall  dwell  in  tents;  that 
ye  may  live  many  days  in  the  land  where  ye  be 
strangers"  (Jer.  xxxv.  6,  7).  This  life,  partly 
monastic,  partly  Bedouin,  was  observed  M'ith  the 
tenacity  with  which  from  generation  to  generation 
such  customs  are  continued  in  Arab  tribes;  and 
when,  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jehonadab, 
the  Reehabites  (as  they  were  called  from  his  father) 
were  forced  to  take  refuge  from  the  Chaldasan  i»- 
vasion  within  the  walk  of  Jerusalem,  nothing  woui<< 
induce  them  to  transgress  the  ride  of  their  ancestor; 
and  in  consequence  a  blessing  was  pronounced  upon 
him  and  them  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (xxxv.  19}: 
"  Jonadab  the  son  of  Rechab  shall  not  want  a  man 
to  stand  before  me  for  ever."      [Rkchauitks.] 

Bearing  in  mind  this  general  character  of  Jeho- 
nadab as  an  Arab  chief,  and  the  founder  of  a  half- 
religious  sect,  j)erhaps  in  connection  with  the  aus- 
tere IClijah,  and  the  Nazarites  mentioned  in  Amos 
ii.  11  (.see  Ewald,  AherlJiiimtr,  pp.  92,  93),  we  are 
the  better  able  to  understand  the  single  occasion 
on  which  he  appears  before  us  in  the  historical  nar- 
rative. 

Jehu  was  advancing,  after  the  slaughter  of  Beth- 
eked,  on  the  city  of  Samaria,  when  he  suddenly 
met  tlie  austere  liedouin  coming  towards  him  (2  K. 
X.  15).  It  seems  that  they  were  already  ktiown  to 
each  other  (Jos.  AnI.  ix.  6,  §  6).  The  king  was  in 
his  chariot;  the  Arab  was  on  foot.  It  is  not  clear, 
from  the  present  state  of  the  text,  which  was  the 
first  to  speak.  The  Hebrew  text  —  followed  by  the 
A.  V.  —  implies  that  the  king  blessed  (A.  V.  ''sa- 
luted") Jehona«iab.  The  LXX.  and  Josephus 
(Afii.  ix.  6,  §  6)  imply  that  Jehonadab  bles.sed  the 
king.  Each  would  have  its  peculiar  apjirojjriate- 
ness.  The  king  then  proposed  their  close  union 
"  Is  thy  heart  right,  as  my  heart  !.s  with  thv 
hecrt?"  The  answer  of  Jehonadab  is  slightly 
varied.  In  the  Hebrew  text  lie  vehemently  repHea, 
"  It  is,  it  is:  give  nie  thine  hand."  J  .I'le  LXX., 
and  in  the  A.  V.,  he  rephes  simply,  "It  is; "  and 
Jehu  then  rejoins,  "  If  it  is,  give  me  tiiine  hand.* 
The  hand,  whether  of  Jehonadab  c:  Jehu,  was 
offered  and  grasped.  The  king  lifted  him  up  to 
the  edge  of  the  chariot,  ap{)arently  that  he  mighV 
whisper  his  secret  into  his  ear,  and  s-nid,  "(^om« 
with  me,  and  see  my  zeal  for  Johovali."  It  wai 
the  first  indication  of  .lehu's  design  upon  the  wo» 


JEHONATHAN 

ibip  of  Baal,  for  which  he  perceived  that  the  stern 
zealot  would  be  a  fit  coadjutor.  Having  intrusted 
him  with  the  secret,  he  (I.XX. )  or  his  attendants 
(Heb.  and  A.  V.)  caused  Jehonadab  to  proceed 
with  him  to  Samaria  in  the  royal  chariot. 

So  completely  had  the  worship  of  IJaal  become 
the  national  reli!:^ion,  that  even  Jehonadab  was  able 
to  conceal  his  purpose  under  the  mask  of  conformity.. 
No  doubt  he  acted  in  concert  with  Jehu  through- 
out; but  the  only  occasion  on  which  he  is  expressly 
mentioned  is  when  (probably  from  his  previous 
knowledge  of  the  secret  worshippers  of  Jehovah) 
he  went  with  Jehu  through  the  temple  of  Baal  to 
tuxn  out  any  that  there  might  happen  to  be  in  the 
mass  of  Pagan  worshippers  (2  K.  x.  23).  [Jkhu.] 
This  is  the  last  we  hear  of  him.  A.  P.  S. 

JEHON'ATHAN  O^^'in^  [whom  Jehovah 
gam  =  his  gift]:  'Iwvadav.  Jonathan),  the  more 
accurate  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  name,  which  is 
ojDst  frequently  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Jonathan. 
Jt  13  ascribed  to  three  persons:  — 

1.  Son  of  Uzziah ;  superintendent  of  certain  of 

king  David's  storehouses  (m"l^S :  the  word 
rendered  "  treasures  "  earlier  in  the  verse,  and  in 
27,  28  "cellars  ");   1  Chr.  xxvii.  25. 

2.  One  of  the  Levites  who  were  sent  by  Jehosh- 
aphat  through  the  cities  of  Judah,  with  a  book  of 
the  Law,  to  teach  the  people  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 

3.  [V'at.  Alex.  FA.i  omit.]  A  priest  (Neh.  xii. 
18);  the  representative  of  the  family  of  Shemaiah 
(ver.  6),  when  Joiakim  was  high-priest,  that  is  in 
the  next  generation  after  the  return  from  Babylon 
under  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua. 

JBHO'RAM  (anin^  =  exalted  by  Jeho- 
vah: 'loj/jctju;  Joseph.  'Icipafios:  Joram).  The 
name  is  more  often  found  in  the  contracted  form 
of  JoKAM.  1.  Son  of  Ahab  king  of  Israel,  who 
succeeded  his  brother  Ahaziah  (who  had  no  son) 
upon  the  throne  at  Samaria,  B.  c.  89(5,  and  died 
B.  c.  884.  During  the  first  four  years  of  his 
reign  his  contemporary  on  the  throne  of  Judah  was 
Jehoshaphat,  and  for  the  next  seven  years  and  up- 
wards Joram  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat.  and  for  the 
last  year,  or  portion  of  a  year,  Ahaziah  the  son  of 
Jorara,  who  was  killed  the  same  day  that  he  was 
(2  K.  ix.  27).  The  alliance  between  the  kingdoms 
of  Israel  and  Judah,  commenced  by  his  ftither  and 
Jehoshaphat,  was  very  close  throughout  his  reign. 
We  first  n:id  him  associated  with  Jehoshaphat  and 
!.he  king  of  Ivlom,  at  that  time  a  tributary  of  the 
iingdom  of  Judah,  in  a  war  against  the  Moabites. 
Mesha,  their  king,  on  the  death  of  Ahab,  had  re- 
volted from  Isr;iel,  and  refused  to  pay  the  customary 
tribute  of  100,a;)0  lambs  and  10[),600  rams.  Jo- 
wn  asked  and  obtained  Jehoshaphat's  help  to 
reduce  him  to  his  obedience,  and  accordingly  the 
three  kiugs,  of  Israel,  Judah,  and  Edom,  marched 
through  the  wilderness  of  Edom  to  attack  him. 
The  three  armies  were  in  the  utmost  danger  of  per- 
ishing for  want  of  water.  The  piety  of  Jehosha- 
phat suggested  an  inquiry  of  some  prophet  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  Klisha  the  son  of  Sliaphat,  at  that  time 
and  since  the  latter  part  of  Ahab's  reign  Elijah's 
attendant  (2  K.  iii.  11;  IK.  xix.  19-21),  was 
found  with  the  host.  [Elisha  3,  vol.  i.  p.  717.] 
From  him  Jehoram  received  a  severe  rebuke,  and 
was  bid  to  inquire  of  the  prophets  of  his  father  and 
mother,  the  prophets  of  Baal.  Nevertheless  for 
Jehoshaphat's  sake  Elisha  inquired  of  Jehovah,  and 
received  the  promise  of  an  abundant  supply  of 
?8 


JEHORAM  1233 

water,  and  of  a  great  victory  over  the  Moabites: 
promise  which  was  immediately  fulfilled.  The 
same  water  which,  filling  the  valley,  and  the 
trenches  dug  by  the  Israelittjs,  supplied  the  whole 
army  and  all  their  cattle  with  drink,  appeared  to 
the  Moabites,  who  were  advancing,  like  blood,  when 
the  morning  sun  shone  upon  it.  Concluding  that 
the  allies  had  fallen  out  and  slain  each  other,  they 
marched  incautiously  to  the  attack,  and  were  put 
to  the  rout.  The  allies  pursued  them  with  great 
slaughter  into  their  own  land,  which  they  utterly 
ravaged  and  destroyed  with  all  its  cities.  Kirha- 
raseth  alone  remained,  and  there  the  king  of  Moab 
made  his  last  stand.  An  attempt  to  Ijreak  through 
the  besieging  army  having  failed,  he  resorted  to  the 
desperate  expedient  of  offering  up  his  eldest  son, 
the  heir  to  his  throne,  as  a  burnt-oftering,  upon 
the  wall  of  the  city,  in  the  sight  of  the  enemy. 
Upon  this  the  Israelites  retired  and  returned  to 
their  own  land  (2  K.  iii.).  It  was  perhaps  in  con- 
sequence of  Elisha's  rebuke,  and  of  the  above 
remarkable  deliverance  granted  to  the  allied  armies 
according  to  his  word,  that  Jehoram,  on  his  return 
to  Samaria,  put  away  the  image  of  Baal  which 
Ahab  his  father  had  made  (2  K.  iii.  2).  For  in 
2  K.  iv.  we  have  an  evidence  of  I^lisha"s  being  on 
friendly  terms  with  Jehoram,  in  the  ofler  made  by 
him  to  speak  to  the  king  in  favor  of  the  Shunam- 
mite.  The  impression  on  the  king's  mind  was 
probably  strengthened  by  the  subsequent  incident 
of  Naaman's  cure,  and  the  temporary  cessation  of 
the  inroads  of  the  Syrians,  which  doubtless  resulted 
from  it  (2  K.  v.).  Accordingly  when,  a  little  later 
war  broke  out  between  Syria  and  Israel,  we  find 
Elisha  befriending  Jehoram.  The  king  was  made 
acquainted  by  the  prophet  with  the  secret  counsels 
of  the  king  of  Syria,  and  was  thus  enal)led  to  de- 
feat them;  and  on  the  other  hand,  when  Elisha 
had  led  a  large  band  of  Syrian  soldiers  whom  God 
had  blinded,  into  the  midst  of  Samaria,  Jehoram 
reverentially  asked  him,  "  My  father,  shall  I  smite 
them?"  and,  at  the  prophet's  bidding,  not  only 
forbore  to  kill  them,  but  made  a  feast  for  them, 
and  then  sent  them  home  unhurt.  This  procured 
another  cessation  from  the  Syrian  invasions  for  the 
Israelites  (2  K.  vi.  23).  What  happened  after  this 
to  change  the  relations  between  the  king  and  the 
prophet,  we  can  only  conjecture.  But  putting  to- 
getlier  the  general  bad  character  given  of  Jehoram 
(2  K.  iii.  2,  3)  with  the  fact  of  the  prevalence  of 
liaal-worship  at  the  end  of  his  reign  (2  K.  x.  21 
28-),  it  seems  probable  that  when  the  Syrian  inroads 
ceased,  and  he  felt  less  dependent  upon  the  aid  of 
the  prophet,  he  relapsed  into  idolatry,  and  was  re- 
buked by  Elisha,  and  threatened  with  a  return  of 
the  calamities  from  which  he  had  escaped.  Refus- 
ing to  repent,  a  fresh  invasion  by  the  Syrians,  and 
a  close  siege  of  Samaria,  actually  came  to  pass, 
according  probably  to  the  word  of  the  prophet. 
Hence,  when  the  terrible  incident  arose,  in  cooae- 
quence  of  the  famine,  of  a  woman  boiUng  and  eat- 
ing her  own  child,  the  king  immediately  attributed 
the  evil  to  Elisha  the  son  of  Shaphat,  and  deter- 
mined to  take  away  his  life.  The  message  which 
he  sent  by  the  messenger  whom  he  commissioned 
to  cut  off  the  prophet's  head,  "  Behold  this  evil  is 
from  Jehovah,  why  should  I  wait  for  Jehovah  any 
longer?"  coupled  with  the  fact  of  his  having  on 
sacV^cloth  at  the  time  (2  K.  vi.  30,  33),  also  mdi- 
cates  that  many  remonstrances  and  warnings,  simi- 
lar to  those  given  by  Jeremiah  to  the  kings  of  hj 
day,  had  passed  between  the  prophet  and  the  we^k 


1234 


JEHORAM 


uid  unstable  son  of  Ahab.  The  providential  inter- 
position by  which  both  Elisha's  Ufe  was  saved  and  the 
city  delivered,  is  narrated  2  K.  vii.,  and  Jehoram 
appears  to  have  returned  to  friendly  feelings  towards 
Elisha  (2  K.  viii.  4).  His  Ufe,  however,  was  now 
drawing  near  to  its  close.  It  was  very  soon  after 
the  above  events  tliat  Elisha  went  to  Damascus, 
and  predicted  the  revolt  of  Ilazael,  and  his  acces- 
sion to  the  throne  of  Syria  in  the  room  of  Ben- 
hadad;  and  it  was  during  Elisha's  absence,  proba- 
bly, that  the  conversation  between  Jehoram  and 
Gehazi,  and  the  return  of  the  Shunammite  from 
the  land  of  the  Philistines,  recorded  in  2  K.  viii., 
took  place.  Jehoram  seems  to  have  thought  the 
revolution  in  Syria,  which  immediately  followed 
Elisha's  prediction,  a  good  opportunity  to  pursue 
his  father's  favorite  project  of  recovering  Kamoth- 
Gilead  from  the  Syrians.  He  accordingly  made 
an  alliance  with  his  nephew  Ahaziah,  who  had  just 
succeeded  Joram  on  the  throne  of  Judah,  and  the 
two  kings  proceeded  to  occupy  Kamoth-Gilead  by 
force.  The  expedition  was  an  unfortunate  one. 
Jehoram  was  wounded  in  battle,  and  obliged  to 
return  to  Jezreel  to  be  healed  of  his  wounds  (2  K. 
viii.  2!J,  ix.  14,  15),  leaving  his  army  under  Jehu 
to  hold  liamoth-Gilead  against  Hazael.  Jehu, 
however,  and  the  army  under  his  command,  re- 
volted from  their  allegiance  to  Jehoram  (2  K.  ix.), 
and,  hastily  marching  to  Jezreel,  surprised  Jeho- 
ram, wounded  and  defenseless  as  he  was.  Jehoram, 
going  out  to  meet  him,  fell  pierced  by  an  arrow 
from  Jehu's  bow  on  the  very  plat  of  ground  which 
Ahab  had  wrested  from  Naboth  the  Jezreelite ;  thus 
fulfilling  to  the  letter  the  prophecy  of  Elijah  (1  K. 
txi.  21-29).  With  the  life  of  Jehoram  ended  the 
dynasty  of  Omri. 

Jehorain's  reign  was  rendered  very  remarkable 
by  the  two  eminent  prophets  who  lived  in  it,  Elijah 
and  Elisha.  The  former  seems  to  have  survived 
till  the  sixth  year  of  his  reign ;  the  latter  to  have 
begun  to  be  conspicuous  quite  in  the  beginning  of 
it.  For  the  famine  which  EUsha  foretold  to  the 
Shunammite  «  (2  K.  viii.  1),  and  which  seems  to 
be  the  same  as  that  alluded  to  iv.  38,  must  ha\e 
begun  in  the  sixth  year  of  Jehoram's  reign,  since 
it  lasted  seven  years,  and  ended  in  the  twelfth 
yeai".  In  that  case  his  acquaintance  with  the  Shu- 
nammite must  have  begun  not  less  than  five  or  at 
least  four  years  sooner,  as  the  child  must  have  been 
as  much  as  three  years  old  when  it  died ;  which 
brings  us  back  at  latest  to  the  beginning  of  the 
second  year  of  Jehoram's  reign.  Elisha's  appear- 
ance in  the  camp  of  the  three  kings  (2  K.  iii.) 
was  probably  as  early  as  the  first  year  of  Jehoram. 
With  reference  to  the  very  entangled  chronology 
of  this  reign,  it  is  inqwrtant  to  remark  that  there 
is  no  evidence  whatever  to  show  that  Elijah  the 
prophet  was  translated  at  the  time  of  Elisha's  first 
prophetic  ministrations.  The  history  in  2  K.,  at 
this  part  of  it,  having  much  the  nature  of  memoirs 
of  Elisha,  and  the  active  ministrations  of  Elijah 
having  closed  with  the  death  of  Ahaziah,  it  was 
very  natural  to  complete  Elijah's  personal  history 
with  the  narrative  of  his  translation  in  ch.  ii.  before 
beginning  the  series  of  Elisha's  miracles.  But  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  ch.  ii.  is  really  prior  in 


a  Th8  « then  »  of  the  A.  V.  of  2  K.  viii.  1  is  a  thor- 
ougb  misrepresentiition  of  the  order  of  the  events. 
The  narrative  goes  back  seven  years,  merely  to  intro- 
lw»  tb«  woman's  return  at  this  time.     The  king's 


JEHORAM 

order  of  time  to  ch.  iii.,  or  that,  though  the  ralUng 
from  the  dead  of  the  Shunammite's  son  was  suVise- 
quent,  as  it  probably  was,  to  Elijah's  translation 
therefore  all  the  preliminary  circumstances  related 
in  ch.  iv.  were  so  likewise.  Neither  again  does 
the  expression  (2  K.  iii.  11 ),  "  Here  is  Elisha, 
which  ix)ured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah,"  "  im- 
ply that  this  ministration  had  at  that  time  ceased, 
and  still  less  that  I.lijah  was  removed  from  the 
earth.  We  learn,  on  the  contrary,  from  2  Cor. 
xxi.  12,  that  he  was  still  on  earth  in  the  reign  of 
Joram  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  who  did  not  begin  to 
reign  till  the  fifth  of  Jehoram  (2  K.  viii.  10);  and 
it  seems  highly  probable  that  the  note  of  time  in 
2  K.  i.  17,  "in  the  second  year  of  Jehoram  the 
son  of  Jehoshaphat,"  which  is  obviously  and  cer- 
tainly out  of  its  place  where  it  now  is,  properly 
belongs  to  the  narrative  in  ch.  ii.  With  regard  to 
the  other  discordant  dates  at  this  epoch,  it  must 
suffice  to  remark  that  all  attempts  to  reconcile  them 
are  vain.  That  which  is  based  upon  the  supposition 
of  Joram  having  been  associated  with  his  father  in 
the  kingdom  for  three  or  se\en  years,  is  of  all  pei 
haps  the  most  unfortunate,  as  being  utterly  incoii 
sistent  with  the  history,  annihilating  his  indeijendenl 
reign,  and  after  all  failing  to  produce  even  a  verbal 
consistency.  The  table  given  below  is  ft  \med  on 
the  supposition  that  Jehoshaphat's  reign  really 
Listed  only  22  years,  and  Ahab's  only  19,  as  appears 
from  the  texts  cited;  that  the  statement  that  Je- 
hoshaphat reigned  25  years  is  caused  by  the  prob- 
able circumstance  of  his  having  taken  part  in  the 
government  during  the  three  last  years  of  Asa's 
reign,  when  his  father  was  incapacitated  by  the  dis- 
ease in  his  feet  (2  Chr.  xvi.  12);  and  that  three 
years  were  then  added  to  Ahab's  reign,  to  make 
tiie  whole  number  of  the  years  of  the  kings  of  Is- 
rael agree  with  the  whole  number  of  those  of  the 
kings  of  Judah,  thus  unduly  lengthened  by  an  ad- 
dition of  three  years  to  Jehoshaphat's  reign.  This 
arrangement,  it  is  believed,  reconciles  the  greatest 
numl)er  of  existhig  texts,  agrees  best  with  history, 
and  especially  coincides  with  what  is  the  most  cer- 
tain of  all  the  elements-  of  the  chronology  of  this 
time,  namely,  that  the  twelve  years'  reign  of  Jeho- 
ram son  of  Ahab,  and  the  few  months'  reign  of 
Ahaziah,  the  successor  of  Joram  son  of  Jehoshar 
])liat,  ended  simultaneously  at  the  accession  of 
Jehu. 


KINOS   OF   ISRAEL. 

Ahab  (r'gn'd  19  yrg.)  1st  yr.  = 

Ahab 4thyr.= 

Ahab.    .    last  and  litth  yr.  = 
Ahaziah  (r'gn'd  2  yrs.)  Ist  yr.= 

Ahaziah 2dyr. 

and  = 

.Jfhoram  (r'gn'd  12  yre.)  1st  yr. 


Jehoram 


5th  yr. 


.Iclx.rani      ....    fith     > 
Elijah  carried  up  to  heaven  S ' 

Jehoram 12  = 


KIKOS  OF  JUOAH. 

J  Asa  (reigned  41  yrs.)  88tl«, 
J     1  K.  xvi.  29. 
S  Jehoshaphat     (reigned      22 
I     yrs.)  1st,  1  K.  xxii.  41. 

Jehoshaphat  .    .  Kjth,  ih.  51. 

Jelioshaphat,  17th,  1  K.  xxii. 
}     61. 
S  Jehoshaphat,  IStli,  2  K.  iii.  I. 

Jehoshaphat   last    and  22d4 

and  [viii.  IC 

Joram  (r'gn'd  8yr6.)lst,2K. 


&l 


)  Jiirniii,  2d,  2  K. 

Chr.  xxi.  12. 
[  Joram,  8th,  2  K.  viii.  17,  2  K. 
and         [viii.  'A 
[  Ahaziah  (reigned  1  yr.;  lit. 


2.  [In  2  Chr.  xxi.  1,  Rom.  'lapduj  but  Va* 
Alex.  Icapafi  as  elsewhere.]  Eldest  son  of  Jehosb 
aphat,  succeeded  his  father  on  the  throne  of  Judak 

conversation  with  Gehazi  was  doubtless  caused  by  th< 
providential  deliverance  related  in  ch.  vii. 

b  The  use  of  the  perfect  tense  in  Hebrew  often  lifr 
plies  ♦lie  habit  or  the  repetition  of  an  action.  M  f .  | 
Ps.  i.  1.  ii.  1.  &c. 


JEHOSHABBATH  JEHOSHAPHAT  1285 

It  the  age  of  32,  and  reigned  eight  years,  from  u. 
D.  893-92  to  885-84.  [Jkhoham,  1.]  Jehosheba 
ois  daugliter  was  wife  to  the  high-priest  Jelioiada. 
The  ill  effects  of  his  marriage  witli  Athaliali  tlie 
daughter  of  Ahab,  and  the  influence  of  that  second 
Jezebel  upon  him,  were  immediately  apparent.  As 
Boon  as  he  was  fixed  on  the  throne,  he  put  his  six 
brothers  to  death,  with  many  of  the  cliief  nobles 
of  the  land,  lie  then  proceeded  to  establish  the 
worship  of  Baal  and  other  abominations,  and  to  en- 
force the  practice  of  idolatry  by  persecution.  A 
prophetic  writing  from  the  aged  prophet  Elijah  (2 
Chr.  xxi.  12),  the  last  recorded  act  of  his  life,  re- 
proving him  for  his  crimes  and  his  impiety,  and 
foretelling  the  most  grievous  judgments  upon  his 
person  and  his  kingdom,  failed  to  produce  any  good 
effect  upon  him.  This  was  in  the  fii'st  or  second 
year  of  his  reign.  I'he  remainder  of  it  was  a  series 
of  calamities.  First  the  Edomites,  who  had  been 
tributary  to  Jehoshaphat,  revolted  from  his  domin- 
ion, and  established  their  permanent  independence. 
It  was  as  much  as  Jehoram  could  do  by  a  night- 
attack  with  all  his  forces,  to  extricate  himself  from 
their  army,  which  had  surrounded  him.  Next 
Libnah,  one  of  the  strongest  fortified  cities  in  Ju- 
dah  (2  K.  xix.  8),  and  perhaps  one  of  those  "  fenced 
cities  "  (2  Chr.  xxi.  3)  which  Jehoshaphat  had  given 
to  his  other  sons,  indignant  at  his  cruelties,  and 
abhorring  his  apostasy,  rebelled  against  him.  Then 
followed  invasions  of  armed  bands  of  Philistines 
and  of  Arabians  (the  same  who  paid  tribute  to 
Jehoshaphat,  2  Chr.  xvii.  11),  who  burst  into  Ju- 
daea, stormed  the  king's  palace,  put  his  wives  and 
all  his  children,  except  his  youngest  son  Ahaziah, 
t<j  death  (2  Chr.  xxii.  1),  or  carried  them  into  cap- 
tivity, and  plundered  all  his  treasures.  And,  to 
crown  all,  a  terrible  and  incurable  disease  in  his 
bowels  fell  upon  him,  of  which  he  died,  after  two 
years  of  misery,  unregretted ;  and  went  down  to  a 
dishonored  grave  in  the  prime  of  life,  without  either 
private  or  public  mourning,  and  without  even  a 
resting-place  in  the  sepulchres  of  his  fathers  (2  Chr. 
xxi.  19,  20).  He  died  early  in  the  twelfth  year  of 
his  brother-in-law  Jehoram's  reign  over  Israel. 

A.  C.  H. 

JEHOSHAB'EATH  (n^^^P^H^  [perh. 
iwearer  by  Jehovah,  i.  e.  his  worshipper] :  'Iwcra- 
deed;  [Vat.  Ico(raj8ee;]  Alex.  Ia(ro)8e0:  Josaheth), 
the  form  in  which  the  name  of  Jehosheba  is 
given  in  2  Chr.  xxii.  11.  We  are  here  informed, 
what  is  not  told  us  in  Kings,  that  she  was  the  wife 
of  Jehoiada  the  high-priest. 

JEHOSH'APHAT  (tDptfiin^  [Jehovah  is 
Jud(/e]:  'Ico<ra(/)aT:  Josaphat).  1.  The  son  of 
Asa  and  Azubah,  succeeded  to  the  throne  u.  c. 
914,  when  he  was  35  years  old,  and  reigned  25 
years.  His  history  is  to  be  found  among  the  events 
recorded  in  1  K.  xv.  24;  2  K.  viii.  16,  or  in  a  con- 
tinuous narrative  in  2  Chr.  xvii.  1-xxi.  3.  He  was 
contemix)rary  with  Ahab,  Ahaziah,  and  Jehoram. 
At  first  he  strengthened  himself  against  Israel  by 
krtifying  and  garrisoning  the  cities  of  Judah  and 
the  Ephraimite  conquests  .^f  Asa.  But  soon  after- 
wards the  two  Hebrew  kings,  perhaps  appreciating 
their  common  danger  fron.  Damascus  and  *he  tribes 
on  their  eastern  frontier,  came  to  an  understanding. 
Israel  and  Judah  drew  together  for  the  first  time 

«  Qesenius  and  Professor  Newman  are  of  opinion    opposed  by  Keil  and  Movers  in  Germany,  and  by  tbt 
lukt  the  two  narratives  in  2  K.  iii.  and  2  Chr.  x—  re-    Rev.  H.  Browne,  Ordo  Scerloruin,  p.  236. 
«te  to  one  event      Their  view  has  been  auccessfully  | 


since  they  parted  at  Sliechem  sixty  years  ^irevi- 
ously.  Jehoshaphat's  eldest  son  Jehoram  married 
Athaliah,  the  daughter  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel.  I 
does  not  appear  how  far  Jehosliaphat  encouraged 
that  ill-starred  union.  The  closeness  of  the  alli- 
ance between  the  two  kings  is  shown  by  many 
circumstances:  Elijah's  reluctance  when  in  exile 
to  set  foot  within  the  territory  of  Judah  (Blunt, 
(Jndes.  Coinc.  ii.  §  19,  p.  199);  the  identity  of 
names  given  to  the  children  of  the  two  royal  fami- 
lies ;  the  admission  of  names  compounded  with  the 
name  of  Jehovah  into  the  family  of  Jezebel,  the 
zealous  worshipper  of  Bajd;  and  the  extreme  alac- 
rity with  which  Jehoshaphat  afterwards  accompa- 
nied Ahab  to  the  field  of  battle. 

But  in  his  own  kingdom  Jehoshaphat  ever 
showed  himself  a  zealous  follower  of  the  command- 
ments of  God:  he  tried,  it  would  seem  not  quite 
successfully,  to  put  down  the  high  places  and  the 
groves  in  which  the  people  of  Judah  burnt  incense. 
In  his  third  year,  apprehending  perhaps  the  evil 
example  of  Israelitish  idolatry,  and  considering 
that  the  Levites  were  not  fulfilling  satisfactorily 
their  function  of  teaching  the  people,  Jehoshaphat 
sent  out  a  conunission  of  certain  princes,  priests, 
and  Levites,  to  go  through  the  cities  of  Judah, 
teaching  the  people  out  of  the  Book  of  the  Law. 
He  made  separate  provision  for  each  of  his  sons  as 
tliey  grew  up,  perhaps  with  a  foreboding  of  their 
melancholy  end  (2  Chr.  xxi.  4).  Riches  and  hon- 
ors increased  around  him.  He  received  tribute 
from  the  Philistines  and  Arabians ;  and  kept  up  a 
large  standing  army  in  Jerusalem. 

It  was  probably  about  the  16th  year  of  his  reign 
(b.  c.  898)  when  he  went  to  Samaria  to  visit  Ahab 
and  to  become  his  ally  in  the  great  battle  of  Ka 
moth-Gilead  —  not  very  decisive  in  its.  result 
though  fatal  to  Ahab.  From  thence  Jehoshapha- 
returned  to  Jerusalem  in  peace;  and,  after  receiv 
ing  a  rebuke  from  the  prophet  Jehu,  went  himself 
through  the  people  "from  Beer-sheba  to  IVIount 
Ephraim,"  reclaiming  them  to  the  law  of  God 
He  also  took  measures  for  the  better  administration 
of  justice  throughout  his  dominions ;  on  which  see 
Selden,  Be  Synechiis,  ii.  cap.  8,  §  4.  Turning  hia 
attention  to  foreign  commerce,  he  built  at  Ezion- 
geber,  with  the  help  of  Ahaziah,  a  navy  designed 
to  go  to  Tarshish :  but,  in  accordance  with  a  pro- 
diction  of  a  prophet,  Eliezer,  it  was  wrecked  at 
Ezion-geber;  and  Jehoshaphat  resisted  Ahaziah's 
proposal  to  renew  their  joint  attempt. 

Before  the  close  of  his  reign  he  was  engaged  in 
two  «  additional  wars.  He  was  miraculously  de- 
livered from  a  threatened  attack  of  the  people  of 
Amnion,  Moab,  and  Seir;  the  result  of  which  is 
thought  by  some  critics  to  be  celebrated  in  Ps.  48 
and  92,  and  to  be  alluded  to  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
iii.  2,  12.  After  this,  perhaps,  must  be  dated  the 
war  which  Jehoshaphat,  in  conjunction  with  Jeho- 
ram king  of  Israel  and  the  king  of  Edom,  carried 
on  against  the  rebellious  king  of  Moab  (2  K.  iii.). 
After  this  the  realm  of  Jehoshaphat  was  quiet. 
In  his  declining  years  the  administration  of  affairs 
was  placed  (probably  B.  c.  891)  in  the  hands  of  his 
son  Jehoram ;  to  whom,  as  Usher  conjectures,  the 
same  charge  had  been  temporarily  committed  dur- 
ing Jehoshaphat's  absence  at  Ramoth-gilead. 

Like  the  prophets  with  whom  he  was  brought  ia 


1236 


JEHOSHAPHAT,  VALLEY  OF 


Dontact.  we  cannot  describe  the  character  of  this 
good  king  v-ithout  a  mixture  of  Llanie.  Eminently 
pious,  gentle,  just,  devoted  to  the  spiritual  and 
temporal  welfare  of  his  suljects  active  in  mind 
•ud  body,  he  was  wanthig  in  rtrniness  and  consist- 
ency. His  character  has  been  carefully  sketched 
in  a  sermon  by  the  Kev.  Dr.  Hessey,  Biographies 
of  tlie  Kings  of  Jiulali^  ii, 

2.  ['I«<ra0oT,  -<pdQ;  Alex,  in  2  Sam.  viii.  16, 
loxra*.]  Son  of  Ahilud,  who  filled  the  office  of 
recorder  or  annaUst  in  the  court  of  David  (2  Sam. 
viii.  16,  &c. ),  and  afterwards  of  Solomon  (1  K.  iv. 
3).  Such  officers  are  found  not  only  in  the  courts 
of  the  Hebrew  kings,  but  also  in  those  of  ancient 
and  modern  Persia,  of  the  Eastern  Koman  Enipiie 
(Gesenius),  of  China,  etc.  (Keil).  An  instance  of 
the  use  made  of  their  writings  is  given  in  Esth. 
vi.  1. 

3.  One  of  the  priests  who,  in  the  time  of  David 
(1  Chr.  XV.  24),  were  appointed  to  blow  trumpets 
before  the  ark  in  its  transit  Irora  the  house  of 
Obed-Iulom  to  Jerusalem. 

4.  [Itoni.  Vat.  omit;  Alex.  Icwcra^aT.]  Son  of 
Paruah ;  one  of  the  twelve  purveyors  of  King  Sol- 
omon (1  K.  iv.  17).  His  district  was  Issachar, 
from  whence,  at  a  stated  season  of  the  year,  he 
collected  such  taxes  as  were  paid  in  kind,  and  sent 
them  to  the  king's  court. 

5-  ['Ia)(ra(/)ar,  V^at.  -0a0.]  Son  of  Nimshi,  and 
father  of  king  Jehu  (2  K.  ix.  2,  14).     W.  T.  B. 

JEHOSHAPHAT,  VALLEY  OF  (pl^^ 

iDQtK'in"^  [^valley  where  Jehovah  j'tulge^]  :  KoiKds 
'laxrat^ctr:  Vallis  Josnphat),  a  valley  mentioned  by 
the  prophet  Joel  only,  as  the  spot  in  which,  after 
the  return  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  from  captivity, 
Jehovah  would  gather  all  the  heathen  (Joel  iii.  2 ; 
Heb.  iv.  2),  and  would  there  sit  to  judge  them  for 
their  misdeeds  to  Israel  (iii.  12;  Heb.  v.  4).  The 
passage  is  one  of  great  Iwldness,  abounding  in  the 
verbal  turns  in  which  Hebrew  poetry  so  much  de- 
lights, and  in  particular  there  is  a  play  between  the 
name  given  to  the  spot  —  Jehoshaphat,  i.  e.  "  Je- 
hovah's judgment,"  and  the  "judgment "  there  to 
be  pronounced.  The  Hebrew  prophets  often  refer 
to  the  ancient  glories  of  their  nation :  thus  Isaiah 
speaks  of  the  "  day  of  ^lidian,"  and  of  the  triumphs 
of  David  and  of  Joshua  in  "Mount  Perazim,"  and 
in  the  "  Valley  of  Gibeon;"  and  in  like  manner 
Joel,  in  announcing  the  vengeance  to  be  taken  on 
the  strangers  who  were  annoying  his  country  (iii. 
14),  seems  to  have  glanced  back  to  that  triumphant 
day  when  king  Jehoshaphat,  the  greatest  king  the 
nation  had  seen  since  Solomon,  and  the  greatest 
champion  of  Jehovah,  led  out  his  people  to  a  valley 
in  the  wilderness  of  Tekoah,  and  was  there  blessed 
with  such  a  victory  over  the  hordes  of  his  enemies 
as  was  without  a  parallel  in  the  national  records 
(2  Chr.  XX.). 

But  though  such  a  reference  to  Jehoshaphat 
la  both  natural  and  characteristic,  it  is  not  certain 
that  it  is  intended.  The  name  may  be  only  an 
imaguiary  one  conferred  on  a  spot  which  existed 


a  This  pillar  is  said  to  be  called  et-Tarik,  <'the 
road "  (De  Saulcy,  Voyas:e,  ii.  199).  From  it  will 
ipring  the  Bridge  of  As-Sirat^  the  crossing  of  which  is 
to  ieft  the  true  believers.  Those  who  cannot  stand 
the  test  will  drop  off  into  the  abyss  of  Gehenna  in  the 
iepths  of  the  valley  (Ali  Bey,  224,  225  ;  Mejr  ed-Din, 
b  Bob.  i.  2')i) ;  [Alger's  Hist,  of  tJw  Doctrine  of  a  Fu- 
tme  Life,  pp.  202,  203J). 


nowhere  but  in  the  vision  of  the  prophet.  SwA 
was  the  view  of  some  of  the  ancient  transktMft 
Thus  Theodotion  renders  it  x^P^  Kpiafus]  an< 
so  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  —  "  the  plain  of  th« 
division  of  judgment."  MichaeUs  {Bibd  fiir  Un- 
gelehiien,  Kemarks  on  Joel)  takes  a  similar  view, 
and  considers  tlie  passage  to  be  a  prediction  of  the 
Maccabean  victories.  By  others,  however,  the 
prophet  has  been  supposed  to  have  had  the  end  of 
the  world  in  view.  And  not  only  this,  but  the 
scene  of  "  Jehovah's  judgment "  has  been  loc£.li7ed, 
and  the  name  has  come  down  to  us  attached  to 
the  deep  ravine  which  separates  Jerusalem  from  the 
Mount  of  Olives,  through  which  at  one  time  the 
Kedron  forced  its  stream.  At  what  period  the 
name  was  first  applied  to  this  spot  is  not  known. 
There  is  no  trace  of  it  in  the  Bible  or  in  Josephus. 
In  both  the  only  name  used  for  this  gorge  is  KiD- 
Ko,\  (N.  T.  Cedkon).  We  first  encounter  its 
new  title  in  the  middle  of  the  4th  century  in  the 
Onomcsticon  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (art.  CoRlas). 
and  in  the  Commentary  of  the  latter  father  on 
Joel.  Since  that  time  the  name  has  l>een  re<x»g- 
nized  and  adopted  by  travellers  of  all  ages  and  ali 
faiths.  It  is  used  by  Christians  —  as  Arculf  in 
700  {Early  Trav.  i.  4),  the  author  of  the  Cittz  de 
Jhermtleiii.^  in  1187  (Pob.  ii.  502),  and  Mainidrell 
in  1697  (Ear.  Tyar.  p.  469);  and  by  Jews  —  as 
Benjamin  of  Tudela  about  1170  (Asher,  i.  71;  and 
see  Keland,  Pal.  p.  356).  By  the  Moslems  it  is 
still  said  to  be  called  IVady  Jushafat  (Seetzen,  ii. 
23,  26),  or  Shafal.  though  the  name  usually  given 
to  the  valley  is  Wady  Sitti-Maryani.  Both  Mos- 
lems and  Jews  beUeve  that  the  last  judgment  is  to 
take  place  there.  To  find  a  grave  there  is  the 
dearest  wish  of  the  latter  (Briggs,  Heathen  and 
Holy  Lands,  p.  290),  and  the  former  show  —  as 
they  have  shown  for  certainly  two  centuries  —  the 
place  on  which  Mohammed  is  to  be  seated  at  the  Ijost 
Judgment,  a  stone  jutting  out  from  the  east  wall 
of  the  Haram  area  near  the  south  corner,  one  of 
the  pillars  "  which  once  adorned  the  churches  of 
Helena  or  Justinian,  and  of  which  multitudes  are 
now  imbedded  in  the  rude  masonry  of  the  more 
modern  walls  of  Jerusalem.  The  steep  sides  of  the 
ravine,  wherever  a  level  strip  affords  the  opportu- 
nity, are  crowded  —  in  places  almost  paved  —  by 
the  sepulchres  of  the  Moslems,  or  the  simpler  slabs 
of  the  Jewish  tombs,  alike  awaiting  the  assembly  of 
the  Last  Judgment. 

So  narrow  and  precipitous  ^  a  glen  is  quite  un- 
suited  for  such  an  event;  but  this  inconsistency 
does  not  appear  to  have  disturbed  those  who 
framed  or  those  who  hold  the  tradition.  It  is  how- 
ever implied  in  the  Hebrew  terms  employed  in  the 

two  cases.  That  by  Joel  is  Ejnek  C^^''),  a  ward 
applied  to  spacious  valleys,  such  as  those  of  Es- 
draelon  or  Gibeon  (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  A  pp.  §  1). 
On  the  other  hand  the  ravine  of  the  Kidrou  is  in- 
variably designated  by  Nachal  (^H?)  answering 
to  the  modern  Arabic  Wady.  There  is  no  instance 
in  the  O.  T.  of  these  two  terms  being  convertible, 


h  St.  Cyril  (of  Alexandria)  either  did  not  know  the 
spot,  or  has  another  valley  in  his  eye ;  probably  tb« 
former.  He  describes  it  as  not  many  stadia  from  Je- 
rusalem ;  and  says  he  is  told  {^riai)  that  it  is  "  ban 
and  apt  for  horses  "  (vl^iXbi/  xal  ImrriKarov  Comni.  on 
Joel,  quoted  by  Reland,  p.  355).  Perhaps  this  indi- 
cates that  the  tradition  was  not  at  that  time  quiti 
fixed. 


JEHOSHAPHAT,  VALLEY  OF 

•nd  this  fact  alone  would  warrant  the  inference 
»hat  the  tradition  of  the  identity  of  the  Emek  of 
Jehoshuphat  and  the  Nachal  Kedron,  did  not  arise 
until  Hel)rew  had  begun  to  become  a  dead  Iiin- 
guage.«  The  grounds  on  which  it  did  arise  were 
probably  two:  (1.)  The  frequent  mention  through- 
out this  passage  of  Joel  of  Mount  Zion,  Jerusalem, 
and  the  Temple  (ii.  32;  iii.  1,  6,  IG,  17,  18),  may 
have  led  to  the  belief  that  tae  locality  of  the  great 
judgment  would  be  in  their  immediate  neighbor- 
hood. This  would  be  assisted  by  the  mention  of 
the  Mount  of  Olives  in  the  somewhat  similar  pas- 
sage in  Zechariah  (xiv.  3,  4). 

(2.)  The  belief  that  Christ  would  reappear  in 
judgment  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  from  which  He 
had  ascended.  This  was  at  one  time  a  received 
article  of  Christian  belief,  and  was  grounded  on  the 
words  of  the  Angels,  "  He  shall  so  come  in  like 
maimer  as  ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven.'' '' 
(Adrichomius,  Theatr.  Ter.  Sunctce,  Jerusalem, 
§  192;  Corn,  a  Lapide,  on  Acts  i.) 

(3.)  There  is  the  alternative  that  the  Valley  of 
Jehoshaphat  was  really  an  ancient  name  of  the 
Valley  of  the  Kedron,  and  that  from  the  name,  the 
connection  with  Joel's  prophecy,  and  the  belief  in 
its  being  the  scene  of  Jehovah's  last  judgment  have 
followed.  This  may  be  so;  but  then  we  should 
expect  to  find  some  trace  of  the  existence  of  the 
name  before  the  4th  century  after  Christ.  It  was 
certainly  used  as  a  burying-place  as  early  as  the 
reign  of  Josiah  (2  K.  xxiii.  6),  but  no  inference 
can  fairly  be  drawn  from  this. 

But  whatever  originated  the  tradition,  it  has 
held  its  ground  most  firmly,  (a.)  In  the  vailey 
itself,  one  of  the  four  remarkable  monuments  which 
exist  at  the  foot  of  Olivet  was  at  a  very  early  date 
connected  with  Jehoshaphat.  At  Arculf's  visit 
(about  700)  the  name  appears  to  have  been  borne 
by  that  now  called  "Absalom's  tomb,"  but  then 
the  "tower  of  Jehoshaphat"  (Ear.  Trav.  p.  4). 
In  the  time  of  Maundrell  the  "  tomb  of  Jehoshaphat " 
was,  what  it  still  is,  an  excavation,  with  an  archi- 
tectural front,  in  the  face  of  the  rock  behind  "  Ab- 
salom's tomb."  A  tolerable  view  of  this  is  given 
in  plate  33  of  Munk's  Palestine ;  and  a  photograph 
by  Salzmann,  with  a  description  in  the  Texte  (p. 
31)  to  the  same.  The  name  may,  as  already  ob- 
served, really  point  to  Jehoshaphat  himself,  though 
not  to  his  tonjh,  as  he  was  buried  like  the  other 
kings  in  the  city  of  David  (2  Chr.  xxi.  1).  {b.) 
One  of  the  gates  of  the  city  in  the  east  wall,  open- 
ing on  the  valley,  bore  the  same  name.  This  is 
plain  from  the  Citez  de  Jhei'usale/n,  where  the 
Porte  de  losnfas  is  said  to  have  been  a  "postern  " 
close  to  the  golden  gateway  {Portez  0ms),  and  to 
the  south  of  that  gate  (pars  devers  inidi ;  §  iv., 
near  the  end,  Kob.  ii.  559).  It  was  therefore  at  or 
near  the  small  walled-up  doorway,  to  which  M.  de 
Saulcy  has  restored  the  name  of  the  Puterne  de 
Josaphai,  and  which  is  but  a  few  feet  to  the  south 
:)f  the  golden  gateway.    However  this  may  be,  this 


JEHOSHEBA 


1287 


a  It  appears  in  the  Targum  on  Cant.  viii.  1. 

b  In  Sir  John  Maundeville  a  different  reason  is 
jiven  for  the  same.  "  Very  near  this  "  —  the  place 
where  Christ  wept  over  Jerusalem  —  "  is  the  stone  on 
ifaich  our  Lord  sat  when  He  preached ;  and  on  that 
lame  stone  shall  He  sit  on  the  day  of  doom,  right  as 
Be  said  himself."  Bernard  the  Wise,  in  the  8th  cen- 
tary,  speaks  of  the  church  of  St  I^on,  in  tLe  vallef 
'where  our  Lord  will  come  to  judgment"  (Early 
TVat.p.  28). 


*'  posteni  "  id  evidently  of  later  date  than  the  wak 
in  which  it  occurs,  as  some  of  the  enormous  stonea 
of  the  wall  have  been  cut  through  to  admit  it :  c  and 
in  so  far,  therefore,  it  is  a  witness  to  the  date  of  the 
tradition  being  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Herod, 
by  whom  this  wall  was  built.  It  is  probably  the 
"  little  gate'^  leading  doM-n  by  steps  to  the  valley," 
of  which  Arculf  speaks  (Early  Trav.).  Benjamin 
of  Tudela  (11G3)  also  mentions  the  gate  of  Jehosha- 
phat, but  without  any  nearer  indication  of  its  posi- 
tion than  that  it  led  to  the  valley  and  the  monu- 
ments (Asher,  i.  71).  (c.)  Lastly,  leading  to  this 
gate  was  a  street  called  the  street  of  Jehosbapbal 
(Citez  de  J.  §  vii.,  Kob.  ii.  561). 

The  name  would  seem  to  be  generally  confined 
by  travellers  to  the  upper  part  of  the  glen,  from 
about  the  "  Tomb  of  the  Virgin  "  to  the  southeast 
corner  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem.     [Tombs.] 

G. 

*  Furst  speaks  of  the  present  Valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat as  on  the  south  of  Jerusalem  (Handw.  \.  497) 
That  must  be  an  oversight.  He  thinks  that  the 
valley  was  so  named  from  a  victory  or  victories 
achieved  there  by  Jehoshaphat  over  heathen  ene- 
mies, but  that  the  name  was  not  actually  given  to 
the  place  till  after  the  time  of  Joel. 

The  correct  view,  no  doubt,  is  that  the  ? alley  to 
which  Joel  refers  is  not  one  to  be  sought  on  anT 
terrestrial  map,  of  one  period  of  Jerusalem's  history 
or  another,  but  is  a  name  formed  to  localize  an  ideal- 
ized scene.  It  is  an  instance  of  a  bold,  but  truth- 
ful figure,  to  set  forth  the  idea  that  God's  perse- 
cuted, suffering  people  have  always  in  Him  an 
Almighty  defender,  and  that  all  opposition  to  hia 
kingdom  and  his  senants  must  in  the  end  prove 
unavailing.  To  convey  this  teaching  the  more  im- 
pressively the  prophet  represents  Jehovah  as  ap- 
pointing a  time  and  a  place  for  meeting  his  enemies; 
they  are  commanded  to  assemble  all  their  forces, 
to  concentrate,  as  it  were,  both  their  enmity  and 
their  power  in  one  single  effort  of  resistance  to  hia 
purposes  and  will.  They  accept  the  challenge. 
Jehovah  meets  them  thus  united,  and  making  trial 
of  their  strength  against  his  omnipotence.  The 
conflict  then  follows.  The  irresistible  One  scatters 
the  adversaries  at  a  single  blow;  he  overwhelms 
their  hosts  with  confusion  and  nain  (iii.  2-17,  A. 
v.,  and  iv.  12-17,  Heb.).  The  prophet  calls  the 
scene  of  this  encounter  "  the  Valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat" (i.  e.  where  "  Jehovah  judges  " ),  on  account 
of  this  display  of  God's  power  and  justice,  and  the 
pledge  thus  given  to  his  people  of  the  final  issue 
of  all  their  labors  and  sufferings  for  his  name's 
sake.  With  the  same  import  Joel  interchanges 
this  expression  in  ver.  14  with  "  valley  of  decision," 

(\^^in),  i.  e.  of  a  case  decided,  judgment  de- 
clared. H. 

JEHOSHTEBA  (3?5tt?Sn^  [Jehwak  th4 
oath,  by  whom  one  swears]:  LXX.  'IcocajSee; 
Joseph.  "'laxra^eOTj),  daughter  of  Joram  king  of  Is- 
rael, and  wife  of  Jehoiada  the  high-priest  (2  K.  xi. 
2).     Her  name  in  the  Chronicles  is  given  Jeho- 


c  To  this  fiict  the  writer  can  testify  from  recen* 
observation.  It  is  evident  enough  in  Salzmann's  pho 
tograph,  though  not  in  De  Saulcy  s  sketch  {Atlas,  pi. 
24). 

d  Next  to  the  above  "  little  gat«,"  Ansulf  namei 
the  gate  "  Thecuitis."  uan  this  strange  name  contai* 
an  allusion  to  Thecoa,  the  valley  in  which  Jeluntba 
phat's  grea>  'tctory  was  gained  f 


1238  JEHOSHUA 

BHABEATH.  It  tlius  exactly  resembles  the  name  of 
the  only  two  other  wives  of  Jewish  priests  who  are 
known  to  us,  namely,  Elisiieba  (LXX.  and  N.  T. 
£\icrafieT,  whence  our  Elisa6e//0,  the  wife  of 
Aaron,  Ex.  vi.  23,  and  the  Avife  of  Zechariah,  Luke 
i.  7.  In  the  former  case  the  word  sisfnifies  "  Jeho- 
vah's oath;  "  in  the  second  "  God's  oath." 

As  she  is  called,  2  K.  xi.  2,  "  the  daughter  of 
Joram,  sister  of  Ahaziah,"  it  has  been  conjectured 
that  she  was  the  daughter,  not  of  Athaliah,  but  of 
Joram,  by  another  wife;  and  Josephus  {Ant.  ix.  7, 
§  1)  calls  her  'OxoC'a  d/xoTrdTpios  aSeXcp-f],  This 
may  be;  but  it  is  also  possible  that  the  omission 
of  Athaliah 's  name  may  have  been  occasioned  by 
the  detestation  in  which  it  was  held  —  in  the  same 
way  as  modern  commentators  have,  for  the  same 
reason,  eagerly  embraced  this  hypothesis.  That  it 
is  not  absolutely  needed  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  tolerated  under  the 
reigns  both  of  Joram  and  Athaliah  —  and  that  the 
name  of  Jehovah  was  incorporated  into  both  of 
their  names. 

She  is  the  only  recorded  instance  of  the  marriage 
of  a  jirincess  of  the  royal  house  with  a  high-priest. 
On  this  occasion  it  was  a  providential  circumstance 
(''for  she  was  llie  sister  of  Ahaziah,"  2  Chr.  xxi. 
11),  as  inducing  and  probably  enabling  her  to  rescue 
the  infant  Joash  from  the  massacre  of  his  brothers. 
By  hei,  he  and  his  nurse  were  concealed  in  tlie  pal- 
ace, and  afterwards  in  the  Temple  (2  K.  xi.  2,  3; 
2  (Jhr.  xxii.  11),  where  he  was  brought  up  prob- 
ably with  her  sons  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  11),  who  assisted 
at  his  coronation.  One  of  these  was  Zechariah, 
who  succeeded  her  husband  in  his  office,  and  was 
afterwards  murdered  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  20).    A.  P.  S. 

JEHOSH'UA  (VK^'in^  [Jehovah  a  helper] : 
'ItjctoDs:  Josue).  In  this  form  —  contracted  in 
the  Hebrew,  but  fuller  than  usual  in  the  A.  V.  — 
is  given  the  name  of  .Joshua  in  Num.  xiii.  16,  on 
the  occasion  of  its  bestowal  by  Moses.  The  addi- 
tion of  the  name  of  Jehovah  probably  marks  the 
recognition  by  Moses  of  the  important  part  taken 
in  the  affair  of  the  spies  by  him,  who  till  this  time 
had  been  Iloshea,  "help,"  but  was  henceforward 
to  be  Je-hoshua,  "help  of  Jehovah"  (Ewald,  ii. 
306).  Once  more  only  the  name  appears  in  its  full 
form  in  the  A.  V.  —  this  time  with  a  redundant 
letter  —  as  — 

JEHOSH'UAH  (the  Hebrew  is  as  above: 
'iTjcoue,  in  both  MSS. :  Josue),  in  the  genealogy 
of  Ephraim  (1  Chr.  vii.  27).  We  should  be  thank- 
ful to  the  translators  of  the  A.  V.  for  giving  the 
first  syllables  of  this  great  name  their  full  form,  if 
only  in  these  two  cases ;  though  why  in  these  only 
it  is  difficult  to  understand.  Nor  'is  it  easier  to 
gee  whence  they  got  the  final  h  in  the  latter  of  the 
two.  [The  final  h  is  not  found  in  the  original 
edition  of  the  A.  V.,  1611.  —  A.]  G. 

JEHO'VAH  Ci^ii^),  usually  with  the  vowel 

points  of  "^3*TSl ;  but  when  the  two  occur  together 

the   former   is   pointed  nil7.^,  that  is,  with  the 

rowels  of  D**rT  vS,  as  in  Obad.  i.  1,  Hab.  iii.  19 : 
■;he  I^XX.  generally  render  it  by  Kvpios,  the  Vul- 
gate by  Dominus ;  and  in  this  respect  they  have 
been  followed  by  the  A.  V.,  where  it  is  translated 
"The  Lord").  The  true  pronunciation  of  this 
name,  by  'vhich  God  was  known  to  the  Hebrews, 
hati  been  entirely  lost,  the  Jews  themselves  scrupu- 


JEHOVAH 

loue.ly  avoiding  every  mention  of  it,  and  suhrtito- 
ting  in  its  stead  one  or  other  of  the  words  witk 
whose  proi)er  vowel-points  it  may  happen  to  M 
written.  This  custom,  which  had  its  origin  ji 
reverence,  and  has  almost  degenerated  into  a  super- 
stition, was  foimded  upon  an  erroneous  rendering 
of  Lev.  xxiv.  16,  from  which  it  was  inferred  that  the 
mere  utterance  of  the  name  constituted  a  capital  of- 
fense. In  the  rabbinical  writings  it  is  distinguished 
by  various  euphemistic  expressions;  as  simply  "  the 
name,"  or  "the  name  of  four  letters"  (the  Greek 
tetragrammnUm) ;  "  the  great  and  terrible  name;  " 
"the  peculiar  name,"  i.  e.  appropriated  to  God 
alone;  "the  separate  name,"  i.  e.  either  the  name 
which  is  separated  or  removed  from  human  knowl- 
edge, or,  as  some  render,  "the  name  which  has 

been  interpreted  or  revealed "   (tn"^?!^!!  Dt^"*, 

shem  hammephorash).  The  Samaritans  followed 
the  same  custom,  and  in  reading  the  Pentateuch 

substituted   for   Jehovah    (S^*f*",    shema)    "the 

name,"  at  the  same  time  perpetuating  the  practice 
in  their  alphabetical  poems  and  later  writings 
(Geiger,  Urschrift,  etc.  p.  262).  According  to 
Jewish  tradition,  it  was  pronounced  but  once  a 
year  by  the  high-priest  on  the  day  of  Atonement 
when  he  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies;  but  on  this 
point  there  is  some  doubt,  Maimonides  {Mor.  Nth. 
i.  61)  asserting  that  the  use  of  the  word  was  con- 
fined to  the  blessings  of  the  priests,  and  restricted 
to  the  sanctuary,  without  limiting  it  still  further 
to  the  high-priest  alone.  On  the  same  authority 
we  learn  that  it  ceased  with  Simeon  the  Just  (  Yad 
Chnz.  c.  14,  §  10),  having  lasted  through  two  gen- 
erations, that  of  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue 
and  the  age  of  Shemed,  while  others  include  the 
generation  of  Zedekiah  among  those  who  possessed 
the  use  of  the  shem  hammephorash  (Midrash  on 
Ps.  xxxvi.  11,  quoted  by  Huxtorf  in  Reland's  Deais 
Exercit.).  liut  even  after  the  destruction  of  the 
second  temple  we  meet  with  instances  ot  individ- 
uals who  were  in  possession  of  the  mysterious  se- 
cret. A  certain  Bar  Kamzar  is  mentioned  in  the 
Mishna  (Yoma,  iii.  §  11)  who  was  able  to  WTite 
this  name  of  God ;  but  even  on  such  evidence  we 
may  conclude  that  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem 
the  true  pronunciation  almost  if  not  entirely  dis- 
appeared, the  probabiUty  being  that  it  had  been 
lost  long  before.  Josephus,  himself  a  priest,  con- 
fesses that  on  this  point  he  was  not  permitted  to 
speak  (Ant.  ii.  12,  §  4);  and  Philo  states  {de  Mi. 
Mos.  iii.  519)  that  for  those  alone  whose  ears  and 
tongue  were  purged  by  wisdom  was  it  lawful  to 
hear  or  utter  this  awful  name.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  no  reference  to  ancient  writers  can  \>e 
expected  to  throw  any  light  upon  the  question 
and  any  quotation  of  them  will  only  render  the 
darkness  in  which  it  is  involved  more  palpabl©. 
At  the  same  time  the  discussion,  though  barren  of 
actual  results,  may  on  other  accounts  be  interesting; 
and  as  it  is  one  in  which  great  names  are  ranged 
on  both  sides,  it  would  for  this  reason  alone  be  im- 
pertinent to  dismiss  it  with  a  cursory  notice.  Ir 
the  decade  of  dissertations  collected  by  Keland, 
Fuller,  Gataker,  and  Leusden  do  battle  for  the  pro- 
nunciation Jehovah,  against  such  formidable  antag- 
onists as  Drusius,  Amama,  Cappellus,  Buxtorf,  ar<I 
Altingius,  who,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  faiiij 
beat  their  opponents  out  of  the  field;  the  owj 
argument,  in  fact,  of  anv  -veight,  which  is  em 
ployed  by  the  advocates  of  the  pronunciation  of  tbi 


JEHOVAH 

iWMrd  as  it  is  written  bei'ig  that  derived  from  the 
form  in  which  it  appears  in  proper  names.,  such  as 
Jehoshaphat,  Jehoram,  etc.  Their  antagonists  make 
»  strong  point  of  the  fact  that,  as  has  been  noticed 
above,  two  different  sets  of  vowels  are  applied  to  the 
game  consonants  under  certain  circumstances.  To 
this  I^usden,  of  all  the  champions  on  h.s  side,  but 
feebly  replies.  'I"he  same  may  be  said  of  the  argu- 
ment derived  from  the  fact  that  the  letters  H  vD172, 

when  prefixed  to  mn"',  take,  not  the  vowels  which 
they  would  regularly  receive  were  the  present  punc- 
luation  true,  but  those  with  which  they  would  be 

written  if  ^3"TS,  a(^«a/,  were  the  reading;  and 
I  hat  the  letters  ordinarily  taking  da(jesh  lene  when 
following  nin''  would,  according  to  the  rules  of 
the  Hebrew  points,  be  written  without  dagesh, 
whereas  it  is  uniformly  inserted.  Whatever,  there- 
fore, be  the  tnie  pronunciation  of  the  word,  there 
can  be  little  doubt  that  it  is  not  Jehovah. 

In  Greek  writers  it  appears  under  the  several 
forms  of  'Iaa>  (L)iod.  Sic.  i.  94;  Irenaeus,  i.  4,  §  1), 
'Teuw  (Porphyry  in  Eusebius,  Prcep.  Kvan.  i.  9, 
§  21),  'laou  (Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  v.  p.  666),  and  in 
a  catena  to  the  Pentateuch  in  a  MS.  at  Turin  'la 
oue;  both  Theodoret  (QucbsL  15  in  Exod.)  and 
Epiphanius  {Hmr.  xx.)  give  'lafif,  the  former  dis- 
tinguishing it  ag  the  pronunciation  of  the  Samari- 
tans, while  'Aia  represented  that  of  the  Jews.  But 
even  if  these  writers  were  entitled  to  speak  with 
authority,  their  evidence  only  tends  to  show  in  how 
many  different  ways  the  four  letters  of  the  word 

nin^  could  be  represented  in  Greek  characters, 
and  throws  no  light  either  upon  its  real  pronuncia- 
tion or  its  punctuation.  In  like  manner  Jerome 
(on  Ps.  viii.),  who  acknowledges  that  the  Jews  con- 
Bidere<l  it  an  ineffiible  name,  at  the  same  time  says 
it  maybe  read  Jaho, — of  course,  supposing  the 
passage  in  question  to  be  genuine,  which  is  open  to 
doubt.  In  the  absence,  therefore,  of  anything  satis- 
factory from  these  sources,  there  is  plainly  left  a 
wide  field  for  conjecture.  What  has  been  done  in 
this  field  the  following  pages  will  show.  It  will  be 
better  perhaps  to  ascend  from  the  most  improbable 
hypotheses  to  those  which  carry  with  them  more 
show  of  reason,  and  thus  prepare  the  way  for  the 
considerations  which  will  follow. 

I.  Von  Hohlen,  at  once  most  skeptical  and  most 
credulous,  whose  hasty  conclusions  are  only  paral- 
leled by  the  rashness  of  his  assumptions,  unhesita- 
tingly asserts  that  beyond  all  doubt  the  word  Je- 
hovah is  not  Semitic  in  its  origin.  Pinning  his 
faith  upon  the  Aljraxas  gems,  in  which  he  finds  it 
in  the  form  .fao,  he  connects  it  with  the  Sanskrit 
devas,  (Zero,  the  Greek  AiSs,  and  Latin  Jovis  or 
Diovis.  Hut,  apart  from  the  consideration  that  his 
authority  is  at  least  questionable,  he  omits  to  ex- 
plain the  striking  phenomenon  that  the  older  form 
which  has  the  d  should  be  preserved  in  the  younger 
languages,  the  Greek  and  ancient  Latin,  while  not 
R  trace  of  it  appears  in  the  Hebrew.  It  would  be 
desiral)le  also  that,  before  a  philological  argument 
pf  this  nature  can  be  admitted,  the  relation  between 
he  Semitic  and  Indo-Germanic  languages  should 
ee  more  clearly  established.  In  the  absence  of  this, 
iny  inferences  which  may  be  drawn  from  apparent 
"Bsemblances  (the  resemblance  in  the  present  case 
lot  being  even  apparent)  will  lead  to  certain  error. 
Out   the   Hebrews   learned   the   word   from   the 


JEHOVAH 


1239 


Egyptians  is  a  theory  which  has  found  some  advo< 
cates.  The  foundations  for  this  theory  are  suffi- 
ciently slight.  As  has  been  mentioned  above, 
Diodorus  (i.  94)  gives  the  (ireek  from  'laco;  and 
from  this  it  has  been  inferred  that  'law  was  a  deity 
of  the  Egyptians,  whereas  nothing  can  be  clearei 
from  the  context  than  that  the  historian  is  speak- 
ing especially  of  the  God  of  the  Jews.  Again,  in 
jVIacrobius  {Sat.  i.  c.  18),  a  line  is  quoted  from  an 
oracular  response  of  Apollo  Clarius  — 

<Ppoi^eo  70V  ndvrmv  vnarov  6eov  efxixev   'lala, 

which  has  been  made  use  of  for  the  same  purpose. 
But  Jablonsky  (Panth.  jEff.  ii.  §  5)  has  proved 
incontestably  that  the  author  of  the  verses  from 
which  the  above  is  quoted,  was  one  of  the  Judaiz- 
ing  Gnostics,  who  were  in  the  habit  of  making  the 
names  'law  and  ^efiacaO  the  subjects  of  mystical 
speculations.  The  Ophites,  who  were  Egyptians, 
are  known  to  have  given  the  name  'Iac6  to  the 
Moon  (Neander,  Gnost.  252),  but  this,  as  Tholuck 
suggests,  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  in 
Coptic  the  IMoon  is  called  ioh  (  Ver7n.  Schinften,  i. 
385).  Movers  (Phon.  i.  540),  while  defending  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  of  INIacrobius,  connects 
'law,  which  denotes  the  Sun  or  Dionysus,  with  the 

root  nin,  so  that  it  signifies  "  the  life-giver." 
In  any  case,  the  fact  that  the  name  'law  is  found 
among  the  Greeks  and  Egyptians,  or  among  the 
Orientals  of  Further  Asia,  in  the  2d  or  3d  centurj', 
catmot  be  made  use  of  as  an  argument  that  the 
Hebrews  derived  their  knowledge  of  the  word  from 
any  one  of  these  nations.  On  the  contrary,  there 
can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the  process  in  reality 
was  reversed,  and  that  in  this  case  the  Hebrews 
were,  not  the  borrowers,  but  the  lenders.  We  have 
indisputable  evidence  that  it  existed  among  them, 
whatever  may  have  been  its  origin,  many  centuries 
before  it  is  found  in  other  records;  of  the  contrary 
we  have  no  evidence  whatever.  Of  the  singular 
manner  in  which  the  word  has  been  introduced 
into  other  languages,  we  have  a  remarkable  instance 
in  a  passage  quoted  by  M.  Kemusat,  from  one  of 
the  works  of  the  Chinese  philosopher  Lao-tseu,  who 
flourished,  according  to  Chinese  chronology,  abort 
the  6th  or  7th  century  b.  c,  and  held  the  opinions 
commonly  attributed  to  Pythagoras,  Plato,  and 
others  of  the  (ireeks.  This  passage  M.  Kemusat 
translates  as  follows:  "  Celui  que  vous  regardez 
et  que  vous  ne  voyez  pas,  se  nommey ;  celui  que 
vous  ^coutez  et  que  vous  n'entendez  pas,  se  nomme 
JJi ;  celui  que  votre  main  cherche  et  qu'elle  ne  peut 
pas  saisir,  se  nomme  Wei.  Ce  sont  trcis  etres 
qu'on  ne  peut  comprendre,  et  qui,  confondus,  n'en 
font  qu'un."  In  these  three  letters  J  H  V  Kemusat 
thinks  that  he  recognizes  the  name  Jehovah  of  the 
Hebrews,  which  might  have  been  learnt  by  the 
philosopher  himself  or  some  of  his  pupils  in  the 
course  of  his  travels;  or  it  might  have  been  brought 
into  China  by  some  exiled  Jews  or  Gnostics.  The 
Chinese  interpreter  of  the  passage  maintains  that 
these  mystical  letters  signify  "  the  void,"  so  that 
in  his  time  every  trace  of  the  origin  of  the  word 
had  in  all  probability  been  lost.  And  not  only  does 
it  appear,  though  perhaps  in  a  questionable  form, 
in  the  literature  of  the  Chinese.  In  a  letter  from 
the  missionary  Plaisant  to  the  Vicar  Apostolic 
Boucho,  dated  18th  Feb.  1847,  there  is  mention 
mauc  of  a  tradition  which  existed  among  a  tribe  in 
th(  jungles  of  Burmah,  that  the  divine  being  \ru 
caLid  Ji/t>u,  or  Knra-Jova,  and  that  the  peculiaritxei 


1240  JEHOVAH 

Vt  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  were  attrib- 
nted  to  him  (Reinke,  Btitrdfje,  iii.  65).  But  all 
this  is  very  vague  and  more  curious  than  convin- 
cing. The  inscription  in  front  of  the  temple  of  Isis 
at  Sais  quoted  by  Plutarch  {de  Is.  et  Os.  §  9),  "I 
am  all  that  hath  been,  and  that  is,  and  that  shall 
be,"  which  has  been  employed  as  an  argument  to 
prove  that  the  name  Jehovah  was  known  among 
the  Egyptians,  is  mentioned  neither  by  Herodotus, 
Diodorus,  nor  Strabo ;  and  Proclus,  who  does  allude 
to  it,  says  it  was  in  the  adytum  of  the  tem])le. 
But,  even  if  it  be  genuine,  its  authority  is  worth- 
less for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  adduced.  For, 
supposhig  that  Jehovah  is  the  name  to  which  such 
meaning  is  attached,  it  follows  rather  that  the 
Egyptians  borrowed  it  and  learned  its  significance 
from  the  Jews,  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  both 
.11  Egyptian  and  Hebrew  the  same  combination  of 
letters  conveyed  the  same  idea.  Without,  however, 
having  recourse  to  any  hypothesis  of  this  kind,  the 
peculiarity  of  the  inscription  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  the  place  which,  as  is  well  known,  Isis  holds  in 
the  Egyptian  mythology  as  the  universal  mother. 
The  advocates  of  the  Egyptian  origin  of  the  word 
have  shown  no  lack  of  ingenuity  in  summoning  to 
their  aid  authorities  the  most  unpromising.  A 
passage  from  a  treatise  on  interpretation  (vepl 
ep/xTji/e/as,  §  71),  written  by  one  Demetrius,  in 
which  it  is  said  that  the  Egyptians  hymned  their 
gods  by  means  of  the  seven  vowels,  has  been  tor- 
tured to  give  evidence  on  the  point.  Scaliger  was 
in  doubt  whether  it  referred  to  Serapis,  called  by 
Hesychius  "  Serapis  of  seven  letters "  (rh  kwra- 

ypd/iifjLaTou  SapotTTts),  or  to  the  exclamation  S^Tl 
nirT),  M  yehovdh,  "He  is  Jehovah."  Of  the 
latter  there  can  be  but  little  doubt.  Gesner  took 
the  seven  Greek  vowels,  and  arranging  them  in  the 
order  lEHflOTA,  found  therein  Jehovah.  But  he 
was  triumphantly  refuted  by  Didymus,  who  main- 
tained that  the  vowels  were  merely  used  for  musical 
notes,  and  in  this  very  probable  conjecture  he  is 
supported  by  the  Milesian  inscription  elucidated 
by  Barthelemy  and  others.  In  this  the  invocation 
»f  God  is  denoted  by  the  seven  vowels  five  times 
repeated  in  different  arrangements,  Ae-niovca, 
Erjtouwa,  Htouwoe,  lovaaerf,  Ouaiaerji'  each  gi-oup 
of  vowels  precedes  a  "  holy  "  (ayte),  and  the  whole 
concludes  with  the  following :  "  the  city  of  the 
Milesians  and  all  the  inhabitants  are  guarded  by 
archangels."  Miiller,  with  much  probability,  con- 
cludes that  the  seven  vowels  represented  the  seven 
notes  of  the  octave.  One  more  argument  for  the 
Egyptian  origin  of  Jehovah  remains  to  be  noticed. 
It  is  found  in  the  circumstance  that  Pharaoh 
changed  the  name  of  Eliakim  to  Jehoiakim  (2  K. 
xxiii.  3t),  which  it  is  asserted  is  not  in  accordance 
wiin  the  practice  of  conquerors  towards  the  con- 
quered, unless  the  Egyptian  king  imposed  upon  the 
king  of  Judah  the  name  of  one  of  his  own  gods. 
But  the  same  reasoning  would  prove  that  the  origin 
of  the  word  was  Babylonian,  for  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon changed  the  name  of  Mattaniah  to  Zedekiah 
[2  K.  xxiv.  17). 

But  many,  abandoning  as  untenable  the  theory 
>f  an  Egyptian  origin,  have  sought  to  trace  the 
Dame  among  the  Phoenicians  and  Canaanitish  tribes. 
"m  sui/port  of  this,  Hartmann  brings  forward  a 
passage  from  a  pretended  fragment  of  Sanchoniatho 
|uot^  by  Philo  Byblius,  a  writer  of  the  age  of 
Nwo.     But  it  la  now  generally  admitted  that  the 


JEHOVAH 

80 -called  fragments  of  Sanchoniatho,  the  aiicifflil 
Phoenician  chronicler,  are  most  impudent  forgeries 
concocted  by  Philo  Byblius  himself.  liesides,  the 
passage  to  which  Hailmann  refers  is  not  found  in 
Philo  Byblius,  but  is  quoted  from  Porphyry  by 
Eusebius  {Prcep.  Evan.  i.  9,  §  21),  and,  genuine  or 
not,  evidently  alludes  to  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews. 
It  18  there  stated  that  the  most  trustworthy  au- 
thority in  matters  connected  with  the  Jews  was 
Sanchoniatho  of  Beyrout,  who  received  his  informa- 
tion from  Hierombalos  {.lerubbaal)  the  priest  of 
the  god  'Iei»w.  From  the  occuiTence  of  Jehovah 
as  a  compound  in  the  proper  names  of  many  who 
were  not  Hebrews,  Hamaker  {Mine,  l^hmi.  p.  174, 
<fec.)  contends  that  it  must  have  l)een  known  among 
heathen  people.  But  such  knowledge,  if  it  existed, 
was  no  more  than  might  have  been  obtiiined  by 
their  necessary  contact  with  the  Hebrews.  Tlie 
names  of  \jvi(ih  the  Hittife,  of  Araunah  or  Aran/aA 
the  Jebiisite,  of  'Vohinh  the  Ammonite,  and  of  the 
Canaanitish  town  Bizjothjah,  may  be  all  explained 
without  having  recoui-se  to  Hamaker's  hypothesis. 
Of  as  little  value  is  his  appeal  to  1  K.  v.  7,  where 
we  find  the  name  Jehovah  in  the  mouth  of  Hiram, 
king  of  Tyre.  Apart  from  the  consideration  that 
Hiram  would  necessarily  be  acquainted  with  the 
name  as  that  of  the  Hebrews'  national  god,  its 
occurrence  is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  tenor  of 
Solomon's  message  (1  K.  v.  3-5).  Another  point 
on  which  Hamaker  relies  for  support  is  the  name 
'A/8Sa?os,  which  occurs  as  that  of  a  Tyrian  suffete 
in  Menander  (Joseph,  c.  Apian,  i.  21),  and  which 

he  identifies  with  Obadiah  (n^"Tn37).  But  both 
Fiirst  and  Hengstenberg  represent  it  in  Hebrew 
characters  by  "^IJ^^?  ^abdai^  which  even  Hamaker 
thinks  more  probable. 

II.  Such  are  the  principal  hypotheses  which  have 
been  constructed  in  order  to  account  for  a  non- 
Hebraic  origin  of  Jehovah.  To  attribute  much 
value  to  them  requires  a  large  share  of  faith.  It 
remains  now  to  examine  the  theories  on  the  opposite 
side ;  for  on  this  point  authorities  are  by  no  means 
agreed,  and  have  frequently  gone  to  the  contrary 
extreme.  S.  D.  Luzzatto  {Anhn.  in  Jes.  Vat.  in 
Rosenmuller's  Compend.  xxiv.)  advances  with  sin- 
gular  naivetd   the   extraordinary   statement    that 

Jehovah,  or  rather  mn"^  divested  of  points,  ia 

compounded  of  two  interjections,  m,  vdh,  of  pain, 

and  ^n**,  ydhti,  of  joy,  and  denotes  the  author  of 
good  and  evil.  Such  an  etymology,  from  one  who  is 
unquestionably  among  the  first  of  modem  Jewish 
scholars,  is  a  remarkable  phenomenon.  Ewald, 
referring  to  Gen.  xix.  24,  suggests  as  the  origin  of 

Jehovah,  the  Arab.  p^\^,  which  signifies  <' height, 

heaven ;  "  a  conjecture,  of  the  honor  of  which  no  3nc 
will  desire  to  rob  him.  But  most  have  taken  for 
the  basis  of  their  explanations,  and  the  different 
methods  of  punctuation  which  they  propose,  the 
passage  in  Ex.  iii.  14,  to  which  we  must  naturally 
look  for  a  solution  of  the  question,  ^^llen  Moses 
received  his  commission  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel, 
the  Almighty,  v;ho  appeared  in  the  burning  bush^ 
communicated  to  him  the  name  which  te  should 
give  as  the  credentials  of  his  mission :  *  And  GrO< 

said  unto  Moses,  I  am  that  I  am  ("I^*^^  ^vH^ 

n'^ilS,  ehyeh  dsher  ehyeh);  and  he  said,  Thur 


JEHOVAH 

t)ift|t  fliou  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  I  am 
a»2ih  sett  me  unto  you.*'  Thai  this  passage  is 
jnt«nded  tc  indicate  the  etymology  of  Jehovah,  as 
understood  by  the  Hebrews,  no  one  has  ventured 
to  doubt :  it  is  in  fact  the  key  to  the  whole  mysterr 
But,  though  it  certainly  supplies  the  etymo^gj, 
the  interpretation  must  be  determined  from  et.her 

considerations.  According  to  this  view  then,  mn^ 
must  be  the  3d  sing.  masc.  fut.  of  the  substantive 
verb  n^n,  the  older  form  of  which  was  mn, 
still  found  in  the  Chaldee  niil,  and  Syriac  l^^, 
a  fact  which  will  be  referred  to  hereafter  in  dis- 
cussing the  antiquity  of  the  name.  If  this  ety- 
mology be  correct,  and  there  seems  little  reason  to 
call  it  in  question,  one  step  towards  the  true  punc- 
tuation and  pronunciation  is  already  gahied.  Many 
learned  men,  and  among  them  Grotius,  Galatinus, 
Crusius,  and  Leusdeii,  in  an  age  when  such  fancies 
were  rife,  imagined  that,  reading  the  name  with 
ihe  vowel  points  usually  attached  to  it,  they  dis- 
covered an  indication  of  the  eternity  of  (iod  in  the 
fact  that  the  name  by  which  He  revealed  himself 
to  the  Hebrews  was  compounded  of  the  present 
participle,  and  the  future  and  preterite  tenses  of 
the  substantive  verb.  The  idea  may  have  been 
suggested  by  the  expression  in  Rev.  iv.  8  (6  -^u  Koi 
6  iiu  KoX  6  ipx^fJt-^vos),  and  received  apparent  con- 
firmation from  the  Targ.  Jon.  on  Deut.  xxxii.  39, 
and  Targ.  Jer.  on  Ex.  iii.  14.  These  passages, 
however,  throw  no  light  upon  the  composition  of 
the  name,  and  merely  assert  that  in  its  significance 
it  embraces  past,  present,  and  future.  But  having 
agreed  to  reject  the  present  punctuation,  it  is  use- 
less to  discuss  any  theories  which  may  be  based 
upon  it,  had  they  even  greater  probability  in  their 
favor  than  the  one  just  mentioned.  As  one  of  the 
forms  in  which  Jehovah  appears  in  Greek  characters 
is  'laaj,  it  has  been  proposed  by  Cappellus  to  punc- 
tuate it  mn^,  yahvoh^  which  is  clearly  contrary 
X)  the  analogy  of  H  7  verbs.  Gussetius  suggested 
n^n."!»  yeheveh,  or  n)n'',  yiliveh,  in  the  former 
of  which  he  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  Fiirst ; 
and  Mercer  and  Corn,  a  Lapide  read  it  H^^rj.^, 
yehveh :  but  on  all  these  suppositions  we  should 
have  ^.n*)  for  ^H*^  in  the  terminations  of  com- 
pound proper  names.  The  suffrages  of  others  are 
divided  between  H^HV  or  H^n^,  supposed  to  be 
represented  by  the  'Iaj8e  of  Epiphanius  above  men- 
tioned, and  nin^  or  n^n^,  which  Fiirst  holds 

to  be  the  'leuci  of  Porphyry,  or  the  'laow  of 
Clemens  Alexandi'inus.  Caspari  {Micha,  p.  5,  &c.) 
decides  in  favor  of  the  former  on  the  groimd  that 
this  form  only  would  give  rise  to  the  contraction 

^in"^  in  proper  names,  and  opposes  both  Fiirst's 
punctuation  n^Tl"^  or  H'ln.'^.,  as  well  as  that  of 
nin"]  or  rnrr^,  which  would  be  contracted  into 
in\  Gesenius  punctuates  the  word  Hin^,  from 
rhich,  or  from  n)n^,  are  derived  the  abbreviated 
tomi  "  ''j  yah,  used  in  poetry,  and  the  form  IH"^  = 
>n^=")n^  (so  '^n'^^  becomes  ^TV)  which  occurs 
It  Ui6  commencement  of  compound  proper  names 


JEHOVAH  1241 

(Hitzig,  Jes'tja,  p.  4).  Delitzsch  maintains  that. 
whichever  punctuation  be  adopted,  the  quiescent 

sheva  under  H  is  u\igrammatical,  and  ChatepL 
Pathach  is  the  proper  vowel.  He  therefore  writa 
it  mn^,  yahdvah,  to  which  he  says  the  'Ai'd 
of  Theodoret  corresponds;  the  last  vowel  being 
Kametz  instead  of  Segol,  according  to  the  analogy 

of  proper  names  derived  from  71  V  verbs  (e.  g 

•lia'',    ma*',   n^D'',    and   others).      Ic   his 

opinion  the  form  "  "^  is  not  an  abbreviation,  but 
a  concentration  of  the  Tetragranmiaton  ( Comm. 
iibei'  den  Psdlter,  Einl.).  There  remahis  to  b« 
noticed  the  suggestion  of  Gesenius  that  the  form 

^I'.n^  which  he  adopted,  might  be  the  Hiph.  fut. 
of  the  substantive  verb.  Of  the  same  opinion  was 
Reuss.    Others  again  would  make  it  Piel,  and  read 

nf)n\  Fiirst  {Ilandiv.  s.  v.)  mentions  some  other 
etymologies  which  affect  the  meaning  rather  than 
the  punctuation  of  the  name;  such,  for  instance,  as 

that  it  is  derived  from  a  root  mn,  '» to  over- 
throw," and  signifies  ''  the  destroyer  or  storm- 
sender;  "  or  that  it  denotes  "  the  light  or  heaven/' 

from  a  root  mn=nD'^,    "to    be  bright,"   oi 

"  the  life-giver,"  from  the  same  root  =  Hin,  "  to 

live."    We  have  therefore  to  decide  between  H^H,^ 

or  nin^,  and  accept  the  fonner,  i.  e.  Yahdvch. 
as  the  more  probable  punctuation,  continuing  at 
the  same  time  for  the  sake  of  convenience  to  adopt 
the  form  "  Jehovah  "  in  what  follows',  on  account 
of  its  familiarity  to  English  readers. 

III.  The  next  point  for  consideration  is  of  vastly 
more  importance:  what  is  the  meaning  of  Jehovah, 
and  what  does  it  express  of  the  being  and  nature 
of  God,  more  than  or  in  distinction  from  the  other 
names  applied  to  the  deity  in  the  0.  T.  ?  That 
there  was  some  distinction  in  these  different  appel- 
lations was  early  percei\ed,  and  various  explanations 
were  employed  to  account  for  it.  Tertullian  {adv. 
Hermog.  c.  3)  observed  that  God  was  not  called 
Lord  (Kvpios)  till  after  the  Creation,  and  in  conse- 
quence of  it ;  while  Augustine  found  in  it  an  indi  ■ 
cation  of  the  absolute  dependence  of  man  upon  God 
{de  Gen.  ad  Lit.  viii.  2).  Chrysostom  (Horn.  xiv. 
in  Gen.)  considered  the  two  names,  I^rd  and  God, 
as  equivalent,  and  the  alternate  use  of  them  arbi- 
trary. But  all  their  arguments  proceed  upon  the 
supposition  that  the  Kvpios  of  the  LX  X.  is  the  true 
rendering  of  the  original,  whereas  it  is  merely  the 

translation  of  "'^"TS,  ddCmdi^  whose  points  it  bears. 

With  regard  to  D^^H  7S,  elolnm,  the  other  chiri 
name  by  which  the  Deity  is  designated  in  the  O.  T., 
it  has  been  held  by  many,  and  the  opinion  does  not 
even  now  want  supporters,  that  in  the  plural  form 
of  the  word  was  shadowed  forth  the  plurality  of 
persons  in  the  godhead,  and  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity  was  inferred  therefrom.  Such,  according 
to  Peter  Lombard,  was  the  true  significance  of 
Elohim.  But  Calvin,  Mercer,  Drusius.  and  Bel- 
larmine  have  given  the  weight  of  their  authority 
against  an  explanation  so  fanciful  and  arbitrary. 
Among  fne  Jewish  writers  of  the  Middle  Ages  the 
question  much  more  nearly  approach  ad  its  solution. 
R.  Jehudi  Hallevi  (12.h  cent.),  the  author  of  the 


1242 


JEHOVAH 


book  Cozri,  founo  i..  the  usage  of  Elohim  a  protest 
Against  idolaters,  who  call  each   personified  power 

n"7^  ilodh,  and  all  collectively  Elohim.  He  in- 
terpreted it  as  the  most  general  name  of  the  Deity, 
distinguishing  Him  as  manifested  in  the  exhibition 
i)f  his  power,  without  reference  to  his  personality 
or  moral  qualities,  or  to  any  special  relation  which 
He  bears  to  man.  Jehovali,  on  the  contrary,  is  the 
revealed  and  known  God.  While  the  meaning  of 
the  former  could  bo  evolved  by  reasoning,  the  true 
significance  of  the  latter  could  only  be  apprehended 
"  by  that  proplietic  vision  by  which  a  man  is,  as  it 
were,  separated  and  withdrawn  from  his  own  kind, 
and  approaches  to  the  angelic,  and  another  spirit 
enters  into  him."  In  like  manner  JNIaimonides 
{Mor.  Neb.  i.  61,  Buxt.)  saw  in  Jehovah  the  name 
which  teaches  of  the  substance  of  the  Creator,  and 
Abarbanel  (quoted  by  Buxtorf,  ile  Nora.  Dei,  §  39) 
distinguishes  Jehovah,  as  denoting  God  according 
to  what  He  is  in  himself,  from  Elohim  which  con- 
veys the  idea  of  the  impression  made  by  his  power. 
In  the  opinion  of  Astruc,  a  Belgian  physician,  with 
whom  the  documentary  hypothesis  originated,  the 
alternate  use  of  the  two  names  was  arbitrary,  and 
determhied  by  no  essential  difference.  Hasse  {Knt- 
dtckun<jen)  considered  them  as  historical  names, 
and  Sack  {de  Usu  Norn.  Dei,  etc.)  regarded  Elohim 
as  a  vague  term  denoting  "  a  certain  infinite,  om- 
nipotent, incompi-ehensible  existence,  from  which 
things  finite  and  visible  have  derived  their  origin," 
while  to  God,  as  revealing  himself,  the  more  definite 
title  of  Jehovah  was  applied.  Ewald,  in  his  tract 
on  the  composition  of  Genesis  fwritten  when  he 
was  nineteen),  maintained  that  Elohim  denoted  the 
Deity  in  general,  and  is  the  conmion  or  lower 
name,  while  Jehovah  was  the  national  god  of  the 
Israelites.  But  in  order  to  carry  out  his  theory  he 
was  comi^elled  in  many  places  to  alter  the  text,  and 
was  afterwards  induced  to  modify  his  statements, 
which  were  opposed  by  Gramberg  and  Stalielin. 
Doubtless  Elohim  is  used  in  many  cases  of  the  gods 
of  tiie  heathen,  who  included  in  the  same  title  the 
God  of  the  Hebrews,  and  denoted  generally  the 
Deity  when  six)ken  of  as  a  supernatural  being,  and 
when  no  national  feeling  influenced  the  speaker. 
It  was  Elohim  who,  in  the  eyes  of  the  heathen, 
dehvered  the  Israelites  from  Egypt  (1  Sam.  iv.  8), 
and  the  Egyptian  lad  adjured  David  by  Elohim, 
rather  than  by  Jehovah,  of  whom  he  would  have  no 
knowledge  (1  Sam.  xxx.  15).  So  Ehud  announces 
to  the  Moabitish  king  a  message  from  Elohim 
(Judg.  iii.  20);  to  the  Syrians  the  Jehovah  of  the 
Hebrews  was  only  their  national  God,  one  of  the 
Elohim  (1  K.  XX.  23,  28),  and  in  the  mouth  of  a 
heathen  the  name  Jehovah  would  convey  no  more 
intelligible  meanhig  than  this.  It  is  to  be  observed 
ilso  that  when  a  Hebrew  speaks  with  a  heathen  he 
uses  the  more  general  term  Elohim.  Joseph,  in 
Addressing  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xli.  16),  and  David,  in 
»ppealing  to  the  king  of  Moab  to  protect  his  family 
'i  Sam.  xxii.  3),  designate  the  Deity  by  the  less 
Bpecific  title;  and  on  the  other  hand  the  same  rule 
la  generally  followed  when  the  heathen  are  the 
speakers,  as  in  the  case  of  Abimelech  (Gen.  xxi. 
23),  the  Hittites  (Gen.  xxiii.  6),  the  Midianite 
(Judg.  vii.  14),  and  Joseph  in  his  assumed  character 
as  an  Egyptian  (Gen.  xlii.  18).  But,  although  this 
distinction  between  Elohim,  as  the  general  appella- 
tion of  Deity,  and  Jehovah,  the  national  God  of 
the  Israelities,  contains  some  superficial  truth,  the 
iWil  nature  of  their  difference  must  be  sought  for 


JEHOVAH 

far  deeper,  and  as  a  foundation  for  the  arguniflnV 
which  will  be  adduced  recourse  must  again  be  h»<! 
to  etymology. 

IV.  With  regard  te  the  derivation  of  ^TT'bs^ 

eloJdm,  the  pi.  of  HlbM,  etymologists  are  divided 

in  their  ophiions ;  some  connecting  it  with  vS,  SI, 

and  the  unused  root    /-IS,  ul,   "  to  be  strong," 

while  others  refer  it  to  the  Araljic  iul,  ali/ia,  "  to 

be  astonished,"  and  hence  xJ],  alaha,  "to  worship, 
adore,"  Elohim  thus  denoting  the  Supreme  Being 
who  was  worthy  of  all  worship  and  adoration,  the 
dread  and  awful  One.  But  Flirst,  with  much 
greater  probability,  takes  the  noun  in  this  case  as 
the  primitive  from  which  is  derived  the  idea  of 
worship  contained  in  the  verb,  and  gives  as  the 

true  root  nbs=  ^^W,  "  to  be  strong."  Delitzsdi 
would  prefer  a  root,  T-  ^^^  =  n7S=>1S  {Symb. 
ad  Ps(dm.  illustr.  p.  29).  From  whatever  root, 
however,  the  word  may  be  derived,  most  are  of 
opinion  that  the  primary  idea  contained  hi  it  is 
that  of  strength,  power ;  so  that  Elohim  is  the 
proper  appellation  of  the  Deity,  as  manifested  in 
his  creative  and  universally  sustaining  agency,  and 
in  the  general  divine  guidance  and  goverimient  of 
the  world.  Hengstenberg,  who  adheres  to  the 
derivation  above  mentioned  from  the  Arab.,  aliha 
and  alalia,  deduces  from  this  etymology  his  theory 
that  Elohim  indicates  a  lower,  and  Jehovah  a 
higher  stage  of  the  knowledge  of  (iod,  on  the 
ground  that  "  the  I'eeUng  of  fear  is  the  lowest  which 
can  exist  in  reference  to  God,  and  merely  in  respect 
of  this  feeUng  is  God  marked  by  this  designation." 
But  the  same  inference  might  also  be  drawn  on 
the  supposition  that  the  idea  of  simple  power  or 
strength  is  the  most  prominent  in  the  word;  and 
it  is  more  natural  that  the  Divine  Being  should  be 
conceived  of  as  strong  before  He  became  the  object 
of  fear  and  adoration.  To  this  view  Gesenius  ac- 
cedes, when  he  says  that  the  notion  of  worshipping 
and  fearing  is  rather  derived  from  the  power  of  the 
Deity  which  is  expressed  in  his  name.  The  ques- 
tion now  arises.  What  is  the  meaning  to  be  attached 
to  the  plural  form  of  the  word?  As  has  been 
ah-eady  mentioned,  some  have  discovered  therein 
the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  while  others  maintain 
that  it  points  to  polytheism.  The  Rabbis  generally 
explain  it  as  the  plural  of  majesty;  Kabbi  Bechai, 
as  signifying  the  lord  of  all  powers.  Abarbanel  and 
Kimchi  consider  it  a  title  of  honor,  in  accordance 
with  the  Hebrew  idiom,  of  which  examples  will  be 
found  in  Is.  Uv.  5,  Job  xxxv.  10,  Gen.  xxxix.  20. 

xlii.  30.  In  Prov.  ix.  1,  the  plural  nS^Sn, 
chocnioth,  "  wisdoms,"  is  used  for  wisdom  in  the 
abstract,  as  including  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  the 
plural  form  Elohim,  instead  of  pointing  to  poly- 
theism, is  appHed  to  God  as  comprehending  in 
himself  the  fullness  of  all  power,  and  uniting  in  s 
perfect  degree  all  that  which  the  name  signifiea 
and  all  the  attributes  which  the  heathen  ascribe  U 
the  several  divinities  of  their  pantheon.     The  siu 

gular  '^T'l^S,  elonh,  with  kv!  exceptions  (Neh  a. 
17;  2  Chr.  xxxii.  15\  occurs  only  5 u  poetry.     A 


JEHOVAH 

irfll  be  found,  upon  examinatioji  of  the  pa-isajjes  In 
which  Elohim  occurs,  that  it  is  chiefly  in  places 
where  God  is  exhibited  only  in  the  plenitude  of  his 
power,  and  where  no  especial  reference  is  made  to 
his  unity,  personahty,  or  hoUiiess,  or  to  his  relation 
jo  Israel  and  the  theocracy.  (See  Ps.  xvi.  1,  xix. 
1,  7,  8.)  Ilengstenberg's  etymology  of  the  word 
is  disputed  by  Delitzsch  {Symb.  ad  Pss.  illustr.  p. 
29  n.)>  who  refers  it,  as  has  been  mentioned  above, 
to  a  root  indicating  power  or  might,  and  sees  in  it 
an  expression  not  of  what  men  think  of  God,  but 
of  what  He  is  in  Himself,  in  so  far  as  He  has  life 
jmnipotent  in  Himself,  and  according  as  He  is  the 
beginning  and  end  of  all  Ufe.  For  the  true  ex- 
planation of  the  name  he  refers  to  the  revelation 
of  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity.  But  it  is  at  least 
extremely  doubtful  whether  to  the  ancient  Israelites 
any  idea  of  this  nature  was  conveyed  by  Elohim ; 
and  in  making  use  of  the  more  advanced  knowledge 
supplied  by  the  New  Testament,  there  is  some 
danger  of  discovering  more  meaning  and  a  more 
subtle  significance  than  was  ever  intended  to  be 
expressed. 

V.  But  while  Elohim  exhibits  God  displayed  in 
his  power  as  the  creator  and  governor  of  the  phys- 
ical universe,  the  name  .Jehovah  designates  his 
nature  as  He  stands  in  relation  to  man,  as  the  only, 
almighty,  true,  personal,  holy  Being,  a  spirit,  and 
"the  father  of  spirits"  (Num.  xvi.  22;  comp. 
John  iv.  24),  who  revealed  himself  to  his  people, 
made  a  covenant  with  them,  and  became  their  law- 
giver, and  to  whom  all  honor  and  worship  are  due. 
If  the  etymology  above  given  be  accepted,  and  the 
name  be  derived  from  the  future  tense  of  the  sub- 
stantive verb,  it  would  denote,  in  accordance  with 
the  general  analogy  of  proper  names  of  a  similar 
form,  "  He  that  is,''  "  the  Being,"  whose  chief 
attribute  is  eternal  existence.  Jehovah  is  repre- 
sented as  eternal  (Gen.  xxi.  33;  comp.  1  Tim.  vi. 
16),  unchangeable  (Ex.  iii.  14;  Mai.  iii.  6),  the  only 
being  (Josh.  xxii.  22;  Ps.  1.  1),  creator  and  lord 
of  all  things  (Ex.  xx.  11;  comp.  Num.  xvi.  22 
with  xxvii.  16;  Is.  xlii.  5).  It  is  Jehovah  who 
made  the  covenant  with  his  people  (Gen.  xv.  18; 
Num.  X.  33,  &c.).  In  this  connection  Elohim  occurs 
but  once  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  10),  and  even  with  the  article, 
ha-Elohira,  which  expresses  more  personality  than 
Elohim  alone,  is  found  but  seldom  (Judg.  xx.  27; 
1  Sam.  iv.  4).  The  Israelites  were  enjoined  to 
observe  the  commandments  of  Jehovah  (Lev.  iv.  27, 
&c.),  to  keep  his  law,  and  to  worship  Him  alone. 
Hence  the  phrase  "to  serve  Jehovah  "  (Ex.  x.  7, 
8,  &c.)  is  applied  to  denote  true  worship,  whereas 
"to  serve  ha-Elohim  "  is  used  but  once  in  this 
sense  (Ex.  iii.  12),  and  Elohim  occurs  in  the  same 
association  only  when  the  worship  of  idols  is  spoken 
of  (Deut.  iv.  28;  Judg.  iii.  6).  As  Jehovah,  the 
only  true  God,  is  the  only  object  of  true  worship, 
t<i  Him  belong  the  sabbaths  and  festivals,  and  all 
the  ordinances  connected  with  the  religious  services 
of  the  Israelites  (Ex.  x.  9,  xii.  11;  Lev.  xxiii.  2). 
His  are  the  altars  on  which  offerings  are  made  to 
the  true  God;  the  priests  and  ministers  are  his 
(1  Sam.  ii.  11,  xiv.  3),  and  so  exclusively  that  a 
priest  of  Elohim  is  always  associated  with  idolatrous 
worship.  To  Jehovah  alone  are  offerings  made 
(Ex.  viii.  8),  and  if  Elohim  is  ever  used  in  this 
flonnection,  it  is  always  qualified  by  pronominal 
juffixen,  or  some  word  in  construction  with  it,  so  as 
10  indicate  the  true  God ;  in  all  other  cases  it  refers 
•ja  idols  (Ex.  xxii.  20,  xxxiv.  15).  It  follows  nat- 
mlly  that  the  Temple  and  Tabernacle  are  Jehovah's, 


JEHOVAH 


1243 


and  if  they  aie  attributed  to  Elohim,  the  latter  is 
in  some  manner  restricted  as  before.  The  prophets 
are  the  prophets  of  Jehovah,  and  their  announce* 
n)ents  proceed  from  him,  seldom  from  Elohim. 
The  Israelites  are  the  people  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxxvi. 
20),  the  congregation  of  Jehovah  (Num.  xvi.  3), 
as  the  Moabites  are  the  people  of  Chemosh  (Jer. 
xlviii.  46).  Their  king  is  the  anouited  of  Jehovah; 
their  wars  are  the  wars  of  Jehovah  (Ex.  xiv.  25; 
1  Sam.  xviii.  17);  their  enemies  are  the  enemies 
of  Jehovah  (2  Sam.  xii.  14);  it  is  the  hand  of 
Jehovah  that  deUvers  them  up  to  their  foes  (Judg. 
vi.  1,  xiii.  1,  &c.),  and  he  it  is  who  raises  up  for 
them  deliverers  and  judges,  and  on  whom  they  call 
in  times  of  peril  (Judg.  ii.  18,  iii.  9,  15;  Josh, 
xxiv.  7;  1  Sam.  xvii.  37).  In  fine,  Jehovah  is  the 
theocratic  king  of  his  people  (Judg.  viii.  23),  by 
him  their  kings  reign  and  achieve  success  against 
the  national  enemies  (1  Sam.  xi.  13,  xiv.  23). 
Their  heroes  are  inspired  by  his  Spirit  (Judg.  iii. 
10,  vi.  34),  and  their  hand  steeled  against  their 
foes  (2  Sam.  vii.  23);  the  watchword  of  Gideon 
was  "  The  Sword  of  Jehovah,  and  of  Gideon !  "  " 
(Judg.  vii.  20).  The  day  on  which  God  executes 
judgment  on  the  wicked  is  the  day  of  Jehovah  (Is. 
ii.  12,  xxxiv.  8;  comp.  Rev.  xvi.  14).  As  the 
Israelites  were  in  a  remarkable  maimer  distin- 
guished as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  who  became  their 
lawgiver  and  supreme  ruler,  it  is  not  strange  that 
He  should  be  put  in  strong  contrast  with  Chemosh 
(Judg.  xi.  24),  Ashtaroth  (Judg.  x.  6),  and  the 
Baahm  (Judg.  iii.  7),  the  national  deities  of  the 
surrounding  nations,  and  thus  be  preeminently  dis- 
tinguished as  the  tutelary  deity  of  the  Hebrews  in 
one  aspect  of  his  character.  Such  and  no  more 
was  He  to  the  heathen  (1  K.  xx.  23);  but  all  this 
and  much  more  to  the  Israelites,  to  whom  Jehovah 
was  a  distinct  personal  sul)sistence,  —  the  living 
God,  who  reveals  himself  to  man  by  word  and  deed, 
helps,  guides,  saves,  and  delivers,  and  is  to  the  Old 
what  Christ  is  to  the  New  Testament.  Jehovah 
was  no  abstract  name,  but  thoroughly  practical, 
and  stood  in  intimate  connection  with  the  religious 
life  of  the  people.  While  Elohim  represents  God 
only  in  his  most  outward  relation  to  man,  and  dw- 
tiiiguishes  him  as  recognized  in  his  omnipotence, 
Jehovah-  describes  him  according  to  his  innermost 
being.  In  Jehovah  the  moral  attributes  are  pre- 
sented as  constituting  the  essence  of  his  nature, 
whereas  in  Elohim  there  is  no  reference  to  person- 
ality or  moral  character.  The  relation  of  Elohim 
to  Jehovah  has  been  variously  explained.  The  for- 
mer, in  Hengstenberg's  opinion,  indicates  a  lower 
and  the  latter  a  higher,  stage  of  consciousness  of 
God;  Elohim  becoming  Jehovah  by  an  historical 
process,  and  to  show  how  he  became  so  being  th« 
main  object  of  the  sacred  history.  Kurtz  considers 
the  two  names  as  related  to  each  other  as  powef 
and  evolution;  Elohim  the  God  of  the  begi)miug, 
Jehovah  of  the  development;  Elohim  the  creator, 
Jehovah  the  mediator.  Elohim  is  God  of  the  be- 
ginning and  end.  the  creator  and  the  judge ;  Jeho- 
vah the  God  of  the  middle,  of  the  development 
which  lies  between  the  beginning  and  end  {Die. 
Einheit  der  Gen.).  That  .Jehovah  is  identical  witk 
Elohim,  and  not  a  separate  being,  is  indicated  b^ 
the  joint  use  of  the  names  Jehovah-Elohim. 

\  I.  The  antiquity  of  the  name  Jehovah  among 


a  *  «  For  Jehovah  and  for  Gideon  "  is  the  strii ) 
trauslation.     The  A.  V  interpolates  "  the  aworl  of.'' 


1244  JEHOVAH 

the  Hebrews  has  formed  the  subject  of  much  dis- 
BUBsion.  That  it  was  not  known  before  the  age 
of  Moses  has  been  inferred  from  Ex.  vi.  3;  while 
Von  Bohlen  assigns  to  it  a  much  more  recent  date, 
and  contends  that  we  have  "  no  conclusive  proof  of 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  anterior  to  the  ancient 
hymns  of  David  "  (Int.  to  Gen.  i.  150,  Eng.  tr.}. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  should  be  incUned  to 
infer  from  the  etymology  of  the  word  that  it  orig- 
inated in  an  age  long  prior  to  that  of  Moses,  in 

whose  time  the  root  TT]"!!  =  H'^n  was  already 
antiquated.  From  the  Aramaic  form  in  which  it 
appeal's  (corap.  Chald.  mn,  Syr.  /OOT),  Jahn 
refers  to  the  earliest  times  of  Abraham  for  its  date, 
and  to  Mesopotamia  or  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  for  its 
birthplace.  Its  usage  in  Genesis  catmot  be  ex- 
plained, as  Le  Clerc  suggests,  by  ssupposing  it  to  be 
employed  by  anticipation,  for  it  is  mtroduced  where 
the  persons  to  whom  the  history  relates  are  speak- 
ing, and  not  only  where  the  narrator  adopts  terms 
familiar  to  himself;  and  the  same  difficulty  remains 
whatever  hypothesis  be  assumed  with  regard  to  the 
original  documents  which  formed  the  basis  of  the 
history.  At  tlie  same  time  it  is  distinctly  stated 
in  Ex.  vi.  3,  that  to  the  patriarchs  God  was  not 
known  by  the  name  Jehovah.  If,  therefore,  this 
passage  has  reference  to  the  first  revelation  of  Jeho- 
vah simply  as  a  name  and  title  of  God,  there  is 
clearly  a  discrepancy  which  requires  to  be  explained. 
In  renewing  his  promise  of  deliverance  from  Egypt, 
"  God  spake  unto  Moses  and  said  unto  him,  I  am 
Jehovah;  and  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto 
Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  (the  name  of )  God  Al- 
mighty {El  Shaddai,  "^"Itt?  vSi),  but  by  my  name 
Jehovah  was  I  not  known  to  them."  It  follows 
then  that,  if  the  reference  were  merely  to  the  name 
as  a  name,  the  passage  in  question  would  prove 
equally  that  before  this  time  Elohim  was  unknown 
as  an  appellation  of  the  Deity,  and  God  would  ap- 
pear uniformly  as  El  Shaddai  in  the  patriarchal 
history.  But  although  it  was  held  by  Theodoret 
(  QucetiL  XV.  in  Ex. )  and  many  of  the  Fathers,  who 
have  been  followed  by  a  long  list  of  moderns,  that 
the  name  was  first  made  known  by  God  to  Moses, 
and  then  introduced  by  him  among  the  Israelites, 
the  contrary  was  maintained  by  Cajetan,  Lyranus, 
Calvin,  Rosenmiiller,  Hengstenberg,  and  others, 
who  deny  that  the  passage  in  Ex.  vi.  alludes  to  the 
introduction  of  the  name.  Calvin  saw  at  once  that 
the  knowledge  there  spoken  of  could  not  refer  to 
the  syllables  and  letters,  but  to  the  recognition  of 
God's  glory  and  majesty.  It  was  not  the  name, 
but  the  true  depth  of  its  significance  which  was 
unknown  to  and  uncomprehended  by  the  patriarchs. 
They  had  known  God  as  the  omnipotent.  El  S/khI- 
dai  (Gren.  xvii.  1,  xxviii.  3),  the  ruler  of  the  phys- 
ical universe^  and  of  man  as  one  of  his  creatures; 
as  a  God  eternal,  immutable,  and  true  to  his  prom- 
ises he  was  yet  to  be  revealed.  In  the  character 
expressed  by  the  name  Jehovah  he  had  not  hitherto 
been  fully  known;  his  true  attributes  had  not  been 
recognized  (comp.  Jarchi  on  Ex.  vi.  3)  in  his  work- 
ing and  acts  for  Israel.  Aben  Ezra  explained  the 
occurrence  of  the  name  in  Genesis  as  simply  indi- 
cating the  knowledge  of  it  as  a  proper  name,  not 
«5  a  qualificative  expressmg  the  attributes  and  qual- 

ties  of  God.  Referring  to  other  passages  in  which 
•V  phiase  "the  name  of  God"  occurs,  it  is  clear 

hat  something  more  is  intended  by  it  than  a  mere 
appellation,  and  that  the  proclamation  of  the  name 


JEHOVAH 

of  God  is  a  revelation  of  his  moral  attributes,  and 
of  his  true  character  as  Jehovah  (Ex.  xxdii.  19, 
xxxiv.  6,  7)  the  God  of  the  covenant.  Maimonidet 
(J/or.  Neb.  i.  64,  ed.  Buxtorf )  explains  the  name 
of  God  as  signifying  his  essence  and  his  truth,  and 
Olshausen  (on  Matt,  xviii.  20)  interprets  "name" 
iouofia)  as  denoting  "  personality  and  essential 
being,  and  that  not  as  it  is  incomprehensible  or 
unknown,  but  in  its  manifestation."  The  name 
of  a  thing  represents  the  thing  itself,  so  far  as  it 
can  be  expressed  in  words.  That  Jehovah  was  not 
a  new  name  HJivernick  concludes  from  Ex.  iii.  14, 
where  "  the  name  of  God  Jehovah  is  evidently  pre- 
supposed as  already  in  use,  and  is  only  explained, 
interpreted,  and  applied.  ...  It  is  certainly  not  a 
new  name  that  is  introduced ;  on  the  contrary.,  the 
nij.rji;?  ~ltrb^  i^)p)^.  (I  am  that  I  am)  would  be 
unintelligible,  if  the'  name  itself  were  not  presup- 
posed as  already  known.  The  old  name  of  antiq- 
uity, whose  precious  significance  had  been  forgot- 
ten and  neglected  by  the  children  of  Israel,  here 
as  it  were  rises  again  to  life,  and  is  again  brought 
home  to  the  consciousness  of  the  people"  {Introd. 
to  the  Pent.  p.  61).  The  same  passage  supplies  an 
argument  to  prove  that  by  "  name  "  we  are  not  to 
understand  merely  letters  and  syllables,  for  Jehovah 
appears  at  first  in  another  form,  ehyeh  (rf^nS). 
The  correct  collective  view  of  I'k.  vi.  3,  Hengsten- 
berg conceives  to  be  the  following  —  "  Hitherto 
that  Being,  who  in  one  aspect  was  Jehovah,  in  an- 
other had  always  been  Elohim.  The  great  crisis 
now  drew  nigh  in  which  Jehovah  Elohim  would  be 
changed  into  Jehovah.  In  prospect  of  this  event 
God  solemnly  announced  himself  as  Jehovah." 

Great  stress  has  been  laid,  by  those  who  deny 
the  antiquity  of  the  name  Jehovah,  upon  the  fact 
that  proper  names  compounded  with  it  occur  but 
seldom  before  the  age  of  Samuel  and  David.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that,  after  the  revival  of  the  true 
faith  among  the  Israehtes,  proper  names  so  com- 
pounded did  become  more  frequent,  but  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Moses  any  such 
names  existed,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  the 
name  Jehovah  was  not  entirely  unknown.  Among 
those  which  have  been  quoted  for  this  purpose  are 
Jochebed  the  mother  of  Closes,  and  daughter  of 
Levi,  and  Moriah,  the  mountain  on  which  Aliraham 
was  commanded  to  offer  up  Isaac.  Against  the 
former  it  is  urged  that  Moses  might  have  changed 
her  name  to  Jochebed  after  the  name  Jehovah  had 
been  communicated  by  God ;  but  this  is  very  im- 
probable, as  he  was  at  this  time  eighty  years  old, 
and  his  mother  in  all  probability  dead.  If  this 
only  be  admitted  as  a  genuine  instance  of  a  name 
compounded  with  Jehovah,  it  takes  us  at  once  back 
into  the  patriarchal  age,  ar.d  proves  that  a  word 
which  was  employed  in  forming  the  projjor  name 
of  Jacob's  grand-daughter  could  not  have  been  un- 
known to  that  patriarch  himself.    The  name  Moriah 

(n^n"l^)  is  of  more  importance,  for  in  one  passage 
in  which  it  occurs  it  is  accompanied  by  an  ety- 
mology intended  to  indicate  what  was  then  under- 
stood by  it  (2  Chr.  iii.  1).     Hengstenberg  regardi 

it  as  a  compound   of   HMH^,   the  Hoph.  Part 

of  nSn,  and  •^"',  the  abbreviated  form  of  TTirT^  • 
80  that,  according  to  this  etymology,  it  would  sig. 
nify  "shown  by  Jehovah."    Gesenius,  adopting  thi 

meaning  of  HST  in  Gren.  x  tii.  8,  renders  it  '  cb* 


JEHOVAH 

len  ly  Jehovah,"  but  suggests  at  the  same  time 
whfit  h«J  considei-3  a  more  probable  derivation,  ac- 
jording  to  which  Jehovah  does  not  form  a  part  of 
the  compound  word.  But  there  is  reason  to  believe 
from  various  allusions  in  Gen.  xxii.  that  the  former 
was  regarded  as  the  true  etymology. 

Having  thus  considered  the  origin,  significance, 
find  antiquity  of  the  name  Jehovah,  the  reader  will 
1)6  in  a  position  to  judge  how  much  of  truth  there 
is  in  the  assertion  of  Schwind  (quoted  by  Reinke, 
Beilr.  iii.  135,  n.  10)  that  the  terms  Klohiin,  Jdio- 
vah  Ehhim,  and  then  Jehovah  alone  applied  to 
(iod,  show  "  to  the  philosophic  inquirer  the  progress 
of  the  human  mind  from  a  plurahty  of  gods  to  a 
superior  god,  and  from  this  to  a  single  Almighty 
Creator  and  ruler  of  the  world." 

The  principal  authorities  which  have  been  made 
use  of  in  this  article  are  Hengstenberg,  On  the 
Autheniicity  of  the  Pentateuch.,  i.  213-307,  Eng. 
trans. ;  Reinke,.  Phil,  histor.  Abhandlung  iiber  den 
Gottesnamen  Jehova,  Beitrdge.,  vol.  iii. ;  Tholuck, 
Vermtschte  Schriften,  th.  i.  377-405;  Kurtz,  Die 
Einheit  der  Genesis  xliii.-liii. ;  Keil,  Ueber  die 
Gottesnamen  im  Pentateiiche,  in  Rudelbach  and 
Guericke's  Zeitschrift ;  Ewald,  Die  Composition 
der  Genesis;  Gesenius,  Thesaurus:  Bunsen,  Bibel- 
werk,  and  Reland,  Decas  exerduitionum  philo- 
hgicarum  de  vera  pronuntiatione  nominis  Jehova, 
besides  those  already  quoted.  W.  A.  W. 

*  In  regard  to  the  use  of  Tl'^Tl*^  in  the  0.  T., 

especially  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Psalms,  con- 
sidered as  a  mark  of  antiquity  and  authorship,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  the  articles  on  those  books. 
The  article  by  Dr.  Tholuck  (see  above)  first  pub- 
lished in  his  Litternrischer  Anzeiyer  (1832,  May, 
ff.),  was  translated  by  Dr.  Robinson  in  the  Bibl.  Re- 
pository., iv.  89-108.  It  examines  "  the  hypoth- 
esis of  the  Egyptian  and  Indian  origin  of  the  name 
Jehovah,"  and  shows  that  it  has  no  proper  founda- 
tion. It  is  held  that  "  the  true  derivation  of  the 
word   is  that  which  the   earliest  Hebrew  records 

present,  namely,  from  the  verb  H''  "'Z'     Prof.  E. 

Ballantine  discusses  the  significancy  of  the  name  in 
the  same  periodical  (iii.  730-744),  under  the  head 
of  "  Interpretation  of  Ex.  vi.  2,  3."  Of  the  eleven 
diflferent  explanations  which  he  reviews,  he  adopts 
the  one  which  supposes  Jehovah  "  to  imply  simply 
real  existence,  that  which  /.s,  as  distinguished  from 
that  which  is  not."  Hence,  when  it  is  said  that  God 
appeared  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  as  El  Shad- 
dai  (the  Almighty),  but  was  not  known  to  them  as 
Jehovah,  it  is  "  a  formal  declaration  by  God  him- 
self of  the  commencement  of  a  new  dispensation  of 
religion  and  providence,  the  grand  design  of  which 
was  to  make  known  God  as  Jehovah,  the  only 
true  and  hving  God,"  in  opposition  to  idols  and  ail 
other  false  gcds.  It  is  not  meant  that  the  name 
itself  of  Jehovah  was  unknown  to  the  patriarclis; 
but  that  the  object  of  God's  dealing  with  them  was 
diflferent  from  that  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation, 
namely,  to  vindicate   the   truth   concerning   Him 

(expressed  by  HirT)),  that  He  alone  is  the  living 

God.     Dr.  Wordsworth's  view  of  the  introductin 


JEHOVAH  JIREH 


1215 


a  •It  is  justly  urged  that  a  more  exact  translation 
»f  the  Hebrew  (Ex.  vi.  3)  guides  us  more  directly  t., 
«&i^ sense  than  does  that  of  the  A.  V. :  "I  appeared  to 
ibtnhaCj  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob  in  El-Shaddai  "  {i.  e. 
in  mj  ;b3inw3ter  as  God  Almighty) ;  "  and  my  nanw> 


of  the  name  is  very  similar  to  this.  Tliere  is  no* 
a  contrast  in  the  passage  (Ex.  vi.  2,  3)  betweei 
the  two  names  (Shaddai  and  Jehovah);  but  a  com- 
parison of  attributes,  and  of  the  degrees  of  clearness 
with  which  they  were  revealed.  Hence  the  asser 
tion  is  not  that  "  the  name  Jehovah  was  not  known 
before,  but  that  its  full  meaning  had  not  bt  «  made 
known"  {Holy  Bible,  with  Notes,  ii.  216 ).« 

The  more  common  view  (stated  in  the  preceding 
article),  restricts  the  idea  of  this  fuller  revelation  to 
God's  immutability  as  the  one  ever  faithful  to  hia 
promises.  This  explanation  is  preferred  by  Rev. 
J.  Quarry,  in  his  able  work  on  Genesis  and  itt 
Authorship  (Lond.,  1866).  »  The  Patriarchs  had 
only  the  promises  unfulfilled;  in  respect  to  the 
fulfillment  of  them  they  received  not  the  prom- 
ises." God  is  now  about  to  fulfill  the  great  promise 
to  give  the  land  of  Canaan  to  their  seed,  and  so  He 
announces  himself  to  Moses  in  the  words,  '  I  am 
Jehovah,'  and  tells  him  that  while  the  Patriarchs  had 
manifestations  of  God  in  his  character  as  ICl-Shad- 
dai,  they  had  no  experience  of  him  as  regardj  thig 
name,  which  implied  the  continuousness  and  un- 
changeableness  of  his  gracious  purpose  toward  them 
(p.  296).  Ebrard  {Historische  Thtol.  Zeitsclirift, 
1849,  iv.)  agrees  with  those  who  infer  the  later  ori- 
gin of  the  name  from  Ex.  vi.  2,  3.  He  maintains 
that  "  Jehovah  "  occurs  in  Genesis  only  as  prolep- 
tic,  and  on  that  ground  denies  that  its  use  there 
affords  any  argument  against  the  unity  of  the  au- 
thorship of  that  book.  Recent  discussions  have 
rendered  this  latter  branch  of  the  subject  specially 
important.  (For  the  fuller  literature  which  belongs 
here,  see  under  Pentateuch,  Amer.  ed. )   In  regard 

to  the  representation  of  H'^n'^  by  Kvpios  in  the 
Septuagint,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Prof.  Stuart's 
article  on  Kvpios  in  the  Bibl.  ReiMsitory,  i.  736  W. 
It  is  shown  that  this  Greek  title  is  emploj'ed  in  the 
great  majority  of  instances  to  designate  that  most 
sacred  of  all  the  Divine  appellations.  H. 

JEHO'VAH-JFREH    (ns"]^    nin> : 

Kvpios  elSei/:  Dominus  videt),  i.  e.  Jehovah  idli 
see,  or  provide,  the  name  given  by  Abraham  to  the 
place  on  which  he  had  been  commanded  to  offer 
Isaac,  to  commemorate  the  interposition  of  the 
angel  of  Jehovah,  who  appeared  to  prevent  the 
sacrifice  (Gen.  xxii.  14)  and  provided  another  victim. 
The  immediate  allusion  is  to  the  expression  in  the 
8th  verse,  "  God  will  look  out  for  Himself  a  lamb 
for  a  burnt  offering,"  but  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
there  is  at  the  same  time  a  covert  reference  to 
Moriah,  the  scene  of  the  whole  occurrence  Th<i 
play  upon  words  is  followed  up  in  the  latter  clause 
of  ver.  14,  which  appears  in  the  form  of  a  popular 
proverb :  "  as  it  is  said  this  da;^  In  the  mountam 
of  Jehovah,  He  will  be  seen,"  or  "provision  shall 
be  made."  Such  must  be  the  rendering  if  the 
received  punctuation  be  accepted,  but  on  this  point 
there  is  a  division  of  opinion.  The  text  from  which 
the  LXX.  made  their  translation  must  have  been 

n^n^  T^Vl^,  "Jna,  ^u  r^  6pei  Kvpios  ^cpGrj, 
"  on  the  mountain  Jehovah  appeared,"  and  the 
same,  with  the  exception  of  nSt"]*^  for  the  last 


Jehovah  "  (z.  e.  as  regards  my  name  Jehovah)  "  was  1 
not  known  to  them.-'  The  A.  Y.  interpolates  "  th« 
name  of"  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  and  then,  al 
it  for  the  sake  of  correspondence,  says,  "  by  my  oame ' 
in  the  second  part.  JdL 


1246  JEHOVAH-NISSI 

word,  must  have  been  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate 
Mid  Smac.     The  Targiim  of  Onkelos  is  obscure. 

W.  A.  W. 

JEHCVAH-NISSI  ("^53  Tl'TH):  Kipios 
Karacpvyfi  fiovi  Dominns  cxtdlatio  mea),  i.  e.  Je- 
hovah my  banner,  the  name  given  by  Moses  to  the 
altar  which  he  built  in  commemora'tion  of  the  dis- 
comfiture of  the  Amalekites  by  Joshua  and  his 
chosen  warriors  at  Rephidira  (Ex.  xvii.  15).  It 
was  erected  either  upon  the  hill  overlooking  the 
battle-field,  upon  which  Moses  sat  with  the  staff  of 
(.iod  in  his  hand,  or  upon  the  battle-field  itself. 
According  to  Aben  Ezra  it  was  on  the  Horeb.  The 
Targum  of  Onkelos  paraphrases  the  verse  thus: 
"  jMoseg  built  an  altar  and  worshipped  upon  it 
betore  Jehovah,  who  had  wrought  for  him  miracles 

(^''D^S,  nisin)y  Such  too  is  Jarchi's  explanation 
of  the  name,  referring  to  the  miraculous  interposi- 
tion of  God  in  the  defeat  of  the  Amalekites.  The 
LXX.  in  their  translation,  "  the  Ix)rd  my  refuge,'" 
evidently  supposed  nissi  to  be  derived  from  the  root 

D^D,  mis,  "  to  flee,"  and  the  Vulgate  traced  it  to 

SK?3.  "  to  lift  up."  The  significance  of  the  name 
is  probably  contained  in  the  allusion  to  the  stafl[' 
which  Moses  held  in  his  hand  as  a  banner  during 
the  engagement,  and  the  raising  or  lowering  of 
which  turned  the  fortune  of  battle  in  fovor  of  the 
Israelites  or  their  enemies.  God  is  thus  recognized 
in  the  memorial  altar  as  the  deliverer  of  his  people, 
who  leads  them  to  victory,  and  is  their  rallying 
point  in  time  of  peril.  On  the  figurative  use  of 
'*  banner,"  see  Ps.  Ix.  4;  Is.  xi.  10. 

W.  A.  W. 

JEHO'VAH-SHA'LOM  (Dib^^  r^^r^^/. 

cipilUT]  Kvfilov-  Domini  pax),  i.  e.  Jehovah  (is) 
peace,  or,  with  the  ellipsis  of  ''H  vS,  "  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  peace."  The  altar  erected  by  Gideon  in 
Ophrah  was  so  called  in  memory  of  the  salutation 
addressed  to  him  by  the  angel  of  Jehovah,  "  Peace 
be  imto  thee"  (Judg.  vi.  24).  Piscator,  however, 
following  the  Hebrew  accentuation,  which  he  says 
requires  a  different  translation,  renders  the  whole 
passage,  without  introducing  the  proper  name, 
"when  Jehovah  had  proclaimed  peace  to  him;" 
but  his  alteration  is  harsh  and  unnecessary.  The 
LXX.  and  Vulg.  appear  to  have  inserted  the  words 
as  they  stand   in  the  present  Hebrew  text,  and  to 

have  read  nin")  D17K7,  but  they  are  supported 
by  no  MS.  authority.      "  W.  A.  W. 

*  JEHO'VAH  -  SHAM'MAH  i'^i^) 
TIT^W  :  Kvpios  iK€i'-  Dominus  ibidem),  i.  e.  Je- 
hovxh  there,  or  lit.  thither,  is  the  marginal  reading 
(A.  V.)  of  Ezek.  xlviii.  35.  In  the  text  the  trans- 
lators have  put  "  The  Lord  is  there."  In  bot^ 
respects  the  A.  V.  has  followed  the  Bishops'  Bible. 
It  is  the  name  that  was  to  be  given  to  the  new 
city  which  Ezekiel  saw  in  his  Vision,  and  has  so 
gorgeously  described  (chap,  xl.-xlviii.).  Compare 
Rev.  xxii.  3,  4.  H. 

*  JEHO'VAH  -  TSID'KENU        (HJ  "^ 

')3|7"1^,  Jehovah  our  righteousness :  in  Jer. 
rxiii.  6,  Kvpios  'loxreSe/f,  FA.  «.  Icoa-et/cei/t;  in 
Kxiii.  16,  Rom.  Vat.  Alex.  FA.  Aid.  omit,  Corap. 
<ipios  SiKaioavvri  fjfjLwV.  Dominus  Justus  noster) 
I  the  marginal  reading  of  the  A.  V.  in  Jer.  xxiii. 


JEHU 

6  and  xxxiii.  10,  where  the  text  has  "  The  Ixmi  cm 
Righteousness."     It  will  be  seen  that  the  LXX 

makes  a  proper  name  of  ^3p/T!^  (our  righteous- 
ness) in  the  first  of  the  above  passages.  Tht 
hesitation  of  our  translators  whether  they  should 
render  or  transfer  the  expression  may  have  been  the 
greater  from  their  supposing  it  to'  be  one  of  the 
Messianic  titles.  The  long  exegetical  note  in  the 
margin  of  the  Bishops'  Bible  (Jer.  xxxiii.  16)  is 
curious  and  deserves  to  be  read.  H. 

JEHOZ'ABAD  CT^;'in'^  [ichom  Jehovah 
gave'\'.  'Iw^a/3a0;  [Alex.  Ia)^a)3aS:]  Jozabad).  1. 
A  Korachite  Levite,  second  son  of  Obed-edom,  and 
one  of  the  porters  of  the  south  gate  of  the  temple, 

and  of  the  storehouse  there  (D)*3pM  iV2)  in  the 
time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  4,  15,  compared  with 
Neh.  xii.  25). 

2.  (['Ia)Ca)8a8;]  Joseph. 'Ox^fiaros-)  A  Ben- 
jamite,  captain  of  180,000  armed  men,  in  the  days 
of  king  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xvii.  18). 

3.  [In  2  K.,  'IcoCaiSeS;  in  2  Chr.,  'IwCa)8e0; 
Vat.  Zw^ajSeS;  Alex.  Zaj8e0.]  Son  of  Shomer  or 
Shinirith,  a  Moabitish  woman,  and  jiossibly  a  de- 
scendant of  the  preceding,  who  with  another  con- 
spired against  king  Joash  and  slew  him  in  his  lied 
(2  K.  xii.  21;  2  Chr.  xxiv.  26).  [Joash.]  The 
similarity  in  the  names  of  both  conspirators  and 
their  parents  is  worth  notice. 

This  name  is  commonly  abbreviated  in  the  He- 
brew to  JOZAHAI).  A.   C.   H. 

JEHOZ'ADAK  (p^^'lH^  [ivhom  Jehovah 
makes  just]:  'Ia)tro5c{«;  Alex.  l^ereSeK:  Josedec), 
son  of  the  high-priest  Sekaiah  (1  Chr.  vi.  14,  15) 
in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah.  \\'hen  his  father  was 
slain  at  Riblah  by  order  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the 
11th  of  Zedekiah  (2  K.  xxv.  18,  21 ),  Jehozadak  was 
led  away  captive  to  Babylon  (1  Chr.  vi.  15),  where 
he  doubtless  spent  the  remainder  of  his  days.  He 
himself  never  attained  the  high-priesthood,  the 
Temple  being  burnt  to  the  ground,  and  so  con- 
tinuing, and  he  himself  being  a  captive  all  his  life. 
But  he  was  the  father  of  Jeshua  the  high-priest  — 
who  with  Zerubbabel  headed  the  Return  from  Cap- 
tivity —  and  of  all  his  successors  till  the  pontificate 
of  Alcimus  (Ezr.  iii.  2;  Neh.  xii.  26,  Ac).  [High- 
priest.]  Nothing  more  is  known  about  him.  It 
is  perhaps  worth  remarking  that  his  name  is  com- 
pounded of  the  same  elements,  and  has  exactly  the 
same  meaning,  as  that  of  the  contemporary  king 
Zedekiah  —  "God  is  righteous;"  and  that  the 
righteousness  of  God  was  signally  displayed  in  the 
simultaneous  suspension  of  the  throne  of  David  and 
the  priesthood  of  Aaron,  on  account  of  the  sins  of 
Judah.  This  remark  perhaps  acquires  weight  from 
the  fact  of  his  successor  Jeshua,  who  restored  the 
priesthood  and  rebuilt  the  Temple,  having  the  same 
name  as  Joshua,  who  brought  the  nation  into  the 
land  of  promise,  and  Jesus,  a  name  significative 
of  salvation. 

In  Haggai  and  Zechariah,  though  the  name  in 
the  original  is  exactly  as  above,  yet  our  translators 
have  chosen  to  follow  the  Greek  form,  and  present 

it  as  JOSEDECH. 

In  FjZtb,  and  Nehemiah  it  is  abbreAiated,  bott 
in  Hebrew  and  A.  V.,  to  Jozadak. 

A.  C.  H. 

JE'HU.  1.  (S^n^  =  Jehovah  is  He;  [» 
1  K.,  2  K.,]  'loD,  [Vat.  Eiov;  in  2  Chr.,  'Ir,©^. 
Vat.   lou;   in    Hos.,  'InvSd,]    Alex,    [commonljj 


JEHU 


JEHU 


1247 


iMu;  Joseoh.  'I770D5.)  The  founder  of  the  fifth 
lynasty  of  the  kingdoiii  of  Israel.  His  history  was 
>Id  in  the  lost  »  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel " 
(2  K.  X.  3-4).  His  father's  name  wa&  Jehoshaphat 
[2  K.  ix.  2);  his  grandfather's  (which,  as  being 
better  known,  was  sometimes  affixed  to  his  own  — 
2  K.  ix.)  was  Nimshi.  In  his  youth  he  had  been 
one  of  the  guards  of  Ahab.  His  first  appearance 
in  history  is  when,  with  a  comrade  in  arms,  Bidkar, 
Dr  Bar-Dakar  (Ephrera.  Syr.  0pp.  iv.  540),  he  rode« 
behind  Ahab  on  the  fatal  journey  from  Samaria  to 
Jezreel,  and  heard,  and  laid  up  in  his  heart,  the 
warning  of  Elijah  against  the  murderer  of  Naboth 
(2  K.  fx.  25).  But  he  had  already,  as  it  would 
seem,  been  known  to  Elijah  as  a  youth  of  promise, 
and,  accordingly,  in  the  vision  at  Horeb  he  is  men- 
tioned as  the  future  king  of  Israel,  whom  I<:iijah  is 
to  anoint  as  the  minister  of  vengeance  on  Israel 
(1  K.  xix.  16,  17).  This  injunction,  for  reasons 
unknown  to  us,  Elijah  never  fulfilled.  It  was  re- 
served long  afterwards  for  his  successor  Elisha. 

.Jehu  nTeantime,  in  the  reigns  of  Ahaziah  and 
Jehoram,  had  risen  to  importance.  The  same  ac- 
tivity and  vehemence  which  had  fitted  him  for  his 
earlier  distinctions  still  continued,  and  he  was 
known  far  and  wide  as  a  charioteer  whose  rapid 
driving,  as  if  of  a  madman''  (2  K.  ix.  20),  could 
be  disUnguished  even  from  a  distance.  He  was, 
under  the  last-named  king,  captain  of  the  host  in 
the  siege  of  liamoth-Gilead.  According  to  Ephraim 
Syrus  (who  omits  the  words  "saith  the  Lord"  in 
2  K.  ix.  26,  and  makes  "  I "  refer  to  Jehu)  he  had, 
in  a  dream  the  night  before,  seen  the  blood  of 
Naboth  and  his  sons  (Ephrera.  Syr.  0pp.  iv.  540). 
Whilst  in  the  midst  of  the  officers  of  the  besieging 
army  a  youth  suddenly  entered,  of  wild  appearance 
(2  K.  ix.  11),  and  insisted  on  a  private  interview 
with  Jehu.  They  retired  into  a  secret  chamber. 
The  youth  uncovered  a  vial  of  the  sacred  oil  (Jos. 
ATit.  ix.  6,  1)  which  he  had  brought  with  him, 
poured  it  over  Jehu's  head,  and  after  announcing 
to  him  the  message  from  Elisha,  that  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  king  of  Israel  and  destroyer  of  the 
house  of  Ahab,  rushed  out  of  the  house  and  disap- 
peared. 

Jehu's  countenance,  as  he  reentered  the  assembly 
of  officers,  showed  that  some  strange  tidings  had 
reached  him.  He  tried  at  first  to  evade  their  ques- 
tions, but  then  revealed  the  situation  in  which  he 
found  himself  placed  by  the  prophetic  call.  In  a 
moment  the  enthusiasm  of  the  army  took  fire. 
They  threw  their  garments  —  the  large  square 
bef/ed,  similar  to  a  wrapper  or  plaid  —  under  his 
feet,  so  as  to  form  a  rough  carpet  of  state,  placed 
him  on  the  top  of  the  stairs,^  as  on  an  extempore 
tnrone,  blew  the  royal  salute  on  their  trumpets, 
and  thus  ordained  him  king.  He  then  cut  oft'  all 
communication  between  Kamoth-Gilead  and  Jez- 


reel, and  set  ofT,  full  speed,  with  his  ancient  comrada 
Bidkar,  whom  he  had  made  captain  of  the  ho<;t  in 
his  place,  and  a  band  of  horsemen.  From  the 
tower  of  Jezreel  a  watchman  saw  the  cloud  of  duat 

{nV^W,   Kouloprov;  A.  V.    "company")   and 
announced  his  coming  (2  K.  ix.  17).     The  mes- 
sengers that  were  sent  out  to  him  he  detained,  on 
the  same  principle  of  secrecy  which  had  guided  all 
his  movements.     It  was  not  till  he  had   almost 
reached  the  city,  and  was  identified  by  the  watch- 
man,  that   alarm  was  taken.     But  even  then  it 
seems  as  if  the  two  kings  in  Jezreel  anticipated 
news  from  the  Syrian  war  rather  than  a  revolution 
at  home.     It  was  not  till,  in  answer  to  Jehoram'i 
question,  "Is  it  peace,  Jehu?"  that  Jehu's  fierce 
denunciation  of  Jezebel  at  once  revealed  the  danger. 
Jehu  seized  his  opportunity,  and  taking  full  aim 
at  Jehoram,  with  the  bow  which,  as  captain  of  the 
host,  was  always  with  him,  shot  him  through  the 
heart   (ix.   24).      The   body  was   thrown  out  on 
the  fatal  field,  and  whilst  his  soldiers  pursued  and 
killed  the  king  of  Judah  at  Beth-gan  (A.  V.  "  the 
garden-house"),  probably  Engannim,  Jehu  himself 
advanced  to  the  gates  of  Jezreel  and  fulfilled  the 
divine  warning  on  Jezebel  as  already  on  Jehoram. 
[Jezebel.J      He  then  entered  on  a  work  of  exter- 
mination hitherto  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  monarchy.     AH  the  descendants  of  Ahab 
that  remained  in  Jezreel,  together  with  the  officers 
of  the  court,  and  hierarchy  of  Astarte,  were  swept 
away.    His  next  step  was  to  secure  Samaria.  Every 
stage  of  his  progress  was  marked  with  blood.     At 
the  gates  of  Jezreel  he  found  the  heads  of  seventy 
princes  of  the  house  of  Ahab,  ranged  in  two  heaps, 
sent  to  him  as  a  propitiation  by  their  guardians  in 
Samaria,  whom  he  had  defied  to  withstand  him, 
and  on  whom  he  thus  threw  the  responsibility  of 
destroying  their  own  royal  charge.     Next,  at  "  the 
shearing-house  "  (or  Beth-eked)  between  Jezreel  and 
Samaria  he  encountered  forty-two  sons  or  nephews 
(2  Chr.  xxii.  8)  of  the  late  king  of  Judah,  and 
therefore  connected  by  marriage  with  Ahab,  on  a 
visit  of  compliment  to  their  relatives,  of  whose  fall, 
seemingly,  they  had  not  heard.     These  also  were 
put  to  the  sword  at  the  fatal  well,  as,  in  the  later 
history,  of  Mizpah,  and,  in  our  own  days,  of  Cawn- 
pore  (2  K.  x.  14).     [Isiimael,  6. J     As  he  arove 
on  he  encountered  a  strange  figure,  such  as  might 
have  reminded  him  of  the  great  Ehjah.     It  was 
Jehonadab,  the  austere  Arabian  sectar}',  the  son  of 
Kechab.     In  him  his  keen  eye  discovered  a  ready 
ally.     He  took  him  into  his  chariot,  and  they  con- 
cocted their  schemes  as  they  entered  Samaria  (x. 
15,  16).     [Jehonadab.] 

Some  stragglers  of  the  house  of  Ahab  in  that 
city  still  remained  to  be  destroyed.  But  the  great 
stroke  was  yet  to  come;  and  it  was  conceived  ar»d 


a  The  Hebrew  word  is  D"^"!^^  'i  usually  employed 

i»v  the  coupling  together  of  oxeu.  This  the  LXX 
understand  as  though  the  two  soldiers  rode  in  sep- 
arate chariots  —  ert/Se^T/Kores  eirl  ^evyrj  (2  K.  ix.  25) ; 
Josephus  (Ant.  ix.  (J,  §  3)  as  though  they^sat  in  Che 
same  chariot  with  the  king  (Kafle^o/jievows  oniaOev  7ou 
apftaTO?  Tov   "Axa/Sou). 

b  This  is  the  force  of  the  Hebrew  word,  which,  as 
In  2  K.  ix.  11,  the  LXX.  translate  ev  napaWayrj. 
Tosephns  (Ant.  ix.  6,  §  3)  says  <nco\aiTepov  re  kol  /aer" 
fVTa^ias  0i6ivev. 

c  The  expression  translated  "  on  the  top  of  the 
itain  "  h  one  the  clew  to  which  is  lost.     The  word  is 


gere?n,  D7??.  ^'  *'  *  bone,  and  the  meaning  appears 
to  be  that'they  placed  Jehu  on  the  very  stairs  them 
selves  —  if  H  wl?^  be  stairs  —  without  any  seat  c  r 
chair  below  him.  *The  stairs  doubtless  ran  round  the 
inside  of  the  quadrangle  of  the  house,  as  they  do  still, 
for  instance,  in  the  ruin  called  the  house  of  Zacchaeua 
at  Jericho,  and  Jehu  sat  where  they  joined  the  flat 
platform  which  formed  the  top  or  roof  of  the  house. 
Thus  he  was  conspicuous  against  the  sky,  while  th« 
captains  were  below  him  in  the  open  quadrangle.  Th« 
old  Versions  throw  little  or  no  light  on  the  passage  : 
the  LXX.  simply  repeat  the  Hebrew  word,  iwX  rl 
yapefA  ruv  atv^adfAmv      By  Joseph UB  it  {•  aTci**J 


1248  JEHU 

executed  with  that  union  of  intrepid  daruig  and 
profound  secrecy  which  marks  the  whole  career  of 
Jehu.  Up  to  this  moment  there  was  nothing  which 
showed  anything  beyond  a  determination  to  exter- 
minate in  all  its  branches  the  personal  adherents  of 
Ahab.  He  might  still  have  been  at  heart,  as  he 
ijeems  up  to  this  time  to  have  been  in  name,  dis- 
posed to  tolerate,  if  not  to  join  in,  the  Phoenician 
worship.  "Ahab  served  Baal  a  little,  but  Jehu 
shall  sene  him  much."  There  was  to  be  a  new 
inauguration  of  the  worship  of  Baal.  A  solemn 
assembly,  sacred  vestments,  innumerable  victims, 
were  ready.  The  vast  temple  at  Samaria  raised 
by  Ahab  (1  K.  xvi.  32;  Jos.  Ant.  x.  7,  §  6)  was 
crowded  from  end  to  end.  The  chief  sacrifice  was 
offered,  as  if  in  the  excess  of  his  zeal,  by  Jehu  him- 
self. Jehonadab  joh-ed  in  the  deception.  There 
was  some  apprehension  lest  worshippers  of  Jehovah 
might  be  found  in  the  temple;  such,  it  seems,  had 
been  the  intermixture  of  the  two  religions.  As 
soon,  however,  as  it  was  ascertained  th5>*  ''1,  and 
none  but,  the  idolaters  were  there,  tho  signal  was 
given  to  eighty  trusted  guards,  and  a  sweeping 
massacre  removed  at  one  blow  the  whole  heathen 
population  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  inner- 
most sanctuary  of  the  temple  (translated  in  the 
A.  V.  "the  city  of  the  house  of  Baal")  was 
stormed,  the  great  stone  statue  of  Baal  was  de- 
molished, the  wooden  figures  of  the  ui*erior  divin- 
ities sitting  round  him  were  torn  from  their  places 
and  burnt  (Ewald,  Gesck.  iii.  526),  and  the  site  of 
the  sanctuary  itself  became  the  public  resort  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  city  for  the  basest  uses.  This 
is  the  last  public  act  recorded  of  Jehu.  The  re- 
maining twenty-seven  years  of  his  long  reign  are 
passed  over  in  a  few  words,  in  which  two  points 
only  are  material:  He  did  not  destroy  the  calf- 
worship  of  Jeroboam:  The  trans-Jordanic  tribes 
suffered  much  from  the  ravages  of  Hazael  (2  K. 
X.  2!J-33).  He  was  buried  in  state  in  Samaria, 
and  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Jkiioahaz  (2  K. 
X.  35).  His  name  is  the  first  of  the  Israelite  kings 
which  appears  in  the  Assyrian  monuments. «  It  is 
found  on  the  black  obelisk  discovered  at  Nimroud 
(Layard,  Nineveh,  i.  390),  and  now  in  the  British 
Museum,  amongst  the  names  of  kings  who  are 
bi'inging  tribute  (in  this  case  gold  and  silver,  and 
articles  manufactured  in  gold)  to  Shalmaneser  I. 
His  name  is  given  as  "Jehu"  (or  "Yahua") 
"  the  son  of  Khumri  "  (Omri).  This  substitution 
of  the  name  of  Omri  for  that  of  his  own  father 
may  be  accounted  for,  either  by  the  importance 
which  Omri  had  assumed  as  the  second  founder  of 
the  northern  kingdom,  or  by  the  name  of  "  Beth- 
Khumri,"  only  given  to  Samaria  in  these  monu- 
ments as  "  the  House  or  Capital  of  Omri "  (Lay- 
ard, Nin.  and  Bab.,  643;  Kawlinson's  Herod,  i. 
465),  [and  Andent  Monarchies,  ii.  365.] 

The  character  of  Jehu  is  not  diflBcult  to  under- 
stand, if  we  take  it  as  a  whole,  and  judge  it  from 
a  general  point  of  view. 


a  *  This  statement  respecting  Jehu  Is  to  be  canceled 
aa  mcorrect.  It  is  founded  on  an  error  of  Prof.  Kaw- 
linson  in  deciphering  an  Assyrian  inscription  {Anci'^.t 
M'^narchies,  ii.  365,  note  8)  which  he  corrects,  vol.  iv. 
p.  576.  The  true  reading  «'  gives  the  interesting  infor- 
mation that  amoijg  Btnhadad's  allies,  when  he  was 
ittacked  by  the  Assyrians  in  b.  c.  863,  was  'Ahab  of 
Jezreel  '  It  appears  that  the  common  danger  of  sub- 
fection  by  the  Assyrian  arms,  united  in  one,  not  only 
the  Hittites,  Hamathites,  Syrians  of  Damascus,  Phoe- 
Mcians,  and  Egyptians,  but  the  people  of  Israel  also. 


JEHU 

He  must  be  regarded,  like  many  others  in  his- 
tory, as  an  instrument  for  accomplishing  gre»; 
purposes  rather  than  as  great  or  good  in  himself 
In  the  long  period  during  which  his  destiny 
though  known  to  others  and  perhaps  to  himsetf 
lay  dormant;  in  the  suddenness  of  his  rise  tc 
power;  in  the  ruthlessness  with  which  he  carried 
out  his  purposes ;  in  the  union  of  profound  silence 
and  dissimulation  with  a  stem,  fanatic,  wayward 
zeal,  —  he  has  not  been  without  his  likenesses  in 
modern  times.  The  Scripture  narrative,  although 
it  fixes  our  attention  on  the  services  which  he  ren- 
dered to  the  cause  of  religion  by  the  extermination 
of  a  worthless  dynasty  and  a  degrading  worship, 
yet  on  the  whole  leaves  the  sense  that  it  was  a 
reign  barren  in  great  results.  His  dynasty,  indeed, 
was  firmly  seated  on  the  throne  longer  than  any 
other  royal  house  of  Israel  (2  K.  x. ),  and  under  Jero- 
boam II.  it  acquired  a  high  name  amongst  the 
oriental  nations.  But  Elisha,  who  had  raised  him 
to  ix)wer,  as  far  as  we  know,  never  saw  him.  In 
other  respects  it  was  a  failure;  the  original  sin  of 
Jeroboam's  worship  continued ;  and  in  the  Prophet 
Hosea  there  seems  to  be  a  retribution  exacted  for 
the  bloodshed  by  which  he  had  mounted  the  throne: 
"  I  will  avenge  the  blood  of  Jezreel  upon  the  house 
of  Jehu  "  (Hos.  i.  4),  as  in  the  similar  condemna- 
tion of  Baasha  (1  K.  xvi.  2).  See  a  striking  poem 
to  this  effect  on  the  character  of  Jehu  in  the  Lyra 
Apostolica. 

2.  [In  1  K., 'low,  Vat.  S.iov,  Alex.  linoV,  9 
Chr.,  'It/oi',  Vat.  lou,  Itjo-ow.]  Jehu,  son  of  Ha- 
nani:  a  prophet  of  Judah,  but  whose  ministration.? 
were  chiefly  directed  to  Israel.  His  father  was 
probably  the  seer  who  attacked  Asa  (2  Chr.  xvi. 
7).  He  must  have  l>egun  his  career  as  a  prophet 
when  very  young.  He  first  denounced  Baasha, 
both  for  his  imitation  of  the  dynasty  of  Jeroboam, 
and  also  (as  it  would  seem)  for  his  cruelty  in  de- 
stroying it  (1  K.  xvi.  1,  7),  and  then,  after  an 
inten-al  of  thirty  years,  reappears  to  denounce 
Jehoshaphat  for  his  alliance  with  Ahab  (2  Chr. 
xix.  2,  3).  He  survived  Jehoshaphat  and  wrote 
his  hfe  (xx.  34).  From  an  obscurity  in  the  text 
of  1  K.  xvi.  7  the  Vulgate  has  represented  him  as 
killed  by  Baasha.  But  this  is  not  required  by  the 
words,  and  (except  on  the  improbable  hjpothesis 
of  two  Jehus,  both  sons  of  Hanani)  is  contradicted 
by  the  later  appearance  of  this  prophet. 

3.  ('iTjotJ;  [Vat.  Itjo-ousO  Jehu.)  A  man  of 
Judah  of  the  house  of  Hezron  (1  Chr.  ii.  38). 
He  was  the  son  of  a  certain  01)ed,  descended  from 
the  union  of  an  Egyptian,  Jarha,  with  the  daugh- 
ter of  Sheshan,  whose  slave  Jarha  was  (comp.  34). 

4.  ClrjoiJ ;  [Vat.  ovTos.] )  A  Simeon ite,  son  of 
Josibiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  35).  He  was  one  of  the  chief 
men  of  the  tribe,  apparently  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah  (comp.  41). 

5.  CItjouA.)  Jehu  the  Antothite,  t.  c.  native 
of  Anathoth,  was  one  of  the  chief  of  the  heroes 
of  Benjamin,  who  forsook  the  cause  of  Saul  for 


Ahab,  king  of  Samaria,  seeing  the  importance  of  the 
crisis,  sent  a  contingent  of  10,000  men,  and  2-'yX; 
chariots  to  the  confederate  forct ,  a  contingent  which 
took  part  in  the  first  great  battle  between  the  armiea 
of  Syria  and  Assyria.  Thus  the  first  known  contact 
between  the  Assyrians  and  the  Israelites  is  advanced 
from  the  accession  of  Jehu  (ab.  B.  c.  841)  to  the  lasl 
year,  or  last  year  but  one,  of  Ahab  (b.  c.  853),  an« 
Ahab  —  not  Jehu  —  is  the  first  Israelite  monarch  of 
whom  we  have  mention  in  the  Assyrian  records  " 


JEHUBBAH 

Uttl  of  David  when  the  latter  was  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr. 
xii.  3).  He  does  not  reappear  in  any  of  the  later 
liatg.  A.  P.  S. 

JEHUB'BAH  i^^r!^  the  will  be  likklen]: 
'lojSa;  [Vat.  coiTupt;]  Alex.  OjSa:  Ilnbrt),  a  man 
of  Asher ;  son  of  Shanier  or  Shonier,  of  the  house 
of  Beriah  (1  Chr.  vii.  ;J4). 

JEHU'CAL  (bp^n^  [po'.ent,  Ges.] :  6  'liod- 
^oA;  Alex.  ItaaxaC"  ly^'  I'^aX^X']  •^"c/icff),  son 
of  Sheieniiah;  one  of  two  persons  sent  by  king 
Zedekiali  to  Jeremiah,  to  entreat  his  prayers  and 
advice  (Jer.  xxxvii.  3).  His  name  is  also  given  as 
JucAL,  and  he  appears  to  have  been  one  of  the 
'*  princes  of  the  king  "  (comp.  xxxviii.  1,  4). 

JE'HUD  (in^  [praise]:  'A^wp;  Alex,  lovd: 
Jud),  one  of  the  towns  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (.Josh, 
rlx.  45),  named  between  Baalath  and  Bene-berak. 
Neither  of  these  two  places,  however,  has  been 
identified.  By  luisebius  and  Jerome  Jehud  is  not 
named.  Dr.  Kobinson  (ii.  242)  mentions  that  a 
place  called  el-  Ythudiyeh  exists  in  the  neighbor- 
liood  of  Lij(M,  but  he  did  not  visit  it.  It  is,  how- 
ever, inserted  on  Van  de  Velde's  map  at  7  miles 
east  of  Jdfffi  and  5  north  of  Lydd.  This  agrees 
with  the  statement  of  Schwarz  (141)  that  "Jehud 
is  the  village  JeJmaie,  7^  miles  S.  E.  of  Jaffa,"  ex- 
cept as  to  the  direction,  which  is  nearer  E.  than 
S.  E.  G. 

JEHUTDI  Ol^n^  =  Jew:  6  'lovdiv;  Alex. 
louSej :  Judi),  son  of  Nethaniah,  a  man  employed 
by  the  princes  of  Jehoiakim's  court  to  fetch  Baruch 
to  read  Jeremiah's  denunciation  (Jer.  xxxvi.  14), 
;ipd  then  by  the  king  to  fetch  the  volume  itself  and 
re-id  it  to  him  (21,  23). 

JEHUDI'JAH  (njin^n  \the  Jewess-]  : 
'A5ta;  [Vat.  ASeia;]  Alex.  I'Sia-  Judavi).  There 
is  really  no  such  name  in  the  lleb.  Bible  as  that 
wliich  our  A.  V.  exhibits  at  1  Chr.  iv.  18.  If  it 
is  a  proper  name  at  all  it  is  Ha-jehudijah,  like 
Hiim-melech,  Hak-koz,  etc.;  and  it  seems  to  be 
ra'her  an  appellative,  "  the  Jewess."  As  far  as  an 
opinion  can  be  formed  of  so  obscure  and  apparently 
coiTupt  a  passage,  Mered,  a  descendant  of  Caleb 
th(!  son  of  Jephunneh,  and  whose  towns,  Gedor, 
Socho,  and  Eshtemoa,  lay  in  the  south  of  Judah, 
married  two  wives  —  one  a  Jewess,  the  other  an 
L^yptian,  a  daughter  of  Pharaoh.  The  Jewess 
was  sister  of  Naham,  the  father  of  the  cities  of 
Keilah  and  Eshtemoa.  The  descendants  of  Mered 
by  his  two  wives  are  given  in  vv.  18,  19,  and  per- 
ha^is  in  the  latter  part  of  ver.  17.  Hodijah  in  ver. 
19  is  doubtless  a  corruption  of  Ha-jehudijah,  "  the 

Jexress,"  the  letters  TTT  having  fallen  out  from 

the  end  of  iltZ/M  and  the  beginning  of  the  fol- 
lowing word ;  and  the  full  stop  at  the  end  of  ver. 
18  should  be  removed,  so  as  to  read  as  a  recapitu- 
lation of  what  precedes :  "  These  are  the  sons  of 
Bilhiah,  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  which  Mered 
took  (for  his  wife),  and  the  sons  of  his  wife,  the 
Jewess,  the  sist«r  of  Naham  (which  Naham  was) 
the  father  of  Keilah  ^  whose  irmabitants  are  Gar- 
mites,  and  of  Eshtemoa,  whose  inhabitants  are 
Maa(  hathites ; "  the  last  being  named  possibly 
from  Maachah,  Caleb's  concubine,  as  the  Ephra- 
thites  were  from  Ephrata.  Btrtheau  (Chronik) 
arrives  at  the  same  general  result,  b  ^  proposing  to 
place  the  closing  words  of  ver.  18  before  the  words 
7» 


JEKAMIAH 


1249 


"  And  she  bare  Miriam,"  etc.,  in  ver.  17.  See  alao 
Vatablus.  A.  C.  H. 

JE'HUSH  (t^^V^,  \coUecting,  bringing  Uh 
geiher,  Fiirst,  Dietr.] :' 'Icjy;  [Vat.  Toy;]  Alex, 
lai'os:  Us),  son  of  Eshek,  a  remote  descendant  of 
Saul  (1  Chr.  viii.  39).  The  parallel  genealogy  in 
ch.  ix.  stops  short  of  this  man. 

For  the  representation  of  Ain  by  H,  see  Jeiiiel, 
Mehunim,  etc. 

JEI'EL  (VS'^2?'^  [perh.  treasure  of  God, 
Ges.]:  Je/iiel).  1.  ('Iw^A.)  A  chief  man  among 
the  Keubenites,  one  of  the  liousp  of  Joel  (1  Chr.  v 
7). 

2.  CUir}K;  Alex,  once  IfltrjA;  [Vat.  FA.  in  xvi. 
5,  Eietr/A.])  A  Merarite  Levite,  one  of  the  gate- 
keepers (□'^"I'^r.S  A.  V.  "iwrters,"  and  «<  door- 
keepers ")  to  the  sacred  tent,  at  the  first  establish- 
ment of  the  Ark  in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  xv.  18). 
His  duty  was  also  to  play  the  harp  (ver.  21 ),  or  the 
psaltery  and  harp  (xvi.  5),  in  the  service  before  the 
Ark. 

3.  ('EAet'^A,  [Vat.  EAearjA,]  Alex.  EAerjA.) 
A  Gershonite  Levite,  one  of  the  Bene- Asaph  [sons 
of  A.],  forefather  of  Jahazikl  in  the  time  of  king 
Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xxi.  14). 

4.  (bS13?"^,  i.  e.  Jeuel,  but  the  A,  V.  follows 
the  correction  of  the  A'e?'i;  'letirjA.)  The  Scribe 
(nplSn)  who  kept  the  account  of  the  numl.ers 
of  king  Uzziah's  irregular  predatory  warriora 
(D^*T:n2,  A.  V.  "bands,"  2  Chr.  xxvi.  11). 

5.  (.leuel,  as  in  the  preceding;  but  the  A.  V. 
again  follows  the  Kein:  'leii^A.*  Jahid.)  A  Ger- 
shonite l^evite,  one  of  the  Bene-Elizaphan,  who 
assisted  in  the  restoration  of  the  house  of  Jehovah 
under  king  Hezekiah  (2  Chr.  xxix.  13). 

6.  Clet^A,   [Vat.  E(ir;A,]  Alex.   letrjA.)     One 

of  the  chiefs  C^"^^)  of  the  Levites  in  the  time  of 
Josiah,  and  an  assistant  in  the  rites  at  his  great 
Passover  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  9). 

7.  (.Teuel  as  above,  but  in  Keri  and  A.  V.  Jeiel: 
'le^A,  [Vat.  Eveia,]  Alex.  EtijA.)  One  of  the 
Bene-Adonikam  who  funned  part  of  the  caravan  of 
Ezra  from  Jiabylon  to  .lerusalem  (Ez.  viii.  13).  In 
Esdras  the  name  is  Jeuel. 

8.  ('la7]A,  Alex.  leetr/A.)  A  layman,  of  the 
Bene  Nebo,  who  had  taken  a  foreign  wife  and  had 
to  relinquish  her  (Ezr.  x.  43).  In  Esdras  it  is 
omitted  from  the  Greek  and  A.  V.,  though  th<> 
Vulgate  has  Idelus. 

JEKAB'ZEEL  (bS!^ni7*'  [God  who  assent 
bles,  brings  together]:  Vat.  [Alex.  FA.i  omit; 
FA.3  Comp.]  Kaj8(r67jA:  Cabseel),  a  fuller  form 
of  the  name  of  Kabzeel,  the  most  remote  city 
of  Judah  on  the  southern  frontier.  This  form 
occurs  only  in  the  list  of  the  places  reoccupied  after 
the  Captivity  (Neh.  xi.  25).  G. 

JEKA'MEAM  (Or^i?^  [who  assembles  the 
people]:  'UKe/xias,  'UK/xod/j.;  Alex,  [in  xxiv.  23,] 
leKefiia'  Jecmaam,  Jecmaan),  a  Invite  in  the  time 
of  King  David :  fourth  of  the  sons  of  Hebron,  the 
son  of  Kohath  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  19,  xxiv.  23). 

JEKAMI'AH  (n^prZ^  [Jelimali  collects,  w 

endures]:  'lexe^ufoy  [Vat.  -^et-] ;  Alex.  Icko/uos: 

Icamias),  son  of  Shallum,  in  the  line  of  Ahlai, 

I  anout  contemporary  with  king  Ataz.     ][«    anfihflT 


1250 


JEKUTHIEL 


passage  the  same  name,  lorne  by  a  different  person.  1 
'A  fijiven  Jhcamiah  (1  Chr.  ii.  41).     [Jakha.] 

A.  C.  H- 

JEKU'THIEL  (bS\"-l^p;'  [perh.  fear  of 
God,  piety,  Diotr.  Ges.]  :  6  Xeri-fix;  Alex.  l€/c0ti7j\: 
[Comp.  'lexoi/Tfj^A:]  Jcvtliiel),  a  man  recorded  in 
the  genealogies  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  18)  a.s  the  son 
of  a  certain  Ezrah  by  his  Jewish  wife  (A.  V.  Jehu- 
dijah).  and  in  his  turn  the  Ikther,  or  founder,  of 
the  town  of  Zanoah.  This  passage  in  the  Targum 
is  not  without  a  certain  interest.  Jered  is  inter- 
preted to  mean  Moses,  and  each  of  the  names  fol- 
lowing are  taken  as  titles  borne  by  him.  Jekuthiel 
—  "  trust  in  God  "  —  is  so  applietl  ''  because  in  his 
days  the  Israelites  trusted  in  the  God  of  heaven  for 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness." 

In  a  remarkable  prayer  used  by  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese  Jews  in  the  concluding  service  of  the 
Sabbath,  Elijah  is  invoked  as  having  had  "  tidings 
of  peace  delivered  to  him  by  the  hand  of  Jekuthiel." 
This  is  explained  to  refer  to  some  transaction  in 
the  life  of  Phineas,  with  whom  Elijah  is,  in  the 
traditions  of  tlie  Jews,  believed  to  be  identical  (see 
the  quotations  in  Modern  Judaism,  p.  229). 

JEMl'MA  (HT^'D^    [dove]:   'H/te>a:  Dies, 

as  if  from  01%  "  a  day"),  the  eldest  of  the  three 
daughters  born  to  Job  after  the  restoration  of  his 
prosperity  (Job  xlii.  14).  Kosenmiiller  compares 
the  name  to  the  classical  Diana;  but  Gesenius  iden- 
tifies it  with  an  Arabic  word  signifying  '« dove." 
The  Rev.  C.  Eorster  (fJistdricd  O'eofjmpliy  of  Ara- 
bia, ii.  67),  in  tracing  the  posterity  of  Job  in  Arabia, 
considers  that  the  name  of  Jemima  sunives  in 
Jemama,  the  name  of  the  central  province  of  the 
Arabian  peninsula,  which,  according  to  an  Arabian 
tnwlition  (see  Bochart,  Phaleg,  ii.  §  26),  was  called 
after  Jemama,  an  ancient  queen  of  the  Arabians. 

W.  T.  B. 
JEM'NAAN  {'Ufivadv,  \_^m.^  ^^l^lav,  Sin.ca 
Ifixvaa']  Vulg.  omits),  mentioned  among  the  places 
on  the  sea-coast  of  Palestine  to  which  the  panic  of 
the  incursion  of  Holofernes  extended  (Jud.  ii.  28). 
No  doubt  Jabneel  —  generally  called  Jamnia  by 
the  Greek  writers  —  is  intended.  The  omission  of 
Joppa  however  is  remarkable.  G. 

JEMU'EL  (bS^D>  [God  is  light,  Fiirst; 
icink,  assenting,  Dietr. ;  but  uncertain  J  :  'lefiovrjX ; 
[Vat.  in  Ex.,  le/itrjA:]  Jamuel),  the  eldest  son  of 
Bimeon  (Gen.  xlvi.  10;  Ex.  vi.  15).  In  the  lists 
rf  Num.  xxvi.  and  1  Ghr.  iv.  the  name  is  given  as 
N"emuel,  which  Gesenius  decides  to  be  the  cor- 
mpted  form. 

JEPH'THAE  Cl6</)0c{e:  Jephte),  Heb.  xi.  32. 
ITie  Greek  form  of  the  name  Jepiithah. 

JEPHTHAH  (nn^";,  i.  e.  Yiphtah  [he,  i.  e. 
Goil,  will  open,  free]  :  'le^flie:  Jephte),  a  judge, 
about  B.  c.  Ili3-1137.  His  history  is  contained 
m  Judg.  xi.  1-xii.  7.  He  was  a  Gileadite,  the  son 
of  Gilead  «  and  a  concubine.  Driven  by  the  legiti- 
mate sons  from  his  father's  inheritance,  he  went  to 
Job,  and  becan;c  the  head  of  a  company  of  free- 
booters in  a  debatable  land  probably  belonging  to 
Ammon  (2  Sam.  x.  6).  The  idolatrous  Israelites 
in  Gilead  were  at  that  time  smarting  under  the 
•[)pres8ion  of  an  Ammonitish  king;  and  Jephthah 


a  •  Trobably  a  patronymic  there  =  a  native  of  that 
umntxj  ;  Me  Uilead,  4,  note  (Amer.  ed.).  H. 


JEPHTHAH 

was  led,  as  well  by  the  unsettled  charactei  k1  thf 
age  as  by  his  own  family  circumstances,  to  udopt  a 
kind  of  life  unrestrained,  adventurous,  and  insecure 
as  that  of  a  Scottish  border  chieftain  in  the  middle 
ages.  It  was  not  unlike  the  life  which  David  after- 
wards led  at  Ziklag,  with  this  exception,  that  Jeph- 
thah had  no  friend  among  the  heathen  in  whose 
land  he  lived.  His  fame  as  a  bold  and  successful 
captain  was  carried  back  to  his  native  Gilead;  and 
when  the  time  was  ripe  for  throwing  off  the  yoke 
of  Ammon,  the  Ciileadite  elders  sought  in  vain  foi 
any  leader,  who  in  an  equal  degree  with  the  base- 
boni  outcast  could  conmiand  the  confidence  ci  his 
countrymen.  Jephthah  conseiitod  to  become  (heir 
captain,  on  the  condition  —  solemnly  ratified  before 
the  Lord  in  INIizpeh  —  that  i;i  the  event  of  his 
success  against  Anmion  he  should  still  remain  as 
their  acknowledged  head.  INIessages,  urging  their 
respective  claims  to  occupy  the  trans- Jorcanic  re- 
gion, were  exchanged  between  the  Ammonitish  king 
and  Jephthah.  Then  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  {L  e. 
"  force  of  mind  for  great  undertakings,  and  bodily 
strength."  Tanchum:  comp.  Judg.  iii.  10,  vi.  34, 
xi.  2!),  xiv.  6,  xv.  14)  came  upon  Jephthah.  He 
collected  warriors  throughout  Gilead  and  Manasseh, 
the  provinces  which  acknowledged  his  authority. 
And  then  he  vowed  his  vow  unto  the  Lord,  "  what- 
soever cometh  forth  [i.  e.  first]  of  the  doors  of  my 
house  to  meet  me,  when  I  return  in  peace  from  the 
children  of  Ammon,  shall  surely  be  Jehovah's,  and 
I  will  offer  it  up  for  a  bumt-oftering."  The  Am- 
monites were  routed  with  great  slaughter.  Twenty 
cities,  from  Aroer  on  the  Arnon  to  Minnith  and  to 
Abel  Keramim,  were  taken  from  them.  But  as 
the  conqueror  returned  to  Mizpeh  there  came  out 
to  meet  him  a  procession  of  damsels  with  dancea 
and  timbrels,  and  among  them  —  the  first  person 
from  his  own  house  —  his  daughter  and  only  child. 
"  Alas !  my  daughter,  thou  hast  brought  me  very 
low,"  was  the  greeting  of  the  heart-stricken  father. 
But  the  high-minded  maiden  is  ready  for  any  per- 
sonal suffering  in  the  hour  of  her  father's  triumph. 
Only  she  asks  for  a  resi)ite  of  two  months  to  with- 
draw to  her  native  mountains,  and  in  their  recessed 
to  weep  with  her  virgin-friends  over  the  early  dis- 
appointment of  her  life.  When  that  time  was 
ended  she  returned  to  her  father ;  and  "  he  did 
unto  her  his  vow." 

But  Jephthali  had  not  long  leisure,  even  if  he 
were  disposed,  for  the  indulgence  of  domestic  grief. 
The  proud  tribe  of  Ephraim  challenged  his  right 
to  go  to  war,  as  he  had  done  without  their  concur- 
rence, against  Ammon ;  and  they  proceeded  to  vin- 
dicate the  absurd  claim  by  invading  Jephthah  in 
Gilead.  They  did  but  add  to  his  triumph  which 
they  envied.  He  first  defeated  them,  then  inter- 
cepted the  fugitives  at  the  fords  of  Jordan,  and  there, 
having  insultingly  identified  them  as  Ephraimitw 
by  their  peculiar  pronunciation,  he  put  forty-t>rc 
thousand  men  to  the  sword. 

The  eminent  office  for  which  Jephthah  had  stip- 
ulated as  the  reward  of  his  exertions,  and  the  glory 
which  he  had  won,  did  not  long  abide  with  him. 
He  judged  Israel  six  years  and  died. 

It  is  generally  conjectured  that  his  jurisdictioi 
was  limited  to  the  trans-Jordanic  region. 

The  peculiar  expression,  xi.  31,  faithfully  tnxiB- 
lated  in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V.,  has  l)een  inter 
preted  as  signifying  that  Jephthah  had  stcp-chil 
dren. 

That  the  daughter  of  Jephthah  was  really  offered 
up  to  God  in  sacrifice,  slain  by  the  band  of  bai 


JEPHTHAH 

and  then  burned  —  is  a  horrible  conclusion ; 
but  one  which  it  seems  impossible  to  a"oid.  This 
was  understood  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  text  by 
Jonathan  tlie  paraphrast,  and  Rashi,  by  Josephus, 
Aiit.  V.  7,  §  10,  and  by  perhaps  all  the  early  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  as  Origen,  in  Joannem,  torn.  v'.  cap. 
36;  Chrysostom,  Horn,  ad  pop.  Antiocli.  xiv.  3, 
0pp.  ii.  145 :  Theodoret,  Qucest.  in  Jud.  xx. ; 
Jerome,  A>.  (td  Jul.  118,  0pp.  i.  791,  &c. ;  Augus- 
tine, Uucest.  in  Jud.  viii.  §  49,  0pp.  iii.  1,  p.  G 10. 
For  the  first  eleven  centuries  of  the  Christian  era 
this  was  the  current,  perhaps  the  universal  opinion 
of  Jews  and  Christians.  Yet  none  of  them  exten- 
uates the  act  of  Jephthah.  Josephus  calls  it  neither 
lawful  nor  pleasing  to  God.  Jewish  writers  say 
thit  he  ought  to  have  referred  it  to  the  high-priest; 
but  either  he  failed  to  do  so,  or  the  high-priest 
culpably  omitted  to  prevent  the  rash  aci.  Origen 
strictly  confines  his  praise  to  the  heroism  of  Jeph- 
thah's  daughter. 

Another  interpretation  was  suggested  by  Joseph 
Kiinchi.  He  supposed  that,  instead  of  being  sacri- 
ficed, she  was  shut  up  in  a  house  which  her  father 
built  for  the  purpose,  and  that  she  was  there  visited 
by  the  daughters  of  Israel  four  days  in  each  year 
BO  long  as  she  lived.  This  interpretation  has  been 
adopted  by  many  eminent  meji,  as  by  Levi  ben 
Gersom  and  Bechai  among  the  Jews,  and  by  Dru- 
Bius,  Grotius,  Estius,  de  Dieu,  Bishop  Hall,  Water- 
Land,  Dr.  Hales,  and  others.  More  names  of  the 
same  period,  and  of  not  less  authority,  might  how- 
ever be  adduced  on  the  other  side.  Lightfoot  once 
thought  {Krubhin.^  §  16)  that  Jephthah  did  not 
slay  his  daughter ;  but  upon  more  mature  reflection 
he  came  to  the  opposite  conclusion  {Harmony,  etc.; 
Judg.  xi.,  Works,  i.  51). 

Each  of  these  two  opinions  is  supported  by  argu- 
ments grounded  on  the  original  text  and  on  the 
customs  of  the  Jews.  (1.)  In  Judg.  xi.  31,  the 
word  translated  in  the  A.  V".  "whatsoever"  knows 
no  distinction  of  gender,  and  may  as  correctly  be 
translated  "  whosoever;  "  and  in  favor  of  the  latter 
version  it  is "  urged  that  Jephthah  could  not  have 
expected  to  be  met  by  an  ox  or  other  animal  fit  for 
sacrifice,  coming  forth  from  the  door  of  his  house ; 
and  that  it  was  obviously  his  intention  to  signalize 
his  thanksgiving  for  victory  by  devoting  some 
human  being  to  destruction,  to  that  end  perverting 
»he  statute.  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29  (given  with  another 
purpose,  on  which  see  Jahn,  Archceoloyla,  §  294, 
or  Ewald,  AUerthiimer,  89),  to  the  taking  of  a  life 
which  was  not  forfeit  to  the  law.  (2.)  To  J. 
Kimchi's  proposal  to  translate  "  and  I  will  offer," 
rerse  31,  ^^  or  I  will  offer,"  it  has  been  replied  that 
his  sense  of  the  conjunction  is  rare,  that  it  is  not 
intended  in  two  vows  couched  in  parallel  phrase- 
ology, (jen.  xxviii.  21,  22,  and  1  Sam.  i.  11,  and 
UiAt  it  creates  two  alternatives  between  which  there 
'«  no  o)-j)Osition.  (3.)  The  word  rendered  in  A.  V. 
» fo  lament,"  or  "  to  talk  with,"  verse  40,  is  trans- 
lated by  later  scholars,  at  in  Judg.  v.  11,  "to  cele- 
t>nte."  (4.)  It  h%3  been  said  that  if  Jephthah 
put  his  daughter  to  death,  according  to  verse  39, 
it  is  unmeaning  to  add  that  she  «*knew  no  man; " 
but  on  the  othei  hand  it  is  urged  that  this  circum- 
itance  is  added  as  setting  in  a  stronger  light  the 
rashness  of  Jephthah  and  the  heroism  of  his 
daughter.  (5.)  It  has  been  argued  that  human 
lacrinces  were  opposed  to  the  principles  of  the  Jew- 
ish law,  and  therefore  a  Jew  could  not  have  intended 
o  make  a  thank-offering  of  that  sort;  but  it  is 
replied  that  a  Gileadite  born  in  a  lawless  age,  living 


JEPHTHAH  1261 

as  a  freebooter  in  the  midst  of  rude  and  idolatrooi 
people  who  practiced  such  sacrifices,  was  not  likely 
to  t»e  unusually  acquainted  with  or  to  pay  unusual 
respect  to  the  pure  and  humane  laws  of  Israel. 
(6. )  Lastly,  it  has  been  argued  that  a  life  of  religious 
celibacy  is  without  injunction  or  example  to  favor 
it  in  the  0.  T. 

Some  persons,  mindful  of  the  enrollment  of  Jeph- 
thah among  the  heroes  of  faith  hi  Heb.  xi.  32,  as 
well  as  of  the  expression  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
came  upon  him,"  Judg.  xi.  29,  have  therefore 
scrupled  to  believe  that  he  could  be  guilty  of  such 
a  sin  as  the  murder  of  his  child.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  also  that  deep  sins  of  several  other 
faithful  men  are  recorded  in  Scripture,  sometimes 
witliout  comment ;  and  as  .lephthah  had  time  after- 
wards, so  he  may  have  had  grace  to  repent  of  his 
vow  and  his  fulfillment  of  it.  At  least  we  know 
that  he  felt  remorse,  which  is  often  the  foreshadow 
of  retribution  or  the  harbinger  of  repentance. 

Doubtless  theological  opinions  have  sometimea 
had  the  effect  of  leading  men  to  prefer  one  view  of 
Jephthah's  vow  to  the  other.  Selden  mentions  that 
Genebrard  was  told  by  a  Jew  that  Kimchi's  inter- 
pretation was  devised  in  order  to  prevent  (christians 
quoting  the  sacrifice  of  Jephthah's  daughter  as  a 
type  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God.  And 
Christians,  who  desire  or  fear  an  example  alleged 
in  favor  of  celibate  vows  or  of  the  fallibility  of  in- 
spired men,  may  become  partial  judges  of  the 
question. 

The  subject  is  discussed  at  length  in  Augustine, 
l.  c.  0pp.  iii.  1,  p.  610;  a  Treatise  by  L.  Capellus 
inserted  in  Crit.  Sacr.  on  Judg.  xi. ;  Bp.  Hall's 
Contemplations  on  0.  T.,  bk.  x. ;  Selden,  De  Jure 
naturali  et  gentium,  iv.  §  11;  Lightfoot.  Sermon 
on  Judg.  xi.  39,  in  Works,  ii.  1215;  Pfeiflfer,  De 
voto  Jephtce,  0pp.  591;  Dr.  Hales'  Analysis  oj 
Chronology,  ii.  288 ;  and  in  Eosenmiiller's  Scholia. 

W.  T.  B. 

*  It  may  be  well  to  remind  the  reader  that  Kim- 
chi's suggestion  (mentioned  above)  appears  as  a  mar- 
ginal reading  of  the  A.  V. :  It  "  shall  surely  be 
the  Lord's,  or  I  will  oflTer  it  up  for  a  burnt-offer- 
ing." This  disjunctive  construction  makes  the 
vow  of  Jephthah  not  absolute,  but  conditional:  it 
left  him  at  liberty  to  pursue  one  course  or  another, 
according  to  the  nature  of  the  offering  which  he 
might  be  called  to  make,  on  ascertaining  who  or 
what  should  come  forth  to  ineet  him  from  his  house. 
But  this  solution  does  violence  to  the  Hebrew  sen- 
tence. Prof.  Cassel,  in  his  elaborate  article  on 
this  subject  (Herzog's  Renl-Knnjk.  vi.  466-478), 
maintains  that  Jephthah,  when  he  marie  his  vow, 
was  not  thinking  of  the  possibility  of  a  human 
sacrifice,  or  of  an  animal  sacrifice  of  any  sort,  but 
employed  the  term  "  burnt-offering  "  in  a  spiritual 
sense;  that  is,  using  the  expressive  word  to  denote 
completeness  of  consecration,  he  meant  that  he  woulr* 
devote  to  God's  special  and  perpetual  service  tlw 
first  person  of  his  household  whom  he  should  meet 
The  event  showed  that  among  all  the  contingencies 
he  had  no  thought  that  this  person  would  be  his 
own  cliild;  but  so  it  proved,  and  he  fulfilled  the 
vow  in  consigning  her  to  a  life  of  celibacy,  and  thus 
destroying  his  own  last  hope  of  posterity.  The 
first  clause  of  the  vow,  it  is  argued,  defines  the 
second:  a  Hteral  burnt-offering  cannot  be  meant, 
but  one  which  consists  in  being  the  lyvrd's.  H 
must  be  admitted  that  no  exact  oaralhl  can  be 
found  to  justify  this  peculiar  meanmar  of  the  word 


1252 


JEPHUNNB 


(n  v'lS?).  This  author  presents  the  same  view  in 
his  Richter  und  Ruth,  pp.  106-114.  Keil  and 
iJelitzsch  discuss  the  question  {Bibl.  Commentary 
m  the  0.  T.,  iv.  386-395),  and  decide,  in  Uke  man- 
ner, against  the  idea  of  a  literal  sacrifice. 

Wordsworth  {/My  Bible,  with  Nutes,  ii.  pt.  i.  128 
IT.)  sums  up  his  review  ol'  the  different  explanations 
with  the  remark,  that  the  predominance  of  argu- 
ment and  authority  favors  the  opinion  "  that  Jeph- 
thah  did  actually  offer  his  daughter,  not  against  her 
will,  but  with  her  consent,  a  burnt- offering  to  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  I3ut  we  may  not  pause  here.  There  is 
a  beautiful  light  shed  upon  the  gloom  of  this  dark 
history,  reflected  from  the  youthful  form  of  the 
maiden  of  Gilead,  Jephthah's  daughter.  .  .  .  She 
is  not  like  the  Iphigeuia  of  the  Greek  story.  She 
offers  her  own  life  a  willing  sacrifice ;  and  in  her 
love  for  her  father's  name,  and  in  calm  resolve  that 
all  should  know  that  she  is  a  willing  sacrifice,  and 
with  tender  and  delicate  consideration  for  her 
father,  and  in  order  that  no  one  may  charge  him 
with  having  sacrificed  her  against  her  own  free  will, 
she  craves  respite  and  liberty  for  two  months,  that 
she  may  range  freely  on  the  mountains,  apart  from 
the  world,  and  prepare  herself  for  the  day  of  suffer- 
ing, and  for  another  life.  In  full  foresight  of  death, 
she  comes  down  from  her  mountain  liberty  at  the 
appointed  time  to  offer  her  virgin  soul  for  the  fulfill- 
ment of  her  father's  vow.  Her  name  was  held  in 
honor  in  Israel.  The  daughters  of  Israel  went 
yearly  to  lament  her  —  or  rather  to  celebrate  her 
—  for  four  days." 

Finally,  let  it  be  said,  this  is  one  of  those  acts 
which  the  Scripture  history  simply  relates,  but 
leaves  the  judgment  of  them  to  the  reader.  We 
cannot,  without  being  unjust  to  the  morality  of 
the  Bible,  insist  too  much  on  this  distinction.  In 
itself  considered,  it  is  immaterial  to  the  correctness 
or  incorrectness  of  our  interpretation  of  Jephthah's 
vow,  whether  this  interpretation  exalts  or  lowers 
our  estimate  of  his  character.  The  commendation 
of  his  faith  (Ileb.  xi.  32)  does  not  extend  to  all  his 
actions.  The  same  allowance  is  due  to  him  for 
frailty  and  aberrations  that  we  make  in  behalf  of 
others  associated  with  him  in  the  same  catalogue 
■jf  examples  of  heroic  faith.  H. 

JEPHUN'NE  {'U<poyyT]:  Jephone),  Ecclus. 
xlvi.  7.     [Jephuni^eii.] 

JEPHUN'NEH  (naC";  [-perh.  fen- whom  a 
way  is  prej)n7-ed]:  Jephone).  1.  ('lei^owTj.)  Father 
of  Caleb  the  spy,  who  is  usually  designated  as 
"  Caleb  the  son  of  Jephunneh."  He  appears  to  have 
belonged  to  an  Edomitish  tribe  calle/  Kenezites, 
from  Kenaz  their  founder ;  but  his  fatner  or  other 
Anceslors  are  not  named.  [Caleb,  2;  Kenaz.] 
(See  Num.  xiii.  6,  (fee,  xxxii.  12,  &c. ;  Josh.  xiv. 
14,  &c.;  IChr.  iv.  15.) 

2.  Cu^ivd  in  both  MSS.  [rather,  Kom.  Alex. ; 
Vat.  l(piva].)  A  descendant  of  Asher,  eldest  of 
the  three  sons  of  Jether  (1  Chr.  vii.  38). 

A.  C.  H. 

.TE'RAH  (m])  [newmooii]:  [in Gen.,]  'lapdx 
[Alex.  lopaS,  Comp.  'lepdx'^  '"  1  Chr.,  Rom.  Vat. 
Alex,  omit.  Aid.  'laSep,  Comp.  'lope:]  Jare),  the 
fourth  in  onler  of  the  sons  of  Joktan  (Gen.  x.  26 ; 
1  Chr.  i.  20)  and  the  progenitor  of  a  tribe  of 
loathem  Arabia.  He  has  not  been  satisfactorily 
identifi^  with  the  name  of  any  Arabian  place  or 
Wle,  though  a  fortress  (and  probably  an  old  town. 


JERAH 

like  the  numerous  fortified  places  in  the  Ymeam 
of  the   old   Himyerite   kingdom)    named    YerftU 

\^'}y^=  n^."^.)  is  mentioned  as  belonging  U 

the  district  of  the  Nijjad  [Mardsid,  s.  v.  Yerakh), 
which  is  in  Mahreh,  at  the  extremity  of  the  Yemen 

(Kdmoos,  in  article  cX^  i  cf.  Arabia),  The 
similarity  of  name,  however,  and  the  other  indica 
tions,  we  are  not  disposed  to  lay  much  stress  on. 

A  very  different  identification  has  been  prrp«"'8ed 
by  Bochart  {Ph(deg,  ii.  19).  He  translates  Jttnh 
=  "the  moon"  into  Arabic,  and  finds  the  df 
scendants  of  Jerah  in  the  Ahlaei,  a  peoj^le  dwelling 
near  the  Ked  Sea  (Agatharch.  ap.  Diod.  Sic.  iii. 
45),  on  the  strength  of  a  passage  in  Herodotus 
(iii.  8),  in  which  he  says  of  the  Arabs,  "  Bacchua 
they  call  in  their  language  Orotal;  and  Urania, 
AUlat."  He  further  suggests  that  these  Alilan 
are  the  Benee-Hilal  of  more  modern  times,  Hil^i 

((J  j\.iC)  meaning,  in  Arabic,  "  the  moon  when, 

being  near  the  sun,  it  shows  a  narrow  rim  of  light." 
Gesenius  does  not  object  to  this  theory,  which  he 
quotes;  but  says  that  the  opinion  of  Michaelis 
(l<jncileg.  ii.  60)  is  more  probable;  the  latter  scholar 
findhig  Jerah  in  the  "coast  of  the  moon"  (cor- 

''  "  o       i     9 
rectly,  "  low  land  of  the  moon,"  y^-ftj |  s«^)> 

^  ^  O      9  ^  ^ 

orin  the"mountMnofthemoon"  (y^JiJi  (J^Ag^) 

—  in  each  case  the  moon  being  "kamar,"  not 
"  hilal."  The  former  is  "  a  place  between  Zafari 
and  Esh-Shihr  "  (Kdmoos) ;  the  latter  in  the  same 
part,  but  more  inland ;  both  being,  as  Gesenius  re- 
marks, near  to  Hadramiiwt,  next  to  which,  in  the 
order  of  the  names,  is  Jerah  in  the  record  in 
Genesis ;  and  the  same  argument  may  be  adduced 
in  favor  of  our  own  possible  identification  with  the 
fortress  of  Yerakh,  named  at  the  commencement 
of  this  article.  Whatever  may  be  said  in  support 
of  translating  Jerah,  as  both  Bochart  and  Michaehs 
have  done,  the  former's  theory  involves  some  grave 
difficulties,  which  must  be  stated. 

The  statement  of  Herodotus  above  quoted  (cf.  i. 
131,  "  the  Arabians  call  Venus  Alitta  "),  that  Alikt 
signifies  Urania,  cannot  be  accepted  without  further 
evidence  than  we  at  present  possess.  Alilat  was 
almost  doubtless  the  same  as  the  object  of  worship 
called  by  the  Arabs  "  El-Latt,"  and  any  new  infor- 
mation respecting  the  latter  is  therefore  important. 
It  would  require  too  much  space  in  this  work  to 
state  the  various  opinions  of  the  Arabs  respecting 
El-Latt,  its  etymology,  etc.,  as  collected  in  tLe 
great  MS.  Lexicon  entitled  the  "Mohkam,"  a  woik 

little  known  in  Europe;  from  which  (articles  ci/J 

and  j^«J)  we  give  the  foUowmg  particulars.  "  Ell- 

Latt"  is  [generally]  said  to  be  originally  "  Kl- 
Lath,"  the  name  of  an  object  of  worship,  so  called 
by  the  appellation  of  a  man  who  used  to  moisten 
meal  of  parched  barley  (saweek)  with  clarified  butter 
or  the  like,  at  the  place  thereof,  for  the  pilgrims: 
"El-Latt"  signifying  "the  person  who  perform! 
that  operation."  The  object  of  worship  itself  ii 
said  to  have  been  a  mass  of  rock  [upon  which  Im 
moistened  the  meal;  and  which  was  more  propei^ 


JERAHMEEL 

j^kd  "  the  Rock  of  El-Latt "] :  after  the  death  of 
Jxe  mail  above  mentioned  this  rock  was  worshipped. 
But  some  say  that  »  El-Latt "  is  originally  »  El- 

naheh"  (xiO^l^il),  meaning  [not  "  the  Goddess," 

but]  «'  the  Seipent."  To  this  we  may  add  from 
El-Beydawee  (Kur-dn,  liii.  19  and  20),  El-I^att  was 
an  idol  of  Thakeef,  at  Et-Taif,  or  of  Kureysh,  at 

Nakhleh;  and  was  so  called  from  itf-^J,  because 

they  used  to  go  round  about  it :  or  it  was  called 
'*  El-Latt,"  because  it  was  the  image  of  a  man  who 
used  to  moisten  meal  of  parched  barley  with  clari- 
fied butter,  and  to  feed  the  pilgrims.  —  Our  own 
opinion  is  that  it  may  be  a  contraction  of  "  El- 
Ilahet"  ("the  Serpent,"  or  perhaps  "the  God- 
dess"), pronounced  according  to  the  dialect  of 
Himyer,  with  "  t "  instead  of  "  h  "  in  the  case  of 

a.  pause.  (See  the  Sihdh,  MS.,  art.  v..^**.)  It  is 
said  in  the  Lexicon  entitled  the  Tahdheeb  (MS.,  art. 
v^iO),  that  El-Kisa-ee  used  to  pronounce  it,  in  the 
case  of  a  pause,  "El-Liih;"  and  that  those  who 
worshipped  it  compared  its  name  with  that  of 
«  Allah." 

Pococke  has  some  remarks  on  the  subject  of  El- 
Latt,  which  the  reader  may  consult  (Spec.  Hist, 
Arab.  p.  90);  and  also  Sir  G.  Wilkinson,  in  his 
notes  to  Herodotus  (ed.  Rawlinson,  ii.  402,  foot- 
note, and  Essay  i.  to  bk.  iii.):  he  seems  to  be 
wrong,  however,  in  saying  that  the  Arabic  "  '  awel,' 
'  first '  "    [correctly,   "  awwal  "]    is    "  related  to  " 

vS,  or  Allah,  etc. ;  and  that  Alitta  and  Mylitta 
are  Semitic  names  *derived  from  <■'■  welecl,  walada, 
*to  bear  children'"  {Essay  i.  537).  The  com- 
parison of  Alitta  and  Mylitta  is  also  extremely 
doubtful;  and  probably  Herodotus  assimilated  the 
former  name  to  the  latter. 

It  is  necessary  to  observe,  in  endeavoring  to 
elucidate  the  ancient  religion  of  the  Ishmaelite 
Arabs,  that  fetishism  was  largely  developed  among 
them ;  and  that  their  idols  were  generally  absurdly 
rude  and  primitive.  Beyond  that  relic  of  primeval 
revelation  which  is  found  in  most  beliefs  —  a  recog- 
nition of  one  universal  and  supreme  God  —  the 
practices  of  fetishism  obtained  more  or  less  through- 
out Arabia:  on  the  north  giving  place  to  the  faith 
of  the  patriarchs ;  on  the  south  merging  into  the 
cosmic  worship  of  the  Himyerites. 

That  the  Alilaei  were  worshippers  of  Alilat  is  an 
assumption  unsupported  by  facts;  but,  whatever 
aaay  be  said  in  its  favor,  the  people  in  question  are 
not  the  Benee-Hilal,  who  take  their  name  from  a 
kinsman  of  Mohammed,  in  the  fifth  generation 
before  him,  of  the  well-known  stock  of  Keys. 
(Caussin,  Kssni^  Tab.  X  A  ;  Abu-1-Fida,  Hist. 
anteisL,  ed.  Fleischer,  p.  194.)  E.  S.  P. 

JERAH'MEEL  (^SPHT^  \pbject  of  God's 

mercy]  :  'Upafie-fik  ;  [Vat.  Ipa/^eryA,  Upe/ieriK, 
-097A,  Pa^eTjA;  Alex.  IpafifrjK,  Upe/x^TjK,  -ir]\-] 
Jerametl).  1.  First-born  son  of  Hezron,  the  son 
3f  Pharez,  the  son  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  9,  2?, -27, 
33,  42).  His  descendants  are  given  at  length  in 
the  same  chap.  [Azauiah,  5;  Zabad.]  They 
bhabited  the  southern  border  of  Judah  (1  Sam. 
utvii.  10,  comp.  8;  xxx.  29). 
2.  [Vat.  Alex.  Ipaixa-nX-]     A  Merarite  Levite ; 


JEREMIAH  1268 

the  representative,  at  the  time  of  the  organizatioo 
of  the  Divine  service  by  king  David,  of  the  family 
of  Kish,  the  son  of  Mahli  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  29 ;  comp. 
xxiii.  21). 

3.  ['lepe/iei^A,  Alex.  -irjX,  FA.  -tarjA.:  Jer^ 
miel.']  Son  of  Hammelech,  or,  as  the  LXX.  rendet 
it,  "  the  king,"  who  was  employed  by  .Jehoiakim 
to  make  Jeremiah  and  Baruch  prisoners,  after  he 
had  burnt  the  roll  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy  (Jer. 
xxxvi.  26).  A.  C.  H. 

JERAH'MEELITES,  THE  ObSTpH'D'in 
[patronym.  from  the  above] :  'Ie(r/i€7o,  6  'lepf- 
/^erjA.;  [Vat.  in  xxx.  29,  lorparjA.;]  Alex.  Icrpa/x-nXeu 
lepayUTjAet:  Jerameel).  The  tribe  descended  from 
the  first  of  the  foregoing  persons  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  10/ 
Their  cities  are  also  named  amongst  those  to  which 
David  sent  presents  from  his  Amalekite  booty  (xxx. 
29),  although  to  Achish  he  had  represented  that 
he  had  attacked  them. 

JER'ECHUS  Clepexos  [or  -X«"5  ^^^-  ^^p- 
eixov-]  Ericus),  1  Esdr.  v.  22.    [Jericho.] 

JE'RED  ("T"!!?."!  [descent.,  going  down]:  ^idpeS: 
Jared).  1.  One  of  the  patriarchs  before  the  flood, 
son  of  Mahalaleel  and  father  of  Enoch  (1  Chr.  i.  2). 
In  Genesis  the  name  is  given  as  Jared. 

2.  [Jaret.]  One  of  the  descendants  of  Judah 
signalized  as  the  '« father  —  i.  e.  the  founder  —  of 
Gedor"  (1  Chr.  iv.  18).  He  was  one  of  the  sons 
of  Ezrah  by  his  wife  Ha-Jehudijah,  i.  e.  the  Jewess. 
The  Jews,  however,  give  an  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion to  the  passage,  and  treat  this  and  other  names 
therein  as  titles  of  Moses  —  Jered,  because  he  caused 
the  manna  to  descend.  Here  —  as  noticed  imder 
Jabez  —  the  pun,  though  obvious  in  Bil)lical  He- 
brew, where  Jarad  (the  root  of  Jordan)  means  "  to 
descend,"  is  concealed  in  the  rabbinical  paraphrase, 

which  has  rT^HIS,  a  word  with  the  same  mean- 
ing, but  without  any  relation  to  Jered,  either  for 
eye  or  ear.  G. 

JER'EMAI  [3  syl]  C^f^y.  {_dmlkrs  o?i 
heights]:  'lepafii;  Alex.  Upe/uLi;  [Vat.  lepe/tet/i, 
FA.  -fid']  Jernuii),  a  layman;  one  of  the  Bene- 
Hashum,  who  was  compelled  by  P^ra  to  put  away 
his  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  33).  In  the  lists  of  Esdraa 
it  is  omitted. 

JEREMI'AH  (^n^PII,  as  the  more  usual 

form,  or  n^P"]"^,  ch.  xxxvi.-xxxviii. :  'Upefiiasi 
Jeremias,Yu\g.;  Hieremias,  Hieron.  et  al.).  The 
name  has  been  variously  explained :  by  Jerome  and 
Simonis  (Onomast.  p.  535),  as  "  the  exalted  of  the 
Lord;"  by  Gesenius  (s.  v.),  as  "appointed  of  the 
Lord;"  by  Carpzov  (Introd.  nd  lib.  V.  T.  p.  iii 
c.  3),  followed  by  Hengstenberg  (Christologie  des 
A.  B.  vol.  i.),  as  "  the  Lord  throws  "  — the  latter 
seeing  in  the  name  a  prophetic  reference  to  the 
work  described  in  i.  10  ;  [by  Dietrich,  "  whom 
Jehovah  founds,"  i.  e.  establishes.] 

I.  Life.  —  It  will  be  convenient  to  arrange  what 
is  known  as  to  the  Ufe  and  work  of  this  prophet  in 
sections  corresponding  to  its  chief  periods.  The 
materials  for  such  an  account  are  to  be  found  almost 
exclusively  in  the  book  which  l^ears  his  name. 
Whatever  interest  may  attach  to  Jewish  or  Chris- 
tian traditions  connected  with  bis  name,  tliey  have 
no  claim  to  be  regarded  as  historical,  and  we  are 
left  to  form  what  picture  we  can  of  the  man  and 
(/  _is  times  from  the  narratives  and  propleciet 
which  he  himself  has  left.    Fortunately,  these  bav* 


1264  JEREMIAH 

oome  down  to  us,  though  in  soma  disorder,  with 
unusual  fullness ;  and  there  is  no  one  in  the  *'  goodly 
feUowship  of  the  prophets  "  of  whom,  in  his  work, 
feelings,  sufferings,  we  have  so  distinct  a  knowledge. 
He  is  for  us  the  great  exaniple  of  the  prophetic  life, 
the  representative  of  the  prophetic  order.  It  is  not 
a"  be  wondered  at  that  he  should  have  seemed  to 
tae  Christian  feeling  of  the  Early  Church  a  type 
of  Him  in  whom  that  life  received  its  highest  com- 
pletion (Hieron.  Comm.  in  Jerem.  xxiii.  9;  Origen. 
Horn,  in  Jerem.  i.  and  viii. ;  Aug.  de  Pices.  Uti, 
c.  xxxvii.),  or  that  recent  writers  should  have  iden- 
tified him  with  the  "  Servant  of  the  Lord  "  in  the 
later  chapters  of  Isaiah  (Bunsen,  Gott  in  der  Ges- 
chic/ite,  i.  425-447;  Niigelsbach,  art.  *' Jerem."  in 
Herzog's  He(d-Encykloj).). 

(1.)  Under  Josiah,  n.  c.  638-608.  —  In  the  13th 
year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  prophet  speaks  of 

himself  as  still  "a  child"  ("^^5"  i- 6).  We  can- 
not rely  indeed  on  this  word  as  a  chronological 
datum.  It  may  have  been  used  simply  as  the  ex- 
pression of  conscious  weakness,  and  as  a  word  of 
age  it  extends  from  merest  infancy  (Ex.  ii.  6;  1 
Sam.  iv.  21)  to  adult  manhood  (1  Sam.  xxx.  17; 
1  K.  iii.  7 ).  We  may  at  least  infer,  however,  as 
we  can  trace  his  life  in  full  activity  for  upwards  of 
forty  years  from  this  period,  that  at  the  commence- 
ment of  that  reign  he  could  not  have  passed  out  of 
actual  childhood.  He  is  described  as  "  the  son  of 
Hilkiah  of  the  priests  that  were  in  Anathoth  "  (i.  1). 
Were  we  able,  with  some  earlier  (Clem.  Al.  Strain. 
i.  p.  142;  Jerome,  0pp.  torn.  iv.  §  116,  D.)  and 
some  later  writers  (Eichhorn,  Calovius,  INlaldonatus. 
von  Bolilen,  Urnbreit),  to  identify  this  Hilkiah  with 
the  high-priest  who  bore  so  large  a  share  in  Josiahs 
work  of  reformation,  it  would  be  interesting  to 
think  of  the  king  and  the  prophet,  so  nearly  of  the 
game  age  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  1),  as  growing  up  together 
under  the  same  training,  subject  to  the  same  in- 
fluences. Against  this  hypothesis,  however,  there 
have  been  urged  the  facts  (Carjizov,  Keil,  ICwald, 
and  others)  —  (1.)  that  the  name  is  too  common 
to  be  a  ground  of  identification;  (2.)  that  the 
manner  in  which  this  Hilkiah  is  mentioned  is 
inconsistent  with  the  notion  of  his  having  been  the 
High-priest  of  Israel;  (3.)  that  neither  Jeremiah 
himself,  nor  his  opponents,  allude  to  this  parentage ; 
(4.)  that  the  priests  who  lived  at  Anathoth  were 
of  the  House  of  Ithamar  (1  K.  ii.  26;  1  Chr.  xxiv. 
S),  while  the  high-priests  from  Zadok  downwards 
were  of  the  line  of  Eleazar  (Carpzov,  Introd.  in  lib. 
V.  T.  Jerem.).  The  occurrence  of  the  same  name 
may  be  looked  on,  however,  in  this  as  in  many 
other  instances  in  the  0.  T.,  as  a  probable  indica- 
tion of  affinity  or  friendship;  and  this,  together 
^ith  the  coincidences —  (1.)  that  the  uncle  of  Jere- 
miah (xxxii.  7)  bears  the  same  name  as  the  husband 
of  Huldah  the  prophetess  (2  K.  xxii.  14),  and  (2.) 
'Jiat  Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan,  the  great  sup- 
H)rter  of  Hilkiah  and  Huldah  in  their  work  (2  Chr. 
rxxiv.  20)  was  also,  throughout,  the  great  protector 
of  the  prophet  (Jer.  xxvi.  24),  may  help  to  throw 
lorne  light  on  the  education  by  which  he  was  pre- 
pared for  that  work  to  which  he  was  taught  he  had 
been  "  sanctified  from  his  mother's  womb."  The 
Btniige  Kabbinic  tradition  (Carpzov,  /.  c),  that 
eight  of  the  persons  most  conspicuous  in  the  relig- 
ious history  of  this  period  (Jeremiah,  Baruch, 
Ser^ah,  Maaseiah,  Hilkiah,  Hanameel.  Huldah, 
Bhallum )  were  all  descended  from  the  harlot  Kahab, 
xx»y  possibly  h  ive  been  a  distortion  of  the  fact  that 


JEREMIAH 

they  were  connected,  in  some  way  or  other,  ai 
members  of  a  family.  If  this  were  so,  we  can  fons 
a  tolerably  distinct  notion  of  the  influences  that 
were  at  work  on  Jeremiah's  youth.  The  boy  would 
hear  among  the  priests  of  his  native  town,  not  three 
miles  distant  from  Jerusalem  [Anathoth],  of  the 
idolatries  and  cruelties  of  Manasseh  and  his  son 
Anion.  He  would  be  trained  in  the  traditional 
precepts  and  ordinances  of  the  Law.  He  would 
become  acquainted  with  the  names  and  writings 
of  older  prophets,  such  as  Micah  and  Isaiah.  A> 
he  grew  up  towards  manhood,  he  would  hear  alac 
of  the  work  which  the  king  and  his  counsellors  werq 
carrying  on,  and  of  the  teaching  of  the  woman 
who  alone,  or  nearly  so,  in  the  midst  of  that  relig- 
ious revival,  was  looked  upon  as  speaking  from 
direct  prophetic  inspiration.  In  all  hkelihood,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  came  into  actual  contact  with 
them.  Possibly,  too,  to  this  period  of  his  life  we 
may  trace  the  commencement  of  that  friendship 
with  the  family  of  Neriah  which  was  afterwards  sc 
fruitful  in  results.  The  two  brothers  Baruch  and 
Seraiah  both  appear  as  the  disciples  of  the  prophet 
(xxxvi.  4,  Ii.  59);  both  were  the  sons  of  Keriah, 
the  son  of  Maaseiah  (/.  c);  and  IMaaseiah  (2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  8)  was  governor  of  Jerusalem,  acting  with 
Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  in  the  religious  reforms  of 
Josiah.  As  the  result  of  all  these  influences  we 
find  in  him  all  the  conspicuous  features  of  the 
devout  ascetic  character:  intense  consciousness  of 
his  own  weakness,  great  susceptiljility  to  varying 
emotions,  a  spirit  easily  bowed  down.  But  there 
were  also,  we  may  believe  (assuming  oidy  that  the 
prophetic  character  is  the  development,  purified 
and  exalted,  of  the  natural,  not  its  contradiction), 
the  strong  national  feelings  of  an  Israelite,  the 
desire  to  see  his  nation  becoming  in  reality  what  it 
had  been  called  to  be,  anxions  J!oubts  whether  this 
were  possible,  for  a  people  that  had  sunk  so  low 
(cf.  Maurice,  Proj)lietii  and  Kinr^s  of  the  0.  T., 
Serm.  xxii.-xxiv.;  Ewald,  J'lOj/htten,  ii.  p.  6-8). 
Left  to  himself,  he  might  have  borne  his  part 
among  the  reforming  priests  of  Josiah's  reign,  free 
from  their  formalism  and  hy])ocrisy.  But  "the 
word  of  Jehovah  came  to  him  "  (i.  2):  and  by  that 
divine  voice  the  secret  of  his  future  life  was  revealed 
to  him,  at  the  very  time  when  the  work  of  reforma- 
tion was  going  on  with  fresh  vigor  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  3), 
when  he  himself  was  beginning  to  have  the  thoughts 
and  feelings  of  a  man."  He  was  to  lay  aside  all 
self- distrust,  all  natural  fear  and  trembhng  (i.  7,  8), 
and  to  accept  his  calUng  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah 
"  set  over  the  nations  and  over  the  kingdoms,  t6 
root  out  and  to  pidl  down,  and  to  destroy  and  to 
throw  down,  to  build  and  to  plant  "  (i.  10).  A 
life-long  martyrdom  was  set  before  him,  a  struggle 
against  kings  and  priests  and  people  (i.  18).  When 
was  this  wonderful  mission  de\elGped  into  action ? 
^Vhat  effect  did  it  have  on  the  inward  and  outward 
life  of  the  man  who  received  it  ?  For  a  time,  it 
would  seem,  he  held  aloof  from  the  work  which  wa« 
going  on  throughout  the  nation.  His  name  is 
nowhere  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  memoraole 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah.  Though  five  years  had 
passed  since  he  had  entered  on  the  work  of  a 
prophet,  it  is  from  Huldah,  not  from  him,  that  the 
king  and  his  princes  seek  for  counsel.  Tlie  dis- 
covery of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  however  (we  need 
not  now  inquire  whether  it  were  the  Pentateuch  M 


a  CarpzoT  (I.  c.)  fixes  twenty  as  the  probable  «^ 
of  Jeremiah  at  the  time  of  his  call. 


JEREMIAH 

k  whole,  or  a  lost  portion  of  it,  or  a  compilation 
idtogether  new),  could  not  fail  to  exercise  an  influ- 
snce  on  a  mind  like  Jeremiah's:  his  later  writings 
sh'iw  abundant  traces  of  it  (cf.  inf. ) ;  and  the  result 
apparently  was,  that  he  could  not  share  the  hopes 
which  others  cherished.  To  them  the  reformation 
seemed  more  thorough  than  that  accomplished  by 
Hezekiah.  They  might  think  that  fasts,  and  sacri- 
fices, and  the  punishment  of  idolaters,  might  avert 
the  penalties  of  which  they  heard  in  the  book  so 
strangely  found  (I)eut.  xxvii.,  xxviii.,  xxxii.),  and 
might  look  forward  to  a  time  of  prosperity  and 
peace,  of  godliness  and  security  (vii.  4).  He  saw 
that  the  reformation  was  but  a  surface  one.  Israel 
had  gone  into  captivity,  and  Judah  was  worse  than 
Israel  (iii.  II).  It  was  as  hard  for  him  as  it  had 
been  for  Isaiah,  to  find  among  the  princes  and 
people  who  worshipped  in  the  Temple,  one  just, 
truth-seeking  man  (v.  1.  28).  His  own  work,  as 
a  priest  and  prophet,  led  him  to  discern  the  false- 
hood and  lust  of  rule  which  were  at  work  under 
the  form  of  zeal  (v.  31).  The  spoken  or  written 
prophecies  of  his  contemporaries,  Zephaniah,  Hab- 
akkuk,  Urijah,  Iluldah,  may  have  served  to  deepen 
his  convictions,  that  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
was  already  passed,  and  that  there  was  no  escape 
from  it.  The  strange  visions  which  had  followed 
upon  his  call  (i.  11-16)  taught  him  that  Jehovah 
would  "hasten"  the  performance  of  His  word; 
and  if  the  Scythian  inroads  of  the  later  years  of 
Josiah's  reign  seemed  in  part  to  correspond  to  the 
"destruction  comhig  from  the  North"  (Ewald, 
Propketen  in  loc),  they  could  hardly  be  looked 
upon  as  exhausting  the  words  that  siwke  of  it. 
Hence,  though  we  have  hardly  any  mention  of 
special  incidents  in  the  life  of  .Jeremiah  during  the 
eighteen  years  between  his  call  and  Josiah's  death, 
the  main  features  of  his  life  come  distinctly  enough 
before  us.  He  had  even  then  his  experience  of  the 
bitterness  of  the  lot  to  which  God  had  called  him. 
The  duties  of  the  priest,  even  if  he  continued  to 
discharge  them,  were  merged  in  those  of  the  new 
and  special  ofHce.  Strange  as  it  was  for  a  priest 
to  remain  unmarried,  his  lot  was  to  be  one  of 
solitude  (xvi.  2)."  It  was  not  for  him  to  enter  into 
the  house  of  feasting,  or  even  into  that  of  mourning 
(xvi.  5,  8).  From  time  to  time  he  appeared,  clad 
probably  in  the  "rough  garment"  of  a  prophet 
(Zech.  xiii.  4),  in  Anatlioth  and  Jerusalem.  He 
was  heard  warning  and  protesting,  "  rising  early 
and  speaking"  (xxv.  ;i),  and  as  the  result  of  this 
there  came  "reproach  and  derision  daily"  (xx.  8). 
He  was  betrayed  by  his  own  kindred  (xii.  6),  perse- 
cuted with  murderous  hate  by  his  own  townsmen 
(xi.  21 ),  mocked  with  the  taunting  question,  Where 
is  the  word  of  Jehovah  V  (xvii.  15).  And  there 
were  inner  spiritual  trials  as  well  as  these  outward 
ones.  He  too,  like  the  writers  of  Job  and  Ps. 
Lxxiii.,  was  haunted  by  perplexities  rising  out  of  the 
disorders  of  the  world  (xii.  1,  2);  on  him  there 
came  the  Intter  feeling,  that  he  was  "  a  man  of 
contention  to  the  whole  earth  "  (xv.  10);  the  doubt 
whether  his  whole  work  was  not  a  delusion  and  a 
lie  (xx.  7)  tempting  him  at  tines  to  fall  back  into 
ulence,  until  the  fire  again  burnt  within  him,  and 
•\e  was  weary  of  forbesiring  (xx.  9).     Whether  the 


«  This  is  clearly  the  natural  Inference  froir  the 
*urd.i,  and  patristic  writers  take  the  fact  for  graaied 
'n  later  times  it  has  been  supposed  to  hav»  »jine 
••arfjig  r.ii  the  question  of  the  celibacy  of  the  cle.^y, 


JEREMIAH  1266 

passages  that  have  been  referred  to  belong,  all  <rf 
them,  to  this  period  or  a  later  one,  they  represea* 
that  which  was  inseparable  from  the  prophet's  'lie 
at  all  times,  and  which,  in  a  character  like  Jere- 
miah's, was  developed  in  its  strongest  form.  To- 
wards the  close  of  the  reign,  however,  he  appears 
to  have  taken  some  part  in  the  great  national  ques- 
tions then  at  issue.  The  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian 
monarchy  to  which  Manasseh  had  become  tributary 
led  the  old  Egyptian  party  among  the  princes  of 
Judah  to  revive  their  plans,  and  to  urge  an  alliance 
with  Pharaoh-Necho  as  the  only  means  of  safety. 
Jeremiah,  following  in  the  footsteps  of  Isaiah  (Is. 
XXX.  1-7),  warned  them  that  it  would  lead  only  to 
confusion  (ii.  18,  3G).  The  policy  of  Josiah  wag 
determined,  probably,  by  this  counsel.  He  chose 
to  attach  himself  to  the  new  Chaldaian  kingdom, 
and  lost  his  life  in  the  vain  attempt  to  stop  the 
progress  of  the  Egyptian  king.  We  may  think  of 
this  as  one  of  the  first  great  sorrows  of  Jeremiah's 
life.  His  lamentations  for  the  king  (2  Chr.  xxxv. 
25)''  may  have  been  those  of  personal  friendship 
They  were  certainly  those  of  a  man  who,  with 
nothing  before  him  but  the  prospect  of  confusion 
and  wrong,  looks  back  upon  a  reign  of  righteous- 
ness and  truth  (xxii.  3,  16). 

(2.)  Under  Jehoahaz  (=Shallum),  n.  c.  608.— 
The  short  reign  of  this  prince  —  chosen  by  the  peo- 
ple on  hearing  of  Josiah's  death,  and  after  three 
months  deposed  by  Pharaoh-Necho  —  gave  little 
scope  for  direct  prophetic  action.  The  fact  of  his 
de^wsition,  however,  shows  that  he  had  been  set  up 
against  Egypt,  and  therefore  as  representing  the 
policy  of  which  Jeremiah  had  been  the  advocate; 
and  this  may  account  for  the  tenderness  and  pity 
with  which  he  speaks  of  him  in  his  Egyptian  exile 
(xxii.  11,  12). 

(3.)  Under  Jehoiakim,  b.  c.  607-597.  —In  the 
weakness  and  disorder  which  characterized  this 
reign,  the  work  of  Jeremiah  became  daily  more 
prominent.  The  king  had  come  to  the  throne  as 
the  vassal  of  Egypt,  and  for  a  time  the  Egyptian 
party  was  dominant  in  Jerusalem.  It  numbered 
among  its  members  many  of  the  princes  of  Judah, 
many  priests  and  prophets,  the  i'ashurs  and  the 
Hananiahs.  Others,  however,  remained  faithful  to 
the  policy  of  Josiah,  and  held  that  the  only  way  of 
safety  lay  in  accepting  the  supremacy  of  the  Chal- 
daeans.  Jeremiah  appeared  as  the  chief  represen- 
tative of  this  party.  He  had  learnt  to  discern  the 
signs  of  the  times;  the  evils  of  the  nation  were 
not  to  be  cured  by  any  half-measures  of  reform,  or 
by  foreign  alliances.  The  king  of  Babylon  was 
God's  servant  (xxv.  9,  xxvii.  6),  doing  his  work 
and  was  for  a  time  to  prevail  over  all  resistance. 
Hard  as  it  was  for  one  who  sympathized  so  deeply 
with  all  the  sufferings  of  his  country,  this  was  the 
conviction  to  which  he  had  to  bring  himscjlf.  He 
iiad  to  expose  himself  to  the  suspicion  of  treachery 
i)y  declaring  it.  Men  claiming  to  be  prophets  had 
their  "  word  of  Jehovah  "  to  set  against  his  (xiv. 
13,  xxiii.  17 ),  and  all  that  he  could  do  wa.s  to  com- 
mit his  cause  to  God,  and  wait  for  the  result. 
Some  of  the  most  striking  scenes  in  this  conflict 
are  brought  before  us  with  great  vividness.  Soon 
after  the  accession  of  Jehoiakim,  on  one  of  the  sol- 


and  has  been  denied  by  Protestant  and  reaaacrted  by 
Romish  critics  Jiccordingly  (cf.  Carpzov,  l.  c). 

b  The  hypothesis  which  ascribes  these  lauentatiom 
to  Jeremiah  of  Libnah,  Josiah's  father-in-law,  l«  Lttrdlf 
worth  refutinz. 


1256  JEREMIAH 

imn  feast-days  —  when  the  courts  of  the  Temple 
were  filled  with  worshippers  from  all  the  cities  of 
Jndah  —  the  prophet  appeared,  to  utter  the  mes- 
■age  that  Jerusalem  should  become  a  curse,  that 
the  Temple  shoulil  share  the  fate  of  the  tabernacle 
of  Shiloh  (xxvi.  0).  Then  it  was  that  the  great 
gtruggle  of  his  life  began:  priests  and  prophets 
and  people  joined  in  the  demand  for  his  death 
(xxvi.  8).  The  princes  of  Judah,  among  whom 
were  still  many  of  the  counsellors  of  Josiah,  or 
their  sons,  endeavored  to  protect  him  (xxvi.  16). 
His  friends  appealed  to  the  precedent  of  Micah  the 
Morasthite,  who  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  had  ut- 
tered a  like  prophecy  with  impunity,  and  so  for  a 
time  he  escaped.  The  fate  of  one  who  was  stirred 
up  to  prophesy  in  the  same  strain  showed,  however, 
what  he  might  expect  from  the  weak  and  cruel 
king-  If  Jeremiah  was  not  at  once  hunted  to 
death,  like  Urijah  (xxvi.  28),  it  was  only  because 
his  friend  Ahikam  was  powerful  enough  to  protect 
him.  'i'he  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakirn  was  yet  more 
memorable.  The  battle  of  Carchemish  overthrew 
the  hopes  of  the  Egyptian  party  (xlvi.  2),  and  the 
armies  of  Nebuchadnezzar  drove  those  who  had  no 
defenced  cities  to  take  refuge  in  Jerusalem  (xxxv. 
11).  xVs  one  of  the  consequences  of  this,  we  have 
the  interesting  episode  of  the  Rechabites.  The 
mind  of  the  prophet,  ascetic  in  his  habits,  shrink- 
hig  from  the  common  forms  of  social  Hfe,  was  nat- 
urally enough  drawn  towards  the  tribe  which  was 
at  once  conspicuous  for  its  abstinence  from  wine 
and  its  traditional  hatred  of  idolatry  (2  K.  x.  15). 
The  occurrence  of  the  name  of  Jeremiah  among 
them,  and  their  ready  reception  into  the  Temple, 
may  point,  perhaps,  to  a  previous  intimacy  with 
him  and  his  brother  priests.  Now  they  and  their 
mode  of  life  had  a  new  significance  for  him.  They, 
with  their  reverence  for  the  precepts  of  the  founder 
of  their  tribe,  were  as  a  living  protest  against  the 
disobedience  of  the  men  of  Judah  to  a  higher  law 
(xxxv.  18).  In  this  year  too  came  another  solemn 
message  to  the  king:  prophecies  whicli  had  been 
uttered,  here  and  there  at  intervals,  were  now  to  be 
gathered  together,  Avritten  in  a  book,  and  read  as  a 
whole  ui  the  hearing  of  the  peo])Ie.  IJaruch,  al- 
ready known  as  the  Prophet's  disciple,  acted  as 
scribe;  and  in  the  fullowhig  year,  when  a  solemn 
fast-day  called  the  whole  people  together  in  the 
Temple  (xxxvi.  1-9),  Jeremiah  —  hindered  himself, 
we  know  not  how  —  sent  him  to  proclaim  them. 
The  result  was  as  it  had  been  before:  the  princes 
of  Judah  connived  at  the  escape  of  the  prophet 
and  his  scribe  (xxxvi.  19).  The  king  vented  his 
mpotent  rage  upon  the  scroll  which  .lereiniah  had 
vvritten.  Jeremiah  and  Baruch,  in  their  retirement, 
re- wrote  it  with  many  added  prophecies,  among 
them,  probably,  the  special  prediction  that  the  king 
Bhoukl  die  by  the  swoixl,  and  be  cast  out  unburied 
and  dishonored  (xxii.  30).  In  ch.  xlv.,  which  be- 
^jngs  to  this  period,  we  have  a  glimpse  into  the 
►•elations  which  existed  between  the  master  and  the 
scholar,  and  into  what  at  that  time  were  the 
thoughts  of  each  of  them.  Baruch,  younger  and 
more  eager,  had  expected  a  change  for  the  better. 
To  play  a  prominent  part  in  the  impending  crisis, 
to  be  the  hero  of  a  national  revival,  to  gain  the 
mvor  ol  the  conqueror  whose  coming  he  announced 
—  thi.s,  or  something  like  this,  had  been  the  vision 
that  had  come  before  him,  and  when  this  passed 
*wAy  he  sank  into  desjmir  at  the  seeming  fruitless- 
DH88  of  his  efforts.  Jeremiah  had  passed  through 
th»t  phase  of  trial  and  could  sympathize  with  it 


JEREMIAH 

and  knew  how  to  meet  it.      To  the  mind  of  Ml 

disciple,  as  once  to  his  own,  the  future  was  revealed 
in  all  its  dreariness.  He  was  not  to  seek  "  erfat 
things"  for  himself  in  the  midst  of  liis  country'i 
ruin:  his  hfe,  and  that  only,  was  to  Le  gi>en  him 
"  for  a  prey."  As  the  dan<;er  drew  nearer,  there 
M'as  given  to  the  Prophet  a  dearer  insight  into  the 
purposes  of  God  for  his  peojJe.  He  might  have 
thought  before,  as  others  did,  that  the  chastisement 
would  be  but  for  a  short  time,  that  rejientance 
would  lead  to  strength,  and  that  the  yoke  of  the 
Chaldaeans  might  soon  be  sh:Uien  off:  now  he  learnt 
that  it  would  last  for  seventy  _\ears  (:;xv.  12  ■.  tiU 
he  and  all  that  generation  had  pas.sed  a\va\ .  Nor 
was  it  on  Judah  only  that  the  king  of  Hali^luu  was 
to  execute  the  judgments  of  .lehuvah:  all  nations 
that  were  within  the  propiiefs  keji  were  to  diink 
as  fully  as  .she  did  of  "  the  wine-cup  of  His  fury  " 
(xxv.  15-38).  In  the  absence  of  special  dates  lor 
other  events  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  we  may 
bring  together  into  one  picture  some  of  the  most 
striking  features  of  this  period  of  Jeremiah's  Hfe. 
As  the  danger  from  the  Chaldaeans  became  more 
threatening,  the  persecution  against  him  grew  hot- 
ter, his  own  thoughts  were  more  bitter  and  despond- 
ing (xviii.).  The  people  sought  his  life:  his  voice 
rose  up  in  the  prayer  that  God  would  deliver  and 
avenge  him.  Conmion  facts  became  significant  to 
him  of  Jiew  and  wonderful  truths;  the  work  of  the 
potter  aiming  at  the  production  of  a  perfect  form, 
lejecting  the  vessels  which  did  not  attain  to  it, 
became  a  parable  of  God's  dealings  with  Israel  and 
with  the  world  (xviii.  1-6 ;  comp.  Maurice,  Pi>)ph. 
and  Kitiys,  1.  c).  That  thought  he  soon  repro- 
duced in  act  as  well  as  word.  Standing  in  the 
valley  of  Ben-Hinnom,  he  broke  the  earthen  vessel 
he  carried  in  his  hands,  and  prophesied  to  the  peo- 
ple that  the  whole  city  should  be  defiled  with  the 
dead,  as  that  valley  had  been,  withiji  their  memory, 
by  Josiah  (xix.  10-13).  The  boldness  of  the  speech 
and  act  drew  upon  him  immediate  punishment. 
The  priest  Pashur  smote  and  put  him  "  in  the 
stocks"  (xx.  2);  and  then  there  came  upon  him, 
as  in  all  seasons  of  suffering,  the  sense  of  failure 
and  weakness.  The  work  of  God's  messengers 
seemed  to  him  too  terrible  to  be  borne :  he  would 
fain  have  withdrawn  from  it  (xx.  9).  He  used  for 
himself  the  cry  of  wailing  that  had  belonged  to  the 
extremest  agony  of  Job  (xx.  14-18).  The  years 
that  followed  brought  no  change  for  the  better. 
Famine  and  drought  were  added  to  the  miseries  of 
the  people  (xiv.  1),  but  false  prophets  still  deceived 
them  with  assurances  of  plenty;  and  Jeremiah  was  • 
looked  on  with  dislike,  as  "  a  prophet  of  evil,"  and 
"every  one  cursed"  him  (xv.  10).  He  was  set, 
however,  "as  a  fenced  brazen  wall"  (xv.  20), 
and  went  on  with  his  w.^rk,  reproving  king  and 
nobles  and  people;  as  for  other  sins,  so  also  espe- 
cially for  their  desecration  of  the  Sabbath  (xvii. 
19-27),  for  their  blind  reverence  for  the  Temple, 
and  yet  blinder  trust  in  it,  even  while  they  were 
worshipping  theCJueen  of  Heaven  in  the  very  streef-a 
of  Jerusalem  (vii.  14,  18).  Now  too,  as  before,  his 
work  extended  to  other  nations :  they  were  not  to 
exult  in  the  downfall  of  Judah,  but  to  share  it. 
All  were  to  be  swallowed  up  in  the  empire  of  tlie 
Chaldaeans  (xlviii.-xlix.).  If  there  had  been  nothing 
beyond  this,  no  hope  for  Israel  or  this  world  but 
that  of  a  universal  monarchy  noting  on  brutt 
strength,  the  prospect  would  have  been  altogethei 
overwhelming;  but  through  this  darkness  then 
gleamed  the  dawning  of  a  glorio  is  )^-)pe.     Wha 


JEREMIAH 

ht  •Jventy  years  were  over,  there  wa"?  tc  be  a 
lertoration  as  wonderful  as  that  from  Egypt  had 
been  (xxxiii.  7).  In  the  far  uff  future  there  was 
the  vision  of  a  renewed  kingdom ;  of  a  "  righteous 
branch  "  of  tlie  house  of  David,  "  executing  judg- 
ment and  justice,"  of  Israel  and  Judah  dwelling 
safely,  once  more  united,  under  "  the  Lord  our 
Righteousness"  (xxiii.  5,  G). 

It  is  doubtful  how  far  we  can  deal  with  the 
strange  narrative  of  ch.  xiii.  as  a  fact  in  Jeremiah's 
life.  Ewald  {P raphe- ten  des  A.  B.,  in  loc.)  rejects 
the  reading  "Euphrates"  altogether;  Hitzig,  fol- 
lowing Bochart,  conjectures  Ephratah.  ]\Iost  other 
modern  commentators  look  on  the  narrative  as 
merely  symbolic.  Assuming,  however  (with  Cal- 
met  and  Henderson,  and  the  consensus  of  patristic 
expositors),  that  here,  as  in  xix.  1,  10,  xxvii.  2;  Is. 
XX.  2,  the  symbols,  however  strange  they  might 
seem,  were  acts  and  not  visions,  it  is  open  to  us  to 
conjecture  that  in  this  visit  to  the  land  of  the  Chal- 
daeans  may  have  originated  his  acquaintance  with 
the  princes  and  commanders  who  afterwards  be- 
friended him.  The  special  commands  given  in  his 
favor  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (xxxix.  11)  seem  at  any 
rate  to  imply  some  previous  knowledge. 

(4.)  Under  Jehoiachin  (=  Jeconiah),  B.  c.  597. 
—  The  danger  which  Jeremiah  had  so  long  fore- 
told, at  last  came  near.  First  Jehoiakim,  and  after- 
wards his  successor,  were  carried  into  exile,  and 
with  them  all  that  constituted  the  worth  and 
strength  of  the  nation,  —  princes,  warriors,  arti- 
sans (2  K.  xxiv.).  Among  them  too  were  some  of 
the  false  prophets  who  had  encouraged  the  people 
with  the  hope  of  a  speedy  deliverance,  and  could 
not  yet  abandon  their  blind  confidence.  Of  the 
work  of  the  prophet  in  this  short  reign  we  have 
but  the  fragmentary  record  of  xxii.  24-30.  We 
may  infer,  however,  from  the  language  of  his  later 
prophecies,  that  he  looked  with  sympathy  and  sor- 
row on  the  fate  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon ;  and  that 
the  fulfillment  of  all  that  he  had  been  told  to  utter 
made  him  stronger  than  ever  in  his  resistance  to  all 
schemes  of  independence  and  revolt. 

(5.y  Under  Zedekiah,  b.  c.  597-586.  —  In  this 
prince  (probably,  as  having  been  appointed  by 
Nebuchadnezzar),  we  do  not  find  the  same  obsti- 
nate resistance  to  the  prophet's  counsels  as  in  Jehoi- 
akim. He  respects  him,  fears  him,  seeks  his  coun- 
sel ;  but  he  is  a  mere  shadow  of  a  king,  powerless 
even  against  his  own  counsellors,  and  in  his  reign, 
accordingly,  the  sufferings  of  Jeremiah  were  sharper 
than  they  had  been  before.  The  struggle  with  the 
false  prophets  went  on:  the  more  desperate  the 
condition  of  their  country,  the  more  daring  were 
their  predictions  of  immediate  deliverance.  Be- 
tween such  men,  living  in  the  present,  and  the  true 
prophet,  walking  by  foith  in  the  unseen  future  of  a 
righteous  kingdom  (xxiii.  5,  6),  there  could  not  but 
be  an  internecine  enmity.  He  saw  too  plainly 
that  nothing  but  the  most  worthless  remnant  of 
the  nation  had  been  left  in  Judah  (xxiv.  5-8),  and 
denounced  the  falsehood  of  those  who  came  with 
lying  messages  of  peace.  His  counsel  to  the  exiles 
(conveyed  in  a  letter  which,  of  all  portions  of  the 
0.  T.,  comes  nearest  in  form  and  character  to  the 
Epistles  of  the  N.  T.)  was,  that  they  should  submit 
to  their  lot,  prepare  for  a  long  captivity,  and  wait 
quietly  for  the  ultimate  restoration.  In  this  hope 
«e  found  comfort  for  himself  which  made  his  sleep 
'  sweet "  unto  him,  even  in  the  midst  of  all  his 
reariness  and  strife  (xxxi.  26).  Even  at  Ba'-'-lon, 
fcowwer,  there  were  ftilse  prophets  opposing  him. 


JEREMIAH 


1257 


speaking  of  him  as  a  «'  madman  "  (xxix.  26),  urg- 
ing the  priests  of  Jerusalem  to  more  active  perse- 
cution. The  trial  soon  followed.  The  king  ni 
first  seemed  willing  to  be  guided  by  him,  and  sent 
to  ask  for  his  intercession  (xxxvii.  3),  but  the  ap- 
parent revival  of  the  power  of  Egypt  under  Apries 
(Fharaoh-Hophra),  created  false  hopes,  and  drew 
him  and  the  princes  of  the  neighboring  nations 
into  projects  of  revolt.  The  clearness  with  which 
Jeremiah  had  foretold  the  ultimate  overthrow  of 
Babylon,  in  a  letter  sent  to  the  exiles  in  that  city 
by  his  disciple,  Baruch's  brother  Seraiah  (assuniing 
the  genuineness  of  1.  and  li.),  made  him  all  the  more 
certain  that  the  time  of  that  overthrow  had  not  yet 
arrived,  and  that  it  was  not  to  come  from  the  hand 
of  Egypt.  He  appears  in  the  streets  of  the  city  with 
bonds  and  yokes  upon  his  neck  (xxvii.  2),  announ- 
cing that  they  were  meant  for  Judah  and  its  allies. 
The  false  prophet  Hananiah  —  who  broke  the  offen- 
sive symbol  (xxviii.  10),  and  predicted  tlie  destruc- 
tion of  the  Chaldaeans  within  two  years  (xxviii.  3) 
—  learnt  that  "  a  yoke  of  iron  "  was  upon  the  neck 
of  all  the  nations,  and  died  himself  while  it  was 
still  pressing  heavily  on  Judah  (xxviii.  16,  17). 
The  approach  of  an  Egyptian  army,  however,  and 
the  consequent  departure  of  the  Chaldaeans,  made 
the  position  of  Jeremiah  full  of  danger;  and  he 
sought  to  effect  his  escape  from  a  city  in  which,  it 
seemed,  he  could  no  longer  do  good,  and  to  take 
refuge  in  his  own  town  of  Anathoth  or  its  neigh- 
borhood (xxxvii.  12).  The  discovery  of  this  plan 
led,  not  unnaturally  perhaps,  to  the  charge  of  de- 
sertion :  it  was  thought  that  he  too  was  "  falling 
away  to  the  Chaldfeans,"  as  others  were  doing 
(xxxviii.  19),  and,  in  spite  of  his  denial,  he  was 
thrown  into  a  dungeon  (xxxvii.  1(5).  The  interpo- 
sition of  the  king,  who  still  respected  and  consulted 
him,  led  to  some  mitigation  of  the  rigor  of  his  con- 
finement (xxxvii.  21);  but,  as  this  did  not  hinder 
him  from  speaking  to  the  people,  the  princes  of 
Judah  —  bent  on  an  alliance  with  Egypt,  and  cal- 
culating on  the  king's  being  unable  to  resist  them 
(xxxviii.  5)  —  threw  him  into  the  prison-pit,  to  die 
there.  From  this  horrible  fate  he  was  again  deliv- 
ered, by  the  friendship  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch, 
Ebed-Melech,  and  the  king's  regard  for  him ;  and 
was  restored  to  the  milder  custody  in  which  he  had 
been  kept  previously,  where  we  find  (xxxii.  16)  he 
had  the  companionship  of  Baruch.  In  the  impo- 
tence of  his  perplexity,  Zedekiah  once  again  secretly 
consulted  him  (xxxviii.  14),  but  only  to  hear  the 
certainty  of  failure  if  he  continued  to  resist  the 
authority  of  the  Chaldaeans.  The  same  counsel 
was  repeated  more  openly  when  the  king  sent 
Pashur  (not  the  one  already  mentioned)  and  Zeph- 
aniah  —  before  friendly,  it  appears,  to  Jeremiah 
or  at  least  neutral  (xxix.  29 )  —  to  ask  for  his  ad- 
vice. Fruitless  as  it  was,  we  may  yet  trace,  in  the 
softened  language  of  xxxiv.  5,  one  consequence  of 
the  king's  kindness:  though  exile  was  ine\itable, 
he  was  yet  to  "  die  in  peace."  The  return  of  the 
Chaldaean  army  filled  both  king  and  people  with 
dismay  (xxxii.  1);  and  the  risk  now  was,  that  they 
would  pass  from  their  presumptuous  confidence  to 
the  opposite  extreme  and  sink  down  in  despair,  with 
no  faith  in  God  and  no  hope  for  tne  future.  The 
prophet  was  taught  how  to  meet  that  danger  also. 
In  his  prison,  while  the  Chaldaeans  were  ravaging 
the  country,  he  bought,  with  all  requisite  formali- 
ties, the  field  at  Anathoth,  which  his  kinsman 
Hanameel  wished  to  get  rid  of  (xxxii.  6-9).  Hit 
faith  in  the  oromises  of  God  did  not  fail  him. 


1258 


JEREMIAH 


With  a  confidence  in  his  country's  future,  which 
has  been  compared  (Niigelsbach,  /.  c.)  to  that  of 
the  Roman  who  bought  at  its  full  value  the  very 
ground  on  which  the  forces  of  Hannibal  were  en- 
camped (Liv.  xxxvi.  11),  he  believed  not  only  that 
'*  houses  and  fields  and  vineyards  should  again  be 
possessed  hi  the  land"  (xxxii.  15),  but  that  the 
voice  of  g  ladness  should  still  be  heard  there  (xxxiii. 
11),  thai,  under  "the  Lord  our  Kighteousness," 
the  houie  of  David  and  the  priests  the  Levites 
should  never  be  without  representatives  (xxxiii.  IS- 
IS). At  last  the  blow  came.  The  solemn  renewal 
of  the  national  covenant  (xxxiv.  19),  the  offer  of 
freedom  to  all  who  had  been  brought  into  slavery, 
wB'e  of  no  avail.  The  selfishness  of  the  nobles 
was  stronger  even  than  their  fears,  and  the  prophet, 
who  had  before  rebuked  them  for  their  desecration 
of  the  Sabbath,  now  had  to  protest  against  their 
disregard  of  the  sabbatic  year  (xxxiv.  14).  The 
city  was  taken,  the  temple  burnt.  The  king  and 
his  princes  shared  the  fate  of  Jehoiachin.  The 
prophet  gave  utterance  to  his  sorrow  in  the  Lam- 
entations. 

(6).  After  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  B.  c.  586 
-(?).  The  Chaldaean  party  in  Judah  had  now  the 
prospect  of  better  things.  Nebuchadnezzar  could 
not  fail  to  reward  those  who,  in  the  midst  of  hard- 
ships of  all  kinds,  had  served  him  so  faithfully. 
We  find  accordingly  a  special  charge  given  to 
Nebuzaradan  (xxxix.  11)  to  protect  the  person  of 
Jeremiah;  and,  after  being  carried  as  far  as  Ramah 
with  the  crowd  of  captives  (xl.  1 ),  he  was  set  free, 
and  Gedaliah,  the  son  of  his  steadfast  friend  Ahi- 
kam,  made  governor  over  the  cities  of  Judah.  The 
feeling  of  the  Chaldaeans  towards  him  was  shown 
yet  more  strongly  in  the  offer  made  him  by  Nebu- 
zaradan (xl.  4,  5).  It  was  left  to  him  to  decide 
whether  he  would  go  to  Babylon,  with  the  prospect 
of  living  there  under  the  patronage  of  the  king,  or 
remain  in  his  own  land  with  Gedaliah  and  the 
remnant  over  whom  he  ruled.  Whatever  may 
have  been  his  motive  —  sympathy  with  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  people,  attachment  to  his  native  land, 
or  the  desire  to  help  his  friend  —  the  prophet  chose 
the  latter,  and  the  Chaldaean  commander  "gave 
him  a  reward,"  and  set  him  free.  For  a  short  time 
there  was  an  interval  of  peace  (xl.  9-12),  soon 
broken,  however,  by  the  murder  of  Gedaliah  by 
[shmael  and  his  associates.  We  are  left  to  con- 
jecture in  what  way  the  prophet  escaped  from  a 
massacre  which  was  apparently  intended  to  include 
all  the  adherents  of  Gedaliah.  The  fullness  with 
tvhich  the  history  of  the  massacre  is  narrated  in 
thap.  xli.  makes  it  however  probable  that  he  was 
among  the  prisoners  whom  Ishmael  was  carrying 
off  to  the  Ammonites,  and  who  were  released  by 
tlie  arrival  of  Johanan.  One  of  Jeremiah's  friends 
was  thus  cut  off,  but  Baruch  still  remained  with 
him;  and  the  people,  under  Johanan,  who  had 
taken  the  command  on  the  death  of  Gedaliah, 
turned  to  him  for  counsel.  "  The  governor  ap- 
pointed by  the  Chaldaeans  had  been  assassinated. 
Would  not  their  vengeance  fall  on  the  whole  peo- 
ple? Was  there  any  safety  but  in  escaping  to 
Eg)"pt  while  they  could  ?  "  They  came  accordingly 
to  Jeremiah  with  a  foregone  conclusion.  With  the 
vision  of  peace  and  plenty  in  that  land  of  fleshpots 
(xlii.  14),  his  warnings  and  assurances  were  in  vain, 
>nd  did  but  draw  on  him  and  Baruch  the  old  charge 
of  treachery  (xliii.  3).  The  people  followed  their 
3wn  counsel,  and  —  lest  the  two  whom  they  sus- 
terted  should  betray  or  counteract  it  —  took  them 


JEREMIAH 

also  by  force  to  Egypt.  There,  in  tht  dtj  il 
Tahpanhes,  we  have  the  last  clear  glimpsej  of  the 
prophet's  hfe.  His  words  are  sharper  and  stronger 
than  ever.  He  does  not  shrink,  even  there,  fix)iD 
si^eaking  of  the  Chaldtean  king  once  more  as  th« 
"servant  of  Jehovah"  (xliii.  10).  He  declares 
that  they  should  see  the  throne  of  the  conqueror 
set  up  in  vhe  very  place  which  they  had  chosen  as 
the  securest  refuge.  He  utters  a  final  protest 
(xliv.)  against  the  idolatries  of  which  they  and 
their  fathers  had  been  guilty,  and  which  they  were 
even  then  renewing.  After  this  all  is  uncertain. 
If  we  could  assume  that  lii.  31  was  written  by  Jer- 
emiah himself,  it  would  show  that  he  reached  an 
extreme  old  age,  l)ut  this  is  so  doubtful  that  we  are 
left  to  other  sources.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is 
the  Christian  tradition,  resting  doubtless  on  some 
earlier  behef  (TertuU.  nJt:.  Gnust.  c.  8;  Pseudo- 
Epiphan.  0pp.  iii.  239;  Hieron.  adv.  Jovin.  ii.  37), 
that  the  long  tragedy  of  his  life  ended  in  actual 
martyrdom,  and  that  the  Jews  at  Tahpanhes,  irri- 
tated by  his  rebukes,  at  last  stoned  him  to  death. 
Most  conmientivtors  on  the  N.  T.  find  an  allusion 
to  this  in  Heb.  xi.  37.  An  Alexandrian  tradition 
reported  that  his  bones  had  been  brought  to  that 
city  by  Alexander  the  Great  {Clinm.  Pascli.  p. 
156,  ed.  Dindorf,  quoted  by  Carpzov  and  Niigels- 
bach). In  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  trav- 
ellers were  told,  though  no  one  knew  the  precise 
spot,  that  he  had  been  buried  at  Ghizeh  (Lucas, 
Travels  in  the  Levant,  p.  28).  On  the  other  side, 
there  is  the  Jewish  statement  that,  on  the  conquest 
of  Egypt  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  he,  with  Baruch, 
made  his  escape  to  Babylon  (Seder  01am  Rabba, 
c.  26;  Genebrard,  Chrmvl.  Heb.  1608)  or  Judsea 
(R.  Solomon  Jarchi,  on  Jer.  xliv.  14),  and  died  in 
peace.  Josephus  is  altogetlier  silent  as  to  his  fate, 
but  states  generally  that  the  Jews  who  took  refuge 
in  Egypt  were  finally  carried  to  Babylon  as  cap- 
tives {Ant.  X.  9).  It  is  not  impossible,  however, 
that  both  the  Jewish  tradition  and  the  silence  of 
Josephus  originated  in  the  desire  to  gloss  over  a 
great  crime,  and  that  the  offer  of  Nebuzaradan  (xl. 
4)  suggested  the  conjecture  that  afterwards  grew 
into  an  assertion.  As  it  is,  the  darkness  and  doubt 
that  brood  over  the  last  days  of  the  prophet's  life 
are  more  significant  than  either  of  the  issues  which 
presented  themselves  to  men's  imaginations  as  the 
winding-up  of  his  career.  He  did  not  need  a  death 
by  violence  to  make  him  a  true  mart}T.  To  die, 
with  none  to  record  the  time  or  manner  of  his 
death,  was  the  right  end  for  one  who  had  spoken 
all  along,  not  to  win  the  praise  of  men,  but  because 
the  word  of  the  I>ord  was  in  him  as  a  "  burning 
fire  "  (xx.  9).  May  we  not  even  conjecture  that 
this  silence  was  due  to  the  prophet  himself?  If 
we  beheve  (cf.  inf.)  that  Baruch,  who  was  with 
Jeremiah  in  Egypt,  survived  him,  and  had  any 
share  in  collecting  and  editing  his  prophecies,  it  is 
hard  to  account  for  the  omission  of  a  fact  of  so 
much  interest,  except  on  the  hypothesis  that  his 
lips  were  sealed  by  the  injunctions  of  the  master 
who  thus  taught  him,  by  example  as  well  as  by 
precept,  that  he  was  not  to  seek  " great  things  " 
for  himself. 

Other  traditions  connected  with  the  name  of 
Jeremiah,  though  they  throw  no  light  on  his  his 
tory,  are  interesting,  as  showing  the  impression 
left  by  his  work  and  life  on  the  minds  of  latn 
generations.  As  the  Captivity  dragged  on,  the 
prophecy  of  the  Seventy  Years,  wbich  had  at  fint 
been  so  full  of  terror,  came  to  be  a  ground  of  hope 


JEREMIAH 

•Dan.  ix.  2;  2  Chr.  xxxvi.  21;  Ezr.  i.  1).  On 
Aie  return  from  Babylon,  his  prophecies  were  col- 
kected  and  received  into  the  canon,  as  tl  jse  of  the 
second  of  the  Great  Prophets  of  Israel  In  the 
arrangement  followed  by  the  Babylonian  Talmudic 
writers  {Baba  Baihrn,  §  14  6;  quoted  by  Lightfoot 
oil  Matt,  xxvii.  9),  and  perpetuated  among  some  of 
tlie  medijBval  Jewish  transcribers  (VVolfF,  BiU. 
Ilebr.  ii.  148),  he,  and  not  Isaiah,  occupies  the 
first  place.  The  Jewish  saying  that  "  the  spirit  of 
Jeremiah  dwelt  afterwards  in  Zechariah  "  (Grotius 
in  Malt,  xxvii.  9)  indicates  how  greatly  the  mind 
of  the  one  was  believed  to  have  been  influenced  by 
the  teaching  of  the  other.  The  fulfillment  of  his 
predictions  of  a  restored  nationality  led  men  to 
think  of  him,  not  as  a  prophet  of  evil  only,  but  as 
watching  over  his  countrymen,  interceding  for 
them.  More  than  any  otlier  of  the  prophets,  he 
occupies  the  position  of  the  patron-saint  of  Judaea. 
lie  had  concealed  the  tabernacle  and  the  ark,  the 
great  treasures  of  the  Temple,  in  one  of  the  caves 
of  Sinai,  there  to  remain  unknown  till  the  day  of 
restoration  (2  Mace.  ii.  1-8).  He  appears  "a  man 
with  gray  hairs  and  exceeding  glorious,"  "the 
lover  of  the  brethren,  who  prayed  much  for  the 
holy  city,"  in  the  vision  of  Judas  Maccabaeus;  and 
from  him  the  hero  receives  his  golden  sword,  as  a 
gift  of  God  (2  Mace.  xv.  13-16).  His  whole  voca- 
tion as  a  prophet  is  distinctly  recognized  (Ecclus. 
xlix.  7).  The  authority  of  his  name  is  claimed  for 
long  didactic  declamations  against  the  idolatry  of 
iiabylon  (Bar.  vi.  [or  Epist.  of  Jer.]).  At  a  later 
period  it  was  attached,  as  that  of  the  representative 
prophet,  to  quotations  from  other  books  in  the  same 
volume  (Lightfoot,  I.  c),  or  to  prophecies,  apocry- 
phal or  genuine,  whose  real  author  was  forgotten 
(Hieron.  in  Mntt.  xxvii.  9;  Fabricius,  Cod.  Pseu- 
depiy.  V.  T.  1.  1103;  Grot  in  Eph.  v.  14).  Even 
in  tlie  time  of  our  lx)rd"3  ministry  there  prevailed 
the  belief  (resting,  in  part  perhaps,  in  this  case  as 
in  that  of  Elijah,  on  the  mystery  which  shrouded 
the  time  and  manner  of  his  death)  that  his  work 
was  not  yet  over.  Some  said  of  Jesus  that  he  was 
"Jereraias,  or  one  of  the  prophets"  (Matt.  xvi. 
14).  According  to  many  comment^ators  he  was 
"  the  prophet  "  whom  all  the  people  were  expecting 
(John  i.  21).  The  belief  that  he  was  the  fulfill- 
ment of  Deut.  xviii.  18  has  been  held  by  later  Jew- 
ish interpreters  (Abarbanel  in  Carpzov,  /.  c).  The 
ti-aditions  connected  with  him  lingered  on  even  in 
the  Christian  church,  and  appeared  in  the  notion 
that  he  had  never  really  died,  but  would  return  one 
day  from  Paradise  as  one  of  the  "  two  witnesses  " 
of  the  Apocalypse  (Victorinus,  Coinni.  in  Apoc.  xi. 
13).  Egyptian  legends  assumed  yet  wilder  and 
more  fantastic  forms.  He  it  was  who  foretold  to 
the  priests  of  Egypt  that  their  idols  sliould  one 
day  fall  to  the  ground  in  the  presence  of  the  virgin 
liorn  (Epiphan.  tie  Vil.  Proph.  0pp.  ii.  p.  239). 
Playing  the  part  of  a  St.  Patrick,  he  had  delivered 
one  district  on  the  shores  of  the  Nile  from  croco- 
diles and  asps,  and  even  in  the  4th  century  of  the 
Christian  era  the  dust  of  that  region  was  looked  on 
as  a  specific  against  their  bites  {ibid. ).  According 
o  another  tradition,  he  had  returned  from  Egypt 
to  Jerusalem,  and  lived  there  for  300  years  (D'  Her- 
i>elot,  BIMiotk.  Orient,  p.  499).  The  0.  T.  nar- 
rative of  his  sufferings  was  dressed  out  with  *he 
ncidents  of  a  Christian  martyrdom  (Eupolem. 
Volyhist.  in  Euseb.  Prcep.  Evanr/.  ix.  39). 

II.    Character  and  Style.  —  It  will  have  been 
«eu  from  this  narrative  that  there  fell  to  the  lot 


JEREMIAH 


1259 


of  Jeremiah  sharper  suffering  than  any  prevlooa 
prophet  had  experienced.  It  was  not  merely  that 
the  misery  which  others  had  seen  afar  off"  was  act- 
ually pressing  on  him  and  on  his  country,  nor  that 
he  had  to  endure  a  life  of  persecution,  while  they 
had  intervals  of  repose,  in  which  they  were  honored 
and  their  counsel  sought.  In  addition  to  all  differ- 
ences of  outward  circumstances,  there  wa.s  that  of 
individual  character,  influenced  by  them,  reacting 
on  them.  In  every  page  of  his  prophecies  we 
recognize  the  temperament  which,  while  it  does  not 
lead  the  man  who  has  it  to  shrink  from  doing  God'a 
work,  however  painful,  makes  the  pain  of  doing  it 
infinitely  more  acute,  and  gives  to  the  whole  cIiat 
acter  the  impress  of  a  deeper  and  more  lastina; 
melancholy.  He  is  preenunently  "the  man  that 
hath  seen  afflictions"  (Lam.  iii.  1).  There  is  no 
sorrow  like  unto  his  sorrow  (Lam.  i.  12).  He  wit- 
nesses the  departure,  one  l)y  one,  of  all  his  hopes  of 
national  reformation  and  deliverance.  He  has  to 
appear,  Cassandra-like,  as  a  prophet  of  evil,  dash- 
ing to  the  ground  the  false  hojies  with  which  the 
people  are  buoying  themselves  up.  Other  prophets, 
Samuel,  Elisha,  Isaiah,  had  been  sent  to  rouse  the 
people  to  resistance.  He  (like  Phocion  in  the  par- 
allel crisis  of  Athenian  history}  has  been  brought 
to  the  conclusion,  l)itter  as  it  is,  that  the  only  safety 
for  his  countrymen  lies  in  their  accepting  that 
against  which  they  are  contending  as  the  worst  of 
evils;  and  this  brings  on  him  the  charge  of  treach- 
ery and  desertion.  If  it  were  not  for  his  trust  in 
the  God  of  Israel,  for  his  hope  of  a  better  future 
to  be  brought  out  of  all  this  chaos  and  darkness, 
his  heart  would  fail  within  him.  But  that  vision 
is  clear  and  bright,  and  it  gives  to  him,  almost  as 
fully  as  to  Isaiah,  the  character  of  a  prophet  of  the 
Gospel.  He  is  not  merely  an  Israelite  looking  for- 
ward to  a  national  restoration.  In  the  midst  of  all 
the  woes  which  he  utters  against  neighboring  na- 
tions he  has  hopes  and  promises  for  them  also 
(xlviii.  47,  xlix.  6,  39).  In  that  stormy  sunset 
of  prophecy,  he  beholds,  in  spirit,  the  dawn  of  a 
brighter  and  eternal  day.  He  sees  that,  if  there  is 
any  hope  of  salvation  for  his  people,  it  cannot  be 
by  a  return  to  the  old  system  and  the  old  ordi  - 
nances,  divine  though  they  once  had  been  (xxxi. 
31).  There  must  be  a  New  Covenant.  That  word, 
destined  to  be  so  full  of  power  for  all  after-ages, 
appears  first  in  his  prophecies.  The  relations  be- 
tween the  people  and  the  l^rd  of  Israel,  between 
mankind  and  God,  must  rest,  not  on  an  outward 
law,  with  its  requirements  of  obedience,  but  on  that 
of  an  inward  fellowship  with  Him,  and  the  con- 
sciousness of  entire  dependence.  For  all  this  he 
saw  clearly  there  must  be  a  personal  centre.  The 
kingf^om  of  God  could  not  be  manifested  but- 
through  a  perfectly  righteous  man,  ruling  over  n  ea 
on  earth.  The  prophet's  hopes  are  not  merolj 
vague  visions  of  a  better  future.  They  gathei' 
round  the  person  of  a  Christ,  and  are  tssentially 
Messianic. 

In  much  of  all  this  —  in  their  |)er.sonal  character, 
in  their  sufferings,  in  the  view  they  took  of  the 
great  questions  of  their  time  —  there  is  a  resem- 
blance, at  once  significant  and  interesting,  between 
the  prophet  of  Anathoth  and  the  poet  of  the  />i- 
i'>^'ia.  Commedia.  What  Egypt  and  Babylon  were 
to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  France  and  the  Empire 
were  to  the  Florentine  republic.  In  each  case  the 
strugg'-»  between  the  two  great  powere  reproduced 
itself  in  the  bitterness  of  contending  fa<;tiong. 
Dante,  like  Jeremiah,  saw  himself  surrounded  bj 


1260  JEREMl  AH 

trils  against  which  he  could  only  bear  an  unavail- 
ing protest.  The  worst  agents  in  producing  those 
BvUs  were  the  authorized  teachers  of  his  religion. 
His  hopes  of  better  things  connected  themselves 
with  the  supremacy  of  a  power  which  the  majority 
of  his  countrymen  looked  on  with  rejiugnance. 
For  him,  also,  there  was  the  long  weariness  of  exile, 
brightened  at  times  by  the  sympathy  of  faithful 
friends.  In  him,  as  in  the  prophet,  we  find  — 
united,  it  is  true,  with  greater  strength  and  stern- 
ness—  that  intense  susceptibility  to  the  sense  of 
wrong  which  shows  itself  sometimes  in  passionate 
complaint,  sometimes  in  bitter  words  of  invective 
and  reproach.  In  both  we  find  the  habit  of  mind 
which  selects  an  image,  not  for  its  elegance  or  sub- 
limity, l)ut  for  what  it  means ;  not  shrinking  even 
from  what  seems  grotesque  and  trivial,  sometimes 
veiling  its  meaning  in  allusions  more  or  less  dark 
and  enigmatic.  Both  are  sustained  through  all 
their  sufferings  by  their  strong  faith  in  the  Unseen, 
by  their  belief  in  an  eternal  righteousness  which 
ghall  one  day  manifest  itself  and  be  victorious." 

A  yet  higher  parallel,  however,  presents  itself. 
In  a  deeper  sense  than  that  of  the  patristic  divines, 
the  life  of  the  prophet  was  a  type  of  that  of  Christ. 
In  both  there  is  the  same  early  manifestation  of  the 
consciousness  of  a  Divine  mission  (Luke  ii.  49). 
The  persecution  which  drove  the  propliet  from  An- 
athoth  has  its  counterpart  in  that  of  the  meri  of 
Nazareth  (Luke  iv.  29).  His  protests  against  the 
priests  and  prophets  are  the  forerunners  of  the  woes 
against  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  (Matt,  xxiii.). 
His  lamentations  over  the  coming  miseries  of  his 
country  answer  to  the  tears  that  were  shed  over  the 
Holy  City  by  the  Son  of  Man.  His  sufferings 
come  nearest,  of  those  of  the  whole  army  of  mar- 
tyrs, to  those  of  the  Teacher  against  whom  princes 
and  priests  and  elders  and  people  were  gathered  to- 
gether. He  saw  more  clearly  than  others  that 
New  Covenant,  with  all  its  gifts  of  spiritual  life  and 
power,  which  was  proclaimed  and  ratified  in  the 
death  upon  the  cross.  On  the  assumption  that 
Jeremiah,  not  David,  was  the  author  of  the  22d 
Psalm  (Hitzig,  in  loc,  followed  in  this  instance  by 
Nagelsbach,  I.  c),  the  words  uttered  in  the  agony 
of  the  cnicifixion  would  point  to  a  still  deeper  and 
more  pervading  analogy. 

The  character  of  the  man  impressed  itself  with 
more  or  less  force  upon  the  language  of  the  writer. 
Criticisms  on  the  "style"  of  a  prophet  are,  indeed, 
for  the  most  part,  whether  they  take  the  form  of 
praise  or  blame,  wanting  both  in  reverence  and  dis- 
cernment. We  do  not  gain  much  by  knowing  that 
to  one  writer  he  appears  at  once  "  sermone  quidem 
.  .  .  quibusdam  aliis  prophetis  rusticior  "  (Hieron. 
Prol.  in  Jerem.),  and  yet  "majestate  sensuum 
profundissimus "  (Prooem.  in  c.  I);  that  another 
compares  him  to  Simonides  (Lowth,  P/w/.  xxi.); 
a  third  to  Cicero  (Seb.  Schmidt);  that  bolder  critics 
find  in  him  a  great  want  of  originality  (Knobel, 
Prophetismus) ;  "symbolical  images  of  an  inferior 
order,  and  symbolical  actions  unskillfuUy  con- 
trived "  (Davidson,  Introd.  to  0.  T.  c.  xix.).  Leav- 
jig  these  judgments,  however,  and  asking  in  what 


a  The  fact  that  Jer.  v.  6  suggested  the  imagery  of 
Ihe  opening  Canto  of  the  Inferno  is  not  without  sig- 
oiflcance,  as  bearing  on  this  parallelism. 

b  The  svatem  of  secret  writing  which  bears  this 
vame  forms  part  of  the  Kabbala  of  the  later  Jews. 
The  plan  adopted  is  that  of  using  the  letters  of  the 

Sebrew  alphabet  in   an  inverted  order,  so  that  fl 


JEREMIAH 

way  the  outward  form  of  his  writings  an«wen  to  Uf 
life,  we  find  some  striking  characteristics  that  h»!p 
us  to  understand  both.  As  might  be  expected  in 
one  who  lived  in  the  last  days  of  the  kingdom,  and 
had  therefore  the  works  of  the  earlier  prophets  to 
look  back  upon,  we  find  in  him  reminiscences  and 
reproductions  of  what  they  had  written,  which  in- 
dicate the  way  in  which  his  own  spirit  had  been 
educated  (comp.  Is.  xl.  19,  20,  with  x.  3-5;  Ps 
cxxxv.  7,  with  X.  13:  Ps.  Ixxix.  6,  with  x.  25;  Is. 
xlii.  16,  with  xxxi.  9 ;  Is.  iv.  2,  xi.  1,  with  xxxiii 
15 ;  Is.  XV.  with  xlviii. ;  Is.  xiii.  and  xlvii.  with  1., 
li. :  see  also  Kiiper,  Jerem.  lidrorum  sac.  inter/n-ea 
et  vindex).  Traces  of  the  influence  of  the  newly 
discovered  Book  of  the  Law,  and  in  particular  of 
Deuteronomy,  appear  repeatedly  in  his,  as  in  other 
writings  of  the  same  period  (Deut.  xxvii.  26,  iv. 
20,  vii.  12,  with  xi.  3-5 ;  Deut.  xv.  12,  with  xxxiv. 
14;  Ex.  XX.  16,  with  xxxii.  18;  Ex.  vi.  6,  with 
xxxii.  21).  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  parallelisms 
in  these  and  other  instances  are,  for  the  most  part, 
not  those  that  rise  out  of  direct  quotation,  but  such 
as  are  natural  in  one  whose  language  and  modes  of 
thought  have  been  fashioned  by  the  constant  study 
of  books  which  came  before  him  with  a  divine  au- 
thority. Along  with  this,  there  is  the  tendency, 
natural  to  one  who  speaks  out  of  the  fullness  of  his 
heart,  to  reproduce  himself — to  repeat  in  nearly 
the  same  words  the  great  truths  on  which  his  own 
heart  rested,  and  to  which  he  was  seeking  to  lead 
others  (comp.  marginal  references  passim,  and  list 
in  Keil,  Einleit.  §  74).  Throughout,  too,  there  are 
the  tokens  of  his  individual  temperament:  a  greater 
prominence  of  the  subjective,  elegiac  element  than 
in  other  prophets,  a  less  sustained  energy,  a  less 
orderly  and  completed  rhythm  (De  Wette,  Einleit. 
§  217;  Ewald,  Projfheten,  ii.  1-11).  A  careful 
examination  of  the  several  parts  of  his  prophecy 
has  led  to  the  conviction  that  we  may  trace  an  in- 
crease of  these  characteristics  corresponding  to  the 
accumulating  trials  of  his  life  (Ewald,  /.  c.j.  The 
earlier  writings  are  calmer,  loftier,  more  uniform  in 
tone:  the  later  show  marks  of  age  and  weariness 
and  sorrow,  and  are  more  strongly  imbued  ^^\ih  the 
language  of  individual  suffering.  Living  at  a  time 
when  the  piu-ity  of  the  older  Hebrew  was  giving 
way  under  continual  contact  with  other  kindred 
dialects,  his  language  came  under  the  influence 
which  was  acting  on  all  the  writers  of  his  time, 
abounds  in  Aramaic  forms,  loses  sight  of  the  finer 
grammatical  distinctions  of  the  earlier  Hebrew,  in- 
cludes many  words  not  to  be  found  in  its  vocabu- 
lary (Eichhom,  Einleit.  in  das  A.  T.  iii.  121).  It 
is  in  part  distinctive  of  the  man  as  well  as  of  the 
time,  that  single  words  should  have  appeared  full 
of  a  strange  significance  (i.  11),  that  whole  pre- 
dictions should  have  been  embodied  in  names 
coined  for  the  purpose  (xix.  6,  xx.  3),  and  that  the 
real  analogies  which  presented  themselves  should 
have  been  drawn  not  from  the  region  of  the  great 
and  terrible,  but  from  the  niost  homely  and  famil- 
iar incidents  (xiii.  1-11,  xviii.  1-10).  Still  more 
startling  is  his  use  of  a  kind  of  cipher  (the  At- 
bash;*  comp.  Hitzig  and  Ewald  on  xxv.  26),  con- 
stands  for  S*,  ti?  for  ^,  and  so  on,  and  the  word  ii 
formed  out  of  the  first  four  letters  which  are  thus  In- 
terchanged (trSHM).  In  the  passage  referred  t« 
(xxv.  26),  the  otherwise  unintelligible  word  Sheshacb 
becomes,  on  applying  this  key,  the  equivalent  of  Bnbel 
The  position  of  the  same  word  in  li.  41  confirms  thm 


JEREMIAH 

jeaUng,  except  from  the  initiated,  the  meaning  of 
au  predictions. 

To  associate  the  name  of  Jeremiah  with  any 
other  portion  of  the  O.  T.  is  to  pass  from  the  field 
of  history  into  that  of  conjecture ;  but  the  fact  that 
Hitzig  (Coinm.  iiber  die  Psalm.),  followed  in  part 
by  Rodiger  (Ersch  und  Griiber,  Encycl.  art.  Jerem. ), 
assigns  not  less  thaii  thirty  psalms  {sc.  v.,  vi.,  xiv., 
xxii.-xU.,  lii.-lv.,  Ixix.-lxxi.)  to  his  authorship  is, 
at  least,  so  far  instructive  that  it  indicates  what 
were  the  hymns,  belonging  to  that  or  to  an  earlier 
period,  with  which  his  own  spirit  had  most  athnity, 
and  to  which  he  and  other  like  sufferers  might 
have  turned  as  the  fit  expression  of  their  feelings. 

III.  Arranyement.  —  The  absence  of  any  chrono- 
logical order  in  the  present  structure  of  the  collec- 
tion of  Jeremiah's  prophecies  is  obvious  at  the  first 
glance;  and  this  has  led  some  writers  (Blayney, 
Pref.  to  Jeremiah)  to  the  belief  that,  as  the  book 
now  stands,  there  is  nothing  but  the  wildest  con- 
fusion—  "a  preposterous  jumbUng  together"  of 
prophecies  of  different  dates.  Attempts  to  recon- 
struct the  book  on  a  chronological  basis  have  been 
made  by  almost  all  commentators  on  it  since  the 
revival  of  criticism  (Simonis,  Vitringa,  Cornelius  a 
Lapide,  among  the  earliest ;  cf.  De  Wette,  Kinleit. 
§  220);  and  the  result  of  the  labors  of  the  more 
recent  critics  has  been  to  modify  the  somewhat 
hasty  judgment  of  the  English  divine.  Whatever 
points  of  difference  there  may  be  in  the  hypotheses 
of  Movers,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Bunsen,  Nagelsbach,  and 
others,  they  agree  in  admitting  traces  of  an  order 
in  the  midst  of  the  seeming  irregularity,  and  en- 
deavor to  account,  more  or  less  satisfactorily,  for 
the  apparent  anomalies.  The  conclusion  of  the 
three  last-named  is  that  we  have  the  book  sub- 
stantially in  the  same  state  as  that  in  which  it  left 
the  hands  of  the  prophet,  or  his  disciple  Baruch. 
Confining  ourselves,  for  the  present,  to  the  Hebrew 
order  (reproduced  in  the  A.  V.)  we  have  two  great 
divisions : 

(1.)  Ch.  i.-rlv.  Prophecies  delivered  at  various 
times,  directed  mainly  to  Judah,  or  con- 
nected with  Jeremiah's  personal  history. 

(2.)  Ch.  xlvi.-li.  Prophecies  connected  with 
other  nations. 

Ch.  lii.,  taken  largely,  though  not  entirely,  from 
2  K.  XXV.,  may  be  taken  either  as  a  supplement  to 
the  prophecy,  or  (with  Grotius  and  Lowth)  as  an 
introduction  to  the  Lamentations. 

Looking  more  closely  into  each  of  these  divisions, 
we  have  the  following  sections.  The  narrative  of 
xxxvi.  32  serves  to  explain  the  growth  of  the  book 
in  its  present  shape,   and  accounts  for  some,  at 


interpretation;  and  all  other  explanations  of  the  word 
are  conjectural  and  far-fetched.  The  application  of 
the  Atbash  to  these  passages  rests  historically  on  the 
authority  of  Jerome  {Comm.  in  Jertm.  in  loc),  who 
refers  to  the  consensus  of  the  Jewish  expositors  of  his 
own  time.  There  is,  of  course,  something  startling  in 
the  appearance  of  one  or  twe  solitary  instances  of  a 
echnical  notation  like  this  so  long  before  it  became 
conspicuous  as  a  system ;  and  this  has  led  commen- 
►ators  to  attempt  other  explanations  of  the  mysterious 
word  (comp.  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  Loc).  On  the  other 
^and,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  age  of  alpha- 
ietic  Psaluii,  such  as  Ps.  cxix.,  was  one  in  which  we 
laight  expect  to  find  the  minds  of  men  occupied  with 
toe  changes  and  combinations  to  which  the  letters  of 
he  Hebrew  alphabet  might  be  subjected,  and  it,  i^hich, 
therefore,  such  a  system  of  cipher-svriting  wao  likely 
o  sujjgest  itself.     The  fact  that  Jeremiah  himself 


JEREMIAH  1261 

least,  of  its  anomalies.  Up  to  the  4th  year  of 
Jehoiakini,  it  would  appear,  no  prophecies  had  been 
committed  to  writing,  or,  if  written,  they  had  not 
been  collected  and  preserved.  Then  the  more  mem- 
orable among  the  messages  which  the  word  of  the 
Lord  had  from  time  to  time  brought  to  him  were 
written  down  at  the  dictation  of  the  prophet  him- 
self. When  that  roll  was  destroyed,  a  second  was 
written  out,  and  other  prophecies  or  narratives 
added  as  they  came.  We  may  believe  that  this 
MS.  was  the  groundwork  of  our  present  text ;  but 
it  is  easy  to  understand  how,  in  transcribing  tuoh 
a  document,  or  collection  of  documents,  the  desire 
to  introduce  what  seemed  to  the  transcriber  a  bettn 
order  might  lead  to  many  modifications.  As  it  is, 
we  recognize  —  adopting  Bunsen's  classificati  )n 
{Gotl  in  der  Gesc/iichte,  i.  113),  as  being  the  most 
natural,  and  agreeing  substantially  with  Ewald's  — 
the  following  groups  of  prophecies,  the  sections  in 
each  being  indicated  by  the  recurrence  of  the  for« 
mula,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah," 
in  fuller  or  abbreviated  forms. 

1.  Ch.  i.-xxi.  Containing  probably  the  substance 
of  tlie  book  of  xxxvi.  32,  and  including  prophecies 
from  the  13th  year  of  Josiah  to  the  4th  of  Jehoia- 
kini: i.  3,  however,  indicates  a  later  revision,  and 
the  whole  of  ch.  i.  may  possibly  have  been  added 
on  the  prophet's  retrospect  of  his  whole  work  from 
this  its  first  beginning.  Ch.  xxi.  belongs  to  a  later 
period,  but  has  probably  found  its  place  here  as 
connected,  by  the  recurrence  of  the  name  Pashur, 
with  ch.  XX. 

2.  Ch.  xxii.-xxv.  Shorter  prophecies,  delivered 
at  different  times  against  the  kings  of  Judah  and 
the  false  prophets.  Xxv.  13,  14  evidently  marks 
the  conclusion  of  a  series  of  prophecies ;  and  that 
which  follows,  xxv.  15-38,  the  germ  of  the  fuller 
predictions  in  xlvi.-xlix.,  has  been  placed  here  as  a 
kind  of  completion  to  the  prophecy  of  the  Seventy 
Years  and  the  subsequent  fall  of  Babylon. 

3.  Ch.  xxvi.-xxviii.  The  two  great  prophecies 
of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  history  connected 
with  them.  Ch.  xxvi.  belongs  to  the  earlier,  ch. 
xxvii.  and  xxviii.  to  the  later  period  of  the  prophet's 
work.  Jehoiakini  in  xxvii.  1  is  evidently  (comp. 
ver.  3)  a  mistake  for  Zedekiah. 

4.  Ch.  xxix.-xxxi.  The  message  of  comfort  for 
the  exiles  in  Babylon. 

5.  Ch.  xxxii.-xliv.  The  history  of  the  la.st  two 
years  before  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  Jere- 
miah's work  in  them  and  in  the  period  that  fol 
lowed.  Ch.  XXXV.  and  xxxvi.  are  remarkable  ag 
interrupting  the  chronological  order,  which  other- 
wise would  have  been  followed  here  more  closely 


adopted  a  complicated  alphabetic  structure  for  Mj 
great  dirge  over  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  (comp.  Lamen- 
tations), indicates  a  special  tendency  in  him  to  carry 
to  its  highest  point  this  characteristic  of  the  literaturt 
of  his  time.  Nor  is  this  the  only  instance.  Hitzig 
finds   another  example  of  the  Atbash  in  li.  1.     The 

words  ^^n  i27  ((jui  cor  suum  levaveritnt,  Vulg.  j 
"  in  the  midst  of  them  that  rise  up  against  me,"  A. 
v.),  for  which  the  LXX.  substitute  XoASatovs,  be- 
comes, on  applying  the  above  notation,  the  equivalent 

of  D"^"Tti73.  It  should  be  added,  howevei.  that  the 
LXX.  oniit  the  entire  passage  in  xxv.  26,  and  th« 
word  Sheshach  in  li.  41 ;  and  that  Ewald  wijects  it 
accordingly  as  a  later  interpolation,  conjecturing  that 
the  word  firsc  came  into  use  among  the  Jews  who  lire^ 
in  exile  at  Baoylou. 


1262 


JEKEMIAH 


UiftD  Ik  any  other  part.  The  position  of  ch.  xlv., 
unconnected  with  anything  before  or  after  it,  may 
be  accounted  for  on  the  hypothesis  that  Baruch 
desired  to  place  on  record  so  nienioral)Ie  a  passage 
in  his  own  life,  and  inserted  it  where  the  direct 
narrative  of  his  master's  Hfe  ended.  The  same 
explanation  applies  in  part  to  ch.  xxxvi.,  which  was 
evidently  at  one  time  the  conclusion  of  one  of  the 
divisions. 

6.  Ch.  xlvi.-li.  The  prophecies  against  foreign 
nations,  ending  with  the  great  prediction  against 
Babylon. 

7.  The  supplementary  narrative  of  ch.  lii. 

IV.  Text.  The  translation  of  the  LXX.  presents 
many  remarkable  variations,  not  only  in  details 
indicating  that  the  translator  found  or  substituted 
readings  differing  widely  from  those  now  extant  in 
Hebrew  codices  (Keil,  Einleit.  §  76),  but  in  the 
order  of  the  several  parts.  Whether  we  suppose 
him  to  have  had  a  different  recension  of  the  text, 
or  to  have  endeavored  to  introduce  an  order  accord- 
ing to  his  own  notions  into  the  seeming  confusion 
of  the  Hebrew,  the  result  is,  that  in  no  other  l)Ook 
of  the  0.  T.  is  there  so  great  a  diversity  of  arrange- 
ment. It  is  noticeable,  as  illustrating  the  classifi- 
cation given  above,  that  the  two  agree  as  far  as 
XXV.  13.  From  that  point  all  is  different,  and  the 
following  table  indicates  the  extent  of  the  diver- 
gency. It  will  be  seen  that  here  there  was  the 
attempt  to  collect  the  prophecies  according  to  their 
Bubject-matter.  The  thought  of  a  consistently 
chronological  arrangement  did  not  present  itself  in 
^ne  case  more  than  the  other. 


LXX. 

Hebrew. 

XXV.  14-18 

_ 

xlix.  34-39. 

xxvi. 

_ 

xlvi. 

xxvii.-xxviii. 

_ 

l.-li. 

xxix.  1-7 

_ 

xlvii.  1-7. 

7-22 

= 

xlix.    7-22. 

XXX.   1-5 

= 

xlix.    1-6. 

6-11 

= 

28-33. 

12-16 

= 

23-27. 

xxxi. 

= 

xlviii. 

XXXii. 

= 

xxv.  15-39. 

xxxiii.-li. 

=: 

xxvi.-xlv. 

lii. 

= 

lii. 

The  difference  in  the  arrangement  of  the  two 
fexts  was  noticed  by  the  critical  writers  of  the 
Early  Church  (Origen,  Kp.  ad  African.  Hieron. 
Prcef.  in  .Jerem. ).  For  fuller  details  tending  to  a 
conclusion  unfavorable  to  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
Greek  translation,  see  Keil,  Einltit.  (1.  c),  and  the 
authors  there  referred  to. 

Siipjxysed  interpolations.  —  The  genuineness  of 
gome  portions  of  this  book  has  been  called  in  ques- 
tion, partly  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  version  of 
the  LXX.  presents  a  purer  text,  partly  on  internal 
and  more  conjectural  grounds.  The  following  tables 
indicate  the  chief  passages  aflfected  by  each  class 
of  objections: 

1.  As  omitted  in  the  LXX. 
(1  )  X.  6,  7,  8,  10. 
'2.)  xxvii.  7. 
8.)  xxvii.  16-21  [not  omitted,  but  with  many  Taria- 

tlons]. 
{i.)  xxxiii.  14-26. 
!&/  xxxix.  4-13. 

2.   On  other  grounds. 
1.)  X  1-16.     As  being  altogether  the  work  of  a  later 

writer,  probably  the  so-called  Pseudo-Isaiah. 

The  Aramaic  of  ver.  11  is  urged  as  confirming 

tliiB  view. 


JEREMIAH 

(2.)  xxT.  11-14.  \ 

C3.)  xxvii.  7.  I  As  having  tht 

(4.)  xxxiii.  14-26.  [       vaticinia  ex  tventu. 

(5.)  xxxix.  1,  2,  4-13   J 

(6.)  xxvii. -xxix.     As  showing,  in  the  shortened  foiii 

of  the  prophet's  name  (77"'^'^*'),  and  th« 
addition  of  the  epithet  "  Jeremiah  the  prophet,'' 
the  revision  of  a  later  writer. 

(7)  xxx.-xxxiii.  As  partaking  of  the  character  of  the 
later  prophecies  of  Isaiah. 

(8  )  xlviii.  As  betraying  in  language  and  statementa 
the  interpolations  either  of  the  later  prophecies 
of  Isaiah  or  of  a  still  later  writer. 

(9.)  I.  li.  As  being  a  vatirinium  ex  eventu,  inserted 
probably  by  the  writer  of  Is.  xxxiv.,  and  fon  i^n 
in  language  and  thought  to  the  general  charac- 
ter of  Jeremiah's  prophecies. 

(10.)  lii.  As  being  a  supplementary  addition  to  the 
book,  compiled  from  2  K.  xxv.  and  otliei 
sources. 

In  these,  as  in  other  questions  connected  with 
the  Hebrew  text  of  the  O.  T.,  the  impugners  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  abo\'e  passages  are  for  the  most 
part  —  De  Wette,  Movers,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Knobel: 
Hiivernick,  Hengstenberg,  Kiiper,  Keil,  Umbreit, 
are  among  the  chief  defenders.  (Comp.  Keil,  J-un- 
leitunf/,  §  76;  and,  for  a  special  defense  of  1.  and 
li.,  the  monograph  of  Nagelsbach,  Jereviias  und 
Babykm.) 

V.  Litei-ature  —  Origen,  Horn,  in  Jerem. , 
Theodoret,  ISchol.  in  Jerem.,  0pp.  ii.  p.  143; 
Hieron.  Comin.  in  Jerem.  cc.  i.-xxxii.  ;  Coin- 
ineiitaiieshy  Q^colampadius  (1530);  Calviji  (15(53); 
Fiscator  (1614);  Sanctius  (1618);  Venema  (1765); 
Michaelis  (1793);  Blayrey  [Jere7n.  and  Lam.  New 
TransL  with  Notes,  Oxf.]  (1784  [3d  ed.  Lond. 
1836] ) ;  Dahler  [Jeremie  tradiiit,  accompayne  dea 
notes,  2  pt.  Stra.sb.]  (1825-30);  Umbreit  [y*/Y»X-/. 
Conim.  Hamb.]  (1842);  Henderson  [Jerem.  and 
Lam.  translated,  tcith  a  Commentary,  Lond.  1851]; 
Neumann  [  Weissayunyen  u.  Klayelieder,  2  Bde. 
I^ipz.]  (1856-58). 

The  following  treatises  may  also  be  consulted :  — 

Schnuner,  C  F.,  Obsei-vationes  ad  vaticin.  Je- 
rem., 1793  [-94;  repr.  in  the  Comment.  Thevl.  by 
Yelthusen,  Kuinoel  and  Kuperti,  vol.  ii.-v.]  ;  Gaab, 
Erkldi"uny  schwerer  Stellen  in  d.  Welssay.  Jereri., 
1824;  Hensler,  Bemerkk.  iiber  Stellen  in  Jerem. 
Weissay.,  1805;  Spohn,  Jerem.  Valts  e  vers.  Jud. 
Alex.,  1794  [-1824] ;  Kiii)er,  Jerem.  Librorum 
Saa-01-um  interjrres  et  vindex,  1837;  Movers,  De 
utriusque  recensionis  vaticin.  Jerem.  imhde  et 
oriyine,  1837;  Wichelhaus,  De  Jerem.  rersiimt 
Alex.,  1847 ;  Hengstenberg,  C/iristoloyie  des  A.  T. 
(Section  on  Jeremiah).  E.  H.  P. 

*  The  prophets  are  often  spoken  of  in  the  Bii)le 
as  announcing  orally  their  predictions  and  messages, 
but  very  seldom  as  writing  them  out  either  before 
or  after  their  promulgation.  In  this  respect  we 
have  m:;re  disMnct  notices  concerning  the  habit  of 
Jeremiah,  than  of  any  other  prophet.  We  learn 
from  Jer.  xxxvi.  2  ff.,  that  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  he  received  a  command  from  God  to 
collect  all  that  he  had  spoken  "  against  Israel  and 
agahist  Judah,  and  against  all  the  nations  from 
the  days  of  Josiah,"  and  to  write  down  the  same 
in  a  book.  In  accordance  with  this  direction  he 
dictated  to  Baruch  his  amanuensis  all  his  proph- 
ecies up  to  that  time.  This  collection  was  bumi 
by  Jehoiakim  on  account  of  the  threatening! 
which  it  contained  against  hiniseh";  but  Jeremialk 
immediately  prepared  another  in  which  he  not  otii) 


JEREMIAH 

feiMxted  again  what  had  been  destroyed,  but  added 
to  that  *'niany  Uke  words"  (ver.  32).  See  also 
li,  60  ff.  The  prophet's  object  in  thus  putting 
together  his  revelations  as  made  known  to  the 
public  from  time  to  time,  may  not  have  required 
him  to  follow  any  strict  chronological  order.  The 
question,  therefore,  whether  the  present  Hebrew 
collocation  of  these  parts  of  his  writings  came  from 
his  hand  or  that  of  another,  does  not  depend  on 
the  view  taken  of  their  chronological  relation  to 
sach  other.  So  far  as  this  point  is  concerned,  the 
existing  order  may  have  originated  with  the  prophet 
himself,  and  not  from  a  reviser  or  transcriber.  The 
connection  of  subjects  rather  than  of  time  appears 
to  have  controlled  the  general  arrangement  of  the 
book  of  Jeremiah. 

It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  Matthew  (xxvii.  9) 
ascribes  a  passage  to  Jeremiah  which  seems  to 
belong  to  Zechariah.  See,  on  that  difficulty,  the 
addition  to  Aceldama  (Amer.  ed.).  The  pre- 
dictions of  Jeremiah  were  not  only  well  known  in 
the  times  immediately  after  him,  but  were  cele- 
brated for  their  strict  fulfillment.  Beference  is 
made  to  this  character  of  his  wi-itings  in  2  Chron. 
xxvi.  21,  and  Ez.  i.  1.  His  assignment  of  70  years 
as  the  period  of  the  duration  of  the  Captivity  was 
the  ground  of  Daniel"  s  earnest,  effectual  prayer  for 
the  end  of  the  exile  and  the  restoration  of  Israel 
(Dan.  ix.  2  ft'.).  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  first 
quotation  from  Jeremiah  as  we  open  the  Gospel- 
history  (Matt.  ii.  17,  18)  brings  back  to  us  the 
voice  of  lamentation  and  sorrow  to  which  we  were 
accustomed  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Additional  Literature.  —  The  following  works  on 
Jeremiah  also  deserve  notice:  Seb.  Schmid,  Comm. 
in  Libr.  Prophetiarum  Jeremice,  1685  (also  1697 
and  1706),  2  vols.  4to;  Leiste,  Obss.  in  Vaticin. 
Jerem.  aliquot  locos,  1794,  reprinted  with  large 
additions  in  Pott  and  Ruperti's  Sylloge  Comm. 
Theol.  ii.  203-246;  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia  in  Vet. 
rest,  pars  viii.,  2  vols.  1826-27 ;  J.  C.  K.  Hofmann, 
Die  siebenzig  Jahre  des  Jerem.  u.  d.  siebenzig 
Jahrwochen  des  Daniel,  1836;  Maurer,  Comm.  in 
Vet.  Test.  i.  490-691  (1838);  Heim  and  Hoffmann, 
Die  vier  grossen  Propheten  erbaulich  ausgelegt 
aus  den  Schriften  der  Reformatoren,  1839;  J.  L. 
Ktinig,  Alttestamentliche  Studien,  2es  Heft  {Das 
Deutevonomium  u.  der  Prophet  Jeremia,  gegen 
von  Bohlen),  1839;  Hitzig,  Der  Prophet  Jeremia 
erkldrt,  1841,  2e  Aufl.  1866  (Lief.  iii.  of  the 
Knrzgef.  exeget.  Haiulb.  zum  A.  T.),  comp.  his 
Proph.  Biicher  des  A.  T.  iibersetzt,  1854;  Ewald, 
Die  Propheten  des  Allen  Bimdes,  vol.  ii.,  1841  (a 
new  edition  about  to  be  published,  1868);  Stahelin, 
Ueber  das  Princip  das  der  Anordmmg  der  Weis- 
sagungen  d.  Jerem.  zu  Grunde  liegt,  in  the 
Zeitschr.  d.  deutschen  morgenl.  Gesellschaft,  1849, 
iii.  216-230;  Nagelsbach,  Der  Proph.  Jerem.  u. 
Babylon,  1850;  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  Bd.  ii.  2« 
Hiilfte,  1860;  C.  F.  Graf,  Der  Pmphet  Jeremia 
erkldrt,  1862;  G.  R.  Xoyes,  New  Translation  of 
the  Hebrew  Prophets,  vol.  ii.,  3d  ed.  Boston,  1866. 
The  commentary  on  Jeremiah  for  Lange's  Bibel- 
verk  is  to  be  prepared  by  Nagelsbach. 

Of  the  later  Introductions  to  the  Old  Testament 
hose  of  Keil  (pp.  248-264,  2e  Aufl.),  Bleek  (pp. 
169-501),  and  Davidson  (iii.  87-129)  contain  im- 
fortant  sections.  The  art.  on  Jeremiah  in  Ersch 
»nd  Gruber's  Allgem.  /'Jncyclopddie  (Sect.  ii.  Bd. 
IV.)  is  by  Riidiger;  that  in  Herzog's  Real-Encykl. 
[y'x.  478-48;>j,  by  Niigelsbach;  and  that  in  Zeller's 
^ibl.   Wbrterb.  (i.  666  ff.),  of  a  popular  character. 


JEREMIAS  1268 

by  Wunderlich.  Stanley's  sketch  of  Jeremkli 
{Jewish  Church,  ii.  570-622)  describes  him  m  ib 
reality  the  great  personage  of  his  epoch,  not  merely 
in  his  religious  sphere,  but  in  the  state.  For  hlB 
poetical  characteristics,  see  Lowth's  Lectures  on 
Hebrew  Poetry,  pp.  177,  178  (Stowe's  ed.),  Meier, 
Gesch.  d.  jioet.  Nat.  IM.  der  Jlebrder  (1856),  p. 
395  ff.,  and  Isaac  Taylor's  Spirit  of  Hebreio  Poetry, 
p.  272  (N.  Y.  1862).  For  Milman's  estimate  of 
his  importance  and  of  his  literary  merits,  see  hia 
History  of  the  Jews,  i.  439-448  (Araer.  ed.). 
"  His  unrivaled  elegies,"  says  this  eminent  critic, 
"  combine  the  truth  of  history  with  the  deepest 
pathos  of  poetry."  He  justifies  the  encomium  by 
a  translation  of  some  of  the  passages,  alike  remark- 
able for  originality  of  thought  and  tenderness  of 
expression,  in  which  the  Hebrew  patriot  laments 
the  sad  fate  of  Jerusalem  on  its  being  captured  and 
destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar.  [Lamentations.] 
On  the  general  import  of  his  prophecies  the  reade* 
may  consult  F.  K.  Hasse's  GeschicJite  des  A. 
Bumles,  pp.  145-157 ;  Koster's  Die  Propheten,  pp. 
112-115,  and  Hengstenberg's  Christology,  espe- 
cially in  relation  to  the  Messianic  portions,  ii.  361 
473  (Edinb.  1856).  •'  It  is  to  Jeremiah,"  says 
Stanley  (ii.  580),  "even  more  than  to  Isaiah,  that 
the  vsriters  of  the  Apostolic  age  (Hebr.  viii.  8,  13, 
x.  16,  17)  look  back,  when  they  wish  to  describe 
the  Dispensation  of  the  Spirit.  His  predictions 
of  the  Anointed  King  are  fewer  and  less  distinct 
than  those  of  the  preceding  prophets.  But  he  is 
the  prophet  beyond  all  others  of  '  the  New  Testa- 
ment,' 'the  New  Covenant,'  which  first  appears 
in  his  WTitings.  .  .  .  And  the  knowledge  of  this 
new  truth  shall  no  longer  be  confined  to  any  single 
order  or  caste,  but  '  all  shall  know  the  Lord,  from 
the  least  unto  the  greatest '  (Jer.  xxxi.  33,  34)." 

H. 
JERBMI'AH.     Seven  other  persons  bearing 
the  same  name  as  the  prophet  are  mentioned  in 
the  0.  T. 

1.  ['lepcjuias: -^ej'e/njfis.]  Jeremiah  of  Libnah, 
father  of  Hamutal  wife  of  Josiah,  2  K.  xxiii.  31. 

2,  3.  4.  [2.  'lepe/jLia,  Alex.  -/jLias,  FA.  -finjas, 
Vat.  lep/xetas;  3.  'lepe/xias,  Vat.  -fieia,  Alex. 
-fiia,  FA.  Up/jAa;  4.  'Upefiia,  Vat.  -fi€ia,  Alex. 
-fxias-]  Three  warriors  —  two  of  the  tribe  of  Gad 
—  in  David's  army,  1  Chr.  xii.  4,  10,  13. 

5.  I'Upefxia;  Vat.  Up/neia.]  One  of  th« 
"  mighty  men  of  valor  "  of  the  trans-Jordanic  half- 
tribe  of  Manasseh,  1  Chr.  v.  24. 

6.  I'lepcfiia;  Alex.  Up/jLia,  exc.  xii.  34,  Upefxias] 
Vat.  lepfxia,  lepe/xm;  FA.  lep/xeta,  lepe/xeio-]  A 
priest  of  high  rank,  head  of  tlie  second  or  third  of 
the  21  courses  which  are  apparently  enumerated  in 
Neh.  X.  2-8.  He  is  mentioned  again,  i.  e.  th« 
course  which  was  called  after  him  is,  in  Neh.  xii.  1; 
and  we  are  told  at  v.  12  that  the  personal  name  of 
the  head  of  this  course  in  the  days  of  Joiakim  wa« 
Haxaniah.  This  course,  or  its  jhief,  took  part 
in  the  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Ifrusalem  (Neh. 
xii.  34^. 

7.  [Rom.  Vat.  'Upefilu.]  The  father  of  Jaaza- 
niah  the  Rechabite,  Jer.  xxxv.  3. 

*  JEREMIAH,  LAMENTATIONS  OF. 
[Lamentations.] 

JEREMI'AS  Clepe/ifos;  [Alex,  in  Ecclus., 
iTjpe/uLias']  Jeremias,  Hieremias).  1.  The  Greek 
form  of  the  name  of  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  used  ia 
the  A.  V.  of  Ecclus.  xlix.  6;  2  Mace.  xv.  U;  Matt 
xvi.  14.     [Jeremiah;  Jeremy.] 


1264 


JEREMOTH 


2.  1  Esdr  ix.  34.     [Jeremai.] 

JER'EMOTH  (niKjn.^  [heights]  :  'lapi- 
j.Q)6,  [etc.]  :  Jerimoth,  Jerhnuth). 

!•  {'ApifjLdoO;  [Vat.  lapeiincad;  Alex,  lapifiovd; 
Comp.  Aid.  'Upiixdid:  Jerimoth.])  A  Benjamite 
chief,  a  son  of  the  house  of  Beriah  of  Elpaal,  ac- 
cording to  an  obscure  genealogy  of  the  age  of  Hez- 
ekiah  (1  Chr.  viii,  14;  comp.  12  and  18).  His 
family  dwelt  at  Jerusalem,  as  distinguished  from 
the  other  division  of  the  tribe,  located  at  Gibeon 
(ver.  28). 

2.  ['lapifxciO:  Vat.  ApeificudJ]  A  Merarite  Le- 
vite,  son  of  Mushi  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  23);  elsewhere 
called  Jkhimoth. 

3.  l^lapijucaO;  Vat.  Epeiftctfd.]  SonofHeman; 
bead  of  the  13th  course  of  musicians  in  the  Divine 
service  (1  Chr.  xxv.  22).  In  ver.  4  the  name  is 
Jkkimoth. 

4.  ['lapifxcod;  Vat.  lapei/jLoiB;  Alex.  Upifiwe.] 
One  of  the  sons  of  Elam,  and  — 

5.  CApindoe-,  [Vat.  AjjLcov;  FA.  Ap/ncvv;  Alex. 
Comp.  ^lap/uLclod:  Jerhnuth]),  one  of  the  sons  of 
Zattu,  who  had  taken  strange  wives ;  but  put  them 
away,  and  offered  each  a  ram  for  a  trespass  offer- 
ing, at  the  persuasion  of  Ezra  (Ezr.  x.  26,  27). 
In  Esdras  the  names  are  respectively  Hieremoth 
and  Jarimotii. 

6.  The  name  which  appears  in  the  same  list  as 
"and  KAmoth"  (ver.  29) —following  the  correc- 
tion of  the  Keri — is  in  the  original  text  {Cetib) 
•leremoth,  in  which  form  also  it  stands  in  1  Esdr. 

ix.  30,  'Up^iXLod,  A.  V.  HlEREMOTH.     A.  C.  II. 

JER'EMY  i'Upefiias;  [Alex,  in  2  Mace.  ii.  7, 
lepcfieias']  Jeretnias,  Uitrtviias),  the  prophet  Jer- 
emiah. 1  Esdr.  i.  28,  32,  47,  57,  ii.  1;  2  Esdr. 
d.  18;  2  Mace.  ii.  1,  5,  7;  Matt.  ii.  17,  xxvii.  9. 
[Jeremiah;  Jeremias.]  These  abbreviated 
forms  were  much  in  favor  about  the  time  that  the 
A.  V.  M'as  translated.  Elsewhere  we  find  Esay 
for  Isaiah;  and  in  the  Homilies  such  abbreviations 
as  Zachary,  Toby,  etc.,  are  frequent. 

*JER'EMY,  EPISTLE   OF.     [Baruch, 

THE    B(>OK    OK,    7.] 

JERI'AH  (^n-;n>,  /.  e.  Yeri-yaliu  [fminded 
by  Jehovah]:  'lepm;  'EkSicis;  [Vat.  I5oy0,  Ii/Sei; 
Alex.  lepta,]  leSms:  Jeriau),  a  Kohathite  Levite, 
chief  of  the  great  house  of  Hebron  when  David 
organized  the  service  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  19,  xxiv.  23; 
in  the  latter  passage  the  name  of  Hebron  has  been 
omitted  both  in  the  Hebrew  and  LXX.).  The 
8ume  man  is  mentioned  again,  though  with  a  slight 
difference  in  his  name,  as  Jerijah. 

JER'IBAI  [3syl.]  05^^  [^evh.  ichcm  J e- 
\ovah  defemh]:^  'lapi^i;  [Vat.  lapi^ei;]  Alex. 
lapifiai:  Jeribai),  one  of  the  Bene-Elnaam  [sons 
>f  E.],  named  among  the  heroes  of  David's  guard 
\u  the  supplemental  Hst  of  1  Chr.  (xi.  46). 

JERaCHO  (■'^^^^  J'rtUo,  Num.  xxii.  1; 

also     '1^^"^^    J'7-tcho,    Josh.   ii.    1,   2,   3;    and 

nh'n";,  J'richoh,  1  K.  xvi.  34;  LsiJ,    Eriha, 

place    of  fragrance,    from    n^~),   ruack,    "to 
breathe,"  H'^in,  "to  smell:"  older  commenta- 


o  in  which  case  it  would  probably  be  a  remnant  of 
the  old  Canaanitish  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
vbksh  has  left  its  traces  in  such  names  as  Ghesil, 


JERICHO 

tors  daive  it  from  0"!**,  jareach,  "  the 
also  from  H^l,  rdvnch,  "  to  be  broad,"  as  iu  • 
wide  plain;  'le^ix^do;  [Vat.  lepctx"',  exc.  Ezr. 
ii-  34,  lepcia;  Alex.  Upei^co  in  1  Chr.  vi.  78, 
Ezr.  ii.  34,  and  (with  I  A.)  in  Neh.  iii.  2,  vii.  36; 
FA.  in  1  Chr.  xix.  5,  Eiepixcoi  Sin.  in  Eccl.  xxiv, 
14,  1  Mace.  xvi.  11,  14,  lepfi^a,,  and  so  Tisch.  in 
the  N.  T.,  exc.  Heb.  xi.  30  (7th  ed.);  Strabo  and 
Josephus,  'Upixovs'  [Jtricho]),  a  city  of  high  an- 
tiquity, and,  for  those  days,  of  considerate  import- 
ance, situated  in  a  jilain  traversed  by  the  Jo-dan, 
and  exactly  over  against  wlieie  that  river  was 
crossed  by  the  Israelites  under  Joshua  (Josl,.  iii. 
16).  Such  was  either  its  vicinity,  or  the  exteiit  of 
its  territory,  that  Gilgal,  which' formed  their  pri- 
mary encampment,  stood  in  its  east  border  (iv.  19). 
That  it  had  a  king  is  a  very  secondary  considera- 
tion, for  almost  every  small  town  had  one  (xii.  9- 
24);  hi  fact  monarchy  was  the  only  form  of  gov- 
ernment known  to  those  primitive  times  —  the 
government  of  the  people  of  God  presenting  a 
marked  exception  to  prevailing  usage.  But  Jericho 
was  further  inclosed  by  walls  —  a  fenced  city  —  its 
walls  were  so  considerable  that  at  least  one  person 
(Kahab)  had  a  house  upon  them  (ii.  15),  and  it< 
gates  were  shut,  as  throughout  the  East  still, 
"  when  it  was  dark  "  (v.  5).  Again,  the  spoil  that 
was  found  in  it  betokened  its  affluence  —  Ai,  Mak- 
kedah,  Libnah,  Lachish,  Eglon,  Hebron,  Debir, 
and  even  Hazor,  evidently  contained  nothing  worth 
mentioning  in  comparison  —  besides  sheep,  oxen, 
and  asses,  we  hear  of  vessels  of  brass  and  iron. 
These  possibly  may  have  been  the  first-fruits  of 
those  brass  foundries  "  in  the  plain  of  Jordan  "  of 
which  Solomon  afterwards  so  largely  availed  him- 
self (2  Chr.  iv.  17).  Silver  and  gold  was  found  in 
such  abundance  that  one  man  (Achan)  could  ap- 
propriate stealthily  200  shekels  (100  oz.  avoird., 
see  I.ewis,  Ueb.  Jiep.  vi.  57)  of  the  former,  and 
•'  a  wedge  of  gold  of  50  shekels  (25  oz.)  weight; " 
"a  goodly  Babylonish  garment,"  purloined  in  the 
same  dishonesty,  may  be  adduced  as  evidence  of  a 
then  existing  commerce  l>etween  Jericho  and  the 
far  East  (Josh.  vi.  24,  vii.  21).  In  fact  its  situa- 
tion alone  —  in  so  noble  a  plain  and  contiguous  to 
so  prolific  a  river  —  would  bespeak  its  importance 
in  a  country  where  these  natural  advantages  have 
been  always  so  highly  prized,  and  in  an  age  when 
people  depended  so  much  more  upon  the  indigenous 
resources  of  nature  than  they  are  compelled  to  do 
now.  But  for  the  curse  of  Joshua  (vi.  26)  doubt- 
less Jericho  might  have  proved  a  more  Ibrmidable 
counter-charm  to  the  city  of  David  than  even 
Samaria. 

Jericho  is  first  mentioned  as  the  city  to  whieb 
the  two  spies  were  sent  by  Joshua  from  Shittiio: 
they  "were  lodged  in  the  house  of  Kahab  the  harlot 
upon  the  wall,  and  departed,  having  first  promised 
to  save  her  and  all  that  were  found  in  lier  house 
from  destruction  (ii.  1-21).  In  the  annihilation 
of  the  city  that  ensued,  this  promise  was  religiously 
observed.  Her  house  was  recognized  by  the  scarlet 
hne  bound  in  the  window  from  which  the  spies 
were  let  down,  and  she  and  her  relatives  were  taken 
out  of  it,  and  "  lodged  without  the  camp;  "  but  it 
is  nowhere  said  or  implied  that  her  house  escaj)ed 
the  general  conflagration.     That   she    "dwelt   in 


Beth-shemesh,  and  others  (see  Idolatry,  p.  1181  6J 
v\  hich  may  have  been  the  head-quarters  of  the  wor 
<)hip  indicated  in  the  names  they  bear. 


JERICHO 

Israel"  for  the  future;  that  she  mairied  Sahnoii 
son  of  Naasson,  "  prince  of  the  children  of  Judah," 
and  had  by  liiui  Boiz,  tlie  hushaud  of  Kuth  and 
progenitor  of  David  and  of  our  Lord ;  and  lastly, 
that  she  is  tlie  first  and  only  Gentile  name  that 
appears  in  the  list  of  the  faithful  oi  the  O.  T.  given 
by  St.  Paul  (Josh.  vi.  25;  1  Chr.  ii.  10;  Matt.  i. 
5;  Ileb.  xi.  31),  all  these  facts  surely  indicate  that 
she  did  not  continue  to  inhabit  the  accursed  site ; 
and,  if  so,  and  in  absence  ot  all  direct  evidence 
from  Scripture,  how  could  it  ever  have  been  inferred 
1  hat  her  house  was  left  standing  ? 

Such  as  it  had  been  left  by  Joshua,  such  it  was 
bestowed  by  him  upon  the  tribe  of  lienjamin  (Josh, 
tviii.  21),  and  from  this  time  a  long  interval  elapses 
l^fore  Jericho  appears  again  upon  the  scene.  It  is 
only  incidentally  mentioned  in  the  hfe  of  David  in 
connection  with  his  embassy  to  the  Ammonite  king 
(2  Sara,  X.  5).  And  the  solemn  manner  in  which 
its  second  foundation  under  Hiel  the  Bethelite  is 
recorded  —  ui)on  whom  the  curse  of  Joshua  is  said 
to  have  descended  in  full  force  (1  K.  xvi.  34)  — 
would  certainly  seem  to  imply  that  up  to  that  time 
its  site  had  been  uninhabited.  It  is  true  that 
mention  is  made  of  "  a  city  of  palm-trees  "  (Judg. 
i.  16,  and  iii.  13)  in  existence  apparently  at  the 
time  when  spoken  of;  and  that  Jericho  is  twice  — 
once  before  its  first  overthrow,  and  once  after  its 
second  foundation  —  designated  by  that  name  (see 
Deut.  xxxiv.  3,  and  2  Chr.  xxvii.  15).  But  it 
would  be  difficult  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  city 
mentioned  in  the  book  of  Judges,  and  as  in  the 
territory  of  Judah ^  with  Jericho.  However,  once 
actually  rebuilt,  Jericho  rose  again  slowly  into  con- 
sequence. In  its  immediate  vicinity  the  sons  of 
the  prophets  sought  retirement  from  the  world: 
Elisha  "healed  the  spring  of  the  waters;''  and 
over  and  against  it,  beyond  Jordan,  Elijah  "went 
up  by  a  whirlwind  into  heaven  "  (2  K.  ii.  1-22,^ 
In  its  plains  Zedekiah  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Chaldseans  (2  K.  xxv.  5;  Jer.  xxxix.  5).  By  what 
may  be  called  a  retrospective  account  of  it,  we  may 
infer  that  Hiel's  restoration  had  not  utterly  failed ; 
for  in  the  return  under  Zerubbabel  the  "  children 
of  Jericho,"  3-15  in  number,  are  comprised  (Ezr.  ii. 
34;  Neh.  vii.  36);  and  it  is  even  implied  that  they 
removed  thither  again,  for  the  men  of  Jericho 
assisted  Nehemiah  in  rebuilding  that  part  of  th? 
wall  of  Jerusalem  that  was  next  to  the  sheep-gate 
(Neh.  iii.  2).  We  now  enter  upon  its  more  mod- 
ern phase.  The  Jericho  of  the  days  of  Josephus 
was  distant  150  stadia  from  Jerusalem,  and  50  from 
the  Jordan.  It  lay  in  a  plain,  overhung  by  a  bar- 
ren mountain  whose  roots  ran  northwards  towards 
Scythopolis,  and  southwards  in  the  direction  of 
Sodom  and  the  Dead  Sea.  These  formed  the 
western  boundaries  of  the  plain.  Eastwards,  its 
barriers  were  the  mountains  of  Moab,  which  ran 
parallel  to  the  former.  In  the  midst  of  the  plain  — 
the  great  plain  as  it  was  called  —  flowed  the  Jor- 
dan, and  at  the  top  and  bottom  of  it  were  two 
lakes:  Tiberias,  proverbial  for  its  sweetness,  and 
Asphaltites  for  its  bitterness.  Away  from  the  Jor- 
dan it  was  parched  and  unhealthy  during  summer; 
but  during  winter,  even  when  it  snowed  at  Jerusa- 
lem, the  inhabitants  here  wore  linen  garments. 
Hard  by  Jericho  —  bursting  forth  close  to  the  site 
of  the  old  city,  which  Joshua  took  on  his  entrance 
nto  Canaan  —  was  a  most  exuberant  fountain, 
"hose  waters,  before  noted  for  their  contrary  prop- 
erties, had  received,  proceeds  Josephus,  throvgh 
's  prayers,  their   tiien  wonderfully  idlu  .ary 


JERICHO 


1265 


and  prolific  efficacy.  Within  its  range  —  70  stadia 
(Strabo  says  100)  by  20  —  the  ferti'ity  of  the  soil 
was  unexampled:  palms  of  vario  s  names  and 
properties,  some  that  produced  horsey  scarce  infe- 
rior to  that  of  the  neighborhood  —  opobalsamum, 
the  choicest  of  indigenous  fruits  —  Cyprus  (Ar. 
"el-henna")  and  niyrobalanum  ("Zukkum") 
throve  there  beautifully,  and  thickly  dotted  about 
in  pleasure-grounds  {B.  J.  iv.  8,  §  3).  Wisdom 
herself  did  not  disdain  comparison  with  "  the  rose- 
plants  of  Jericho"  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  14).  Well  might 
Strabo  {Geocjr.  xvi.  2,  §  41,  ed.  ]MUller)  conclude 
that  its  revenues  were  considerable.  By  the  IJo- 
raans  Jericho  was  first  visited  under  Pompey :  he 
encamped  there  for  a  single  night  ;  and  subse- 
quently destroyed  two  forts,  Threx  and  Taurus, 
that  commanded  its  approaches  (Strabo,  ibid.  §  40). 
Gabinius,  in  his  resettlement  of  Judaea.,  niade  it 
one  of  the  five  seats  of  assembly  (Joseph.  B.  J.  '. 
8,  §  5).  With  Herod  the  Great  it  rose  to  stiU 
greater  prominence;  it  had  been  found  full  of  treas- 
ure of  ail  kinds,  as  in  the  time  of  Joshua,  so  by  his 
Roman  allies  who  sacked  it  {ibid.  i.  15.  §  6);  and 
its  revenues  were  eagerly  sought,  and  rented  by  the 
wily  tyrant  from  Cleopatra,  to  whom  Antony  had 
assigned  them  {Ant.  xv.  4,  §  2).  Not  long  after- 
wards he  built  a  fort  there,  which  he  called  "  Cy- 
prus "  in  honor  of  his  mother  {ibid.  xvi.  5);  a 
tower,  which  he  called  in  honor  of  his  brother 
"PhasaiSlus;"  and  a  number  of  new  palaces  — 
superior  in  their  construction  to  those  which  had 
existed  there  previously  —  which  he  named  after  his 
friends.  He  even  founded  a  new  town,  higher  up 
the  plain,  which  he  called,  like  the  tower,  Phasaelis 
{B.  J.  i.  21,  §  8).  If  he  did  not  make  Jericho  his 
habitual  residence,  he  at  least  retired  thither  to  die 
—  and  to  be  mourned,  if  he  could  have  got  his 
plan  carried  out  —  and  it  was  in  the  amphitheatre 
of  Jericho  that  the  news  of  his  death  was  announced 
to  the  assembled  soldiers  and  people  by  Salome  {B. 
J.  i.  38,  §  8).  •  Soon  afterwards  the  palace  was 
burnt,  and  the  town  plundered  by  one  Simon,  a 
revolutionary  that  had  been  slave  to  Herod  {Ant. 
xvii.  10,  §  6):  but  Archelaus  rebuilt  the  former 
sumptuously  —  founded  a  new  town  in  the  plain, 
that  bore  his  own  name  —  and,  most  important  of 
all,  diverted  water  from  a  village  called  Nea;ra,  to 
irrigate  the  plain  which  he  had  planted  with  palms 
{Ant.  xvii.  13,  §  1).  Thus  Jericho  was  once  more 
'  a  city  of  palms  "  when  our  Lord  visited  it:  such 
as  Herod  the  Great  and  Archelaus  had  left  it,  such 
he  saw  it.  As  the  city  that  had  so  exceptionally 
contributed  to  his  own  ancestry  —  as  the  city  which 
had  been  the  first  to  fall  —  amidst  so  much  cere- 
mony —  before  "  the  captain  of  the  Lord's  host, 
and  his  servant  Joshua"  —  we  may  well  suppose 
that  his  eyes  surveyed  it  with  unwonted  interest. 
It  is  supposed  to  have  been  on  the  rocky  heights 
overhanging  it  (hence  called  by  tradition  the  Quar- 
entana),  that  he  was  assailed  by  the  Tempter;  and 
over  against  it,  accoi"ding  to  tradition  likewise,  Ho 
had  been  previously  baptized  in  the  Jordan.  Here 
He  restored  sight  to  the  blind  (two  certainly,  per- 
haps three,  St.  Matt.  xx.  30;  St.  Mark  x.  46: 
this  was  in  leaving  Jericho.  St.  Luke  says  "  as 
He  was  come  nigh  unto  Jericho,"  etc.,  xviii.  35). 
Here  the  descendant  of  Rahab  did  not  disdain  the 
hospitality  of  Zacchseus  the  publican  —  an  office 
which  was  likely  to  he  lucrative  enough  in  so  rich 
a  city.  Finally,  between  Jerusalem  and  Jericho 
was  laid  the  scene  of  His  story  of  the  good  Samar- 
itan, which,  if  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  real 


1266 


JERICHO 


occurrence  throughout,  at  least  derives  interest  from 
the  fact,  that  robbers  have  ever  been  the  terror  of 
that  precipitous  road;  and  so  formidable  had  they 
proved  only  just  before  the  Christian  era,  that 
Pompey  had  been  induced  to  undertake  the  de- 
struction of  their  strongholds  (Strabo,  as  before, 
xvi.  2,  §  40;  comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  xx.  (!,  §  1  ff.)- 
Dagon,  cr  Docus  (1  Mace.  xvi.  15;  comp.  ix.  50), 
Vfhere  Ptolemy  assassinated  his  father-in-luw,  Simon 
the  Maccabee,  may  have  been  one  of  these. 

Posterior  to  the  Gospels  the  chronicle  of  Jericho 
may  be  briefly  told.  Vespasian  tbund  it  one  of 
the  toparchies  of  Judaea  (B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  5),  but 
deserted  by  its  inhabitants  in  a  great  measure  when 
lie  encamped  there  {ibid.  iv.  8,  §  2).  He  left  a 
garrison  on  his  departure  —  not  necessarily  the 
lOth  legion,  which  is  oidy  stated  to  have  marched 
throuf/h  Jericho  —  which  was  still  there  when  Titus 
advanced  upon  Jerusalem.  Is  it  asked  how  Jericho 
was  destroyed  ?  Evidently  by  Vespasian ;  for  Jo- 
sephus,  rightly  understood,  is  not  so  silent  as  Dr. 
Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  i.  5GG,  2d  ed.)  thinks.  The 
"ity  pillaged  and  burnt,  in  B.  J.  iv.  9,  §  1,  was 
clearly  Jericho  with  its  adjacent  villages,  and  not 
Gerasa,  as  may  be  seen  at  once  by  comparing  the 
language  there  with  that  of  c.  8,  §  2,  and  the  agent 
was  Vespasian.  Eusebius  and  St.  Jerome  ( Ono- 
raast.  s.  v.)  say  that  it  was  destroyed  when  Jeru- 
salem was  besieged  by  the  Romans.  They  further 
add  that  it  was  afterwards  rebuilt  —  they  do  not 
say  by  whom  —  and  still  existed  in  their  day ;  nor 
had  the  ruins  of  the  two  preceding  cities  been  ob- 
literated. Could  Hadrian  possibly  have  planted  a 
colony  there  when  he  passed  through  Judaea  and 
founded  ^lia?  (Dion.  Cass.  ///W.  Ixix.  c.  11,  ed. 
Sturz. ;  more  at  large  Chron.  Paschal,  p.  254,  ed. 
Du  Fresne.)  The  discovery  which  Origen  made 
there  of  a  version  of  the  0.  T.  (the  5th  in  his 
Hexapla),  together  with  sundry  MSS.,  Greek  and 
Hebrew,  suggests  that  it  could  not  have  been 
wholly  without  inhabitants  (Euseb.  /s".  H.  vi.  16; 
S.  Epiphan.  Lib.  de  Pond,  et  .Uensur.  circa  med.); 
or  again,  as  is  perhaps  more  probable,  did  a  Chris- 
tian settlement  arise  there  under  Constantine,  when 
baptisms  in  the  Jordan  l)egan  to  be  the  rage  ?  That 
Jericho  became  an  episcopal  see  about  that  time 
under  Jerusalem  appears  from  more  than  one  an- 
cient Notitia  {Geograph.  S.  a  Carolo  Paulo,  30G, 
and  the  Parergon  appended  to  it;  comp.  William 
of  Tyre,  Hist.  lib.  xxiii.  ad  f.).  Its  bishops  sub- 
scribed to  various  councils  in  the  4th,  5th,  and  6th 
centuries  {ibid,  and  Ijq  Quien's  Oriens  Christian. 
lii.  654).  Justinian,  we  are  told,  restored  a  hos- 
pice there,  and  likewise  a  church  dedicated  to  the 
Virgin  (Procop.  De  yEdif.  v.  9).  As  early  as  A. 
D.  337,  when  the  Bordeaux  pilgrim  (ed.  Wessel- 
ing)  visited  it,  a  house  existed  there  which  was 
pointed  out,  after  the  manner  of  those  days,  as  the 
nouse  of  Rahab.  This  was  roofless  when  Arculfus 
saw  it;  and  not  only  so,  but  the  third  city  was 
Ukewise  in  ruins  (Adamn.  de  Locis  S.  ap.  Migne, 
Patrolog.  C.  Ixxxviii.  799).  Had  Jericho  been 
visited  by  an  earthquake,  as  Antoninus  reports  (ap. 
Ugcl.  Thesaur.  vii.  p.  mccxiii.,  atid  note  to  c.  3), 
and  as  Syria  certainly  was,  in  the  27th  year  of 
Justinian,  A.  D.  553?  If  so,  we  can  well  under- 
stand the  restorations  already  referred  to ;  and  when 
Antoninus  adds  that  the  house  of  Rahab  had  now 
become  a  hospice  and  oratory,  we  might  almost 
pronounce  that  this  was  the  very  hospice  which 
had  been  restored  by  that  emperor.  Again,  it  may 
■38  aaksd,  did  Christian  Jericho  receive  no  injury 


JERICHO 

from  the  Persian  Romizan,  the  ferocious  general  of 
Chosroes  II.  A.  i>.  614?  (Bar-Hebr»i  Chron.  99 
Lat.  v.  ed.  Kirsch.)  It  would  rather  seem  that 
there  were  more  religious  edifices  in  the  7th  thaa 
in  the  6th  century  round  about  it.  According  to 
Arculfus  one  churcli  marked  the  site  of  Gilgal; 
another  the  spot  where  our  Lord  was  supposed  to 
have  deposited  his  garments  previously  to  his  bap- 
tism ;  a  third  within  the  precincts  of  a  vast  mon- 
astery dedicated  to  St.  John,  situated  upon  some 
rising  ground  overlooki.ig  the  Jordan.  (See  as 
before.)  Jei-icho  meanwhile  had  disa]3peared  as  a 
town  to  rise  no  more.  Churclies  and  monasteries 
sprung  up  around  it  on  all  sides,  but  only  t<: 
moulder  away  in  their  turn.  The  anchorite  caves 
in  the  rocky  flanks  of  the  Quarentana  are  the  most 
strikmg  memorial  that  remains  of  early  or  mediae- 
val enthusiasm.  Arculfus  speaks  of  a  diminutive 
race  —  Canaanites  he  calls  them  —  that  inhabited 
the  plain  in  great  numbers  in  his  day.  They  have 
retained  possession  of  those  fairy  meadow-lands 
ever  since,  and  have  made  their  head-quarters  foi 
some  centuries  round  the  "  square  tower  or  castle ' 
first  mentioned  l)y  Willebrand  (ap.  I.eon.  Allat 
'S.vjj.iJ.iKT.  p.  151)  in  A.  D.  1211,  when  it  was  in- 
habited by  the  Saracens,  whose  work  it  may  be 
supposed  to  have  been,  though  it  has  since  been 
dignified  by  the  name  of  the  house  of  Zacchseus. 
Their  village  is  by  Brocardus  (ap.  Canis.  Thesaur. 
iv.  16),  in  A.  I).  1230,  styled  "a  vile  place;  "  by 
Sir  J.  Maundeville,  in  A.  D.  1322,  "a  Uttle  vil- 
lage;" and  by  Henry  Maundrell,  in  A.  D.  1697, 
•'a  poor  nasty  village;  "  ui  which  verdict  all  mod- 
ern travellers  that  have  ever  visited  R'iha  must 
concur.  (See  A'ai-ly  Trav.  in  Pal.  by  Wright, 
pp.  177  and  451.)  They  are  looked  upon  by  the 
Arabs  as  a  debased  race ;  and  are  probably  nothing 
more  or  less  than  veritable  gypsies,  who  are  still  to 
be  met  with  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  Frank 
mountain  near  Jerusalem,  and  on  the  heights  round 
the  village  and  convent  of  St.  John  in  the  desert, 
and  are  still  called  "  Scomu'nicati  "  by  the  native 
Christians  —  one  of  the  names  applied  to  them 
when  they  first  attracted  notice  in  LLurope  in  the 
15th  century  (/.  e.  from  feigning  themselves  "  pen- 
itents "  and  under  censure  of  the  Pope.  See  Hoy- 
land's  Histor.  Survey  of  the  Gypsies^  p.  18;  also 
The  Gypsies,  a  poem  by  A.  P.  Stanley. 

Jericho  does  not  seem  to  have  been  ever  restored 
as  a  town  by  the  Crusaders ;  but  its  plains  had  not 
ceased  to  be  prolific,  and  were  extensively  cultivated 
and  laid  out  in  vineyards  and  gardens  by  the  monks 
(Phocas  ap.  Leon.  Allat.  '^v/j./hikt-  c.  20,  p.  31). 
They  seem  to  have  been  included  in  the  domains  of 
the  patriarchate  of  Jerusalem,  and  as  such  were 
bestowed  by  Arnulf  upon  his  niece  as  a  dowry 
(Wm.  of  Tyre,  Hist.  xi.  15).  Twenty-five  years 
afterwards  we  find  INIelisendis,  wife  of  king  Fulco, 
assigning  them  to  the  convent  of  Bethany,  which 
she  had  founded  A.  D.  1137. 

The  site  of  ancient  (the  first)  Jericho  is  with 
reason  placed  by  Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl.  Res.  i.  552- 
568)  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  foun 
tain  of  Ehsha;  and  that  of  the  second  (the  city  of 
the  N.  T.  and  of  Josephus)  at  the  opening  of  the 
Wady  Kelt  (Cherith),  half  an  hour  from  the  foun- 
tain. The.<;e  are  precisely  the  sites  that  one  would 
infer  from  Josephus.  On  the  other  hand  we  are 
much  more  inclined  to  refer  the  ruined  aqueduct* 
round  Jericho  to  the  irrigations  of  Archelaus  (see 
above)  than  to  any  hypothetical  *'  culture  or  pre|>. 
aration  of  sugar  by  the  Saracens."     Jacob  of  "Vitrj 


JEBIJAH  1207 


Jericho. 


sajrs  but  generally,  that  the  plains  of  the  Jordan 
produced  canes  yielding  sugar  in  abundance,  — 
from  Lebanon  to  the  Dead  Sea,  —  and  when  he 
speaks  of  the  mode  in  which  sugar  was  obtained 
from  them,  he  is  rather  describing  what  was  done 
in  Syria  than  anywhere  near  Jericho  ( Hist,  Hiero- 
sol.  c.  93).  Besides,  it  may  fairly  be  questionetl 
whether  the  same  sugar-yielding  reeds  or  canes 
there  spoken  of  are  not  still  as  plentiful  as  ever 
they  were  within  range  of  the  Jordan  (see  Lyneh's 
Narrative,  events  of  April  16,  also  p.  266-67). 
Almost  every  reed  in  these  regions  distils  a  sugary 
juice,  and  almost  every  herb  breathes  fragrance. 
Palms  have  indeed  disappeared  (there  was  a  solitary 
one  remaining  not  long  since)  from  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  "  city  of  palms;  "  yet  there  were  groves 
of  them  in  the  days  of  Arculfus,  and  palm-branches 
could  still  be  cut  there  when  Fulcherius  traversed 
the  Jordan,  A.  v>.  1100  (ap.  Gesia  Dei  per  Francos, 
vol.  i.  part  1,  p.  402).  The  fig-mulberry  or  "  tree- 
fig"  of  Zacchseus  —  which  all  modern  travellers 
confound  with  our  Acer  pseudoplatnnus,  or  com- 
mon sycamore  (see  Diet.  cTHist.  Nat.  torn,  xliii.  p. 
SI 8,  and  Cruden's  Ccmco7'd.  s.  v.)  —  mentioned  by 
the  liordeaux  pilgrim  and  by  Antoninus,  no  longer 
exists. «»  The  opobalsnm'um  has  become  extinct  both 
in  Egypt  —  whither  ("'leopatra  is  said  to  have  trans- 
planted it  —  and  in  its  favorite  vale,  Jericho.  The 
myrobcdamnn  {Zukkmn  of  the  Arabs)  alone  survives, 
and  from  its  nut  oil  is  still  extracted.  Honey  may 
be  still  found  here  and  there,  in  the  nest  of  the 


o  *  Sepp  also  {Jerusalem  unci  das  heil.  Land^  i.  610) 
»y8  that  this  tree  has  entirely  disappeared  from  this 
region.  Mr.  Tristram  makes  a  different  statement. 
"  llie  tree  into  which  the  publican  climbed  must  not 
be  conlbunded  with  the  oriental  plane  common  by  the 
KTMims  of  Northern  Galilee,  but  was  the  sycamore 
■g  '.T^ciis  syeomorus).  .  .  .  We  were  pratifled  by  the 
iiMMTtory  that  though  scarce  it  is  not  yet  extinct  la  \ 


wild  bee.  Fig-trees,  maize,  and  cucumbers,  muj 
be  said  to  comprise  all  that  is  now  cultivated  in  the 
plain ;  but  wild  flowers  of  brightest  and  most  va- 
ried hue  bespangle  the  rich  herbage  on  all  sides. 

lastly,  the  bright  yellow  apples  of  Sodom  are 
still  to  be  met  with  round  Jericho;  though  Jose- 
phus  (B.  J.  iv.  84)  and  others  (Havercamp,  ad 
Tertull.  Aiiol.  c.  40,  and  Jacob  of  Vitry,  as  above) 
make  their  locality  rather  the  shores  of  the  Dead 
Sea :  and  some  modem  travellers  assert  that  they 
are  found  out  of  Palestine  no  less  {Bibl.  Res.  i. 
522  ff.).  In  fact  there  are  two  different  plants 
that,  correctly  or  incorrectly,  have  obtained  that 
name,  both  bearing  bright  yellow  fruit  like  apples, 
but  with  no  more  substance  than  fungus-balls. 
The  former  or  larger  sort  seems  confined  in  Pales- 
tine to  the  neighborhood  of  the  Dead  Se-a,  while 
the  latter  or  smaller  sort  abounds  near  Jericho. 

E.  S.  Ff. 

JE'RIEL  (bSin^^  [ffmnded  by  GotI] :  'le- 
pffjX:  [Vat.  Pei77A:]  Jeriel),  a  man  of  Issachar, 
one  of  the  six  heads  of  the  house  of  Tola  at  the 
time  of  the  census  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr. 
vii.  2). 

JERI'JAH  {'^^P'![   [founded  by  JeAwn^] 
Ovplas;  [Vat.  Tou  A 6jas;]  Alex.  Ia>pm?:  Jeria\ 
1  Chr.  xxvi.  31.     [The  same  man  as  Jeriah,  with 
a  slight  difference  in  the  form  of  the  name.]     The 
difference  consists  in  the  omission  of  the  final  u. 


the  Plaiu  of  Jericho,  as  we  found  two  aged  trees  in 
the  little  ravine  [near  the  channel  of  Wn/ly  Kelt],  in 
illustration  of  the  Gospel  narrative  "  (Land  of  Israel, 
p.  290,  and  also  p.  514,  2d  ed.)  lie  also  found  a  few 
of  these  trees  "  among  the  ruins  by  the  wayside  at 
ancient  Jericho"  (Natural  History  of  the  Bibl*  ^  p.  SSfd^ 
Land.  1867).    [K^ooa^Ci.]  H. 


1268 


JERIMOTH 


aot  in  the  insertion  of  the  j,  which  our  translators 
should  have  added  in  the  former  case. 

JERIMOTH  (nh?2^-l';  lhei(/hi8] :  Upifide, 
'lapifj-cid,  'Upi/jLovO-  Jerimoih). 

1.  ['lept/iovd;  Vat.  A/)e</Aco0.]  Son  or  descend- 
ant of  liela,  according  to  1  Chr.  vii.  7,  and  founder 
of  a  Benjamite  house,  wliich  existed  in  the  time  of 
David  (ver.  2).     He  is  perhaps  the  same  as  — 

2.  {'ApifMovO;  [Vat.  Ap€t/xovd(]  Alex,  lapi- 
uovO;  [FA.  apiOfiovs']  Jerimuth),  who  joined 
David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii.  5).     [Bela.] 

3.  (niD*^"n^,  i.  e.  Jeremoth:  ['lepifxovO;  Vat. 
Aipeficad;  Alex,  lepificod.])  A  son  of  Becher  (1 
(Jhr.  vii.  8),  and  head  of  another  Benjamite  house. 
[Bkchkk.] 

4.  I'lcpifjicad;  Vat.  Apeifiad.]  Son  of  Mushi, 
the  son  of  Merari,  and  head  of  one  of  the  families 
of  the  Merarites  which  were  counted  in  the  census 
of  tlie  Levites  taken  by  David  (I  Chr.  xxiv.  30). 
[See  Jeuemotii,  2.] 

5.  ['UpiiJiwd;  Vat.  Upefiood',  Alex.  lepifxovO.] 
Son  of  Heman,  head  of  the  15th  ward  of  musi- 
cians (1  Chr.  XXV.  4,  22).  In  the  latter  he  is 
called  Jekemoth.     [Heman.] 

6.  I'Upifxcad]  Alex,  -fiovd;  Vat.  Epei/iMd.] 
Son  of  Azriel,  "ruler"  {1^^^}  of  the  tribe  of 
Naphtali  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  19). 
The  same  persons,  called  rulers,  are  in  ver.  22  called 

"  princes"  (u.*"1C^)  of  the  tribes  of  Israel. 

7.  ('Upi/jL6ve;  [Vat.  -pei-;]  Alex.  EpfiovO.)  Son 
of  king  David,  whose  daughter  Mahalath  was  one 
of  the  wives  of  Rehoboam,  her  cousin  Abihail  being 
the  other  (2  Chr.  xi.  18).  As  Jeiimoth  is  not 
named  in  the  list  of  children  by  David's  wives  in 
1  Chr.  jii.  or  xiv.  4-7,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  he  was 
the  son  of  a  concubine,  and  this  in  fact  is  the  Jew- 
ish tradition  (Jerome,  Qucesfiones,  ad  loc.).  It  is 
however  questionable  whether  Kehol)oam  would 
have  mairied  the  grand-child  of  a  concubine  even 
of  the  great  David.  The  passage  2  Chr.  xi.  18  is 
not  quite  clear,  since  the  word  "  daughter  "  is  a 

correction  of  the  Keri:  the  original  text  had  "jS, 
i.  e.  "  son." 

8.  ['leptjucSd;  Vat.  -pet-.]  A  Levite  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah,  one  of  the  overseers  of  offerings 
and  dedicated  things  placed  in  the  chambers  of  the 
Temple,  who  were  under  Cononiah  and  Shimei  the 
Ixvites,  by  command  of  Hezekiah,  and  Azariah  the 
high-priest  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  13).  A.  C.  H. 

JE'RIOTH  (nS^''"1^  [curtains]:  'UpidO; 
[Vat.  EKicad'-  Jerioili]),  according  to  our  A.  V. 
and  the  LXX.,  one  of  the  elder  Caleb's  wives  (1 
Chr.  ii.  18);  but  according  to  the  Vulgate  she  was 
his  daughter  by  his  first  wife  Azubah.  The  He- 
brew text  seems  evidently  corrupt,  and  will  not 
make  sease;  but  the  probability  is  that  Jerioth 
<va8  a  daughter  of  Caleb  the  son  of  Hezron.     (In 

tflis  ca.ie  we  ought  to  read  il^^T^?  "|^  1"^ /^n 

"li^trW.)  The  Latin  version  of  Santes  Pagninus, 
which  makes  Azubah  and  Jerioth  both  daughters 
5f  Caleb,  and  the  note  of  Vatablus,  which  makes 
/shah  (A.  V.  "wife'*)  a  proper  name  and  a  third 


o  According  to  tlie  old  Jewish  tradition  preserved 
»y  Jerome  (  QikbsI.  Hebr.  2  Sam.  xvi.  10),  Nebat,  the 
tf  Jeroboam,  was  identical  with  Shimei  of  Qera, 


JEROBOAM 

daughter,  are  clearly  wrong,  as  it  appears  from  v«i 
19  that  Azubah  was  Caleli's  wife.         A.  C.  H. 

JEROBO'AM  (Q^^"^^  =Yarab'an-:  'Upo- 
fiodfx)'  The  name  signifies  "  whose  people  ii 
many,"  and  thus  has  nearly  the  same  meaning 
with  Rehoboam,  "  enlarger  of  the  people."  IMh 
names  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the  reign  of  Sol- 
omon, and  were  probably  suggested  by  the  increasa 
of  the  Jewish  people  at  that  time. 

1.  The  first  king  of  the  divided  kingdom  of  Is- 
rael. The  ancient  authorities  for  his  reign  and  his 
wars  were  "the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Isi*aol" 
(1  K.  xiv.  19),  and  "  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer 
against  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Xebat "  (2  Chr.  ir. 
29).  The  extant  account  of  his  life  is  given  hi  two 
versions,  so  different  from  each  ether,  and  yet  each 
so  ancient,  as  to  make  it  difficult  to  choose  between 
them.  The  one  usually  followed  is  that  contained 
in  the  Hebrew  text,  and  in  one  portion  of  the  LXX. 
The  other  is  given  in  a  separate  account  inserted 
by  the  LXX.  at  1  K.  xi.  43,  and  xii.  24.  This 
last  contains  such  evident  marks  of  authenticity  in 
some  of  its  details,  and  is  so  much  more  fuU  than 
the  other,  that  it  will  be  most  conveniently  Uken 
as  the  l)asis  of  the  biography  of  this  remarkable 
man,  as  the  nearest  approach  which,  in  the  contra- 
dictory state  of  the  text,  we  can  now  make  to  the 
truth. 

I.  He  was  the  son  of  an  Ephrainnte  of  the  name 
of  Nebat;  «  his  father  had  died  whilst  he  was  young; 
but  his  mother,  who  bad  been  a  person  of  loose 
character  (LXX.),  lived  in  her  widowhood,  trusting 
apparently  to  her  son  for  support.  Her  name  is 
variously  given  as  Zehuah  (Heb.),  or  Sarira 
(LXX.),  and  the  place  of  their  abode  on  the  moun- 
tains of  Ephniim  is  given  either  as  Zekeda,  or 
(LXX.)  as  Sarira:  in  the  latter  case,  indicating 
that  there  was  some  connection  between  the  wife 
of  Nebat  and  her  residence. 

At  the  time  when  Solomon  was  constructing  the 
fortifications  of  Millo  underneath  the  citadel  of 
Zion,  his  sagacious  eye  discovered  the  strength 
and  activity  of  a  young  Ephrainiite  who  was  em- 
ployed on  the  works,  and  he  raised  him  to  the  rank 

of  superintendent  (*TpS,  A.  V.  "  ruler  ")  over  the 
taxes  and  labors  exacted  from  the  tribe  of  Ephraim 
(1  K.  xi.  28).  This  was  Jeroboam.  He  made  the 
most  of  his  position.  He  completed  the  fortifica- 
tions, and  was  long  afterwards  known  as  the  man 
who  had  "enclosed  the  city  of  David"  (1  K.  xii. 
24,  LXX.).  He  then  aspired  to  royal  state.  Like 
Absalom  liefore  him,  in  like  circumstances,  though 
now  on  a  grander  scale,  in  proportion  to  tlie  en- 
largement of  the  royal  estalilishment  itself,  he  kept 
300  chariots  and  horses  (LXX.),  and  at  last  wat 
perceived  by  Solomon  to  e  aiming  at  the  mon- 
archy. 

These  ambitious  desigtiu  were  prohaV)ly  fostered 
by  the  sifflit  of  the  growing  disaffection  of  the  great 
tribe  o\er  which  he  presided,  as  well  as  by  the 
alienation  of  the  prophetic  order  from  the  house  of 
Solomon.  According  to  tlie  version  of  the  story 
in  the  Hebrew  text  (Jos.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  7),  thia 
alienation  was  made  evident  to  Jeroboam  very  early 
in  his  career.  He  was  leaving  Jei-usalem,  and  he 
encountered,  on  one  of  the  black-paved  roads  which 

who  was  the  first  to  insult  David  in  his  flight,  mat 
the  '^  first  of  all  the  home  of  Jc&eph  "  to  coQgntolAtl 
him  on  his  wturn. 


JEROBOAM 

VI  oat  df  the  city,  Ahijah,  «*  the  prophet  '  of  the 
tncient  sanctuary  of  Shiloh.  Aliyah  drew  him 
aside  from  the  road  into  the  field  (iiXX.),  and,  as 
loon  as  they  found  themsehes  alone,  the  prophet, 
who  was  dressed  in  a  new  outer  garment,  stripped 
it  off,  and  tore  it  into  12  shreds;  10  of  which  he 
gave  to  Jerol)oam,  with  the  assurance  that  on  con- 
dition of  his  oljedience  to  His  laws,  God  would 
establish  for  him  a  kingdom  and  dynasty  equal  to 
that  of  David  (1  K.  xi.  29-40). 

The  attempts  of  Solomon  to  cut  short  Jeroboam's 
designs  occasioned  his  flight  into  Egypt.  There 
he  remained  during  the  rest  of  Solomon's  reign  — 
in  the  court  of  Shishak  (LXX.),  who  is  here  first 
named  in  the  sacred  narrative.  On  Solomon's 
death,  he  demanded  Shishak's  permission  to  return. 
The  Egyptian  king  seems,  in  his  reluctance,  to 
have  oflfl-red  any  gift  wiiich  Jeroboam  chose,  as  a 
reason  foi-  his  remaining,  and  the  consequence  was 
the  marriage  with  Ano,  the  elder  sister  of  the 
Egyptian  queen,  Tahpenes  (LXX.  Thekemina),  and 
of  another  princess  (LXX.)  who  had  mamed  the 
Edomite  chief,  Hadad.  A  year  elapsed,  and  a  son, 
Abijah  (or  Abijam),  was  born.  Then  Jeroboam 
again  requested  permission  to  depart,  which  was 
granted ;  and  he  returned  with  his  wife  and  child 
to  his  native  place,  Sarira,  or  Zereda,  which  he 
fortified,  and  which  in  consequence  became  a  centre 
for  his  fellow  tribesmen  (1  K.  xi.  43,  xii.  24,  LXX.). 
Still  there  was  no  open  act  of  insurrection,  and  it 
waa  in  this  period  of  suspense  (according  to  the 
LXX.)  that  a  pathetic  incident  darkened  his  do- 
mestic history.  His  infimt  son  fell  sick.  The 
anxious  father  sent  his  wife  to  inquire  of  God  con- 
cerning him,  Jerusalem  would  have  been  the  obvi- 
ous place  to  visit  for  this  purpose.  But  no  doubt 
political  reasons  forbade.  The  ancient  sanctuary 
of  Shiloh  was  nearer  at  hand ;  and  it  so  happened 
that  a  prophet  was  now  residing  there,  of  the  high- 
est repute.  It  was  Ahijah  —  the  same  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  version  of  the  story,  had  already 
been  in  communication  with  Jeroboam,  but  who, 
according  to  the  authority  we  are  now  following, 
appears  for  the  first  time  on  this  occasion.  He 
was  60  years  of  age  —  but  was  prematurely  old, 
and  his  eyesight  had  already  failed  him.  He  was 
living,  as  it  would  seem,  in  poverty,  with  a  boy 
who  waited  on  him,  and  with  his  own  httle  chil 
dren.  For  him  and  for  them,  the  wife  of  Jeroboam 
brought  such  gifts  as  were  thought  likely  to  be 
acceptable;  ten  loaves,  and  two  rolls  for  the  chil- 
dren (LXX.),  a  bunch  of  raisins  (LXX.),  and  a 
jar  of  honey.  She  had  disguised  herself,  to  avoid 
recognition;  and  perhaps  these  humble  gifts  were 
part  of  tlie  plan.  But  the  blind  prophet,  at  her 
first  approach,  knew  who  was  coming;  and  bade 
his  boy  go  out  to  meet  her,  and  invite  her  to  his 
uouse  without  delay.  There  he  warned  her  of  the 
usi'lessness  of  her  gifts.  There  was  a  doom  on  the 
house  of  Jeroboam,  not  to  be  averted;  those  who 
grew  up  in  it  and  died  in  the  city  would  become 
the  prey  of  the  hungry  dogs ;  they  who  died  in  the 
country  would  be  devoured  by  the  vultures.  This 
child  alone  would  die  before  the  calamities  of  the 
house  arrived :  "  They  shall  mourn  for  the  child. 
Woe,  0  Lord,  for  in  him  there  is  found  a  good 
word  regarding  the  Lord,"  —  or  according  to  the 
>ther  version,  "  all  Israel  shall  mourn  for  him,  and 

a  This  omission  is  hcwcver  borne  out  by  the  Hebrew 
^xt,  1  K.  xil  20,  "•  when  all  Israel  heard  tnat  J.  was 
MD0  again." 


JEROBOAM  1269 

bury  him ;  for  he  only  of  Jeroboam  shall  come  to 
the  grave,  because  in  him  there  is  found  some  good 
thing  toward  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  in  the 
house  of  Jeroboam"  (1  K.  xiv.  13,  LXX.  xii.). 
The  mother  returned.  As  she  reiintered  the  town 
of  Sarira  (Heb.  Tirzah,  1  K.  xiv.  17),  the  child 
died.  The  loud  wail  of  her  attendant  damsels 
greeted  her  on  the  threshold  (LXX.).  The  child 
was  buried,  as  Ahijah  had  foretold,  with  all  the 
state  of  the  cliild  of  a  royal  house.  "  All  Israel 
mourned  for  him"  (1  K.  xiv.  18).  This  incident, 
if  it  really  occurred  at  this  time,  seems  to  have  been 
tlie  turning  point  in  Jeroboam's  career.  It  drove 
him  from  his  ancestral  home,  and  it  gathered  the 
sympathies  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  round  him.  He 
left  Sarira  and  came  to  Shechem.  The  Hebrew 
text  describes  that  he  was  sent  for.  I'he  LXX. 
speaks  of  it  as  his  own  act.  However  that  may  be, 
he  was  thus  at  the  head  of  the  northern  tribes, 
when  Rehoboam,  after  he  had  been  on  the  throne 
for  somewhat  more  than  a  year,  came  up  to  be 
inaugurated  in  that  ancient  capital.  Then  (if  we 
may  take  the  account  already  given  of  Ahijah's 
interview  as  something  separate  from  this),  for  the 
second  time,  and  in  a  like  manner,  the  Divine 
intimation  of  his  future  greatness  is  conveyed  to 
him.  The  prophet  Shemaiah,  the  Enlaniite  (?) 
{6  'Ev\a/j.i,  LXX.)  addressed  to  him  the  same 
acted  parable,  in  the  ten  shreds  of  a  new  unwashed 
garment  (LXX.).  Then  took  place  the  conference 
with  Rehoboam  (Jeroboam  appearing  in  it,  in  the 
Hebrew  text,  but  not  «  in  the  LXX.),  and  the  final 
revolt ;  ^  which  ended  (expressly  in  the  Hebrew  text, 
in  the  LXX.  by  implication)  in  the  elevation  of 
Jerol)oam  to  the  throne  of  the  northern  kingdom. 
Shemaiah  remained  on  the  spot  and  deterred  Re- 
hoboam from  an  attack.  Jeroboam  entered  at  once 
on  the  duties  of  his  new  situation,  and  fortified 
Shechem  as  his  capital  on  the  west,  and  Penuel 
(close  by  the  old  trans-Jordanic  capital  of  Mahanaim) 
on  the  east. 

II.  Up  to  this  point  there  had  been  nothing  to 
disturb  the  anticipations  of  the  Prophetic  Order 
and  of  the  mass  of  Israel  as  to  the  glory  of  Jero- 
boam's future.  But  from  this  moment  one  fatal 
error  crept,  not  unnaturally,  into  his  policy,  which 
undermined  his  dynasty  and  tarnished  his  name  aa 
the  first  king  of  Israel.  The  political  disruption 
of  the  kingdom  was  complete ;  but  its  religious 
unity  was  as  yet  unimpaired.  He  feared  that  the 
yearly  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  would  undo  all  the 
work  which  he  effected,  and  he  took  the  bold  step 
of  rending  it  asunder.  Two  sanctuaries  of  venerable 
antiquity  existed  already  —  one  at  the  southern,  the 
other  at  the  northern  extremity  of  his  dominions. 
These  he  elevated  into  seats  of  the  national  worship, 
which  should  rival  the  newly  established  Temple 
at  Jerusalem.  As  Abderrahman,  caliph  of  Spain 
arrested  the  movement  of  his  subjects  to  Mecca,  bj 
the  erection  of  the  holy  place  of  the  Zecca  at  Cor- 
dova, so  Jeroboam  trusted  to  the  erection  of  his 
shrines  at  Dan  and  I3ethel.  But  he  was  not  satis- 
fied without  another  deviation  from  the  Mosaic  idea 
of  the  national  unity.  His  long  stay  in  Egypt  had 
familiarized  him  with  the  outward  forms  undei 
which  .,ne  Divinity  was  there  represented ;  and  now, 
for  the  first  time  since  the  Exodus,  was  an  Egyptian 
element  introduced  into  the  national  worship  of 


ft  The  cry  of  revolt,  1  K.  xii.  16,  is  the  same  as  tba," 
in  2  Sam.  xx.  1. 


1270 


JEROBOAM 


P^eBtii:e.  A  golden  figure  of  Mnevis,  the  sacred 
calf  of  Heliopolis,  was  set  up  at  each  sanctuary, 
»Fith  the  address,  "  Behold  thy  God  ('  Elohim  '  — 
comp.  Neh.  ix.  18)  which  brought  thee  up  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt."  The  sanctuary  at  Dan,  as 
the  most  remote  from  Jerusalem,  was  established 
first  (1  K.  xii.  30)  with  priests  from  the  distant 
tribes,  whom  he  consecrated  instead  of  the  Leviteg 
(xii.  31,  xiii.  33).  The  more  important  one,  as 
nearer  the  capital  and  in  the  heart  of  the  kingdom, 
was  Bkthku.  The  worsliip  and  the  sanctuary  con- 
tinued till  the  end  of  the  northern  kingdom.  The 
priests  were  supplied  by  a  peculiar  form  of  conse- 
cration—  any  one  from  the  non-l^vitical  tribes 
could  procure  the  office  on  sacrificing  a  young  bul- 
lock and  seven  rams  (1  K.  xiii.  33;  2  Chr.  xiii.  9). 
For  the  dedication  of  this  he  copied  the  precedent 
of  Solomon  in  choosing  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  as 
the  occasion ;  but  postiX)ning  it  for  a  month,  prob- 
ably in  order  to  meet  the  vintage  of  the  most 
northern  fjarts.  On  the  fifteenth  day  of  this  month 
(tlie  8th),  he  went  up  in  state  to  offer  incense  on 
the  altar  which  was  before  the  calf.  It  was  at  this 
solemn  and  critical  moment  that  a  prophet  from 
Judah  suddenly  appeared,  whom  Josephus  with 
great  probability  identifies  with  Iddo  the  Seer  (he 
calls  him  ladon,  Ant.  viii.  8,  §  5;  and  see  Jerome, 
Qu.  Iltbr.  on  2  Chr.  x.  4),  who  denounced  the 
altar,  and  foretold  its  desecration  l)y  Josiah,  and 
violent  overthrow.  It  is  not  clear  from  the  account, 
whether  it  is  intended  that  the  overthrow  took 
place  then,  or  in  the  earthquake  described  by  Amos 
(i.  1).  Another  sign  is  described  as  taking  place 
instantly.  The  king  stretching  out  his  hand  to 
arrest  the  prophet,  felt  it  withered  and  paralyzed, 
and  only  at  the  prophet's  prayer  saw  it  restoi-ed, 
and  acknowledged  his  divine  mission.  Josephus 
adds,  but  probably  only  in  conjecture  from  the 
sacred  narniti\  e,  that  the  i^rophet  who  seduced  Iddo 
on  his  return,  did  so  in  order  to  prevent  his  ob- 
taining too  much  influence  over  Jerol)oam,  and 
endeavored  to  explain  away  the  miracles  to  the 
king,  by  representing  that  the  altar  fell  because  it 
was  new,  and  that  his  hand  was  paralyzed  fix)m 
the  fatigue  of  sacrificing.  A  further  allusion  is 
made  to  this  incident  in  the  narrative  of  Josephus 
{Ant.  viii.  15,  §  4),  where  Zedekiah  is  represented 
as  contrasting  the  potency  of  Iddo  in  withering  the 
hand  of  Jeroboam  with  the  powerlessness  of  Micaiah 
to  wither  the  hand  of  Zedekiah.  The  visit  of  Ano 
to  Ahijah,  which  the  common  Hebrew  text  places 
ftfter  this  event,  and  with  darker  intimation^  in 
Ahijahs  warning  onlj  suitable  to  a  later  period, 
has  already  been  described 

JerolK)am  was  at  constant  war  with  the  house 
of  Judah,  but  tlie  only  act  distinctly  recordetl  is  a 
battle  with  Abijah,  son  of  ltehol)oam ;  in  which,  in 
spite  of  a  skillful  ambush  niade  by  Jeroboam,  and 
of  much  sui^erior  force,  he  was  defeated,  and  for  the 
time  lost  tliree  imiwrtant  cities.  Bethel,  Jeshanah, 
and  Ephi-aim."  Ihe  calamity  was  severely  felt;  he 
never  recovered  the  blow,  and  soon  after  died,  in 
the  22d  year  of  his  reign  (2  Chr.  xiii.  20),  and  was 
buried  in  his  ancestral  sepulchre  (1  K.  xiv.  20). 
His  son  Nadab,  or  (LXX.)  Neliat  (named  after  the 
giuu.lf&ther),  succeetled,  and  in  him  the  dynasty 
«\as  closed.  The  name  of  Jereboam  long  remained 
mder  a  cloud  as  the  king  who  "  had  caused  Israel 


a  The  Targum  on  Ruth  iv.  20  mentions  Jeroboam's 
naving  stationed  guards  on  the  roads,  which  guards 
«ad  boen  «laiu  by  the  people  of  Netophah ;  but  what 


JEROHAM 

to  sin."  At  the  time  of  the  Keformation  it  vii 
a  common  practice  of  Roman  Catholic  WTiterg  Xa. 
institute  comparisons  between  his  separation  froti? 
the  sanctuary  of  Judah,  and  that  of  Henry  VIII 
from  the  see  of  Kome. 

2.  Jekoboaai  II.,  the  son  of  Joash,  the  4th  of 
the  dynasty  of  Jehu.  The  most  prosj^ercus  of  the 
kings  of  Israel.  The  contenijx)rary  accounts  of  his 
reign  are,  (1.)  in  the  "  Clironicles  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel "  (2  K.  xiv.  28),  wliicli  are  lost,  but  of  which 
the  substance  is  given  in  2  K.  xiv.  23-29.  (2.)  In 
the  conteniporary  prophets  Hosea  and  Amos,  and 
(perhaps)  in  the  fragments  found  in  Is.  xv.,  xvi. 
It  had  been  foretold  in  the  reign  of  Jehoahaz  that 
a  great  deliverer  should  come,  to  rescue  Israel  from 
the  Syrian  yoke  (comp.  2  K.  xiii.  4,  xiv.  26,  27), 
and  tliis  had  been  expandetl  into  a  di.stinct  pixxli3- 
tion  of  Jonah,  that  there  should  be  a  restoration  of 
the  widest  dominion  of  Solomon  (xiv.  25).  This 
"savior"  and  "restorer"  was  Jeroboam.  lie  not 
only  repelled  the  Syrian  invaders,  but  took  their 
capital  city  Damascus  (2  K.  xiv.  28;  Am.  i.  3-5), 
and  i-ecovered  the  whole  of  the  ancient  doniinion 
from  Hamath  to  the  Dead  Sea  (xiv.  25;  Am.  vi. 
14).  Anmion  and  Moab  were  reconquered  (Am. 
i.  13,  ii.  1-3);  the  trans- Jordanic  tribes  were  re- 
stored to  their  territory  (2  K.  xiii.  6;  1  Chr.  v. 
17-22). 

But  it  was  merely  an  outward  restoration.  The 
sanctuary  at  lietliel  was  kept  up  in  royal  state 
(Am.  vii.  13),  but  drunkenness,  licentiousness,  and 
opi)ression,  prevailed  in  the  country  (Am.  ii.  6-8, 
iv.  1,  vi.  6:  Hos.  iv.  12-14,  i.  2),  and  idolatry  was 
united  with  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (Hos.  iv.  13, 
xiii.  6). 

Amos  prophesied  the  destruction  of  Jeroboam 
and  his  house  by  the  sword  (Am.  vii.  9,  17),  and 
Aniivziah,  the  high  priest  of  I5ethel,  complained  to 
the  king  (Am.  vii.  10-13).  The  effect  does  not 
apj)ear.  Ho.sea  (Hos.  i.  1)  also  denouncetl  the 
crimes  of  the  nation.  The  prediction  of  Amos  was 
not  fulfilled  as  regarded  the  king  himself.  He  was 
buried  with  his  ancestors  in  state  (2  K.  xiv.  29). 

Kvvald  {Cesch.  iii.  561, 710ft)  supfwses  tliat  Jero- 
boam was  the  subject  of  Ps.  xiv.  A.  P.  S. 

JERO'HAM  (Cnn^  [one  beloved]  :  Jer\ 
ham).  1.  {'Upofiodfi,  l)oth  MSS.  [rather,  Rom. 
Alex.]  at  1  Chr.  vi.  27;  but  Alex.  lepea/x  at  ver. 
34;  [in  1  Sam.,  'Itpe/ie^A.,  Comp.  Alex.  'Upod/xj 
in  1  Chr.,  Vat.  ISatp,  Haa\  :  Comp.  'Upodfiy 
'Upd/x''  Aid.  'lepefxer]\.])  Father  of  Klkanah,  the 
father  of  Samuel,  of  the  house  of  Kohath.  His 
father  is  called  Fliab  at  1  Chr.  vi.  27,  ICliel  at  ver. 
34,  and  Elihu  at  1  Sam.  i.  1.  Jeroham  must  have 
been  about  the  san)e  age  as  Eli.  A.  C.  H. 

2.  Clpodfi,  [Vat.  Ipaafi,]  Alex.  'If^oa//.)  A 
Benjamite,  and  the  fomider  of  a  family  of  Bene 
.Jeroham  (1  Chr.  viii.  27).  They  were  among  tht 
leaders  of  that  part  of  the  tribe  which  lived  in 
.Jerusalem,  and  which  is  here  distinguished  from 
the  part  which  inhabited  Gibeon.  l*robably  the 
same  person  is  intended  in  — 

3.  i'Upofiodfx,  [Vat.  Jpaafi,  Comp.  Alex. 
'Upod/x.])  Father  (or  progenitor)  of  Ibneiah,  on* 
of  the  leading  Beiyamites  of  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  ix 
8;  comp.  3  and  9). 

4.  \lpadfx,  Alex.  Upaafi,  [Ccmp.  Aid.  'Upodfi 


is  here  alluded  to,  or  when  it  took  place,  we  hafe  • 
present  no  clew  to. 


I 


t 


JERUBBAAL 

a  Neh.,  Rom.  Alex.  'Upoafx,  Vat.  FA.i  omit.]) 
k  desceridant  of  Aaron,  of  the  house  of  Immer,  the 
jeader  of  the  sixteenth  course  of  priests;  son  of 
Pashur  and  father  of  Adaiah  (1  Chr.  ix.  12).  He 
appears  to  be  mentioned  again  in  Neh.  xi.  12 
(a  record  curiously  and  puzzlingly  parallel  to  that 
of  1  Chr.  ix.,  though  with  some  striking  differences), 
though  there  he  is  stated  to  belong  to  the  house  of 
Malchiah,  who  was  leader  of  the  fifth  course  (and 
ccmp.  Neh.  xi.  14). 

5.  {'Ipoifi,  [Vat.  FA.  Pooju,  Alex.  lepoa/x.j) 
Jeroham  of  Gedor  ("Tn2n  ^^),  some  of  whose 
"sons"  joined  David  when  he  was  taking  refuge 
(rum  Saul  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii.  7).  The  list  pur- 
t)ort3  to  be  of  Benjamites  (see  ver.  2,  where  the 
word  "even"  is  interpolated,  and  the  last  five 
words  belong  to  ver.  3).  But  then  how  can  the 
presence  of  Korhites  (ver.  6),  the  descendants  of 
Korah  the  Levite,  l)e  accounted  for? 

6.  ClpoajS,  [Vat.  Aid.]  Alex.  'Icopa/x.)  A 
Danite,  whose  son  or  descendant  Azareel  was  head 
of  his  tribe  in  the  time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  22). 

7.  {'loopajx.)  Father  of  Azariah,  one  of  the 
"  captains  of  hundreds  "  in  the  time  of  Athaliah ; 
one  of  those  to  whom  Jehoiada  the  priest  confided 
his  scheme  for  the  restoration  of  Joash  (2  Chr. 
xxiii.  1).  G. 

JERUBBA'AL  (b^2n^  [with  whom  Baal 
contends]:  'Upo^daA;  [Vat.  "in  Judg.  vi.  32,  Ap- 
jSaaA.;  vii.  1,  lapBa\;  viii.  29,  UapufiaaX;  1  Sam. 
xii.  11,  lepo/Sott/*;]  Alex.  SiKaa-T-qpioy  tov  Baa\, 
Judg.  vi.  32,  Ipo^uaX  in  vii.  1:  Jtrobanl),  the 
surname  of  Gideon  which  he  acquired  in  conse- 
quence of  destroying  tlie  altar  of  Baal,  when  his 
father  defended  him  from  the  vengeance  of  the  Abi- 
ezrites.  The  A.  V.  of  Judg.  vi.  32,  which  has 
"  therefore  on  that  day  he  called  him  Jerubbaal," 
implying  that  the  surname  was  given  by  Joash, 
should  rather  be,  in  accordance  with  a  well-known 
Hebrew  idiom,  "owe  called  him,"  i.  e.  he  was 
called  by  the  men  of  his  city.  The  LXX.  in  the 
same  passage  have  iK<i\c(rey  avrS,  "  he  called  t7," 
i.  e.  the  altar  mentioned  in  the  preceding  verse; 
but  as  in  all  other  passages  they  recognize  Jerub- 
baal as  the  name  of  Gideon,  the  reading  should 
probably  be  avrSv.  In  Judg.  viii.  35  the  Vulg. 
strictly  follows  the  Heb.,  Jerobaal  Gedeon.  The 
Akx.  version  omits  the  name  altogether  from  Judg. 
ix.  57.  Besides  the  passages  quoted,  it  is  found  in 
Judg.  vii.  1,  viii.  2!),  ix.  1,  5,  16,  19,  24,  28,  and 
1  Sam.  xii.  11.  In  a  fragment  of  Porphyry,  quoted 
byEusebius  {Prcep.  Kv.  i.  9,  §  21),  Gideon  appears 
as  Hierombalos  {'UpoiLi.0d\os),  the  priest  of  the 
God  'leuftj,  or  Jehovah,  from  whom  the  Phoenician 
3hronicler,  Sanchoniatho  of  Beyrout,  received  his 
iiifotn:ation  with  regard  to  the  affairs  of  the  Jews. 

<*  'EttI  ti^s  ai/a/Sdaeajs,  Aeyo/aeVT)ff  6'  e^o^iis,  Jos.  Ant. 
k.  1,  §  2. 

6  Other  names  borne  by  Jerusalem  are  as  follows  : 
I  Ariel,  the  ''lion  of  God,"  or  according  to  another 
Interpretation,  the  '^  hearth  of  God '-  (Is.  xxix.  1  2,  7  ; 
■^omp.  Ez.  xliii.  15).  For  the  former  signification  com- 
pare Ps.  Ixxvi.  1,  2  (Stanley,  S.  ^  P.  xll).  2.  'H  ayia 
ToAis,  "  the  holy  city,"  Matt.  ir.  5  and  xxvii.  53  only. 
Both  these  passages  would  seem  to  refer  to  Zion  —  the 
lacred  portion  of  the  place,  in  whicn  the  Temple  was 
lituated.  It  also  occurs,  ri  tt.  i}  ay.,  Ilev.  xi.  2. 
5-  ^lia  Capitoliua,  the  name  bestowed  by  the  emperor 
tfadrian  (Jilius  Hadrianus)  on  tho  city  aa  rebuilt  by 
»im,  A.  D.  135.  136.  These  two  names  of  the  Emperor 
u*  ioacribed  on  the  well-known  stone  in  the  south 


JERUSALEM 


1271 


It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  Josephua  omiti 
all  mention  both  of  the  change  of  name  and  of  ih« 
event  it  commemorates.     [Gideok.J 

W.  A.  W. 

JERUBBE'SHETH  (Htt^^^^. :  LXX.,  fot 
lowed  by  the  Vulgate,  reads  'lepofidaX,  or  [Vat. 
H.  Upohaajx,  Vat.  M.  and]  Cod.  Alex.  Upo^oa/x), 
a  name  of  Gideon  (2  Sam.  xi.  21).  A  later  gen- 
eration probably  abstained  from  pronouncing  the 
name  (Ex.  xxiii.  13)  of  a  false  god,  and  therefofe 
changed  Gideon's  name  (Judg.  vi.  32)  of  Jerub- 
baal ="  with  whom  Baal  contends,"  into  Jertib- 
besheth  =  "  with  wliom  the  idol  contends."  Comp. 
similar  changes  (1  Chr.  viii.  33,  34)  of  Eshbaal  for 
Ishbosheth,  and  INIeribbaal  for  Mephibosheth. 

W.  T.  B. 

JERU'EL,  THK  WILDERNESS  of 
(bs^n;*  "^5"Tp  [desert  founded  by  God]  :  ^ 
epri/xos 'Iepi7j\:  Jeruel),  the  place  in  which  Je- 
hoshaphat  was  informed  by  Jahaziel  the  Levite  that 
he  should  encounter  the  hordes  of  Amnion,  Moab, 
and  the  Mehunims,  who  were  swarming  roimd  the 
south  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  to  the  attack  of  Jeru- 
salem: "Ye  shall  find  them  at  the  end  of  the 
wady,  facing  the  wilderness  of  Jeruel "  (2  Chr.  xx. 
16).  The  "wilderness"  contained  a  watch-tower 
(ver.  24),  from  which  many  a  similar  incursion  had 
probably  been  descried.  It  was  a  well-known  spot, 
for    it    has    the    definite  article.     Or   the  word 

(n2^X2n)  may  mean  a  commanding  ridge,«  be- 
low which  the  "  wilderness "  lay  open  to  view. 
The  name  has  not  been  njet  with,  but  may  yet  be 
found  in  the  neighborhood  of  Tekoa  and  Berachah 
(perhaps  Bereikut)^  east  of  the  road  between  Urtat 
and  Hebron.  G. 

JERU'SALEM  (D*'??•''^"1^  i-  e.  Yerii- 
shalalm;  or,  in  the  more  extended  form,  D^  vtT^n^, 
in  1  Chr.  iii.  5,  2  Chr.  xxv.  1,  xxxii.  9,  Esth.  ii.  6,  Jer. 
xxvi.  18,  only ;  in  the  Chaldee  passages  of  Ezra  and 

Daniel,  0^^^^")"^,  i.  e.  Yerushlem :  LXX.  'Upov 
(TaA-fj/x;  N.  T.  apparently  indifferently  'Upov(ra\-fi/i, 
and  T^  'lepoauAvfia:  Vulg.  Cod.  Amiat.  Hieru$nlem 
and  Iliero.-inlyina,  but  in  other  old  copies  Jerusalem^ 
Jerosolymn.  In  the  A.  V.  of  1611  it  is  "leru- 
salem,"  in  0.  T.  and  Apocr. ;  but  in  N.  T.  "  Hieru- 
salem  ").& 

On  the  derivation  and  signification  of  the  name 
considerable  difference  exists  among  the  authorities. 
The  Kabbis  state  that  the  name  Shalem  was  be- 
stowed on  it  by  Shem  (identical  in  their  traditions 
with  Melchizedek),  and  the  name  Jireh  by  Abra- 
ham, after  the  deliverance  of  Isaac  on  Mount 
Moriah,c  and  that  the  two  were  afterwards  com- 


wall  of  the  Aksa,  one  of  the  few  Roman  relics  about 
which  there  can  be  no  dispute.  This  name  is  usually 
employed  by  Eusebius  (AtAi'a)  and  Jerome,  in  their 
Onomaalicon.  By  Ptolemy  it  is  given  as  KaTriTwAias 
(Reland,  Pal.  p.  462'.  4.  The  Arabic  names  are  eU 
Khuds,  "  the  holy,"  or  Beit  el-Makdis,  "  the  holy 
house,"  "  the  sanctuary."  The  former  is  that  in 
ordinary  use  at  present.  The  latter  is  found  in  Arabic 
chronicles.  The  name  es/i-S/ier}/,  "  the  venerable,' 
or  '  the  noble,"  is  also  quoted  by  Schultens  in  hi* 
Index  Geogr.  in  Vlt.  Salad.  5.  The  corrupt  form  of 
Aurushlim  is  found  in  Edrlsl  (Jaubert,  i.  346),  pcsilWy 
quoting  a  Christian  writer. 

c  The   question   of  the   Identity   of  Mcpjah  with 
Jerusalem  vnll  be  examined  under  that  head 


1272  JERUSALEM 

Dined,  lest  displeasure  should  be  felt  by  either  of 
the  two  Saints  at  the  exclusive  use  of  one  {Beresh. 
Rnb.  in  Otho,  Lex.  Rab.  s.  v.,  also  Lightfoot). 
Others,  quoted  by  Keland  (p.  833),  would  make  it 
mean  "  fear  of  Salem,"  or  "  sight  of  peace."  The 
suggestion  of  Reland  himself,  adopted  by  Simonis 
{Olivia,  p.  4G7),  and  Ewald  (Gesch.  iii.  155,  note) 

Is  D^^  ^"'^"^!'j  "  inheritance  of  peace,"  but  this 
is  questioned  by  Gesenius  {Thes.  p.  628  b)  and 
Fiirst  {Handwb.  p.  547  6),  who  prefer  DbC7  ^^"^^ 

the  "  foundation  of  peace."  «  Another  derivation, 
proposed  by  the  fertile  Hitzig  {Jesaja,  p.  2),  is 
named  by  the  two  last  great  scholars  only  to  con- 
demn it.  Others  again,  looking  to  the  name  of  the 
Canaanite  tribe  who  possessed  the  place  at  the  time 
of  the  conquest,  would  propose  Jebus-salem  (Reland, 
p.  834^),  or  even  Jebus-Solomon,  as  the  name  con- 
ferred on  the  city  by  that  monarch  when  he  began 
his  reign  of  tranquillity. 

Another  controversy  relates  to  the  termination 
"f  the  name  —  Jerushalra'OT  —  the  Hebrew  dual ; 
which,  by  Simonis  and  Ewald,  is  unhesitatingly 
referred  to  the  double  formation  of  the  city,  while 
reasons  are  shown  against  it  by  Reland  and  Gese- 
nius. It  is  certain  that  on  the  two  occasions  where 
the  latter  portion  of  the  name  appears  to  be  given 
for  the  whole  (Gen.  xiv.  18;  Ps.  Ixxvi.  2)  it  is 
Shalem,  and  not  Shalaim ;  also  that  the  five  places 
where  the  vowel  points  of  the  Masorets  are  sup- 
ported by  the  letters  of  the  original  text  are  of  a 
late  date,  when  the  idea  of  the  double  city,  and  its 
reflection  in  the  name,  would  have  become  familiar 
to  the  Jews.  In  this  conflict  of  authorities  the 
suggestion  will  perhaps  occur  to  a  bystander  that 
the  original  formation  of  the  name  may  have  been 
anterior  to  the  entrance  of  the  Israelites  on  Canaan, 
and  that  Jerushalaira  may  be  the  attempt  to  give 
an  intelligible  Hebrew  form  to  the  original  archaic 
name,  just  as  centuries  afterwards,  when  Hebrews 
in  their  turn  gave  way  to  Greeks,  attempts  were 
made  to  twist  .Jerushalaim  itself  into  a  shape  which 
should  be  intelligible  to  Greek  ears,**  'Upo  croKufih^ 
"the  holy  Solyma"  (Joseph.  B.  J.  vi.  10),  'Uphv 
2aAo/xa>;'oy,  '^  the  "  holy  place  of  Solomon " 
(Eupolemus,  in  Euseb.  Pr.  Ev.  ix.  34),  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  curious  fancy  quoted  by  Josephus 
{Ap.  i.  34,  35)  from  Lysimachus  —  '\€p6(Tv\a-, 
"  spoilers  of  temples "  —  are  perhaps  not  more 
▼iolent  adaptations,  or  more  wide  of  the  real  mean- 
ing of  "  Jerusalem,"  than  that  was  of  the  original 
name  of  the  city. 

The  subject  of  Jerusalem  naturally  divides  itself 
into  three  heads :  — 

I.  The  place  itself:  its  origin,  position,  and 
physical  characteristics. 

II.  The  annals  of  the  city. 

III.  The  topography  of  the  town;  the  relative 

o  Such  mystical  interpretations  as  those  of  Origen, 

rb  nvevfua.  xaptTOf  avTwv  (from  TT\^   and   D  Vli7), 

»r  lephv  eiprjvr;?,  where  half  the  name  is  interpreted  as 
ftreek  and  half  as  Hebrew,  curious  as  they  are,  cannot 
le  examined  here.  (See  the  catalogues  preserved  by 
ferome.) 

6  Other  instances  of  similar  Greek  forms  g^ven  to 
lilBrrpw  names  are  TepixM  and  'lepofxd^. 

c  Philo  carries  this  a  step  further,  and,  bearing  in 
?iew  only  the  san-itity  of  the  place,  he  discards  the 
Bsmitic  member  ol  the  name<  aud  calla  it  'I«p6iroAi<. 


JERUSALEM 

localities   of  its   various   parts  ;  the  dtei  of  fkl 

"  Holy  Places"  ancient  and  modem,  etc. 

I.  The  place  itself. 

The  arguments  —  if  arguments  they  can  be  called 
—  for  and  against  the  identity  of  the  "  Salem  "  of 
Melchizedek  (Gen.  xiv.  18)  with  Jerusalem  —  the 
"Salem"  of  a  late  Psalmist  (Ps.  Ixxvi.  2)  —  are 
almost  equally  balanced.  In  favor  of  it  are  the 
unhesitating  statement  of  Josephus  {Ani.  i.  10,  2; 
vii.  3,  2;  B.  ./.  vi.  10 rf)  and  Eusebius  (Onom. 
'Upovaa\-f]fi),  the  recurrence  of  the  name  Salem 
in  the  Psalm  just  quoted,  where  it  undoubtedly 
means  Jerusalem,^  and  the  general  consent  in  the 
identification.  On  the  other  hand  is  the  no  less 
positive  statement  of  Jerome,  grounded  on  more 
reason  than  he  often  vouchsafes  for  his  statements^ 
(lip.  ad  £vanf/elum,  §  7),  that  "  Salem  was  not 
Jerusalem,  as  Josephus  and  all  Christians  {nosivi 
omnes)  believe  it  to  be,  but  a  town  near  Scythopolis, 
which  to  this  day  is  called  Salem,  where  the  mag- 
nificent ruins  of  the  palace  of  Melchizedek  are  still 
seen,  and  of  which  mention  is  made  in  a  subsequent 
passage  of  Genesis —  '  Jacob  came  to  Salem,  a  city 
of  Shechem '  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18)."  Elsewhere  ( Ono- 
masticon,  "Salem")  luisebius  and  he  identify  it 
with  Shechem  itself.  This  question  will  be  discussed 
under  the  head  of  Salem.  Here  it  is  sufficient  to 
say  (1)  that  Jerusalem  suits  the  circumstances  of 
the  narrative  rather  better  than  any  place  further 
north,  or  more  in  the  heart  of  the  country.  It 
would  be  quite  as  much  in  Abram's  road  from  the 
sources  of  Jordan  to  his  home  under  the  oaks  of 
Hebron,  and  it  would  be  more  suitable  for  the  visit 
of  the  king  of  Sodom.  In  fact  we  know  that,  in 
later  times  at  least,  the  usual  route  from  Damascus 
avoided  the  central  highlands  of  the  country  and 
the  neighborhood  of  Shechem,  where  Salim  is  now 
shown.  (See  Pompey's  route  in  Joseph.  Ant.  xiv. 
3,  §  4;  4,  §  1.)  (2)  It  is  perhaps  some  confirma- 
tion of  the  identity,  at  any  rate  it  is  a  remarkable 
coincidence,  that  the  king  of  Jerusalem  in  the  time 
of  Joshua  should  bear  the  title  Adoni-zedek  — 
almost  precisely  the  same  as  that  of  Melchizedek. 

The  question  of  the  identity  of  Jerusalem  with 
"  Cadytis,  a  large  city  of  Syria,"  "  almost  as  large 
as  Sardis,"  which  is  mentioned  by  Herodotus  (ii. 
159,  iii.  5)  as  having  l)een  taken  by  Pharaoh-Necho, 
need  not  be  investigated  in  this  place.  It  is  inter- 
esting, and,  if  decided  in  the  affirmative,  so  far 
imix)rtant  as  confir^iiing  the  Scripture  narrative; 
but  does  not  in  any  way  add  to  our  knowledge  of 
the  history  of  the  city.  The  reader  will  find  it 
fully  examined  in  Rawlinson's  Herod,  ii.  246; 
Blakesley's  Herod.  —  Excursus  on  bk.  iii.  eh.  5 
(both  against  the  identification);  and  in  Kenrick'« 
Egypt,  ii.  406,  and  Diet,  of  Gr.  arA  Rom.  Geogr. 
ii.  17  (both  for  it). 


It  is  exactly  the  complement  of  jrtJXis  SoXvjxa  (Pans*, 
nias,  viii.  16). 

d  In  this  passage  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  ttiat 
Melchizedek,  "  the  first  priest  of  God,''  built  there  the 
first  Temple,  and  changed  the  lame  of  the  city  from 
Soluma  to  Hierosoluma. 

e  A  contraction  analogous  to  others  with  which  w» 
are  familiar  in  our  own  poetry  ;  e.  gr.  Edin,  or  Edina 
for  Edinburgh. 

f  Winer  is  wrong  in  stating  {Realwb.  ii.  79)  th«* 
Jerome  bases  this  statement  on  a  rabbinical  traditioD 
The  tradition  that  he  quotes,  iu  §  5  of  the  same  Bp 
is  M  to  the  identity  of  Melcbiiwijpk  with  Shorn 


JERUSALEM 

Nor  need  we  do  more  than  refer  to  the  tratlitions 
—  it  traditions  they  are,  and  not  mere  individual 
(peculations — of  Tacitus  {Hist.  v.  2)  and  Plutarch 
[Is.  et  Osir.  c.  31)  of  the  foundation  of  the  city 
by  a  certain  Ilierosolymus,  a  sou  of  the  Typhon 
(see  Winer's  note,  i.  545).  All  the  certain  infor- 
thation  to  be  gathered  as  to  the  early  history  of 
Jerusalem,  must  be  gathered  from  the  books  of  the 
Jewish  historians  alone. 

It  is  during  the  conquest  of  the  country  that 
Jerusalem  first  appears  in  definite  form  on  the 
scene  in  which  it  was  destined  to  occupy  so  prom- 
inent a  position.  The  earliest  notice  is  probably 
that  in  Josh.  xv.  8  and  xviii.  16,  28,  describhig  the 
landmarks  of  the  boundaries  of  Judah  and  Benja 
min.  Here  it  is  styled  ha-Jebusi,  i.  e.  "  the  Jebu- 
site  "  (A.  V.  Jebusi),  after  the  name  of  its  occu- 
piers, just  as  is  the  case  with  other  places  in  these 
lists.  [Jkbusi.]  Next,  we  find  the  form  Jebus 
(Judg.  xix.  10,  11)  —  "Jebus,  which  is  Jerusalem 
....  the  city  of  the  Jebusites;"  and  lastly,  in 
documents  which  profess  to  be  of  the  same  age  as 
the  foregoing  —  we  have  Jerusalem  (Josh.  x.  1,  &c., 
xii.  10;  Judg.  i.  7,  &c.).  To  this  we  have  a  par- 
allel in  Hebron,  the  other  great  city  of  Southern 
Palestine,  which  bears  the  alternative  title  of  Kir- 
jath-Arba  in  these  very  same  documents. 

[t  is  one  of  the  obvious  peculiarities  of  Jerusalem 
—  but  to  which  Professor  Stanley  appears  to  have 
been  the  first  to  call  attention  —  that  it  did  not 
JACome  the  capital  till  a  comparatively  late  date  in 
the  career  of  the  nation.  Bethel,  Shechem,  He- 
bron, had  their  beginnings  in  the  earliest  periods 
of  national  Ufe  —  but  Jerusalem  was  not  only  not 
<i  oliief  city,  it  was  not  even  possessed  by  the  Israel- 
ites till  they  had  gone  through  one  complete  stage 
of  their  life  in  Palestine,  and  the  second  —  the 
monai  chy  —  had  been  fairly  entered  on.  (See 
Stanley,  S.  (^  P.  p.  169.) 

The  explanation  of  this  is  no  doubt  in  some 
measure  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  seats  of 
the  government  and  the  religion  of  the  nation  were 
originally  fixed  farther  north  —  first  at  Shechem 
and  Shiloh;  then  at  Gibeah,  Nob,  and  Gibeon; 
but  it  is  also  no  doubt  partly  due  to  the  natural 
strength  of  Jerusalem.  The  heroes  of  Joshua's 
army  who  traced  the  boundary-line  which  was  to 
separate  the  possessions  of  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
when,  after  passing  the  spring  of  En-rogel,  they 
went  along  the  "ravine  of  the  son  of  Hu)nom,'' 
and  looked  up  to  the  "southern  shoulder  of  the 
Jebusite"  (Josh.  xv.  7,  B\  must  have  felt  that  to 
scale  heights  so  great  and  so  steep  would  have  fully 
tasked  even  their  tried  prowess.  We  shall  see,  when 
we  glance  tlirough  the  annals  of  the  city,  that  it 
did  effectually  resist  tlie  tribes  of  Judah  and  Simeon 
not  many  years  later.  But  when,  after  the  death 
of  Ishbosheth,  David  became  king  of  a  united  and 
powerful  people,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  leave 
the  remote  Hebron  and  approach  nearer  to  the  bulk 
of  his  dominions.     At  the  same  time  it  was  impos- 


JERUSALEM 


1278 


o  This  appears  from  an  examination  of  the  two  cor- 
responding documents,  Josh.  xv.  7,  8,  and  xviii.  16, 
17.  The  line  was  drawn  from  En-shemesh  —  prvoably 
Ain  Haudy  below  Bethany  —  to  En-rogel  —  either 
Am  Ayub,  or  the  Fountain  of  the  Vii'gin  ;  thence  it 
went  by  the  ravine  of  Hinuom  and  the  southern 
(houlder  of  the  Jebusite  —  the  steep  slope  of  the 
jucdern  Zion ;  climbed  the  heights  on  tho  west  of  the 
»vine,  and  struck  off  to  the  spring  at  Nephtoah, 
,trobably  I,i/la.  The  other  view,  which  is  made  the 
awt  of  \y  Bhmt  in  one  of  his  ingenious  "  coinci- 


'  sible  to  desert,  the  great  tribe  to  which  he  belongeil, 
and  over  whom  he  had  been  reigning  for  seven 
years.  Out  of  this  difficulty  Jerusalem  was  the 
natural  escape,  and  accordingly  at  Jerusalem  David 
fixed  the  seat  of  his  throne  and  the  future  aanctuarj 
of  his  nation. 

The  boundary  between  Judah  and  Benjamin, 
the  north  boundary  of  the  former  and  tlie  south 
of  the  latter,  ran  at  the  foot  of  the  hill  on  which 
the  city  stands,  80  that  the  city  itself  was  actually 
in  Benjamin,  while  by  crossing  the  narrow  ravine 
of  Hinnom  you  set  foot  on  the  temtory  of  Judah.* 
That  it  ivas  not  far  enough  to  the  north  to  com- 
mand the  continued  allegiance  of  the  tribe  of 
Ephraim,  and  the  others  which  lay  above  him,  is 
obvious  from  the  fact  of  the  separation  which  at 
last  took  place.  It  is  enough  for  the  vindication 
of  David  in  having  chosen  it  to  remember  that 
tliat  separation  did  not  take  place  during  the  reigns 
of  himself  or  his  son,  and  was  at  last  precipitated 
by  misgovernment  combined  with  feeble  short- 
sightedness. And  if  not  actually  in  the  centre 
of  Palestine,  it  was  yet  virtually  so.  "  It  was  on 
the  ridge,  the  broadest  and  most  strongly  marked 
ridge,  of  the  back-bone  of  the  complicated  hills 
which  extend  through  the  whole  country  from  the 
Plain  of  Esdraelon  to  the  Desert.  Every  wanderer, 
every  conqueror,  every  traveller  who  has  trod  th« 
central  route  of  Palestine  from  N.  to  S.  must  have 
passed  through  the  table-land  of  Jerusalem.  It 
was  the  water-shed  between  the  streams,  or  rather 
the  torrent-beds,  which  find  their  way  eastward  to 
the  Jordan,  and  those  which  pass  westward  to  the 
Mediterranean  (Stanley,  S.  if  F.  p.  176)." 

This  central  position,  as  expressed  in  the  wurds 
of  Ezekiel  (ver.  5),  "I  have  set  Jerusalem  i:i  the 
midst  of  the  nations  and  countries  round  about 
her,"  led  in  later  ages  to  a  definite  belief  that  the 
city  was  actually  in  the  centre  of  the  earth  —  in 
the  words  of  Jerome,  "  umbilicus  terras,"  the  cen- 
tral boss  or  navel  of  the  world.^  (See  the  quota- 
tions in  Reland;  Pakestina,  pp.  52  and  838 ;  Joseph. 
B.  J.  iii.  3,  §  5;  also  Stanley,  <S.  if  P.  p.  116.) 

At  the  same  time  it  should  not  be  overlooked 
that,  while  thus  central  to  the  people  of  the  coun- 
try, it  had  the  advantage  of  being  remote  from  the 
great  high  road  of  the  nations  which  so  frequently 
passed  by  Palestine,  and  therefore  enjoyed  a  certain 
immunity  from  disturbance.  The  only  practicable 
route  for  a  great  army,  with  baggage,  siege-trains, 
etc.,  moving  between  Egypt  and  Assyria  was  by 
the  low  plain  which  bordered  the  sea-coast  from 
Tyre  to  Pelusium.  From  that  plain,  the  central 
table-land  on  which  Jerusalem  stood  was  approached 
by  valleys  and  passes  generally  too  intricate  and 
precipitous  for  the  passage  of  large  bodies.  One 
road  there  was  less  rugged  than  the  rest  —  that 
from  Jaffa  and  Lydda  up  the  pass  of  the  Beth- 
horons  to  Gibeon,  and  thence,  over  the  hills,  to  the 
north  side  of  Jerusalem ;  and  by  this  route,  with 
few  if  any  exceptions,  armies  seem   to  have  ap- 


dences"  (Pt.  ii.  17),  and  is  also  favored  by  Stanley 
(S.  ^  P.  p.  176),  is  derived  from  a  Jewish  tradition, 
quoted  by  Lightfoofc  (Prospect  of  the  Temple,  ch.  1), 
to  the  effect  that  the  altars  and  sanctuary  were  Ik 
Benjamin,  the  courts  of  the  I'emple  were  in  Judah. 

b  This  is  prettily  expressed  in  a  rabbinical  figurt 
quoted  by  Otho  (L^x.  p.  266) :  "  The  world  is  like  to 
an  eye ;  the  white  of  the  eye  is  the  ocean  surround 
ing  the  world  ;  the  black  is  the  world  itself ;  the 
pupil  is  Jerusalem,  and  the  image  in  the  pupil,  tbt 
Temple." 


1271  JERUSALEM 

piroached  the  city.  But,  on  the  other  haud,  we 
■hall  find,  in  tracing  the  annals  of  Jerusalem,  that 
great  forces  frequently  passed  between  Egypt  and 


JERUSALEM 

Assyria,  and  littles  were  fought  in  the  f  USn  by 

large  armies,  nay,  that  sieges  of  the  towr.8  on  Uw 
Mediterranean   coast  were  conducted,  lasting   fv 


fears,  without  apparently  afFectmg  Jerusalem  in 
the  '.east. 

Jerusalem  stands  in  latitude  31°  46'  35''  North, 


«  Such  is  the  result  of  the  latest  observations  pos- 
♦eesefi  by  the  Lords  of  the  Admiralty,  and  officially 
communicated  to  the  Consul  of  Jerusalem  in  1852 
VLob.  m.  188).     To  what  part  of  the  town  the  obser- 


and  longitude  35°  18'  30"  East  of  Green  wit  a.« 
It  is  32  miles  distant  from  the  sea,  and  18  from  the 
Jordan;  20  from  Hebron,  and  36  from  Samaria. 


vations  apply  is  not  stated.  Other  resnltn,  only 
slightly  difiFering,  will  be  found  in  Van  de  VeMt^ 
Memoir,  p.  64,  and  in  Rob  i.  259. 


JERUSALEM 


"In  several  respects,"  says  Professor  Stanley,  "its 
lituation  is  singular  among  the  cities  of  Palestine. 
Its  elevation  is  remarliable ;  Dccasioned  not  from  its 
being  on  the  summit  of  one  of  the  numerous  liills 
of  Judaia,  like  most  of  the  towns  and  villa(i;es,  but 
because  it  is  on  the  edge  of  one  of  the  highest 
table-lands  of  the  country.  Hebron  indeed  is 
higlier  still  by  some  hundred  feet,  and  from  the 
south,  accordingly  (even  from  Bethlehem),  the  ap- 
proach to  Jerusalem  is  by  a  slight  descent.  But 
from  any  other  side  the  ascent  is  perpetual ;  and  to 
the  traveller  approaching  the  city  from  the  E.  or 
W.  it  must  always  have  presented  the  appearance 
beyond  any  other  capital  of  the  then  known  world 
—  we  may  say  beyond  any  important  city  that  has 
ever  existed  on  tiie  earth  —  of  a  mountain  city ; 
breathing,  as  compared  with  the  sultry  plains  of 
Jordan,  a  Uijuntain  air;  enthroned,  as  compared 
with  Jericb;  or  Damascus,  Gaea  or  Tyre,  on  a 
mountain  fastness  "  {S.  cj'  P.  p.  170,  171). 

The  elevation  of  Jerusalem  is  a  subject  of  con- 
stant reference  and  exultation  by  the  Jewish  writers. 
Their  fervid  poetry  abounds  with  allusions  to  its 
height,"  to  the  ascent  thither  of  tlie  tribes  from  all 
parts  of  the  country.  It  was  the  habitation  of 
Jehovah,  from  which  '•'■  he  looked  upon  all  the  in- 
oabitants  of  the  world"  (Ps.  xxxiii.  14);  its  kings 
were  "higher  than  the  kings  of  the  earth"  (Ps. 
Ixxxix.  27).  In  the  later  Jewish  literature  of  nar- 
rative and  description,  this  poetry  is  reduced  to 
prose,  and  in  the  most  exaggerated  form.  Jeru- 
salem was  so  high  tliat  the  flames  of  Jamnia  were 
visible  from  it  (2  ]Macc.  xii.  9).  From  the  tower 
of  Psephinus  outside  the  walls,  could  be  discerned 
on  the  one  hand  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  on  the 
other  the  country  of  Arabia  (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  4,  §  3}. 
Heliron  could  be  seen  from  the  roofs  of  the  Temple 
(Lightfoot,  Clior.  Cent.  xlix.).  The  same  thing 
can  be  traced  in  Josephus's  account  of  the  environs 
of  the  city,  in  which  he  has  exaggerated  what  is 
in  truth  a  remarkable  ravine,  to  a  depth  so  enor- 
mous that  the  head  svvam  and  the  eyes  failed  in 
gazhig  into  its  recesses  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5).^ 

In  exemplification  of  these  remarks  it  may  be 
said  that  the  general  elevation  of  the  western  ridge 
of  the  city,  which  forms  its  highest  point,  is  about 
2,G00  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea.  The  Mount 
ot  Olives  rises  slightly  above  this  —  2,724  feet. 
Beyond  tlie  Mount  of  Olives,  however,  the  descent 
ia  remarkable ;  Jericho  —  13  miles  oft" —  being  no 
less  than  3,624  feet  below,  namely,  900  feet  under 
the  Mediterranean.  On  the  north.  Bethel,  at  a 
distance  of  11  miles,  is  419  feet  below  Jerusalem. 
On  the  west  Kamleh  —  25  miles  —  is  2,274  feet 
below.  Only  to  the  south,  as  already  remarketl, 
are  the  heights  slightly  superior,  —  Bethlehem, 
2Ju4:  Hebron,  3,029.  A  table  of  the  heights  of 
the  various  parts  of  the  city  and  environs  is  given 
further  on. 


"  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Stanley  {S.  &  P.  p. 
171). 

*  *  Recent  excavations  at  Jerusalem  show  that  Jose- 
ph us,  so  far  from  being  extravagant,  was  almost  lit- 
jially  exact  in  what  he  says  of  the  height  of  the 
ancient  walls.  The  labors  of  Lieut.  Warren  in  the 
service  of  the  Palestine  Exploration  Fund  (as  reported 
by  Mr,  Grove  in  the  London  Times,  Nov.  11,  1867), 
*  have  established,  by  actual  demonstration,  that  the 
gouth  wall  of  the  sacred  enclosure  which  contained  the 
lempk,  is  buried  for  more  thau  half  its  depth  beneath 
in  accviniulation  of  rubbish  —  probat';-  the  ruins  of 
4ie  succesoive  buildings  which  once  covered  it,  and 


JERUSALEM  1275 

The  situation  of  the  city  in  refsrence  to  the  rest 
of  Palestine,  has  been  descril)ed  by  Dr.  Kobluson 
in  a  well-known  passage,  which  is  so  complete  and 
graphic  a  statement  of  the  case,  that  we  take  tlie 
hberty  of  giving  it  entire. 

"  Jerusalem  lies  near  the  summit  of  a  broad 
mountain  ridge.  This  ridge  or  mountainous  tract 
extends,  without  interruption,  from  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon  to  a  line  drawn  between  the  sov  Ih  end 
of  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  S.  E.  comer  of  the  Medi  • 
terranean:  or  more  proi^erly.  perhaps,  it  may  be 
regarded  as  extending  as  far  south  as  to  febel 
^Ardif  in  the  desert;  where  it  sinks  down  at  once 
to  the  level  of  the  great  western  plateau.  Thii 
tract,  which  is  everywhere  not  less  than  from 
twenty  to  twenty- five  geographical  miles  in  breadth, 
is  in  fact  high  uneven  table-land.  It  everywhere 
forms  the  precipitous  western  wall  of  the  great 
valley  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea;  while  to- 
wards the  west  it  sinks  down  by  an  offset  into  a 
range  of  lower  hills,  which  lie  between  it  and  the 
great  plain  along  the  coast  of  the  JN^iditerranean. 
The  surface  of  this  upper  region  is  everywhere 
rocky,  uneven,  and  mountainous;  and  is  moreover 
cut  up  by  deep  valleys  which  run  east  or  west  on 
either  side  towards  the  Jordan  or  the  Mediterra- 
nean. The  line  of  division,  or  water-shed,  between 
the  waters  of  these  valleys,  —  a  tenn  which  here 
applies  almost  exclusively  to  the  waters  of  the  rainy 
season,  — follows  for  the  most  part  the  height  of 
land  along  the  ridge;  yet  not  so  but  that  the  heads 
of  the  valleys,  which  run  off'  in  different  directions, 
often  interlap  for  a  considerable  distance.  Thus, 
for  example,  a  valley  which  descends  to  the  Jordan 
often  has  its  head  a  mile  or  two  westward  of  the 
con)mencement  of  other  valleys  which  run  to  the 
western  sea. 

"  From  the  great  plain  of  Esdraelon  onAvards  to- 
wards the  south,  the  mountainous  country  rises 
gradually,  forming  the  tract  anciently  known  as 
the  mountains  ot  Ephraim  and  Judah ;  until  in  the 
vicinity  of  Hebron  it  attains  an  elevation  of  nearly 
3,000  Paris  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Mediterra- 
nean Sea.  Further  north,  on  a  line  drawn  from 
the  north  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  towards  the  true 
west,  the  ridge  has  an  elevation  of  only  about  2,500 
Paris  feet;  and  here,  close  upon  the  water-shed, 
lies  the  city  of  Jerusalem. 

"  Six  or  seven  miles  N.  and  N.  W.  of  the  city 
is  spread  out  the  open  plain  or  basin  round  about 
el- Jib  (Gibeon),  extending  also  towards  el-Bireh 
(Beeroth);  the  waters  of  which  flow  off  at  its  S.  E. 
part  through  the  deep  valley  here  called  by  the 
Arabs  Wddy  Beit  Hanina ;  but  to  which  the  monks 
and  travellers  have  usually  given  the  name  of  the 
Valley  of  Turpentine,  or  of  the  Terel^inth,  on  the 
mistaken  supposition  that  it  is  the  ancient  V:illey 
of  Elah.  This  great  valley  passes  along  in  a  S.  W. 
direction  an  hour  or  more  west  of  Jerusj  lem ;  and 


that,  if  bored  to  its  foundation,  the  wall  would  pre- 
sent an  unbroken  face  of  solid  masonry  of  nearly  1,000 
feet  long,  and  for  a  large  portion  of  the  distance  more 
than  150  feet  in  heiglit ;  in  other  words,  the  length  of 
the  Crystal  Palace,  and  the  height  of  the  transept. 
The  wall,  as  it  stands,  with  less  than  half  that  heigh* 
emerging  from  the  ground,  has  always  been  regarded 
as  a  marvel.  What  must  it  have  been  when  entirely 
exposed  to  view  ?  No  wonder  that  prophets  and 
ppalmists  have  rejoiced  in  the  '  walls  '  and  '  bulwarks 
of  the  Temple,  and  that  Tacitus  should  have  described 
it  as  mofio  arcis  cunslructum  "  See  also  Journal  cj 
Sared  Literature,  p.  494  (January  1868).  H. 


1276  JERUSALEM 

Inally  opens  out  from  the  mountains  into  tlie 
western  plain,  at  the  distance  of  six  or  eight  hours 
S.  W.  ftxsm  the  city,  under  the  name  of  Wady  es- 
Surdr.  The  traveller,  on  his  way  from  Ramleh  to 
Jerusalem,  descends  into  and  crosses  this  deep  val- 
ley at  the  villatre  of  Kul/mieh  on  its  western  side, 
in  hour  and  a  half  from  the  latter  city.  On  again 
reaching  the  high  ground  on  its  eastern  side,  he 
enters  u{X)n  an  open  tract  sloping  gradually  down- 
wards towards  the  south  and  east;  and  sees  before 
him,  at  the  distance  of  a  mile  and  a  half,  the  walls 
and  domes  of  the  Holy  City,  and  beyond  them 
the  higher  ridge  or  summit  of  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
'  The  traveller  now  descends  gradually  towards 
the  ;ity  along  a  broad  swell  of  ground,  having  at 


JERUSALEM 

some  distance  on  his  left  the  shallow  northern  put 
of  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat :  and  close  at  hand 
on  his  right  the  basin  which  forms  the  beginning 
of  the  Valley  of  Hinnom.  Upon  the  broad  and 
elevated  promontory  within  the  fork  of  these  two 
valleys,  lies  the  Holy  City.  All  around  are  higher 
hills;  on  the  east,  the  Mount  of  Olives;  on  the 
souin,  the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel,  so  called,  rising 
directly  from  the  Vale  of  Hinnom;  on  the  west, 
the  ground  rises  gently,  as  above  described,  to  the 
borders  of  the  great  Wady;  while  on  the  north,  a 
bend  of  the  ridge  connected  with  the  Mount  of 
Olives  bounds  the  prospect  at  the  distance  of  more 
than  a  mile.  Towards  the  S.  W.  the  view  is  some- 
what more  open ;  for  here  lies  the  plain  of  Ilepha'rj 


Plan  of  Jercsalex. 

1  Mount  Zion.  2.  Morlah.  8.  The  Temple.  4.  Antonia.  5.  Probable  site  of  Golgotha. 
6.  Ophel.  7.  Bezetha.  8.  Church  of  the.  Holy  Sepulchre.  9,  10.  The  Upper  imd 
Lower  Pools  of  Gihon.  11.  Earogel.  12.  Pool  of  Hezekiah.  13.  Fountain  of  tki 
rirgin.     U.  Siioam,     15.  Betbesda.     16.  Mount  of  OUves.     17    Uethsemau*. 


JERUSALEM 

ilrady  described,  commencing  just  at  the  southern 
brink  of  the  Valley  of  Hinnom,  and  stretching  off 
8.  W.,  where  it  runs  to  the  western  sea.  In  the 
N.  W.,  too,  the  eye  reaches  up  along  the  upper 
part  of  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat;  and  from  many 
points  can  discern  the  mosque  of  Neby  Samwil, 
situated  on  a  lofty  ridge  beyond  the  great  VVarly, 
at  the  distance  of  two  hours "  (Robinson's  Bihl. 
Res.  i.  258-260). 

So  much  for  the  local  and  political  relation  of 
Jerusalem  to  the  country  in  general.  To  convey  an 
idea  of  its  individual  position,  we  may  say  roughly, 
and  with  reference  to  the  accompanying  Plan,  that 
the  city  occupies  the  southern  termination  of  a 
talile-land,  which  is  cut  off  from  the  country  round 
it  on  its  west,  south,  and  east  sides,  by  ravines 
more  than  usually  deep  and  precipitous.  These 
ravines  leave  the  level  of  the  table-land,  the  one  on 
the  west  and  the  other  on  the  northeast  of  the 
city,  and  fall  rapidly  until  they  form  a  junction 
below  its  southeast  corner.  The  eastern  one  —  the 
valley  of  the  Kedron,  commonly  called  the  Valley 
of  Jehoshaphat,  runs  nearly  straight  from  north  to 
south.  But  the  western  one  —  the  Valley  of  Hin- 
nom —  runs  south  for  a  time  and  then  takes  a 
sudden  bend  to  the  east  until  it  meets  the  Valley 
of  Jehoshaphat,  after  which  the  two  rush  off  as  one 
to  the  Dead  Sea.  How  sudden  is  their  descent 
may  be  gathered  from  the  fact,  that  the  level  at 
the  point  of  junction  —  about  a  mile  and  a  quarter 
from  the  starting-point  of  each  —  is  more  than  600 
feet  below  that  of  the  upper  plateau  from  which 
they  commenced  their  descent.  Thus,  while  on  the 
north  there  is  no  material  difference  between  the 
general  level  of  the  country  outside  the  walls  and 
that  of  the  highest  parts  of  the  city ;  on  the  other 
three  sides,  so  steep  is  the  fall  of  the  ravines,  so 
trench-like  their  character,  and  so  close  do  they 
keep  to  the  promontory,  at  whose  feet  they  run,  as 
to  leave  on  the  beholder  almost  the  impression  of 
the  ditch  at  the  foot  of  a  fortress,  rather  than  of 
valleys  formed  by  nature. 

The  promontory  thus  encircled  is  itself  divided 
by  a  longitudinal  ravine  ninning  up  it  from  south 
to  north,  rising  gradually  from  the  south  like  the 
external  ones,  till  at  last  it  arrives  at  the  level  of 
the  upper  plateau,  and  dividing  the  central  mass 
into  two  unequal  portions.  Of  these  two,  that  on 
the  west  —  the  "  Upper  City  "  of  the  Jews,  —  the 
Mount  Zion  of  modem  tradition  —  is  the  higher 
and  more  massive  ;  that  on  the  east  —  Mount 
Moriah,  the  "  Akra  "  or  "  lower  city  "  of  Josephus, 
now  occupied  by  the  great  Mohammedan  sanctuary 
with  its  mosques  and  domes— is  at  once  considerably 
lower  and  smaller,  so  that,  to  a  spectator  from  the 
south,  the  city  appears  to  slope  sharply  towards  the 
east."  This  central  valley,  at  about  half-way  up 
its  length,  threw  out  a  subordinate  on  its  left  or 
west  side,  which  apparently  quitted  it  at  about  right 
angles,  and  made  its  way  up  to  the  general  level  of 
the  ground  at  the  present  .Jaffa  or  Bethlehem  gate. 
We  say  apparently,  because  covered  as  the  ground 
now  is,  it  is  difficult  to  ascertain  the  point  exactly. 
Opinions  differ  as  to  whether  the  straight  valley 
north  and  south,  or  its  southern  half,  with  the 
branch  just  spoken  of,  was  the  "  Tyropoeon  valley" 
3f  Josephus.     The  question  will  be  examined  in 


JERUSALEM 


o  The  character  of  the  ravines  and  the  eastward 
jlope  of  the.  site  are  very  well  and  very  truthfully 
shown  in  a  view  in  Dartlett's  Walks,  entitled  "  Mount 
Qon.  Jerusalem,  from  the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel." 


1277 

Section  III.  under  the  head  of  the  Topography  of 

tne  Ancient  City. 

One  more  valley  must  be  noted.  It  was  on  the 
north  of  Moriah,  and  separated  it  from  a  hill  on 
which,  in  the  time  of  Josephus,  stood  a  suburb  or 
part  of  the  city  called  Bezetha,  or  the  New-town. 
Part  of  this  depression  is  still  preserved  in  the  large 
reservoir  with  two  arches,  usually  called  the  Pool 
of  Bethesda,  near  the  St.  Stephen's  gate.  It  also 
will  be  more  explicitly  spoken  of  in  the  examination 
of  the  ancient  topography. 

This  rough  sketch  of  the  terrain  of  Jerusalem 
will  enable  the  reader  to  appreciate  the  two  great 
advantages  of  its  position.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
ravines  which  entrench  it  on  the  west,  south,  and 
east  —  out  of  which,  as  has  been  said,  the  rocky 
slopes  of  the  city  rise  almost  like  the  walls  of  a 
fortress  out  of  its  ditches  —  must  have  rendered  it 
impregnable  on  those  quarters  to  the  warfare  of  the 
old  world.  On  the  other  hand,  its  junction  with 
the  more  level  ground  on  its  north  and  northwest 
sides  afforded  an  opportunity  of  expansion,  of  which 
we  know  advantage  was  taken,  and  which  gave  it 
remarkable  superiority  over  other  cities  of  Palestine, 
and  especially  of  Judah,  which,  though  secure  on 
their  hill-tops,  were  unable  to  expand  beyond  them 
(Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  pp.  174,  175). 

The  heights  of  the  principal  points  in  and  roun(f 
the  city,  above  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  as  given  by 
Lt.  Van  de  Velde  in  the  Memoir  ^  accompanying 
his  Map,  1858,  are  as  follows:  — 

Feet. 

J<.  Vf.  corner  of  the  c\ty  (KasrJalud) 2,610 

Mount  Zion  (Ccenaculum) 2,5.37 

Mount  Moriah  (Narain  esh-Sherif) 2,429 

Uridfje  over  the  Kedron,  near  Gethsemane      ....    2,281 

Pool  of  Siloani 2,114 

-Bir-Ai/ub,  at  the  confluence  of  Hinnom  and  Kedron  .    1,996 
AMoimt  of  Olives,  Church  of  Ascenaion  on  summit      .    2,724 

From  these  figures  it  will  be  seen  that  the  ridge 
on  which  the  western  half  of  the  city  is  built  is 
tolerably  level  from  north  to  south ;  that  the  eastern 
hill  is  more  than  a  hundred  feet  lower;  and  that 
from  tlie  latter  the  descent  to  the  floor  of  the  valley 
at  its  feet  —  the  Bir-Ayub  —  is  a  drop  of  nearly 
450  feet. 

The  INIount  of  Olives  overtops  even  the  highest 
part  of  the  city  by  rather  more  than  100  feet,  and 
the  Temple-hill  by  no  less  than  300.  Its  northern 
and  southern  outliers  —  the  Viri  Galiltei,  Scopus, 
and  Mount  of  Ofiense  —  bend  round  slightly  to- 
wards the  city,  and  give  the  effect  of  "  standing 
round  about  Jerusalem."  Especially  would  this  be 
the  case  to  a  worshipper  in  the  Temple.  "  It  is 
true,"  says  Pro'essor  Stanley,  "  that  this  image  is 
not  realized,  as  most  persons  familiar  with  European 
scenery  would  wish,  and  expect  it  to  be  realized. 
.  .  .  Any  one  facing  Jerusalem  westward,  north  • 
ward,  or  southward  will  always  see  the  city  itself 
on  an  elevation  higher  than  the  hills  in  its  imme- 
diate neighborhood,  its  towers  and  walls  standing 
out  against  the  sky,  and  not  against  any  high  back- 
ground, such  as  that  which  incloses  the  mountain 
towns  and  villages  of  our  own  Cumbrian  or  West- 
moreland valleys.  Nor  again  is  the  plain  on  which 
it  stands  inclosed  by  a  continuous,  thuugh  distant, 
circle  of  mountains  like  Athens  or  Innspruck.  The 
mountains  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  are  of 
unequal  height,  and  only  in  two  or  three  instancen 


b  A  table  of  levels,  dJSering  pomewhat  fi-om  thOM 
of  Lt.  Van  de  Velde,  wlj  be  touad  in  Barclay's  Ckif 
q^  Jte  Great  King,  pp,  103,  104. 


1278  JERUSALEM 

—■  Neby-8nmiiM^  er-Rnm,  and  Tuleil  el-FUl  — 
rising  to  any  considerable  elevation.  Still  they  act 
Rs  a  shelter;  they  must  be  surmounted  before  the 
traveller  can  see,  or  the  invader  attack,  the  Holy 
City;  and  the  distant  line  of  Moab  would  always 
leem  to  rise  as  a  wall  against  invaders  from  the 
remote  east  <*  It  is  these  mountains,  expressly  in- 
cluding those  beyond  the  Jordan,  which  are  men- 
tioned as  '  stand  uig  round  about  Jeinisalera  '  in 
another  and  more  terrible  sense,  when,  on  the  night 
of  the  assault  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Roman  armies, 
they  «  echoed  back  '  the  screams  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  captured  city,  and  the  victorious  shouts  of 
tlie  soldiers  of  Titus.  The  situation  of  Jerusalem 
was  thus  not  unlike,  on  a  small  scale,  to  that  of 
Kome,  saving  the  great  difference  that  Rome  was 
in  a  well- watered  plain,  leading  direct  to  the  sea, 
whereas  Jeinisalem  was  on  a  bare  table-land,  in  the 
heart  of  the  country.  But  each  was  situated  on 
its  own  cluster  of  steep  hills ;  each  had  room  for 
future  expansion  in  the  surrounding  level;  each, 
too,  had  its  nearer  and  its  more  remote  liarriers  of 
protecting  hills  —  Rome  its  Janiculum  hard  by,  and 
its  Apennine  and  Alban  mountains  in  the  distance ; 
Jerusalem  its  Olivet  hard  by,  and,  on  the  outposts 
of  its  plain,  Mizpeh,  Gibeon,  and  Ramah,  and  the 
ridge  which  divides  it  from  Bethlehem"  (S.  if  P. 
pp.  174,  175). 

*  This  may  be  the  best  place  for  stating  some 
of  the  results  of  Capt.  Wilson's  measurements  by 
levels  for  determining  the  distance  of  Jerusalem 
from  various  other  places,  and  its  altitude  above 
the  Mediterranean  and  the  Dead  Sea.  The  repre- 
sentations on  this  subject,  founded  on  reckonings  by 
time,  are  more  or  less  inaccurate.  The  following 
abridged  table  presents  the  observations  most  im- 
portant for  our  purpose.  It  should  be  premised  that 
the  line  adopted  by  the  engineers  tegins  at  Jaffa 
(Joppa)  and  runs  through  or  near  by  Lud  (Lydda), 
Jimzu  ((iimzo),  BirJJleeya^  El-Jib  (Gibeon),  Bdt-ur 
(Beth-Horon).  Jerusalem,  Bethany,  and  then  to  the 
neighlwrhood  of  Jericho,  where  turning  to  the  right 
it  crosses  the  plain  to  the  Dead  Sea.  Fifty-five 
bench-marks,  on  rocks  or  other  permanent  objects, 
were  made  along  the  route,  which  must  be  of  great 
service  to  future  explorers.  The  line  of  the  levels 
appears  to  be  the  most  direct  one  practicable  be- 
tween the  two  limits :  — 

Distance  in 
Place.  Miles  and  Links.  Altitude. 

TaflFa 0  0000  3,800 

Vazur 3  7656  85.405 

Beit-Dejam    ....       5  5843  91.435 

Lyrtda 11  5922  164.770 

Tiinzu 14  5194  411.605 

Mount  Scopus     ...     87  6345  2,715.795 

>iount  Olivet      ...     39  0236  2,623.790 

Summit  of  Olivet     .     .     39  1721  2.662.500 

Bethany 40  2409  2^281.825 

Well  of  the  Apostles     .     41  6063  1,519.615 

Khan  Iladhur    ...     48  5296  870.590 

Did  Aqueduct     ...     52  5174  89.715 

Dead  Sea  .  ...     62  2965  1,292.135 

1  *  Mr.  Tristram  states  that  Nebo,  one  of  the  sum- 
mits of  this  Moab  range,  is  distinctly  visible  from  the 
roof  of  the  English  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  that 
•rith  suitjible  glasses  the  buildings  of  .Terusalem  can 
pe  seen  from  Nebo  {Land  of  Israd,  p.  542,  2d  ed.). 
The  appearance  of  these  mountains  as  seen  from  Jeru- 
«alpm  stretching  like  a  curtain  along  the  eastern 
*iori2on  is  very  unique  and  impressive.  Every  one 
ibo  has  visited  the  holy  city  will  recognize  Stanley's  de- 


JERUSALEM 

It  thus  appears  that  the  highest  point  (»f  devw 
tion  between  the  two  seas  —  2,715  feet — occun 
on  Mount  Scopus,  just  north  of  Jerusalem.  ITie 
height  from  the  top  of  the  cairn  on  Scopus  is  2,72-J 
feet.  The  level  of  the  Mediterranean  is  crossed 
33  miles  beyond  Khan  Hadhur ;  and  the  figures 
against  the  two  last  stations  represent  the  de- 
pression below  the  level  of  the  IMediterranean. 
'I'he  party  reached  the  Dead  Sea  on  tlie  12th  of 
March,  1865.  It  is  known  that  this  sea  is  liable 
to  be,  on  the  average,  six  feet  lower,  a  few  weeks 
later  in  the  season ;  and  hence  the  lowest  depression 
of  the  surface  v/ould  be  1,2;38  feet.  According  to 
the  soundings  by  Lieut.  Vignes  of  the  French  Navy, 
the  maximum  depth  of  tlie  Dead  Sea  is  1,148  feet, 
making  the  depression  of  the  bottom  2,446  feet 
below  the  level  of  the  .Mediterranean.  "  The  sound- 
ing in  the  IMediterranean,  midway  between  INIalta 
and  Candia,  by  Capt.  Spratt,  jrave  a  depth  of  13,020 
feet,  or  a  depression  of  the  Iwttom  five  times  greatei 
than  that  of  the  bottom  of  the  Dead  Sea"  {Ord- 
nance Survey  of  Jerusalem^  pp.  20-23,  I^nd. 
18G5).  It  should  be  stated  that  a  line  of  levels  was 
also  caiTied  from  Jerusalem  to  Solomon's  I'ools. 
The  level  at  the  Jaflfa  gate  on  the  west  side  of  the 
city  was  found  to  be  2,528  feet  below  the  Mediter- 
ranean ;  near  Mar  Elyas,  2,616 ;  at  Rachel's  tomb, 
2,478;  at  the  Castle  near  Solomon's  Pools,  2,G24|; 
near  the  upper  Pool,  2,616,  and  the  lower  Pool, 
2,513a.     {Sin-vey,  p.  88.)  H. 

Roads.  —  There  appear  to  have  been  but  two 
main  approaches  to  the  city.  1.  From  the  Jordan 
Valley  by  Jericho  and  the  Mount  of  Olives.  This 
was  the  route  commonly  taken  from  the  north  and 
east  of  the  country  —  as  from  Galilee  by  our  Lord 
(Luke  xvii.  11,  xviii.  35,  xix.  1,  29,  45,  &c.),  from 
Damascus  by  Pompey  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  3,  §  4; 
4,  §  1),  to  Mahanaim  by  David  (2  Sam.  xv.,  xvi.). 
It  was  also  the  route  from  places  in  the  central  dis- 
tricts of  the  country,  as  Samaria  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  15). 
The  latter  part  of  the  approach,  over  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  as  generally  followed  at  the  present  day, 
is  identical  with  what  it  was,  at  least  in  one  mem- 
orable instance,  in  the  time  of  Christ.  A  path 
there  is  over  the  crown  of  the  hill,  but  the  common 
route  still  runs  more  to  the  south,  round  the 
shoulder  of  the  principal  summit  (see  S.  cf  P.  p.  193). 
In  the  later  times  of  Jerusalem,  this  road  crossed 
the  valley  of  the  Kedron  by  a  bridge  or  viaduct  on 
a  double  series  of  arches,  and  entered  the  Temple 
by  the  gate  Susan.  (See  the  quotations  from  the 
Talmud  in  Oiho,  Lex.  Rab.  265 ;  and  Barclay,  pp. 
102,  282.)  The  insecure  state  of  the  Jordan  Valley 
has  thrown  this  route  very  much  into  disuse,  and  has 
diverted  the  traffic  from  the  north  to  a  road  along 
the  central  ridge  of  the  country.  2.  From  the 
great  maritime  plain  of  Philistia  and  Sharon.  This 
road  led  by  the  two  I?eth-horons  up  to  the  high 
ground  at  Gibeon,  whence  it  turnetl  south,  and 
came  to  Jerusalem  by  K'aniah  and  Gibeah,  and  over 
the  ridge  north  of  the  city.  This  is  still  the  route 
by  which   the  heavy  traffic  is  carried,   though  a 


scription  of  the  view  as  not  less  just  than  beautiful : 
"  From  almost  every  point,  there  is  visible  that  long 
purple  wall,  rising  out  of  its  unfathomable  depths,  to 
us  even  more  interesting  than  to  the  old  Jebusites  or 
Israelites.  They  knew  the  tribes  who  lived  tKwre ; 
they  had  once  dwelt  there  themselves.  But  o.  the 
inhabitants  of  modern  Jerusalem,  of  whom  compars 
tively  few  have  ever  visited  the  other  side  of  tht 
Jordan,  it  is  the  end  of  the  world,  —  and  to  tbem,  w 


JERUSALEM 

Acrtor  but  more  precipitous  road  is  usually  takeii 
by  torarellers  between  Jerusalem  and  Jaffa.  In 
tracing  the  annals  we  shall  find  that  it  was  the 
route  by  which  large  bodies,  such  as  armies,  always 
approached  the  city,  whether  from  Gaza  on  the 
south,  or  from  (^Jaesarea  and  Ptolemais  on  the  north. 
3.  The  communication  with  the  mountainous  dis- 
tricts of  the  south  is  less  distinct.  Even  Hebron, 
after  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy  at  Jeru- 
salem, was  hardly  of  importance  enough  to  main- 
tain any  considerable  amount  of  communication, 
and  only  in  the  wars  of  the  Maccabees  do  we  hear 
of  any  military  operations  in  that  region. 

The  roads  out  of  Jerusalem  were  a  special  sub- 
ject of  Solomon's  care.  He  paved  them  with  black 
stone  —  probably  the  basalt  of  the  trans-Jordanic 
districts  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  7,  §  4). 

Gates.  —  The  situation  of  the  various  gates  of 
the  city  is  examined  in  Section  HI.  It  may,  how- 
ever, be  desirable  to  supply  here  a  complete  list  of 
those  which  are  named  in  the  Bible  and  .Tosephus, 
with  the  references  to  their  occurrences :  — 

1.  Gate  of  Ephraim.  2  Chr.  xxv.  23;  Neh.  viii. 
16,  xii.  39.     This  is  probably  the  same  as  the  — 

2.  Gate  of  Benjamin.  Jer.  xx.  2,  xxxvii.  13; 
Zech.  xiv.  10.  If  so,  it  was  400  cubits  distant 
from  the  — 

3.  Comer  Gate.  2  Chr.  xxv.  23,  xxvi.  9 ;  Jer. 
xxxi.  38;  Zech.  xiv.  10. 

4.  Gate  of  Joshua,  governor  of  the  city.  2  K. 
xxiii.  8. 

5.  <Jate  between  the  two  walls.  2  K.  xxv.  4; 
Jer.  xxxix.  4. 

6.  Horse  Gate.  Neh.  iii.  28;  2  Chr.  xxiii.  15; 
Jer.  xxxi.  40. 

7.  Ravine  Gate  (i.  e.  opening  on  ravine  of  Hin- 
nom).     2  Chr.  xxvi.  9;  Neh.  ii.  13,  15,  iii.  13. 

8.  Fish  Gate.     2  Chr.  xxxiii.   14;  Neh. 
Zeph.  i.  10. 

9.  Dung  Gate.     Neh.  ii.  13,  iii.  13. 

10.  Sheep  Gate.     Neh.  iii.  1,  32,  xii.  39. 

11.  East  Gate.     Neh.  iii.  29. 

12.  Miphkad.     Neh.  iii.  31. 

13.  Fountain  Gate  (Siloam?) 

14.  Water  Gate.     Neh.  xii.  37. 

15.  Old  Gate.     Neh.  xii.  39. 

16.  Prison  Gate.     Neh.  xii.  39. 

17.  Gate  Harsith  (perhaps  the  Sun ;  A.  V.  East 
Gate).     Jer.  xix.  2. 

18.  First  Gate.     Zech.  xiv.  10. 

19.  Gate  Gennath  (gardens).  Joseph.  B.  J.  v. 
*,  §4. 

20.  Essenes'  Gate.     Joseph.  B.  J.  4,  §  2. 

To  these  should  be  added  the  following  gates  of 
the  Temple: 

(rate  Sur.     2  K.  xi.  6,     Called  also  — 

(Jate  of  Foundation.     2  Chr.  xxiii.  5. 

Gate  of  the  Guard,  or  behind  the  guard.  2  K. 
si.  6,  19.     Called  the  — 

High  Gate.  2  Chr.  xxiii.  20,  xxvii.  3 ;  2  K.  xv.  35. 

Gate  Shallecheth.     1  Chr.  xxvi.  16. 

Burictl-Grounils.  —  The  main  cemetery  of  the 
lity  seems  from  an  early  date  to  have  been  where 
•t  is  still  —  on  the  steep  slopes  of  the  valley  of  the 


iii.  3; 


Neh.  xii.  37. 


us,  these  mountains  almost  have  the  effect  of  a  diatant 
eiew  of  the  sea ;  the  hues  constantly  changing,  this 
or  that  precipitous  rock  coming  out  clear  in  the  morn- 
ing or  evening  shade  —  there,  the  form  dimly  shad- 
owed out  by  surrounding  valleys  of  what  may  possibly 
oe  PIsgah ;  here  the  point  of  Kerak,  the  capital  of 
lloab  and  forT^ss   of  the  Crusaders  —  and  then  at 


JERUSALEM  1279 

Kidron.  Here  it  was  that  the  fragments  of  tht 
idol  abominations,  destroyed  by  Josiah,  were  cast 
on  the  "graves  of  the  children  of  the  people"  (2 
K.  xxiii.  6),  and  the  valley  was  always  the  recepta- 
cle for  impurities  of  all  kinds.  There  Maachah'a 
idol  was  burnt  by  Asa  (1  K.  xv.  13);  there,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  Athaliah  was  executed;  and  ther# 
the  "  filthiness  "  accumulated  in  the  sanctuary,  by 
tlie  false-worship  of  Aliaz,  was  discharged  (2  Chr. 
xxix.  5, 16).  But  in  addition  to  this,  and  although 
there  is  only  a  slight  allusion  in  the  Bible  to  the 
fact  (Jer.  vii.  32),  many  of  the  tombs  now  existing 
in  the  face  of  the  ravine  of  Hinnom,  on  the  south 
of  the  city,  must  be  as  old  as  Biblical  times  —  and 
if  so,  show  that  this  was  also  used  as  a  cemetery. 
The  monument  of  Ananus  the  high-priest  (Joseph 
B.  J.  v.  12,  §  2)  would  seem  to  ha\'e  been  in  thij 
direction. 

The  tombs  of  the  kings  were  in  the  city  of  David, 
that  is.  Mount  Zion,  which,  as  will  be  shown  in  the 
concluding  section  [HI.]  of  this  article,  was  an 
eminence  on  the  northern  part  of  Mount  Moriih. 
[See  opposite  view  in  §  IV.  Amer.  ed.]  Tlie  royaJ 
sepulchres  were  probably  chambers  containing  sep- 
arate recesses  for  the  successive  kings.  [Tombs.] 
Of  some  of  the  kings  it  is  recorded  that,  not  being 
thought  worthy  of  a  resting-place  there,  they  were 
buried  in  separate  or  private  tombs  in  Mount  Zion 
(2  Chr.  xxi.  20,  xxiv.  25;  2  K.  xv.  7).  Ahaz  was 
not  admitted  to  Zion  at  all,  but  was  buried  in 
Jerusalem  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  27).  Other  spots  also 
were  used  for  burial.  Somewhere  to  the  north  of 
the  Temple,  and  not  far  from  the  wall,  was  the 
monument  of  king  Alexander  (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  7,  § 
3).  Near  the  northwest  corner  of  the  city  was  the 
monument  uf  John  the  high-priest  (Joseph,  v.  6,  § 
2,  (fee),  and  to  the  northeast  the  "  monument  of  the 
Fuller  "  (Joseph.  B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2).  On  the  north,  too, 
were  the  monuments  of  Herod  (v.  3,  §  2)  and  of 
queen  Helena  (v.  2,  §  2,  3,  §  3),  the  former  close 
to  the  "  Serpent's  Fool." 

Wood ;  Gardens.  —  We  have  very  little  evidence 
as  to  the  amount  of  wood  and  of  cultivation  that 
existed  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem.  The 
king's  gardens  of  David  and  Solomon  seem  to  have 
been  in  the  bottom  formed  by  the  confluence  of  the 
Kedron  and  Hinnom  (Neh.  iii.  15;  Joseph.  Ant. 
vii.  14,  §  4,  ix.  10,  §  4).  The  Mount  of  Olives,  aa 
its  name  and  those  of  various  places  upon  it  seem 
to  imply,  was  a  fruitful  spot.  At  its  foot  waa 
situated  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane.  At  the  time 
of  the  final  siege,  the  space  north  of  the  wall  of 
Agrippa  was  covered  witli  gardens,  groves,  and 
plantations  of  fruit-trees,  inclosed  by  hedges  and 
walls;  and  to  level  these  was  one  of  Titus's  first 
operations  (B.  J.  v.  3,  §  2).  We  know  that  the 
gate  Gennath  (i.  e.  "  of  gardens  "^  opened  on  this 
side  of  the  city  (B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2).  The  Valley  of 
Hinnom  was  in  Jeromo's  time  "a  pleasant  and 
woody  spot,  full  of  delightful  gardens  watered  frOra 
the  fountani  of  Siloah  "  (Comm.  in  Jer.  vii.  30). 
In  the  Talmud  mention  is  made  of  a  certain  rorec 
garden  outside  the  city,  which  was  of  great  fame 
but  no  clew  is  given  to  its  situation  (Otho,  Lex. 

times  all  wrapt  in  deep  haze  —  the  mountains  over- 
hanging the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  and  all  tht 
more  striking  from  their  contrast  with  the  g^y  oi 
green  colors  of  the  hills  and  streets  and  walls  througt 
which  you  catch  the  glimpse  of  them."  (5.  4"  ■? 
p.  166,  Amer.  ed.)  fl. 


1280  JERUSALEM 

Rob.  2()Q).  [Garden.]  The  sieges  of  Jerusalem 
irere  too  frequent  during  its  later  history  to  admit 
of  any  considerable  growth  of  wood  near  it,  even  if 
the  thin  soil,  which  covers  the  rocky  substratum, 
would  allow  of  it.  And  the  scarcity  of  earth  again 
necessitated  the  cutting  down  of  all  the  trees  that 
could  be  found  for  the  banks  and  mounds,  with 
which  the  ancient  sieges  were  conducted.  This  is 
expressly  said  in  the  accounts  of  the  sieges  of 
Pompey  and  Titus.  In  the  latter  case  the  country 
was  swept  of  its  timber  for  a  distance  of  eight  or 
nine  miles  from  the  city  (B.  J.  vi.  8,  §  1,  &c.). 

Water.  —  How  the  gardens  just  mentioned  on 
the  north  of  the  city  were  watered  it  is  difficult  to 
understand,  since  at  present  no  water  exists  in  that 
direction.  At  the  time  of  the  siege  (Joseph.  B. ./.  v. 
•3,  §  2)  there  was  a  resen-oir  in  that  neighborhood 
called  the  Serpent's  Pool;  but  it  has  not  been  dis- 
covered in  modern  times.  The  subject  of  the  waters 
is  more  particularly  discussed  in  the  third  section, 
and  reasons  are  shown  for  believing  that  at  one 
time  a  very  copious  source  existed  somewhere  north 
of  the  town,  the  outflow  of  which  was  stopped  — 
possibly  by  Hezekiah,  and  the  water  led  under- 
ground to  reservoirs  in  the  city  and  below  the 
Temple.  From  these  reservoirs  the  overflow  escaped 
lo  the  so-called  Fount  of  the  Virgin,  and  thence  to 
Siloam,  and  possibly  to  the  Bir-Aytib,  or  "  Well 
of  Nehemiah."  This  source  would  seem  to  have 
been,  and  to  be  still  the  only  spring  in  the  city  — 
but  it  was  always  provided  with  private  and  public 
cisterns.  Some  of  the  latter  still  remain.  Outside 
the  walls  the  two  on  the  west  side  {Birhet  Mnmilla, 
and  Biiket  es-Sultdn),  generally  known  as  the 
upper  and  lower  resen-oirs  of  Gihon,  the  small 
"pool  of  Siloam,"  with  the  larger  B.  el-Hanira 
close  adjoining,  and  the  B.  Hammam  Slid  .}rarijam, 
close  to  the  St.  Stephen's  Gate.  Inside  are  the  so- 
called  Pool  of  Hezekiah  (B.  el-Batrak)^  near  the 
Jaffa  gate,  which  receives  the  surplus  water  of  the 
Birket  Mamilla ;  and  the  B.  hrnil  on  the  opposite 
side  of  the  city,  close  to  the  St.  Stephen's  Gate, 
commonly  known  as  the  Pool  of  Bethesda.  These 
two  reservoirs  are  probably  the  Pools  of  Amygdalon 
and  Struthius  of  Josephus,  respectively.  Dr.  Bar- 
slay  has  discovered  another  reservoir  below  the 
Mekemeh  in  the  low  part  of  the  city  —  the  Tyro- 
poeon  valley  —  west  of  the  Haram,  supplied  by  the 
aqueduct  from  Bethlehem  and  "  Solomon's  Pools." 
It  is  impossible  within  the  limits  of  the  present 
article  to  enter  more  at  length  into  the  subject  of 
the  waters.  The  reader  is  referred  to  the  chapters 
on  the  sul)ject  in  Barclay's  City  of  the  Great  King 
(X.  and  xviii.),  and  Williams's  Holy  City;  also  to 
the  articles  Kidron;  Siloam;  Pool. 

Streets,  Houses,  etc.  —  Of  the  nature  of  these 
In  the  ancient  city  we  have  only  the  most  scattered 
notices.  The  "  East  Street"  (2  Chr.  xxix.  4);  the 
"street  of  the  city"  —  i.  e.  the  city  of  David 
(xxxii.  6) ;  the  "  street  facing  the  water  gate  "  (Neh. 
viii.  1,  3) — or,  according  to  the  parallel  account 
in  1  Esdr.  ix.  38,  the  "  broad  place  {fvpvx<>^pov) 
of  the  Temple  towards  the  east;  "  the  street  of  the 
house  of  God  (Ezr.  x.  9);  the  street  of  the  gate  of 
Ephniim "  (Neh.  viii.  16);  and  the  "open  place 
of  the  first  gate  towards  the  east "  must  have  been 
not  "  streets  "  in  our  sense  of  the  word,  so  much 
(s  the  open  spaces  found  in  eastern  towns  round 

«  The  writer  was  there  in  September,  and  the 
Mpect  above  described  left  an  Inefiiaccable  impreseion 
>n  him. 


JERUSALEM 

the  inside  of  the  gates.  This  is  evident,  not  ocly 
from  the  word  used,  liechob,  which  has  the  forot 
of  breadth  or  room,  but  also  from  the  nature  of  the 
occurrences  related  in  each  case.  The  same  place* 
are  intended  in  Zech.  viii.  5.  Streets,  properly  sc 
called  (Chutzdth),  there  were  (Jer.  v.  1,  xi.  13,  &c.) 
but  the  name  of  only  one,  "the  Bakers'  Street" 
(Jer.  xxxvii.  21),  is  preserved  to  us.  This  is  con- 
jectured, from  the  names,  to  have  been  near  the 
Tower  of  Ovens  (Neh.  xii.  38;  "  furnaces  "  is  incor- 
rect). A  notice  of  streets  of  this  kind  in  the  3d 
century  b.  c.  is  preserved  by  Aristeas  (see  p.  1292). 
At  the  time  of  the  destruction  by  Titus  the  low 
part  of  the  city  was  filled  with  narrow  lanes,  con- 
taining the  bazaars  of  the  town,  and  when  the 
breach  was  made  in  the  second  wall  it  was  at  the 
spot  where  the  cloth,  brass,  and  wool  bazaars 
abutted  on  the  wall. 

To  the  houses  we  have  even  less  clew,  but  there 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  in  either  houses  or 
streets  the  ancient  Jerusalem  diflfered  very  materially 
from  the  modem.  No  doubt  the  ancient  city  did  not 
exhibit  that  air  of  mouldering  dilapidation  which 
is  now  so  prominent  there  —  that  sooty  look  which 
gives  its  houses  the  appearance  of  "  having  been 
burnt  down  many  centuries  ago  "  (Richardson,  in 
S.  (f  P.  p.  183),  and  which,  as  it  is  characteristic  of 
so  many  eastern  towns,  must  be  ascribed  to  Turkish 
neglect.  In  another  respect  too,  the  modem  city 
must  present  a  different  aspect  from  the  ancient  — 
the  dull  monotony  of  color  which,  at  least  durinjr  a 
part  of  the  year,«  pervades  the  slopes  of  the  hills 
and  ravines  outside  the  walls.  Not  only  is  this  the 
case  on  the  west,  where  the  city  does  not  relieve 
the  view,  but  also  on  the  south.  A  dull,  leaden 
ashy  hue  overspreads  all.  No  doubt  this  is  due, 
wholly  or  in  part,  to  the  enormous  quantities  of 
debt  is  of  stone  and  mortar  which  have  been  shot 
over  the  precipices  after  the  numerous  demolitions 
of  the  city.  The  whole  of  the  slopes  south  of  the 
Haram  area  (the  ancient  Ophel),  and  the  modem 
Zion,  and  the  west  side  of  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat, 
especially  near  the  St.  Stephen's  Gate,  are  covered 
with  these  debris,  lying  as  soft  and  loose  as  the  day 
they  were  poured  over,  and  presenting  the  appear- 
ance of  gigantic  mounds  of  rubbish. 

In  this  point  at  least  the  ancient  city  stood  in 
favorable  contrast  with  the  modern,  but  in  many 
others  the  resemblance  must  have  been  strong.  The 
nature  of  the  site  compels  the  walls  in  many  places 
to  retain  their  old  positions.  The  southem  part 
of  the  summit  of  the  Upper  City  and  the  slopes  of 
Ophel  are  now  bare,  where  previous  to  the  final 
siege  they  were  covered  with  houses,  and  the  North 
Wall  has  retired  very  much  south  of  where  it  then 
stood;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the  West  and  East, 
and  the  western  corner  of  the  North  Wall,  are  what 
they  always  were.  And  the  look  of  the  walls  and 
gates,  esijecially  the  Jaffa  Gate,  with  the  "  Citadel " 
adjoining,  and  the  Damascus  Gate,  is  probably 
hardly  changed  from  what  it  was.  Tme,  the  min- 
arets, domes,  and  spires,  which  give  such  a  variety 
to  the  modern  town,  must  have  been  absent;  but 
their  place  was  supplied  by  the  four  great  tower? 
at  the  northwest  part  of  the  wall ;  by  the  uppei 
stories  and  turrets  of  Herod's  palace,  the  palace  of 
the  Asmoneans,  and  the  other  public  buildings; 
while  the  lofty  fortress  of  Antonia,  towering  fiu 
above  every  building  within  the  city,''  and  itself 


b  "  Conspicuo  fiistigio  turris  Antonia "  (T«c.  MM 
11). 


JERUSALEM 

nmnotinted  by  the  keep  on  its  southeast  corner, 
must  have  forn)ecl  a  feature  in  tlie  view  not 
altogether  unlike  (though  more  prominent  than) 
the  "  Citadel  "  of  the  modern  town.  The  flat  roofs 
and  the  absence  of  windows,  which  give  an  eastern 
city  so  startling  an  appearance  to  a  western  trav- 
eller, must  have  existed  t.hen  as  now. 

But  the  greatest  reseTnI)lance  must  have  been  on 
the  southeast  side,  towards  the  Mount  of  Olives. 
Though  there  can  be  no  doubt  (see  below.  Sec- 
tion III.  p.  1314)  that  the  iiiflosure  is  now  much 
larger  than  it  was,  yet  the  precinct  of  the  Haram 
es-Shei'if,  with  its  domes  ind  sacred  buildings, 
some  of  them  clinging  to  the  very  spot  formerly 
occupied  by  the  Temple,  must  preserve  what  we 
may  call  the  personal  identity  of  this  quarter  of  the 
city,  but  little  changed  in  its  general  features  from 
what  it  was  when  the  Temple  stood  there.  Nay, 
more:  in  the  substructions  of  the  inclosure  —  those 
massive  and  venerable  walls,  which  once  to  see  is 
never  to  forget  —  is  tlie  very  masonry  itself,  its  lower 
courses  undisturbed,  which  was  laid  there  by  Herod 
the  Great,  and  by  Agrippa,  possibly  even  by  still 
older  builders. 

Environs  of  the  City.  —  The  various  spots  in  the 
neighborhoocl  of  the  city  will  be  described  at  length 
under  their  own  names,  and  to  them  the  reader  is 
accordingly  referred  See  En-rogkl;  Hi^nom; 
Kid  RON ;  Olivks,  Mount  of,  etc.,  etc. 

II.   The  Annals  op  the  City. 

In  considering  the  annals  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem, 
nothing  strikes  one  so  forcibly  as  the  number  and 
severity  of  the  sieges  which  it  underwent.  We 
catch  our  earliest  glimpse  of  it  in  the  brief  notice 
of  the  1st  chapter  of  Judges,  which  describes  how 
the  "  children  of  Judah  smote  it  with  the  edge  of 
the  ftword,  and  set  the  city  on  fire; "  and  almost 
the  latest  mention  of  it  in  the  New  Testament  is 
contained  in  the  solemn  warnings  in  which  Christ 
foretold  how  Jerusalem  should  be  "  compassed  with 
armies"  (Luke  xxi.  20),  and  the  abomination  of 
desolation  be  seen  standing  in  the  Holy  Place  (Matt. 
xxiv.  15).  In  the  fifteen  centuries  which  elapsed 
between  those  two  points  the  city  was  besieged  no 
fewer  than  seventeen  times ;  twice  it  was  razed  to 
the  ground ;  and  on  two  other  occasions  its  walls 
were  levelled.  In  this  respect  it  stands  without  a 
parallel  in  any  city  ancient  or  modern.  The  fact 
is  one  of  great  significance.  The  number  of  the  | 
sieges  testifies  to  the  importance  of  the  town  as  a 
key  to  the  whole  country,  and  as  the  depositary  of 
the  accumulated  treasures  of  the  Temple,  no  less 
forcibly  than  do  the  severity  of  the  contests  and 
their  protracted  length  to  the  difficulties  of  the 
}X)sition,  and  the  obstinate  enthusiasm  of  the  Jewish 
people.  At  the  same  time  the  details  of  these 
operations,  scanty  as  they  are,  throw  considerable 
'igbt  on  the  difficult  topography  of  the  place;  and 


JERUSALEM 


1281 


o  According  to  Josephus,  they  did  not  attajk  Jeru- 
salem till  after  they  had  taken  many  other  towns  — 
jrA.ecoTa?  re  Aa/36fT€?,  enoXiopKovv  'I. 

&  See  this  noticed  and  contrasted  with  the  situation 
of  the  villages  in  other  parts  by  Prof.  Stanley  (S.  ^  P. 
191,  577,  &c.). 

c  About  half  way  through  the  period  of  the  Judges 
—  i.  e.  cir.  b.  c.  1320  —  occurred  an  invasion  of  the 
.erritory  of  the  Hittites  (Khatti)  by  Sethee  1.  king  of 
i^pt,  and  the  capture  of  the  capital  city,  Ketesh,  in 
iho  land  of  Amar.  This  would  not  have  been  noticed 
here,  had  not  Ketesh  been  by  some  writers  identified 
•rith  Jerusalem  (Osborn,  E'^ypi,  Ifr  Testinf^nyy  etc. ; 
81 


on  the  whole  they  are  in  every  way  so  characteristic, 
that  it  has  seemed  not  unfit  to  use  them  as  far  as 
possible  as  a  frame- work  for  the  following  rapid 
sketch  of  the  history  of  the  city. 

The  first  siege  appears  to  ha\'e  taken  place  almost 
immediately  after  tlie  death  of  Joshua  (cir.  1400 
B.  c).  Judah  and  Simeon  had  been  ordered  by 
the  divine  oracle  at  Shiloh  or  Shechem  to  com- 
mence the  task  of  actual  ^wssession  of  the  portions 
distributed  by  Joslma.  As  they  traversed  the 
region  south  of  these  they  encountered  a  large  force 
of  Canaanites  at  Bezek.  These  they  dispersed,  took 
prisoner  Adoni-bezek,  a  ferocious  petty  chieftain, 
who  was  the  terror  of  the  country,  and  swept  on 
their  southward  road.  Jerusalem  was  soon  reached." 
It  was  evidently  too  important,  and  also  too  near 
the  actual  hmits  of  Judah,  to  be  passed  by.  "  They 
fought  against  it  and  took  it,  and  smote  it  with 
the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  set  the  city  on  fire " 
(Judg.  i.  8).  To  this  brief  notice  Josephus  (Ant. 
v.  2,  §  2)  makes  a  material  addition.  He  tells  us 
that  the  siege  lasted  some  time  {avv  XP^^V^  5  ^^^^ 
the  part  which  was  taken  at  last,  and  in  which  the 
slaughter  was  made,  was  the  lower  city ;  but  that 
the  upper  city  was  so  strong,  "by  reason  of  its 
walls  and  also  of  the  nature  of  the  place,"  that  they 
relinquished  the  attempt  and  moved  oft"  to  Hebron 
(A7it.  V.  2,  §  23).  These  few  valuable  words  of  the 
old  Jewish  historian  reveal  one  of  those  topograph- 
ical peculiarities  of  the  place  —  the  possession  of  an 
upper  as  well  as  a  lower  city  —  which  diflferenced 
it  so  remarkably  from  the  other  towns  of  Palestine 
—  which  enabled  it  to  survive  so  many  sieges  and 
partial  destructions,  and  which  in  the  former  section 
we  have  endeavored  to  explain.  It  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at  that  these  characteristics,  which  must 
have  been  impressed  with  peculiar  force  on  the 
mind  of  Josephus  during  the  destruction  of  .Jei-u- 
salem,  of  which  he  had  only  lately  been  a  witness, 
should  have  recurred  to  him  when  writing  the 
account  of  the  earlier  sieges.* 

As  long  as  the  upper  city  remained  in  the  hands 
of  the  Jebusites  they  practically  had  possession  of 
the  whole  —  and  a  Jebusite  city  in  fact  it  remained 
for  a  long  period  after  this.  The  Benjamites  fol- 
lowed the  men  of  Judah  to  Jerusalem,  but  with  no 
better  result  —  "  They  could  not  drive  out  the 
Jebusites,  but  the  Jebusites  dwelt  with  the  children 
of  Benjamin  in  Jerusalem  unto  this  day  "  (Judg.  i, 
21).  At  the  time  of  the  sad  story  of  the  Levitfl 
(Judg.  xix.)  —  which  the  mention  of  Phinehas  (xx. 
28)  fixes  as  early  in  the  jieriod  of  the  Judges  — 
lienjamin  can  hardly  have  had  even  so  much  foot- 
ing as  the  passage  just  quoted  woiJd  indicate;  for 
the  Levite  refuses  to  enter  it,  not  because  it  was 
hostile,  but  because  it  was  "  the  city  of  a  stranger, 
and  not  of  Israel."  And  this  lasted  during  the 
whole  period  of  the  Judges,  the  reign  of  Saul,  and 
the  reign  of  David  at  Hebron.^     Owing  to  several 


also  Williams  in  Diet,  of  Geogr.  ii.  23,  24).  The 
grounds  of  the  identification  are  (1)  the  apparent 
affinity  of  the  name  (which  they  read  Chadash)  with 
the  Greek  KoSvtis,  the  modem  Arabic  el-Kuds^  and 
the  Syriac  Kadatka ;  (2)  the  affinity  of  Amar  with 
Amorites  ;  (3)  a  likeness  between  the  form  and  situa 
tion  of  the  city,  as  shown  in  a  rude  sketch  in  the 
Egyptian  records,  and  that  of  Jerusalem.  But  on 
closer  examination  these  correspondences  vanish. 
Egyptian  scholars  are  now  agreed  that  Jerusalem  !• 
much  too  far  south  to  suit  the  requirements  of  the 
rest  of  the  campaign,  and  that  Ketesh  survive*  la 
KedeSf  a  name  discovered  by  Robinson  t  «tachel  V)  • 


1282 


JERUSALEM 


dretunstances  —  the  residence  of  the  Ark  at  Shiloh 
—  Saul's  connection  with  Gibeah,  and  David's  with 
Eiklag  and  Hebron  —  the  disunion  of  Benjamin 
and  Judah,  symbolized  by  Saul's  persecution  of 
David  —  the  tide  of  affairs  was  drawn  northwards 
and  southwards,  and  Jerusalem,  with  the  places 
adjacent,  was  left  in  possession  of  the  Jebusites. 
But  as  soon  as  a  man  was  found  to  assume  the  nile 
over  all  Israel  both  north  and  south,  so  soon  was  it 
necessary  that  the  seat  of  government  should  be 
moved  from  the  remote  Hebron  nearer  to  the  cen- 


JERUSALEM 

tre  of  the  country,  and  the  choice  of  David  •!  mm 

fell  on  the  city  of  the  Jebusites. 

David  advanced  to  the  siege  at  the  head  of  tlit 
men-of-war  of  all  the  tribes  who  had  come  to  H» 
bron  "  to  turn  the  kingdom  of  Saul  to  him."  They 
are  stated  as  280,000  men,  choice  warriors  of  the 
flower  of  Israel  (1  Chr.  xii.  23-39).  No  doubt 
they  approached  the  city  from  the  south.  The 
ravine  of  the  Kedron,  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  the 
hills  south  and  southeast  of  the  towii,  the  uplands 
on  the  west  must  have  swarmed  wilb  these  haidy 


Jerusalem. 
East  Corner  of  the  South  Wall,  and  the  Mount  of  Olivee  from  the  S.  W. 


ivarriois.  As  before,  the  lower  city  was  imme- 
iiately  taken  —  and  as  before,  the  citadel  held  out 
(Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  3,  §  1).   The  undaunted  Jebusites, 

lake  and  island  on  the  Orontes  between  Ribleh  and 
Hums,  and  still  showing  traces  of  extensive  artificial 
works.  Nor  does  the  agreement  between  the  repre- 
lentation  in  the  records  and  the  site  of  Jerusalem  fare 
better.  For  the  stream,  which  was  supposed  to  repre- 
lenfr  the  ravines  of  Jerusalem  —  the  nearest  point  of 
the  resemblance  —  contain^^d  at  Kete^h  water  enough 
to  drown  several  persons  (Brugsch,  (leogr.  Inschrift. 
II.  21,  &c.). 

a  The  passage  which  forms  the  latter  clause  of  2 
Sam.  T.  8  L9  generally  taken  to  mean  that  the  blind 
ud  Vb»  lame  were  excluded  from  the  Temple.     But 


believing  in  the  impregnability  of  their  fortiwa, 
manned  the  battlements  "  with  lame  and  blind."  « 
But  they  little  understood  the  tem{>f  r  of  the  king 


where  is  the  proof  that  this  was  the  fact  ?  On  one 
occasion  at  least  we  know  that  "  the  blind  and  th« 
lame  "  came  to  Christ  in  the  Temple,  and  he  healed 
them  (Matt.  xxi.  14).  And  indeed  what  had  the  Tem> 
pie,  which  was  not  founded  till  long  after  this,  to  do 
with  the  matter  ?  The  explanation  —  which  is  in 
accordance  with  the  accentuation  of  the  Masorets, 
and  for  which  the  writer  is  indebted  to  the  kindneM 
of  the  Rev.  J.  J.  S.  Perowne —  would  .seem  to  be  that 
it  was  a  proverb  used  in  future  with  regard  to  any 
impregnable  fortress  —  ''  The  blind  and  the  lame  ure 
there  ;  let  him  enter  the  place  if  he  can."    [u1,tt 


JERUSALEM 

ir  ci  those  he  commanded.  David's  anger  was 
thoroughly  roused  by  the  insult  (opyiadeist  Joseph. ), 
imd  he  at  once  proclaimed  to  his  host  that  the  first 
man  who  would  scale  the  rocky  side  of  the  fortress 
and  kill  a  Jebusite  should  be  made  chief  captain  of 
the  host.  A  crowd  of  warriors  (irairey,  Joseph.), 
rushed  forward  to  the  attempt,  but  Joab's  superior 
agility  gained  him  the  day,«  and  the  citadel,  the 
fastness  of  Ziox,  was  taken  (cir.  1046  b.  c).  It 
is  the  first  time  that  that  memorable  name  appears 
in  the  history. 

David  at  once  proceeded  to  secure  himself  in  his 
new  acquisition.  lie  inclosed  the  whole  of  the 
city  with  a  wall,  and  connected  it  with  the  citadel. 
In  the  latter  he  took  up  his  own  quarters,  and  the 
Zion  cf  the  Jebusites  became  "  the  city  of  David."  ff 
[Zion;  Milix).]  The  rest  of  the  town  was  left 
to  the  more  immediate  care  of  the  new  captain  of 
the  host. 

The  sensation  caused  by  the  fall  of  this  impreg- 
nable fortress  must  have  been  enormous.  It 
reached  even  to  the  distant  Tyre,  and  before  long 
an  embassy  arrived  from  Hiram,  the  king  of  Phoe- 
nicia, with  the  characteristic  offerings  of  artificers 
and  materials  to  erect  a  palace  for  David  in  his 
new  abode.  The  palace  was  built,  and  occupied 
by  the  fresh  establishment  of  wives  and  concubines 
which  David  acquired.  Two  attempts  were  made 
'—  the  one  by  the  Philistines  alone  (2  Sam.  v.  17- 
21;  1  Chr.  xiv.  8-12),  the  other  l>y  the  Philistines, 
ivith  all  Syria  and  Phoenicia  (Joseph.  AtiL  vii.  4, 
§  1 ;  2  Sam.  v.  22-25)  —  to  attack  David  in  his  new 
situation,  but  they  did  not  affect  the  city,  and  the 
actions  were  fought  in  the  "Valley  of  Giants," 
apparently  north  of  Jerusalem,  near  Gibeah  or 
Gibeon.  The  arrival  of  the  Ark,  however,  was  an 
event  of  great  importance.  The  old  Tabernacle  of 
Bezaleel  and  Aholiab  being  now  pitched  on  the 
height  of  Gibeon,  a  new  tent  had  been  spread  by 
David  in  the  fortress  for  the  reception  of  the  Avk ; 
and  here,  *'  in  its  place,"  it  was  deposited  with  the 
most  impressive  ceremonies,  and  Zion  became  at 
once  the  great  sanctuary  of  the  nation.  It  now 
perhaps  acquired  the  name  of  Beth  ha-Har,  the 
"  house  of  the  mount,"  of  which  we  catch  a  glimpse 
in  the  LXX.  addition  to  2  Sam.  xv.  24.  In  this 
tent  the  Ark  remained,  except  for  i^s  short  flight  to 
the  foot  of  the  Mount  of  ()lives  with  David  (xv. 
*'4-29 ),  ujitil  it  wiis  removed  to  its  permanent  rest- 
ing-place in  the  Temple  of  Solomon. 

In  the  fortress  of  Zion,  too,  was  the  sepulchre 
of  David,  which  became  also  that  of  most  of  his 
successors. 

The  only  works  of  ornament  which  we  can  as- 
cribe to  David  are  the  "  royal  gardens,"  as  they 
(ire  called  by  Josephus,  which  appear  to  have  been 
formed  by  him  in  the  level  space  southeast  of  the 
city,  formed  by  the  confluence  of  the  valleys  of 
KLodron  and  Hinnom,  screened  from  the  sun  during 
(.»rt  of  the  day  by  the  shoulders  of  the  inclosing 
mountains,  and  irrigated  by  the  well  Mm  Ayiib, 
^hich  still  appears  to  retain  the  name  of  Joab 
(Joseph.  Ant.  vii.  14,  §  4;  ix.  10,  §  4). 

Unt'l  the  time  of  Solomon  we  hear  of  no  addi- 
tions to  the  city.  His  three  great  works  were  the 
Temple,  with  its  east  wall  and  cloister  (Joseph.  B.  J. 
.  6,  §  1),  his  own  Palace,  and  the  Wall  of  Jeru- 


JBRUSALBM 


128S 


«  A  romantic  legend  is  preserved  in  the  Midrash 
rehiUim,  on  Ps.  xviii.  29,  of  the  stratagem  by  which 
'oab  succeeded  in  reaching  the  top  of  the  wall.     (See 

qooted  in  Eisenmenger,  I.  476,  477.) 


salem.  The  two  fonner  will  be  best  doscrlM 
elsewhere.  [Palack;  Sorx)MON;  Thmtle.]  Of 
the  last  there  is  an  interesting  notice  in  Josephu8 
{A7iL  viii.  2,  §  1;  6,  §  1),  from  which  it  api)ears 
that  David's  wall  was  a  mere  rampart  without 
towors,  and  only  of  moderate  strength  and  height. 
One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  new  king  was  to  make 
the  walls  larger  —  probably  extend  them  round 
some  outlying  parts  of  the  city  —  and  strengthen 
them  (1  K.  iii.  1,  with  the  explanation  of  Josephus, 
viii.  2,  §  1).  But  on  the  completion  of  the  Temple 
he  again  turned  his  attention  to  the  walls,  and  both 
increased  their  height,  and  constructed  very  large 
towers  along  them  (ix.  15,  and  Joseph.  A7it.  viii.  6, 
§  1).  Another  work  of  his  in  Jerusalem  was  the 
repair  or  fortification  of  Millo,  whatever  that  strange 
terra  may  signify  (1  K.  ix.  15,  24).  It  was  in  the 
works  at  Millo  and  the  city  of  David  —  it  is  un- 
certain whether  the  latter  consisted  of  stopping 
breaches  (as  in  A.  V.)  or  filUng  a  ditch  round  the 
fortress  (the  Vulg.  and  others)  —  that  Jeroboam 
first  came  under  the  notice  of  Solomon  (1  K.  xi. 
27 ).    Another  was  a  palace  for  his  Egyptian  queen 

—  of  the  situation  of  which  all  we  know  is  that  it 
was  not  in  the  city  of  David  (1  K.  vii.  8,  ix.  24, 
with  the  addition  in  2  Chr.  viii.  11).  But  there 
must  have  been  much  besides  these  to  fill  up  the 
measure  of  "  all  that  Solomon  desired  to  build  in 
Jerusalem  "  (2  Chr.  viii.  6)  —  the  vast  Harem  for 
his  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  and  their  estab- 
lishment —  the  colleges  for  the  priests  of  the  vari- 
ous religions  of  these  women  —  the  stables  for  the 
1,400  chariots  and  12,000  riding  horses.  Outside 
the  city,  probably  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  there 
remained,  down  to  the  latest  times  of  the  monarchy 
(2  K.  xxiii.  13),  the  fanes  which  he  had  erected  for 
the  worship  of  foreign  gods  (1  K.  xi.  7),  and  which 
have  still  left  their  name  chnging  to  the  "  Mount 
of  Offense." 

His  care  of  the  roads  leading  to  the  city  is  the 
subject  of  a  special  panegyric  from  Josephus  (Ant. 
viii.  7,  §  4).  They  were,  as  before  observed,  paved 
with  black  stone,  probably  the  hard  basalt  from  the 
region  of  Argob,  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  where  he 
had  a  special  resident  officer. 

As  long  as  Solomon  Uved,  the  visits  of  foreign 
powers  to  Jerusalem  were  those  of  courtesy  and 
amity;  but  with  his  death  this  was  changed.  A 
city,  in  the  palaces  of  which  all  the  vessels  were  of 
pure  gold,  where  spices,  precious  stones,  rare  woods, 
curious  animals,  were  accumulated  in  the  greatest 
profusion ;  where  silver  was  no  more  valued  than 
the  stones  of  the  street,  and  considered  too  mean 
a  material  for  the  commonest  of  the  royal  purposes 

—  such  a  city,  governed  by  such  a  faineant  prince 
as  Rehoboam,  was  too  tempting  a  prey  for  the  sur- 
rounding kings.  He  had  only  been  on  the  throne 
four  years  (cir.  970  n.  C. )  before  Shishak,  king  of 
Egypt,  invaded  Judah  with  an  enormous  host,  took 
the  fortified  places  and  advanced  to  the  capital. 
Jerusalem  was  crowded  with  the  chief  men  of  the 
realm  who  had  taken  refuge  there  (2  Chr.  xii.  5), 
but  Rebnboam  did  not  attempt  resistance.  He 
opened  his  gates,  apparently  on  a  promise  from 
Shishak  that  he  would  not  pillage  (Joseph.  Ant. 
viii.  10,  §  3).  However,  the  promise  was  not  kept, 
the  treasures  of  the  Temple  and  palace  were  car- 
ried off,  and  special  mention  is  made  of  the  golden 


b  In  the  N.  T.  « the  city  of  David  "  means  B««h 
lehem. 


1284  JERUSALEM 

ouekleri  (15^))  which  were  hung  by  Solomon  in 
the  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon  (1  K.  xiv.  25 ; 
SChr.  xii.  9;  comp.  1  K.  x.  17).« 

Jerusalem  was  again  threatened  in  the  reign  of 
Asa  (grandson  of  Kehoboam),  when  Zerah  the 
Cushite,  or  king  of  Ethiopia  (Joseph.  Ant.  viii. 
12,  §  1 ),  probably  incited  by  the  success  of  Shishak, 
invaded  the  country  with  an  enormous  horde  of  fol- 
lowers (2  Chr.  xiv.  9 ).  He  came  by  the  road  through 
the  low  country  of  Philistia,  where  his  chariots 
could  find  level  ground.  But  Asa  was  more  faith- 
ful and  more  valiant  than  Kehoboam  had  been. 
He  did  not  remain  to  be  blockaded  in  Jerusalem, 
but  went  forth  and  met  the  enemy  at  Mareshah, 
and  repulsed  him  with  great  slaughter  (cir.  940). 
The  consequence  of  this  victory  was  a  great  refor- 
mation extending  throughout  the  kingdom,  but 
most  demonstrative  at  Jerusalem.  A  vast  assembly 
of  the  men  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  of  Simeon, 
even  of  Kphraim  and  Manasseh  —  now  "  strangers  " 

(D"^"n5)  —  was  gathered  at  Jerusalem.  Enormous 
sacrifices  were  offered;  a  prodigious  enthusiasm 
seized  the  crowded  city,  and  amidst  the  clamor  of 
trumpets  and  shouting,  oaths  of  loyalty  to  Jehovah 
were  exchanged,  and  threats  of  instant  death  de- 
nounced on  all  who  should  forsake  His  service. 
The  altar  of  Jehovah  in  front  of  the  porch  of  the 
Temple,  which  had  fallen  into  decay,  was  rebuilt;  the 
horrid  idol  of  the  queen-mother  —  the  mysterious 
Asherah,  doubtless  an  abomination  of  the  Syrian 
worship  of  her  grandmother  —  was  torn  down, 
ground  to  powder,  and  burnt  in  the  ravine  of  the 
Kedron.  At  the  same  time  the  vessels  of  the 
Temple,  which  had  been  plundered  by  Shishak, 
were  replaced  from  the  spoil  taken  by  Abijah  from 
Ephraim,  and  by  Asa  himself  from  the  Cushites 
(2  Chr.  XV.  8-19;  1  K.  xv.  12-15).  This  pros- 
perity lasted  for  .nore  than  ten  years,  but  at  the 
end  of  that  interval  the  Temple  was  once  more 
despoiled,  and  the  treasures  so  lately  dedicated  to 
Jehovah  were  sent  by  Asa,  who  had  himself  dedi- 
cated them,  as  bribes  to  Ben-hadad  at  Damascus, 
where  they  probably  enriched  the  temple  of  Kim- 
mon  (2  Chr.  xvi.  2,  3;  1  K.  xv.  18).  Asa  was 
buried  in  a  tomb  excavated  by  himself  in  the  royal 
sepulchres  in  the  citadel. 

The  reign  of  his  son  Jehoshaphat,  though  of 
great  prosperity  and  splendor,  is  not  remarkable 
as  regards  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  We  hear  of  a 
''  new  court  "  to  the  Temple,  but  have  no  clew  to 
its  situation  or  its  builder  (2  Chr.  xx.  5).  An 
important  addition  to  the  government  of  the  city 
was  made  by  Jehoshaphat  in  the  establishment  of 
courts  for  the  decision  of  causes  both  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  (2  Chr.  xix.  8-11). 

Jehoshaphat's  son  Jehoram  was  a  prince  of  a 
different  temper.  He  began  his  reign  (cir.  887)  by 
a  massacre  of  his  brethren,  and  of  the  chief  men 
of  the  kingdom.     Instigated,  no  doubt,  by  his  wife 


JEECJSALEM 

Athaliah,  he  reintroduced  the.  profligate  Ucectfooi 
worship  of  Ashtaroth  and  the  high  places  (2  Chr. 
xxi.  11),  and  built  a  temple  for  Baal  (2  Chr.  xxiii. 
17;  comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  ix.  7,  §  4).  lliough  a 
man  of  great  vigor  and  courage,  he  was  overcome 
by  an  invasion  of  one  of  those  huge  hordes  whica 
were  now  almost  periodical.  The  PhiUstines  and 
Arabians  attacked  Jerusalem,  broke  into  the  pakce, 
spoiled  it  of  all  its  treasures,  sacked  the  royal  harem, 
killed  or  carried  off  the  king's  wives,  and  all  his 
sons  but  one.  This  was  the  fourth  siege.  Two 
years  after  it  the  king  died,  universally  detested, 
and  so  strong  was  the  feeling  against  him  that  he 
was  denied  a  resting-place  in  the  sepulchres  of  th« 
kings,  but  was  buried  without  ceremony  in  a  pri- 
vate tomb  on  Zion  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20). 

The  next  events  in  Jerusalem  were  the  massacrs 
of  the  royal  children  by  Joram's  widow  AthaU^h, 
and  the  six  years'  reign  of  that  queen.  During 
her  sway  the  worship  of  Baal  was  prevalent  and 
that  of  Jehovah  proportionately  depressed.  ITie 
Temple  was  not  only  suffered  to  go  without  repair, 
but  was  even  mutilated  by  the  sons  of  Athahah, 
and  its  treasures  removed  to  the  temple  of  Baal  (2 
Chr.  xxiv.  7).  But  with  the  increasing  years  of 
Joash,  the  spirit  of  the  adherents  of  Jehovah  re- 
turned, and  the  confederacy  of  Jehoiada  the  priest 
with  the  chief  men  of  Judah  resulted  in  the  res- 
toration of  the  true  line.  The  khig  was  crowned 
and  proclaimed  in  the  Temple.  Athaliah  herself 
was  hurried  out  to  execution  from  the  sacred  pre- 
cincts into  the  valley  of  the  Kedron  (Joseph.  Ant. 
ix.  7,  §  3),  between  the  Temple  and  Olivet,  through 
the  Horse  Gate.^  The  temple  of  Baal  was  demol- 
ished, his  altars  and  images  destroyed,  his  priests 
put  to  death,  and  the  religion  of  Jehovah  was  once 
more  the  national  religion.  But  the  restoration  of 
the  Temple  advanced  but  slowly,  and  it  was  not 
till  three-and-twenty  years  had  elapsed,  that  through 
the  personal  interference  of  the  king  the  ravages 
of  the  Baal  worshippers  were  repaired  (2  K.  xii. 
6-lG),  and  tbe  necessary  vessels  and  utensils  fur- 
nished for  the  service  of  the  Temple  (2  Chr.  xxiv. 
14.  But  see  2  K.  xii.  13;  Joseph.  Ant.  iv.  8,  §  2). 
But  this  zeal  for  Jehovah  soon  expired.  The  solemn 
ceremonial  of  the  burial  of  the  good  priest  in  the 
royal  tombs,  among  the  kings,  can  hardly  have  been 
forgotten  before  a  general  relapse  into  idolatry  took 
place,  and  his  son  Zechariah  was  stoned  with  his 
family  <?  in  the  very  court  of  the  Temple  for  pro- 
testing. 

The  retribution  invoked  by  the  dying  mart}T 
quickly  followed.  Before  the  end  of  the  year  (cir. 
838),  Hazael  king  of  Syria,  after  possessing  him- 
self of  Gath,  marched  against  the  much  richer 
prize  of  Jerusalem.  The  visit  was  averted  by  a 
timely  offering  of  treasure  from  the  Temple  and 
the  royal  palace  (2  K.  xii.  18;  2  Chr.  xxiv.  23, 
Joseph.  Ajit.  ix.  8,  §  4),  but  not  before  an  action 
had  been  fought,  in  which  a  large  army  of  the  Is- 
raelites was  routed  by  a  very  inferior  force  of  Syr- 


a  According  to  Josephus  he  also  carried  oflf  the 
arms  which  David  had  taken  from  the  king  of  Zobah  ; 
but  these  were  afterwards  in  the  Temple,  and  did  scr- 
rtce  at  the  proclamation  of  king  Joash.  [Arms,  Shelet, 
p.  162.J 

b  The  Horse  Gate  is  mentioned  again  in  connection 
with  Ridron  by  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  40).  Possibly  the 
oams  was  perpetuated  in  the  gate  Susan  (Sus  =  horse) 
df  the  second  Temple,  the  only  gate  on  the  east  side 
Df  the  outer  wall  (Lightfoot,  Prosp.  of  Temple,  iii.). 

tf  From  tlie  ej  pression  in  xxiv    25,  "  sons  of  Je- 


hoiada," we  are  perhaps  warranted  in  believing  that 
Zechariah's  brethren  or  his  sons  were  put  to  death 
with  him.  The  LXX.  and  Vulg.  have  the  word  In 
the  singular  number  "  son  ;  "  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  Syriac  and  Arabic,  and  the  Targuni  all  agree  with 
the  Hebrew  text,  and  it  is  specially  mentioned  ic 
Jerome's  QiicRst.  Htbr.  It  is  perhaps  supported  by  th« 
special  notice  taken  of  the  exception  made  by  Amasiak 
in  the  case  of  the  murderers  of  his  father  (2  K.  xlt 
6 ;  2  Chr  xxv.  4).  The  case  cf  Naboth  is  a  paralW 
LSee  Elij.vh,  p  706.  uote  /.] 


JERUSALEM 

jour,  with  the  loss  of  a  great  number  of  the  prin- 
cipal people  and  of  a  vast  b<x)ty.  Nor  was  this  all. 
These  reverses  so  distressed  the  king  as  to  bring  on 
%  dangerous  illness,  in  the  midst  of  which  he  was 
assassinated  by  two  of  his  own  servants,  sons  of 
two  of  the  foreign  women  wlio  were  common  in 
the  royal  harems.  He  was  buried  on  Mount  Zion, 
though,  like  Jehoram,  denied  a  resting-place  in  the 
royal  tombs  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  25).  The  predicted  dan- 
ger to  the  city  was,  however,  only  postponed. 
Amaziah  began  his  reign  (b.  c.  837)  with  a  prom- 
ise of  good;  his  first  act  showed  that,  while  he 
knew  how  to  avenge  the  murder  of  his  father,  he 
could  also  restrain  his  wrath  within  the  bounds 
prescribed  by  the  law  of  Jehovah.  But  with  suc- 
cess came  deterioration.  He  returned  from  his 
victories  over  the  Edomites,  and  the  massacre  at 
Petra,  with  fresh  idols  to  add  to  those  which  already 
defiled  Jerusalem  —  the  images  of  the  children  of 
Seir,  or  of  the  Amalekites  (Josephus),  which  were 
erected  and  worshipped  by  the  king.  His  next  act 
was  a  challenge  to  Joash  the  king  of  Israel,  and 
now  the  danger  so  narrowly  escaped  from  Hazael 
was  actually  encountered.  The  battle  took  place  at 
lleth-shemesh  of  Judah,  at  the  opening  of  the 
hills,  about  12  miles  west  of  Jerusalem.  It  ended 
in  a  total  rout.  Amaziah,  forsaken  by  his  people,  was 
taken  prisoner  by  Joash,  who  at  once  proceeded  to 
Jerusalem  and  threatened  to  put  his  captive  to 
death  before  the  walls,  if  he  and  his  army  were  not 
admitted.  The  gates  were  thrown  open,  the  treas- 
ures of  the  Temple  —  still  in  the  charge  of  the 
Bame  family  to  whom  they  had  been  committed  by 
David  —  and  the  king's  private  treasures,  were  pil- 
laged, and  for  the  first  time  the  M'alls  of  the  city 
were  injured.  A  clear  breach  was  made  in  them 
of  400  cubits  in  length  "  from  the  gate  of  Ephraim 
to  the  corner  gate,"  and  through  this  Joash  drove 
in  triumph,  with  his  captive  in  the  chariot,  into 
the  city.«  This  must  have  been  on  the  north  side, 
and  probably  at  the  present  northwest  comer  of 
the  walls.  If  so,  it  is  the  first  recorded  attempt 
at  that  spot,  afterwards  the  favorite  point  for  the 
attack  of  the  upper  city. 

The  long  reign  of  Uzziah  (2  K.  xv.  1-7;  2  Chr. 
xxvi.)  brought  about  a  material  improvement  in 
the  fortunes  of  Jerusalem.  He  was  a  wise  and 
good^  prince  (Joseph,  ix.  10,  §  3),  very  warlike, 
and  a  great  builder.  After  some  campaigns  against 
foreign  enemies,  he  devoted  himself  to  the  care  of 
Jerusalem  for  the  whole  of  his  life  (Joseph.).  The 
walls  were  thoroughly  repaired,  the  portion  broken 
down  by  Joash  was  rebuilt  and  fortified  with  towers 
6t  the  comer  gate ;  and  other  parts  which  had  been 
allowed  to  go  to  ruin  —  as  the  gate  opening  on  the 
Valley  of  Hinnom,"  a  spot  called  the  "turning" 
(««  Neh.  iii.  19,  20,  2-i),  and  others,  were  renewed 
fcnd  fortified,  and  furnished  for  the  first  time  with 
miichines,  then   expressly  invented,   for  shooting 


a  This  is  an  addition  by  Josephus  (ix.  9,  §  9).  If 
It  really  happened,  the  chariot  must  have  been  sent 
round  by  a  flatter  road  than  that  which  at  present 
would  be  the  direct  road  from  Ain-Sliems.  Since  the 
Kmo  of  Solomon,  chariots  would  seem  to  have  become 
anknown  in  Jerusalem.  At  any  rate  we  should  infer, 
from  the  notice  in  2  K.  xif.  20,  that  the  royal  eotab- 
Jflhment  could  not  at  that  vime  boast  uf  one. 

6  The  story  ol  his  leprosy  at  any  rate  shows  his 
laal  for  Jehovah. 

c  2  Chr.  xxvi.  9.    The  word  rendered  "  the  valley  " 

p  K^2n,  always  employed  for  the  valley  on  the  west 


JERUSALEM  1286 

stones  and  arrows  against  besiegers.  Later  in  this 
reign  happened  the  great  earthquake,  which,  al- 
though  uimientioned  in  the  historical  books  of  the 
Bible,  is  described  by  Josephus  (ix.  10,  §  4),  and 
alluded  to  by  the  Prophets  as  a  kind  of  era  (se« 
Stanley,  S.  tf  P.  pp.  184,  125).  A  serious  breach 
was  made  in  the  'lemple  itself,  and  below  the  city 
a  large  fragment  was  detached  from  the  hill  ^^  at 
En-rogel,  and,  rolling  down  the  slope,  overwhelmed 
the  king's  gardens  at  the  junction  of  the  valleys 
of  Hinnom  and  Kedron,  and  rested  against  the 
bottom  of  the  slope  of  Olivet.  After  the  leprosy 
of  Uzziah,  he  left  the  sacred  precincts,  in  which 
the  palace  would  therefore  seem  to  have  been  sit- 
uated, and  resided  in  the  hospital  or  lazar-house 
till  his  death  «  He  was  buried  on  Zion,  with  the 
kings  (2  K.  xv.  7 ) ;  not  in  the  sepulchre  itself,  but 
in  a  garden  or  field  attached  to  the  spot. 

Jotham  (cir.  75G)  inherited  his  father's  sagacity, 
as  well  as  his  tastes  for  architecture  and  warfare. 
His  works  in  Jerusalem  were  building  the  upper 
gateway  to  the  Temple  —  apparently  a  gate  com- 
municating with  the  palace  (2  Chr.  xxiii.  20)  —  and 
also  porticoes  leading  to  tlie  same  {Ant.  ix.  11,  §  2). 
He  also  built  much  on  Ophel,  —  probably  on  the 
south  of  Moriah  (2  K.  xv.  35;  2  Chr.  xxvii.  3), — 
repaired  the  walls  wherever  they  were  dilapidated, 
and  strengthened  them  by  very  large  and  strong 
towers  (Joseph.).  Before  the  death  of  Jotham  (b. 
c.  740)  the  clouds  of  the  Syrian  invasion  began  to 
gather.  They  broke  on  the  head  of  Ahaz  his  suc- 
cessor; Rezin  king  of  Syria  and  Pekah  king  of 
Israel  joined  their  armies  and  invested  Jerusalen 
(2  K.  xvi.  5).  The  fortifications  of  the  two  pre 
vious  kings  enabled  the  city  to  hold  out  during  a 
siege  of  great  length  {irr\  iroKvv  xP^'^^^'i  Joseph.). 
During  its  progress  Eezin  made  an  expedition 
against  the  distant  town  of  Elath  on  the  Ked  Sea, 
from  which  he  expelled  the  Jews,  and  handed  it 
over  to  the  Edomites  (2  K.  xvi.  6;  Ant.  ix.  12,  § 
1).  [Ahaz.]  Finding  on  his  return  that  the 
place  still  held  out,  Kezin  ravaged  Judaea  and  re- 
turned to  Damascus  with  a  multitude  of  captives, 
leaving  Pekah  to  continue  the  blockade. 

Ahaz,  thinking  himself  a  match  for  the  Israelite 
array,  opened  his  gates  and  came  forth.  A  tre- 
mendous conflict  ensued,  in  which  the  three  chiefs 
of  the  government  next  to  the  king,  and  a  hundred 
and  twenty  thousand  of  the  able  warriors  of  the 
army  of  Judah,  are  stated  to  have  been  killed,  and 
Pekah  returned  to  Samaria  with  a  crowd  of  cap- 
tives, and  a  great  quantity  of  spoil  collected  from 
the  Benjamite  towns  north  of  Jerusalem  (Joseph.). 
Ahaz  himself  escaped,  and  there  is  no  mention,  in 
any  of  the  records,  of  the  city  having  been  plun- 
dered. The  captives  and  the  spoil  were  however 
sent  back  by  the  people  of  Samaria  —  a  fact  which, 
as  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  history  of  the  city,  need 
here  only  be  referred  to,  because  from  the  narrative 


and  south  of  the  town,  as  vHD  is  for  that  on  the 
east. 

d  This  will  be  the  so-called  Mount  of  Evil  Counsel, 
or  the  hill  below  Moriah,  according  as  En-rogel  it 
taken  to  be  the  «  Well  of  Joab  "  or  the  "  Fount  of  th€ 
Virgin." 

«  nim7Dnn  iV2,  The  interpretation  ^ver 
above  is  that  of  Kimchi.  adopted  by  Gesenios,  FxiiBt 
and  Bertheau.  Keil  (on  2  K.  xv.  5)  and  Hengatenberg 
however,  contend  for  a  diflferent  meaning. 


1286  JERUSALEM 

WB  lean)  that  the  nearest  or  most  convenient  route 
from  Samaria  to  Jerusalem  at  that  time  was  not, 
M  now,  along  the  plateau  of  the  country,  but  by 
the  depths  of  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  through  Jeri- 
cho (2  K.  xvi.  5;  2  Chr.  xxviii.  5-15;  Joseph. 
Ant.  ix.  12,  §  2). 

To  oppose  the  confederacy  which  had  so  injured 
him,  Ahaz  had  recourse  to  Assyria.  He  appears 
first  to  have  sent  an  embassy  to  Tiglath-Pileser 
with  presents  of  silver  and  gold  taken  from  the 
treasures  of  the  Temple  and  the  palace  (2  K.  xvi. 
8),  which  had  been  recruited  during  the  last  two 
reigns,  and  with  a  promise  of  more  if  the  king 
would  overnm  Syria  and  Israel  {Ant.  ix.  12,  §  3). 
This  Tiglath-l'ileser  did.  He  marched  to  Damas- 
cus, took  the  city,  and  killal  Kezin.  While  there, 
Ahaz  visited  him,  probably  to  make  his  formal  sub- 
mission of  vassalage,"  and  gave  him  the  further 
presents.  To  collect  these  he  Avent  so  far  as  to  lay 
hands  on  part  of  the  permanent  works  of  the 
Temple  —  the  original  constructions  of  Solomon, 
which  none  of  his  predecessors  had  been  bold  enough 
or  needy  enough  to  touch.  He  cut  off  the  richly 
chased  panels  which  ornamented  the  brass  bases  of 
the  cisterns,  dismounted  the  large  tank  or  "sea" 
from  the  brazen  bulls,  and  supported  it  on  a  ped- 
estal of  stone,  and  removed  the  "  cover  for  the  sab- 
bath," and  the  ornamental  stand  on  which  the 
kings  M'ere  accustomed  to  sit  ui  the  Temple  (2  K. 
xvi.  17,  18). 

Whether  the  application  to  Assyria  relieved 
Ahaz  from  one  or  both  of  his  enemies,  is  not  clear. 
From  one  passage  it  would  seem  that  Tiglath- 
Pileser  actually  came  to  Jerusalem  (2  Chr.  xxviii. 
20).  At  any  rate  the  intercourse  resulted  in  fresh 
idolatries,  and  fresh  insults  to  the  Temple.  A  new 
brazen  altar  was  made  after  the  profane  fashion  of 
one  he  had  seen  at  Damascus,  and  was  set  up  in 
the  centre  of  the  court  of  the  Temple,  to  occupy 
the  place  and  perform  the  functions  of  the  original 
altar  of  Solomon,  now  removed  to  a  less  prominent 
position  (see  2  K.  xvi.  12-15,  with  the  expl.  of 

Keil) ;  the  very  sanctuary  itself  (  '  "^""H,  and 
^!T)T^)  was  polluted  by  idol-worship  of  some  kind 
or  other  (2  Chr.  xxix.  5,  IG).  Horses  dedicated  to 
the  sun  were  stabled  at  the  entrance  to  the  court, 
with  their  chariots  (2  K.  xxiii.  11).  Altars  for 
sacrifice  to  the  moon  and  stars  were  erected  on  the 
fiat  roofs  of  the  Temple  {ibid.  12).  Such  conse- 
crated vessels  as  remained  in  the  house  of  Jehovah 
were  taken  thence,  and  either  transferred  to  the 
service  of  the  idols  (2  Chr.  xxix.  19),  or  cut  up  and 
re-manufactured ;  the  lamps  of  the  sanctuary  were 
extinguished''  (xxix.  7),  and  for  the  first  time  the 
doors  of  the  Temple  were  closed  to  the  worshippers 
(xxviii.  24),  and  their  offerings  seized  for  the  idols 
(Joseph.  Ant.  ix.  12,  §  3).  The  famous  sun-dial  was 
irected  at  this  time,  probably  in  the  Temple.*^ 
When  Ahaz  at  last  died,  it  is  not  wonderful  that 


JERUSALEM 

a  meaner  fate  was  awarded  him  than  that  of  «rii 
the  leprous  Uzziah.  He  was  excluded  not  only 
from  the  royal  sepulchres,  but  from  the  prncincti 
of  Zion,  and  was  buried  "  in  the  city  —  in  Jeru- 
salem." ^  The  very  first  act  of  Hezekiah  (u.  c. 
724)  was  to  restore  what  his  father  had  desecrated 
(2  Chr.  xxix.  3;  and  see  36,  "suddenly").  The 
I^evites  were  collected  and  inspirited ;  the  Temple 
freed  from  its  impurities  both  actual  and  ccre- 
onial;  the  accumulated  abominations  being  dis- 
charged into  the  valley  of  the  Kedron.  The  fuk 
musical  sen'ice  of  the  Temple  was  reorganized, 
with  the  instiiiments  and  the  hymns  ordained  bj 
David  and  Asaph ;  and  after  a  solemn  sin-oflfbring 
for  the  late  transgressions  had  been  offered  in  the 
presence  of  the  king  and  princes,  the  public  were 
allowed  to  testify  their  acquiescence  in  the  change 
by  bringing  their  OM'n  thank-offerings  (2  Chr.  xxix. 
1-36).  This  was  done  on  the  17th  of  the  first 
month  of  his  reign.  The  regular  time  for  celebrat- 
ing the  Passover  was  therefore  gone  by.  But  there 
was  a  law  (Num.  ix.  10,  11)  which  allowed  the 
feast  to  be  postponed  for  a  month  on  special  occa- 
sions, and  of  this  law  Hezekiah  took  advantage,  in 
his  anxiety  to  obtain  from  the  whole  of  his  people 
a  national  testimony  to  their  allegiance  to  Jehovah 
and  his  laws  (2  Chr.  xxx.  2,  3).  Accordingly  at 
the  special  invitation  of  the  king  a  vast  multitude, 
not  only  from  his  own  dominions,  but  from  the 
northern  kingdom,  even  from  the  remote  Asher 
and  Zebulun,  assembled  at  the  capital.  Their  first 
act  was  to  uproot  and  efface  all  traces  of  the  idolatry 
of  the  preceding  and  former  reigns.  High-places, 
altars,  the  mysterious  and  obscene  symbols  of  Baal 
and  Asherah,  the  venerable  brazen  serpent  of  Slosee 
itself,  Avere  torn  down,  broken  to  pieces,  and  the 
fragments  cast  into  the  valley  of  the  Kedron  ^  (2 
Chr.  xxx.  14:  2  K.  xviii.  4).  This  done,  the  feast 
was  kept  for  two  weeks,  and  the  vast  concourse  dis- 
persed. The  permanent  service  of  the  Temple  waa 
next  thoroughly  organized,  the  subsistence  of  the 
officiating  ministers  arranged,  and  provision  made 
for  storing  the  supplies  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  2-21).  It 
was  probably  at  this  time  that  the  decorations  of 
the  Temple  were  renewed,  and  the  gold  or  othei 
precious  plating,/  which  had  been  removed  by 
former  kings,  reapphed  to  the  doors  and  pillars 
(2  K.  xviii.  16). 

And  now  approached  the  greatest  crisis  which 
had  yet  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  city :  the 
dreaded  Assyrian  army  was  to  appear  under  its 
walls.  Hezekiah  had  in  some  way  intimated  that 
he  did  not  intend  to  conthme  as  a  dependent  —  and 
the  great  king  was  now  (in  the  14th  year  of  Heze- 
kiah, cir.  711  15.  c.)  on  his  way  to  chastise  him. 
The  Assyrian  army  had  been  for  some  time  in 
Phoenicia  and  on  the  sea-coast  of  Philistia  (Kawlin- 
son,  lleTOcl  i.  476),  and  Hezekiah  had  therefort 
had  warning  of  his  approach.  The  dalay  was  taken 
advantage  of  to  prepare  for  the  siege.     As  before, 


o  This  follows  from  the  words  of  2  K.  xviii.  7. 

6  In  the  old  Jewish  Calendar  the  18th  of  Ab  was 
kt*pt  as  a  fast,  to  commemorate  the  putting  out  the 
iFestern  light  of  the  great  candlestick  by  Ahaz. 

c  There  is  an  a  priori  probability  that  the  dial  would 
le  placed  in  a  sacred  precinct ;  but  may  we  not  infer, 
Tom  comparing  2  K.  xx.  4  with  9,  that  it  was  in  the 
'  cuddle  court,"  and  that  the  sight  of  it  there  as  he 
pu^ed  through  had  suggested  to  Isaiah  the  "  sign " 
Vbioh  was  to  accompany  the  king's  recovery  ? 

d  &3oh  is  the  express  Ptatement  of  2  Chr.  xxviii. 


27.  The  book  of  Kings  repeats  its  regular  fortuula 
Josephus  omits  all  notice  of  the  burial. 

*  The  record,  we  apprehend,  does  not  recognize  thif 
distinction  between  Zion  and  Jerusalem.  See  §  IV 
Amer.  ed.  S.  W. 

e  And  yet  it  would  seem,  from  *he  account  of 
Josiah's  reforms  (2  K.  xxiii.  11,  12),  that  many  of 
Ahaz's  intrusions  survived  even  the  zeal  of  Hezekiah. 

/  The  word  "  gold  "  is  supplied  by  our  translatom 

but  the  word  "  overiaid  "  (HDIJ)  shows  that  sob* 
metallic  coating  is  intended. 


JERUSALEM 

lta«kUUi  made  the  movement  a  national  one.  A 
mat  concourse  came  together.  The  springs  round 
Jerusalem  were  stopped  —  tliat  is,  their  outflow  was 
prevented,  and  the  water  diverted  underground  to 
the  interior  of  the  city  (2  K.  xx.  20;  2  Chr.  xxxii. 
4).  This  was  oarticularly  the  case  with  the  spring 
which  lormed  the  source  of  the  stream  of  the 
Kedr<;n,<»  elsewhere  called  tlie  "  upper  springhead 
ofGihon"  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  30;  A.  V.  most  incor- 
rectly "water-course ").  It  was  led  down  by  a 
Bubterraneous  channel  "  through  the  hard  rock" 
(2  Chr.  xxxii.  30;  Ecclus.  xlviii.  17),  to  tlie  west 
Bide  of  the  city  of  David  (2  K.  xx.  20),  that  is,  into 
the  valley  wliich  separated  the  Mount  Moriah  and 
Zion  fiom  the  Upper  City,  and  where  traces  of  its 
presence  appear  to  this  day  (Barclay,  310,  538). 
This  done,  lie  carefully  repaired  the  walls  of  the 
city,  furnished  them  with  additional  towers,  and 
built  a  second  wall  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  5;  Is.  xxii.  10). 
The  water  of  the  reservoir,  called  the  "lower  pool," 
or  the  "old  pool,"  was  diverted  to  a  new  tank  in 
the  city  between  the  two  walls ''  (Is.  xxii.  11).  Nor 
was  this  all :  as  the  struggle  would  certainly  be  one 
for  life  and  death,  he  strengthened  the  fortifications 
of  the  citadel  (2  Chr.  xxxii.  5,  "  Millo; "  Is.  xxii. 
9),  and  prepared  abundance  of  ammunition.  He 
also  organized  the  people,  and  officered  them, 
gathered  them  together  in  the  open  place  at  the 
ga,te,  and  inspired  them  with  confidence  in  Jehovah 
(xxxii.  6). 

The  details  of  the  Assyrian  invasion  or  invasions 
will  be  found  undei  the  separate  heads  of  Senna- 
cherib and  IIezekiaii.  it  is  possible  that  Jeru- 
galem  was  once  regidarly  invested  by  the  Assyrian 
army.  It  is  certain  that  the  army  encamped  there 
on  another  occasion,  that  the  generals— the  Tartan, 
the  chief  Cup-bearer,  and  the  chief  Eunuch  —  held 
a  conversation  with  Ilezekiah's  chief  officers  outside 
the  walls,  most  probaljly  at  or  about  the  present 
Kasr  J  (dud  at  the  N.  W.  corner  of  the  city,  while 
the  wall  above  was  crowded  with  the  anxious  in- 
habitants. At  the  time  of  Titus's  siege  the  name 
of  "the  Assyrian  Camp"  was  still  attached  to  a 
spot  north  of  the  city,  in  remembrance  either  of  this 
or  the  subsequent  visit  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Joseph. 
B.  J.  v.  12,  §  2).  But  thougl  untaken  —  though 
the  citadel  was  still  tlie  '  virgin  daughter  of  Zion  " 
—  yet  Jerusalem  did  not  escape  unharmed.  Ileze- 
kiah's treasures  had  to  l>e  emptied,  and  the  costly 
ornaments  he  had  added  to  the  IVunple  were  stripped 
off  to  make  up  the  tribute.  This,  however,  he  had 
recovered  by  the  time  of  the  subsecjuent  visit  of  the 
ambassadors  from  Babylon,  as  we  see  from  the 
account  in  2  K.  xx.  12;  and  2  Chr.  xxxii.  27-29. 
The  death  of  this  good  and  great  king  was  indeed 
national  calamity,  and  so  it  was  considered.  He 
Ncas  buried  in  one  of  the  chief  of  the  royal  sepul- 
chres, and  a  vast  concourse  from  the  country,  as 
rell  as  of  the  citizens  of  Jerusuiein,  assembled  to 


.JERUSALEM 


1287 


a  The  authority  for  this  is  the  use  here  of  the  word 
Nackal,  which  is  uniformlj'  applied  to  the  va..ey  east 
•f  the  ci':y,  as  Ge  is  to  that  west  and  south.  There 
MO  other  grounds  which  are  stated  in  the  concluding 
•action  of  this  article.  Similar  measures  were  taken 
iy  the  Moslems  on  the  appi-cach  of  the  Crusaders 
(Will,  of  Tyre,  viii.  7,  quoted  by  Robinson,  i.  Si6 
tote). 

ft  The  reservoir  between  the  Jaffa  Gate  and  the 
Ubnrch  of  the  Sepulchre,  now  usually  called  the  Pool 
Jf  Bazekiah,  cannot  be  either  of  the  works  allusled  to 
febore.     If  an  ancient  construction,  it  is  probably  the 


join  in  the  wailings  at  the  funeral  (2  Chr  xxxii 
33). 

The  reign  of  Manasseh  (b.  c.  696)  must  have 
been  an  eventful  one  in  the  annals  of  Jerusalem 
though  only  meagre  indications  of  its  events  are  tc 
be  found  in  the  documents.  He  began  by  plunging 
into  all  the  idolatries  of  his  grandfather  —  restoring 
all  that  Hezekiah  had  destroyed,  and  desecrating 
the  Temple  and  the  city  with  even  more  offensive 
idolatries  than  those  of  Ahaz  (2  Chr.  xxxiii.  2-9; 
2  K.  xxi.  2-9).  In  this  career  of  wickedness  he 
was  stopped  by  an  invasion  of  tlie  Assyrian  army, 
by  whom  he  was  taken  prisoner  and  carried  to 
Babylon,  where  he  remained  for  some  time.  The 
rest  of  his  long  reign  was  occupied  in  attempting 
to  remedy  his  former  misdoings,  and  in  the  repair 
and  conservation  of  the  city  (Joseph.  Aid.  x.  3,  §  2). 
He  built  a  fresh  wall  to  the  citadel,  "  from  the  wesft". 
side  of  Gihon-in-the- valley  to  the  Fish  Gate,"  i.  e. 
apparently  along  the  east  side  of  the  central  valley, 
which  parts  the  upper  and  lower  cities  from  S.  to  N. 
He  also  continued  the  works  which  had  been  begun 
by  Jotham  at  Ophel,  and  raised  that  fortress  or 
structure  to  a  great  height.  On  his  death  he  was 
buried  in  a  private  tomb  in  the  garden  attached  to 
his  palace,  called  also  the  garden  of  Uzza  (2  K. 
xxi.  18;  2  Chr.  xxxiii.  20).  Here  also  was  interred 
his  son  Anion  after  his  violent  death,  following  an 
uneventful  l)ut  idolatrous  reign  of  two  years  (2  Chr. 
xxxiii.  21-25;  2  K.  xxi.  19-28). 

The  reign  of  Josiah  (n.  c.  639)  was  marked  by 
a  more  strenuous  zeal  for  Jehovah  than  even  that 
of  Hezekiah  had  been.  He  began  his  reign  at  eight 
years  of  age,  and  by  his  20th  year  (12th  of  his 
reign  —  2  Chr.  xxxiv.  3)  commenced  a  thorough 
removal  of  the  idolatrous  abuses  of  Manasseh  and 
Amon,  and  even  some  of  Ahaz,  which  must  have 
escaped  the  purgations  of  Hezekiah  c  (2  K.  xxiii. 
12).  As  on  former  occasions,  these  abominations 
were  broken  up  small  and  carried  down  to  the  bed 
of  the  Kidron  —  which  seems  to  have  served  almost 
the  purpose  of  a  common  sewer,  and  there  calcined 
and  dispersed.  The  cemetery,  which  still  paves  the 
sides  of  that  valley,  had  already  begun  to  exist,  and 
the  fragments  of  the  broken  altars  and  statues  were 
scattered  on  the  graves  that  they  might  be  effec- 
tually defiled,  and  thus  prevented  from  further  use. 
On  the  opposite  side  of  the  valley,  somewhere  on 
the  Mount  of  Olives,  were  the  erections  which 
Solomon  had  put  up  for  the  deities  of  his  foreign 
wives.  Not  one  of  these  was  spared ;  they  were  all 
annihilated,  and  dead  bones  scattered  over  the 
places  where  they  had  stood.  These  things  occu- 
pied six  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which,  in  the 
first  month  of  the  18th  year  of  his  reign  (2  Chr. 
XXXV.  1;  2  K.  xxiii.  23),  a  solemn  passover  waa 
held,  emphatically  recorded  to  have  been  the  greatest 
since  the  time  of  Samuel  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  18).  This 
seems  to  have  been  the  crowning  ceremony  of  the 


Almond  Pool  of  Josephus.  (For  the  reasons,  Bee  Wll 
liams,  Holy  City,  35-38,  488.) 

*  See  opposite  view  by  Kobinson,  Bibl.  Res.  i.  512  f. ; 
1852,  p.  243  f.  S.  W 

c  The  narrative  in  Kings  appears  to  place  the  de- 
struction of  the  images  after  the  king's  solemn  covenant 
■ji  the  Temple,  i.  e.  after  the  completion  of  the  repairs 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  the  dates  given  ia 
2  Chr.  xxxiv.  8,  xxxv.  1,  19,  which  fix  the  Paesovei 
to  the  14th  of  the  1st  month  of  his  18th  year,  too 
early  in  the  year  for  the  repair  which  war  iegwt  in 
the  same  year  to  have  preceded  It. 


1288  JERUSALEM 

ptinfication  of  the  Temple ;  and  it  was  at  once  fol- 
bwnd  by  a  thorough  renovation  of  the  fabric  (2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  8;  2  K.  xxii.  3).  The  cost  was  met  by 
offerings  collected  at  the  doors  (2  K.  xxii.  4),  and 
■Iso  throughout  the  country  (Joseph.  Ant.  x.  4,  §  1), 
uot  only  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  but  also  of 
Ephraim  and  the  other  northern  tribes  (2  Chr. 
xxxiv.  9).  It  was  during  these  repairs  that  the 
book  of  the  Law  was  found ;  and  shortly  after  all 
the  people  were  convened  to  Jerusalem  to  hear  it 
read,  and  to  renew  the  national  covenant  with  Je- 
hovah.« '  The  mention  of  Huldah  the  prophetess 
(2  Chr.  xxxiv.  22;  2  K.  xxii.  14)  introduces  us  to 
the  lower  city  under  the  name  of  "the  ]Mishneh" 

(n3lp^n,  A.  V.  "college,"  "school,"  or  "second 

part").''  The  name  also  survives  in  the  book  of 
Zephauiah,  a  prophet  of  this  reign  (i.  10),  who 
seems  to  recognize  "  the  Fish  Gate,"  and  "the  lower 
city,"  and  "  the  hills,"  as  the  three  main  divisions 
of  the  city. 

Josiah's  death  took  place  at  a  distance  from 
Jerusalem ;  but  he  was  brought  there  for  his  burial, 
and  was  placed  in  "  his  own  sepulchre  "  (2  K.  xxiii. 
30),  or  "  in  the  sepulchre  of  his  fathers  "  (2  Chr. 
XXXV.  24),  probably  that  already  tenanted  by  Alanas- 
seh  and  Amon.     (See  1  Esdr.  i.  31.) 

Josiah's  rash  opposition  to  Pharaoh-Necho  cost 
him  his  life,  his  son  his  throne,  and  Jerusalem 
much  suffering.  Before  Jehoahaz  (b.  c.  608)  had 
been  reigning  three  months,  the  Egyptian  king 
found  opportunity  to  send  to  Jerusalem,^  from 
Riblah  where  he  was  then  encamped,  a  force  suffi- 
cient to  depose  and  take  him  prisoner,  to  put  his 
brother  Eliakun  on  the  throne,  and  to  exact  a  heavy 
fine  from  the  city  and  country,  which  was  paid  in 
ndvance  by  the  new  king,  and  afterwards  extorted 
by  taxation  (2  K.  xxiii.  33,  35). 

The  fall  of  the  city  was  now  rapidly  approaching. 
Daring  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  —  such  was  the  new 
name  which  at  Necho's  order  Eliakim  had  assumed 
—  Jerusalem  was  visited  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  with 
the  Babylonian  army  lately  victorious  over  the 
Egyptians  at  Carchemish.  The  visit  was  possibly 
repeated  once,  or  even  twice.''  A  siege  there  must 
have  been ;  but  of  this  we  have  no  account.  We 
may  infer  how  severe  was  the  pressure  on  the  sur- 
rounding country,  from  the  fact  that  the  very 
Bedouins  were  driven  within  the  walls  by  "the 
fear  of  the  Chalda?ans  and  of  the  Syrians"  (Jer. 
XXXV.  11).  We  may  also  infer  that  the  Temple 
was  entered,  since  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  off  some 
of  the  vessels  therefrom  for  his  temple  at  Babylon 
(2  Chr.  xxxvi.  7),  and  that  Jehoiakim  was  treated 
with  great  indignity  {il/id.  6).  In  the  latter  part 
of  this  reign  we  discern  the  country  harassed  and 


JERUSALEM 

pillagGd  by  marauding  bands  firom  the  east  o((  Jot 
dan  (2  K.  xxiv.  2). 

Jehoiakim  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Jehoiachiii 
(b.  c.  597).     Hardly  had  his  short  reign  begun 
before  the  terrible  army  of   Babylon    reappeared 
before  the  city,  again  commanded  by  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (2  K.  xxiv.  10,  11).     Jehoiachin's  disposi- 
tion appears  to  have  made  him  shrink  from  inflict- 
ing on  the  city  the  horrors  of  a  long  siege  {B.  J. 
vi.  2,  §  1),  and  he  therefore  surrendered  in  the 
third  month  of  his  reign.     The  treasures  of  the 
palace  and  Temple  were  pillaged,  certain  golden 
articles  of  Solomon's  original  establishment ,  which 
had  escaped  the  plunder  and  desecrations  of  the 
previous  reigns,  were  cut  up  (2  K.  xxiv.  13),  and 
the  more  desirable  objects  out  of  the  Temple  car- 
ried off  (Jer.  xxvii.  19).    The  first  deportation  that 
we  hear  of  from  the  city  now  took  place.     The 
kmg,  his  wives,  and  the  queen  mother,  with  their 
eunuchs  and  whole  establishment,  the  princes,  7,000 
warriors,  and  1,000  artificers  —  in  all  10,000  souls, 
were  carried  off  to  Babylon   {ibid.  14-16).     The 
uncle  of  Jehoiachin  was  made  king  in  his  stead, 
by  the  name  of  Zedekiah,  under  a  solemn  oath 
("by  God")  of  allegiance  (2  Chr.  xxxvi.  13;  Ez. 
xvii.  13,  14,  18).     Had  he  been  content  to  remain 
quiet  under  the  rule  of  Babylon,  the  city  might 
have  stood  many  years  longer;   but  he  was  not. 
He  appears  to  have  been  tempted  with  the  chance 
of    relief    afforded  by  the  accession  of  Pharaoh 
Hophra,  and  to  have  applied  to  him   for  assist- 
ance  (Ez.  xvii.  15).     Upon  this  Nebuchadnezzar 
marched  m  f>erson  to  Jerusalem,  arriving  in  the 
ninth  year  of  Zedekiah,  on  the  10th  day  of  the 
10th   month  e  (b.  c.  588),  and  at  once  began  a 
regular  siege,  at  the  same  time  wasting  the  country 
far  and  near  (Jer.  xxxiv.  7 ).     The  siege  was  con- 
ducted by  erecting  forts  on  lofty  mounds  round  the 
city,  from  which,  on  the  usual  Assyrian  plan,/m.8- 
siles  were  discharged  into  the  town,  and  the  wails 
and  houses  in  them  battered  by  rams  (Jer.  xxxi. 
24,  xxxiii.  4,  lii.  4;  I2z.  xxi.  22;  Joseph.  Ant  x 
8,  §  1 ).    The  city  was  also  surrounded  with  troopt 
(Jer.  lii.  7).    The  siege  was  once  abandoned,  owing 
to  the  approach  of  the  Egyptian  army  (Jer.  xxxvii. 
5, 11 ),  and  during  the  interval  the  gates  of  the  city 
were  reopened  {ibid.  13).     But  the  relief  was  only 
temporary,  and,  in  the  11th  of  Zedekiah  (b.  c.  586), 
on  the  9th  day  of  the  4th  month  (Jer.  lii.  fi),  being 
just  a  year  and  a  half  from  the  first  investment, 
the  city  was  taken.     Nebuchadnezzar  had  in  the 
mean  time  retired  from  Jerusalem  to    Kihiah   to 
watch  the  more  important  siege  of  Tyre,  then  in 
the  last  year  of  its  progress.     The  besieged  seem 
to  have  suffered  severely  both  from  hunger  and  dis- 
ease (Jer.  xxxii.  24),  but  chiefly  from  the  former 


«  This  nirrative  has  some  interesting  corre«pon- 
dances  with  that  of  Joash's  coronation  (2  K.  xi.). 
Amongst  these  is  the  singular  expression,  the  king 
Itood  "  on  the  pillar."  In  the  present  case  Josephus 
understands  this  as  an  official  spot —  enl  tov  /S^futaros. 

b  See  Keil  on  2  K.  xxii.  14.  [In  regard  to  this  ren- 
dering of  the  A.  v.,  see  addition  to  College,  Amer. 
i!d.     H.] 

c  This  event  would  surely  be  more  emphatically 
related  in  the  Bible,  if  Jerusalem  were  the  Cadytis 
vhich  Necho  is  record'».d  by  Herodotus  to  have  de- 
ttroyed  after  the  battls  at  Megiddo.  The  Bible  records 
pass  over  in  total  silence,  or  notice  only  in  a  casual 
leay,  eventa  which  occurred  close  te  the  Israelite  ter- 
rttory,  when  those  events  do  not  affect  the  Israelites 
yaemaelTM  ;  instance  the  21>-years'  siege  of  Ashdod  by 


Psammetichus,  Necho's  predecessor ;  the  destructioii 
of  Gezer  by  a  former  Pharaoh  (1  K.  ix.  16),  etc.  Bnl 
when  events  do  affect  them,  they  are  mentioned  with 
more  or  less  detail.  The  question  of  Cadytis  is  dis- 
cussed by  Sir  G.  Wilkinson,  in  Rawlinson's  Herodotui^ 
ii.  246,  note  ;  also  by  Kenrick,  Anc.  Egypt,  ii.  406 

d  It  seems  impossible  to  reconcile  the  accounts  of 
this  period  in  Kings,  Chronicles,  and  Jeremiah,  with 
Josephus  and  the  other  sources.  For  one  view  sw 
Jehol'^kim.  For  an  opposite  one  see  Rawlinson'i 
Herodotus,  i.  609-514. 

e  According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  7,  §  4),  this  dat« 
was  the  commencement  of  the  final  portion  of  th« 
siege.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  recozdfl  ti 
support  this. 

/  For  the  sieges  see  Layard'a  Nineveh  Ii.  860,  «te 


JERUSALEM 

.1  K.  XXV  3;  Jer.  Hi.  6;  Lara.  v.  10).  But  they 
irould  perliaps  have  held  out  longer  had  not  a 
breach  in  the  wall  been  effected  on  the  day  named. 
It  was  at  midnight  (Joseph.).  Ihe  whole  city  was 
wrapt  in  the  pitchy  darkness  "  characteristic  of  an 
eaatem  town,  and  nothing  was  known  by  the  Jews 
of  what  had  happened  till  the  generals  of  the  army 
entered  the  Temple  (Joseph.)  and  took  their  seats 
in  the  middle  court ''  (Jer.  xxxix.  3 ;  Joseph.  A7it. 
X.  8,  §  2).  Then  the  alarm  was  given  to  Zedekiah, 
and,  collecting  his  remaining  warriors,  they  stole 
out  of  the  city  by  a  gate  at  the  south  side,  some- 
where near  the  present  Bub  el-Mmjharibeh,  crossed 
the  Kedron  above  the  royal  gardens,  and  made 
their  way  over  the  INIount  of  Olives  to  the  Jordan 
Valley.  At  break  of  day  information  of  the  flight 
was  brought  to  the  Chaldaeans  by  some  deserters. 
A  rapid  pursuit  was  made :  Zedekiah  was  overtaken 
near  Jericho,  his  people  were  dispersed,  and  he 
himself  captured  and  reserved  for  a  miserable  fate 
at  Riblah.  Meantime  the  WTetched  inhabitants 
Buffered  all  the  horrors  of  assault  and  sack:  the 
men  were  slaughtered,  old  and  young,  prince  and 
peasant;  the  women  violated  in  Mount  Zion  itself 
(Um.  ii.  4,  v.  11,  12). 

On  the  seventh  day  of  the  following  month  (2 
K.  XXV.  8),  Nebuzaradan,  the  commander  of  the 
king's  body-guard,  who  seems  to  have  been  charged 
with  Nebuchadnezzar's  instructions  as  to  what 
should  be  done  with  the  city,  arrived.  Two  days 
were  passed,  probably  in  collecting  the  captives 
and  booty;  and  on  the  tenth  (Jer.  lii.  12)  the 
Temple,  the  royal  palace,  and  all  the  more  inipor- 
fcant  buildings  of  the  city,  were  set  on  fire,  and  the 
walls  thrown  down  and  left  as  heaps  of  disordered 
rubbish  on  the  ground  (Neh.  iv.  2).  The  spoil  of 
the  city  consisted  apparently  of  little  more  than 
the  furniture  of  the  Temple.  A  few  small  vessels 
in  gold  c  and  silver,  and  some  other  things  in  brass 
were  carried  away  whole  —  the  former  under  the 
especial  eye  of  Nebuzaradan  himself  (2  K.  xxv.  15 ; 
comp.  Jer.  xxvii.  19).  But  the  larger  objects, 
Solomon's  huge  brazen  basin  or  sea  with  its  twelve 
bulls,  the  ten  bases,  the  two  magnificent  pillars, 
Jachin  and  Boaz,  too  heavy  and  too  cumbrous  for 
transport,  were  broken  up.  The  pillars  were  al- 
most the  only  parts  of  Solomon's  original  construc- 
tion which  had  not  been  mutilated  by  the  sacrile- 
gious hands  of  some  Baal-worshipping  monarch  or 
other,  and  there  is  quite  a  touch  of  pathos  in  the 
way  in  which  the  chronicler  lingers  over  his  recol- 
lections of  their  height,  their  size,  and  their  orna- 
ments—  capitals,  wreathen  work,  and  pomegran- 
ates, "  all  of  brass." 

The  previous  deportations,  and  the  sufferings 
endured  in  the  siege,  must  to  a  great  extent  have 
drained  the  place  of  its  able-bodied  people,  and 
thus  the  captives,  on  this  occasion,  were  but  few 
and  unimportant.  The  high-priest,  and  four  other 
officers   of  the  Temple,  the  commanders   of  the 


JERUSALEM 


1288 


3  The  moon  buing  but  nine  days  old,  there  can 
hare  been  little  or  no  moonlight  at  this  hour. 

b  This  was  the  regular  Assyrian  custom  at  the  con- 
elusion  of  a  siege  (Layard,  Nineveh,  ii.  375). 

c  Josephus  (x.  8,  §  5)  says  the  candlestick  and  the 
folden  table  of  shewbread  were  taken  nc  w ;  but  these 
rere  doubtless  carried  oflf  on  the  previous  occasion. 

d  Jeremiah  (lii.  25)  says  "  seven  " 

«  The  events  of  this  period  are  kept  in  memory  by 
be  Jews  of  the  present  day  Dy  various  commemorative 
tutfl,  which  were  instituted  immediately  after  the  oc- 
mmooes  themselves      These  are :    the  10th  Tebeth 


fighting  men,  five  ^  people  of  the  court,  the  nnuK 
tering  officer  of  the  army,  and  sixty  selected  piivatc 
persons,  were  reserved  to  be  submitted  to  the  king 
at  Riblah.  The  daughters  of  Zedekiah,  with  theit 
children  and  establislnnent  (Jer.  xU.  10,  16 ;  comp. 
Ant.  X.  9,  §  4),  and  Jeremiah  the  prophet  {ibid.  xl. 
5),  were  placed  by  Nebuzaradan  at  Mizpeh  undej 
the  charge  of  Gedaliah  ben-Ahikam,  who  had  been 
appointed  as  superintendent  of  the  few  poor  laboring 
people  left  to  carry  on  the  necessary  husbandry  and 
vine-dressing.  In  addition  to  these  were  some  small 
bodies  of  men  in  arms,  who  had  perhaps  escaped 
from  the  city  before  the  blockade,  or  in  the  intervril 
of  the  siege,  and  who  were  hovering  on  the  out- 
skirts of  the  country  watching  what  might  turn 
up  (Jer.  xl.  7,  8).  [Isumael,  6.]  The  remain- 
der of  the  population  —  numbering,  with  the  72 
above  named,  832  souls  (Jer.  lii.  29)— were  marched 
off  to  Babylon.  About  two  months  after  this, 
Gedaliah  was  murdered  by  Ishmael,  and  then  the 
few  people  of  consideration  left  with  Jeremiah 
went  into  Egypt.  Thus  the  land  was  practically 
deserted  of  all  but  the  very  poorest  class.  Eveu 
these  were  not  allowed  to  remain  in  quiet.  Five 
years  afterwards  —  the  23d  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
reign  —  the  insatiable  Nebuzaradan,  on  his  M'ay  to 
Egypt  (Joseph.  Ant.  x.  9,  §  7),  again  visited  the 
ruins,  and  swept  off  745  more  of  the  wretched 
peasants  (Jer.  lii.  30). 

Thus  Jerusalem  at  last  had  fallen,  and  the  Tem- 
ple, set  up  under  such  fair  auspices,  was  a  heap  of 
blackened  ruins.«  The  spot,  however,  was  none 
the  less  sacred  because  the  edifice  was  destroyed, 
and  it  was  still  the  resort  of  devotees,  sometimes 
from  great  distances,  who  brought  their  offerings 
—  in  strange  heathenish  guise  indeed,  but  still  with 
a  true  feeling  —  to  weep  and  wail  over  the  holy 
place  (Jer.  xli.  5).  It  was  still  the  centre  of  hope 
to  the  people  in  captivity,  and  the  time  soon  arrived 
for  their  return  to  it.  The  decree  of  Cyrus  author- 
izing the  rebuilding  of  the  "  house  of  Jehovah,  God 
of  Israel,  which  is  in  Jerusalem,"  was  issued  b.  c. 
536.  In  consequence  thereof  a  very  large  caravan 
of  Jews  aiTived  in  the  country.  The  expedition 
comprised  all  classes  —  the  royal  family,  priests, 
Invites,  inferior  ministers,  lay  people  belonging  to 
various  towns  and  families  —  and  numbered  42,300/ 
in  all.  They  were  well  provided  with  treasure  foi 
the  necessary  outlay ;  and  —  a  more  precious  bur- 
den still  —  they  bore  the  vessels  of  the  old  Temple 
which  had  b»een  preserved  at  Babylon,  and  were 
now  destined  again  to  find  a  home  at  Jerusalem 
(Ezr.  V.  14,  vi.  5). 

A  short  time  was  occupied  in  settling  in  their 
former  cities,  but  on  the  first  day  of  the  7th  month 
(Ezr.  iii.  6)  a  general  assembly  was  called  togetliei 
at  Jerusalem  in  "  the  open  place  of  the  first  gatt 
towards  the  east  "  (1  Esdr.  v.  47);  the  altar  was 
set  up,  and  the  daily  niorning-  and  evening  sacri- 


(Jan.  5),  the  day  of  the  invesncnt  of  the  city  by 
Nebuchadnezzar;  the  10th  Ab  (July  29),  destruction 
of  the  Temple  by  Nebuzaradan,  and  subsequently  by 
Titus  ;  the  3d  Tisri  (Sept.  19;,  murder  of  Gedaliah  ; 
9th  Tebeth,  whex  Ezekiel  and  the  other  captives  at 
Babylon  received  the  news  of  the  destruction  of  the 
Temple.  The  entrance  of  the  Chaldees  into  th« 
city  is  commemorated  on  the  17th  Tanimuz  (July  8), 
the  day  of  the  breach  of  the  Antonia  by  Titos.  Tha 
modem  dates  here  given  are  the  days  on  which  thf 
fasta  nre  kept  in  the  present  year,  1860. 
/  Josephus  says  42.462. 


1290  JERUSALEM 

lees  commenced. «  Other  festivals  were  re-insti- 
tuted, and  we  have  a  record  of  the  celebration  of 
ftt  least  one  anniversary  of  the  day  of  the  first 
assembly  at  Jerusalem  (Neh.  viii.  1,  &c.).  Ar- 
rangements were  made  for  stone  and  timber  for  the 
fabric,  and  in  the  2d  year  after  their  return  (b.  c. 
534),  on  the  1st  day  of  the  2d  month  (1  Esdr.  v. 
57),  the  foundation  of  the  Temple  was  laid  amidst 
the  songs  and  music  of  the  priests  and  Levites 
(according  to  the  old  rites  of  David),  the  tears  of 
the  old  men  and  the  shouts  of  the  3'oung.  But 
the  work  was  destined  to  suffer  material  interrup- 
tions. The  chiefs  of  the  people  by  whom  Samaria 
had  been  colonized,  finding  that  the  Jews  refused 
their  offers  of  assistance  (Kzr.  iv.  2),  annoyed  and 
hindered  them  in  every  possible  way;  and  by  this 
and  some  natural  drawbacks  —  such  as  violent 
storms  of  wind  by  which  some  of  the  work  had 
been  blown  down  (Hag.  i.  9),  drought,  and  conse- 
quent failure  of  crops,  and  mortaUty  amongst  both 
animals  and  men  —  the  work  was  protracted 
through  the  rest  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  and  that 
of  Ahasuerus,  till  the  accession  of  Artaxerxes  (Da- 
rius I.)  to  the  throne  of  Persia  (n.  c.  522).  The 
Samaritans  then  sent  to  the  court  at  Babylon  a 
formal  memorial  (a  measure  already  tried  without 
success  in  the  preceding  reign ),  representing  that 
the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  restoration  of  the 
city  would  be  its  revolt  from  the  empire.  This 
produced  its  effect,  and  the  building  entirely  ceased 
for  a  time.  In  the  mean  time  houses  of  some  pre- 
tension began  to  spring  up  —  "  ceiled  houses  " 
(Hag.  i.  4), — and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  builders 
of  the  Temple  cooled  {ibid.  9).  But  after  two 
years  the  delay  became  intolerable  to  the  leaders, 
and  the  work  was  recommenced  at  all  hazards, 
amidst  the  encouragements  and  rebukes  of  the  two 
prophets,  Zechariali  and  Haggai,  on  the  24th  day 
of  the  6th  month  of  Darius'  2d  year.  Another 
attempt  at  interruption  was  made  by  the  Persian 
governor  of  the  district  west  of  the  Euphrates '' 
^Ezr.  V.  3),  but  the  result  was  only  a  c/infirmation 
by  Darius  of  the  privileges  granted  by  his  prede- 
cessor (vi.  6-13),  and  an  order  to  render  all  possi- 
ble assistance.  The  work  now  went  on  apace,  and 
the  Temple  was  finished  and  dedicated  <^  in  the  6th 
jear  of  Darius  (n.  c.  516),  on  the  3d  (or  23d,  1 
Esdr.  vii.  5)  of  Adar  —  the  last  month,  and  on  the 
14th  day  of  the  new  year  the  first  Passover  was 
celebrated.  The  new  Temple  was  60  cubits  less  in 
altitude  than  that  of  Solomon  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  11, 
§  1);  but  its  dimensions  and  form  —  of  which 
there  are  only  scanty  notices  —  will  be  best  con- 
sidered elsewhere.  [ Tkjiple.]  All  this  time  the 
walls  of  the  city  remained  as  the  Assyrians  had  left 
them  (Neh.  ii.  12,  &c.).  A  period  of  58  years  now 
passed  of  which  no  accounts  are  presen'ed  to  us ; 
but  at  tho  end  of  that  time,  in  the  year  457,  Ezra 
anived  from  Babylon  with  a  caravan  of  Priests, 
Levites,  Nethmims,  and  lay  people,  among  the  lat- 
ter 3ome  members  of  the  royal  family,  in  all  1,777 


a  The  feast  of  Tabernacles  is  also  said  to  have  been 
-^lebrated  at  this  time  (iii.  4  ;  Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  4,  § 

;  but  this  is  in  direct  opposition  to  Neh.  viii.  17, 
"^hich  states  that  it  was  first  celebrated  when  Ezra 
was  present  (comp.  13),  whicli  he  was  not  on  the  for- 
aer  occasion. 

b  mrT3  "12^  =  beyond  the  river,  but  by  our 
iranalators  rendered  "on  this  side,"  as  if  speaking 
h>m  Jerusalem,     (See  Ewald,  iv.  110,  nou.) 


JERUSALEM 

persons  (Ezr.  vii.,  viii.),  and  with  valuable  offering 
from  the  Persian  king  and  his  court,  as  well  u 
from  the  Jews  who  still  remained  in  Babylonia 
{ibid.  vii.  14,  viii.  25).  He  left  Babylon  on  the 
1st  day  of  the  year  and  reached  Jerusalem  on  the 
1st  of  the  5th  month  (Ezr.  vii.  9,  viii.  32). 

Ezra  at  once  set  himself  to  correct  some  irr^ru- 
larities  into  which  the  community  had  fallen.  Th* 
chief  of  them  was  the  jractice  of  marrying  the 
native  women  of  the  old  Canaanite  nations.  The 
people  were  assembled  at  three  days'  notice,  and 
harangued  by  Ezra  —  so  urgent  was  the  case  —  in 
the  midst  of  a  pouring  rain,  and  in  very  cold 
weather,  in  the  open  space  in  front  of  the  main 
entrance  to  the  Temple  (l^r.  x.  9;  1  Esdr.  ix.  G). 
His  exhortations  were  at  once  acceded  to,  a  form 
of  trespass-offering  Mas  arranged,  and  no  less  than 
17  priests,  30  Levites,  and  86  laymen,  renounced 
their  foreign  wives,  and  gave  up  an  intercourse 
which  had  been  to  their  fathers  the  cause  and  the 
accompaniment  of  almost  all  their  misfortunes 
The  matter  took  three  months  to  carry  out,  and 
was  completed  on  the  1st  day  of  the  new  year :  but 
the  practice  M'as  not  wholly  eradicated  (Neh.  xiii. 
23),  though  it  never  was  pursued  as  before  the 
Captivity. 

We  now  pass  another  period  of  eleven  years  until 
the  arrival  of  Nehemiah,  about  n.  c.  445.  He  had 
been  moved  to  come  to  Jerusalem  by  the  accounts 
given  him  of  the  wretchedness  of  the  community, 
and  of  the  state  of  ruin  in  which  the  walls  of  the 
city  continued  (Neh.  i.  3).  An-ived  there  he  kept 
his  intentions  quiet  for  three  days,  but  on  the  night 
of  the  third  he  went  out  by  himself,  and,  as  far  as 
the  ruins  would  allow,  made  the  circuit  of  the  place 
(ii.  11-16).  On  the  following  day  he  collected  the 
chief  people,  and  proposed  the  immediate  rebuilding 
of  the  walls.  One  spirit  seized  them.  Priests 
rulers,  Levites,  private  persons,  citizens  of  distant 
towns,''  as  well  as  those  dwelling  on  the  spot,  all 
put  their  hand  vigorously  to  the  work.  And  not- 
withstanding the  taunts  and  threats  of  Sanballat, 
the  ruler  of  the  Saniaritans,  and  Tobiah  the  Am- 
monite, in  consequence  of  which  one  half  of  the 
people  had  to  remain  armed  while  the  other  half 
built,  the  work  was  completed  in  52  days,  on  the 
25th  of  Elul.  The  wall  thus  rebuilt  was  that  of 
the  city  of  Jerusalem  as  well  as  the  city  of  David 
or  Zion,  as  will  he  shown  in  the  next  section,  where 
the  account  of  the  rebuilding  is  examined  in  detail 
(Section  III.  p.  1322).  At  this  time  the  city  must 
have  presented  a  forlorn  appearance ;  t  ut  few  houses 
were  built,  and  large  spaces  remained  unoccupied, 
or  occupied  but  with  the  ruins  of  the  AssjTian  de- 
stnictions  (Neh.  vii.  4).  In  this  respect  it  was  not 
unUke  much  of  the  modem  city.  The  solemn  dedi- 
cation of  the  wall,  recorded  in  Neh.  xii.  27-43, 
probably  took  place  at  a  later  period,  when  ihe 
works  had  been  completely  finished. 

Whether  Ezra  was  here  at  this  time  is  unccr- 


c  Psalm  XXX.  by  its  title  purports  to  hare  been  used 
on  this  occasion  (Ewald,  Dichter,  i.  210,  223).  Ewald 
also  suggests  that  Ps.  Ixviii.  was  finally  used  for  this 
festival  {Gesch.  iv.  1L7,  note). 

d  Among  these  we  find  Jericho  and  the  Jordan  Val- 
ley (A.  V.  "plain"),  Beth-zur,  near  Ilebron,  Oibeon, 
Beth-horon,  perhaps  Samaria,  and  the  other  sMe  o* 
Jordan  (see  iv.  12,  referring  to  those  who  lired  men 
Sanballat  and  Tobiah). 


JERUSALEM 

thfji  •  [Ezra,  i.  8C3  b.]  But  we  meet  him  during 
the  government  of  Nehemiah,  especially  on  one  in- 
tweating  occasion  —  the  anni\ersary,  it  would  ap- 
pear, of  the  first  return  of  Zerubbabel's  caravan  — 
on  the  1st  of  the  7th  month  (Neh.  viii.  1).  lie 
there  appeal's  as  the  venerable  and  venerated  in- 
structor of  the  people  in  the  forgotten  law  of  Moses, 
amongst  other  reforms  reinstituting  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  which  we  incidentally  learn  had  not 
been  celebrated  since  the  time  that  the  IsraeUtes 
originally  entered  on  the  land  (viii.  17). 

Nehemiah  remained  in  the  city  for  twelve  years 
(t.  14,  xiii.  G),  during  which  time  he  held  the  office 
and  maintained  the  state  of  governor  of  the  province 
(v.  14)  from  his  own  private  resources  (v.  15).  lie 
was  indeffvtigable  in  his  regulation  and  maintenance 
of  the  order  and  dignity  both  of  the  city  (vii.  3,  xi. 
1,  xiii.  15,  &c.)  and  temple  (x.  32,  39,  xii.  44); 
abolished  the  excessive  rates  of  usury  by  which  the 
richer  citizens  had  grievously  oppressed  the  poor 
(v.  6-12);  kept  up  the  genaalogical  registers,  at 
once  so  characteristic  of,  and  important  to,  the 
Jewish  nation  (vii.  5,  xi.,  xii.);  and  in  various 
other  ways  showed  himself  an  able  and  active  gov- 
ernor, and  possessing  a  complete  ascendency  over 
his  fellow-citizens.  At  the  end  of  this  time  he 
returned  to  Babylon ;  but  it  does  not  appear  that 
his  absence  was  more  than  a  short  one,''  and  he  was 
soon  again  at  his  post,  as  vigilant  and  energetic  as 
ever  (xiii.  7).    Of  his  death  we  have  no  record. 

The  foreign  tendencies  of  the  high-priest  Eliashib 
and  his  family  had  already  given  Nehemiah  some 
concern  (xiii.  4,  28),  and  when  the  checks  exercised 
by  his  vigilance  and  good  sense  were  removed,  they 
quickly  led  to  serious  disorders,  unfortunately  the 
only  occurrences  which  have  come  down  to  us  during 
the  next  epoch.  Eliashib's  son  Joiada,  who  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  high-priesthood  (apparently  a 
few  years  before  ttie  death  of  Nehemiah),  had  two 
Bons,  the  one  Jonathan  (Neh.  xii.  11)  or  Johanan 
(Neh.  xii.  22;  Joseph.  yin<.  xi.  7,  §  1),  the  other 
Joshua  (Joseph,  ibid.).  Joshua  had  made  interest 
with  the  general  of  the  Persian  army  that  he  should 
displace  his  brother  in  the  priesthood :  the  two  quar- 
relled, and  Joshua  was  killed  by  Johanan  in  the 
Temple  (b.  c.  cir.  366):  a  horrible  occurrence,  and 
even  aggravated  by  its  consequences ;  for  the  Per- 
Bian  general  made  it  the  excuse  not  only  to  pollute 
the  sanctuary  (j/a6s)  by  entering  it,  on  the  groimd 
that  he  was  certainly  less  unclean  than  the  body 
of  the  murdered  man  —  but  also  to  extort  a  tribute 
of  50  darics  on  every  lamb  offered  in  the  daily  sacri- 
fice for  the  next  seven  years  (Joseph.  Ant.  ibid.). 

Johanan  in  his  turn  had  two  sons,  Jaddua  (Neh. 
xii.  11,  22)  and  Manasseh  (Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  7,  §  2). 
I^Ianasseh  married  the  daughter  of  Sanballat  the 
Horonite,*'  and  eventually  became  the  first  priest 
of  the  Samaritan  temple  on  Gerizim  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xi.  8,  §§  2,  4).     But  at  first  he  seems  to  have  been 


«  The  name  occurs  among  those  who  assisted  in  the 
ledication  of  the  wall  (xii.  83) ;  but  so  as  to  make  us 
believe  that  it  was  some  iaferior  perse  n  of  the  same 
aame. 

b  Prideaux  says  five  years  ;  but  his  reasons  are  not 
fitisfactory,  and  would  apply  to  ten  as  well  as  to  five. 

c  According  to  Neh.  xiii.  28,  the  man  who  married 
Sanballat's  daughter  was  "  son  of  Joiada ;  "  but  this 
la  in  direct  coatradiction  to  the  circumstantial  state- 
ments of  Josephus,  followed  in  the  text ;  and  the  word 
'  son  ■"'  is  often  used  in  Ilebvew  for  "  jfrandson,"  or 
^Ten  »  more   remote  descendant    (see,  e.  g.  Carmi, 

891). 


JERUSALEM  1291 

associated  in  the  priesthood  of  Jerusalem  v.'ith  hit 
brotlier  (Joseph,  fifrexfiv  rris  apxtepcaavirrfs),  and 
have  reUnquished  it  only  on  being  forced  to  do  8*. 
on  account  of  his  connection  with  Sanballat.  Thi 
foreign  marriages  against  which  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah had  acted  so  energetically  had  again  become 
common  among  both  the  priests  and  laymen.  A 
movement  was  made  by  a  reforming  party  against 
the  practice ;  but  either  it  had  obtained  a  firmer 
hold  than  before,  or  there  was  nothing  to  replace 
the  personal  influence  of  Nehemiah,  for  the  move- 
ment only  resulted  in  a  large  number  going  ever 
with  Manasseh  to  the  Samaritans  (Joseph.  Ant.  xi. 
8,  §§  2,  4).  During  the  high-priesthood  of  Jaddua 
occurred  the  famous  visit  of  Alexander  the  Great 
to  Jerusalem.  Alexander  had  invaded  the  north 
of  Syria,  beaten  Darius's  army  at  the  Granicua,  and 
again  at  Issus,  and  then,  having  besieged  T}Te, 
sent  a  letter  to  Jaddua  inviting  his  allegiance,  and 
desiring  assLstance  in  men  and  provisions.  The 
answer  of  the  high-priest  was,  that  to  Darius  his 
allegiance  had  been  given,  and  that  to  Darius  he 
should  remain  faithful  while  he  lived.  Tyre  waa 
taken  in  July  b.  c.  331  (Kenrick's  Phoenicict,  431), 
and  then  the  JNIacedonians  moved  along  the  flat 
strip  of  the  coast  of  Palestine  to  Gaza,  which  in 
its  turn  was  taken  in  October.  The  road  to  Egypt 
being  thus  secured,  Alexander  had  leisure  to  visit 
Jerusalem,  and  deal  in  person  with  the  people  who 
had  ventured  to  oppose  him.  This  he  did  appar- 
ently by  the  same  route  which  Isaiah  (x.  28-32) 
describes  Sennacherib  as  taking.  The  "  Sapha  " 
at  which  he  was  met  by  the  high-priest  nmst  be 
Mizpeh  —  Scopus  —  the  high  ridge  to  the  north 
of  the  city,  the  Nob  of  Isaiah,  which  is  crossed  by 
the  northern  road,  and  from  which  the  first  view  — 
and  that  a  full  one  —  of  the  city  and  Temple  is 
procured.  The  result  to  the  Jews  of  the  visit  was 
an  exemption  from  tribute  in  the  Sabbatical  year : 
a  privilege  which  they  retained  for  long.'' 

We  hear  nothing  more  of  Jerusalem  until  it  waa 
taken  by  Ptolemy  Soter,  about  b.  c.  320,  during 
his  incursion  into  Syria.  The  account  given  by 
Josephus  (Ant.  xii.  1 ;  Ajnon,  i.  §  22),  partly  from 
Agath  arch  ides,  and  partly  from  some  other  source, 
is  extremely  meagre,  nor  is  it  quite  consistent  with 
itself.  But  we  can  discern  one  point  to  which  more 
tlian  one  parallel  is  found  in  the  later  history  — 
that  the  city  fell  into  the  hands  of  Ptolemy  because 
the  Jews  would  not  fight  on  the  Sabbath.  Great 
hardships  seem  to  have  been  experienced  by  the 
Jews  after  this  conquest,  and  a  large  number  wero 
transported  to  Egypt  and  to  Northern  Africa. 

A  stormy  period  succeeded  —  that  of  the  stniggles 
between  Antigonus  and  Ptolemy  for  the  possession 
of  Syria,  which  lasted  until  the  defeat  of  the  former 
at  Ipsus  (b.  c.  301),  after  which  the  country  carr.e 
into  the  possession  of  I'tolemy.  The  contention 
however  was  confined  to  the  maritime  region  of 


('  The  details  of  this  story,  and  the  arguments  for 
and  against  its  authenticity,  are  given  under  Aj.ex- 
ANDER  (i.  60) ;  see  also  IIigh-Priest  (ii.  1072).  It  should 
be  observed  that  the  part  of  the  Temple  which  Alex- 
ander entered,  and  where  he  sacrificed  to  God,  was  not 
the  vaos,  into  which  Bagoas  had  forced  himself  aftei 
rue  murder  of  Joshua,  but  the  lepov  —  the  court  only 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  8,  §  5).  The  Jewish  tradition  is  that 
he  was  induced  to  put  ofiF  his  shoes  before  treading  th€ 
sacred  ground  of  the  court,  by  being  told  that  th«y 
would  slip  on  the  polished  marble  {Meg.  Tcuxnitk^  it 
JReland,  Antiq.  i.  8.  .5) 


1292 


JERUSALEM 


Palettine,''  and  Jerusalem  appears  to  have  escaped. 
Scanty  as  is  the  informalion  we  possess  concerning 
the  city,  it  yet  indicates  a  state  of  prosperity ;  the 
only  outward  mark  of  dependence  being  an  annual 
tax  of  twenty  talents  of  silver  payable  by  the  high- 
priests.  Simon  the  Just,  who  followed  his  father 
Onias  in  the  high-priesthood  (cir.  u.  c.  300),  is  one 
(rf  the  favorite  heroes  of  the  Jews.  Under  his  care 
the  sanctuary  {ua6s)  was  repaired,  and  some  foun- 
dations of  great  depth  added  round  the  Temple, 
possibly  to  gain  a  larger  surface  on  the  top  of  the 
hill  (Ecclus.  1. 1,  2).  The  large  cistern  or  "  sea  "  of 
the  principal  court  of  the  Temple,  which  hitherto 
would  seem  to  have  been  but  temporarily  or  roughly 
constructed,  was  sheathed  in  brass*  {ibid.  3);  the 
walls  of  the  city  were  more  strongly  fortified  to 
guard  against  such  attacks  as  those  of  I'tolemy 
{ib.  4);  and  the  Temple  service  was  maintained 
with  great  pomp  and  ceremonial  {ib.  11-21).  His 
death  was  marked  by  evil  omens  of  various  kinds 
presaging  disasters ''  (Otho,  Lex.  Rab.  "  Messias  "). 
Simon's  brother  Eleazar  succeeded  him  as  high- 
priest  (b.  c.  291),  and  Antigonus  of  Socho  as 
president  of  the  Sanhedrim  ^  (I'rideaux).  The  dis- 
asters presaged  did  not  immediately  arrive,  at  least 
in  the  grosser  forms  anticipated.  The  intercourse 
with  Greeks  was  fast  eradicating  the  national  char- 
acter, but  it  was  at  any  rate  a  peaceful  intercourse 
during  the  reigns  of  the  Ptolemies  who  succeeded 
Soter,  namely,  Philadelphus  (b.  o.  285),  and  Euer- 
getes  (b.  c.  247).  It  was  Philadelphus,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  story  preserved  by  Josephus,  had  the 
translation  of  the  Septuagint «  made,  in  connection 
with  which  he  sent  Aristeas  to  Jerusalem  during 
the  priesthood  of  Eleazar.  He  also  bestowed  on 
the  Temple  very  rich  gifts,  consisting  of  a  table  for 
the  shewbread,  of  wonderful  workmanship,  basins, 
bowls,  phials,  etc.,  and  other  articles  both  for  the 
private  and  public  use  of  the  priests  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xii.  2,  §  5  —  10, 15).  A  description  of  Jerusalem  at 
this  period  under  the  name  of  Aristeas  still  sur- 
fives,/ which  supplies  a  lively  picture  of  both  Tem- 
ple and  city.  The  Temple  was  "  enclosed  with 
three  walls  70  cubits  high,  and  of  proportionate 
thickness.  .  .  .  The  spacious  courts  were  paved 
with  marble,  and  beneath  them  lay  immense  reser- 
voirs of  water,  which  by  mechanical  contrivance 
was  made  to  rush  forth,  and  thus  wash  away  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifices."  The  city  occupied  the 
Bimimit  and  the  eastern  slopes  of  the  opposite  hill 
—  the  modern  Zion.  The  main  streets  appear  to 
have  run  north  and  south ;  some  "  along  the  brow 
.  .  others  lower  down  but  parallel,  following  the 
course  of  the  valley,  with  cross  streets  connecting 
them."  They  were  "  furnished  with  raised  pave- 
ments," either  due  to  the  slope  of  the  ground,  or 


JERUSALEM 

possibly  adopted  for  the  reason  given  by  Ajuteia 
namely,  to  enable  the  passengers  to  avoid  contact 
with  persons  or  things  ceremonially  unclean.  Th« 
bazaars  were  then,  as  now,  a  prominent  feature  of 
the  city.  There  were  to  be  found  gold,  precious 
stones,  and  spices  brought  by  caravans  from  the 
East,  and  other  articles  imported  from  the  AVest 
by  way  of  Joppa,  Gaza,  and  Ptolemais,  which  sen-ed 
as  its  commodious  harbor.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  among  these  Phoenician  importations  from  the 
West  may  have  figured  the  dyes  and  the  tin  of  the 
remote  Britain. 

Eleazar  was  succeeded  (cir.  b.  c.  276)  by  hia 
uncle  Manasseh,  brother  to  Onias  I. ;  and  he  again 
(cir.  250)  by  Onias  II.  Onias  was  a  son  of  tho 
great  Simon  the  Just;  but  he  inherited  none  of 
his  father's  virtues,  and  his  ill-timed  avarice  at 
length  endangered  the  prosperity  of  Jenisalem. 
Kor,  the  payment  of  the  annual  tax  to  the  court  of 
Egypt  having  been  for  several  years  evaded,  Ptol- 
emy Euergetes,  about  226,  sent  a  commissioner  to 
Jerusalem  to  enforce  the  arrears  (Joseph.  Ant.  xii. 
4,  §  1;  Prideaux).  Onias,  now  in  his  second 
childhood  {Ant.  xii.  4,  §  3),  was  easily  prevailed  on 
by  his  nephew  Joseph  to  allow  him  to  return  with 
the  commissioner  to  Alexandria,  to  endeavor  to 
arrange  the  matter  with  the  king.  Joseph,  a  man, 
evidently,  of  great  ability,!/  not  only  procured  the 
remission  of  the  tax  in  question,*  but  also  per- 
suaded Ptolemy  to  grant  him  the  lucrative  priv- 
ilege of  farming  the  whole  revenue  of  Judaea,  Sa- 
maria, Ccfile-Syria,  and  Phoenicia  —  a  privilege 
which  he  retained  till  the  province  was  taken  from 
the  Ptolemies  by  Antiochus  the  Great.  Hitherto 
the  family  of  the  high-priest  had  been  the  most 
powerful  in  the  country;  but  Joseph  had  now 
founded  one  able  to  compete  with  it,  and  the  con- 
tention and  rivalry  between  the  two  —  manifesting 
itself  at  one  time  in  enormous  bribes  to  the  court, 
at  another  in  fierce  quarrels  at  home  —  at  last  led 
to  the  interference  of  the  chief  power  with  the 
affairs  of  a  city,  which,  if  wisely  and  quietly  gov- 
erned, might  never  have  been  molested. 

Onias  II.  died  about  217,  and  was  succeeded  by 
Simon  II.  In  221  Ptolemy  Philopator  had  suc- 
ceeded Euergetes  on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  He  had 
only  been  king  three  years  when  Antiochus  the 
Great  attempted  to  take  Syria  from  him.  Anti- 
ochus partly  succeeded,  but  in  a  battle  at  Raphia, 
south  of  Gaza,  fought  in  the  year  217  (the  same 
as  that  of  Hannibal  at  ThrasjTnene),  he  was  com- 
pletely routed  and  forced  to  fly  to  Antioch.  Ptol- 
emy shortly  after  visited  Jerusalem.  He  offered 
sacrifice  in  the  court  of  the  Temple,  and  would 
have  entered  the  sanctuary,  had  he  not  been  pre- 


a  Diod  Sic.  xix. ;  Hecatseus  in  .Joseph.  Apion.  i.  22. 

b  So  the  A.  V.,  apparently  following  a  different  text 
.Xroin  either  LXX.  or  Vulgate,  which  state  that  the 
reservoir  was  made  smaller.  But  the  passage  is  prob- 
ably OCT  rapt. 

c  One  of  the  chief  of  these  was  that  the  scapegoat 
waE  not,  as  formerly,  dashed  in  pieces  by  his  fall  from 
the  rock,  i>ut  got  off  alive  Into  the  desert,  where  he 
tea*  eaten  by  the  Saracens. 

"^  Simon  the  Just  was  the  last  of  the  illustrious 
nen  who  formed  "  the  Great  Synagogue."  Antigonus 
WOB  the  first  of  the  Tanalm,  or  expounders  of  the 
irritten  law,  whose  dicta  are  embodied  in  the  Mishna. 
Crom  Sadoc,  one  of  Antigonus's  scholars,  is  said  to 
b*Te  sprung  tho  sect  of  the  Sadducees  (Prideaux,  ii. 

•  Bwald,  Gesch.  iv.  313).  It  is  remarkable  that  Antig- 


onus is   the  first  Jew  we  meet  with  bearing  a  Greek 
name. 

e  The  legend  of  the  translation  by  72  interpreter* 
is  no  longer  believed  ;  but  it  probably  rests  on  8oni«_ 
foundation  of  feet.  The  sculpture  of  the  table  and 
bowls  (hlies  and  vines,  without  any  figures)  seems  to 
have  been  founded  on  the  descriptions  in  the  Lavr.  In 
5  Mace.  ii.  14,  &c.,  it  is  said  to  have  had  also  a  map 
of  Egypt  upon  it. 

./  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to  Ilavercamp'i 
Josephus,  and  in  Gallandii  Bibl.  Vet.  Patr.  ii.  805.  Aa 
extract  is  given  in  article  "Jerusalem"  {Diet,  of 
Geogr.  ii.  25,  26). 

g  The  story  of  the  stratagem  by  which  he  nuM» 
his  fortune  is  told  in  Prideaux  (anno  226),  and  in  Mif 
man's  Hist,  of  the  Jews  (ii.  84). 

^   ft  t  least  we  hear  nothing  of  it  aftvrwrrdl- 


JERUSALEM 

mted  by  the  firmness  of  the  high-priest  Simon, 
Kod  also  liy  a  supematunil  terror  which  struck  him 
ud  stretched  him  paralyzed  on  tr.e  pavement  of 
the  c«iurt  (3  IMacc.  ii.  22).a  This  repulse  Ptolemy 
nevei  forgave,  and  the  Jews  of  Alexandria  suffered 
severely  in  consequence. 

Lilce  the  rest  of  I'alestine,  Jerusalem  now  be- 
came alternately  a  prey  to  each  of  the  contending 
parties  (Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  a,  §  3).  In  203  it  was 
taken  by  Antiochus.  In  199  it  was  retaken  by 
Scopas  the  Alexandrian  general,  who  left  a  garrison 
in  tlie  citadel.  In  the  ibllowing  year  Antiochus 
again  beat  the  Egyptians,  and  then  the  Jews,  who 
had  suffered  moHt  from  the  latter,  gladly  opened 
their  gates  to  his  army,  and  assisted  them  in 
I  educing  the  Egyptian  garrison.  This  service 
Antiochus  requited  by  large  presents  of  money  and 
articles  for  sacrifice,  by  an  order  to  Ptolemy  to 
furnish  cedar  and  other  materials  for  cloisters  and 
other  additions  to  the  Temple,  and  by  material  re- 
lief from  taxation.  He  also  published  a  decree 
iflBrming  the  sacredness  of  the  Temple  from  the 
intrusion  of  strangers,  and  forbidding  any  infrac- 
tions of  the  Jewish  law  (Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  3,  §§  3, 

Simon  was  followed  in  195  by  Onias  III.  In 
187  Antiochus  the  Great  died,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  son  Seleucus  Soter  (Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  4,  § 
10).  Jerusalem  was-  now  in  much  apparent  pros- 
perity. Onias  was  greatly  respected,  and  governed 
with  a  firm  hand ;  and  the  decree  of  the  late  khig 
was  so  far  observed,  that  the  whole  expenditure  of 
the  sacrifices  was  borne  by  Seleucus  (2  Mace.  iii. 
1-3).  But  the  city  soon  began  to  be  much  dis- 
turbed by  the  disputes  between  II}Tcanus,  the  ille- 
gitimate son  of  Joseph  the  collector,  and  his  elder 
and  legitimate  brothers,  on  the  subject  of  the  divi- 
sion of  the  property  left  by  their  father.  The  high- 
priest,  Onias,  after  some  hesitation,  seems  to  have 
taken  the  part  of  Ilyrcanus,  whose  wealth  —  after 
the  suicide  of  Ilyrcanus  (about  u.  c.  180)  —  he  se- 
cured in  the  treasury  of  the  Temple.  The  office  of 
governor  {irpo<rToiTr]s)  of  the  Temple  was  now  held 
by  one  Simon,  who  is  supposed  to  have  been  one  of 
the  legitimate  brothers  of  ilyrcanus.  By  this  man 
Seleucus  was  induced  to  send  Heliodorus  to  Jeru- 
salem to  get  possession  of  the  treasure  of  Ilyi-canus. 
How  the  attempt  failed,  and  the  money  was  for  the 
time  preserved  from  pillage,  may  be  seen  in  2  Mace. 
iii.  2-4-30,  and  in  the  well-known  picture  of  Kaf- 
feelle  Sanzio. 

In  175  Seleucus  Soter  died,  and  the  kingdom  of 
Syria  came  to  his  brother,  the  infamous  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  His  first  act  towards  Jerusalem  was 
to  sell  the  oflfice  of  high-priest  —  still  filled  by  the 
good  Onias  III.  —  to  Onias's  brother  Joshua  (2 
Mace.  iv.  7 ;  Ant.  xii.  5,  §  1 ).  Greek  manners  had 
iiade  many  a  step  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  new  high- 
priest  was  not  likely  to  discourage  their  further 
progress.  His  first  act  was  to  Grecize  his  own 
name,  and  to  become  "  Jason ; "  his  next  to  set  up 
a  gymnasium  —  that  is  a  place  where  the  young 
men  of  the  town  were  trained  naked  —  to  intro- 
duce the  Greek  dress,  Greek  sports,  and  Greek 
*pi)ellations.     Now  (1  Mace.  i.  13,  &c. ;  2  Mace. 


JERUSALEM 


129» 


iv.  9,  12)  for  the  first  time  we  hear  cf  an  attonpt 
to  efface  the  distinguishing  mark  of  a  Jew  —  i^aia 
to  "  become  uncircumcised."  The  priests  quicklj 
followed  the  example  of  their  chief  (2  Mace.  iv.  14) 
and  the  Temple  service  was  neglected.  A  specia 
deputation  of  the  youth  of  Jerusalem  —  "  Anti- 
ochians  "  they  were  now  called  —  was  sent  with  of- 
ferings from  the  Temple  of  Jehovah  to  the  lestiva) 
of  Hercules  at  Tyre.  In  172  Jerusalem  was  visited 
by  Antiochus.  lie  entered  the  city  at  night  by 
torch-Ught  and  amid  the  acclamations  of  .lason 
and  his  part;y,  and  after  a  short  stay  returned  ^  (2 
31acc.  iv.  22).  And  now  the  treachery  of  Jiison 
was  to  be  requited  to  him.  His  brother  Onias, 
who  had  assumed  the  Greek  name  of  Menelaus,  in 
his  turn  bought  the  high -priesthood  from  Anti- 
ochus, and  drove  Jason  out  to  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan  (2  IMacc.  iv.  20).  To  pay  the  price  of 
the  office,  IMenelaus  had  laid  hands  on  the  conse- 
crated plate  of  the  Temple.  This  became  known, 
and  a  riot  was  the  consequence  (2  Mace.  iv.  32, 
39,  40). 

During  the  absence  of  Antiochus  in  Eg^'pt, 
Jason  suddenly  appeared  before  Jerusalem  with 
a  thousand  men,  and  whether  by  the  fury  of  his 
attack,  or  frum  his  having  friends  in  the  city,  he 
entered  the  walls,  drove  Menelaus  into  the  citadel, 
and  slaughtered  the  citizens  without  mercy.  Ja- 
son seems  to  have  failed  to  obtain  any  of  the  val- 
uables of  the  Temple,  and  shortly  after  retreated 
beyond  Jordan,  where  he  miserably  perished  (3 
Mace.  V.  7-10).  But  the  news  of  these  tumults 
reaching  Antiochus  on  his  way  from  Egypt  brought 
him  again  to  Jerusalem  (b.  c.  170).  He  appeare 
to  have  entered  the  city  without  much  diflficulty.^ 
An  indiscriminate  massacre  of  the  adherents  of 
Ptolemy  followed,  and  then  a  general  pillage  of  the 
contents  of  the  Temple.  Under  the  guidance  of 
Menelaus,  Antiochus  went  into  the  sanctuary,  and 
took  from  thence  the  golden  altar,  the  candlestick, 
the  magnificent  table  of  shewbread,  and  all  the 
vessels  and  utensils,  with  1,800  talents  out  of  the 
treasury.  These  things  occupied  three  days.  He 
then  quitted  for  Antioch,  carrying  ofl^,  besides  his 
booty,  a  large  train  of  capti^■es;  and  leaving,  as 
governor  of  the  city,  a  Phrygian  named  Philip,  a 
man  of  a  more  savage  disposition  than  himself  (1 
Mace.  i.  20-24;  2  Mace.  v.  11-21;  Joseph.  AnL 
xii.  5,  §  3;  B.  J.  i.  1,  §  1).  But  something  worse 
was  reserved  for  Jerusalem  than  pillage,  death,  and 
slavery,  worse  than  even  the  pollution  of  the  f  res 
ence  of  this  monster  in  the  holy  place  of  Jehovah. 
Nothing  less  than  the  total  extermination  cf  the  Jews 
was  resolved  on,  and  in  two  years  (b.  c.  168)  an 
army  was  sent  under  ApoUonius  to  carry  the  resolve 
into  eflTect.  He  waited  till  the  Sabbath,  acd  thai 
for  the  second  time  the  entry  was  made  while  tha 
I>eople  were  engaged  in  their  devotions.  Att- 
other  great  slaughter  took  place,  the  city  wm  IjOW 
in  its  turn  pillaged  and  burnt,  and  the  walls  de- 
stroyed. 

The  foreign  garrison  took  up  its  quarters  in  what 
had  from  the  earliest  times  been  the  strongest  part 
of  the  place  —  the  ancient  city  of  David  (1  Mace. 
i.  33,  vii.  32),  the  famous  hill  of  Zion,  described 


»«  The  third  book  of  the  Maccabees,  taough  so 
tilled,  has  no  reference  to  the  Maccabasan  heroes,  but 
•  tiiken  up  with  the  relation  of  this  visit  of  Ptolemy 
to  Jerusalem,  and  its  consequences  to  the  Jewa. 

f>  This  visit  is  omitted  in  1  Mace.     Josephus  men 


slaughter  -"f  the  Jewish  party  and  by  plunder  {Ant 
xii.  5,  §  3/.  This,  however,  does  not  agree  with  the 
«»stal  character  given  to  it  in  the  2  Mace,  and  fcllowad 
aDove. 

c  There  is  a  great  discrepancy  between  I  he  i 


LUIS    visii  lo  uuiibieu    lu  x  nxjicu.       uubc^^uus    uieu-  ^    iucre  lo  a  gicai/  uj»tj«i^<i.uujr    u« 

it,  but  says  that  it  was  marked  by  a  great  I  of  1  Mace,  2  Mace.,  and  Josephus. 


1294 


JERUSALEM 


M  being  on  an  eminence  adjoining  «  the  north  wall 
of  the  Temple,  and  so  high  as  to  overlook  it  (Ant. 
xii.  5,  §  4).  This  hill  was  now  fortified  with  a 
very  strong  wall  with  towers,  and  within  it  the 
garrison  secured  their  booty,  cattle,  and  other  pro- 
visions, the  women  of  their  prisoners,  and  a  certain 
number  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  friendly  to 
them. 

Antiochus  next  issued  an  edict  to  compel  heathen 
worship  in  all  his  dominions,  and  one  Athenseus 
was  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  enforce  compliance.  As 
a  first  step,  the  Temple  was  reconsecrated  to  Zeus 
Olympius  (2  Mace.  vi.  2).  The  worship  of  idols 
(1  Mace.  i.  47),  with  its  loose  and  obscene  accom- 
paniments (2  Mace.  vi.  4),  was  introduced  there  — 
an  altar  to  Zeus  was  set  uj)  on  the  brazen  altar  of 
Jehovah,  pig's-flesh  offered  thereon,  and  the  broth 
or  liquor  sprinkled  aliout  the  Temple  (Joseph.  Ant. 
xiii.  8,  §  2).  And  while  the  Jews  were  compelled 
not  only  to  tolerate  but  to  take  an  active  part  in 
these  foreign  abominations,  the  observance  of  their 
own  rites  and  ceremonies  —  sacrifice,  the  sabbath, 
circumcision  —  was  absolutely  forbidden.  Many 
no  doubt  complied  (Ant.  xii.  5,  §  4);  but  many 
also  resisted,  and  the  torments  inflicted,  and  the 
heroism  displayed  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  at 
this  time,  almost  surpass  belief.  But  though  a 
severe,  it  was  a  wholesome  discipline,  and  under  its 
rough  teaching  the  old  spirit  of  the  people  b^an 
to  revive. 

The  battles  of  the  IMaccabees  were  fought  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  country,  and  it  was  not  till  the 
defeat  of  Lysias  at  Beth-zur  that  they  thought  it 
safe  to  venture  into  the  recesses  of  the  central  hills. 
Then  they  immediately  turned  their  steps  to  Jeru- 
salem. On  ascending  the  Mount  Moriah,  and  en- 
tering the  quadrangle  of  the  Temple,  a  sight  met 
their  eyes,  which  proved  at  once  how  complete  had 
been  the  desecration,  and  how  short-lived  the  tri- 
umph of  the  idolaters ;  for  while  the  altar  still  stood 
there  with  its  abominable  burden,  the  gates  in 
ashes,  the  priests'  chambers  in  ruins,  and,  as  they 
reached  the  inner  court,  the  very  sanctuary  itself 
open  and  empty  —  yet  the  place  had  been  so  long 
disused  that  the  whole  precincts  were  full  of  veg- 
etation, "  the  shrubs  gi-ew  in  the  quadrangle  like  a 
forest."  The  precincts  were  at  once  cleansed,  the 
DoUuted  altar  put  aside,  a  new  one  constructed,  and 
ihe  holy  vesseb  of  the  sanctuary  replaced,  and  on 
the  third  anniversary  of  the  desecration  —  the  25th 
of  the  month  Chisleu,  in  the  year  b.  c.  1G5,  the 
Temple  was  dedicated  with  a  feast  which  lasted  for 
eight  days.^  After  this  the  outer  wall  of  the  Tem- 
ple c  was  very  much  strengthened  (1  Mace.  iv.  60), 
and  it  was  in  fact  converted  into  a  fortress  (comp. 


a  This  may  be  inferred  from  many  of  the  expres- 
tlons  concerning  tills  citadel ;  but  Josephus  expressly 
OSes  the  word  eireKeiro  (Ant.  xii.  9,  §  3),  and  says  it 
Taa  on  an  eminence  in  the  lower  city,  i.  e.  the  eastern 
lill,  as  contradistinguished  from  the  western  hill  or 
apper  Mty. 

*  1x9  :«rm  Zion  is  not  applied  to  this  eminence  by 
d'b-sr  of  these  writers,  and  "  the  city  of  Darid,''  as 
tsed  by  one,  ia  synonymous  with  Jerusalem.  For  a 
.jritical  examination  and  clear  elucidation  of  the  tes- 
timrv>v  here  referred  to,  in  its  connection,  by  Dr.  Rob- 
inson, see  Bibl.  Sacra,  iil.  629-634.  It  should  be  noted, 
pjoreoTer,  as  is  stated  further  on,  that  the  above  "  em- 
menc«  in  the  lower  city  "  waa  subsequently  removed 
by  Simon  "and  brought  to  an  entire  level  with  the 
Main "  {Ant.  xiii.  6,  §  7).     According  to  the  above 


JERUSALEM 

vi.  26,  61,  62),  and  occupied  by  a  garrison  (ir.  Sly 
The  Acra  was  still  held  by  the  soldiers  of  Antt 
ochus.  One  of  the  first  acts  of  Judas  on  entering 
the  Temple  had  been  to  detach  a  party  to  watch 
them,  and  two  years  later  (b.  c.  1G3)  so  frequent 
had  their  sallies  and  annoyances  become  —  partic- 
ularly an  attempt  on  one  occasion  to  confine  the 
worshippers  within  the  Temple  inclosure  <^  (1  Mace. 
vi.  18)  —  that  Judas  collected  his  people  tc  take  it, 
and  began  a  siege  with  banks  and  engines.  In  the 
mean  time  Antiochus  had  died  (b.  c.  104),  xnd  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Antiochus  Eupator,  »  youth. 
The  gairison  in  the  Acra,  finding  themselves  pressed 
by  Judas,  managed  to  communicate  with  tl  e  kin^*, 
who  brought  an  army  from  Antioch  and  attacke(l 
Beth-zur,  one  of  the  key-positions  of  the  Macca- 
bees. This  obliged  Judas  to  give  up  the  siege  of 
the  Acra,  afid  to  march  southwards  against  the  in- 
truder (1  Mace.  vi.  32;  Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  9,  §  4). 
Antiochus's  army  proved  too  much  for  his  little 
force,  his  brother  Kleazar  was  killed,  and  he  waa 
compelled  to  fall  back  on  Jerusalem  and  shut  him- 
self up  in  the  Temple.  Thither  Lysias,  Antiochus's 
general  —  and  later,  Antiochus  himself — followed 
him  (vi.  48,  51,  57,  62)  and  commenced  an  active 
siege.  How  long  it  lasted  we  are  not  informed, 
but  the  i)rovisions  of  the  besieged  were  rapidly  lie- 
coming  exhausted,  ana  famine  had  driven  many  tc 
make  their  escape  (ver.  54),  when  news  of  an  insur- 
rection elsewhere  induced  Lysias  to  advise  Anti- 
ochus to  oflTer  terms  to  Judas  (vi.  55-58).  The 
terms,  which  were  accepted  by  him  were,  liberty  to 
Uve  after  their  own  laws,  and  immunity  to  their 
persons  and  their  fortress.  On  inspection,  how- 
ever, Antiochus  found  the  place  so  strong  that  he 
refused  to  keep  this  part  of  the  agreement,  and 
before  he  left  the  walls  were  pulled  down  (vi.  62; 
Ant.  xii.  9,  §  7).  Judas  apparently  remained  in 
Jerusalem  for  the  next  twelve  months.  During 
this  time  Antiochus  and  Lysias  had  been  killed  and 
the  throne  seized  by  Demetrius  (b.  c.  162),  and  the 
new  king  had  despatched  Bacchides  and  Alcimus, 
the  then  high-priest,  —  a  man  of  Grecian  principles, 
—  with  a  large  force,  to  Jerusalem.  Judas  was 
again  within  the  walls  of  the  Temple,  which  in  the 
interval  he  must  have  rebuilt.  He  could  not  be 
tempted  forth,  but  sixty  of  the  Assideans  were 
treacherously  murdered  by  the  Syrians,  who  then 
moved  off,  first  to  a  short  distance  from  the  city, 
and  finally  back  to  Antioch  (1  Mace.  vii.  1-25: 
Ant.  xii.  10,  §§  1-3).  Demetrius  then  sent  an- 
other army  under  Nicanor,  but  with  no  better 
success.  An  action  was  fought  at  Caphar-salama. 
an  unknown  place  not  far  from  the  city.  Judas 
was   victorious,   and   Nicanor  escaped   and   took 


theory,   then,  "  the  famous  hill  of  Zion  "  vanished, 
bodily,  about  a  century  and  a  half  before  Christ! 

S.  W. 

b  This  feast  is  alluded  to  in  John  x.  22.  Chisleu 
was  the  mid-winter  month.  The  feast  of  the  Dedica- 
tion falls  this  year  (1860)  on  the  9th  Dec. 

c  In  1  Mace.  iv.  60  it  is  said  that  they  builded  up 
"  Mount  Sion  ;  "  but  in  the  parallel  passages,  vi.  7,  26, 
the  word  used  is  "  sanctuary,"  or  rather  "  holy  places, 
ayCaaixa.     The  meaning  probably  is  the  entire  inclo» 
ure.     Josephus  (Ant  xii.  7,  §  7)  says  "  the  city." 

♦  Both  writers  probably  refer  to  the  whole  city. 

8.  W 

*^  SvyKXeiovres  rhv  'laparjX.  kvk\u>  twv  ayitov,  TIm 
A.  V.  "  shut  up  the  Israelites  round  alnrnt  the  sane 
tuary,»'  does  not  here  give  the  sense,  wuich  aeenui  ti 
be  as  alMve. 


JERUSALEM 

in  the  Acra  at  Jerusalem,  Si"->rtly  after 
Nictmor  came  down  from  the  fortress  and  paid  a 
risit  to  the  Temple,  where  he  insulted  the  priests 
(1  Mace.  vii.  33,  34;  2  Mace.  xiv.  31-33).  He 
also  caused  the  death  of  llazis,  one  of  the  elders  in 
Jerusalem,  a  maji  greatly  esteemed,  who  killed  him- 
self in  the  most  horrible  manner,  rather  than  fall 
into  his  hands  (2  Alaoc.  xiv.  37-4G).  He  then 
procured  some  reinforcements,  met  Judas  at  Adasa, 
probably  not  far  from  lianiltk,  was  killed,  and  his 
army  thoroughly  beaten.  JSicanor's  head  and  right 
arm  were  brought  to  Jerusalem.  The  head  was 
nailed  on  tlie  wall  of  the  Acra,  and  the  hand  and 
arm  on  a  conspicuous  spot  facing  the  Temple  (2 
Mace.  XV.  30-35),  where  their  memory  was  perhaps 
perpetuated  in  the  name  of  the  gate  Nicanor,  the 
eastern  entrance  to  the  Great  Court  (Reland,  Antlq. 
i.  9,  4), 

The  death  of  Jud.is  took  place  in  IGl.  After  it 
Bacchides  and  Alcimus  again  established  themselves 
at  Jerusalem  in  the  Acra  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  1,  §  3), 
and  in  the  intervals  of  their  contests  with  Jonathan 
and  Simon  added  much  to  its  fortifications,  fur- 
nished it  with  provisions,  and  confined  there  the 
children  of  the  chief  people  of  Judaja  as  hostages 
for  their  good  behavior  (1  Mace.  ix.  50-53).  In 
the  second  month  (May)  of  IGO  the  high-priest 
Alcimus  began  to  make  some  alterations  in  the 
Temple,  apparently  doing  away  with  the  inclosm-e 
between  one  court  and  another,  and  in  particular 
demolishing  some  wall  or  building,  to  which  pecu- 
liar sanctity  was  attached  as  "  the  work  of  the 
prophets"  (1  Mace  ix.  54).  The  object  of  these 
alterations  was  doubtless  to  lessen  the  distinction 
between  Jew  and  Gentile,  liut  they  had  hardly 
been  conunenced  before  he  was  taken  suddenly  ill 
and  died. 

Bacchides  now  returned  to  Antioch,  and  Jeru- 
Balem  remained  without  molestation  for  a  period 
of  seven  years.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Mac- 
cabees resided  there ;  part  of  the  time  they  were  at 
iNIichraash,  in  the  entangled  country  seven  or  eight 
miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  and  part  of  the  time 
fighting  with  Bacchides  at  Beth-basi  in  the  Jordan 
Valley  near  Jericho.  All  this  time  the  Acra  M'as 
held  by  the  Macedonian  garrison  (A7i(.  xiii.  4,  § 
92)  and  the  malcontent  Jews,  who  still  held  the 
hostages  taken  from  the  other  part  of  the  com- 
munity (1  Mace.  X.  G).  In  the  year  153  Alexander 
Balas,  the  real  or  pretended  son  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes,  having  landed  at  Ptolemais,  Demetrius 
?fnt  a  communication  to  Jonathan  with  the  view 
of  keeping  him  attached  to  his  cause  (1  Mace.  x.  1, 
&c. ;  Ant.  xiii.  2,  §  1).  Upon  this  Jonathan  moved 
up  to  Jerusalem,  rescued  the  hostages  from  the 
Acra,  and  began  to  repair  the  city.  The  destruc- 
tions of  the  last  few  years  were  remedied,  the  walls 
round  Mount  Zion  particularly  being  rebuilt  in  the 
most  substantial  manner,  as  a  regular  fortification 
(t.  11).  From  this  time  forward  Jonathan  received 
mvileges  and  professions  of  confidence  from  both 
tides.  First,  Alexander  authorized  him  to  assume 
the  oflSce  of  high-priest,  which  had  not  been  filled 
up  since  the  death  of  Alcimus  (comp.  Ant.  xx.  10, 
5  1).  This  he  took  at  the  Feast  of  Tahernacle«-  in 
the  autumn  of  the  year  153,  and  at  the  same  tune 
collected  soldiers  and  ammunition  (1  Mace.  x.  21). 
{fext,  Demetrius,  amongst  other  immunities  granted 
to  the  country,  recognized  Jerusalem  and  its  en- 
rirons  as  again  "  holy  and  free,"  relinquished  all 
"ight  to  the  Acra  —  which  was  henceforward  to  be 
lulgect  to  the  high-priest  (x.  31,  32),  endowed  the 


JERUSALEM 


1295 


Temple  with  the  revenues  of  Ptoleaials,  and  alao 
with  15,000  shekels  of  silver  charged  in  otlier  places, 
and  ordered  not  only  the  payment  of  the  same  sum^ 
in  regard  to  former  years,  but  the  release  of  an 
annual  tax  of  5,000  shekels  hitherto  exacted  f'^ow 
the  priests.  Lastly,  he  authorized  the  repairs  of 
the  holy  place,  and  the  building  and  fortifying  ol 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem  to  be  charged  to  the  roya 
accounts,  and  gave  the  privilege  of  sanctuary  to  all 
persons,  even  mere  debtors,  taking  refuge  in  the 
lemple  or  in  its  precincts  (1  Mace.  x.  31,  32,  89- 
45). 

The  contentions  between  Alexander  and  Demo 
trius,  in  which  he  was  actively  engaged,  prevented 
Jonathan  from  taking  advantage  of  these  grauts 
till  the  year  145.  lie  then  began  to  invest  th< 
Acra  (xi.  20;  Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  9),  but,  owing  parth 
to  the  strength  of  the  place,  and  partly  to  the  con 
stant  dissensions  abroad,  the  siege  made  little  prog- 
ress during  fully  two  years.  It  was  obvious  that 
no  progress  could  be  made  as  long  as  the  inmates 
of  the  Acra  could  get  into  tlie  city  or  the  country, 
and  there  buy  provisions  (xiii.  49),  as  hitherto  was 
the  case;  and,  therefore,  at  the  first  opportunity, 
Jonathan  built  a  wall  or  bank  round  the  base  of 
the  citadel-hill,  cutting  off  all  communication  both 
with  the  city  on  the  west  and  the  country  on  the 
east  (xii.  36;  comp.  xiii.  49),  and  thus  completing 
the  circle  of  investment,  of  which  the  Temple  wall 
formed  the  south  and  remaining  side.  At  the 
same  time  the  wall  of  the  Temple  was  repaired  and 
strengthened,  especially  on  the  east  side,  towards 
the  Valley  of  Kedron.  In  the  mean  time  Jonathan 
was  killed  at  Ptolemais,  and  Simon  succeeded  him 
both  as  chief  and  as  high-priest  (xiii.  8,  42).  The 
investment  of  the  Acra  proved  successful,  but  three 
years  still  elaj).se<:l  before  this  enormously  strong 
place  could  be  reduced,  and  at  last  the  garrison 
capitulated  only  from  famine  (xiii.  49;  comp.  21). 
Simon  entered  it  on  the  23d  of  the  2d  month  n.  c. 
142.  The  fortress  was  then  entirely  demolished, 
and  the  eminence  on  which  it  had  stood  lowered, 
until  it  was  reduced  below  the  height  of  the  Temple 
hill  beside  it.  The  last  operation  occupied  three 
years  {Ant.  xiii.  6,  §  7).  The  valley  north  of  Moriah 
was  probably  filled  up  at  this  time  (B.  J.  v.  5,  §  1). 
A  fort  was  then  huilt  on  the  north  side  of  the 
Temple  hill,  apparently  against  the  wall,  so  as 
directly  to  command  the  site  of  the  Acra,  and  here 
Simon  and  his  immediate  followers  resided  (xiii. 
52).  This  was  tlie  Baris  —  so  called  after  the 
Hebrew  word  Bii-ah  —  which,  under  the  name  zi 
Antonia,  became  subsequently  so  prominent  a 
feature  of  the  city.  Simon's  other  achievements, 
and  his  alliance  with  the  IJomans,  must  be  rcsen'ed 
for  another  place.  We  hear  of  no  further  occur- 
rences at  Jerusalem  during  his  life  except  the 
placing  of  two  brass  tablets,  commemorating  hia 
exploits  on  Mount  Zion,  in  the  precinct  of  tht 
sanctuary  (xiv.  27,  48).  In  135  Sinjon  was  mur- 
dered at  Dok  near  Jericho,  and  then  aU  was  agam 
confusion  in  Jerusalem. 

One  of  the  first  steps  of  his  son  John  Hyrcanua 
was  to  secure  both  the  city  and  the  Temple  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xiii.  7,  §  4).  The  people  were  favorable  to  him, 
and  repulsed  Ptolemy,  Simon's  murderer,  when 
h3  attempted  to  enter  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  7,  §  4; 
B.  J.  1.  2,  §  3).  Hyrcanus  was  made  high-priest. 
Shortly  after  this,  Antiochus  Sidetes,  king  of  Syria, 
brought  an  army  into  southern  Palestine,  ravagetf 
and  burnt  the  country,  and  attacked  Jerusalem 
To  invest  the  city,  and  cut  off  all  chance  of  escape^ 


1296  JEUUSALEM 

It  WM  encircled  by  a  girdle  of  seven  camps.  The 
ictive  operations  of  the  siege  were  carried  on  as 
asual  at  the  north,  where  the  level  ground  comes 
up  to  the  walls.  Here  a  hundred  towers  of  attack 
were  erected,  each  of  three  stories,  from  which  pro 
jectiles  were  cast  into  the  city,  and  a  double  ditch, 
broad  and  deep,  was  excavated  before  them  to  pro- 
tect them  from  the  sudden  sallies  which  the  be- 
sieged were  constantly  making.  On  one  occasion 
the  wall  of  the  city  was  undermined,  its  timber 
foundations  burnt,  and  thus  a  temporary  breach 
effected  (5  Mace.  xxi.  5).  For  the  first  and  last 
time  we  hear  of  a  want  of  water  inside  the  city, 
but  from  this  a  seasonable  rain  relieved  them.  In 
other  respects  the  besieged  seem  to  have  been  well 
off.  liyrcaims  however,  with  more  prudence  than 
humanity,  anticipating  a  long  siege,  turned  out 
of  the  city  all  the  infirm  and  non-fighting  people. 
The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  had  now  arrived,  and,  at 
the  request  of  Ilyrcanus,  Antiochus,  with  a  mod- 
eration which  gained  him  the  title  of  "the  Pious," 
agreed  to  a  truce.  This  led  to  further  negotiations, 
which  ended  in  the  siege  being  relinquished.  Anti- 
ochus wished  to  place  a  garrison  in  the  city,  but 
this  the  late  experience  of  the  Jews  forbade,  and 
hostages  and  a  pa3nient  were  substituted.  The 
money  for  this  subsidy  was  obtained  by  Hyrcanus 
from  the  sepulchre  of  David,  the  outer  chamber  of 
which  he  is  said  to  have  opened,  and  to  have  taken 
3,000  talents  of  the  treasure  which  had  been  buried 
with  David,  and  had  hitherto  escaped  undiscovered 
(Ant.  vii.  15,  §  3;  xiii.  8,  §  4;  B.J.  i.  2,  §  5). 
After  Antiochus's  departure  H3Tcanus  carefully 
repaired  the  damage  done  to  the  walls  (5  Mace, 
xxi.  18);  and  it  may  have  been  at  this  time  that 
he  enlarged  the  Baris  or  fortress  adjoining  the 
northwest  wall  of  the  Temple  inclosure,  which  had 
been  founded  by  his  father,  and  which  he  used  for 
his  own  residence  and  for  the  custody  of  his  sacred 
vestments  worn  as  high-priest  (Joseph.  Ant.  xviii. 
4,  §  3). 

During  the  rest  of  his  long  and  successful  reign 
John  Hyrcanus  resided  at  Jerusalem,  ably  admin- 
istering the  government  from  thence,  and  regularly 
fulfilling  the  duties  of  the  high-priest  (see  5  Mace, 
xxiii.  3 ;  Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  3).  The  great  sects 
of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  first  appear  in  prom- 
inence at  this  period.  Hyrcanus,  as  a  Maccabee, 
had  belonged  to  the  Pharisees,  but  an  occurrence 
which  happened  near  the  end  of  his  reign  caused 
him  to  desert  them  and  join  the  Sadducees,  and 
even  to  persecute  his  former  friends  (see  the  story 
in  Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  10,  §  5;  5  Mace.  xxv.  7-11; 
Milman,  ii.  73).  He  di«d  in  peace  and  honor  {Ant. 
xiii.  10,  §  7).  There  is  no  mention  of  his  burial, 
but  it  is  nearly  certain  that  the  "  monument  of 
John  the  high-priest,"  which  stood  near  the  north- 
west corner  of  the  city  and  is  so  frequently  referred 
to  in  the  account  of  the  final  siege,  was  his  tomb ; 
at  least  no  other  liigh-priest  of  the  name  of  John 
is  mentioned.     [HiGii-riUEST,  ii.  1074.] 

Hyrcanus  was  succeeded  (b.  c.  107)  by  his  son 
Aristobulus.«  Like  his  predecessors  he  was  high- 
priest;  but  unlike  them  he  assumed  the  title  as  well 

o  The  adoption  of  Greek  names  by  the  family  of 
the  Maccabees,  originally  the  great  opponents  of  every- 
UUng  Greek,  shows  h^w  much  and  how  unconsciously 
th9  Jews  were  now  ieparting  from  their  ancient 
•taudardls. 

b  For  the  story  of  his  death,  and  the  accomplish- 
nent  of  the  prediction  that  he  should  die  in  Strato's 


JERUSALEM 

as  the  power  of  a  king  (.Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  11,  §  1  j 
5  Mace,  xxvii.  1).  Aristobulus  resided  in  the  I^uit 
(Ant.  xiii.  11,  §  2).  A  passage,  dark  and  subter- 
raneous (B.  J.  i.  3,  §  3),  led  from  the  Baris  tc 
the  Temple;  one  part  of  this  passage  was  called 
"  Strato's  tower,"  and  here  Antigonus,  brother  of 
Aristobulus,  was  murdered  by  his  order.''  Aristo- 
bulus died  very  tragically  immediately  after,  having 
reigned  but  one  year.  His  brother  Alexander  Jan 
naeus  (b.  c.  105),  who  succee^led  him,  was  mainl} 
engaged  in  wars  at  a  distance  from  Jerusalem, 
returning  thither  however  in  the  intervals  {Ant.  xiii. 
12,  §  3,  ad  fn.).  About  the  yair  1)5  the  animov 
ities  of  the  Pharisees  and  Saddticoes  came  to  aa 
alarming  explosion.  Like  his  father,  Alexand««r 
belonged  to  the  Sadducees.  The  Pharisees  had 
never  forgiven  Hyrcanus  for  having  deserted  them, 
and  at  the  feast  of  1  abernacles,  as  the  king  was 
officiating,  they  invited  the  people  to  pelt  him  with 
the  citrons  which  they  carried  in  the  feast  (Joseph. 
A7it.  xiii.  13,  §  5:  comp.  10,  §  5:  Beland,  Ant.  iv. 
5,  §  9).  Alexander  retaliated,  and  six  thousand 
Iw>rsons  were  at  that  time  killed  by  his  orders.  But 
the  dissensions  lasted  for  six  years,  and  no  fewer 
than  50,000  are  said  to  have  lost  their  lives  {Ant. 
xiii.  13,  §  5;  5  Mace.  xxix.  2).  These  severities 
made  him  extremely  unpopular  with  both  parties, 
and  led  to  their  inviting  the  aid  of  Demetrius 
Euchoerus,  king  of  Syria,  against  him.  llie  actions 
lietween  them  were  fought  at  a  distance  from  Jeru- 
salem ;  but  the  city  did  not  escape  a  share  in  the 
horrors  of  war;  for  when,  after  some  fluctuations, 
Alexander  returned  successful,  he  crucified  pubUcly 
800  of  his  opponents,  and  had  their  wives  and  chil- 
dren butchered  before  their  eyes,  while  he  and  his 
concubines  feasted  in  sight  of  the  whole  scene 
{Ant.  xiii.  14,  §  2).  Such  an  iron  sway  as  this  was 
enough  to  cnish  all  opposition,  and  Alexander 
reigned  till  the  year  79  without  further  disturbances. 
He  died  while  besieging  a  fortress  called  Kagabp, 
somewhere  beyond  Jordan.  He  is  commemorated 
as  having  at  the  time  of  his  disputes  with  the 
people  erected  a  wooden  screen  round  the  altar  and 
the  sanctuary  {vaSs),  as  far  as  the  parapet  of  the 
priests'  court,  to  prevent  access  to  him  as  he  was 
ministerhig <?  {Ant.  xiii.  13,  §  5).  The  "monument 
of  king  Alexander  "  was  doubtless  his  tomb.  It 
stood  somewhere  near,  but  outside,  the  north  wall 
of  the  Temple  {B.  J.  v.  7,  §  3),  probably  not  fer 
from  the  situation  of  the  tombs  of  the  old  kings 
(see  section  HI.  p.  1325).  In  spite  of  opposition 
the  Pharisees  were  now  l)y  far  the  most  powerful 
party  in  Jerusalem,  and  Alexander  had  therefore 
before  his  death  instructed  his  queen,  Alexandrj  — 
whom  he  left  to  succeed  him  with  two  sun  —  to 
commit  herself  to  them.  She  did  so,  and  the  con- 
sequence was  that  though  the  feuds  between  tha 
two  great  parties  continued  at  their  height,  yet  the 
government,  being  supported  by  the  strongest,  was 
always  secure.  The  elder  of  the  two  sons,  Hyrcanus, 
was  made  high-priest,  and  Aristobulus  had  the 
command  of  the  army.  The  queen  lived  till  the 
year  70.  On  her  death,  Hyrcanus  attempted  ta 
take  the  crown,  but  was  opposed  by  his  brother,  to 


Xower  —  f.  e.  Coesarea —  compare  the  well-known  8toi7 
of  the  death  of  Henry  IV.  in  Jerusalem,  i  e.  the  Jem 
salem  Chamber  at  Westminster. 

c  Josephus's  words  are  not  very  el  wir  :  —  Jpvt^oxTot 
^vKlvov  irepl  rhv  /Sw/nbv  koX  tov  vabv  iSaX)  Ofxtvof  lutxp 
ToO  dfii.yKOV,  €«  hv  /jiovots  i^iiv  TOi?  Uptvcriv  CtVUMU 


JERUSALEM 

vbom  In  three  months  he  yielded  ila  possession, 
Alistobulus  becoming  king  in  the  year  G'J.  Before 
Alexandra's  death  she  had  imprisoned  the  family 
of  Aristobulus  in  the  liaris  {B.  J.  i.  5,  §  4).  There 
too  Hyrcanus  took  refuge  during  the  negotiations 
with  his  brother  about  the  kingdom,  and  from 
thence  had  attacked  and  vanquished  liis  opponents 
who  were  collected  in  the  Temple  {Ant.  xiv.  1,  §  2). 
Josephus  here  first  speaks  of  it  as  the  Acropolis," 
and  as  being  above  the  Temple  {vir\p  rod  iepov)- 
After  tlie  reconciliation,  Aristobulus  took  possession 
of  the  royal  palace  (to.  ^affiKeia).  This  can  hardly 
be  other  tlian  the  "  palace  of  the  Asmoneans,"  of 
which  Josephus  gives  some  notices  at  a  subsequent 
part  of  the  history  (Ant.  xx.  8,  §  11;  B.  J.  ii.  16, 
§  3).  From  these  it  appears  that  it  was  situated 
west  of  the  Temple,  on  the  extreme  highest  point 
of  the  upper  city  (the  modern  Ziou)  immediately 
feeing  the  southwest  angle  of  the  Temple  inclosure, 
and  at  the  west  end  of  the  bridge  which  led  from 
the  Temple  to  the  Xystus. 

The  brothers  soon  quarreled  again,  when  Hyr- 
canus called  to  his  assistance  Aretas,  king  of  Da- 
mascus. Before  this  new  enemy  Aristobulus  fled 
to  Jerusalem  and  took  refuge  within  the  fortifica- 
tions of  the  Temple.  And  now  was  witnessed  the 
strange  anomaly  of  the  high-priest  in  alliance  with 
a  heathen  king  besieging  the  priests  in  the  Temple. 
Suddenly  a  new  actor  appears  on  the  scene;  the 
siege  is  interrupted  and  eventually  raised  by  the 
interference  of  Scaurus,  one  of  Pompey's  lieuten- 
ants, to  whom  Aristobulus  paid  400  talents  for  the 
relief.  This  was  in  the  year  05.  Shortly  after, 
Pompey  himself  arrived  at  Damascus.  Both  the 
brothers  came  before  him  in  person  (Ant.  xiv.  3, 
§  2),  and  were  received  with  moderation  and  civility. 
Aristobulus  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  submit, 
and  after  a  good  deal  of  shuffling  betook  himself 
to  Jerusalem  and  prepared  for  resistance.  Pompey 
advanced  by  way  of  Jericho.  As  he  approached 
Jerusalem,  Aristobulus,  who  found  the  city  too 
much  divided  for  effectual  resistance,  met  him  and 
offered  a  large  sum  of  money  and  surrender.  Pom- 
pey sent  forward  Gabinius  to  take  possession  of  the 
place;  but  the  bolder  party  among  the  adherents 
of  Aristobulus  had  meantime  gained  the  ascend- 
ency, and  he  found  the  gates  closed.  Pompey  on 
this  threw  the  king  into  chains  and  advanced  on 
Jerusalem.  Hyrcanus  was  in  possession  of  the  city 
and  received  the  invader  with  open  arms.  The 
Temple  on  the  other  hand  was  held  by  the  party 
of  Aristobulus,  which  included  the  priests  (xiv.  4, 
§  3).  They  cut  off  the  bridges  and  causeways 
which  connected  the  Temple  with  the  town  on  the 
west  and  north,  and  prepared  for  an  obstinate  de- 
fense. Pompey  put  a  garrison  into  the  "palace  of 
the  Asmoneans,  and  into  other  positions  in  the 
uppfir  city,  and  fortified  the  houses  adjacent  to  the 
Temple.  The  north  side  was  the  most  practicable, 
and  ther3  he  commenced  his  attack.  But  even 
thsre  the  hill  was  intrenched  by  an  artificial  ditch 
in  addition  to  the  very  deep  natural  valley,  and  was 
defended  by  lofty  towers  on  the  wall  of  the  Temple 
{Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  2;  B.  J.  i.  7,  §  1). 

Pompey  appears  to  have  stationed  some  part  of 
his  force  on  the  high  ground  west  of  the  city 
(ooseph.  B.  J.  V.  12,  §  2),  but  he  himself  commanded 
ai  person  at  the  north.     The  first  efforts  of  his 


a  He  ali»o  here  applies  to  it  the  term  (}>povpiov  {Ant. 
xiii.  16,  §  5 ;  B.  J.  i.  5,  §  4),  which  he  commonly  nam 
Ibr  smaller  fortresses. 

82 


JERUSALEM  1297 

soldiers  were  devoted  to  filling  up  the  ditch  *  and 
the  valley,  and  to  constructing  the  banks  on  which 
to  place  the  military  engines,  for  which  purpose 
they  cut  down  all  the  timber  in  the  envirom. 
These  had  in  the  mean  time  been  sent  for  from 
Tyre,  and  as  soon  as  the  banks  were  sufficiently 
raised  the  balistae  were  set  to  work  to  throw  stones 
over  the  wall  into  the  crowded  courts  of  the  Tem- 
ple; and  lofty  towers  were  erected,  from  wdiich  to 
discharge  arrows  and  other  missiles.  But  these 
operations  were  not  carried  on  without  great  diflS- 
culty,  for  the  wall  of  the  Temple  was  thronged 
with  slingers,  who  most  seriously  interfered  with 
the  progress  of  the  Romans.  Pompey,  however, 
remarked  that  on  the  seventh  day  the  Jews  regu- 
larly desisted  from  fighting  (Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  2;  Strab. 
xvi.  p.  763),  and  this  afforded  the  Romans  a  great 
advantage,  for  it  gave  them  the  opportunity  of 
moving  the  engines  and  towers  nearer  the  walls, 
filling  up  the  trenches,  adding  to  the  banks,  and 
in  other  ways  making  good  the  damage  of  the  past 
six  days  without  the  slightest  molestation.  In  fact 
Josephus  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  but  for  the 
opporturuty  thus  afforded,  the  necessary  works 
never  could  have  been  completed.  In  the  Temple 
itself,  however  fierce  the  attack,  the  daily  sacrifices 
and  other  ceremonials,  down  to  the  minutest  detail, 
were  never  interrupted,  and  the  priests  pursued 
their  duties  undeterred,  even  when  men  were  struck 
down  near  them  by  the  stones  and  arrows  of  the 
besiegers.  At  the  end  of  three  months  the  be- 
siegers had  approached  so  close  to  the  wall  that  the 
battering  rams  could  be  worked,  and  a  breach  was 
effected  in  the  largest  of  the  towers,  through  which 
the  Romans  entered,  and  after  an  obstinate  resist 
ance  and  loss  of  life,  remained  masters  of  the  Tem- 
ple. JNIany  Jews  were  killed  by  their  countrymen 
of  HjTcanus's  party  who  had  entered  with  the  Ro- 
mans ;  some  in  their  confusion  set  fii-e  to  the  houses 
which  abutted  on  a  portion  of  the  Temple  walls, 
and  perished  in  the  flames,  while  others  threw 
themselves  over  the  precipices  (B.  J.  i.  7,  §  4). 
The  whole  nimiber  slain  is  reported  by  Josephus  at 
12,000  {Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  4).  During  the  assault  the 
priests  maintained  the  same  calm  demeanor  which 
they  had  displayed  during  the  siege,  and  were  act 
ually  slain  at  their  duties  while  pouring  their  drink- 
offerings  and  burning  their  incense  (/>'.  J.  i.  7,  §  4). 
It  should  be  observed  that  in  the  account  of  this 
siege  the  Baris  is  not  once  mentioned ;  the  attack 
was  on  the  Temple  alone,  instead  of  on  the  fortress, 
as  in  Titus's  siege.  The  inference  is  that  at  this 
time  it  was  a  small  and  unimportant  adjunct  to  the 
main  fortifications  of  the  Temple. 

Pompey  and  many  of  his  people  explored  the 
recesses  of  the  Temple,  and  the  distress  of  the  J(!W8 
was  greatly  aggravated  by  their  holy  places  being 
thus  exposed  to  intrusion  and  profanation  {B.  J. 
i.  7,  §  6).  In  the  sanctuary  were  found  the  great 
golden  vessels  —  the  table  of  shew-bread,  the  candle- 
stick, the  censers,  and  other  articles  proper  to  that 
place.  But  what  most  astonished  the  mtruders, 
on  passing  beyond  the  sanctuary  and  exploring 
the  total  darkness  of  the  Holy  of  Holies,  was  to 
find  in  the  adytum  neither  image  nor  shrine.  It 
evidently  caused  much  remark  ("  inde  vulgatum  "), 
and  was  the  one  fact  regarding  the  Temple  which 
tlie  Listorian   thought  worthy  of  preservation  — 


b  The  size  of  the  ditch  is  given  by  Strabo  as  60  : 
deep  and  250  wide  (xvi.  p.  703). 


1298  JERUSALEM 

"  nulla  intua  dcum  effigie ;  vacuam  sedem  et  iiiania 
arcana"  (Tacitus,  Hist.  v.  9).  Pompey's  conduct 
on  this  occasion  does  him  great  credit.  He  left 
the  treasures  thus  exposed  to  his  view  —  even  the 
Bpices  and  the  money  in  the  treasury  —  untouched, 
ai"l  his  examination  over,  he  oixlered  the  Temple 
t<7  be  cleansed  and  purified  Ironi  the  bodies  of  the 
slain,  and  the  daily  worship  to  be  resumed.  Hyr- 
canus  was  continued  in  his  high-priesthood,  but 
without  the  title  of  king  {Ant.  xx.  10);  a  tribute 
was  laid  upon  the  city,  the  walls  were  entirely  de- 
molished (KaTaairda-ai  .  ,  .  .  ra  reixv  TrdvTa, 
Strabo,  xvi.  p.  lli-i),  and  Pompey  took  his  depar- 
ture for  Kome,  carrying  with  him  Aristobulus,  his 
sons  Alexander  and  Antigonus,  and  his  two  daugh- 
ters. The  Temple  was  taken  in  the  year  G3,  in 
the  3d  month  (Si van),  on  the  day  of  a  great  fast 
{Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  -S);  probably  that  for  Jeroboam, 
which  was  held  on  the  23d  of  that  month. 

During  the  next  few  years  nothing  occurred  to 
affect  Jerusalem,  the  struggles  which  desolated  the 
unhappy  I'alestine  during  that  time  having  taken 
place  away  from  its  vicinity.  In  5G  it  was  made 
the  seat  of  one  of  the  five  senates  or  Sanhedrim,  to 
which  under  tlie  constitution  of  Gabinius  the  civil 
power  of  the  country  was  for  a  time  committed. 
Two  years  afterwards  (n.  c.  54)  the  mpacious  Cras- 
Bus  visited  the  city  on  his  way  to  Parthia,  and 
plundered  it  not  only  of  the  money  which  Pompey 
kad  spared,  but  of  a  considerable  treasure  accumu- 
lated from  the  contributions  of  Jews  throughout  the 
world,  in  all  a  sum  of  10,000  talents,  or  about 
2,000,000^.  sterling.  Tiie  jjillage  was  aggravated 
by  the  fact  of  his  having  first  received  from  the 
priest  in  charge  of  the  treasure  a  most  costly  beam 
of  solid  gold,  on  condition  that  everything  else 
Bhould  be  spared  {Ant.  xiv.  7,  §  1). 

During  this  time  llyrcanus  remained  at  Jerusa- 
salem,  acting  under  the  advice  of  Antipater  the 
Idumean,  his  chief  minister.  The  assistance  which 
they  rendered  to  Mithridates,  the  ally  of  Julius 
Caesar,  in  the  Egyptian  canipaign  of  48-47,  in- 
duced Cajsar  to  confirm  llyrcanus  in  the  high- 
priesthood,  and  to  restore  him  to  the  civil  govern- 
ment under  the  title  of  Ethnarch  {Ant.  xiv.  10). 
At  the  same  time  he  rewarded  Antipater  with  the 
procuratorship  of  Judtea  <Ant.  xiv.  8,  §  5),  and 
allowed  the  walls  of  the  city  to  be  rebuilt  {A7it. 
xiv.  10,  §  4)  The  year  47  is  also  memorable  for 
the  first  appearance  of  Antipater's  son  Herod  in 
Jerusalem,  wlien,  a  youth  of  fifteen  (or  more  prob- 
ably «  2-3),  he  characteristically  overawed  the  as- 
sembled Sanhedrim.  In  43  Antipater  was  mur- 
dered in  the  palace  of  Hyrcanus  by  one  Malichus, 
who  was  very  soon  after  himself  slain  by  Herod 
(Ant.  xiv.  11,  §§  4,  6).  The  tumults  and  revolts 
consequent  on  these  murders  kept  Jerusalem  in 
commotion  for  some  time  {B.  J.  i.  12).  But  a 
more  serious  danger  was  at  hand.  Antigonus,  the 
younger  and  now  the  only  surviving  sou  of  Aristob- 
ulus, suddenly  appeared  in  the  country  supported 
by  a  Parthian  army.  INIany  of  the  Jews  of  the 
district  about  Carmel  and  Joppa''  flocked  to  him, 
and  he  instantly  made  for  Jerusalem,  giving  out 
that  his  only  object  was  to  pay  a  visit  of  devotion 
to  the  Temple  (5  ^lacc.  xlix.  5).  So  sudden  was 
his  approach,  that  he  got  into  the  city  and  reached 
the  palace  in  the  upper  market-place  —  the  modem 
Zlon  —  without  resistance.     Here  however  he  was 


JERUSALEM 

met  by  Hyrcanus  and  Phasaelus  (Ilerod'a  brothflr 
with  a  strong  party  of  soldiers.  A  fight  ensued, 
which  ended  in  Antigonus  being  driven  over  Um 
bridge  into  the  Temple,  where  he  was  constantly 
harassed  and  annoyed  by  llyrcanus  and  PhasaeluB 
from  the  city.  Pentecost  arrived,  and  the  city, 
and  the  suburbs  between  it  and  the  Temple,  were 
crowded  with  peasants  and  others  who  had  come 
up  to  keep  the  feast.  Herod  too  ai rived,  and  with 
a  small  party  had  taken  charge  of  the  palace. 
Phasaelus  kept  the  wall.  Antigonus'  people  seem 
(though  the  account  is  very  obscure)  to  have  got 
out  through  the  Baris  into  the  part  north  of  the 
Temple.  Here  Herod  and  Phasaelus  attacked, 
dispersed,  and  cut  them  up.  Pacorus,  the  Par- 
thian general,  was  lying  outside  the  walls,  and  at 
the  earnest  request  of  Antigonus,  he  and  500  horse 
were  admitted,  ostensibly  to  mediate.  The  resiUt 
was,  that  Phasaelus  and  Hyrcanus  were  outwitted, 
and  Herod  overpowered,  and  the  Parthians  got 
possession  of  the  place.  Antigoims  was  made  king, 
and  as  Hyrcanus  knelt  a  suppliant  before  him,  the 
new  king  —  with  all  the  wrongs  which  his  father 
and  himself  had  suftered  full  in  his  mind  —  bit  off 
the  ears  of  his  uncle,  so  as  effectually  to  incapaci- 
tate him  from  ever  again  taking  the  high  priest- 
hood. Phasaelus  killed  himself  in  prison.  Herod 
alone  escaped  {Ant.  xiv.  13). 

Thus  did  Jerusalem  (li.  c.  10)  find  itself  in  the 
hands  of  the  Parthians. 

In  three  months  Herod  returned  from  Kome 
king  of  Judaea,  and  in  the  begiiniing  of  31)  appeared 
before  Jerusalem  with  a  force  of  Komans,  com- 
manded by  Silo,  and  pitched  his  camp  on  the  west 
side  of  the  city  {B.  J.  i.  15,  §  5).  Other  occur- 
rences, however,  called  him  away  from  the  siege  at 
this  time,  and  for  more  than  two  years  he  was 
occupied  elsewhere.  In  the  mean  time  Antigonus 
held  the  city,  and  had  dismissed  his  Parthian  .oUies. 
In  37  Herod  appeared  again,  now  driven  to  fury  by 
the  death  of  his  favorite  ijrother  Joseph,  whose  dead 
body  Antigonus  had  shamefully  nuitilated  {B.  J.  i. 
17,  §  2).  He  came,  as  Pompey  had  done,  from 
Jericho,  and,  like  Pompey,  he  pitched  his  camp  and 
made  his  attack  on  the  north  side  of  the  Temple. 
The  general  circumstances  of  the  siege  seem  also 
very  umch  to  have  resembled  the  lormer,  except 
that  there  were  now  two  walls  north  of  the  Temple, 
and  that  the  driving  Oi'  mines  was  a  great  feature 
in  the  siege  operations  {B.J.  i.  18,  §  1;  Ant.  xiv. 
16,  §  2).  The  Jews  distinguished  then)selves  by 
the  same  reckless  courage  as  before;  and  althoujrh 
it  is  not  expressly  said  that  the  seivices  of  the 
Temple  were  carried  on  with  such  minute  regularity 
as  when  -they  excited  the  astonishment  of  Pompey, 
yet  we  may  infer  it  from  the  fact  that,  during  the 
hottest  of  the  operations,  the  besieged  desired  a 
short  truce  in  which  to  bring  in  animals  for  sacri- 
fice {Ant.  xiv.  16,  §  2).  In  one  respect  —  the  fac- 
tions which  raged  among  the  l)esieged  —  this  siege 
somewhat  foreshadows  that  of  Titus. 

For  a  short  time  after  the  commencement  of  the 
operations  Herod  absentetl  himself  for  his  marriage 
at  Samaria  with  Marianme.  On  his  return  he  wag 
joined  by  Sosius,  the  Poman  governor  of  S}Tia, 
with  a  force  of  from  50,000  tx)  00,000  men,  and 
the  siege  was  then  resumed  in  earnest  {Ani.  xiv- 
16). 

The  first  of  the  two  waUs  was  taken  in  fbrtj 


>  8w  the  reasons  urged  by  Prideaux,  ad  loc. 

k  A.t  that  time,  and  even  as  late  aa  the  Crusades, 


called  the  Woodland  or  the  Forest  couutty  (, 
Joseph  Ant  xiv.  ]3,  §  3). 


JERUSALEM 

fleya,  wid  the  second  in  fifteen  more.«  Th"!n  the 
>uter  jourt  of  the  Temple,  and  the  lower  city  — 
.ying  in  the  hollow  between  the  1  emple  and  the 
modern  Zion  —  was  taken,  and  the  Jews  were  driven 
into  the  inner  parts  of  the  Temple  and  to  the  upper 
market-place,  which  comniVmicated  therewith  by  the 
bridge.  At  this  point  some  delay  seems  to  have 
arisen,  as  the  siege  is  distinctly  said  to  have  occu- 
pied in  all  five  months  {B.  ./.  i.  18,  §  2;  see  also 
Ant.  xiv.  16,  §  2).  At  last,  losing  patience,  Herod 
allowed  the  place  to  be  stormed;  and  an  indis- 
criminate massacre  ensued,  especially  in  the  narrow 
streets  of  the  lower  city,  wliich  was  ordy  terminated 
at  his  urgent  and  repeated  solicitations.^  Herod 
and  his  men  entered  first,  and  in  his  anxiety  to 
prevent  any  plunder  and  deseci-ation  of  the  Temple, 
he  himself  hastened  to  the  entrance  of  the  sanctuary, 
and  there  standing  with  a  drawn  sword  in  his  hand, 
threatened  to  cut  down  any  of  the  Koman  soldiers 
who  attempted  to  enter. 

Through  all  this  time  the  Baris  had  remained 
impregnable:  there  Antigonus  had  taken  refuge, 
and  thence,  when  the  whole  of  the  city  was  in  the 
power  of  the  conquerors,  he  descended,  and  in  an 
abject  manner  craved  liis  life  from  Sosius.  It  was 
granted,  but  oidy  to  be  taken  from  him  later  at  the 
order  of  Antony. 

Antigonus  was  thus  disposed  of,  but  the  Asmo- 
nean  party  was  still  strong  both  in  numbers  and 
influence.  Herod's  first  care  was  to  put  it  down. 
The  chiefs  of  the  party,  including  the  whole  of  the 
Sanhedrim  but  two,<^  were  put  to  death,  and  their 
property,  with  that  of  others  whose  lives  were  spared, 
was  seized.  The  appointment  of  the  high-priest 
was  the  next  consideration.  Hyrcanus  returned 
from  Parthia  soon  after  the  conclusion  of  the  siege ; 
but  even  if  his  mutilation  had  not  incapacitated 
him  for  the  oflRce,  it  would  have  been  unwise  to 
appoint  a  member  of  the  popular  family.  Herod 
therefore  bestowed  the  office  (n.  c.  36)  on  one 
Ananel,  a  former  adherent  of  his,  and  a  Babylonian 
Jew  {Ant.  XV.  3,  §  I),  a  man  without  interest  or 
influence  in  the  politics  of  Jerusalem  (xv.  2,  §  4). 
Ananel  was  soon  displaced  through  the  machina- 
tions of  Alexandra,  mother  of  Herod's  wife 
Mariamne,  who  prevailed  on  him  to  appoint  her 
Bon  Aristobulus,  a  youth  of  sixteen.  But  the  young 
Asmonean  was  too  warmly  received  by  the  people 
(B.  J.  i.  22,  §  2)  for  Herod  to  allow  him  to  remain. 
Hardly  had  he  celebrated  his  first  feast  before  he 
was  murdered  at  Jericho,  and  then  Ananel  resumed 
the  oflfice  {Ant.  xv.  3,  §  3). 

The  intrigues  and  tragedies  of  the  next  thirty 
years  are  too  complicated  and  too  long  to  be  treated 
of  here.  A  general  sketch  of  the  events  of  Herod's 
ixi's  will  be  found  under  his  name,  and  other  oppor- 
ta.iirie3  will  occur  for  noticing  them.  Moreover, 
a  great  part  of  these  occuirences  have  no  special 
oonncction  with  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  have  no 
place  in  a  brief  notice,  like  the  present,  of  those 
Uiiugs  which  more  imnicdiately  concern  the  city. 

In  many  respects  this  period  was  a  repetition  of 
that  of  the  Maccabees  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 


JERUSALEM 


1299 


a  These  periods  probably  date  from  the  return  of 
flwod  with  Sosius,  and  the  resumption  of  mora  ar'^ive 
b  wtilities. 

b  True  he  was  one  of  the  same  race  who  at  a  former 
«ack  of  Jerusalem  had  cried  "  Down  with  it,  d'^wn  with 
t  even  to  the  ground  !  "  But  times  had  altered  since 
then. 

c  Thef  9  two  were  Hillel  and  Shammai,  renowned  in 


True,  Herod  was  more  politic,  and  more  pradenii 
and  also  probably  had  more  sympathy  with  tht 
Jewish  character  than  Antiochus.  But  the  spirit 
of  stern  resistance  to  innovation  and  of  devotion  to 
the  law  of  Jehovah  burnt  no  less  fiercely  in  the 
breasts  of  the  people  than  it  had  done  before;  and 
it  is  curious  to  remark  how  every  attempt  on 
Herod's  part  to  introduce  foreign  customs  was  met 
by  outbreak,  and  how  futile  were  all  the  benefits 
which  he  conferred  both  on  the  temporal  and 
ecclesiastical  welfare  of  the  people  when  these  ob- 
noxious intrusions  were  in  question.'' 

In  the  year  3-4  the  city  was  visited  by  Cleopatra, 
who,  having  accompanied  Antony  to  the  Euphrates 
was  now  returning  to  l*lgypt  through  her  estates  at 
Jericho  {A7it.  xv.  4,  §  2). 

In  the  spring  of  31,  the  year  of  the  battle  of 
Actium,  Judaea  was  visited  by  an  earthquake,  the 
eflfects  of  which  appear  to  have  been  indeed  tre- 
mendous: 10,000  {Ant.  XV.  5,  §  2)  or,  according 
to  another  account  {B.  J.  i.  19,  §  3),  20,000 
persons  were  killed  by  the  fall  of  buildings,  and  an 
immense  quantity  of  cattle.  The  panic  at  Jeru- 
salem was  very  severe ;  but  it  was  calmed  by  the 
arguments  of  Herod,  then  departing  to  a  campaign 
on  the  east  of  Jordan  for  the  interests  of  Cleopatra. 

The  following  year  was  distinguished  by  the 
death  of  Hyrcanus,  who,  though  more  than  80 
years  old,  was  killed  by  Herod,  ostensibly  for  a 
treasonable  correspondence  with  the  Arabians,  but 
really  to  remove  the  last  remnant  of  the  Asmonean 
race,  who,  in  the  fluctuations  of  the  times,  and  in 
Herod's  absence  from  his  kingdom,  miglit  have 
been  dangerous  to  him.  He  appears  to  have  re- 
sided at  Jerusalem  since  his  return ;  and  his  accu- 
sation was  brought  before  the  Sanhedi-im  {Ant.  xv. 
6,  §  1-3). 

jNIariamne  was  put  to  death  in  the  j-ear  2.^), 
whether  in  Jerusalem  or  in  the  Alexandreion,  in 
which  she  had  been  placed  with  her  mother  when 
Herod  left  for  his  interview  with  Octavius,  is  not 
certain.  But  Alexandra  was  now  in  Jerusalem 
again;  and  in  Herod's  absence,  ill,  at  Samaria 
(Sebaste),  she  began  to  plot  for  possession  of  the 
Baris,  and  of  another  fortress  situated  in  the  city. 
The  attempt,  however,  cost  her  her  life.  The  same 
year  saw  the  execution  of  Costobaras,  husband  of 
Herod's  sister  Salome,  and  of  several  other  person-s 
of  distinction  {Ant.  xv.  7,  §  8-10). 

Herod  now  began  to  encourage  foreign  practices 
and  usages,  probably  with  the  view  of  "  counter- 
balancing by  a  strong  Grecian  party  the  turbulent 
and  exclusive  spirit  of  the  Jews."  Amongst  hig 
acts  of  this  description  was  the  building  of  a 
theatre «  at  Jerusalem  {A7it.  xv.  8,  §  1).  Of  its 
situation  no  information  is  given,  nor  have  any 
indications  yet  been  discovered.  It  was  omamented 
with  the  names  of  the  victories  of  Octavius,  and 
with  trophies  of  arms  conquered  in  the  wars  of 
Herod.  Quinquennial  games  in  honor  of  Ccesar 
were  instituted  on  the  most  magnificent  scale,  with 
racing,  boxing,  musical  contests,  fights  of  gladiators 
and  wild  beasts.     The  zealous  Jews  took  fire  at 


the  Jewish  literature  as  the  founders  of  the  two  great 
rival  schools  of  doctrine  and  practice. 

d  Thi  principles  and  results  of  the  whole  of  thii 
later  period  are  ably  summed  up  in  Meriyale's  Romans, 
iii.,  chap.  29. 

e  The  amphitheatre  "  in  the  plain  "  mentioned  in 
this  passage  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  been  alw 
at  Jerusalem  (Barclay,  City  of  Great  King,  174,  and 


1300 


JERUSALEM 


these  innorations,  but  their  wrath  was  specially 
excited  by  the  trophies  round  the  theatre  at  Jeru- 
•alein,  which  they  believed  to  contain  figures  of 
men.  Even  when  shown  that  their  suspicions  were 
groundless,  they  remained  discontented.  The  spirit 
of  the  old  Maccabees  was  still  alive,  and  Herod  only 
narrowly  escaped  assassination,  while  his  would-be 
assassins  endured  torments  and  death  with  the 
greatest  heroism.  At  this  time  he  occupied  the  old 
palace  of  the  Asmoneans,  which  crowned  the  eastern 
face  of  the  upper  city,  and  stood  adjoining  the 
Xystus  at  the  end  of  the  bridge  which  formed  the 
comnuuiication  between  the  south  part  of  the  Temple 
and  the  upper  city  (xv.  8,  §  5;  comp.  xx.  8,  §  11, 
and  B.  J.  ii,  IG,  §  3).  This  palace  was  not  yet  so 
magnificent  as  he  afterwards  made  it,  but  it  was 
already  most  richly  furnished  (xv.  9,  §  2).  Herod 
had  now  also  completed  the  improvements  of  the 
Baris  —  the  fortress  built  by  John  llyrcanus  on  the 
foundations  of  Simon  jNIaccabaus  —  which  he  had 
enlarged  and  strengthened  at  great  ex^iense,  and 
named  Antonia  —  after  his  friend  Mark  Antony." 
A  description  of  this  celebrated  fortress  will  be 
given  in  treating  of  the  Tkmi'MC,  of  which,  as 
reconstructed  by  Ilerod,  it  formed  an  intimate  part. 
It  stood  at  the  west  end  of  the  north  wall  of  the 
Temple,  and  was  uiaccessible  on  all  sides  but  that. 
See  section  HI.  p.  1318. 

The  year  25  —  the  next  after  the  attempt  on 
Herod's  Ufe  in  the  theatre  —  was  one  of  great  mis- 
fortunes. A  long  drought,  followed  by  unproduc- 
tive seasons,  hivolved  Judiea  in  famine,  and  its 
usual  consequence,  a  dreadful  pestilence  {Ant.  xv. 
9,  §  1).  Herod  took  a  noble  and  at  the  same  time 
a  most  politic  course.  He  sent  to  I'^ypt  for  corn, 
sacrificing  for  the  purchase  the  costly  decorations 
of  his  palace  and  his  silver  and  gold  plate.  He  was 
thus  able  to  make  regular  distribution  of  corn  and 
clothing,  on  an  enormous  scale,  for  the  present 
necessities  of  the  jxiople,  as  well  as  to  supply  seed 
for  the  next  years  crop  {Ant.  xv.  9,  §  2).  The 
result  of  this  was  to  remove  to  a  great  degree  the 
animosity  occasioned  by  his  proceedings  in  the 
previous  year. 

In  this  year  or  the  next,  Ilerod  took  another 
wife,  the  daughter  of  an  obscure  priest  of  Jerusalem 
naraetl  Simon.  Shortly  before  the  marriage  Simon 
was  made  high-priest  in  the  room  of  Joshua,  or 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Thaneus,  who  appears  to  have 
succeeded  Ananel,  and  was  now  dejx)sed  to  make 
way  for  Herod's  future  father-in-law  {Ant.  xv.  9, 
§  3).  It  was  probably  on  the  occasion  of  this  mar- 
riage that  he  built  a  new  and  extensive  palace'' 
immediately  adjoining  the  old  wall,  at  the  north- 
west corner  of  the  upjjer  city  {D.  J.  v.  4,  §  4).  about 
the  spot  now  occupied  by  the  I^tin  convent,  in 
which,  as  memorials  of  his  connection  with  Caesar 
and  Agrippa,  a  large  apartment  —  superior  in  size 
to  the  Sanctuary  of  the  Temple  —  was  named  after 
each  {Ant.  ibid.;  B.  ./.  i.  21,  §  1).  This  palace 
was  very  strongly  fortified ;  it  communicated  with 
the  three  great  towers  on  the  wall  erected  shortly 
after,  and  it  became  the  citadel,  the  special  fortress 


pthers) ;  but  this  is  not  a  necessary  inference.  The 
Tord  Trehiov  is  generally  used  of  the  plain  of  the  Jordan 
near  Jericho,  where  we  know  there  was  an  amphi- 
CQdatre  {B.  J.  i.  y3,  §  8).  From  another  passage 
^J?.  J  i.  21,  §  S;  it  appears  there  was  one  at  Ca^sarea. 
Btill  the  vt^Lov  at  Jerusalem  is  mentioned  in  B.  J.  ii. 

1,18 

A  The  name  was  probably  noi  bestowed  later  than 


JERUSALEM 

{ibiov  ^povpiov,  B.  J.  V.  5,  §  8),  of  the  upper  dty. 
A  road  led  to  it  from  one  of  the  gates  —  natorallj 
the  northern  —  in  the  west  wall  of  the  Temple  in« 
closure  {Ant.  xv.  14,  §  5).  lint  all  Herod's  work* 
in  Jerusalem  were  eclipsed  by  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple  in  more  than  its  former  extent  and  mag- 
nificence. He  announced  his  intention  in  the  year 
19,  probably  when  the  people  were  collected  in 
Jerusalem  at  the  I'assover.  At  first  it  met  with 
some  opposition  from  the  fear  that  what  he  had 
begun  he  would  not  be  able  to  finish,  and  the  con- 
sequent risk  involved  in  demolishing  the  old  Temple. 
This  he  overcame  by  engaging  to  make  all  the 
necessary  preparations  before  pulling  down  any  part 
of  the  existing  buildings.  Two  years  appear  to 
have  been  occupied  in  these  preparations  —  among 
which  Josci)Lus  mentions  the  teaching  of  some  of 
the  priests  and  Levites  to  work  as  masons  and  car- 
penters—  and  then  the  work  began  (xv.  11,  §  2). 
Both  Sanctuary  and  Cloisters — the  latter  double 
in  extent  and  far  larger  and  loftier  than  before  — 
were  built  from  the  very  foundations  {B.  J.  i.  21, 
§  1;  Ant.  XV.  11,  §  3).  [Te.mi-le.]  The  holy 
house  itself  {va6s),  i-  e-  the  Torch,  Sanctuary,  and 
Holy  of  Holies  —  was  finished  in  a  year  and  a  half 
(xv.  11,  §  6).  Its  completion  on  the  anniversary 
of  Herod's  inauguration,  n.  c.  IG,  was  celebrated 
by  lavish  sacrifices  and  a  great  feast.  Immediately 
after  this,  Herod  made  a  jouniey  to  Rome  to  fetch 
home  his  two  sons,  Alexander  and  Aristobulus  — 
with  whom  he  returned  to  Jerusalem,  apparently 
in  the  spring  of  15  {Atit.  xvi.  1,  §  2).  In  the 
autumn  of  this  year  he  was  visited  by  his  friend 
Marcus  Agrippa,  the  favorite  of  Augustus.  Agrippa 
was  well  received  by  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  whom 
he  propitiated  by  a  sacrifice  of  a  hundred  oxen  and 
by  a  magnificent  entertainment  {Ant.  xvi.  2,  §  1). 
Herod  left  again  in  the  beginning  of  14  to  join 
Agrippa  in  the  Black  Sea.  On  his  return,  in  the 
autumn  or  winter  of  the  same  year,  he  addressed 
the  people  assembled  at  Jerusalem  —  for  the  Feast 
of  Tabernacles  —  and  remitted  them  a  fourth  of  the 
annual  tax  (xv.  2,  §  4).  Another  journey  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  similar  assembly  in  the  year  11,  at  which 
time  Ilerod  announced  Antipater  as  his  immediate 
successor  (xvi.  4,  §  G;  B.  J.  i.  23,  §  4). 

About  ».  c.  9  —  eight  yeai-s  from  the  commence- 
ment —  the  court  and  cloisters  of  the  Temple  were 
finished  (^1?*/.  xv.  11.  §  5),  and  the  bridge  between 
the  south  cloister  and  the  upper  city  —  demolished 
by  Pompey  —  was  doubtless  now  rebuilt  with  that 
massive  masonry  of  which  some  remains  still  sur- 
vive (see  the  wood-cut,  p.  1314).  At  this  time 
equally  magnificent  works  were  being  carried  on  in 
another  pai't  of  the  city,  namely,  in  the  old  wall  at 
the  northwest  corner,  contiguous  to  the  jialace. 
where  three  towers  of  great  size  and  magnificence 
were  erected  on  the  widl.  and  one  as  an  outwoik  at 
a  small  <'istance  to  tli<-  north.  The  latter  was 
called  Tsephinus  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §§  2,  3,  4),  the  three 
former  were  Hippicus,  after  one  of  his  friends  — 
Phasaelus,  after  his  brother  —  and  Mariamne,  after 
his  queen  {Ant.  xvi.  5,  §  2;  B.J.  v.  4,  §  3).    ror 


B.  c.  34  or  33  —  the  date  of  Ilerod's  closest  relations 
with  Antony  :  and  we  may  therefore  infer  that  th« 
alterations  to  the  fortress  had  been  at  least  7  or  I 
years  in  progress. 

b  The  old  palace  of  the  Asmoneans  continued  to  bt 
known  as  «  the  royal  palace,"  to  ^aaiXeiw  {Jnt.  xx 
8,  §  U) 


JERUSALEM 

kheir  positions  see  section  III.  p.  1317.  Phasaelua 
appears  to  Imve  been  erected  first  of  the  three  {Ant. 
ivii.  JO,  §  2),  though  it  cannot  have  beer  begun 
at  the  time  of  Phasaelus's  death,  as  tnat  tock  place 
some  years  before  Jerusalem  came  into  Herod's 
hands. 

About  this  time  occurred  —  if  it  occurred  at  all, 
which  seems  more  than  doubtful  (Prideaux,  Anrio 
134)  —  Herod's  unsuccessful  attempt  to  plunder 
the  sepulchre  of  David  of  the  remainder  of  the 
treasures  left  there  by  Hyrcanus  (Joseph.  A7it.  xvi. 
7,  §  !)• 

In  or  about  the  year  7  occurred  the  affair  of  the 
Golden  l*2agle,  a  parallel  to  that  of  the  theatre,  and, 
like  that,  important,  as  showing  how  strongly  the 
Maccabeean  spirit  of  resistance  to  innovations  on 
the  Jewisli  law  still  existed,  and  how  vain  were  any 
concessions  in  the  other  direction  in  the  presence 
of  such  innovations.  Herod  had  fixed  a  large 
golden  eaifle,  the  symbol  of  the  Koman  empire,  of 
which  <I  udcea  was  now  a  province,  over  the  entrance 
to  the  Sanctuary,  probably  at  the  same  time  that 
he  inscribed  the  name  of  Agrippa  on  the  gate  {B. 
./.  i.  21,  §  8).  As  a  breach  of  the  2d  command- 
ment —  not  as  a  badge  of  dependence  —  this  had 
excited  the  indignation  of  the  Jews,  and  especially 
of  two  of  the  chief  Kabbis,  who  instigated  their 
disciples  to  tear  it  down.  A  folse  report  of  the 
king's  death  was  made  the  occasion  of  doing  this 
in  0})en  day,  and  in  the  presence  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  people.  Being  taken  before  Herod,  the  Rab- 
bis defended  their  conduct  and  were  burnt  alive. 
The  high-priest  iNIatthias  was  deposed,  and  Joazar 
took  his  place. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  in  Jerusalem  when 
Herod  died,  in  the  year  4  b.  c.  of  the  common 
chronology  (Dionysian  era),  but  really  a  few  months 
after  the  birth  of  Christ.     [Jesus  Christ.] 

The  government  of  Judaea,  and  therefore  of  Jeru- 
salem, had  by  the  will  of  Herod  been  bequeathed 
to  Archelaus.  He  lost  no  time  after  the  burial  of 
his  father  in  presenting  himself  in  the  Temple, 
and  addressing  the  people  on  the  aflfairs  of  the 
kingdom  —  a  display  of  confidence  and  modera- 
tion, strongly  in  contrast  to  the  demeanor  of  tlie 
late  king.  It  produced  an  instant  effect  on  the 
excited  minds  of  the  Jews,  still  smarting  from  the 
failure  of  the  affair  of  the  eagle,  and  from  the  chas- 
tisement it  had  brought  upon  them;  and  Arche- 
laus was  besieged  with  clamors  for  the  liberation 
of  the  numerous  persons  imprisoned  by  the  late 
king,  and  for  remission  of  the  taxes.  As  the  peo- 
ple collected  for  the  evening  sacrifice  the  matter 
became  more  serious,  and  assumed  the  form  of  a 
public  demonstration,  of  lamentation  for  the  two 
martyrs,  Judas  and  Matthias,  and  indignation 
wgaiast  the  intruded  high-priest.  So  loud  and 
ftkrill  were  the  cries  of  lament  that  they  were  heard 


JERUSALEM 


1801 


o  The  determination  of  the  locality  of  the  legion 
during  tliis  atlair  is  most  puzzling.  On  the  one  hand, 
the  position  of  the  insurgents,  who  lay  completely 
;;t)und  the  Temple,  South,  East,  North,  and  West,  and 
who  are  expressly  said  thus  to  have  hemmed  in  the 
Romans  on  all  sides  (Ant.  xvii.  10,  §  2),  and  also  the 
expression  used  about  the  s.iily  of  t'le  legion,  namely, 
hat  they  "  leaped  out  "  into  t:i(>  T(?tiiple,  seeiu  to  point 
oevitably  to  the  Antonia  On  tae  other  hand,  Sabi- 
VU8  gave  the  signal  for  the  attack  from  the  tower 
7Ua8aelu3  (Ant.  ibid.).  But  Phasaelus  was  on  the  old 
wnU,  clo0e  to  Ilerod's  palace,  fully  half  a  mile,  as  the 
irow  fliea,  from  the  T*«uple  —  a  strange  distance  for  a 


over  the  whole  city.  Archelaus  meanwhile  temp> 
rized  and  promised  redress  when  his  governmec 
should  be  confirmed  by  Konie.  The  Tasaover  wa» 
close  at  hand,  and  the  city  wai  fast  filling  with  the 
nmltitudes  of  rustics  and  of  pilgrim«i  (e/c  ttjs  vrre- 
popias),  who  crowded  to  the  great  Feast  (B.  J.  ii. 
1,  §  3;  Ant.  xvii.  9,  §  3).  These  strangers,  not 
being  able  or  willing  to  find  admittance  into  the 
houses,  pitched  their  tents  (tovs  aurSOi  iaKrjvea 
kStus)  on  the  open  ground  around  the  Temple 
(Ant.  ibid.).  Meanwhile  the  tumult  in  the  Temple 
itself  was  maintained  and  increased  daily;  a  mul- 
titude of  fanatics  never  left  the  courts,  but  con- 
tinued there,  incessantly  clamoring  and  impre- 
cating. 

Longer  delay  in  dealing  with  such  a  state  of 
things  would  have  been  madness ;  a  small  party  of 
soldiers  had  already  been  roughly  handled  by  the 
mob  (B.J.  ii.  1,  §  3),  and  Archelaus  at  la.st  did 
what  his  father  would  have  done  at  first.  He  de- 
spatched the  whole  garrison,  horse  and  foot,  the 
foot-soldiers  by  way  of  the  city  to  clear  the  Temple, 
the  horse-soldiers  by  a  detour  round  the  level 
ground  north  of  the  town,  to  surprise  the  pilgrims 
on  the  eastern  slopes  of  Moriah,  and  prevent  their 
rushing  to  the  succor  of  the  fanatics  in  the  Temple. 
The  movement  succeeded:  3,000  were  cut  up  and 
the  whole  concourse  dispersed  over  the  country. 

During  Archelaus'  absence  at  Rome,  Jerusalem 
was  in  charge  of  Sabinus,  the  Roman  procurator 
of  the  province,  and  the  tumults — ostensibly  on 
the  occasion  of  some  exactions  of  Sabinus,  but 
doubtless  with  the  same  real  ground  as  before  — 
were  renewed  with  worse  results.  At  the  next 
feast,  Pentecost,  the  throng  of  strangers  was  enor- 
mous. They  formed  regular  encampments  round 
the  Temple,  and  on  the  western  hill  of  the  upper 
city,  and  besieged  Sabinus  and  his  legion,  who 
appear  to  have  been  in  the  Antonia.«  At  last  the 
Romans  made  a  sally  and  cut  their  way  into  the 
Temple.  The  struggle  was  desperate,  a  great  many 
Jews  were  killed,  the  cloisters  of  the  outer  court 
burnt  down,  and  the  sacred  treasury  plundered  of 
immense  sums.  But  no  reverses  could  quell  the 
fury  of  the  insurgents,  and  matters  were  not  ap- 
peased till  Varus,  the  prefect  of  the  province,  arrived 
from  the  north  with  a  large  force  and  dispersed  the 
strangers.     On  this  quiet  was  restored. 

In  the  year  3  b.  c.  Archelaus  returned  from 
Rome  cthnarch  of  the  southern  province.  He  im- 
mediately displaced  Joazar,  whom  his  father  had 
made  high-priest  after  the  affiiir  of  the  Eagle,  and 
put  Joazar's  brother  Eleazar  in  his  steiul.  This  is 
the  only  event  affecting  Jerusalem  that  is  recorded 
in  the  10  years  between  the  return  of  Archelaus  and 
his  summary  departure  to  trial  at  Rome  (a.  d.  6). 

Judaea  was  now  reduced  to  an  ordinary  Roman 
province;  the  procurator  of  which  resided,  not  at 


Roman  commander  to  be  off  from  his  troops !  The 
only  suggestion  that  occurs  to  the  writer  is  that  Pha- 
saelus was  the  name  not  only  of  the  tower  on  the 
wall,  but  of  the  southeast  corner  turret  of  Antonia, 
which  we  know  to  have  been  20  cubits  higher  than 
the  other  three  (B.  J.  v.  5,  §  8).  This  would  agree  with 
all  the  circumstances  of  the  narrative,  and  with  the 
account  th»*  ''abinus  was  "  in  the  highest  tower  of  thf 
fortress  ;  •  tne  very  position  occupied  by  Titus  during 
the  assault  on  the  Temple  from  Antonia.  But  thil 
suggestion  is  quite  unsupported  by  any  direct  avI- 
dence. 


1302 


JERUSALEM 


lerusaleia,  but  at  Caesarea  on  the  coast  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xviii.  3,  §  1).  The  first  appointed  was  Copo- 
Dius,  who  accompanied  Quirinus  to  the  country 
Immediately  on  the  disgrace  of  Archelaus.  Quiri- 
nus (the  Cykemus  of  the  N.  T.)  —  now  for  the 
second  time  prefect  of  Syria  —  was  charged  with 
the  unpopular  measure  of  the  enrolment  or  assess- 
ment of  the  inhabitants  of  Judaea.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  riots  which  took  place  elsewhere,  at  Jeru- 
salem the  enrollment  was  allowed  to  proceed  without 
resistance,  owing  to  the  prudence  of  Joazar  (A7ii. 
xviii.  1,  §  1),  again  high-priest  for  a  shoi-t  time. 
One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  new  governor  had  been 
to  take  formal  possession  of  the  state  vestments  of 
the  high-priest,  worn  on  the  three  Festivals  and  on 
tlie  Day  of  Atonement.  Since  the  building  of  the 
Baris  by  the  jNIaccabees  these  robes  had  always 
been  kept  there,  a  custom  continued  since  its  re- 
construction by  Herod.  But  henceforward  they 
were  to  be  put  up  after  use  in  an  underground  stone 
chamber,  under  the  seal  of  the  pi'iests,  and  in  charge 
of  the  captain  of  the  guard.  Seven  days  before 
use  they  were  brought  out,  to  be  consigned  again 
to  the  chamber  after  the  ceremony  was  over  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  3). 

Two  incidents  at  once  most  opposite  in  their 
character,  and  in  their  significance  to  that  age  and 
to  ourselves,  occurred  during  the  procuratorship  of 
Coponius.  First,  in  the  year  8,  the  finding  of 
Christ  in  the  Temple.  Annas  had  been  made  high- 
priest  about  a  year  before.  The  second  occurrence 
must  have  been  a  most  distressing  one  to  the  Jews, 
unless  they  had  become  inured  to  such  things. 
But  of  this  we  cannot  so  exactly  fix  the  date.  It 
was  nothuig  less  than  the  pollution  of  the  Temple 
by  some  Samaritans,  who  secretly  brought  human 
bones  and  strewed  them  about  the  cloisters  during 
the  night  of  the  Passover."  Up  to  this  time  the 
Samaritans  had  been  admitted  to  the  Temple ;  they 
were  henceforth  excluded. 

In  or  about  A.  i).  10,  Coponius  was  succeeded  by 
M.  Ambivius,  and  he  by  Annius  Kufus.  In  14, 
Augustus  died,  and  with  Tiberius  came  a  new  pro- 
curator—  Val.  Gratus,  who  held  office  till  20,  when 
he  was  replaced  by  Pontius  I*ilate.  During  this 
period  the  high-priests  had  been  numerous,''  but  it 
is  only  necessary  here  to  say  that  when  Pilate  ar- 
iived  at  his  government  the  office  was  held  by 
Joseph  Caiaphas,  who  had  been  appointed  but  a 
few  months  before.  The  freedom  from  disturbance 
which  marks  the  preceding  20  jears  at  Jerusalem 
was  probably  due  to  the  absence  of  the  Eoman 
troops,  who  were  quartered  at  Cassarea  out  of  the 
way  of  the  fierce  fanatics  of  the  Temple.  But 
Pilate  transferred  the  winter  quarters  of  the  army 
to  Jerusalem  {Ant.  xviii.  3,  §  1),  and  the  very  first 
day  there  was  a  collision.  The  offense  was  given 
by  the  IJoraan  standards  —  the  images  of  the  em- 
peror and  of  the  eagle  —  which  by  former  com- 
manders had  been  kept  out  of  the  city.  A  repre- 
ientation  was  made  to  Pilate ;  and  so  obstinate  was 
the  temper  of  the  Jews  on  the  point,  that  he 
yielded,  and  the  standards  were  withdrawn  (Ant. 
bid.).  He  afterwards,  as  if  to  try  how  far  he 
jdight  go,  consecrated  some  gilt  shields  —  not  con- 
taining figures,  but  inscril>ed  simply  with  the  name 
»f  the  deity  and  of  the  donor  —  and  hung  them 
!a  the  palace  at  Jsrurjalem.    This  act  again  aroused 


a  Tho  mode  of  pollution  adoptei  by  Josiah  towards 
1i«  VIoUtrous  shriaes  (see  p.  1287). 


JERUSALEM 

the  resistance  of  the  Jews ;  and  on  appeal  to  TCi* 
rius  they  were  removed  (Philo,  -n-phs  Faiovj  Mangey 
ii.  589). 

Another  riot  was  caused  by  his  appropriation  of 
the  Corban  —  a  sacred  revenue  arising  from  th« 
redemption  of  vows  —  to  the  cost  of  an  aqueduct 
which  he  constructed  for  bringing  water  to  the  city 
from  a  distance  of  200  {Ant.  xviii.  3,  §  2)  or  400 
{B.  J.  ii.  9,  §  4)  stadia.  This  aqueduct  has  been 
supposed  to  be  that  leading  from  *«  Solomon's 
PooLi  "  at  Urias  to  the  Temple  hill  (Klraffl,  in 
Ritter,  Erdkunde,  Pal.  27G),  but  the  distance  of 
Urtas  is  against  the  identification. 

A.  I).  29.  At  the  Passover  of  this  year  our  lx>rd 
made  his  first  recorded  visit  to  the  city  since  Iiia 
boyhood  (John  ii.  13). 

A.  D.  33.  At  the  Passover  of  this  year,  occurred 
his  crucifixion  and  resurrection. 

In  A.  D.  37,  Pilate  having  been  recalled  to  Rome 
Jerusalem  was  visited  by  Vitellius,  the  prefect  of 
Syria,  at  the  time  of  the  Passover.  Vitellius  con- 
ferred two  great  benefits  on  the  city.  He  remitted 
the  duties  levied  on  produce,  and  he  allowed  the 
Jews  again  to  have  the  free  custody  of  the  high- 
priest's  vestments.  He  removed  Caiaphas  from  the 
high-priesthood,  and  gave  it  to  Jonathan  son  of 
Annas.  He  then  departed,  apparently  leaving  a 
Roman  officer  {(ppovpapxos)  in  charge  of  the  An- 
tonia  {Ant.  xviii.  4,  §  3).  Vitellius  was  again  at 
Jerusalem  this  year,  probably  in  the  autumn,  with 
Herod  the  tetrarch  (xviii.  5,  §  3);  while  there,  he 
again  changed  the  h»gh-priest,  substituting  for  Jon- 
athan, Theophilus  his  brother.  The  news  of  the 
death  of  Tiberius  and  the  accession  of  Caligula 
reached  Jerusalem  at  this  time.  Marcellus  was  ap- 
pointed procurator  by  the  new  emperor.  In  the 
following  year  Stephen  was  stoned.  The  Chris- 
tians were  greatly  persecuted,  and  all,  except  the 
Apostles,  driven  out  of  Jerusalem  (Acts  viii.  1,  xi. 
19). 

In  A.  D.  40,  Vitellius  was  superseded  by  P.  Pe- 
tronius,  who  arrived  in  Palestine  with  an  order  to 
place  in  the  Temple  a  statue  of  Caligula.  This 
order  was  ultimately,  by  the  intercession  of  Agrippa, 
countermanded,  but  not  until  it  had  roused  the 
whole  people  as  one  man  {Ant.  xviii.  8,  §§  2-9;  and 
see  the  admirable  narrative  of  Milman,  IJist.  of 
Jews,  bk.  x.). 

With  the  accession  of  Claudius  in  41  came  an 
edict  of  toleration  to  the  Jews.  Agrippa  arrived  in 
Palestine  to  take  possession  of  his  kingdom,  and 
one  of  his  first  acts  was  to  visit  the  Temple,  where 
he  offered  sacrifice  and  dedicated  the  golden  chain 
which  the  late  emperor  had  presented  him  after  hia 
release  from  captivity.  It  was  hung  over  the  Ti-eaa- 
ury  {Ant.  xix.  6,  §  1).  Simon  was  made  high- 
priest;  the  house-tax  was  remitted. 

Agrippa  resided  very  much  at  Jenisalem,  and 
added  materially  to  its  prosperity  and  convenience. 
The  city  had  for  some  time  been  extending  itself 
towards  the  north,  and  a  large  suburb  had  come 
into  existence  on  the  high  ground  north  of  the 
Temple,  and  outside  of  the  "second  wall"  which 
inclosed  the  northern  part  of  the  great  central  val- 
ley of  the  city.  Hitherto  the  outer  portion  of  thif 
suburb  —  which  was  called  Bezetha,  or  "New 
ToviTi,"  and  had  grown  up  very  rapidly  — was  un- 
protected by  any  formal  wall,  and  practically  Ut 


b  Their  names  and  succession  will  be  found 
HiQH-PiuEST,  p.  lOTik.     See  also  Annas. 


JERUSALEM 

ypea  to  attack."  This  defenseless  condition  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  Agrippa,  who,  like  the  first 
Herod,  was  a  great  builder,  and  he  commenced  in- 
closing it  in  so  substantial  and  magnificent  a  man- 
ner as  to  excite  the  suspicions  of  the  Prefect,  at 
whose  instance  it  was  stopped  by  Claudius  (Ant. 
ibid.;  B.  J.  ii.  11,  §  6,  v.  4,  §  2).  Subsequent./ 
the  Jews  seem  to  have  purchased  permission  to 
complete  the  work  (Tac.  Hist.  v.  12;  Joseph.  B.  J. 
V.  4,  §  2,  ad  Jin.).  This  new  wall,  the  outermost 
of  the  three  which  inclosed  the  city  on  the  north, 
started  from  the  old  wall  at  the  Tower  Hippicus, 
near  the  N.  W.  corner  of  the  city.  It  ran  north- 
ward, bending  by  a  large  circuit  to  the  east,  and 
at  last  returning  southward  along  the  western  brink 
of  the  Valley  of  Kedrou  till  it  joined  the  southern 
wall  of  the  Temple.  Thus  it  inclosed  not  only  the 
new  suburb,  but  also  the  district  immediately  north 
and  northeast  of  the  Temple  on  the  brow  of  the 
Kedron  Valley,  which  up  to  the  present  date  had 
lain  open  to  the  country.  The  huge  stones  which 
still  lie  —  many  of  them  undisturbed  —  in  the  east 
and  south  walls  of  the  Haram  area,  especially  the 
southeast  corner  under  the  "  Bath  and  Cradle  of 
Jesus,"  are  pai-tsof  this  wall.* 

The  year  43  is  memorable  as  that  of  St.  Paul's 
first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his  conversion.  The 
year  44  began  with  the  murder  of  St.  James  by 
Agrippa  (Acts  xii.  1),  followed  at  the  Passover  by 
the  imprisonment  and  escape  of  St.  Peter.  Shortly 
after,  Agrippa  himself  died.  Cuspius  Fadus  arrived 
from  Rome  as  procurator,  and  I^nginus  as  prefect 
of  Syria.  An  attempt  was  made  by  the  liomans 
to  regain  possession  of  the  pontifical  robes ;  but  on 
reference  to  the  emperor  the  attempt  was  aban- 
doned. In  45  commenced  a  severe  famine  which 
lasted  two  years  (Ewald,  Gesch.  vi.  409,  note). 
To  the  people  of  Jerusalem  it  was  alleviated  by  the 
presence  of  Helena,  queen  of  Adiabene,  a  convert 
to  the  Jewish  faith,  who  visited  the  city  in  46  and 
imported  corn  and  dried  fruit,  which  she  distrib- 
uted to  the  poor  (Ant.  xx.  2,  §  5;  5,  §  2).  Dur- 
ing her  stay  Helena  constructed,  at  a  distance  of 
three  stadia  from  the  city,  a  tomb,  marked  by  three 
pyramids,  to  which  her  remains,  with  those  of  her 
son,  were  afterwards  brought  {Ant.  xx.  4,  §  3).  It 
was  situated  to  the  north,  and  formed  one  of  the 
points  in  the  course  of  the  new  wall  {B.  J.  v.  4,  § 
2).  At  the  end  of  this  year  St.  Paul  arrived  in 
Jerusalem  for  the  second  time. 

A.  D.  48.  Fadus  was  succeeded  by  Ventidius 
Cumanus.  A  frightful  tumult  happened  at  the 
Passover  of  this  year,  caused,  as  on  former  occa- 
sions, by  tlie  presence  of  the  Koman  soldiers  in  the 
Antonia  and  in  the  courts  and  cloisters  of  the  Tem- 
ple during  the  festival.  Ten,  or,  according  to  an- 
other account,  twenty  thousand,  are  said  to  have 
met  thoir  deaths  not  by  the  sword,  but  trodden  to 
death  in  the  crush  through  the  narrow  lanes  which 
led  from  the  Temple  down  into  the  city  (Ant.  xx. 
5,  §  3;  B.  J.  ii.  12,  §  1).  Cumanus  was  recalled, 
and  Feu.k  appointed  in  his  room  {Ant.  xx.  7, 
§  1;  B.J.  ii.  12,  §  8),  partly  at  ths  distance  of 
Jonathan,  the  then  high-priest  {Ant.  xx.  8,  §  5). 


«  Th9  statements  of  Josephus  are  not  quite  recon- 
plable.  In  one  passage  he  says  distinctly  that  Be- 
etha  lay  quite  naked  (B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2),  in  another  that 

had  some  kind  of  wall  {Ant.  xix.  7,  §  2). 

b  *  For  the  view  which  claims  a  higher  antiquity  for 
bsee  walls  —  making  them  coeval  with  the  remaining 
ubitruetionB  —  see  §  IV.,  Amer.  ed.  S.  W. 


JERUSALEM  130JI 

A  set  of  ferocious  fanatics,  whom  Jo^ephns  caSi 
Stcai-ii,  had  lately  begun  to  make  their  appearance 
in  the  city,  whose  creed  it  was  to  rob  and  murdei 
all  whom  they  judged  hostile  to  Jewish  interests. 
Felix,  weary  of  the  remonstrances  of  Jonathan  on 
his  vicious  life,  employed  some  of  these  wretches 
to  assassinate  him  lie  was  killed  in  the  Temple, 
while  sacrificing.  The  murder  was  never  inquired 
into,  and,  emboldened  by  this,  the  Sicarii  lepeated 
their  horrid  act,  thus  adding,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jews,  the  awful  crime  of  sacrilege  to  that  of  mur- 
der {B.  J.  ii.  13,  §  3;  A?U.  ibid.).  The  city,  too, 
was  filled  with  impostors  pretending  to  inspiration, 
but  inspired  only  with  hatred  to  all  government 
and  order.  Nor  was  the  disorder  confined  to  the 
lower  classes :  the  chief  people  of  the  city,  the  very 
high-priests  themselves,  robbed  the  threshing-floors 
of  the  tithes  common  to  all  the  priests,  and  led 
parties  of  rioters  to  open  tumult  and  fighting  in 
the  streets  {Ant.  xx.  8,  §  8).  In  fact,  not  only  Je- 
rusalem, but  the  whole  country  far  and  wide,  was 
in  the  most  frightful  confusion  and  insecurity. 

At  length  a  riot  at  Csesarea  of  the  most  serious 
description  caused  the  recall  of  Felix,  and  in  the 
end  of  60  or  the  beginning  of  61,  PoRCius  Festus 
succeeded  him  as  procurator.  Festus  was  an  able 
and  upright  officer  {B.  J.  ii.  14,  §  1),  and  at  the 
same  time  conciliatory  towards  the  Jews  (Acts 
xxv.  9).  In  the  brief  period  of  his  administration 
he  kept  down  the  robbers  with  a  strong  hand,  and 
gave  the  province  a  short  breathing  time.  His  in- 
terview with  St.  Paul  (Acts  xxv.,  xxvi.)  took  place, 
not  at  Jerusalem,  but  at  Ca?sai-ea.  On  one  occa- 
sion both  Festus  and  Agrippa  came  into  collision 
with  the  Jews  at  Jerusidem.  Agrippa  —  who  had 
been  appointed  king  by  Nero  in  52  —  had  added 
an  apartment  to  the  old  Asmonean  palace  on  the 
eastern  brow  of  the  upper  city,  which  commanded 
a  full  view  into  the  interior  of  the  courts  of  the 
Temple.  This  view  the  Jews  intercepted  by  build 
ing  a  wall  on  the  west  side  of  the  inner  quad- 
rangle.c  But  the  wall  not  only  intei'cepted  Agrippa, 
it  also  interfered  with  the  view  from  the  outer 
cloisters  in  which  the  Roman  guard  was  stationed 
during  the  festivals.  Both  Agrippa  and  Festus 
interfered,  and  required  it  to  be  pulled  down ;  but 
the  Jews  pleaded  that  once  built  it  was  a  part  of 
the  Temple,  and  entreated  to  be  allowed  to  appeal 
to  Nero.  Nero  allowed  their  plea,  but  retained  as 
hostages  the  high-priest  and  treasurer,  who  had 
headed  the  deputation.  Agrippa  appointed  Joseph, 
called  Cabi,  to  the  vacant  priesthood.  In  62  (prob- 
ably) Festus  died,  and  was  succeeded  by  Albinus, 
and  he  again  very  shortly  after  by  Annas  or  Anar- 
nus,  son  of  the  Annas  before  whom  our  Ix)rd  was 
taken.  In  the  interval  a  persecution  was  com- 
menced against  the  Christians  at  the  instance  of 
the  new  high-priest,  a  rigid  Sadducee,  and  St. 
James  and  others  were  arraigned  before  the  San- 
hedrim (Joseph.  Atit.  XX.  9,  §  1).  They  were 
"delivered  to  be  stoned."  but  St.  James  at  any 
rate  appears  not  to  have  been  killed  till  a  few  years 
la':ar.  The  act  gave  great  offense  to  all,  and  cost 
Annas  his  office  after  he  had  held  it  but  three 


c  No  one  in  Jerusalem  might  build  so  high  that  h^s 
house  could  overlook  the  Temple  It  was  the  subject 
of  a  distinct  prohibition  by  the  Doctors.  See  Maimon  ■ 
ides,  quoted  by  Otho,  Lex.  Rob.  2GG.  P:t>bably  thl* 
furniaAcd  one  reason  for  so  hf»atile  a  step  fc-  «o  firiendlj 
a  person  as  Agrippa. 


1304  JERUSALEM 

aionths.  Jesus  (Joshua),  the  son  of  Damneus, 
■ucceeded  him.  Albinus  began  his  rule  by  en- 
deavoring fx)  keep  down  the  Sicarii  and  other  dis- 
turbers of  the  peace;  and  indeed  he  preserved 
throughout  a  show  of  justice  and  vigor  {Ant.  xx. 
11,  §  1),  though  in  secret  greedy  and  rapacious. 
But  before  his  recall  he  pursued  his  end  more 
openly,  and  priests,  people,  and  governors  alike 
geem  to  have  been  bent  on  rapine  and  bloodshed: 
rival  high-priests  headed  bodies  of  rioters,  and 
stoned  each  other,  and  in  the  words  of  Josephus, 
"all  things  grew  from  worse  to  worse"  (Ant.  xx. 
9,  §  4).  The  evils  were  aggravated  by  two  occur- 
rences—  first,  the  release  by  Albinus,  before  his 
departure,  of  all  the  smaller  criminals  in  the  pris- 
ons (Ant.  XX.  9,  §  5);  and  secondly,  the  sudden 
discharge  of  an  immense  body  of  workmen,  on  the 
completion  of  the  repairs  to  the  Temple  (xx.  9,  § 
7).  An  endeavor  was  made  to  remedy  the  latter 
by  inducing  Agrippa  to  rebuild  the  eastern  cloister; 
but  he  refused  to  undertake  a  work  of  such  mag- 
nitude, though  he  consented  to  pave  the  city  with 
marble.  The  repairs  of  a  part  of  the  sanctuary 
that  had  fallen,  and  tlie  renewal  of  the  foundations 
of  some  portions  were  defen-ed  for  the  present,  but 
the  materials  were  collected  and  stored  in  one  of 
the  courts  (5.  J.  v.  1,  §  5). 

Bad  as  Albinus  had  been,  Gessius  Florus,  who 
succeeded  him  in  65,  was  worse.  In  fact,  even 
Tacitus  admits  that  the  endurance  of  the  oppressed 
Jews  could  last  no  longer  —  "  duravit  patientia  Ju- 
dseis  usque  ad  Gessium  Florum  "  {/list.  v.  10).  So 
great  was  his  rapacity,  that  whole  cities  and  dis- 
tricts were  desolated,  and  the  robbers  openly  allowed 
to  purchase  immunity  in  plunder.  At  the  l*assover, 
probably  in  60,  when  Cestius  Gallus,  the  prefect  of 
Syria,  visited  Jerusalem,  the  whole  assembled 
people «  besought  him  for  redress;  but  without 
effect.  Florus's  next  attempt  was  to  obtain  some 
of  the  treasure  from  the  Temple.  He  demanded 
17  talents  in  the  name  of  the  emperor.  The  de- 
mand produced  a  frantic  disturbance,  in  the  midst 
of  which  he  approached  the  city  with  both  cavalry 
and  foot-soldiers.  That  night  Florus  took  up  his 
quarters  in  the  royal  palace  —  that  of  Herod,  at  the 
N.  \V.  corner  of  the  city.  On  the  following  morn- 
ing he  took  his  seat  on  the  Benia,  and  the  high- 
priest  and  other  principal  people  being  brought 
Ijefore  him,  he  demanded  that  the  leaders  of  the 
late  riot  should  be  given  up.  On  their  refusal  he 
ordered  his  soldiers  to  plunder  the  upi^er  city.  ITiis 
order  was  but  too  faithfully  carried  out;  every 
•  house  was  enteretl  and  pillaged,  and  the  Jews  driven 
out.  In  their  attempt  to  get  through  the  narrow 
streets  which  lay  in  the  valley  between  the  upper 
city  and  the  Temple,  many  were  caught  and  slain, 
others  were  brought  before  Florus,  scourged,  and 
then  crucified.  No  grade  or  class  was  exempt. 
Jews  who  bore  the  Roman  equestrian  order  were 
among  the  victims  treated  with  most  indignity. 
Queen  Berenice  herself  {B.  J.  ii.  15,  §  1)  — 
residing  at  that  time  in  the  Asmonean  palace 
in  the  very  midst  of  the  slaughter  —  was  so  af- 
fected by  the  scene,  as  to  intercede  in  person  and 
barefoot  before  Florus,  but  without  avail,  and  in 
returning  she  was  herself  nearly  killed,  and  only 
escaped  by  taking  refuge  in  her  palace  and  calling 
Kcr  guards  about  her.     The  further  details  of  this 


JERUSALEM 

dreadful  tumult  must  be  passed  over.*  Flcrua  was 
foiled  in  his  attempt  to  press  through  the  old  city 
up  into  the  Antonia  —  whence  he  would  have  hao 
nearer  access  to  the  treasures  —  and  finding  that 
the  Jews  had  broken  down  the  north  and  west 
cloisters  where  they  joined  the  fortress,  so  as  to  cut 
off  the  communication,  he  relinquished  the  attempt 
and  withdrew  to  Caesarea  (B.  ./.    ii.  15,  §  6). 

Cestius  Gallus,  the  prefect,  now  found  it  neces- 
sary for  him  to  visit  the  city  in  person.  He  sent 
one  of  his  heutenants  to  announce  him,  but  before 
he  himself  arrived  events  had  become  past  remedy. 
Agrippa  had  shortly  before  returned  from  Alexan- 
dria, and  had  done  much  to  calm  the  people.  At 
his  instance  they  rebuilt  the  part  of  the  cloisters 
which  had  been  demolished,  and  collected  the  trib- 
ute in  arrear,  but  the  mere  suggestion  from  him 
that  they  should  obey  Florus  until  he  was  repiacea, 
produced  such  a  storm  that  he  was  obliged  to 
leave  the  city  (B.  J.  ii.  16,  §  5;  17,  §  1).  The 
seditious  party  in  the  Temple  led  by  young  Elea- 
zar,  son  of  Ananias,  rejected  the  offerings  of  the 
Roman  emperor,  which  since  the  time  of  Julius 
Caesar  had  been  regularly  made.  This,  as  a  direct 
renunciation  of  allegiance,  was  the  true  beginning 
of  the  war  wich  Rome  (B.  J.  ii.  17,  §  2).  Such 
acts  were  not  done  without  resistance  from  the 
older  and  wiser  people.  But  remonstrance  was 
unavailing,  the  itmovators  would  listen  to  no  repre- 
sentations. The  peace  party,  therefore,  despatched 
some  of  their  number  to  Florus  and  to  Agrippa, 
and  the  latter  sent  3,000  horse-soldiers  to  assist  in 
keeping  order. 

Hostilities  at  once  began.  The  peace  party, 
headed  by  the  high-priest,  and  fortified  by  Agrippa's 
soldiers,  threw  themselves  into  the  upper  city.  The 
insurgents  held  the  Temple  and  the  lower  city.  In 
the  Antonia  was  a  small  Roman  garrison.  Fierce 
contests  lasted  for  seven  days,  each  side  endeavoring 
to  take  possession  of  the  part  held  by  the  other. 
At  last  the  insurgents,  who  behaved  with  the 
greatest  ferocity,  and  were  reinforced  by  a  number 
of  Sicarii,  were  triumphant.  They  gained  the  upper 
city,  driving  all  before  them  —  the  high-priest  and 
other  leaders  into  vaults  and  sewers,  the  soldiers 
into  Herod's  palace.  The  Asmonean  palace,  the 
high- priest's  house,  and  the  repository  of  the 
Archives  —  in  Josephus's  language,  "  the  nen-es 
of  the  city"  {B.  J.  ii.  17,  §  6)  — were  set  on  fire. 
Antonia  was  next  attacked,  and  in  two  days  they 
had  effected  an  entrance,  sabred  the  garrison,  and 
burnt  the  fortress.  The  balistae  and  catapults 
found  there  were  preserved  for  future  use  (v.  6, 
§  3).  The  soldiers  in  Herod's  palace  were  next 
besieged ;  but  so  strong  were  the  walls,  and  so  stout 
the  resistance,  that  it  was  three  weeks  before  an 
entrance  could  be  effected.  The  soldiers  were  at 
last  forced  from  the  palace  into  the  three  great 
towers  on  the  adjoining  wall  with  great  loss;  and 
ultimately  were  all  nnirdered  in  the  most  treacher- 
ous manner.  The  high-priest  and  his  brother  were 
discovered  hidden  in  the  aqueduct  of  the  palace: 
they  were  instantly  put  to  death.  Tims  the  inour- 
gents  were  now  completely  masters  of  both  city  anH 
Temple.  But  they  were  not  to  remain  so  long 
After  the  defeat  of  Cestius  Gallus  at  Bcth-horon,  dis- 
sensions began  to  arise,  and  it  soon  became  knowE 
that  there  was  still  a  large  moderate  party;  vat 


a  Josephus  says  three  millions  in  number !  Three 
KiUlicr'S  la  Tery  little  nudur  the  population  of  London 
Tlth  all  its  Bubiubo 


6  The  whole  tragic  8'x)ry  is  most  forcibly  told  few 
MUman  (ii.  21»-224) 


JERUSALEM 

(3estiuat  took  adv.antage  of  this  to  advance  from 
Boopus  on  the  city.  He  made  his  way  through 
Bezetba,  the  new  suburb  north  of  the  Temple.o  and 
through  the  wood-market,  burning  everything  as 
he  went  {B.  J.  v.  7,  §  2),  and  at  last  encamped 
opposite  the  palace  at  the  f^ot  of  the  second  wall. 
The  Jews  retired  to  the  upper  city  and  to  the 
Temple.  For  five  days  Cestius  assaulted  the  wall 
without  success ;  on  the  sixth  he  resolved  to  make 
one  more  attempt,  this  time  at  a  different  spot  — 
the  north  wall  of  the  Temple,  east  of,  and  behind, 
the  Antonia.  Tiie  Jews,  however,  fought  with  such 
fury  from  the  top  of  the  cloisters,  that  he  could 
effect  nothing,  and  when  night  came  he  drew  off"  to 
his  camp  at  Scopus.  Thither  the  insurgents  fol- 
lowed him,  and  in  three  days  gave  him  one  of  the 
most  cotnplete  defeats  that  a  Roman  army  had  ever 
undergone.  His  catapults  and  balistae  were  taken 
from  him,  and  reserved  by  the  Jews  for  the  final 
siege  (v.  6,  §  3).  This  occurred  on  the  8th  of 
Marchesvan  (beginning  of  November),  66. 

The  war  with  Kome  was  now  inevitable,  and  it 
was  evident  that  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  only  a 
question  of  time.  Ananus,  the  high-priest,  a  mod- 
erate and  prudent  man,  took  the  lead ;  the  walls 
were  repaired,  arms  and  warlike  instruments  and 
machines  of  all  kinds  fabricated,  and  other  prepara- 
tions made.  In  this  attitude  of  expectation  —  with 
occasional  diversions,  such  as  the  expedition  to 
Ascalon  {B.  J.  iii.  2,  §§  1,  2),  and  the  skirmishes 
with  Simon  Bar-Gioras  (ii.  22,  §  2) — the  city 
remained  while  Vespasian  was  reducing  the  north 
of  the  country,  and  till  tlie  fall  of  Giscala  (Oct.  or 
Nov.  67),  when  John,  the  son  of  Levi,  escaped 
thence  to  Jerusalem,  to  become  one  of  the  most 
prominent  persons  in  the  future  conflict. 

From  the  arrival  of  John,  two  years  and  a  half 
elapsed  till  Titus  appeared  before  the  walls  of  Jeru- 
salem. The  whole  of  that  time  was  occupied  in 
contests  between  the  moderate  party,  whose  desire 
was  to  take  such  a  course  as  might  yet  preserve  the 
nationality  of  the  Jews  and  the  existence  of  the 
city,  and  the  Zealots  or  fanatics,  the  assertors  of 
national  independence,  who  scouted  the  idea  of 
compromise;  and  resolved  to  regain  their  freedom 
or  perish.  The  Zealots,  being  utterly  unscrupulous, 
and  resorting  to  massacre  on  the  least  resistance, 
»KX)n  triumphed,  and  at  last  reigned  paramount, 
TPith  no  resistance  but  such  as  sprang  from  their 
own  interiial  factions.  For  the  repulsive  details  of 
this  frightful  period  of  contention  and  outrage  the 
reader  must  be  referred  to  other  works.''  It  will 
be  sufficient  to  say  that  at  the  beginning  of  70, 
when  Titus  made  his  appearance,  the  Zealots  them- 
gelves  were  divided  into  two  parties  —  that  of  John 
of  Giscala  and  Fleazar,  who  held  the  Temple  and 
its  coiu-ts  and  the  Antonia  —  8,400  men ;  that  of 
Simon  Bar-Gioras,  whose  head-quarters  were  in  the 
tower  Phasaelus  (v.  4,  §  3),  and  who  held  the  upper 
city,  from  the  present  Coenaculum  to  the  Latin 
Convent,  the  lower  city  in  the  valley,  and  the  dis- 
trict where  the  old  Acra  had  formerly  stood,  north 


JERUSALEM 


1306 


of  tne  Temple —  10,000  men,  and  5,000  IdvimsBADi 
{B.  J.  V.  0,  §  1),  hi  all,  a  force  of  between  23,000 
and  24,000  soldiers  trained  in  the  civil  encounters 
of  the  last  two  years  to  great  skill  and  thorough 
recklessness.*'  The  numbers  of  the  other  inhabi- 
tants, swelled,  as  they  were,  by  the  strangers  and 
pilgrims  who  flocked  from  the  country  to  the  Pas*" 
over,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  decide.  Tacitus 
doubtless  from  some  Koman  source,  gives  the  whoL 
at  600,000.  Josephus  states  that  1,100,000  perishet 
during  the  siege  {B. ./.  vi.  9,  §  3;  comj).  v.  13,  §  7) 
and  that  more  than  40,000  were  allowed  to  depart 
into  the  country  (vi.  8,  §  2),  in  addition  to  an 
»  immense  number  "  sold  to  the  army,  and  who  of 
course  form  a  proportion  of  the  97,001)  "  carried 
captive  during  the  whole  war"  (vi.  9,  §  3).  We 
may  therefore  take  Josephus's  computation  of  the 
numbers  at  about  1,200,000.  Reasons  are  given 
in  the  third  section  of  this  article  for  beUeving  that 
even  the  smaller  of  these  numbers  is  very  greatly 
in  excess,  and  that  it  cannot  have  exceeded  60,001 
or  70,000  (seep.  1320). 

Titus's  force  consisted  of  four  legions,  and  soma 
auxiliaries  —  at  the  outside  30,000  men  {B.  J.\.l, 
§  0).  These  were  disposed  on  their  first  aiTival  in 
three  camps  —  the  12tli  and  15th  legions  on  the 
ridge  of  Scopus,  about  a  mile  north  of  the  city ;  the 
5th  a  little  in  the  rear ;  and  the  10th  on  the  top 
of  the  Mount  of  Olives  (v.  2,  §§  3,  5),  to  guard  the 
road  to  the  Jordan  Valley,  and  to  shell  the  place 
(if  the  expression  may  be  allowed)  from  that  com- 
manding position.  The  army  was  well  furnished 
with  artillery  and  machines  of  the  latest  and  most 
approved  invention  —  "  cuncta  expugnandis  urbibus, 
reperta  apud  veteres,  aut  novis  ingeniis,"  says 
Tacitus  {BisL  v.  13).  The  first  operation  was  to 
clear  the  ground  between  Scopus  and  the  north 
wall  of  the  city  —  fell  the  timber,  destroy  the  fences 
of  the  gardens  which  fringed  the  wall,  and  level 
the  rocky  protuberances.  This  occupied  four  days. 
After  it  was  done  the  three  legions  were  marched 
forward  from  Scopus,  and  eiicamped  off"  the  north- 
west corner  of  the  walls,  stretching  from  the  Towei 
Psephinus  to  opposite  Hippicus.  The  first  step  was 
to  get  possession  of  the  outer  wall.  The  point  of 
attack  chosen  was  in  Simon's  portion  of  the  city, 
at  a  low  and  comparatively  weak  place  near  the 
monument  of  John  Hyrcanus  (v.  6,  §  2),  close  to 
the  junction  of  the  three  walls,  and  where  the  upper 
city  came  to  a  level  with  the  surrounding  ground. 
Round  this  spot  the  three  legions  erected  banks, 
from  which  they  opened  batteries,  pushing  up  the 
rams  and  other  engines  of  attack  to  the  foot  of  the 
wall.  One  of  the  rams,  more  powerful  than  the  rest, 
went  among  the  Jews  by  the  sobriquet  of  N)ion,<* 
"  the  conqueror."  Three  large  towers,  75  feet  high, 
were  also  erected,  overtopping  the  wall.  INIef^ntine 
from  their  camp  on  the  Mount  of  Olives  the  lOih 
legion  opened  fire  on  the  Temple  and  the  east  side 
of  the  city.  They  had  the  heaviest  balistae,  and 
did  great  damage.  Simon  and  his  men  did  not 
suff'er  these  works  to  go  on  without  molestation. 


o  It  is  remarkable  that  nothing  is  said  of  any 
resistance  to  his  passage  through  the  great  wall  of 
A^grippa,  which  encircled  Bezetha. 

'>  Dean  Milman's  History  of  the  Jews,  bks.  xiv..  xv., 
nl  ;  and  Mtrivale's  History  of  the  Romans,  vi.  eh. 
Id.  To  both  of  these  works  the  writer  begs  leave  to 
^press  bis  obligii,ti(ns  throughout  the  above  meagre 
iketch  of  "  the  most  soul-stirring  struggle  of  all 
history.''  Of  course  the  materials  for  all 
aci^uiits  are  in  Josephus  only,  excepting  the 


few  touches  —  strong,  but  not  always  accurate  —  in 
the  5th  book  of  Tacitus'  Histories. 

c  These  are  the  numbers  given  >>y  Josephus  ;  btit 
it  is  probable  that  they  are  exaggerated. 

d  'O  NiKcoi/  .  .  .  drr^.  toO  navra  vikSlv  {B.  J.  T.  7 
§  2).  A  curious  questicn  is  raised  by  the  occurrence 
of  this  and  other  Greek  names  in  Josephus  ;  so  stated 
as  to  lead  to  the  inference  that  Greek  was  familiarlj 
usad  by  the  Jews  indiscriminately  with  Hebrew.  Sm 
th«^  catalogues  of  names  in  B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2. 


1306 


JERUSALEM 


The  catapults,  both  those  taken  from  Cestius,  and 
those  found  in  the  Antonia,  were  set  up  on  the 
wall,  and  constant  desperate  sallies  were  made.  At 
last  the  Jews  began  to  tire  of  their  fi-uitless  assaults. 
They  saw  that  the  wall  must  fall,  and,  as  they  had 
done  during  Nebuchadnezzar's  siege,  they  left  their 
posts  at  niglit,  and  went  home.  A  breach  was 
made  by  the  redoubtable  Nikon  on  the  7th  Arte- 
misius  (cir.  April  15);  and  here  the  Romans  entered, 
driving  the  Jews  before  them  to  the  second  wall. 
A  great  length  of  the  wall  was  then  broken  down ; 
such  parts  of  Bezetha  as  had  escaped  destruction 
by  Cestius  were  levelled,  and  a  new  camp  was 
formed,  on  the  spot  formerly  occupied  by  the  As- 
syrians, and  still  known  as  the  "  Assyrian  camp."  « 

This  was  a  great  step  in  advance.  Titus  now 
lay  with  the  second  wall  of  the  city  close  to  him 
on  his  right,  while  before  him  at  no  considerable 
distance  rose  Antonia  and  the  Temple,  with  no 
obstacle  in  the  interval  to  his  attack.  Still,  how- 
ever, he  preferred,  before  advancing,  to  get  posses- 
sion of  the  second  wall,  and  the  neighborhood  of 
John's  monument  was  again  chosen.  Simon  was 
no  less  reckless  in  assault,  and  no  less  fertile  in 
stratagem,  than  liefore ;  but  notwithstanding  all  his 
efforts,  in  five  -lays  a  breach  was  again  effected. 
The  district  in'o  which  the  Romans  had  now  pene- 
trated was  the  great  Valley  which  lay  between  the 
two  mahi  hills  of  the  city,  occupied  then,  as  it  is 
still,  by  an  intricate  mass  of  narrow  and  tortuous 
lanes,  and  containing  the  markets  of  the  city  —  no 
doubt  very  like  the  present  bazaars.  Titus's  breach 
was  where  the  wool,  cloth,  and  brass  bazaars  came 
up  to  the  wall  (v.  8,  §  1).  This  district  was  held 
by  the  Jews  with  the  greatest  tenacity.  Knowing, 
as  they  did,  every  turn  of  the  lanes  and  alleys,  they 
had  an  immense  advantage  over  the  Romans,  and 
It  was  only  after  four  days'  incessant  fighting,  much 
loss,  and  one  thorough  repulse,  that  the  Romans 
were  able  to  make  good  their  position.  However, 
at  last,  Simon  was  obliged  to  retreat,  and  then 
Titus  demolished  the  wall.  This  was  the  second 
step  in  the  siege. 

5leantime  some  shots  had  been  interchanged  in 
the  direction  of  the  Antonia,  but  no  serious  attack 
was  made.  Before  beginning  there  in  earnest,  Titus 
resolved  to  give  his  troops  a  few  days'  rest,  and  the 
Jews  a  short  opportunity  for  reflection.  He  there- 
fore called  in  the  lOth  legion  from  the  IMount  of 
Olives,  and  held  an  inspection  of  the  whole  army 
on  the  ground  north  of  the  Temple  —  full  in  view 
of  both  the  Temple  and  the  upper  city,  every  wall 
ai.d  house  in  which  were  crowded  with  spectators 
(B.  J.  V.  9,  §  1).  But  the  op|)ortunity  was  thrown 
away  upon  the  Jews,  and,  after  four  days,  orders 
were  given  to  recommence  the  attack.  Hitherto 
the  assault  had  been  almost  entirely  on  the  city :  it 
was  now  to  be  simultaneous  on  city  and  Temple. 
Accordingly  two  pah-3  of  large  batteries  Mere  con- 
structed, the  one  pair  in  front  of  Antonia;  the  other 
at  the  old  point  of  attack  —  the  monument  of  John 
Hyrcanus.  The  first  pair  was  erected  by  the  5th 
and  12th  legions,  and  was  near  the  pool  Struthius 
—  probably  the  present  Bivket  Isrnil,  by  the  St. 
Stephen's  Gate;  the  second  by  the  10th  and  15th, 
at  the  pool  called  the  Almond  Pool  —  possibly  that 
DOW  known  as  the  Pool  of  Hezekiah  —  and  near  the 
bigb-priest's  monument  (v.  11,  §  4).  These  banks 
leem  to  have  been  constructed  of  timber  and  fas- 


tf  Comoare  Mahaneh-Dan,  "  camp  of  Dan  "  (Judg. 
CTlU.  12 


JERt/SA.LBM 


cines,  to  which  the  Romans  must  ha^«  b«n 
by  the  scarcity  of  earth.  They  absorbed  the  ino«> 
sant  labor  of  seventeen  days,  and  were  completed 
on  the  29th  Artemisius  (cir.  May  7).  John  in  the 
mean  time  had  not  been  idle ;  he  had  employed  thi 
seventeen  days'  respite  in  driving  mines,  through 
the  solid  limestone  of  the  hill,  from  within  the 
fortress  (v.  xi.  §  4;  vi.  1,  §  3)  to  below  the  banks. 
The  mines  were  formed  with  timber  roofs  and  sup- 
ports. When  the  banks  were  quite  complete,  and 
the  engines  i)laced  upon  them,  the  timber  of  the 
galleries  was  fired,  the  superincumbent  ground  gave 
way,  and  the  labor  of  the  Romans  was  totally  de- 
stroyed. At  the  other  point  Simon  had  maintained 
a  resistance  with  all  his  former  intrepidity,  and 
more  than  his  former  success.  He  had  now  greatly 
increased  the  number  of  his  machines,  and  his 
people  were  much  more  expert  in  handling  them 
than  before,  so  that  he  was  able  to  impede  materially 
the  progress  of  the  works.  And  when  they  were 
completed,  and  the  battering  rams  had  begun  to 
make  a  sensible  impression  on  the  wall,  he  made  a 
furious  assault  on  them,  and  succeeded  in  firing  the 
rams,  seriously  damaging  the  other  engines,  and 
destroying  the  banks  (v.  11,  §§  5,  6). 

It  now  became  plain  to  Titus  that  some  other 
measures  for  the  reduction  of  the  place  must  be 
adopted.  It  would  appear  that  hitherto  the  southern 
and  western  parts  of  the  city  had  not  been  invested, 
and  on  that  side  a  certain  amount  of  communica- 
tion was  kept  up  with  the  country,  which,  unless 
stopped,  might  prolong  the  siege  indefinitely  {B.  J. 
v.  12,  §  1;  10,  §  3;  11,  §  1 ;  12,  §  3).  The  num- 
ber who  thus  escaped  is  stated  by  Josephus  at  more 
than  500  a  day  (v.  11,  §  1).  A  comicil  of  war  was 
therefore  held,  and  it  was  resolved  to  encompass 
the  whole  place  with  a  wall,  and  then  recommence 
the  assault.     The  wall  began  at  the  Roman  camp 

—  a  spot  probably  outside  the  modern  north  wall, 
between  the  Damascus  Gate  and  the  N.  IL  comer. 
From  thence  it  went  to  the  lower  part  of  Bezetha 

—  about  St.  Stephen's  Gate ;  then  across  Kedron 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives ;  thence  south,  by  a  rock 
called  the  "  Pigeon's  Rock,"  —  possibly  the  modem 
"  Tombs  of  the  Prophets "  —  to  the  ]\rount  of 
Offense.  It  then  turned  to  the  west;  again  dipped 
into  the  Kedron,  ascended  the  Mount  of  Evil 
Counsel,  and  so  kept  on  the  upper  side  of  the  ravine 
to  a  village  called  Beth-Krebinthi,  whence  it  ran 
outside  of  Herod's  monument  to  its  starting  point 
at  the  camp.  Its  entire  length  was  39  furlongs  — 
very  near  5  miles;  and  it  contained  13  stations  or 
guard-houses.  The  whole  strength  of  the  army  was 
employed  on  the  work,  and  it  was  completed  in  the 
short  space  of  three  days.  The  siege  was  then 
vigorously  pressed.  The  north  attack  was  relin- 
quished, and  the  whole  force  concentrated  on  tht 
Antonia  (12,  §  4).  Pour  new  banks  of  greater  size 
than  before  were  constructed,  and  as  all  the  timber 
in  the  neighborhood  had  been  already  cut  down, 
the  materials  had  to  be  procuied  from  a  distance 
of  eleven  miles  (vi.  1,  §  1).  Twenty-one  days  were 
occupied  in  completing  the  banks.  Their  position 
is  not  specified,  but  it  is  evident,  from  some  of  the 
expressions  of  Josephus,  that  they  were  at  a  con- 
siderable distance  from  the  fortress  (vi.  1,  §  3).  At 
length  on  the  1st  Panemus  or  Taniuz  (cir.  June  7), 
the  fire  from  the  banks  commenced,  under  cover  of 
which  the  rams  were  set  to  work,  and  that  night  a 
part  of  the  wall  fell  at  a  spot  where  the  foundation! 
had  been  weakened  by  the  mines  employed  agahut 
the  fomier  attacks.     Still  this  was  but  an  outwork 


JERUSALEM 

and  between  it  and  the  fortress  itself  a  new  waL 
was  discovered;  which  Johr.  had  taken  the  pre- 
caution to  buiid.  At  length,  after  two  desperate 
attempts,  this  wall  and  that  of  the  inner  fortress 
were  scaled  by  a  bold  surprise,  and  on  the  5th « 
Panenma  (June  31)  the  Antonia  was  in  the  hands 
of  the  Romans  (vi.  1,  §  7).  Another  week  was 
occupied  in  breaking  down  the  outer  walls  of  the 
fortress  for  the  passage  of  the  machines,  and  a 
further  delay  took  place  in  erecting  new  banks,  on 
the  fresh  level,  for  the  bombardment  and  battery 
of  the  Temple.  During  the  whole  of  this  time  — 
the  miseries  of  which  are  commemorated  in  the 
traditional  name  of  ymnin  dee/cri,  "  days  of  wretch- 
edness," applied  by  the  Jews  to  the  period  between 
the  17th  Tamuz  and  the  9th  Ab  —  the  most  des 
perate  hand-to-hand  encounters  took  place,  some  in 
the  passages  from  the  Antonia  to  the  cloisters,  some 
in  the  cloisters  themselves,  the  Romans  endeavoring 
to  force  their  way  in,  the  Jews  preventing  them. 
But  the  Romans  gradually  gained  ground.  First 
the  western,  and  then  the  whole  of  the  northern 
external  cloister  was  burnt  (27th  and  28th  Pan.), 
and  then  the  wall  enclosing  the  court  of  Israel  and 
the  holy  house  itself.  In  the  interval,  on  the  17th 
Panemus,  the  daily  sacrifice  had  foiled,  owing  to 
the  want  of  officiating  priests ;  a  circumstance  which 
had  greatly  distressed  the  people,  and  was  taken 
advantage  of  by  Titus  to  make  a  further  though 
fruitless  invitation  to  surrender.  At  length,  on  the 
tenth  day  of  Lous  or  Ab  (July  15),  by  the  wanton 
act  of  a  soldier,  contrary  to  the  intention  of  Titus, 
and  in  spite  of  every  exertion  he  could  make  to  stop 
it,  the  sanctuary  itself  was  fired  (vi.  4,  §  5-7).  It 
was,  by  one  of  those  rare  coincidences  tliat  some- 
times occur,  the  very  same  month  and  day  of  the 
month  that  the  first  temple  had  been  burnt  by 
Nebuchadnezzar  (vi.  4,  §  8).  John,  and  such  of 
his  party  as  escaped  the  flames  and  the  carnage, 
made  their  way  by  the  bridge  on  the  south  to  the 
upper  city.  The  whole  of  the  cloisters  that  had 
hitherto  escaped,  including  the  magnificent  triple 
colonnade  of  Herod  on  the  south  of  the  Temple, 
the  treasury  chambers,  and  the  rooms  round  the 
outer  courts,  were  now  all  burnt  and  demoUshed. 
Only  the  edifice  of  the  sanctuary  itself  still  remained. 
On  its  solid  masonry  the  fire  had  had  comjmratively 
little  effect,  and  there  were  still  hidden  in  its  re- 
cesses a  few  fiiithful  priests  who  had  contrived  to 
rescue  the  most  valuable  of  the  utensils,  vessels, 
and  spices  of  the  sanctuary  (vi.  6,  §  1;  8,  §  3). 

The  Temple  was  at  last  gained ;  but  it  seemed 
as  if  half  the  work  remained  to  be  done.  The 
upper  city,  higher  than  INIoriah,  inclosed  by  the 
original  wall  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  on  all 
sides  precipitous  except  at  the  north,  where  it  was 
defended  by  the  wall  and  towers  of  Herod,  was  still 
to  be  taken.*    Titus  first  tried  a  parley  —  he  stand- 


JERUSALEM 


1307 


ing  on  the  east  erid  of  the  bridge  between  thi 
Temple  and  the  upper  city,  and  John  and  SimoA 
on  the  west  end.  His  terms,  however,  were  x"s- 
jected,  and  no  alternative  was  left  him  but  to  force 
on  the  siege.  The  whole  of  the  low  part  of  the 
town  —  the  crowded  lanes  of  which  we  have  so  often 
heard  —  was  burnt,  in  the  teeth  of  a  frantic  resist- 
ance from  the  Zealots  (vi.  7,  §  1),  together  with 
the  council-house,  the  repository  of  the  records 
(doubtless  occupied  by  Simon  since  its  former  de- 
struction), and  the  palace  of  Helena,  Avhich  were 
situated  in  this  quarter  —  the  suburb  of  Ophel 
under  the  south  wall  of  the  Temple,  and  the  houses 
as  far  as  SHoam  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the  Temple 
Mount. 

It  took  18  days  to  erect  the  necessary  works  for 
the  siege ;  the  four  legions  were  once  more  stationed 
at  the  west  or  northwest  corner  where  Herod's 
palace  abutted  on  the  wall,  and  where  the  three 
magnificent  and  impregnable  towers  of  Hippicus, 
Phasaelus,  and  INIariamne  rose  conspicuous  (vi.  8,  § 
1,  and  §  4,  ad  Jin.).  This  was  the  main  attack. 
Opposite  the  Temple,  the  precipitous  nature  of  the 
slopes  of  the  upper  city  rendered  it  unlikely  that 
any  serious  attempt  would  be  made  by  the  Jews, 
and  this  part  accordingly,  between  the  bridge  and 
the  Xystus,  was  left  to  the  auxiliaries.  The  attack 
was  commenced  on  the  7th  of  Gorpiaeus  (cir.  Sept. 
11),  and  by  the  next  day  a  breach  was  made  in 
the  wall,  and  the  Romans  at  last  entered  the  city. 
During  the  attack  John  and  Simon  apperir  to  have 
stationed  themselves  in  the  towers  just  alluded  to; 
and  had  they  remained  there  they  would  probably 
have  been  able  to  make  terms,  as  the  towers  were 
considered  impregnable  (vi.  8,  §  4).  But  on  the 
first  signs  of  the  breach,  they  took  flight,  and, 
traversing  the  city,  descended  into  the  Valley  of 
Hinnom  below  Siloam,  and  endeavored  to  force  the 
wall  of  circumvallation  and  so  make  their  escape. 
On  being  repulsed  there,  they  took  refuge  apart  in 
some  of  the  subterraneous  caverns  or  sewers  of  the 
city.  John  shortly  after  surrendered  himself;  but 
Simon  held  out  for  several  weeks,  and  did  not  make 
his  appearance  until  after  Titus  had  quitted  the 
city.  They  were  both  reserved  for  the  Triumph 
at  Rome. 

The  city  being  taken,  such  parts  as  had  escajied 
the  former  conflagrations  were  burned,  and  the 
whole  of  both  city  and  Temple  was  ordered  to  be 
demolished,  excepting  the  west  wall  of  the  upper 
city,  and  Herod's  three  great  towers  at  the  north- 
west corner,  which  were  left  standing  as  meinoriaU 
of  the  massive  nature  of  the  fortifications. 

Of  the  Jews,  the  aged  and  nifirm  were  killed; 
the  children  under  seventeen  were  sold  as  slaves; 
the  rest  were  sent,  some  to  the  Egyptian  miner, 
some  to  the  provincial  amphitheatres,  and  some  ta 
grace  the  Triumph  of  the  Conqueror .c     Titus  (hen 


a  Josephus  contradicts  himself  about  this  date, 
rince  in  vi.  2,  §  1,  he  says  that  the  17th  Panemus  was 
the  "  very  day  "  that  Antonia  was  entered.  The  date 
given  in  the  text  agrees  best  »vith  the  narralite  But 
on  the  other  hand  the  17th  is  the  day  commemorated 
In  the  Jewish  Calendar. 

b  *  The  reader  will  note  th  vt  all  which  remained  to 
be  taken  was  the  western  hill,  projected  as  above  de- 
scribed. If  the  topographical  taeory  of  this  articU 
^  correct,  namely,  that  Zion,  the  city  of  Davi3,  was 
extfcrior  t<i  this  hill,  then  these  nionarchs  deprived 
tnenselveii  and  their  royal  residence  not  only  of  the 
tdntutaga  of  the  strongest  natural  position,  but  also 


of  the  protection  of  their  own  wall !  There  i«  no 
escape  from  this  conclusion  ;  and  the  above  statement 
of  Mr.  Grove,  which  is  strictly  accurate,  is  a  complete 
refutation  of  Mr.  Fergusson's  theory.  S.  W. 

c  The  prisoners  were  collected  for  this  final  partition 
in  the  Court  of  the  Women.  Josephus  states  that 
during  *.he  process  eleven  thousand  died!  It  is  a 
good  iustance  of  the  exaggeration  in  which  he  indulges 
on  these  matters ;  for  taking  the  largest  estimate  ol 
the  Court  of  the  Women  (Lightfoot's),  it  contained 
35,000  squan.  feet,  i.  e.  little  more  than  8  sqnan 
feet  for  'sach  of  those  who  died,  not  to  speak  of  tb« 
living. 


1308 


JERUSALEM 


departed,  leaving  the  tenth  legion  under  the  com- 
vaand  of  Terentius  Kufus  to  carry  out  the  work  of 
demolition.  Of  this  Josephus  assures  us  that  "  the 
whole  «  was  so  thoroughly  leveled  and  dug  up  that 
00  one  visiting  it  would  believe  it  had  ever  been 
inhabited  "  (B.  ./.  vii.  1,  §  1).  G. 


Medal  of  Vespasian,  commemorating  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 


From  its  destruction  by  Titus  to  the  present  time. 
—  For  more  than  fifty  years  after  its  destruction  by 
Titus  Jerusalem  disappears  from  history.  During 
the  revolts  of  the  Jews  in  Cyrenaica,  Flgypt,  Cy- 
prus, and  Mesopotamia,  which  disturbed  the  latter 
years  of  Trajan,  the  recovery  of  their  city  was  never 
attempted.  There  is  indeed  reason  to  believe  that 
Lucuas,  the  head  of  the  insurgents  in  Egypt,  led 
his  followers  into  Palestine,  where  tiiey  were  de- 
feated by  the  Roman  general  Turbo,  but  Jerusalem 
is  not  once  mentioned  as  the  scene  of  their  opera- 
tions. Of  its  annals  during  this  period  we  know 
nothing.  Three  towers  and  part  of  the  western 
wall  alone  remained  of  its  strong  fortifications  to 
protect  the  cohorts  who  occupied  the  conquered 
city,  and  the  soldiers'  huts  were  long  the  only 
buildings  on  its  site.  But  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian 
it  again  emerged  from  its  obscurity,  and  became 
the  centre  of  an  insurrection,  which  the  best  blood 
of  Rome  was  shed  to  subdue.  In  despair  of  keep- 
ing the  Jews  in  subjection  by  other  means,  the 
Emperor  had  formed  a  design  to  restore  Jerusalem, 
and  thus  prevent  it  from  ever  becoming  a  rallying 
point  for  this  turbulent  race.  In  furtherance  of 
his  plan  he  had  sent  thither  a  colony  of  veterans, 
in  numbers  sufiicient  for  the  defense  of  a  position 
90  strong  by  nature  against  the  then  known  modes 
of  attack.  To  this  measure  Dion  Cassius  (Ixix. 
12)  attributes  a  renewal  of  the  insurrection,  while 
Eusebius  asserts  that  it  was  not  carried  into  execu- 
tion till  the  outbreak  was  quelled.     Be  this  as  it 

nay,  the  embers  of  revolt,  long  smouldering,  burst 
bto  a  flame  soon  after  Hadrian's  departure  from 
the  East  in  A.  d.  132.  The  contemptuous  indif- 
ference Jf  the  Romans,  or  the  secrecy  of  their  own 
fkna,  enabled  the  Jews  to  organize  a  wide-spread 
conspiracy.  Bar  Cocheba,  their  leader,  the  third, 
according  to  Rabbinical  writers,  of  a  dynasty  of  the 
same  name,  princes  of  the  Captivity,  was  crowned 
king  at  Bether  by  the  Jews  who  thronged  to  him, 

nd  by  the  populace  was  regarded  as  the  Messiah. 

lis  'UTOor-bearer,  R.  Akiba,  claimed  descent  from 
5isera,  and  hated  the  Romans  with  the  fierce  rancor 
of  his  adopted  nation.  All  the  Jews  in  Palestine 
flocked  to  his  standard.  At  an  early  period  in  the 
revolt  they  became  masters  of  Jerusalem,  and  at- 


"  The  word  used  by  Josephus  —  7repi/3o\os  ttjs  tto- 
V«ois — may  mean  either  the  whole  place,  or  the  in- 
sloilng  walls,  or  the  precinct  of  the  Temple.  The 
rtBtementa  of  the  Talmud  perhaps   imply  that  the 


JERUSALEM 

tempted  to  rebuild  the  Temple.     The  esiict  data 

of  this  attempt  is  uncertain,  but  the  fact  is  inferred 
from  allusions  in  Chrysostom  ( Or.  3  in  Jiuloujt), 
Nicephorus  (//.  K.  iii.  24),  and  George  Cedrenui 
{Hist.  Com}),  p.  249),  and  the  collateral  evidence  of 
a  coin  of  the  period.  Hadrian,  alarmed  at  the  rapid 
spread  of  the  insurrection,  and 
the  ineffectual  efforts  of  his 
troops  to  repress  it,  summoned 
from  Britain  Julius  Severus, 
the  greatest  general  of  his  time, 
to  take  the  command  of  the 
army  of  Judaea.  Two  years 
were  spent  in  a  fierce  guerilla 
warfare  before  Jerusalem  was 
taken,  after  a  desperate  defense 
in  which  Bar  Cocheba  perished. 
The  courage  of  the  defenders 
was  shaken  by  the  falling  in  of 
the  vaults  on  Mount  Zion,  and 
the  Romans  became  masters 
of  the  position  (Milman,  Z^is<.  of  Jews,  ni.  122). 
But  the  war  did  not  end  with  the  capture  of 
the  city.  The  Jews  in  great  force  had  occupied 
the  fortress  of  Bether,  and  there  maintained  a 
struggle  with  all  the  tenacity  of  despair  against 
the  repeated  onsets  of  the  Romans.  At  length, 
worn  out  by  famine  and  disease,  they  yielded  on 
the  9th  of  the  month  Ab,  A.  d.  135,  and  the 
grandson  of  Bar  Cocheba  was  among  the  slain. 
The  slaughter  was  frightful.  The  Romans,  say  the 
Rabbinical  historians,  waded  to  their  horse-bridles 
in  blood,  which  flowed  with  the  fury  of  a  mountain 
torrent.  The  corpses  of  the  slain,  according  to  the 
same  veracious  authorities,  extended  for  more  than 
thirteen  miles,  and  remained  unburied  till  the  reign 
of  Antoninus.  Five  hundred  and  eighty  thousand 
are  said  to  have  fallen  by  the  sword,  while  the 
number  of  victims  to  the  attendant  calamities  of 
war  was  countless.  On  the  side  of  the  Romans 
the  loss  was  enormous,  and  so  dearly  bought  was 
their  victory,  that  Hadrian,  in  his  letter  to  the 
Senate,  announcing  the  conclusion  of  the  war,  did 
not  adopt  the  usual  congratulatory  phrase.  Bar 
Cocheba  has  left  traces  of  his  occupation  of  Jeru- 
salem in  coins  which  were  struck  during  the  first 
two  years  of  the  war.  Four  silver  coins,  three  of 
them  undoubtedly  belonging  to  'i'rajan,  have  been 
discovered,  restamped  with  Samaritan  characters. 
But  the  rebel  leader,  amply  supplied  with  the  pre- 
cious metals  by  the  contributions  of  his  followers, 
afterwards  coined  his  own  money.  The  mint  was 
probably  during  the  first  two  years  of  the  war  at 
Jerusalem;  the  coins  struck  during  that  period 
bearing  the  inscription,  "  to  the  freedom  of  Jem- 
salem,"  or  "Jerusalem  the  holy."  They  are  men- 
tioned in  both  Talmuds. 

Hadrian's  first  policy,  after  the  suppression  of 
the  revolt,  was  to  obliterate  the  existence  of  Jeru- 
salem as  a  city.  The  ruins  which  Titus  had  lefl 
were  razed  to  the  ground,  and  the  plough  passed 
over  the  foundations  of  the  Temple.  A  colony  of 
Roman  citizens  occupied  the  new  city  which  rose 
from  the  ashes  of  Jerusalem,  and  their  number  w}»s 
afterwards  augmented  by  the  Emperor's  veteran 
legionaries.  A  temple  to  the  Capitoline  Jupiter 
was  erected  on  the  site  of  the  3acre<l  edifice  of  the 


foundations  of  the  Temple  only  were  dug  up  (see  Cb« 
quotations  in  Schwara,  p.  835) ;  and  even  these  saeai 
to  have  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Chryfoetoo 
{Ad  Judofos,  iu.  431). 


JERUSALEM 

fert,  and  among  the  ornaments  of  the  new  city 
wem  •  theatre,  two  market-places  (Srj/ido-ta),  a 
building  called  t^t pd.vvii<\tov,  and  another  called 
K^Hpa.  It  was  divided  into  seven  quarters,  each 
3f  which  had  its  own  warden.  Alount  Zion  lay 
without  the  walls  (Jerome,  Mic.  iii.  12;  llin. 
I/ieros.  p.  592,  ed.  Wesseling).  That  the  northern 
wall  Inclosed  the  so-called  sacred  places,  though 
asserted  by  Deyling,  is  regarded  by  JNIiinter  as  a 
fa!)le  of  a  later  date.  A  temple  to  Astarte,  the 
Phoenician  Venus,  on  the  site  afterwards  identified 
with  the  sepulchre,  appears  on  coins,  with  four 
columns  and  the  inscription  C.  A.  C,  Colonia 
yEUa  CdpUolina,  but  it  is  more  than  doubtful 
whether  it  was  erected  at  this  time.  The  worship 
of  Serapis  was  introduced  from  Egypt.  A  statue 
of  the  emperor  was  raised  on  the  site  of  the  Holy 
of  Ilohes  (Niceph.  //.  /i.  iii.  24);  and  it  must 
have  been  near  the  same  spot  that  the  Bordeaux 
pilgrim  saw  two  statues  of  Hadrian,  not  far  from 
the  "lapis  jiertusus"  which  the  Jews  of  his  day 
yearly  visited  and  anointed  with  oil  (Itin.  Bieros. 
p.  591). 

It  was  not,  however,  till  the  following  year,  A.  d. 
136,  that  Hadrian,  on  celebrating  his  Vicennalia, 
bestowed  upon  the  new  city  the  name  of  vElia 
Capitolina,  combining  with  his  own  family  title 
the  name  of  Jupiter  of  the  Capitol,  the  guardian 
deity  of  the  colony.  Christians  and  pagans  alone 
were  allowed  to  reside.  Jews  were  forbidden  to 
enter  on  pain  of  death,  and  this  prohibition  re- 
mained in  force  in  the  time  of  Tertullian.  But  the 
conqueror,  though  stern,  did  not  descend  to  wan- 
ton mockery.  The  swine,  sculptured  by  the  em- 
peror's command  over  the  gate  leading  to  Bethle- 
hem (Euseb.  Chron.  Hadr.  Ann.  xx.)  was  not 
intended  as  an  insult  to  the  conquered  race  to  bar 
their  entrance  to  the  city  of  their  fathers,  but  was 
one  of  the  sif/na  miUiaria  of  the  Koman  army. 
About  the  middle  of  the  4th  century  the  Jews 
were  allowed  to  visit  the  neighborhood,  and  after- 
wards, once  a  year,  to  enter  the  city  itself,  and  weep 
over  it  on  the  anniversary  of  its  capture.  Jerome 
(on  Zeph.  i.  15)  has  drawn  a  vivid  picture  of  the 
wretched  crowds  of  Jews  who  in  his  day  assembled 
at  the  wailing-place  by  the  west  wall  of  the  Temple 
to  bemoan  the  loss  of  their  ancestral  greatness. 
On  the  ninth  of  the  month  Ab  might  be  seen  the 
aged  and  decrepit  of  both  sexes,  with  tattered  gar- 
ments and  disheveled  hair,  who  met  to  weep  over 
the  dowifall  of  Jerusalem,  and  purchased  permis- 
sion of  the  soldiery  to  prolong  their  lamentations 
("et  miles  mercedem  postulat  ut  illis  flere  plus 
liceat"). 

So  completely  were  all  traces  of  the  ancient  city 
obliterated  that  its  very  name  was  in  process  of 
time  forgotten.  It  was  not  till  after  Constantine 
built  the  Martyrion  on  the  site  of  the  crucifixion, 
that  its  ancient  appellation  was  revived.  In  the 
7th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea  the  bishop  of 
^lia  is  mentioned;  but  Macarius,  in  subscribing 
to  the  canons,  designated  himself  bishop  of  Jeru- 
^em.  The  name  iElia  occurs  as  late  as  Adam- 
panus  (a.  p.  G97),  and  is  even  found  in  Edrisi 
and  Mejr  ed-Din  about  1495. 

After  the  inauguration  of  the  new  colony  of 
Elia  the  annals  of  the  city  agam  relapse  into  an 
ftoscurity  which  is  only  represen»ed  in  history  by  a 
ist  of  twenty- three  Christian  bishops,  who  filled 
ftp  the  interval  between  the  election  of  Marcus,  the 
Srgt  of  the  series,  and  Macarius  in  the  reign  of 
lyonitaDtiBe.     Already  in  the  third   century  th« 


JERUSALEM 


1309 


Holy  Places  had  become  objects  of  Ciithusiasm,  aiM 
the  pilgrima<je  of  Alexander,  a  bishop  in  Cxpps^ 
docia,  and  afterwards  of  Jerusalem,  is  matter  of 
history.  In  the  following  century  such  pilgrimages 
became  more  common.  'J'he  aged  Empress  Helena, 
mother  of  Constantine,  visited  Palestine  in  A.  D. 
326,  and,  according  to  tradition,  erected  magnifi- 
cent churches  at  Bethlehem,  and  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives.  Her  son,  fired  with  the  same  zeal,  swept 
away  the  shrine  of  Astarte,  which  occupied  the  site 
of  the  resurrection,  and  founded  in  its  stead  a 
chapel  or  oratory.  On  the  east  of  this  was  a  large 
court,  the  eastern  side  being  formed  by  the  Basilica^ 
erected  on  the  spot  where  the  cross  was  said  to  have 
been  found  The  latter  of  these  buildings  is  that 
known  as  the  Martyrion;  the  former  was  the 
church  of  the  Ana  stasis,  or  Resurrection:  their 
locality  will  be  considered  in  the  following  section 
(p.  3324,  &c.).  The  Martyrion  was  con?'pleted 
A.  I).  335,  and  its  dedication  celebrated  by  a  great 
council  of  bishops,  first  at  Tyre,  and  afterwards 
at  Jerusalem,  at  which  Eusebius  was  present.  In 
the  reign  of  JuUan  (a.  i>.  362)  the  Jews,  with  the 
permission  and  at  the  instigation  of  the  emperor, 
made  an  abortive  attempt  to  lay  the  foundations 
of  a  temple.  From  whatever  motive,  Julian  had 
formed  the  design  of  restoring  the  Jewish  worship 
on  3Iount  Moriah  to  its  pristine  splendor,  and  dur- 
ing his  absence  in  the  East  the  execution  of  big 
project  was  intrusted  to  his  favorite,  Alypiu3  of 
Antioch.  INIaterials  of  every  kind  were  provided 
at  the  emperor's  expense,  and  so  great  was  the  en- 
thusiasm of  the  Jews  that  their  women  took  part 
in  the  work,  and  in  the  laps  of  their  garments 
carried  off  the  earth  which  covered  the  ruins  of 
the  Temple.  But  a  sudden  whirlwind  and  earth- 
quake shattered  the  stones  of  the  former  founda- 
tions ;  the  workmen  fled  for  shelter  to  one  of  the 
neighboring  churches  (eVi  ri  ruv  ir\-f](Tiou  hpau, 
Greg.  Naz.  Or.  iv.  Ill),  the  doors  of  which  were 
closed  against  them  by  an  invisible  hand,  and  a 
fire  issuing  from  the  Temple-mount  raged  the 
whole  day  and  consumed  their  tools.  Numbers 
perished  in  the  flames.  Some  who  escaped  took 
refuge  in  a  portico  near  at  hand,  which  fell  at  night 
and  crushed  them  as  they  slept  (Theodor.  //.  E 
iii.  15;  Sozomen,  v.  21;  see  also  Ambros.  Apisi 
ad  Theodosiuin,  lib.  ii.  ep.  17).  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  coloring  which  this  story  received  as 
it  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  ecclesiastical 
historians,  the  impartial  narrative  of  Anmiianus 
Marcellinus  (xxiii.  1),  the  friend  and  companion  in 
arras  of  the  emperor,  leaves  no  reasonable  doubt  of 
the  truth  of  the  main  facts  that  the  work  was  in 
terrupted  by  fire,  which  all'  attributed  to  supernrt- 
ui-al  agency.  In  the  time  of  Chrysostom  the  fouu- 
dations  of  the  Temple  still  remained,  to  which  the 
orator  could  appeal  {ad  Jmiceos,  iii.  431;  Paria, 
1636).  The  event  was  regarded  as  a  judgment  of 
God  upon  the  impious  attempt  of  Julian  to  falsify 
the  predictions  of  Christ :  a  position  which  Bishop 
AVarburton  defends  with  great  skill  in  his  treatise 
on  the  subject. 

During  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  Jerusalem 
became  the  centre  of  attraction  for  pilgrims  from 
all  regions,  and  its  bishops  contended  with  those 
of  Csesarea  for  the  supremacy ;  but  it  was  not  till 
after  the  council  of  Chalcedon  (451-453)  that  it 
was  made  an  independent  patriarchate.  In  the 
theological  controversies  which  followed  the  deciaioa 
of  that  council  with  regard  to  the  two  natures  <^ 
Christ,  J«rusalem  bore  its  share  w"*h  other  orieDtol 


1810 


JERUSALEM 


i^ntv;aes,  and  two  of  its  bishops  were  deposed  by 
Mouopliysite  fanatici  The  synod  of  Jerusalem  in 
A.  D.  b'tiG  confirmed  the  decree  of  the  synod  of 
Constantinople  against  the  iNIoiiophysites. 

In  529  the  iMnperor  Justinian  founded  at  Jeru- 
salem a  splendid  church  in  honor  of  the  Virgin, 
which  has  been  identified  by  most  writers  with  the 
building  known  in  modern  times  as  the  Alosque 
el-Aksa,  but  of  which  probably  no  remains  now 
exist  (see  p.  132^).  [Against  this  view  see  Anier. 
ed.  §  IV.]  I'rocopius,  the  historian,  ascribes  to 
the  same  emperor  the  erection  of  ten  or  eleven 
monasteries  in  the  neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  and 
Jericho.  Kutychius  adds  that  he  built  a  hospital 
for  strangers  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  the  church 
above  mentioned  was  begun  by  the  patriarch  Elias, 
and  completed  by  Justinian.  Later  in  the  same 
century  Gregory  the  (Jreat  (590-G04)  sent  the  abbot 
Probus  to  Jerusalem  with  a  large  sum  of  money, 
and  endowed  a  hospital  for  pilgrims,  which  Kobin- 
Bon  suggests  is  the  same  as  that  now  used  by  the 
Muslims  for  the  like  purpose,  and  called  by  the 
Arabs  et-Takiyth. 

For  nearly  five  centuries  the  city  had  been  free 
from  the  horrors  of  war.  The  merchants  of  the 
Mediterranean  sent  their  ships  to  the  coasts  of 
Syria,  and  Jerusalem  became  a  centre  of  trade,  as 
well  as  of  devotion.  But  this  rest  was  roughly 
broken  by  the  invading  Persian  army  under  Chos- 
roes  II.,  who  swept  through  Syria,  drove  the  impe- 
rial troops  before  them,  and,  after  the  capture  of 
Antioch  and  Damascus,  marched  upon  Jerusalem. 
A  multitude  of  Jews  from  Tiberias  and  Galilee  fol- 
lowed in  their  train.  The  city  was  invested,  and 
taken  by  assault  in  June,  Gl-t;  thousands  of  the 
monks  and  clergy  were  slain;  the  suburbs  were 
burnt,  churches  demolished,  and  that  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  injured,  if  not  consumed,  by  fire.  The 
invading  army  in  their  retreat  carried  with  them 
the  patriarch  Zacharias,  and  the  wood  of  the  true 
cross,  besides  multitudes  of  captives.  During  the 
exile  of  the  patriarch,  his  vicar  Modestus,  supplied 
with  money  and  workmen  by  the  munificent  John 
Eleemon,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  restored  the 
churches  of  the  Resurrection  and  Calvary,  and 
also  that  of  the  Assumption.  After  a  struggle  of 
fourteen  years  the  imperial  arms  were  again  victo- 
rious, and  in  628  Heraclius  entered  Jerusalem  on 
foot,  at  the  head  of  a  triumphal  procession,  bearing 
the  true  cross  on  his  shoulder.  'I'he  restoration  of 
the  churches  is,  with  greater  probability,  attributed 
by  William  of  Tyre  to  the  liberality  of  the  empe- 
ror {lllst.  i.  1). 

The  dominion  of  the  Christians  in  the  Holy  City 
«ras  now  rapidly  drawirlg  to  a  close.  After  an  ob- 
itinate  defense  of  four  months,  in  the  depth  of 
winter,  against  the  impetuous  attacks  of  the  Arabs, 
the  patriarch  Sophronius  surrendered  to  the  Khalif 
Omar  in  person  A.  d.  G37.  The  valor  of  the  be- 
iieged  extorted  unwilling  admiration  from  the  vic- 
tors, and  obtained  for  them  terms  unequaled  for 
leme:j3j  m  the  history  of  Arab  conquest.  The 
Khalif,  after  ratifying  the  terms  of  capitulation, 
which  secured  to  the  Christians  liberty  of  worship 
in  the  churches  which  they  had,  but  pi-ohibited  the 
wection  of  more,  entered  the  city,  and  was  met  at 
the  gate*  by  the  patriarch.  Sophronius  received 
him  with  the  uncourteous  exclamation,  "Verily 
this  is  the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by 
Daniel  the  prophet,  standing  in  the  holy  place!  " 
and  the  chronicler  does  not  forget  to  record  the 
^tggdA  dress  and  <'  Satanic  hypocrisy  "  of  the  hardy 


JERUSALEM 

khalif  (Cedrenus,  Hist.  Comp.  426).  Omar  tiMl\ 
in  company  with  the  patriarch,  visited  the  Cbnrek 
of  the  Kesurrection,  and  at  the  Muslim  time  of 
prayer  knelt  down  on  the  eastern  steps  ot  th« 
Basilica,  refusing  to  pray  within  the  buildings,  io 
order  that  the  possession  of  them  might  be  seciucd 
to  the  Christians.  Tradition  relates  that  he  re- 
quested a  site  whereon  to  erect  a  mosque  for  the 
Mohammedan  worship,  and  that  the  patriarch  as- 
signed hini  the  spot  occupied  by  the  reputed  stone 
of  Jacob's  vision:  over  this  he  is  said  to  have  built 
the  mosque  afterwards  known  by  his  name  (Eutychii 
Chron.  ii.  285;  Ockley,  Hist,  of  Sar.  pp.  205-214 
Bohn),  and  which  still  exists  in  the  S.  E.  ccrnei 
of  the  Aksa.  Henceforth  Jerusalem  became  foi 
Miislims,  as  well  as  Christians,  a  sacred  place,  and 
the  Mosque  of  Omar  shared  the  honors  of  pilgrimage 
with  the  renowned  Kaaba  of  Mecca. 

In  the  reign  of  Charlemagne  (771-814)  ambas- 
sadors were  sent  by  the  Emperor  of  the  West  to 
distribute  alms  in  the  Holy  City,  and  on  their 
return  were  accompanied  by  envoys  from  the  en- 
lightened Khalif  lirirdn  er-Kashid,  bearing  to 
Charlemagne  the  keys  of  Calvary  and  the  Holy 
Sepulchre.  But  these  amenities  were  not  of  long 
continuance.  The  dissensions  which  ensued  upon 
the  death  of  the  khalif  spread  to  Jerusalem,  and 
churches  and  convents  suffered  in  the  general 
anarchy.  About  the  same  period  the  feud  between 
the  Joktanite  and  Ishmaehte  Arabs  assumed  an 
alarming  aspect.  The  former,  after  devastating  the 
neighboring  region,  made  an  attempt  upon  Jeru- 
salem, but  were  repulsed  by  the  signal  valor  of  its 
garrison.  In  the  reign  of  the  Khalif  el-Motasem 
it  was  held  for  a  time  by  the  rebel  chief  Tamun 
Abu-IIareb. 

With  the  fall  of  the  Abassides  the  Holy  City 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Eatimite  conqueror 
Muez,  who  fixetl  the  seat  of  his  empire  at  Musr  el- 
Kahirah,  the  modern  Cairo  (a.  d.  969).  Under  the 
Fatimite  dynasty  the  sufferings  of  the  Christians  m 
Jerusalem  reached  their  height,  when  el-Hakem, 
the  third  of  his  line,  ascended  the  throne  (a.  d. 
996).  The  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  which 
had  been  twice  dismantled  and  burnt  within  the 
previous  seventy  years  (Eutych.  Ann.  ii.  529,  530; 
Cedren.  Hist.  Comp.  p.  661),  was  again  demolished 
(Ademari  Chron.  a.  d.  1010),  and  its  successor 
was  not  completed  till  A.  d.  1048.  A  small  chapel 
("  oratoria  valde  modica,"  Will.  Tyr.  viii.  3)  sup- 
plied the  place  of  the  magnificent  Basilica  on  Gol- 
gotha. 

The  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  in  the  11th  cen- 
tury became  a  source  of  revenue  to  the  Muslims, 
who  exacted  a  tax  of  a  byzant  from  every  visitor  to 
the  Holy  Sepulchre.  Among  the  most  remarkable 
pilgrimages  of  this  century  were  those  of  Robert 
of  Normandy  (10;jjj,  Lietbert  of  Cambray  (1054), 
and  the  '"orman  bishops  J 065). 

In  1077  Jerusalem  was  pillaged  by  Afsis  the 
Kharismian,  commander  of  the  army  sent  by  Melek 
Shah  against  the  Syrian  dominions  of  the  khalif. 
About  the  year  1084  it  was  bestowed  by  Tutush, 
the  brother  of  Melek  Shah,  upon  Ortok,  chief  of  a 
Turkman  horde  under  his  command.  From  thia 
time  till  1091  Ortok  was  emir  of  the  city,  and  on 
his  death  it  was  held  as  a  kind  of  fief  by  his  soni 
Ilghazy  and  Sukman,  whose  severity  to  the  Chris* 
tians  became  the  proximate  cause  of  the  Crusadet 
Rudhwan,  son  of  Tutush,  made  an  ineffectual  attack 
upon  Jerusalem  in  1096.  The  city  was  ultimatdj 
taken,  after  a  siege  of  forty  days,  by  Afdal,  virii 


JERUSALEM 

ti  the  khalif  of  F^ypt,  and  for  eleven  months  had 
been  governed  by  the  Emir  Iftikar  ed-Dauleh.  when, 
t>n  the  7th  of  June,  1099,  the  crusading  army  ap- 
peared before  the  walls.  After  the  fall  of  Antioch 
In  the  preceding  year  the  remains  of  their  numeixjus 
host  marched  along  between  Lebanon  and  the  sea, 
passing  Byblos,  Beyrout,  and  Tyre  on  their  road, 
and  so  through  hydda,  Kanileh,  and  the  ancient 
Emmaus,  to  Jerusalem.  The  crusaders,  40,000 
in  number,  but  with  little  more  than  20,000  effective 
troops,  reconnoitred  the  city,  and  determined  to 
attack  it  on  the  north.  Their  camp  extended  from 
the  Gate  of  St.  Stephen  to  that  beneath  the  tower 
of  David.  Godfrey  of  Lorraine  occupied  the  extreme 
left  (East) :  next  him  was  Count  Robert  of  Flanders : 
Robert  of  Normandy  held  the  third  place;  and 
Tancred  was  posted  at  the  N.  W.  corner  tower,  after- 
wards called  by  his  name.  Raymond  of  Toulouse 
originally  encamped  against  the  West  Gate,  but 
afterwards  withdrew  half  his  force  to  the  part  be- 
tween tiie  city  and  the  church  of  Zion.  At  the 
tidings  of  their  approach  the  khalif  of  Egypt  gave 
orders  for  the  repair  of  the  towers  and  walls ;  the 
fountains  and  wells  for  five  or  six  miles  round  (Will. 
Tyr.  vii.  23),  with  the  exception  of  Siloam,  were 
stopped,  as  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  when  the  city 
was  invested  by  Sennacherib's  host  of  Assyrians. 
On  the  fifth  day  after  their  arrival  the  crusaders 
attacked  the  city  and  drove  the  Saracens  from  the 
outworks,  but  were  compelled  to  suspend  their 
operations  till  the  arrival  of  the  Genoese  engineers. 
Another  month  was  consumed  in  constructing 
engines  to  attack  the  walls,  and  meanwhile  the 
besiegers  suffered  all  the  horrors  of  thirst  in  a  burn- 
ing sun.  At  length  the  engines  were  completed 
and  the  day  fixed  for  the  assault.  On  the  night 
of  the  13th  of  July  Godfrey  had  changed  his  plan  of 
attack,  and  removed  his  engines  to  a  weaker  part 
of  the  wall  between  the  (iate  of  St.  Stephen  and 
the  corner  tower  overlooking  the  Valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat  on  the  north.  At  break  of  day  the  city  was 
assaulted  in  three  points  at  once.  Tancred  and 
Raymond  of  '1  oulouse  attacked  the  walls  opposite 
their  own  positions.  Night  only  separated  the  com- 
batants, and  was  spent  by  both  armies  in  prepara- 
tions for  the  morrow's  contest.  Next  day,  after 
seven  hours'  hard  fighting,  the  drawbridge  from 
Godfrey's  Tower  was  let  down.  (Godfrey  was  first 
upon  the  wall,  followed  by  the  Count  of  Flanders 
and  the  Duke  of  Normandy ;  the  northern  gate  was 
thrown  open,  and  at  three  o'clock  on  Friday  the 
loth  of  July  Jerusalem  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
aiisaders.  Raymond  of  Toulouse  entered  without 
opposition  by  the  Zion  Gate.  The  carnage  was 
ten-ible :  10,000  Muslims  fell  within  the  sacred 
mclosure.  Order  was  gradually  restored,  and  God- 
frey of  Bouillon  elected  king  (Will.  Tyr.  viii.). 
Lhurches  were  established,  and  for  eighty-eight 
tears  Jerusalem  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
Christians.     In   1187  it  was  retaken  by   Saladin 


a  *  Some  account  of  Jerusalem  as  it  now  is  will  be 
round  under  the  head  of  Modern  Jerusalem,  appended 
'o  the  present  article  (Amer.  ed.).  This  review  of 
Jie  vicissitudes  of  the  Holy  City  would  be  incomplete 
irithout  such  an  addition.  II. 

b  *  This  article  of  Mr.  Fergusson  on  the  *■  Topography 
if  the  City  "  is  one  of  great  value,  aside  altogether 
from  the  correctness  or  incorrectness  of  his  peculiar 
riews  respecting  the  identification  of  Mount  Zion  and 
Ihe  site  of  the  Iloly  Sepulchre.  On  these  particular 
pT/ints  his  views,  though  approved  by  some  in  England 
Mid  supported  by  no  little  ingenuity,  are  not  those 


JERUSALEM  1311 

aftpr  a  siege  of  several  weeks.  Five  years  aflerwardu 
(1192),  in  anticipation  of  an  attack  by  Richard  of 
England,  the  fortifications  were  strengthened  and 
new  walls  built,  and  the  supply  of  water  again  cut 
off  (Barhebr.  Chron.  p.  421).  During  the  wintei 
of  1191-2  the  work  was  prosecuted  with  the  utmost 
vigor.  F'ifty  skilled  masons,  sent  by  Alaeddin  oi 
Mosul,  rendered  able  assistance,  and  two  thousand 
Christian  captives  were  pressed  into  the  service. 
The  Sultan  rode  round  the  fortifications  each  day 
encouraging  the  workmen,  and  even  brought  them 
stones  on  his  horse's  saddle.  His  sons,  his  brother 
Maiek  al-Adel,  and  the  Emirs  ably  seconded  hia 
eftbrts,  and  within  six  months  the  works  were 
completed,  solid  and  durable  as  a  rock  (Wilken, 
Kreuzzlige,  iv.  457,  458).  The  walls  and  towsrr 
were  demolished  by  order  of  the  Sultan  ^lelek  el- 
Mu'adhdhem  of  Damascus  in  1219,  and  in  this 
defenseless  condition  the  city  was  ceded  to  the 
Christians  by  virtue  of  the  treaty  with  the  Emperor 
Frederick  IL  An  attempt  to  rebuild  the  walls  in 
1239  was  frustrated  by  an  assault  by  David  of 
Kerak,  who  dismantled  the  city  anew.  In  1243  it 
again  came  into  the  hands  of  the  Christians,  and 
in  the  following  year  sustained  a  siege  by  the  wild 
Kharismian  hordes,  who  slaughtered  the  priests  and 
monks  who  had  taken  refuge  in  the  church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  and  after  plundering  the  city  with- 
drew to  Gaza.  After  their  departure  Jerusalem 
again  reverted  to  the  Mohammedans,  in  whose 
hands  it  still  remains.  The  defeat  of  the  Christians 
at  Gaza  was  followed  by  the  occupation  of  the  Holy 
City  by  the  forces  of  the  Sultan  of  Egypt. 

In  1277  Jerusalem  was  nonfinally  annexed  to  the 
kingdom  of  Sicily.  In  1517  it  passed  under  the 
sway  of  the  Ottoman  Sultan  Selim  I.,  whose  suc- 
cessor SuUman  built  the  present  walls  of  the  city 
in  1542.  Mohammed  Aly,  the  I'asha  of  Egypt, 
took  possession  of  it  in  1832.  In  1834  it  was 
seized  and  held  for  a  time  by  the  Fellahin  during 
the  insurrection,  and  in  1840,  after  the  bombard- 
ment of  Acre,  was  again  restored  to  the  Sultan. 

Such  in  brief  is  a  sketch  of  the  checkered  for- 
tunes of  the  Holy  City  since  its  destruction  by 
Titus.«  The  details  will  be  found  in  Gibbon's 
Decline  and  Fall ;  Prof.  Robinson's  Bibl.  Res.  i 
365-407 ;  the  Rev.  G.  'WilUams'  Holy  City,  vol.  i. 
Wilken 's  (Jesch.  der  Kreuzziige ;  Deyling's  Diss, 
de  ^lice  CajntoUiUB  orig.  et  historia;  and  Bp. 
Miinter's  History  of  the  Jewish  War  under  Trojait 
and  Hadrian,  translated  in  Robinson's  BibU'>thcca 
Sacra,  pp.  393-455.  W.  A.   W 

III.    TOPOGRAI'UY    OK   THE    ClTY.^ 

There  is  perhaps  no  city  in  the  ancient  woild  the 
topography  of  which  ought  to  be  so  easily  deter- 
mined as  that  of  Jerusalem.  In  the  firet  place,  the 
city  always  was  small,  and  is  surrounded  by  deep 
valleys,  while  the  form  of  the  ground  within  ita 
limits  is  so  strongly  marked  that  there  never  could 


which  Biblical  scholars  generally  entertain.  We  insert 
therefore  (at  the  eud  of  the  article)  a  somewhat  ex- 
tended examination  of  his  theory  on  this  part  of  the 
subject,  by  Dr.  VVolcott,  who  writes  with  the  advantage 
of  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  localities  in  question. 
We  pursue  this  course,  instead  of  setting  aside  or 
abridging  the  article^  botv.  us  an  act  of  justice  to  Mr 
Fergussoc,  who  enjoys  a.  high  reputation  as  an 
architect  and  archaeologist  and  as  required  also  bv 
our  pledge  to  the  reader  to  omit  nothing  in  this  editioa 
of  the  Dictionary  which  he  would  find  in  the  £ugUih 
edition.  H 


1312 


JERUSALEM 


apparently  be  any  great  difficulty  in  ascertaining 
its  general  extent,  or  in  fixing  its  more  prominent 
features;  and  on  the  other  hand  we  have  in  the 
works  of  Josephus  a  more  full  and  complete  topo- 
graphical description  of  this  city  than  of  almost 
any  other  in  the  ancient  world.  It  is  certain  that 
he  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  localities  he 
describes,  and  as  his  copious  descriptions  can  be 
tested  by  comparing  them  with  the  details  of  the 
siege  by  Titus  which  he  afterwards  narrates,  there 
ought  to  be  no  difficulty  in  settling  at  least  all  the 
main  points.  Nor  would  there  ever  have  been  any, 
but  for  the  circumstance  that  for  a  long  period  after 
the  destruction  of  the  city  by  Titus,  the  place  was 
practically  deserted  by  its  original  inhabitants,  and 
the  continuity  of  tradition  consequently  broken  in 
upon ;  and  after  this,  when  it  again  appears  in  his- 
tory, it  is  as  a  sacred  city,  and  at  a  period  the  most 
uncritical  of  any  known  in  the  modern  history  of 
the  world.  During  at  least  ten  centuries  of  what 
are  called  most  properly  the  dark  ages,  it  was 
thought  necessary  to  find  a  locality  for  every  event 
mentioned  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  which  had 
taken  place  within  or  near  its  walls.  These  were 
in  most  instances  fixed  arbitrarily,  there  being  no 
oonstant  tradition  to  guide  the  topographer,  so  that 
the  confusion  which  has  arisen  has  become  perplex- 
ing, to  a  degree  that  can  only  be  appreciated  by 
those  who  have  attempted  to  unravel  the  tangled 
thread;  and  now  that  long  centuries  of  constant 
traciition  have  added  sanctity  to  tlie  localities,  it  is 
extremely  difficult  to  shake  oije's  self  free  from  its 
influence,  and  to  investigate  the  subject  in  that 
critical  spirit  which  is  necessary  to  elicit  the  truth 
80  long  buried  in  obscurity. 

It  is  only  by  taking  up  the  thread  of  the  narra- 
tive from  the  very  beginning,  and  admitting  nothing 
which  cannot  be  proved,  either  by  direct  testimony 
or  by  local  indications,  that  we  can  hope  to  clear 
up  the  mystery;  but,  with  the  ample  materials 
that  still  exist,  it  only  requires  that  this  should  be 
done  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  correct  determination 
of  at  least  all  the  principal  points  of  the  topography 
of  this  sacred  city. 

So  little  has  this  been  done  hitherto,  that  there 
ai-e  at  present  before  the  public  three  distinct  views 
of  the  topography  of  Jerusalem,  so  discrepant  from 
one  another  in  their  most  essential  features,  that  a 
disinterested  person  might  fairly  feel  himself  justi- 
fied in  assuming  that  there  existed  no  real  data  for 
the  determination  of  the  points  at  issue,  and  tliat 
the  disputed  questions  must  forever  remain  in  the 
same  unsatisfactory  state  as  at  present. 

.1 .  The  first  of  these  theories  is  the  most  obvious, 
ana  nas  at  all  events  the  creat  merit  of  simplicity. 
It  consists  in  the  belief  that  all  the  sacred  localities 
were  correctly  ascertained  in  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity;  and,  what  is  still  more  important, 
that  none  have  been  changed  during  the  dark  ages 
that  followed,  or  in  the  numerous  revolutions  to 
rhich  the  city  has  been  exposed.  Consequently, 
inferring  that  all  which  the  traditions  of  the  Middle 
Ages  have  handed  down  to  us  may  be  implicitly 
relied  upon.  The  advantages  of  this  theory  are  so 
manifest,  that  it  is  little  wonder  that  it  should  be 
BO  popular  and  find  so  many  advocates. 

The  first  person  who  ventured  publicly  to  express 
his  dissent  from  this  view  was  Korte,  a  German 
printer,  who  travelled  in  Talestine  about  the  year 
172S.  On  visiting  Jerusalem  he  was  struck  with 
the  apparent  imnossibility  of  reconciling  the  site  of 
Sie  present  churcu  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  with  the 


JERUSALEM 

exigencies  of  the  Bible  narrative,  an^  on  his  Rtnn 
home  published  a  work  denying  the  authenticity 
of  the  so-called  sacred  localities.  Ilia  heresies  ex- 
cited very  little  attention  at  the  time,  or  for  long 
afterwards;  but  the  spirit  of  inquiry  which  ha* 
sprung  up  during  the  present  century  has  revived 
the  controversy  which  has  so  long  been  dormant 
and  many  pious  and  earnest  men,  both  I'rotestant 
and  Catholic,  have  expressed  with  more  or  less  dis- 
tinctness the  difficulties  they  feel  in  reconciling  the 
assumed  localities  M'ith  the  indications  in  the  Bible. 
The  arguments  in  favor  of  the  present  localities 
being  the  correct  ones  are  well  sunmied  up  by  the 
Rev.  George  Williams  in  his  work  on  the  Holy 
City,  and  with  the  assistance  of  I'rofessor  W'illia  all 
has  been  said  that  can  be  urge<i  in  favor  of  their 
authenticity.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  ingenuity 
of  the  various  hypotheses  that  are  brought  forward 
to  explain  av/ay  tlie  admitted  difficulties  of  the 
case;  but  we  look  in  vain  for  any  new  facts  to 
counterbalance  the  significance  of  those  so  oft^n 
urged  on  the  other  side,  w  bile  the  continued  api)eal8 
to  faith  and  to  personal  arguments,  do  not  inspire 
confidence  in  the  soundness  of  the  data  brought 
forward. 

2.  Professor  Robinson,  on  the  other  hand,  in  his 
elaborate  works  on  I'alestine,  has  brought  together 
all  the  arguments  which  from  the  time  of  Korte 
have  been  accumulating  against  the  authenticity  of 
the  medijeval  sites  and  traditions,  lie  has  done 
this  with  a  power  of  logic  which  would  probably 
have  been  conclusive  had  he  been  able  to  carry  the 
argument  to  its  legitimate  conclusion.  His  want 
of  knowledge  of  architecture  and  of  the  principles 
of  architectural  criticism,  however,  prevented  him 
from  perceiving  that  the  present  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  was  wholly  of  an  age  subsequent  to  that 
of  the  Crusades,  and  without  a  trace  of  the  style  of 
Constantine.  Nor  was  he,  from  the  same  causes, 
able  to  correct  in  a  single  instance  the  erroneous 
adscriptions  given  to  many  other  buildings  in  Jeru- 
salem, whose  dates  might  have  afforded  a  clew  to 
the  mystery.  When,  in  consequence,  he  announced 
as  the  result  of  his  researches  the  melancholy  con- 
clusion, that  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  waa 
now,  and  must  in  all  probability  for  ever  remain  a 
mystery,  the  effect  was,  that  those  who  were  opposed 
to  his  views  clung  all  the  more  firmly  to  those  they 
before  entertained,  preferring  a  site  and  a  sepulchre 
which  had  been  hallowed  by  the  tratlition  of  agei) 
rather  than  launch  forth  on  the  shoreless  sea  of 
speculation  which  L)r.  Robinson's  negative  con- 
clusion opened  out  before  them. 

3.  The  third  theory  is  that  put  forward  by  the 
author  of  this  article  in  his  "  Essay  on  the  Ancient 
Topography  of  Jerusalem."  It  agrees  generally 
with  the  views  urged  by  all  those  from  Korte  t<, 
Robinson,  who  doubt  the  authenticity  of  the  presen< 
site  of  the  sepulchre;  but  instead  of  acquiescing  ui 
the  desponding  view  taken  by  the  latter,  it  goes  ou 
to  assert,  for  reasons  which  will  be  given  hereafter, 
that  the  building  now  known  to  Christians  as  the 
INIosque  of  Omar,  but  by  ]\Ioslems  called  the  Doiui 
of  the  Rock,  is  the  identical  church  which  Con- 
stantine erected  over  the  Kock  which  contained  tha 
Tomb  of  Christ. 

If  this  view  of  the  topography  can  be  maintained, 
it  at  once  sets  to  rest  all  questions  that  can  pos- 
sibly arise  as  to  the  accordance  of  the  sacred  sites 
with  the  Bible  narrative ;  for  there  is  no  doubt  but 
that  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  this  locality  wa* 
outside  the  walls,  "  near  the  judgment-seat,"  at 


orHerodtunt? 


(J,,,-,;,  //el 


n«le  I 


JERUSALEM 


JERUSALEM 

♦towards  the  country;"  and  it  agrees  in  every 
legpect  with  the  minutest  indication  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

T^.  confirms  all  that  was  said  by  Eusehius,  and 
ftU  Christian  and  Mohammedan  writers  before  the 
time  of  the  Crusades,  regarding  the  sacred  localities, 
and  brings  the  Jewish,  Christian,  and  Mohammedan 
topography  into  order,  and  explains  all  that  before 
was  so  puzzling. 

It  substitutes  a  building  which  no  one  doubts 
was  built  long  before  the  time  of  tlie  Crusades,  for 
one  which  as  undoubtedly  was  erected  after  that 
event ;  and  one  that  now  possesses  in  its  centre  a 
mass  of  living  rock  with  one  cave  in  it  exactly  as 
described  by  Eusebius,  for  one  with  only  a  small 
tabernacle  of  marble,  where  no  rock  ever  was  seen 
by  human  eyes;  and  it  groups  together  buildings 
undoubtedly  of  the  age  of  (^onstantiue,  whose  juxta- 
position it  is  otherwise  impossible  to  account  for. 

A  theory  offering  such  advantages  as  these  ought 
either  to  be  welcomed  by  all  Christian  men,  or 
assailed  by  earnest  reasoning,  and  not  rejected 
without  good  and  solid  objections  being  brought 
against  it.  For  it  never  can  be  unimportant  even 
to  the  best  established  creeds  to  deprive  scoiFers  of 
every  opportunity  for  a  sneer,  and  it  is  always  wise 
to  offer  to  the  wavering  every  testimony  which  may 
tend  to  confirm  them  in  their  faith. 

The  most  satisfactory  way  of  investigating  the 
subject  will  probably  be  to  commence  at  the  time 
of  the  greatest  prosperity  of  Jerusalem,  immedi- 
ately before  its  downfall,  which  also  happens  to  be 
the  period  when  we  have  the  greatest  amount  of 
knowledge  regarding  its  features.  If  we  can  de- 
termine what  was  then  its  extent,  and  fix  the  more 
important  localities  at  that  period,  there  will  be  no 
great  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  proper  sites  for 
the  events  which  may  have  happened  either  before 
or  after.  All  that  now  remains  of  the  ancient  city 
of  course  existed  then ;  and  the  descriptions  of  Jo- 
sephus,  in  so  far  as  they  are  to  be  trusted,  apply  to 
the  city  as  he  then  saw  it ;  so  that  the  evidence  is 
at  that  period  more  complete  and  satisfactory  than 
at  any  other  time,  and  the  city  itself  being  then  at 
its  greatest  extent,  it  necessarily  included  all  that 
existed  either  before  or  afterwards. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  here  to  dwell  upon  the 
much  disputed  point  of  the  veracity  of  the  his- 
torian on  whose  testimony  we  must  principally  rely 
in  this  matter.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  remark  that 
every  new  discovery,  every  improved  plan  that  has 
been  made,  has  served  more  and  more  to  confirm 
the  testimony  of  Joseph  us,  and  to  give  a  higher 
idea  of  the  minute  accuracy  of  his  local  knowledge. 
In  no  one  instance  has  he  yet  been  convicted  of  any 
.naterial  error  in  describing  locaUties  in  plan. 
Many  difficulties  which  were  thought  at  one  time 
to  be  insuperable  have  disappeared  with  a  more 
careful  investigation  of  the  data ;  and  now  that  the 
city  has  been  carefully  mapped  and  explored,  there 
seems  e\'ery  probability  of  our  being  able  to  recon- 
cile all  his  descriptions  with  the  appearance  of  the 
existing  localities.  So  much  indeed  is  this  the  case 
that  one  cannot  help  suspecting  that  the  Roman 
army  was  provided  with  suneyors  who  could  map 
out  the  localities  with  very  tolerable  precision ;  and 
that,  though  writing  at  Rome,  Josepbus  had  before 
him  data  which  checked  and  guided  him  in  all  he 
said  as  to  horizontal  dimensions.  This  becomes 
more  probable  when  we  consider  how  moderate  all 
Aese  are,  and  how  consistent  with  existing  remains. 
iod  oompaie  them  with  his  strangely  exaggerated 
83 


JERUSALEM 


1813 


statements  whenever  he  speaks  of  heights  or  de- 
scribes the  arrangement  of  buildings  wbicii  had 
been  destroyed  in  the  siege,  and  of  which  it  maj 
be  supposed  no  record  or  correct  description  the'i 
existed.  He  seems  to  have  felt  himself  it  libert\ 
to  indulge  his  national  vanity  in  respect  to  these, 
but  to  have  been  checked  when  speaking  of  what 
still  existed,  and  could  never  be  falsified.  The  con- 
sequence is,  that  in  almost  all  instances  we  may  im- 
plicitly rely  on  anything  he  says  with  regard  to  the 
plan  of  Jerusalem,  and  as  to  anything  that  existed 
or  could  be  tested  at  the  time  he  wrote,  but  must 
receive  with  the  greatest  caution  any  assertion  with 
regard  to  what  did  not  then  remain,  or  respecting 
which  no  accurate  evidence  could  be  adduced  to 
refute  his  statement. 

In  attempting  to  follow  the  description  of  Jo- 
sepbus there  are  two  points  which  it  is  necessary 
should  be  fixed  in  order  to  understand  what  fol- 
lows. 

The  first  of  these  is  the  position  and  dimensions 
of  the  Temple;  the  second  the  position  of  the 
Tower  Hippicus. 

Thanks  to  modem  investigation  there  now  seems 
to  be  little  difficulty  in  determining  the  first,  with 
all  the  accuracy  requisite  to  our  present  purposes. 
The  position  of  the  Tower  Hippicus  cannot  be  de- 
termined with  the  same  absolute  certainty,  but  can 
be  fixed  within  such  limits  as  to  allow  no  reason- 
able doubts  as  to  its  locality. 

I.  Site  of  the  Temple.  —  Without  any  excep- 
tion, all  topographers  are  now  agreed  that  the 
Temple  stood  within  the  limits  of  the  great  area 
now  known  as  the  Haram,  though  few  are  agreed 
as  to  the  portion  of  that  space  which  it  covered ; 
and  at  least  one  author  places  it  in  the  centre,  and^ 
not  at  the  southern  extremity  of  the  inclosure. 
With  this  exception  all  topographers  are  agreed. 


No.  1.  — Bemains  of  Arch  of  Bridge.    (S.  W.  angl* 

of  Haram.) 

that  the  southwestern  angle  of  the  Haram  area  was 
one  of  the  angles  of  the  ancient  Jewish  Temple. 
In  the  first  place  it  is  admitted  that  the  Temple 
was  a  rectangle,  and  this  happens  to  be  the  only 
right  angle  of  the  whole  inclosure.  In  the  next 
place,  in  his  description  of  the  great  Stoa  Basilica 
of  the  Temple,  Josephus  distinctly  states  that  it 
stood  on  the  southern  wall  and  overhung  the  valley 
{Ant.  XV.  16,  §  5).  Again,  the  discovery  of  the  re- 
mains of  the  arch  of  a  bridge,  commencing  about 
40  feet  from  the  S.  W.  angle  in  the  western  wall, 
and  consequently  coinciding  with  'he  centre  of  the 


1314  JERUSALEM 

great  Stoa  (as  will  be  shown  under  the  head  Tk.m- 
PLE),  so  exacily  corresponds  with  the  description 
of  Josephus  (Ant.  xiv.  4.  §  2;  B.  ./.  i.  2,  §§  5,  2, 
ii.  16,  §  2,  vi.  6,  §  3,  vi.  7,  §  1)  as  in  itself  to  he 
Bufficient  to  decide  the  question. «  The  size  of  the 
stones  and  the  general  character  of  the  masonry  at 
the  Jews'  Wailing-place  (wood-cut  No.  2)  in  the 
western  wall  near  its  southern  extremity  have  been 
considered  by  almost  all  topographers  as  a  proof 
that  the  wall  there  formed  part  of  the  substruc- 
tures of  the  'Jeni[)le;  and  lastly,  the  discovery  of 
one  of  the  old  gateways  which  Josephus  (B.  J.  vi. 
6,  §  2)  mentions  as  leading  from  the  Temple  to  Par- 
bar,  on  this  side,  mentiojied  by  Ali  Bey,  ii.  220,  and 
Dr.  Barclay  (Cifij  of  (lie  Great  King,  p.  490),  be- 
sides minor  indications,  make  up  such  a  chain  of 
proof  as  to  leave  scarcely  a  doubt  on  this  point. 

The  extent  of  the  Temple  northwards  and  east- 
wards from  this  point  is  a  question  on  which  there 
is  much  less  agreement  than  with  regard  to  the 
fixation  of  its  soutinvestern  angle,  though  the  evi- 
dence, both  written  and  local,  points  inevitably  to 
the  conclusion  that  Josephus  was  literally  correct 
when  he  said  that  the  Temple  was  an  exact  square 
of  a  stadium,  or  GOO  Greek  feet,  on  each  side  (Ant. 
XV.  11,  §  3).  This  assertion  he  repeats  when  de- 
scribing the  great  Stoa  liasilica,  which  occupied  the 
whole  of  the  southern  side  (xv.  11,  §  9);  and  again, 
in  describing  Solomon's,  or  the  eastern  portico,  he 
says  it  was  400  cubits,  or  600  feet,  in  extent  (xx. 
10,  §  7);  and  lastly,  in  narrating  the  building  of 
the  Temple  of  Solomon  (viii.  3,  §  9),  he  says  he 
elevated  the  ground  to  400  cubits,  meaning,  as  the 
context  explains,  on  each  side.  In  fact  there  is  no 
point  on  which  Josephus  repeats  himself  so  often, 
and  is  throughout  so  thoroughly  consistent. 

There  is  no  other  written  authority  on  this  sub- 
ject except  the  'J'almud,  which  asserts  that  the 


«  *  This  rrch  is  known  among  travellers  as  "  Rob- 
inson's Arch."  Though  Dr.  Robinson  was  not  the 
first  to  recognize  these  projecting  stones  as  connected 
with  some  ancient  bridge  or  viaduct,  he  was  unques- 
tionably the  first  to  identify  fnem  with  the  bridge  so 
particularly  described  by  Josephus.  (See  Bibi.  Rfs., 
2d  ed.,  i.  287  fF.,  and  606"  ff.).  It  will  be  observed  that 
these  stones  spring  out  of  the  Haram  wall  on  the  east 
Bide  of  the  Tyropoeon.  One  of  the  most  remarkable  of 
the  recent  discoveries  at  Jerusalem  is  the  disinterring 
of  the  opposite  buttress  or  pier  of  the  bridge  on  the 
western  side  of  the  valley,  and  of  the  stones  of  the 
pavement  which  fornied  the  floor  of  this  causeway. 

The  following  account  of  this  discovery  is  drawn  up 
from  the  report  of  Lieut.  Warren,  who  superintended 
the  excavation  :  "  At  the  depth  of  about  55  feet  a 
gallery  from  one  of  the  shafts  was  traced  along  an 
ancient  artificial  cutting  in  the  solid  rock  until  it  was 
stopped  by  a  mass  of  masonry,  constructed  of  Sne 
beveled  stones  of  great  size,  and  evidently  still  remain- 
ing in  tlieif  original  position.  This  masonry,  of  which 
three  courses  remain,  proved  to  be  the  lowennost  portion 
of  the  original  western  pier  of '  Robinson's  Arch.'  .  .  . 
The  remains  ol  the  pier  consist  of  '  splendid  stones ' 
of  a  peculiarly  hard  texture,  of  great  magnitude  and 
in  perfect  preservation  ;  the  lowest  course,  resting  on 
the  rock,  is  3  feet  6  inches  high,  and  the  next  3  feet  9 
inches  —  the  height  of  the  large  stones  still  visible, 
above  the  present  surface  of  the  ground  in  the  Haram 
wall.  The  pier  was  rather  more  than  12  feet  in  thick- 
ness east  and  west ;  and  it  was  constructed  not  as  a 
•olid  mass,  but  so  built  with  the  great  stones  (already 
mentioned),  that  it  had  a  hollow  space  in  the  inside, 
with  openings  leading  to  this  space  through  the  ex- 
'erior  masonry  ;  and  thus  the  whole  pier  may  be  said 
10  be  made  up  of  smaller  ones.  .  .  . 


JERUSALEM 

Temple  was  a  square  of  500  cubits  ea^.h  rid«i 
(Mis/ina,  v.  334);  but  the  llabbis,  as  if  aware  that 
this  assertion  did  not  coincide  with  the  localities, 
immediately  correct  themselves  by  explaining  that 
it  was  the  cubit  of  15  inches  which  was  meant, 
which  would  make  the  side  625  feet.  Their  author- 
ity, however,  is  so  questionable,  that  it  is  of  the 
least  possible  consequence  what  they  said  or  meant. 


'^  U: 


iJ4i 

No.  2.  —Jews'  Wailing-Plaee. 


The  instnntla  cruets,  however,  is  the  existing 
remains,  and  these  confirm  the  description  of  Jo- 
sephus to  the  fullest  possible  extent.  I^rocoeding 
eastward  along  the  southern  wall  from  the  south- 
western angle  we  find  the  whole  Haram  area  filled 
up  perfectly  solid,  with  the  exception  of  the  great 
tunnel-like  enti-ance  under  the  Mosque  el-Aksa, 
until,  at  the  distance  of  600  feet  from  the  angle, 
we  arrive  at  a  wall  ruiming  northwards  at  right 


"  East  of  these  remarkable  and  most  interesting 
remains  of  this  arch-pier,  and  on  a  level  with  the  rock 
surface,  a  pavement  of  stone  was  found  to  extend  to- 
wards the  Haram  wall  ;  and  here,  on  this  pavement, 
upwards  of  50  feet  beneath  the  present  surface,  when 
they  had  cleared  away  a  cavern-like  space  sufficiently 
large  for  them  to  examine  the  ancient  relics  that  were 
lying  before  them,  the  explorers  discovered,  ranged  in 
two  lines  north  and  south,  and  huddled  together  just 
as  they  fell,  the  actual  voussoirs,  or  wedge-shaped 
arch-stones,  of  which  when  in  its  complete  condition, 
the  great  viaduct  of  Robinson's  Arch  had  been  con- 
structed. That  viaduct  had  led  from  the  Jerusalem 
on  the  western  portion  ol  the  rock-plateau  that 
formed  the  site  of  the  city,  over  the  Tyrcpoeon  Valley 
—  to  the  Temple  on  Zion  —  the  eastern  portion.  .  . 
The  great  arch,  its  span  41  feet  6  inches  and  its  width 
upwards  of  50  feet,  which  supported  this  causeway, 
was  broken  down  by  command  of  Titus,  when  at 
length  the  whole  of  Jerusalem  had  fallen  into  his 
power;  and  the  arch-stones,  hard,  and  tluir  forms 
still  as  clearly  defined  as  when  they  fell,  and  each  one 
weighing  at  least  20  tons,  may  now  be  ««n  in  the 
excavated  cavern,  at  the  bottom  of  the  shaft,  preserved 
in  safety  while  hidden  from  sight  through  eighteen  cen- 
turies by  the  gradually  accumulating  covering  of  ruins 
and  earth,  that  at  length  rose  50  feet  above  them.  .  . 
It  would  be  difficult  to  find  any  relic  of  ancient  times 
more  interesting  than  this  broken  archway.  The 
Apostles  must  very  often  have  passed  over  it,  while 
yet  the  arch  remained  entire  ;  and  so  also  must  their 
Master  and  ours  often  have  pa«;sed  over  it  with  them." 
(See  Report  of  the  Palestine  Exptorntion  Fund,  fat 
1867-68,  pp.  52-58  (by  Lieut.  Warren),  and  the  artiok 
Exploration  of  Palestine,  in  The  Quiver,  p.  61d,  by 
Rev.  C.  BouteU  (Lond.  1868).)  H. 


JERUSALEM 

to  the  southern  wall,  and  bounding  the  solid 
space.  Beyond  this  point  tlie  Haram  area  is  filled 
up  with  a  series  of  light  arches  supported  on  square 
piers  (shown  in  the  annexed  woodcut,  No.  3),  the 
whole  being  of  so  slight  a  construction  that  it  may 
be  affirmed  with  absolute  certainty  that  neither  the 
Stoa  Basilica,  nor  any  of  the  hirger  buildings  of 
the  Temple,  ever  stood  on  them.  The  proof  of  this 
is  not  difficult,  'i  akiug  Josephus's  account  of  the 
great  Stoa  as  we  find  it,  he  states  that  it  consisted 
of  four  rows  of  Corinthian  pillars,  40  in  each  row. 
ff  they  extended  along  the  whole  length  of  the 
present  southern  wall  they  must  have  lieen  spaced 
between  23  and  24  feet  apart,  and  this,  from  our 
knowledge  of  the  works  of  the  ancients,  we  may 
nssert  to  l>e  architecturally  impossible.  But,  tar 
more  than  this,  the  piers  that  support  the  vaults  in 
question  are  only  about  3  feet  6  inches  by  3  feet  3 
inches  square,  while  the  pillars  which  it  is  assumed 
Ihey  supported  were  between  5  and  6  feet  in  diam- 


JERUSALBM  ISlf. 

eter  (Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5),  so  that,  if  this  were  so,  the 
foimdations  must  have  been  practically  about  half 
the  area  of  the  columns  they  sup[K)rted.  Even 
this  is  not  all:  the  piers  in  the  vaults  are  so  irreg- 
ularly spaced,  some  17;  some  20  or  21,  and  one 
even  30  feet  apart,  that  the  pillars  of  the  Stoa 
must  have  stood  in  most  instances  on  the  crown  or 
sides  of  the  arches,  and  these  are  so  weak  (as  may 
be  seen  from  the  roots  of  the  trees  above  having 
struck  through  them)  that  they  could  not  for  one 
hour  have  supported  the  weight.  In  fact  there  can 
be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  buildings  of  the 
Temple  never  stood  on  this  frail  prop,  and  alfso  that 
no  more  solid  foundations  ever  existed  here ;  for  the 
bare  rock  is  everywhere  visible,  and  if  ever  more 
solidly  built  upon,  the  remains  of  such  construc- 
tions could  not  have  disappeared.  In  so  far,  there- 
fore, as  the  southern  wall  is  concerned,  we  may  rest 
perfectly  satisfied  with  Josephus's  description  that 
the  Temple  extended  east  and  west  600  tieet. 


* --17- *■  32 


21- ->  sr- 


No.  3.  —  Section  of  vaults  in  S.  E.  angle  of  Haram. 


The  position  of  the  northern  wall  is  as  easily 
fixed.  If  the  Temple  was  square  it  must  have  com- 
menced at  a  point  600  feet  from  the  southwest 
ungle,  and  in  fact  the  southern  wall  of  the  platform 
which  now  surrounds  the  so-called  Mosque  of  Omar 
runs  parallel  to  tlie  southern  wall  of  the  inclosure, 
at  a  distance  of  exactly  GOO  feet,  while  westward  it 
is  c<'>ntinued  in  a  causeway  which  crosses  the  valley 
just  600  feet  from  the  southwestern  angle.  It  may 
also  bo  mentioned  that  from  this  point  the  western 
wall  of  the  Haram  area  no  longer  follows  the  same 
direction,  but  inclines  slightly  to  the  westward,  in- 
dicating a  difference  (though  perhaps  not  of  much 
value)  in  the  purpose  to  which  it  was  applied. 
Moreover  the  south  wall  of  what  is  now  the  plat- 
form of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock  runs  eastward  from 
the  western  wall  for  just  600  feet;  which  again 
gives  the  same  dimension  for  the  north  wall  of  the 
Ten^-ple  as  was  found  for  the  southern  wall  by  the 
limitation  of  the  solid  space  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  vaults.  All  these  points  will  be  now 
clear  by  reference  to  the  plan  on  the  next  page 
(wood-cut  No.  4),  where  the  dimensions  are  stated 
in  English  feet,  according  to  the  best  available  au- 
thorities, not  in  Greek  feet,  which  alone  are  used  in 
the  text. 

The  only  point  in  Joseplus's  description  which 
»ems  to  have  misled  topographers  with  regard  to 
these  dimensions  is  his  assertion  that  the  Temple 
extended  from  one  valley  to  the  other  (Ant.  xv.  11, 
I  5).  If  he  had  named  the  ralley  or  identified  it 
ki  any  way  with  the  Valley  of  Kedron  this  might 
nave  Wn  a  difficulty;  but  as  it  is  only  a  vall'^y  it 
«  o(  less  importance,  especially  as  the  maimer  in 


which  the  vaults  extend  northwards  immediately 
beyond  the  eastern  wall  of  the  Temple  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  such  a  depression  once  existed  here  as 
to  justify  his  expression.  But.  whatever  importance 
may  be  attached  to  these  indefinite  words,  they 
never  can  be  allowed  to  outweigh  the  written  dimen- 
sions and  the  local  indications,  which  show  that  the 
Temple  never  could  have  extended  more  than  600 
feet  from  the  western  wall. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  conclusion  that  if 
the  Temple  were  only  600  feet  square,  it  would  oe 
impossible  to  fifld  space  within  its  walls  for  all  the 
courts  and  buildings  mentioned  by  Josephus  and 
in  the  Talmud.  This  difficulty,  however,  has  no 
real  foundation  in  fact,  and  the  mode  in  which  the 
interior  may  have  been  arranged,  so  as  to  meet  all 
the  exigencies  of  the  case,  will  be  explained  in 
treating  of  the  Templk.  But  in  the  mean  while 
it  seems  impossible  to  escape  from  the  conclusion 
that  the  square  space  indicated  by  shading  in  the 
plan  (wood-cut  No.  4)  was  the  exact  area  occupied 
by  the  Jewish  Temple  as  rebuilt  by  Herod,  and  as 
described  by  Josephus.  [Against  this  view,  see  § 
IV.  Amer.  ed.] 

II.  Hippicus.  —  Of  all  the  towers  that  once 
adorned  the  city  of  Jerusalem  only  one  now  existi 
in  anything  like  a  state  of  perfection.  Being  in  the 
centre  of  the  citadel,  on  one  of  the  most  elevated 
points  of  the  city,  it  strikes  the  traveller's  eye 
whichever  way  he  turns ;  and  from  its  prominence 
now,  and  the  importance  which  Josephus  ascribes 
to  the  tower  Hippicus,  it  has  been  somewhat  hastily 
assumed  that  the  two  are  identical.  The  reasons, 
however,  against  this  assumption  are  too  cogent  tc 


1816 


JERUSALEM 


Ko.  4.  — Fka  of  Haram  Area  at  JeraaalMB 


JERUSALEM 

of  the  identity  being  admitted.  Josephus 
gives  the  dimensions  of  the  Hippicus  as  25  cubits, 
or  37^  feet  square,  whereas  the  tower  in  the  citadel 
Is  56  feet  6  inches  by  70  feet  3  inches  (Kob.  Bibl. 
Res.  Ist  ed.  i.  456),  and,  as  Josephus  never  dimin- 
ishes the  size  of  anything  Jewish,  this  alone  should 
make  us  pause.  Even  if  we  are  to  assume  that  it 
is  one  of  the  three  great  towers  built  by  Herod,  as 
far  as  its  architecture  is  concerned,  it  may  as  well 
be  Phasaelus  or  Mariamne  as  Hippicus.  Indeed  its 
dimensions  accord  with  the  first  named  of  these  far 
better  than  with  the  last.  But  the  great  test  is 
the  locality,  and  unfortmiately  the  tower  in  the 
citadel  hardly  agrees  in  this  respect  in  one  point 
with  the  description  of  Josephus.  In  the  first  place 
he  makes  it  a  corner  tower,  whereas,  at  the  time  he 
wrote,  the  tower  in  the  citadel  must  have  been  in  a 
reentering  angle  of  the  wall,  as  it  is  now.  In  the 
next  he  says  it  was  "over  against  Psephinus" 
{B.  J.  V.  4,  §  3),  which  never  could  be  said  of  this 
tower.  Again,  in  the  same  passage,  he  describes 
the  three  towers  as  standing  on  the  north  side  of 
the  wall.  If  this  were  so,  the  two  others  must  have 
been  in  his  time  in  the  centre  of  the  city,  where 
Herod  never  would  have  placed  them.  They  also 
are  said  to  have  stood  on  a  height,  whereas  east- 
ward of  the  citadel  the  ground  falls  rapidly.  Add 
to  these  that  the  position  of  the  army  of  Titus  when 
he  sat  down  before  Jerusalem  is  in  itself  almost 
suflBcient  to  settle  the  point.  After  despatching 
the  10th  Legion  to  the  Mount  of  Olives  he  located 
himself  with  the  principal  division  of  his  army 
opposite  the  Tower  Psephinus,  but  his  right  wing 
"  fortified  itself  at  the  tower  called  Hippicus,  and 
was  distant  in  like  manner  about  two  stadia  from 
the  city"  (B.  J.  v.  3,  §  5).  It  is  almost  im- 
possible to  apply  this  passage  to  the  tower  in  the 
citadel,  against  which  no  attack  ever  was  made  or 
intended.  Indeed,  at  no  period  of  the  siege  did 
Titus  attempt  to  storm  the  walls  situated  on  the 
heights.  His  attack  was  made  from  the  northern 
plateau,  and  it  was  there  that  his  troops  were  en- 
camped, and  consequently  it  must  have  been 
opposite  the  angle  now  occupied  by  the  remains 
called  the  Kctsr  Jalud  that  they  were  placed.  From 
the  context  it  seems  almost  impossible  that  they 
could  have  been  encamped  in  the  valley  opposite 
the  present  citadel. 

These,  and  other  objections  which  will  be  noticed 
in  the  sequel,  seem  fatal  to  the  idea  of  the  tower  in 
the  citadel  being  the  one  Josephus  alludes  to.  But 
at  the  northwestern  angle  of  the  present  city  there 
are  the  remains  of  an  ancient  building  of  beveled 
masonry  and  large  stones,  like  those  of  the  founda- 
tions of  the  Temple  (Rob.  Bibl.  Ren.  i.  471;  Schultz, 
95;  Krafft,  37,  &c.),  whose  position  answers  so  com- 
pletely every  point  of  the  locality  of  Hippicus  as 
described  by  Josephus,  as  to  leave  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  it  marks  the  site  of  this  celebrated 
edifice.  It  stood  and  stands  "  on  the  northern  side 
of  the  old  wall "  —  "on  a  height,"  the  very  highest 
point  in  the  town  —  "  over  against  Psephinus  "  — 


«  *  Nothing  could  seem  to  be  more  palpable  to  an 
•bserver,  than  that  in  the  Tower  of  David,  so  called, 
m  the  present  citadel  of  Jerusalem,  wo  hav«  the  re- 
mains of  one  of  the  three  great  Herodian  towers,  spared 
»y  Titus,  when  the  city  was  demolished  {B.  J.  vi.  7, 
I  1).  No  theory,  which  would  make  it  Dre  modern, 
can  explain  the  structure.  Its  lower  part  bears  every 
goark  of  antiquity,  and  its  cubic  solidity  (an  unusual 
feature)  accords  with  Josephus's  description  of  these 


JERUSALEM  1317 

"  is  a  comer  tower,"  and  just  such  a  one  as  wouk 
naturally  be  taken  as  the  starting-point  for  tL« 
description  of  the  walls.  Indeed,  if  it  had  haj>- 
pened  that  the  Kasv  Jalvd  were  as  well  preserved 
as  the  tower  in  the  citadel,  or  that  the  latter  had 
retained  only  two  or  three  courses  of  its  masonry, 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  no  one  would  have 
doubted  that  the  Kasr  Jalud  was  th(!  Hippicus ; 
but  with  that  tendency  which  prevails  to  ascribe  a 
name  to  what  is  prominent  rather  than  to  what  is 
less  obvious,  these  remains  have  been  overlooked, 
and  difficulties  have  been  consequently  introduced 
into  the  description  of  the  city,  which  have  hitherto 
seemed  almost  insuperable." 

III.  Walls.  —  Assuming  therefore  for  the  piesent 
that  the  Kasr  Jalud,  as  these  ruins  are  now  popu- 
larly called,  is  the  remains  of  the  Hippicus,  we  have 
no  difficulty  in  determining  either  the  direction  or 
the  extent  of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  as  described 
by  Josephus  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2),  and  as  shown  in 
Plate  I. 

The  first  or  old  wall  began  on  the  north  at  the 
tower  called  Hippicus,  and,  extending  to  the  Xystus, 
joined  the  council  house,  and  ended  at  the  west 
cloister  of  the  Temple.  Its  southern  direction  is 
described  as  passing  the  Gate  of  the  Essenes  (prob- 
ably the  modern  Jaffa  Gate),  and,  bending  above 
the  fountain  of  Siloam,  it  reached  Ophel,  and  was 
joined  to  the  eastern  cloister  of  the  Temple.  The 
iu)portance  of  this  last  indication  will  be  apparent 
in  the  sequel  when  speaking  cf  the  third  wall. 

The  second  wall  began  at  the  Gate  Gennath,  in 
the  old  wall,  probably  near  the  Hippicus,  and  passed 
round  the  northern  quarter  of  the  city,  inclosing, 
as  will  be  shown  hereafter,  the  great  valley  of  the 
Tyropceon,  which  leads  up  to  the  Damascus  Gate; 
and  then,  proceeding  southward,  joined  the  fortress 
Antonia.  Recent  discoveries  of  old  beveled  masonry 
in  the  immediate  proximity  of  the  Damascus  Gate 
leave  little  doubt  but  that,  so  far  at  least,  its  direc- 
tion was  identical  with  that  of  the  modem  wall; 
and  some  part  at  least  of  the  northern  portion  of 
the  western  wall  of  the  Haram  area  is  probably 
built  on  its  foundations. 

The  third  wall  was  not  commenced  till  twelve 
years  after  the  date  of  the  Crucifixion,  when  it  was 
undertaken  by  king  Herod  Agrippa;  and  was  in- 
tended to  inclose  the  suburbs  which  had  grown  out 
on  the  northern  sides  of  the  city,  which  before  this 
had  been  left  exposed  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2).  It  began 
at  the  Hippicus,  and  reached  as  far  as  the  tower 
Psephinus,  till  it  came  opposite  the  monument  of 
Queen  Helena  of  Adiabene ;  it  then  passed  by  the 
sepulchral  monuments  of  the  kings  —  a  well-known 
locality  —  and  turning  south  at  the  monument  of 
the  "Fuller,  joined  the  old  wall  at  the  valley  called 
the  Valley  of  Kedron.  This  last  is  perhaps  the 
most  important  point  in  the  description.  If  the 
Temple  had  extended  the  whole  width  of  the  modem 
Haram  area,  this  wall  must  have  joined  its  northern 
cloister,  or  if  the  whole  of  the  north  side  of  the 
Temple  were  covered  by  the  tower  Antonia  it  might 


towers.  (B.  J.  V.  4,  §  3.)  If  it  was  either  of  them,  it 
must  have  been  Hippicus,  for  Phasaelus  and  Mariamne 
lay  eas'  of  it,  and  there  could  not  have  been  a  fortress 
west  of  '■■his  point.  Its  position  relative  to  the  site  of 
the  Temple,  and  to  the  wall  which  stretched  between 
them,  along  the  northern  brow  of  Zion,  harmonizei 
with  this  view.  The  ruins  of  KiWat  el-Jaltid  ofifer  no 
riva.  claim  —  suggesting  nothing  more  than  a  modern 
bastiun  and  an  ancient  wall.  S.  W. 


1318 


JERUSALEM 


have  been  ia.id  to  have  extended  to  that  fortress, 
but  in  either  of  these  cases  it  is  quite  impossilile 
that  it  could  have  passed  outside  the  pieseut  liarani 
irall  so  as  to  meet  the  old  wall  at  the  southeastern 
angle  of  the  Temple,  where  Josephus  in  his  de- 
Bcription  Uiakes  the  old  wall  end.  Thei-e  does  not 
seem  to  be  any  possible  solution  of  the  difficulty, 
except  the  one  pointed  out  above,  that  the  Temple 
was  only  GOO  feet  square ;  that  the  space  between 
the  Temple  and  the  Valley  of  Kedron  was  not  in- 
closed within  the  walls  till  Agrippa's  time,  and 
that  the  present  eastern  wall  of  the  Haram  is  the 
identical  wall  built  by  that  king  —  a  solution  which 
not  only  accords  with  the  words  of  Josephus  but 
with  all  the  local  peculiarities  of  the  place. 

It  may  also  be  added  that  Josephus's  description 
{B.  J.  v.  4,  §  2)  of  the  immense  stones  of  which 
this  wall  was  constructed,  fully  bears  out  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  great  stones  at  the  angles,  and  does 
away  with  the  necessity  of  supposing,  on  account 
of  their  magnificence,  that  they  are  parts  of  the 
substructure  of  the  Temple  proper. 

After  describing  these  walls,  Josephus  adds 
that  the  whole  circumference  of  the  city  was  33 
Btadia,  or  nearly  four  English  miles,  which  is  as 
near  as  may  be  the  extent  indicated  by  the  localities. 
He  then  adds  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §  3)  that  the  number  of 
towers  in  the  old  wall  was  60,  the  middle  wall  40, 
and  the  new  wall  99.  Taking  the  distance  of  these 
towers  as  150  feet  from  centre  to  centre,  which  is 
probably  very  near  the  truth  on  the  average,  the 
first  and  last  named  walls  are  as  nearly  as  may  be 
commensurate,  but  the  middle  wall  is  so  much  too 
ghort  that  either  we  must  assume  a  mistake  some- 
where, or,  what  is  more  i)robable,  that  Josephus 
enumerated  the  towers  not  only  to  where  it  ended 
at  the  Antonia,  but  round  the  Antonia  and  Temple 
to  where  it  joined  the  old  wall  above  Siloam.  With 
this  addition  the  150  feet  again  is  perfectly  con- 
Bistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case  and  with  the 
localities.  Altogether  it  appears  that  the  extent 
and  direction  of  the  walls  is  not  now  a  matter  ad- 
mitting of  much  controversy,  and  probably  would 
never  have  been  so,  but  for  the  difficulties  arising 
from  the  position  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre,  which  will  be  alluded  to  hereafter.a 

IV.  Antonia.  —  Before  leaving  the  subject  of 
the  walls,  it  may  be  well  to  fix  the  situation  of  the 
Turris  Antonia^  as  far  as  the  data  at  our  command 
will  admit.  It  certainly  was  attached  to  the  Temple 
buildings,  and  on  the  northern  side  of  them ;  but 
whether  covering  the  whole  space,  or  only  a  portion, 
has  been  much  disputed.  After  stating  that  the 
Temple  was  foursquare,  and  a  stadium  on  each  side, 
Josephus  goes  on  to  say  {B.  J.  v.  5,  §  2),  that  with 
Antonia  it  was  six  stadia  in  circumference.  The 
most  obvious  conclusion  from  this  would  be  that 
the  Antonia  was  of  the  same  dimensions  as  the 
Temple,  and  of  the  form  shown  in  the  diagram 
'wood-cut  No.  5),  where  A  marks  the  Temple,  and 
B  Antonia,  according  to  this  theory.     In  other 

«  *  Josephus  {B.  J.  V.  4,  §  4,  vi.  8,  §  1)  represente 
the  old  wall,  with  its  towers,  to  have  been  carried 
along  the  brow  of  an  eminence,  increasing  their  ap- 
parent elevation.  The  course  given  in  the  preceding 
map  (Plate  I)  could  never  have  been  the  line  which 
he  describes. 

This  wall  extended  from  HippJeus  to  the  Xystus, 
»hlch  was  an  open  place,  used  for  popular  assemblies, 
in  th«  eastern  brow  of  Zion,  and  connected  by  the 
Mdge  with  the  Temple.  (B.  J.  ii.  16,  §  3,  vi.  6,  §  2, 
•l.  8,  §  1.)    A  glance  at  the  map  will  show  that  in 


JERUSALEM 

words,  it  assumes  that  the  Ant»)nia  occupied  pne- 
tically  the  platform  on«  which  the  so-called  MosqiM 
of  Omar  now  stands,  and  there  is  nothing  in  thf 
locality  to  contradict  such  an  assumption  (see  B.  J 


o 
D        C 

/ 
A 


No.  5. 


Mo    6. 


vi.  5,  §  4).  On  the  contrary,  the  fact  of  f  i^e  Sakhre 
being  the  highest  rock  in  the  immediati;  neighbor- 
hood would  confirm  all  we  are  told  of  the  situation 
of  the  Jewish  citadel.  There  are,  however,  certain 
facts  mentioned  in  the  account  of  the  siege  which 
render  such  a  view  nearly  if  not  quite  untenable. 

It  is  said  that  when  Titus  reviewed  his  army  on 
Bezetha  (B.  J.  v.  9,  §  1),  the  Jews  looked  on  from 
the  north  wall  of  the  Temple.  If  Antonia,  on  higher 
ground,  and  probably  with  higher  walls,  had  inter- 
vened, this  could  not  have  been  possible;  and  the 
expression  must  have  been  that  they  looked  on 
from  the  walls  of  Antonia.  We  have  also  a  passage 
(B.  J.  v.  7,  §  3)  which  makes  this  even  clearer;  it 
is  there  asserted  that  "  John  and  his  faction  de- 
fended themselves  from  the  tower  Antonia,  and 
from  the  northern  cloisters  of  the  Temple,  and  fought 
the  Komans  "  (from  the  context  evidently  simul- 
taneously) "  before  the  monument  of  king  Alex- 
ander." We  are  therefore  forced  to  adopt  the 
alternative,  which  the  words  of  Josephus  equally 
justify,  that  the  Antonia  was  a  tower  or  keep 
attached  to  the  northwestern  angle  of  the  Temple, 
as  shown  in  the  plan.  Indeed,  the  words  of  Jose- 
phus hardly  justify  any  other  interpretation ;  for  he 
says  {B.  J.  V.  5,  §  8)  that  "  it  was  situated  at  the 
corner  of  two  cloisters  of  the  court  of  the  Temple  — 
of  that  on  the  west,  and  that  on  the  north."  Prob- 
ably it  was  surrounded  by  a  wall,  inclosing  courts 
and  other  appurtenances  of  a  citadel,  and  with  its 
inclosing  wall  at  least  two  stadia  in  circuit.  It  may 
have  been  two  and  a  half,  or  even  three,  as  shown  • 
in  the  diagram  (wood  cut  No.  6),  where  C  marks 
the  size  and  position  of  the  Antonia  on  the  sup- 
position that  its  entire  circumference  was  two  stadia^ 
and  I)  D  the  size  it  would  attain  if  only  three  of  its 
sides  were  counted,  and  if  Josephus  did  not  reckon 
the  four  stadia  of  the  Temple  as  a  fixed  quantity, 
and  deducted  the  part  covered  by  the  fortress  from 
the  whole  sum ;  but  in  this  instance  we  have  no 
local  indication  to  guide  us.  The  question  h.TS  be- 
come one  of  no  very  great  importance,  as  it  is  quit* 
certain  that,  if  the  Temple  was  only  600  feet  square, 
it  did  not  occupy  the  whole  of  the  northern  half  of 


this  feature  the  line  given  does  not  correspond  with 
the  description. 

The  third  wall,  aj3  above  stated,  joined  tlie  (.south- 
ward part  of  the)  old  wall  at  the  valley  called  the 
Valley  of  Kidron.  It  could  not,  then,  have  joined  it 
at  the  point  indicated  in  the  text  and  map,  for  this 
point  lies  between  the  Kidron  and  the  Tyropoeon  valleys, 
more  than  one  third  of  the  distance  from  the  former. 
The  specification  which  this  writer  con.siders  "  th9 
most  important  point  in  the  description,"  is  claimed 
by  Dr.  Robinson  in  support  of  the  theory  which  bl 
seeks  to  displace.     (Bibi.  Res.  i.  461.)  S.  W 


JERUSALEM 

he  Haram  area,  and  consequently  that  neither  was 
.he  "pool  of  Bethesda  "  its  nortliern  ditch,  nor  the 
rock  on  which  the  govenio-'s  house  now  stands  its 
rock  foundation.  Witli  the  Temple  area  fixed  as 
above,  by  no  hypothesis  could  it  be  made  to  stretcli 
as  far  as  that;  and  the  object,  therefore,  which 
many  topographers  had  in  view  in  extending  the 
dimensions,  must  now  he  abandoned." 

V.  Hills  and  Valleys.  —  Notwithstanding  the 
very  great  degree  of  certainty  with  which  the  site 
of  the  Temple,  the  position  of  the  Ilippicus,  and 
the  direction  of  the  walls  may  be  determined,  there 
we  still  one  or  two  points  within  the  city,  the 
positions  of  which  have  not  yet  been  fixed  in  so 
satisfactory  a  manner.  Topographers  are  still  at 
issue  as  to  the  true  direction  of  the  upper  part  of 
the  Tyropceon  Valley,  and,  consequently,  as  to  the 
position  of  Acra,  and  various  smaller  points  de- 
^jendent  on  the  fixation  of  these  two.  Fortunately 
the  determination  of  these  points  has  no  bearing 
whatever  on  any  of  the  great  historical  questions 
arising  out  of  the  topography ;  and  though  it  would 
no  doubt  be  satisfactory  if  they  could  be  definitively 
settled,  they  are  among  the  least  important  points 
that  arise  in  discussing  the  descriptions  of  Josephus. 

The  difficulty  of  determining  the  true  course  of 
the  upper  part  of  the  Tyropceon  valley  is  caused  by 
our  inabiUty  to  determine  whether  Josephus,  in 
describing  the  city  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §  1),  limits  his  de- 
scription to  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  properly  so  called, 
as  circumscribed  by  the  first  or  old  wall,  or  whether 
he  includes  the  (^ity  of  David  also,  and  speaks  of 
the  whole  city  as  inclosed  by  the  third  or  great 
wall  of  Agrippa.  In  the  first  case  the  Tyropceon 
must  have  been  the  depression  leading  from  a  spot 
opposite  the  northwest  angle  of  the  Temple  towards 
the  .Jaffa  Gate;  in  the  second  it  was  the  great  valley 
leading  from  the  same  point  northwards  towards 
the  Damascus  Gate. 

The  principal  reason  for  adopting  the  first  hy- 
pothesis arises  from  the  words  of  Josephus  himself, 
who  describes  the  Tyropceon  as  an  open  space  or 
depression  within  the  city,  at  "  which  the  corre- 
sponding rows  of  houses  on  both  hills  end  "  {B.  ./. 
V.  4,  §  1).  This  would  exactly  answer  the  position 
of  a  valley  running  to  the  Jaffa  Gate,  and  conse- 
quently within  the  old  walls,  and  would  apply  to 
such  a  ravine  as  might  easily  have  been  obliterated 
by  accumulation  of  rubbish  in  after  times ;  but  it 
is  not  so  easy  to  see  how  it  can  be  made  applicable 
to  such  a  valley  as  that  running  towards  the  Da- 
mascus Gate,  which  must  have  had  a  wall  on  either 
side,  and  the  slope  of  which  is  so  gradual,  that  then, 
as  now,  the  "rows  of  houses"  might  —  though  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  they  must  —  have  run 
icross  it  without  interruption.  We  cannot  indeed 
ipply  the  description  to  this  valley,  unless  we  assume 
that  the  houses  were  built  close  up  to  the  old  wall, 
BO  as  to  leave  almost  no  plain  space  in  front  of  it, 
or  that  the  formation  of  the  bottom  of  the  valley 
was  originally  steeper  and  narrower  than  it  now  is. 
On  th^  whole,  this  view  presents  perhaps  less  dif- 
ficulty than  the  obliteration  of  the  other  valley, 
which  its  most  zealous  advocates  are  now  forced  to 
*dmit,  after  the  most  patient  search ;  added  to  the 
jificulty  that  must  have  existed  in  carrying  the  old 
wall  across  its  gorge,  which  Josephus  would  have 
linted  at  had  it  existed. 


o  *  The  opposite  view,  namely,  that  the  fortress 
iUitonia  apparently  occupied  the  whole  northern  part 
3f  the  present  Ilaram  area,  is  strongly  presented  by 


JERUSALEM  1319 

The  direct  evidence  seems  so  nearly  balanced, 
that  either  hypothesis  might  be  adopted  if  we  were 
content  to  fix  the  position  of  the  hill  Acra  fron: 
that  of  this  valley,  as  is  usually  done,  instead  of 
from  extraneous  evidence,  as  we  fortunately  are  able 
to  do  with  tolerable  certainty  in  this  matter. 

In  all  the  transactions  mentioned  in  the  12tb 
and  13th  books  of  the  Anliquiiits,  Josephus  com- 
monly uses  the  word  "Aitpa  as  the  corresponding 
term  to  the  Hebrew  word  Meizudah.,  translated 
stronghold,  fortress,  and  tower  in  the  books  of  the 
Maccabees,  when  speaking  of  the  fortress  which  ad- 
joined the  Temple  in  the  north ;  and  if  we  might 
assume  that  the  hill  Acra  and  the  tower  Acra  were 
one  and  the  same  place,  the  question  might  be  con- 
sidered as  settled. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  this  was  so,  for  in 
d&scribing  the  "  upper  market  place,"  which  wag 
called  the  "citadel"  by  David  {B.  J.  v.  §  1). 
Josephus  uses  the  word  (ppovpiou,  which  he  also 
applies  to  the  Acra  after  it  was  destroyed  {Ant.  xiii. 
16,  §  5),  or  Bttjots,  as  the  old  name  apparently 
immediately  before  it  was  rebuilt  by  Herod,  and  by 
him  called  the  Antonia  (Ant.  x\iii.  4,  §  3). 

It  is  also  only  by  assuming  that  the  Acra  was 
on  the  Temple  Hill  that  we  can  understand  the 
position  of  the  valley  which  the  Asmoneans  filled 
up.  It  certainly  was  not  the  northern  part  of  tho 
Tyropceon  which  is  apparent  at  the  present  day, 
nor  the  other  valley  to  the  westward,  the  filling  up 
of  which  would  not  have  joined  the  city  to  the 
Temple  {B.  J.  v.  4,  §  1).  It  could  only  have  been 
a  transvei'se  valley  running  hi  the  direction  of,  and 
nearly  in  the  position  of,  the  Via  Dolorosa. 

It  is  true  that  Josephus  describes  the  citadel  or 
Acra  of  Jerusalem  {Aid.  xiii.  4,  9)  a.s  situated  in 
the  "  lower  city  "  (iu  rrj  Karca  irSKd,  xii.  5,  §  4, 
B.  J.  i.  1,  §  4),  which  would  equally  apply  to  either 
of  the  assumed  sites,  were  it  not  that  he  qualifies 
it  by  saying  that  it  was  built  so  higli  as  to  dominate 
the  Temple,  and  at  the  same  time  lying  close  to  it 
{A7it.  xii.  9,  §  3),  which  can  oidy  apply  to  a  build- 
ing situatecl  on  the  Temple  Hill.  It  must  also  be 
observed  that  the  whole  of  the  Temple  Hill  is  very 
much  lower  than  the  hill  on  which  the  city  itself 
was  located,  and,  consequently,  that  the  Temple 
and  its  adjuncts  may,  with  great  ■  propriety,  be 
called  the  lower  city,  as  contradistinguished  from 
the  other  half,  which,  from  the  superior  elevation 
of  the  plateau  on  wfaich  it  stands,  is  truly  the  upper 
city. 

If  we  adopt  this  view,  it  will  account  for  the 
great  leveling  operations  which  at  one  time  have 
been  carried  on  at  the  northwestern  angle  of  the 
Harara  area,  and  the  marks  of  which  have  been 
always  a  puzzle  to  antiquaries.  These  are  utterly 
unmeaning  on  any  hypothesis  yet  suggested,  for  so 
far  from  contributing  to  the  defense  of  any  work 
erected  here,  their  effect  from  their  position  must 
have  been  the  very  reverse.  But  if  we  admit  that 
they  were  the  works  which  occupied  the  Jews  for 
three  years  of  incessant  labor  (Ant.  xiii.  7,  §  6) 
after  the  destruction  of  the  Acra,  their  appearance 
is  at  once  accounted  for,  and  the  description  of 
Josepims  made  plain. 

If  this  view  of  the  matter  be  conect,  the  word 
a/x^iKvpTos  (B.  J.  V.  6,  §  1),  about  which  so  much 
controversy  has  been  raise-i,  must  be  tranfUated 


Dr.  ftobinson,  in  Bibl.  Sacra, 
EM.  Mes.,  I8n3,  pp.  230-243. 


6]  6-634.     Al0O    b 
8.  \V. 


1320  JERUSALEM 

»  sloping  down  on  either  side,"  a  meaning  which  it 
irill  bear  equally  as  well  as  •■'  gibbous,"  which  is 
usually  affixed  to  it,  and  which  only  could  be  ap- 
plied if  the  hill  withii,  the  old  wall  were  indicated. 

On  reviewing  the  whole  question,  the  great  pre- 
ponderance of  evidence  seems  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
assumption  that  the  hill  Acra  and  the  citadel  Acra 
were  one  and  tlie  same  place  ;  that  Acra  was  sit- 
uated on  the  northern  side  of  the  Temple,  on  the 
same  hill,  and  probably  on  the  same  spot,  originally 
occupied  by  David  as  the  stronghold  of  Zion  (2  Sam. 
V.  7-9),  and  near  where  Baris  and  Antonia  after- 
wards stood ;  and  consequently  that  the  great 
northern  depression  nuining  towards  the  Damascus 
Gate  is  the  'I "yrojxjeon  valley,  and  that  the  Valley  of 
the  Asmoneans  was  a  transverse  cut,  separating 
the  hill  P>ezetha  from  the  Acra  or  citadel  on  the 
Temple  Hill. 

If  this  view  of  the  internal  topography  of  the 
city  be  grantetl,  the  remaining  hills  and  valleys  fall 
into  their  places  easily  and  as  a  matter  of  course. 
The  citadel,  or  upper  market-place  of  Josephus,  was 
the  nioikrn  Ziun,  or  the  city  inclosed  within  the 
old  wall;  Acra  was  the  nncitnt  Zion,  or  the  hill  on 
which  the  Temple,  the  City  of  David,  Baris,  Acra, 
and  Antonia,  stood.  It  lay  over  against  tlie  other; 
and  apparently  between  these  two,  in  the  valley, 
stood  the  lower  city,  and  the  place  called  Millo. 
Bezetha  was  the  well-defined  hill  to  the  north  of 
the  Temple,  just  beyond  the  valley  in  which  the 
Biscina  Brobatica  was  situated.  The  fourth  hill 
which  Josephus  enumerates,  but  does  not  name, 
must  have  been  the  ridge  between  the  last-named 
valley  and  that  of  the  Tyropa-on,  and  was  separated 
from  the  Temple  II ill  by  the  Valley  of  the  As- 
moneiuis.  Tiie  other  minor  localities  will  be  pointed 
out  in  the  sequel  as  they  occur  in  order.« 

VI.  Popiilitiim.  —  There  is  no  point  in  which 
the  exaggeration  in  which  riosephus  occasionally 
indulges  is  more  apparent  tlia)i  in  speaking  of  the 
population  of  the  city.  The  inhabitants  were  dead; 
no  record  remained;  and  to  magnify  the  greatness 
of  the  city  was  a  compliment  to  tlie  prowess  of  the 
conquerors.  Still  the  assertiojis  that  three  millions 
were  collected  at  the  Ba.ssover  {B.  ./.  vi.  9,  §  3); 
that  a  million  of  people  perished  in  the  siege;  that 
100,000  escaped,  etc.,  are  so  childish,  that  it  is  sur- 
prising any  one  could  ever  have  repeated  then). 
Even  the  more  moderate  calculation  of  Tacitus  of 
BOC,000  inhabitants,  is  far  beyond  the  limits  of  prob- 
ability." 

Blacing  the  Hippicus  on  the  farthest  northern 
point  possil)le,  and  consequently  extending  the  walls 
as  far  as  either  authority  or  local  circumstances  will 
admit,  still  tlie  area  within  the  old  walls  never  could 
have  exceeded  180  acres.  A.ssuming,  as  is  some- 
times done,  that  the  site  of  the  present  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre  was  outside  the  old  walls,  this 
area  niust  be  retluced  to  120  or  130  acres;  but 
taking  it  at  the  larger  area,  its  power  of  accom- 
modating such  a  multitude  as  Josephus  describes 
may  be  illustrated  by  reference  to  a  recent  example. 
The  great  Kxhibition  Building  of  1851  covered  18 
acres — just  a  tenth  of  this.  On  three  days  near 
•ts  closuig  100,000  or   105,000  persons  visited  it; 


o  *  For  an  answer  to  the  speculations  under  this 
aead,  seo,  in  part,  Bihl.  Sarra,  iii.  417-438,  Rob.  Bibl. 
Rfs.  1852,  pp.  207-211,  and,  in  part,  section  IV., 
Mow.  S.  W. 

6  It  is  iustructive  to  compare  these  with  f  he  moderate 
Mrar«a  of  Jeremiah  (Hi.  28-^)  where  h(  enumerates 


JERUSALEM 

but  it  is  not  assumed  that  more  than  from  60,000 
to  70,000  were  under  its  roof  at  the  same  moment 
Any  one  who  was  in  the  building  on  these  days 
will  recollect  how  impossible  it  was  to  move  from 
one  place  to  another  ;  how  frightful  in  fact  the 
crush  was  Ijoth  in  the  galleries  and  on  the  floor, 
and  that  in  many  places  even  standing  room  could 
hardly  be  obtained ;  yet  if  600,000  or  700,000  people 
were  in  Jerusalem  after  the  fall  of  the  outer  wall 
(almost  at  the  beginning  of  the  siege),  the  crowd 
there  must  have  been  denser  than  in  the  Crystal 
Bahice;  eating,  drinking,  sleeping,  or  fighVing,  lit.- 
erally  impossible;  ami  considering  how  the  site  of  a 
town  must  be  encumbered  with  buildings,  300,00C 
in  Jerusalem  would  have  been  more  crowded  than 
were  the  sight-seers  at  the  Crystal  Balace  in  ita 
most  crowded  moments. 

But  fortunately  we  are  not  left  to  such  vague 
data  as  these.  No  town  in  the  east  can  be  pointed 
out  where  each  inhal)itant  has  not  at  least  50  s<iuare 
yards  on  an  average  allowed  to  him.  In  some  of 
the  crowded  cities  of  the  west,  such  as  i)arts  of 
London,  Liverpool,  Hamburg,  etc.,  the  space  is 
reduced  to  about  30  yards  to  each  inhabitant;  but 
this  only  a])plies  to  the  poorest  and  more  crowded 
places,  with  houses  many  stories  high,  not  to  cities 
containing  palaces  and  pubhc  buildings.  London, 
on  the  other  hand,  averages  200  yards  of  su])erficial 
space  for  every  person  living  within  its  precincts. 
But,  on  the  lowest  estimate,  the  ordinary  popula- 
tion of  Jerusalem  must  have  stood  nearly  as  fol- 
lows: Taking  the  area  of  the  city  inclosed  by  the 
two  old  walls  at  750,000  yards,  and  that  inclosed  by 
the  wall  of  Agrippa  at  1,500,000,  we  have  2,250,000 
for  the  whole.  Taking  the  population  of  the  old 
city  at  the  probable  number  of  one  person  to  50 
yartls  we  have  15,000,  and  at  the  extreme  limit  of 
30  yards  we  should  have  25,(X)0  inhabitants  for  the 
old  city.  And  at  100  yards  to  each  individual  in 
the  new  city  about  15,0(X)  more;  so  that  the  popu 
lation  of  Jerusalem,  in  its  days  of  greatest  pros 
perity,  may  have  amounted  to  from  30,000  to  45, 
(K)0  souls,  but  could  hardly  ever  have  reached 
50,000;  and  assuming  that  in  times  of  festival  ont 
half  were  addetl  to  this  amount,  which  is  an  extrem* 
estimate,  there  may  have  l)een  60,000  or  70,000  in 
the  city  when  Titus  came  up  against  it.  As  no  one 
would  stay  in  a  beleaguered  city  who  had  a  home  to 
flee  to,  it  is  hanlly  pnJjalile  that  the  men  whu  came 
up  to  fight  for  the  defense  of  the  city  wotdd  equal 
the  number  of  women  and  children  who  woulil  seek 
refuge  elsewhere;  so  tiiat  the  probability  is  that 
about  the  usual  population  of  the  city  were  in  it  at 
that  time. 

It  may  also  be  mentioned  that  the  army  which 
Titus  brought  up  airainst  Jerusiilem  did  not  exceed 
from  25,000  to  30,000  etliictive  men  of  all  arms, 
which,  taking  the  pml  al>ilities  of  the  cape,  is  alout 
the  number  that  wtfuld  l)e  required  to  attack  a  for- 
tified town  defended  by  from  8,000  to  10,000  men 
capable  of  bearing  arms.  Had  the  garrison  been 
more  numerous  tiie  sietje  would  have  been  improb- 
able, but  taking  the  whole  incidents  of  Josephus'a 
narrative,  there  is  nothing  to  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  the  Jews  ever  cou»d   have  mustere<l  10,004 


the  number  of  persons  carried  into  captivity  by  Nebn 
chadnczzar  in  three  defKirtjitions  from  both  city  and 
province  as  only  4,f)(HK  though  they  seem  to  have  8W«p' 
off  every  one  who  could  go,  near'y  dc  populatlTig  tVt 
place. 


JERUSALEM 

)oml)atants  at  any  period  of  the  siege;  half  that 
lumber  is  probably  nearer  the  truth.  The  main 
interest  this  question  has  in  a  topographical  point 
af  view,  is  the  additional  argument  it  affords  for 
plachig  Hippicus  as  far  north  as  it  has  been  placed 
above,  and  generally  to  extend  the  walls  to  the 
greatest  extent  justifiable,  in  order  to  accommodate 
a  population  at  all  worthy  of  the  greatness  of  the 
city.  It  is  also  interesting  as  showing  the  utter 
impossibility  of  the  argument  of  those  who  would 
except  the  whole  northwest  corner  of  the  present 
city  from  the  old  walls,  so  as  to  accommodate  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  with  a  site  outside  the  walls,  in 
ace  )rdance  with  the  Bible  narrative. 

VII.  Zion.  —  One  of  the  great  difficulties  which 
has  perplexed  most  authors  in  examining  the  ancient 
topography  of  Jerusalem,  is  the  correct  fixation  of 
the  locality  of  the  sacred  Mount  of  Zion.  It  can- 
not be  disputed  that  from  the  time  of  Constantine 
downwards  to  the  present  day,  this  name  has  been 
applied  to  the  western  hill  on  which  the  city  of 
Jerusalem  now  stands,  and  in  fact  always  stood. 

Notwithstanding  this,  it  seems  equally  certain 
that  up  to  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the  city 
by  Titus,  the  name  was  applied  exclusively  to  the 
eastern  hill,  or  that  on  which  the  Temple  stood. 

Unfortunately  the  name  Zion  is  not  found  in  the 
works  of  Josephus,  so  that  we  have  not  his  assist- 
ance, which  would  be  invaluable  in  this  case,  and 
there  is  no  passage  in  the  Bible  which  directly 
asserts  the  identity  of  the  hills  Moriah  and  Zion, 
though  many  which  cannot  well  be  understood 
without  this  assumption.  The  cumul;!.tive  proof, 
however,  is  such  as  almost  perfectly  to  aupply  this 
want. 

From  the  passages  in  2  Sam.  v.  7,  and  1  Chr. 
xi.  5-8,  it  is  quite  clear  that  Zion  and  the  city  of 
David  were  identical,  for  it  is  there  said,  "  David 
took  the  castle  of  Zion,  which  is  the  City  of  David." 
'■  And  David  dwelt  in  the  castle,  therefore  they 
called  it  the  City  of  David.  And  he  built  the  city 
round  about,  even  from  Millo  round  about,  and 
Joab  repaired  the  rest  of  the  city."  This  last  ex- 
pression would  seem  to  separate  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem which  was  repaired,  from  that  of  David 
which  was  buill,  though  it  is  scarcely  distinct  enough 
to  l>e  relied  upon.  Besides  these,  perhaps  the  most 
distinct  passage  is  that  in  the  48th  Psalm,  verse  2, 
where  it  is  said,  "  Beautiful  for  situation,  the  joy 
of  the  whole  earth,  is  Mount  Zion,  on  the  sides  of 
the  north,  the  city  of  the  great  King,"  which  it 
aeems  almost  impossible  to  apply  to  the  modern 
Zion,  the  most  southern  extremity  of  the  city. 
There  are  also  a  great  many  passages  in  the  Bible 
where  Zion  is  spoken  of  as  a  separate  city  from 
Jerusalem,  as  for  instance,  "  For  out  of  Jerusalem 
shall  go  forth  a  remnant,  and  they  that  escape  out 
of  Mount  Zion  "  (2  K.  xix.  31).  "  Do  good  in  thy 
good  pleasure  unto  Zion ;  build  thou  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem"  (Ps.  li.  18).  "The  Lord  shall  yet 
comfort  Zion,  and  shall  yet  choose  Jerusalem " 
(Zech.  i.  17).  "  For  the  people  shall  dwell  in  Zion 
at  .Jerusalem"  (Is.  xxx.  19).  "The  Lord  shall 
'X)ar  out  of  Zion,  and  utter  his  voice  from  Jeru- 
jalem"  (Joel  iii.  16;  Am.  i.  2).  There  are  also 
numberless  passages  in  which  Zion  is  spoken  of  as 
A  Holy  place  in  such  terms  aa  are  never  applied  to 
Jerusalem,  and  which  can  only  be  understood  as 
applied  to  the  Holy  Temple  Mount.  Such  expres- 
lions,  for  instance,  as  "  I  set  my  king  on  my  holy 
WU  of  Zion"  (Ps.  ii.  6)—  "  The  Lord  loveth  the 
^M  of  Zion  more  than  all  the  dwellings  of  Jacob 


JERUSALEM  1321 

(Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2)  —  "  The  Lord  has  chosen  Zion  '* 
(Ps.  cxxxii.  18)  —  "  The  city  of  the  Lord,  the  Zion 
of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel "  (Is.  Ix.  14)  —  '*  Arise  ye, 
and  let  us  go  up  to  Zion  to  the  I^rd  "  (Jer.  xxxi. 
fi)  —  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  I  am  returned  to  Zion  " 
(Zech.  viii.  3)  —  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  dwelling 
in  Zion,  my  holy  mountain"  (Joel  iii.  17)  —  "Fof 
the  Lord  dwelleth  in  Zion"  (Joel  iii.  21),  and 
many  others,  which  will  occur  to  every  one  at  all 
familiar  with  the  Scriptures,  seem  to  us  to  indicate 
plainly  the  hill  of  the  Temple.  Substitute  the  word 
Jerusalem  for  Zion  in  these  passages,  and  we  feel 
at  once  how  it  grates  on  the  ear;  for  such  epithets 
as  tljese  are  never  applied  to  that  city;  on  the  con- 
trary, if  there  is  a  curse  uttered,  or  term  of  dis- 
paragement, it  is  seldom  applied  to  Zion,  but  alwajTi 
to  her  unfortunate  sister,  Jerusalem.  It  is  never 
said,  —  The  Lord  dwelleth  in  Jerusalem ;  or,  loveth 
Jerusalem;  or  any  such  expression,  which  surely 
would  have  occurred,  had  Jerusalem  and  Zion  been 
one  and  the  same  place,  as  they  now  are,  and  gen- 
erally supposed  to  have  been.  Though  these  cannot 
be  taken  as  absolute  proof,  they  certainly  amount 
to  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  Zion  and  the 
Temple  Hill  were  one  and  the  same  place.  There 
is  one  curious  passage,  however,  which  is  scarcely 
intelligible  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  this ;  it  is 
known  that  the  sepulchres  of  David  and  his  suc- 
cessors were  on  Mount  Zion,  or  in  the  City  of  David, 
but  the  wicked  king  Ahaz  for  his  crimes  was  buried 
in  Jerusalem,  "in  the  citj,  '  and  "not  in  the 
sepulchres  of  the  kings"  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  27).  Je- 
horam  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20)  narrowly  escaped  the  same 
punishment,  and  the  distinction  is  so  marked  that 
it  cannot  be  overlooked.  The  modern  sepulchre  of 
David  {Neby  Baud)  is,  and  always  must  have  been 
in  Jerusalem ;  not,  as  the  Bible  expressly  tells  us, 
in  the  city  of  David,  as  contradistinguished  from 
the  city  of  the  Jebusites. 

When  from  the  Old  Testament  we  turn  to  the 
Books  of  the  Maccabees,  we  come  to  some  passages 
written  by  persons  who  certainly  were  acquainted 
with  the  localities,  which  seem  to  fix  the  site  of 
Zion  with  a  considerable  amount  of  certainty;  as, 
for  instance,  "  They  went  up  into  Mount  Zion,  and 
saw  the  sanctuary  desolate  and  the  altar  profaned, 
and  the  shrubs  growing  in  the  courts  as  a  forest" 
(1  Mace.  iv.  37  and  60).  "  After  this  went  Nicanor 
up  to  Mount  Zion,  and  there  came  out  of  the 
sanctuary  certain  pei'^sons  "  (1  Mace.  vii.  33),  aad 
several  others,  which  seem  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
at  that  time  Zion  and  the  Temple  Hill  were  con- 
sidered one  and  the  same  place.  It  may  also  be 
added  that  the  Rabbis  with  one  accord  place  the 
Temple  on  Mount  Zion,  and  though  their  authority 
in  matters  of  doctrine  may  be  valueless,  still  their 
traditions  ought  to  have  Ijeen  sufficiently  distinct 
to  justify  their  being  considered  as  authorities  on  a 
merely  topographical  point  of  this  sort.  There  is 
also  a  passage  in  Nehemiah  (iii.  16;  which  will  be 
alluded  to  in  the  next  section,  and  which,  added  to 
the  above,  seems  to  leave  very  little  doubt  that  in 
ancient  times  the  name  of  Zion  was  applied  to  the 
eastern  and  not  to  the  western  hill  of  Jerusalem. 
[See  §  IV.  Amer.  ed.] 

VIII.  Topof/rnphy  of  th e  Book  of  Neh eminh.  — 
The  only  description  of  the  ancient  city  of  Jeru- 
salem which  exists  in  the  Bible,  so  extensive  in 
form  as  to  enable  us  to  follow  it  as  a  toi»ograph>caI 
description,  is  that  found  in  the  Book  of  Nehemiah, 
and  although  it  is  hardly  sufficiently  distinct  to 
enable  us  to  settle  all  the  moot  points,  it  oontidni 


1822 


JERUSALEM 


s'.ich  valuable  indications  that  it  is  well  worthy  of 
the  most  attentive  examination. 


No  7.  —  Diagram  of  plaiees  mentioned  in  dedication 
of  walls. 

The  easiest  way  to  arrive  at  any  correct  conclu- 
gion  regarding  it,  is  to  take  first  the  description  of 
the  Dedication  of  the  Walls  in  eh.  xii.  (31-40),  and 
drawing  such  a  diagram  as  this,  we  easily  get  at 
the  main  features  of  the  old  wall  at  least. 

The  order  of  procession  was  that  the  princes  of 
Judah  went  up  upon  the  wall  at  some  point  as 
nearly  as  possible  opposite  to  the  Temple,  and  one 
half  of  them,  turning  to  the  right,  went  towards 
the  Dung  Gate,  "  and  at  the  Fountain  Gate,  which 
was  over  against  them  "  (or,  in  other  words,  on  the 
opposite  or  Temple  side  of  the  city),  "  went  up  by 
the  stairs  of  the  City  of  David  at  the  going  up  of 
the  wall,  above  tlie  house  of  David,  even  unto  the 
Water  Gate  eastward.'"'  The  Water  Gate,  therefore, 
was  one  of  the  southern  gates  of  the  Temple,  and 
the  stairs  that  led  up  to  it  are  here  identified  with 
those  of  the  City  of  David,  and  consequently  with 
Zion. 

The  other  party  turned  to  the  left,  or  north- 
wards, and  passed  from  beyond  the  tower  of  the 
furnaces  even  "unto  the  broad  wall,"  and  passing 
the  Gate  of  Ephraim,  the  Old  Gate,  the  Fish  Gate, 
the  towers  of  Hananeel  and  Meah,  to  the  Sheep 
Gate,  "  stood  still  in  the  Prison  Gate,"  as  the  other 
party  had  in  the  Water  Gate.  "  So  stood  the  two 
companies  of  them  that  gave  thanks  in  the  house 
of  God." 

If  from  this  we  turn  to  the  third  chapter,  which 
gives  a  description  of  the  repairs  of  the  wall,  we 
have  no  difficulty  in  identifying  all  the  places  men- 
tioned in  the  first  sixteen  verses,  with  those  enu 
merated  in  the  12th  chapter.  The  repairs  began 
at  the  Sheep  Gate  on  the  north  side,  and  in  imme- 
diate proximity  with  the  Temple,  and  all  the  places 
named  in  tlie  dedication  are  again  named,  but  in 
the  reverse  order,  till  we  come  to  the  Tower  of  the 
Furnaces,  which,  if  not  identical  with  the  tower  in 
the  citadel,  so  often  mistaken  for  the  Hippicus, 
.nust  at  least  have  stood  very  near  to  it.  Mention 
is  then  made,  but  now  in  the  direct  order  of  the 
dedication,  of  "  the  Valley  Gate,"  the  "  Dung  Gate," 
"the  Fountain  Gate-,  "  and  lastly,  the  "stairs  that 
^  down  from  the  City  of  David."  Between  these 
last  two  places  we  find  mention  made  of  the  pool 
vf  Siloah  and  the  king's  garden,  so  that  we  have 
jong  passed  the  so-called  sepulchre  of  David  on  the 
viodem  Zion,  and  are  in  the  immediate  proximity 


JERUSALEM 

of  the  Tempit;  most  probably  in  the  valley  t» 
tween  the  City  of  David  and  the  ci  ty  of  Jeru^em 
What  follows  is  most  important  (ver.  16),  '» Aftet 
him  repaired  Nehemiah,  the  son  of  Azbuk,  the 
ruler  of  the  half  part  of  Beth-zur,  unto  the  place 
over  against  the  sepulchres  of  David,  and  to  the 
pool  that  was  made,  and  unto  the  house  of  tho 
mighty."  U'his  passage,  when  taken  with  the  con- 
text, seems  in  itself  quite  sufficient  to  set  at  rest 
the  question  of  the  position  of  the  City  of  David, 
of  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings,  and  consequently  of 
Zion,  all  which  could  not  be  mentioned  after  Si- 
loah if  placed  where  modern  tradition  has  located 
them. 

If  the  chapter  ended  with  the  16th  verse,  there 
would  be  no  difficulty  in  determining  the  sites  men- 
tioned above,  but  unfortut  ately  we  have,  according 
to  this  view,  retraced  our  steps  very  nearly  to  the 
point  from  which  we  started,  and  have  got  through 
only  half  the  places  enumerated.  Two  hypotheses 
may  be  suggested  to  account  for  this  difficulty; 
the  one  that  there  was  then,  as  in  the  time  of 
Josephus,  a  second  wall,  and  that  the  remaining 
names  refer  to  it;  the  other  that  the  first  16  verses 
refer  to  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  remaining 
16  to  those  of  the  City  of  David.  An  attentive  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  renders  it  almost  certain 
that  the  latter  is  the  true  explanation  of  the  case 

In  the  enumeration  of  the  places  repaired,  in  the 
last  part  of  the  chapter,  we  have  two  which  we 
know  from  the  description  of  the  dedication  really 
belonged  to  the  temple.  The  prison-court  (iii. 
25),  which  must  have  been  connected  with  the 
Prison  Gate,  and,  as  shown  by  the  order  of  the  ded- 
ication, to  have  been  on  the  north  side  of  the  Tem- 
ple, is  here  also  connected  with  the  king's  high 
house;  all  this  clearly  referring,  as  shown  above,  to 
the  castle  of  David,  which  originally  occupied  the 
site  of  the  Turris  Antonia.  We  have  on  the  op- 
posite side  the  "  Water  Gate,"  mentioned  in  the 
next  verse  to  Ophel,  and  consequently  as  clearly 
identified  with  the  southern  gate  of  the  Temple. 
We  have  also  the  Horse  Gate,  that  by  which  Atha- 
liah  was  taken  out  of  the  'I'emple  (2  K.  xi.  16;  2 
Chr.  xxiii.  15),  which  Josephus  states  led  to  the 
Kedron  {Ant.  ix.  7,  §  3),  and  which  is  here  men- 
tioned as  coimected  with  the  priests'  houses,  and 
probably,  therefore,  a  part  of  the  Temple.  Men- 
tion is  also  made  of  the  house  of  Eliashib,  the 
high-priest,  and  of  the  eastern  gate,  probably  that 
of  the  Temple.  In  fact,  no  place  is  mentioned  in 
these  last  verses  which  cannot  be  more  or  less  di- 
rectly identified  with  the  localities  on  the  Temple 
Hill,  and  not  one  which  can  be  located  in  Jerusalem. 
The  whole  of  the  City  of  David,  howexer,  was  so 
completely  rebuilt  and  remodeled  by  Herod,  that 
there  are  no  local  indications  to  assist  us  in  ascer- 
taining whether  the  order  of  description  of  the 
places  mentioned  after  verse  16  proceeds  along  the 
northern  face,  and  round  by  Ophel,  and  up  behind 
the  Temple  back  to  the  Sheep  Gate;  or  whether, 
after  crossing  the  causeway  to  the  armory  and 
prison,  it  does  not  proceed  along  the  western  face 
of  the  Temple  to  Ophel  in  the  south,  and  then 
along  the  eastern  face,  back  along  the  northern,  to 
the  place  from  which  the  description  started.  The 
latter  seems  the  more  probable  hypothesis,  but  the 
determination  of  the  point  is  not  of  very  great  con- 
sequence. It  is  enough  to  know  that  the  descrip- 
tion in  the  first  16  verses  applies  to  Jerusaleni,  and 
in  the  last  16  to  Zion,  or  the  City  of  David;  M 
this  is  sufficient  to  explain  almost  all  the  rtifficnH 


I 


600  ^400  ^300  ^200  ^100  ^O 


loooy** 


Plate  II 


JERUSALEM 


JERUSALEM 

'vumges  in  the  Old  Testament  whict  refer  to  the 
ancient  topography  of  the  city.    [See  §  IV,,  Amer. 

9d.] 

IX.  Waters  of  JevHsilem.  —  The  above  deter- 
mination explains  most  of  the  difficulties  in  under- 
standing what  is  said  in  the  Bible  with  regard  to  the 
water-supply  of  the  city.  Like  Mecca,  Jerusalem 
seems  to  have  been  in  all  ages  remarkable  for  3<.me 
secret  source  of  water,  from  which  it  was  copiously 
supplied  during  even  the  worst  periods  of  siege 
and  famine,  and  which  never  appears  to  have  failed 
during  any  period  of  its  history.  The  principal 
source  of  this  supply  seems  to  have  been  situated 
to  the  noi-th;  either  on  the  spot  known  as  the 
"camp  of  the  Assyrians,"  or  in  the  valley  to  the 
northward  of  it.  The  earliest  distinct  mention  of 
these  springs  is  in  2  Chr.  xxxii.  4,  30,  where  Hez- 
ekiah,  fearing  an  attack  from  the  Assyrians, 
"  stopped  the  upper  water-course  of  Gihon,  and 
brought  it  straight  down  to  the  west  side  of  the 
City  of  David;  "  and  again  "he  fortified  the  city, 
and  brought  in  water  into  the  midst  thereof,  and 
digged  the  rock  with  iron,  and  made  wells  for  wa- 
ter "  (Ecclus.  xlviii.  17),  in  other  words,  he  brought 
the  waters  under  ground  down  the  valley  leading 
from  the  Damascus  Gate,  whence  they  have  been 
traced  at  the  present  day  "to  a  pool  which  he 
made"  between  "the  two  walls,"  namely,  those  of 
the  cities  of  David  and  Jerusalem.  Thanks  to  the 
researches  of  Drs.  Robinson  and  Barclay,  we  know 
how  correct  the  description  of  Tacitus  is,  when  he 
describes  the  city  as  containing,  "fons  perennis 
aquae  et  cavati  sub  terra  montes,"  etc.,  for  great 
rock-cut  reservoirs  have  been  found  under  the  Tem- 
ple area,  and  channels  connecting  them  with  the 
fountain  of  the  Virgin,  and  that  again  with  the 
pool  of  Siloam ;  and  many  others  may  probably  yet 
be  discovered. 

It  would  appear  that  originally  the  overflow 
^om  the  great  reservoir  under  the  Temple  area 
must  have  been  by  some  underground  channels, 
probably  alongside  of  the  great  tunnel  under  the 
Mosque  el-Aksa.  This  may  at  least  be  inferred 
from  the  form  of  the  ground,  as  well  as  from  the 
fact  of  the  southern  gate  of  the  Temple  being  called 
the  Water  Gate.  This  is  further  confirmed  by  the 
fact  that  when  the  Caliph  Omar  was  searching  for 
the  Sakrah  or  Holy  Rock,  which  was  then  covered 
with  filth  by  the  Christians  {Jelal  Addin,  p.  174), 
he  was  impeded  by  the  water  w^hich  "ran  down 
the  steps  of  the  gate,  so  that  the  greater  part  of 
the  steps  were  under  water:  "  a  circumstance  which 
might  very  well  occur  if  these  channels  were  ob- 
structed or  destroyed  by  the  ruins  of  the  Temple. 
Of  course,  if  it  is  attempted  to  apply  this  tradition 
to  the  Sakrah  under  the  "  Dome  of  the  Rock,"  it 
is  .simply  absurd ;  as,  that  being  the  highest  point 
m  the  neighborhood,  no  water  could  lie  around  it: 
but  applying  it  to  the  real  Sakrah  under  the  Aksa, 
-t  is  not  only  Consistent  with  facts,  but  enables  us 
to  understand  one  more  circumstance  with  regard 
to  the  waters  of  Jerusalem,  It  will  require,  how- 
iver,  a  more  critical  examination  than  even  that  of 
Dr.  Barclay  before  we  can  feel  quite  certain  by 
ivhich  channel  the  underground  waters  were  co'- 
lected  into  the  great  "excavated  sea"  (wood-cut 
No.  4)  under  the  Temple,  or  by  what  exact  means 
he  overflow  was  managed. 

A  considerable  portion  of  these  waters  was  at  one 
time  diverted  to  the  eastward  to  the  great  reservoir 
mown  sometimes  as  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  but, 
from  its  probable  proximity  to  the  Sheep  Gate,  as 


JERUSALEM 


1325 


shown  above,  more  properly  the  "  piscina  probatica,*' 
and  which,  from  the  curiously  elaliorate  charaoitBt 
of  its  hydraulic  masonry,  must  always  have  been 
intended  as  a  reservoir  of  water,  and  never  could 
have  been  the  ditch  of  a  fortification.  From  the 
wood-cut  No.  8  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  masonry 
consists  first  of  large  blocks  of  stone,  18  or  2C 
inches  square,  marked  A.  The  joints  between 
their  courses  have  been  hollowed  out  to  the  depth 
of  8  inches,  and  blocks  16  inches  deep  inserted  in 
them.  The  interstices  are  then  filled  up  with 
smaller  stones,  8  inches  deep,  b.  These  are  cov- 
ered with  a  layer  of  coarse  plaster  and  concrete  (c), 
and  this  again  by  a  fine  coating  of  phister  (»)  half 
an  inch  in  thickness.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive 
such  elaborate  pains  being  taken  with  a  ditch  of  a 
fortress,  even  if  we  had  any  reason  to  suppose  that 
a  wet  diteh  ever  formed  part  of  the  fortifications 
of  Jerusalem;  but  its  locality,  covering  only  one 
half  of  one  side  of  the  assumed  fortress,  is  suf- 
ficient to  dispose  of  that  idea,  even  if  no  other 
reason  existed  against  converting  this  carefully 
formed  pool  into  a  ditch  of  defense. 

It  seems,  however,  that  even  in  very  ancient 
times  this  northern  supply  was  not  deemed  suffi- 
cient, even  with  all  these  precautions,  for  tho 
supply  of  the  city ;  and  consequently  large  reser- 
voirs were  excavated  from  the  rock,  at  a  place  near 
Etham,  now  known  as  Solomon's  pools,  and  the 
water  brought  from  them  by  a  long  canal  which 
enters  the  city  above  Siloam,  and,  with  the  aortheni 


W? 


No.  8.  —  Section  of  Masonry  lining  Pool  of  Bethesda 
(From  Salzmann.) 

supply,  seenis  at  all  times  to  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  consumption  of  its  limited  population,  aided 
of  course  by  the  rain  water,  which  was  ptx)bably 
always  stored  in  cisterns  all  over  the  town.  The 
tank  now  known  as  the  pool  of  Hezekiah,  situated 
near  the  modern  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
cannot  possibly  be  the  work  referred  to,  as  executed 
by  him.  It  is  merely  a  receptacle  within  the  walls 
for  the  surplus  rain  water  drained  into  the  pool 
now  known  as  the  Birket  Mnmilla,  and  as  no  out^ 
let  eastwards  or  towards  the  Temple  has  been  found, 
it  cannot  ever  have  been  of  the  importance  ascribed 
to  the  work  of  Hezekiah,  even  supposing  the  ob- 
jections to  the  locaUty  did  not  exist.  These,  how- 
ever, cannot  possibly  be  got  over.  [S*e  §  IV., 
Amer.  ed.] 

X.  Ske  of  Holy  Sepulchre.  —  If  the  preceding 
investigations  have  rendered  the  topography  of  the 
ancient  city  at  all  clear,  there  ought  to  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  determining  the  localities  mentioned  in  Um 


1324  JERUSALEM 

S".  T.  as  those  in  which  the  various  scenes  of  the 
Passion  and  Crucifixion  of  our  Lord  took  place. 
There  would  in  fact  be  none,  were  it  not  that,  as 
will  be  shown  hereafter,  changes  were  made  in  the 
dark  ages,  which  have  confused  the  Christian  to- 
pography of  the  city  to  even  a  greater  extent  than 
the  change  of  the  name  of  Zion  from  the  eastern 
to  the  western  hill  did  that  of  the  Jewish  descrip- 
tion of  the  place. 

As  the  question  now  stands,  the  fixation  of  the 
sites  depends  mainly  on  the  answers  that  may  be 
given  to  two  questions:  First,  did  Constantine 
and  those  who  acted  with  him  possess  suflBcient 
information  to  enal)le  them  to  ascertain  exactly  the 
precise  localities  of  the  crucifixion  and  burial  of 
Christ?  Secondly,  is  the  present  church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  that  which  he  built,  or  does  it 
stand  on  the  same  spot  ? 

To  the  second  question  a  negative  answer  must 
be  given,  if  the  first  can  be  answered  with  any 
reasonable  degree  of  probability.  Either  the  local- 
ities could  not  have  been  correctly  ascertained  in 
the  time  of  Constantine,  or  it  must  be  that  at  some 
subsequent  period  they  were  changed.  The  site 
of  the  present  church  is  so  obviously  at  variance 
with  the  facts  of  the  Bible  narrative,  that  almost 
all  the  best  qualified  investigators  have  assumed 
that  the  means  did  not  exist  for  ascertaining  the 
localities  correctly  when  the  church  was  built,  with- 
out its  suggesting  itself  to  them  that  subsequent 
change  may  perhaps  contain  the  true  solution  of  the 
difficulty.  On  the  other  hand  everything  seems  to 
tend  to  confirm  the  probability  of  the  first  question 
being  capable  of  being  answered  satisfactorily. 

In  the  first  place,  though  the  city  was  destroyed 
by  Titus,  and  the  Jews  were  at  one  time  prohibited 
from  approaching  it,  it  can  almost  certainly  be 
proved  that  there  were  Christians  always  present  on 
the  spot,  and  the  succession  of  Christian  bishops 
can  be  made  out  with  very  tolerable  certainty  and 
completeness;  so  that  it  is  more  than  probable  they 
would  retain  the  memory  of  the  sacred  sites  in 
unbroken  continuity  of  tradition.  Besides  this,  it 
can  be  shoA'n  (Findlay,  On  the  Site  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre)  that  the  Romans  recorded  carefully  all 
the  principal  localities  in  their  conquered  provinces, 
and  had  maps  or  plans  which  would  enable  them 
to  ascertain  any  important  locality  with  very  toler- 
able precision.  It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind  that 
during  the  three  centuries  that  elapsed  between  the 
crucifixion  and  the  age  of  Constantine,  the  Christ- 
ians were  too  important  a  sect,  even  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Romans,  to  be  neglected,  and  their  proceedings 
and  traditions  would  certainly  attract  the  attention 
of  at  least  the  Roman  governor  of  Judsea ;  and  some 
records  must  certainly  have  existed  in  Jerusalem, 
which  ought  to  have  been  sufficient  to  fix  the  local- 
ities. Even  if  it  is  argued  that  this  knowledge 
might  not  have  been  sufficient  to  identify  the  exact 
rock-cut  sepulchre  of  Joseph  of  Ariroathsea,  it  must 
have  been  sufficient  to  determine  the  site  of  such  a 
place  as  Golgotha,  and  of  the  Prsetorium;  and  as 
tho  scenes  of  tne  Passion  all  lay  ne-ar  one  another, 
material  must  have  existed  for  fixing  them  with 
Bt  least  very  tolerable  approximate  certainty.  As 
the  question  now  lies  between  two  sites  which  are 
very  far  apart,  one  being  in  the  town,  the  other 
#11  its  eastern  boundary,  it  is  nearly  certain  that 
the  authorities  had  the  knowledge  sufficient  to  de- 
tennine  at  least  which  of  the  two  was  the  most 
orobaMe. 

The  account  given  by  Eusebius  of  the  uncovering 


JERUSALEM 

of  the  rock,  expresses  no  doubt  or  uncertainty 
the  matter.  In  order  to  insult  the  Christians  tc 
cording  to  his  account  (  Vita-  Const,  iii.  26),  "  impi- 
ous persons  had  heaped  earth  upon  it,  and  erecteil 
an  idol  temple  on  the  site."  The  earth  was  removed, 
and  he  says  {Theoj)h((>ii  t,  Lee's  Transldtion,  p. 
199),  "  it  is  astonishing  to  see  even  the  rock  stand- 
ing out  erect  and  alone  on  a  level  land,  and  having 
only  one  cave  in  it;  lest,  had  there  been  many,  the 
miracle  of  Him  who  overcame  death  might  have 
been  obscured;"  and  as  if  in  order  that  there 
might  be  no  mistake  as  to  its  position,  he  con- 
tinues, "  Accordingly  on  the  very  spot  that  wit- 
nessed our  Saviour's  sufferings  a  new  Jerusalem 
was  constructed  over  against  the  one  so  celebrated 
of  old,  which  since  the  foul  stain  of  guilt  brought 
on  it  by  the  murder  of  the  Lord  has  experienced 
the  last  extremity  of  desolation.  It  was  opposite 
this  city  that  the  emperor  began  to  rear  a  monu- 
ment of  our  Saviour's  victory  over  death  with  rich 
and  lavish  magnificence"  {Vita  Const,  iii,  33). 
This  passage  ought  of  itself  to  be  sufficient  to  set 
the  question  at  rest,  for  it  is  minutely  descriptive 
of  the  site  of  the  building  now  known  as  the  Mosque 
of  Omar,  but  wholly  inapplicable  to  the  site  of  the 
present  church,  which  was  then,  and  must  certainly 
in  the  time  of  Titus  or  of  Herod  have  been  within 
the  walls  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and  neither 
opposite  to  nor  over  against  it. 

The  buildings  which  Constantine  or  his  mother, 
Helena,  erected,  will  be  more  particularly  described 
elsewhere  [Sepulciike]  ;  in  the  mean  while  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  it  will  be  proved  by  what  fol- 
lows, that  two  of  them  now  remain  —  the  one  the 
Anastasis,  a  circular  building  erected  over  the  tomb 
itself;  the  other  the  "  Golden  Gateway,"  which  was 
the  propylsea  described  by  Eusebius  as  leading  to 
the  atrium  of  the  basilica.  He  says  it  opened  "  eirl 
T7JS  irXaTfias  ayopas,''  in  other  words,  that  it  had 
a  broad  market-place  in  front  of  it,  as  all  sacred 
places  or  places  of  pilgrimage  had,  and  have,  in  the 
East.  Beyond  this  was  an  atrium  leading  to  the 
basilica,  this  was  destroyed  in  the  end  of  the  tenth 
century  by  el-Hakeem,  the  mad  Khalif  of  Egypt; 
in  the  words  of  William  of  Tyre  (lib.  i.  c.  iv. ), 
"usque  ad  solum  diruta,"  or  as  it  is  more  quaintly 
expre.ssedbyAlbericus(LeQuien,  Oriens  Christians, 
p.  475),  "  Solo  coaequare  mandavit."  Fortunately, 
however,  even  the  Moslems  respected  the  tomb  of 
Christ,  whom  they  consider  one  of  the  seven 
prophets,  inferior  only  to  the  Founder  of  their  own 
religion ;  and  they  left  the  "  Dome  of  the  Rock  " 
uninjured  as  we  now  see  it. 

In  order  to  prove  these  assertions,  there  are  three 
classes  of  evidence  which  may  be  appealed  to,  and 
which  must  coincide,  or  the  question  must  remain 
still  u\  doubt:  — 

First,  it  is  necessary  that  the  circumstances  of 
the  locality  should  accord  with  those  of  the  Bible 
narrative. 

Secondly,  the  incidental  notices  furnished  by 
those  travellers  who  visited  Jerusalem  between  the 
tin>e  of  Constantine  and  that  of  the  C'rusades  must 
be  descriptive  of  these  localities ;  and, 

Thirdly,  the  architectural  evidence  of  the  build- 
ings themselves  must  be  that  of  the  age  to  which 
they  are  assign etl. 

Taking  the  last  first,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to 
remark  how  important  this  class  of  evidence  hai 
become  in  all  questions  of  this  sort  of  late  years 
Before  the  gradation  of  styles  had  been  properly 
investigated  nothing  could  be  more  wild  than  tbt 


\ 


JEllUSALEM 

MtermiiiatioD  of  the  dates  assigned  to  all  the 
mediseval  buildings  of  Europe.  Now  that  the 
chronometric  scale  has  been  fixed,  nothing  is  either 
W)  easy  or  so  certain  as  to  fix  the  date  of  any  build- 
ing, or  any  part  of  one,  and  it  is  admitted  by  all 
archseoloirists  that  it  is  the  most  sure  and  con- 
<$iusive  evidence  that  can  be  adduced  ou  the  sub- 
ject. 

In  this  country  the  progression  of  style  is  only 
generally  understood  as  applied  to  mediaeval  build- 
ings, but  with  sufficient  knowledge  it  is  equally 
applicable  to  Indian,  jNIohammedan,  Classical,  or 
Roman,  in  fact  to  all  true  styles,  and  no  one  who 
is  familiar  with  the  gradation  of  styles  that  took 
place  between  the  time  of  Hadrian  and  that  of 
Justinian  can  fail  to  see  that  the  Golden  Gateway 
and  Dome  of  the  Rock  are  about  half-way  in  the 
series,  and  are  in  fact  buildings  which  must  have 
been  erected  within  the  century  in  which  Con- 
Btantine  flourished.  With  regard  to  the  Golden 
Gateway,  which  is  practically  unaltered,  this  is 
undoubted.  It  is  precisely  of  that  style  which  is 
found  only  in  the  buildings  of  the  end  of  the  third, 
or  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  and  accords  so 
completely  with  those  found  at  Rome,  Spalatro, 
and  elsewhere,  as  to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  on 
the  subject.  Had  it  been  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Hadrian,  the  bent  entablature  which  covers  both 
the  external  and  internal  openings  could  not  have 
existed,  while  had  it  been  as  late  as  the  age  of  Jus- 
tinian, its  classical  features  would  have  been  ex- 
changed for  the  pecuhar  incised  style  of  his  build- 
ings. It  may  also  be  remarked  that,  although  in 
the  outer  wall,  it  is  a  festal,  not  a  fortified  entrance, 
ond  never  could  have  been  iiitended  as  a  city  gat^ 
but  must  have  led  to  some  sacred  or  palatial  edifice. 
It  is  difficult,  indeed,  to  suggest  what  that  :ould 
have  been,  except  the  basilica  described  by  liuse- 
bius. 


No.  9.  —  Intenor  of  Golden  Gateway.     From  a  Photo- 
graph. 

The  exterior  of  the  other  building  (the  Anastasis) 
has  been  repaired  and  covered  with  colored  tiles 
and  inscriptions  in  more  modern  times;  but  the 
interior  is  nearly  unaltered  (vide  Plates  by  Cather- 
wood  and  Arundale,  in  Fergusson's  Topoyraphy  V' 
Ancient  Jerusalem)^  and  even  externally,  wherever 
this  coating  of  tiles  has  peeled  off.  the  old  Roman 
round  arch  appears  in  lieu  of  its  pointed  substitute. 
It  must  also  be  added  that  it  is  essentially  a  tomb- 
huilding,  similar  in  form  and  arrangement,  as  it  is 
lu  detail,  to  the  Tomb  of  the  Emperor  Constantine 


JERUSALEM  ^,  825 

at  Home,  or  of  his  daughter  Constantia,  out«id» 
the  walls,  and  indeed  more  or  less  like  all  the  bomb* 
buildings  of  that  age. 

Though  the  drawings  of  these  buildings  hav« 
been  published  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  photo- 
graphs are  now  available,  no  competent  archaeologist 
or  architect  has  ventured  to  deny  that  these  are 
buildings  of  the  age  here  ascribed  io  them;  and 
we  have  therefore  the  pertinent  question,  which  still 
remains  unanswered,  ^Vhat  tomb-like  building  did 
Constantine  or  any  one  in  his  age  erect  at  Jeru- 
salem, over  a  mass  of  the  living  rock,  rising  oght 
or  nine  feet  above  the  bases  of  the  columns,  and 
extending  over  the  whole  central  area  of  the 
church,  with  a  sacred  cave  in  it,  unless  it  were 
the  church  of  the  Holy  Anastasis,  described  by 
Eusebius  ? 

Supposing  it  were  possible  to  put  this  evidence 
aside,  the  most  plausil)le  suggestion  is  to  appeal  to 
the  presumed  historical  fact  that  it  was  built  by 
Omar,  or  by  the  Moslems  at  all  events.  There  is, 
however,  no  proof  whatever  of  this  assu_  option 
What  Omar  did  build  is  the  small  mosque  on  the 
east  of  the  Aksa,  overhanging  the  southern  wall, 
and  which  still  bears  his  name;  and  no  Moham- 
medan writer  of  any  sort,  anterior  to  the  recovery 
of  the  city  from  the  Christians  by  Saladin,  ventures 
to  assert  that  his  countrymen  built  the  Done  of 
the  Rock.  On  the  contrary,  while  they  are  most 
minute  in  describing  the  building  of  the  Aksa,  they 
are  entirely  silent  about  this  building,  and  only 
assume  that  it  was  theirs  after  they  came  into 
permanent  possession  of  it  after  the  Crusades.  It 
may  also  be  added  that,  whatever  it  is,  it  certainly 
is  not  a  mosque.  The  principal  and  essential  feature 
in  all  these  buildings  is  the  Kibleh,  or  niche  point- 
ing towards  JNIecca.  No  mosque  in  the  whole 
world,  of  whatever  shape  or  form,  is  without  this; 
but  in  the  place  where  it  should  be  in  this  building 
is  found  the  principal  entrance,  so  that  the  worship- 
per enters  with  his  back  to  Mecca  —  a  sacrilege 
which  to  the  Mohanmiedans,  if  this  were  a  mosque, 
would  be  impossible.  Had  it  been  called  the  Tomb 
of  Omar,  this  incongruity  would  not  have  been 
apparent,  for  all  the  old  Moslem  and  Christian 
tombs  adopt  nejirly  the  same  ordinance;  but  no 
tradition  hints  that  either  Omar  or  any  Moslem 
saint  was  ever  buried  within  its  precincts. 

Nor  will  it  answfr  to  assume,  as  is  generally 
done,  that  it  was  built  in  the  first  century  of  the 
Hegira  over  the  Sacred  Rock  of  the  Temple;  fol 
from  the  account  of  the  Moslem  and  Christian  his- 
torians of  the  time  it  is  quite  evident  that  at  that 
time  the  site  and  dimensions  of  the  Jewish  Templs 
could  be  ascertained,  and  were  known.  As  shown 
above,  this  buildhig  certainly  always  was  out«ide 
the  limits  of  the  Temple,  so  that  this  could  not  Ixj 
the  object  of  its  erection.  The  Mosque  of  Omar 
properly  so  called,  the  great  Alosque  el-Aksa,  the 
mosques  of  the  Mogrebins  and  of  Abu  Bekr,  are 
all  within  the  limits  of  the  old  Temple,  and  were 
meant  to  be  so  (see  wood-cut  No.  4)  They  are 
so  because  in  all  ages  the  Mohammedans  held  the 
Jewish  Temple  to  be  a  sacred  spot,  as  certainly  as 
the  Christians  held  it  to  be  accursed,  and  all  their 
sacred  builduigs  stand  within  its  precincts.  So  fax 
as  we  now  know  there  was  nothing  in  Jerusalem 
of  a  sacred  character  built  by  the  Mohammedans 
outside  the  four  walls  of  the  Teaiple  anterior  to  ttdt 
recovery  of  the  city  by  Saladin 

Irrefragable  as  this  evidence  appears  to  be,  it 
would  be  impossible  to  maintain  it  otherwise  thaa 


1826 


JERUSALEM 


by  aMumijig  that  Constantine  blindly  adopted  a 
wrong  .ocality,  if  the  sites  now  assumed  tc  be  true 
were  such  as  did  not  accord  with  the  details  of  the 
Bible  narratives :  fortunately,  however,  they  agree 
wi*h  them  to  the  minutest  detail. 

To  understand  this  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in 
mind  that  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  the  third 
wall,  or  that  of  A<?rippa  (as  shown  in  Plate  II.), 
did  not  exist,  but  was  commenced  twelve  years 
afterwards:  the  spot  where  the  Dome  of  the  Rock 
theitffore  now  stands  was  at  that  time  outside  the 
walls,  and  open  to  the  country. 

It  was  also  a  place  where  certainly  tombs  did 
exist.  It  has  been  shown  above  that  the  sepulchres 
of  David  and  the  other  kings  of  Israel  were  in  this 
neighborhood.  We  know  from  Josephus  (5.  J.  v. 
7,  §  3)  that  "John  and  his  faction  defended  them- 
•eives  from  the  Tower  of  Antonia,  and  from  the 
orthem  cloister  of  the  Temple,  and  fought  the 


JERUSALEM 

Romans  before  the  monument  of  king  Alaundtft ;  *» 

80  that  there  certainly  were  tombs  hereabouts;  and 
there  is  a  passage  in  Jeremiah  (xxxi.  38-40 «; 
which  apparently  describes  prophetically  the  build- 
ing of  the  third  wall  and  the  inclosure  of  the 
northern  parts  of  the  city  from  Gareb  —  most  prob- 
ably the  hill  on  which  Psephinos  stood  —  to  Goath, 
which  is  mentioned  as  in  immediate  juxtaposition 
to  the  Horse  Gate  of  the  Temple,  out  of  which  the 
wicked  queen  Athaliah  was  taken  to  execution; 
and  the  description  of  "the  whole  valley  of  the 
dead  bodies  and  of  the  ashes,  and  all  the  fields 
unto  the  brook  of  Kidron,  and  the  corner  of  the 
horse-gate  toward  the  east,"  is  in  itself  sufficient 
to  prove  that  this  locahty  was  then,  as  it  is  now, 
the  great  cemetery  of  Jerusalem ;  and  as  the  sepul- 
chre was  nigh  at  hand  to  the  place  of  execution 
(John  xlx.  42),  every  probabihty  exists  to  prove 
that  this  may  have  been  the  scene  of  the  Pasttioa. 


'*•\';^^V'w^V': 


Jerusalem.     The  Mosqueci  in  the  Holy  Place  from  N.  W 


The  Prsetorium  where  Christ  was  judged  was 
most  pn>bably  the  Antonia,  which  at  that  time,  as 
before  and  afterwards,  was  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  residence  of  the  governors,  and  the  Xystus 
and  Council-house  were  certainly,  as  shown  above, 
in  this  neighborhood.  Leaving  these  localities  the 
Sanour,  tearing  his  cross,  must  certainly  have  gone 
towards  tiie  country,  and  might  well  meet  Simon 
or  any  one  coming  towards  the  city;  thus  every 
detail  of  the  description  is  satisfied,  and  none  of- 
fended by  the  locality  now  assumed. 

The  third  class  of  evidence  is  from  its  nature  by 
no  means  so  clear,  but  there  is  nothing  whatever  in 
it  to  contradict,  and  a  great  deal  that  directly  con- 


firms the  above  statements.     The  earliest  of  the 

travellers  who  visited  Jerusalem  after  the  discovery 
of  the  Sepulchre  by  Constantine  is  one  known  as 
the  Bordeaux  pilgrim ;  he  seems  to  have  visited  the 
place  about  the  year  333.  In  his  Itinerary,  after 
describing  the  palace  of  David,  the  Great  Syna- 
gogue, and  other  objects  inside  the  city,  he  adds, 
j  "  Inde  ut  eas  foris  raurum  de  Sione  euntibus  ad 
Portam  Neopolitanam  ad  partem  dextram  deorsum 
in  valle  sunt  parietes  ubi  domus  fuit  sive  palatium 
Pontii  Pilati.  Ibi  Dominus  auditus  est  antequam 
pateretur.  A  sinistra  autem  parte  est  monticuhis 
Golgotha,  ubi  Dominus  crucifixus  est.  Inde  quasi 
ad  lapidem  missum  est  cripta  ubi  corpus  ejus  posi- 


o  "  Behold  the  daj'  is  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that 
Che  city  shall  be  built  to  the  Lord,  from  the  tower  of 
Haiianeel  unto  the  gate  of  the  corner.  And  the 
measuring-line  shall  yet  go  forth  over  against  it  upon 
ttie  bill  Gareb,  and  shall  compafs  about  to  Ooath. 


And  the  whole  valley  of  the  dead  bodies  and  of  the 
ashes,  and  all  the  fields  unto  the  brook  of  Kidron. 
unto  the  comer  of  the  horse-gate  toward  the  ea«t 
shall  be  holy  unto  the  Lord ;  it  shall  not  b«  ploekad 
up  nor  thrown  down  any  mere  for  ever." 


.fRKUSALEM 

•ms  fWit.  et  tertia  die  resurroxit.  Ibidem  modo 
jocnu  «Jon8tantini  luiiieratoris  IJasilica  facta  est, 
Id  est  Dominicum  luirap  pulchritudinis."  From 
this  it  is  evident  that  passing  out,  of  the  modern 
Zion  Gate  he  turned  round  the  outside  of  the  walls 
to  the  left.  Had  he  gone  to  tlie  right,  past  the 
Jaffii  gate,  both  the  ancient  and  modern  Golgotha 
would  have  been  on  his  right  hand;  but  passing 
round  the  Temple  area  he  may  have  had  the  house 
of  Pilate  on  his  right  in  the  valley,  where  some 
traditions  placed  it.  lie  must  have  had  Golgotha 
and  the  Sepulchre  on  his  left,  as  he  describes  them. 
In  80  far  therefore  as  his  testimony  goes,  it  is  clear 
he  was  not  speaking  of  the  modern  Golgotha,  which 
is  inside  tlie  city,  while  the  very  expression  "  foris 
murum  "  seems  to  indicate  what  the  context  con- 
firms, that  it  was  a  place  on  the  verge  of  the  city, 
and  on  the  left  hand  of  one  passing  round  the  walls, 
or  in  other  words  the  place  marked  on  'Jie  accom- 
panying map. 

Antoninus  Martyr  is  the  only  other  traveller 
whose  works  have  come  down  to  us,  who  visited 
the  city  before  the  Mohammedan  conquest;  his  de- 
scription is  not  sufficiently  distinct  for  much  reli- 
ance to  be  placed  on  it,  though  all  it  does  say  is 
more  in  accordance  with  the  eastern  than  the  west- 
ern site ;  but  he  incidentally  supplies  one  fact.  He 
says,  "  Juxta  ipsum  altare  est  crypta  ubi  si  ponas 
aurem  audies  flumen  aquarum,  et  si  jactas  intus 
pomum  aut  quid  natare  potest  et  vade  ad  fontem 
Siloam  et  ibi  illud  suscipies  "  (Ant.  Mart.  Itin.  p. 
14).  There  is  every  reason  to  believe,  from  the 
researches  of  Drs.  Robinson  and  Barclay,  tnat  the 
whole  of  the  Harara  area  is  excavated  with  subter- 
ranean water-channels,  and  that  therefore  if  you 
place  your  ear  almost  anywhere  you  may  hear  the 
flowing  of  the  water ;  and  all  these  waters  can  only 
drain  out  towaids  Siloam.  We  also  know  that 
under  the  cave  in  the  Dome  of  the  Rock  there  is 
a  well,  called  the  Bir  Arrunh,  and  that  it  does 
communicate  with  the  great  excavated  pea  or  cistern 
iu  front  of  the  Aksa,  and  that  its  overflow  is  to- 
wards Siloam,  so  that  if  an  apple  were  dropped 
into  it,  in  so  far  as  we  novv  know,  it  would  come 
out  there.  If  we  presume  that  Antoninus  was  speak- 
ing of  the  present  sepulchre  the  passage  is  utterly 
unintelligible.  There  is  no  well,  and  no  trace  has 
ever  been  discovered  of  any  communication  with 
Siloam.  As  far  as  our  present  knowledge  goes, 
(>his  objection  is  in  itself  fatal  to  the  modern  site. 

A  third  and  most  important  narrative  has  been 
preserved  to  us  by  Adamnanus,  an  abbot  of  lona, 
who  took  it  down  from  the  mouth  of  Arculfus,  a 
French  bishop  who  visited  the  Holy  Land  in  the 
end  of  the  seventh  century.  He  not  only  describes, 
but  gives  from  memory  a  plan  of  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre,  but  without  any  very  precise 
indication  of  its  locality.  He  then  describes  the 
Mosque  el-Aksa  as  a  square  building  situated  on 
the  site  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  and  with  details 
that  leave  no  doubt  as  to  its  identity;  but  either 
he  omita  all  mention  of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock, 
vhich  certainly  v^a^  then,  as  it  is  now,  the  most 
eonspicuous  and  most  important  building  in  Jeru- 
salem, or  the  inference  is  inevitable,  that  he  has 
already  described  it  under  the  designation  of  the 
Church  of  the  Sepulchre,  which  the  whole  context 
irould  lead  us  to  infer  was  really  the  case. 

R^pidee  'iiese,  there  are  various  passages  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers  which  are  unintelligible  if 
ne  assume  that  the  present  church  was  the  one 
tnill  by  Constantine-     Dositheus,  for  instance  (ii. 


JERUSALEM  1327 

1 ,  §  7 ),  says,  that  owing  to  the  steepness  of  thi 
ground,  or  to  the  hill  or  valley,  to  the  westward  ol 
the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  it  had  only  it« 
one  wall  on  that  side,  *'Exf'  <5  vah9  • "  7  ayiou  rfii- 
(pov  Kara  /xeu  t^v  ^v<tiu  5m  rb  elvat  6pos  (jlSuou 
rhv  Toixov  auTOv.  This  cannot  be  applied  to  th<i 
present  church,  inasmuch  as  towards  the  west  iu 
that  locality  there  is  space  for  any  amount  of  build- 
ing ;  but  it  is  literally  correct  as  applied  to  the  so- 
called  Dome  of  the  Rock,  which  does  stand  so  near 
the  edge  of  the  valley  between  the  two  towns  that 
it  would  be  impossible  to  erect  any  coniiideral.lft 
building  there. 

The  illuminated  Cross,  mentioned  by  St.  Cyt\l 
(Bpist.  ad  Const.)  is  unintelligible,  unless  we  assumr 
the  Sepulchre  to  have  been  on  the  side  of  the  cit} 
next  to  the  Mount  of  Olives.  But  even  more  dis- 
tinct than  this  is  a  passage  in  the  writings  of  St. 
Epiphanius,  writing  in  the  -ith  century,  who,  speak- 
ing of  Golgotha,  says,  "  It  does  not  occupy  an  ele- 
vated position  as  compared  with  other  places  sur- 
rounding it.  Over  against  it,  the  Mount  of  Olives 
is  higher.  Again,  the  hill  tliat  formerly  existed  in 
Zion,  but  which  is  now  leveled,  was  once  higher 
than  the  sacred  spot."  As  we  cannot  be  sure  to 
which  hill  he  app'jes  the  name,  Zion,  no  great  stress 
can  be  laid  on  that;  but  no  one  acquainted  with 
the  localities  would  speak  of  the  modern  Golgotha 
as  over  against  the  Mount  of  Olives.  So  far  there- 
fore, as  :his  goes,  it  is  in  favor  of  the  proposed 
view. 

The  slight  notices  contained  in  other  works  are 
hardly  sutticient  to  determine  the  question  one  way 
or  the  other,  but  the  mass  of  evidence  adduced 
above  would  probably  never  have  been  questioned, 
were  it  not  that  from  the  time  of  the  Crusades 
down  to  the  present  day  (which  is  the  period  dur- 
ing which  we  are  really  and  practically  acquainted 
with  the  history  and  topography  of  Jerusalem),  it 
is  certain  that  the  church  in  the  Latin  quarter  of 
the  city  has  always  been  considered  as  containing 
the  Tomb  of  Christ,  and  as  being  the  church  which 
Constantine  erected  over  the  sacred  cave;  and  as 
no  record  exists  —  nor  indeed  is  it  hkdy  that  it 
should  —  of  a  transference  of  the  site,  there  is  a 
difficulty  in  persuading  others  that  it  really  took 
place.  As  however  there  is  nothing  to  contradict, 
and  everything  to  confirm,  the  assumption  that  a 
transference  did  take  place  about  this  time,  it  i* 
not  important  to  foe  argument  whether  or  not  we 
are  able  to  show  exactly  how  it  took  place,  though 
nothing  seems  to  be  more  likely  or  natural  under 
the  circumstances. 

Architecturally,  there  is  literally  no  feature  ot 
[andj  no  detail  which  would  induce  us  to  beliere 
that  any  part  of  the  present  church  is  older  than  the 
time  of  the  Crusades.  The  only  things  about  li 
of  more  ancient  date  are  the  fragments  of  an  old 
classical  cornice,  which  are  worked  in  as  string 
courses  with  the  Gothic  details  of  the  external 
fa9ade,  and  singularly  enough  this  cornice  is  iden 
tical  in  style  with,  and  certainly  belongs  to  the  aga 
of,  the  Golden  Gateway  and  Dome  of  the  Rock, 
and  consequently  can  scarcely  be  anything  else  than 
a  fragment  of  the  old  basilica,  which  el-Hakeem 
had  destroyed  in  the  previous  century,  and  the  re- 
mains of  which  must  still  have  been  scattered  about 
when  the  Crusaders  arrived. 

It  is  well  known  that  a  furious  persecution  of 
the  Christians  was  carried  on,  as  above  meutionrtl, 
at  the  end  of  the  10th  century.  Their  pre^r.  b*. 
silica  was  destroyed,  their  Tomb  appropriated,  tcej 


1328  vTERUSALEM 

irer©  driven  from  ilie  city,  and  dared  not  approach 
the  holy  places  under  pain  of  death.  As  the  perse- 
eution  relaxed,  a  few  crept  back  to  their  old  'Quarter 
of  the  city,  and  there  most  naturally  built  them- 
selves a  church  in  which  to  celebrate  the  sacred 
mysteries  of  Easter.  It  is  not  necessary  to  assume 
fraud  in  this  proceeding  any  more  than  to  impute 
It  to  those  who  built  sepulchral  churches  in  Italy, 
Spain,  or  England.  Thousands  have  prayed  and 
wept  in  these  simulated  sepulchres  all  over  the 
world,  and  how  nuich  more  appropriately  at  Jeru- 
ealeni !  Being  in  the  city,  and  so  near  the  spot, 
it  was  almost  impossible  but  that  it  should  event- 
ually come  to  be  assumed  that  instead  of  a  sinm- 
lated,  it  was  the  true  sepulchre,  and  it  would  have 
required  more  than  human  virtue  on  the  part  of 
the  priests  if  they  had  undeceived  the  unsuspecting 
pilgrims,  whose  faith  and  liberality  were  no  doubt 
quickened  by  the  assumption.  Had  the  Christians 
never  recovered  the  city,  the  difference  would  never 
have  been  discovered  in  the  dark  ages ;  but  when 
unexpectedly  those  who  had  knelt  and  prayed  ao 
pilgrims,  came  back  as  armed  men,  and  actually 
possessed  the  city,  it  was  either  necessary  to  confess 
the  deception  or  tn  persevere  in  it ;  and,  as  was  too 
often  the  case,  the  latter  course  was  pursued,  and 
hence  all  the  subsequent  confusion. 

Nothing,  however,  can  be  more  remarkable  than 
the  different  ways  in  which  the  Cru.saders  treated 
the  Dome  of  the  Itock  and  the  Mosque  el-Aksa. 
The  latter  they  always  called  the  "  Templum  seu 
palatium  Solomonis,"  and  treated  it  with  the  con- 
tempt always  applied  by  Christians  to  anything 
Jewish.  The  Mosque  was  turned  into  a  stable, 
the  buildings  into  dweUings  for  knights,  who  took 
the  title  of  Knights  Templars,  from  their  residence 
in  the  Temple.  But  the  Dome  of  the  Kock  they 
called  "  Templum  Domini."  (Jacob  de  Vitry,  c. 
62;  Ssewulf,  Rd.  de  Voyatje^iv.  833;  Maundeville, 
Voiage^  etc.,  100,  105;  Mar.  Sanutus,  iii.  xiv.  9; 
Brocardus,  vi.  1047.)  Priests  and  a  choir  were 
appointed  to  perform  service  in  it,  and  during  the 
whole  time  of  the  Christian  occupation  it  was  held 
certainly  as  sacred,  if  not  more  so,  than  the  church 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  in  the  town.  (Will,  of  Tyre, 
viii.  3.)  I  lad  they  believed  or  suspected  that  the 
rock  was  that  on  which  the  Jewish  temple  stood  it 
would  have  been  treated  as  the  Aksa  was,  but  they 
knew  that  the  Dome  of  the  Kock  was  a  Christian 
building,  and  sacred  to  the  Saviour;  though  in  the 
uncritical  spirit  of  the  ago  they  never  seem  exactly 
to  have  known  either  wiiat  it  was,  or  by  whom  it 
was  erected.     [See  §  IV.  Amer.  ed.] 

XI.  RibuiUliny  of  the  Ttmjde  by  Julian.  — 
Before  leaving  the  subject,  it  is  necessary  to  revert 
to  the  attempt  of  Julian  the  Apostate  to  rebuild 
the  Temple  of  the  Jews.  It  was  undertaken  avow- 
edly as  a  shght  to  the  Christians,  and  with  the  idea 
of  establishing  a  counterpoise  to  the  influence  and 
position  they  had  attained  by  the  acts  of  Constan- 
tiue.  It  was  commenced  about  six  months  before 
his  death,  and  during  that  period  the  work  seems 
to  have  been  pushed  forward  with  extraordinary 
activity  under  the  guidance  of  his  friend  Alypius. 
Not  only  were  large  sums  of  money  collected  for 
the  purpose,  and  an  enormous  concourse  of  the 
Jews  assembled  on  the  spot,  but  an  immense  mass 


JERUSALEM 

of  materials  was  brought  together,  and  the 
of  the  foundations  at  least  carried  vigorously  on 
during  this  period  of  excitement,  before  the  miracle 
occuiTcd,  which  put  a  final  stop  to  the  undertaking. 
Even  if  we  have  not  historical  evidence  of  these 
facts,  the  ajjpearance  of  the  south  wall  of  the  Hr 
ram  would  lead  us  to  expect  that  something  of  the 
sort  had  been  attempted  at  this  period.  As  befor« 
mentioned,  the  great  tunnel-like  vault  under  the 
Mosque  el-Aksa,  with  its  four-domed  vestibule,  ia 
almost  certainly  part  of  the  temple  of  Herod  [see 
Temple],  and  coeval  with  his  period,  but  exter- 
nally to  this,  certain  architectural  decorations  have 


a  This  fifict  the  writer  owes,  with  many  other  val- 
nablA  rectifications,  to  the  obseryation  of  his  friend 
Mr.  <i.  (Irt  ve.  The  wood-cut,  etc.,  is  from  a  large 
»ho»w|ri«fi«i   which,  with    many   others,   was   taken 


10.  —  Frontispiece   ot  Julian  in  sonth  wall  cf 
Uaram. 

been  added  (wood-cut  No.  10),  and  that  so  slightly, 
that  daylight  can  be  perceived  between  the  old 
walls  and  the  subsequent  decorations,  except  at  the 
points  of  attachment .o  It  is  not  difficult  to  ascer- 
tain, approximately  at  lea.st,  the  age  of  these  ad- 
juncts. From  their  classical  forms  they  cannot  be 
so  late  as  the  time  of  Justinian  :  while  on  the  other 
hand  they  are  slightly  more  modern  in  style  than 
the  architecture  of  the  (Jolden  (Jateway,  or  than 
any  of  the  classical  details  of  the  Dome  of  the 
Kock.  They  may  therefore  with  very  tolerable 
certainty  be  ascribe*!  to  the  age  of  Julian,  while, 
from  the  hist<^)rical  accounts,  they  are  just  such  as 
we  would  exi)ect  to  find  them.  Al>ove  them  an 
inscription  bearing  the  name  of  Hadrian  has  been 
inserted  in  the  wall,  but  turned  upside  down;  and 
the  whole  of  the  masonry  being  of  that  interme- 
diate character  between  that  which  we  know  to  be 
ancient  and  that  which  we  easily  tiooguize  as  tht 


especially  for  the  writer  on  the  spot,  eri  to  whieb 
he  owes  much  of  the  information  detailed  abOT» 
though  it  has  been  imposi^ihle  to  refer  to  It  («n  •& 
occasions 


mlm 


JERUSALEM 


Plate 


JERUSALEM 

pork   of  the  Mohammedans,  there  can   be  little 
danot  but  that  it  belonj^s  to  this  period. 

Among  the  uicidents  mentioned  as  occurring  at 
this  time  is  one  bearing  rather  distinctly  on  the 
topography  of  tiie  site.  It  is  said  ((iregory  Nazian- 
zen,  ad  Jwl.  et  Gent.  7,  1.  and  confirmed  by  Sozo- 
men)  that  when  the  workmen  were  driven  from 
their  worlts  by  the  globes  of  fire  that  issued  from 
the  foundations,  they  souglit  refuge  in  a  neighbor- 
ing church  (e7r{  ti  twv  Tr\r\aiov  Upcau,  or,  as 
Sozomen  has  it,  e/'s  rh  Up6i/)  —  an  expression 
which  would  be  unintelligil)le  did  not  the  buildings 
of  Constantine  exist  at  that  time  on  the  s[X)t;  for, 
except  these,  tliere  could  not  be  any  chumh  or 
sacred  place  in  the  neighborhood  to  which  the  ex- 
pression could  be  applied.  The  principal  bearing, 
however,  of  Julian's  attempt  on  the  topography  of 
Jerusalem  consists  in  the  fact  of  its  proving  not 
only  that  the  site  of  the  Jewish  Temple  was  perfectly 


JERUSALEM 


1329 


well  known  at  this  period —  A.  d.  362  —  l)7it  that 
the  spot  was  then,  as  always,  held  accursed  by  the 
Christians,  and  as  doomed  by  the  denunciation  of 
Christ  himself  never  to  be  reestablished ;  and  thui 
consequently  makes  it  as  absurd  to  suppose  that 
the  Aksa  is  a  building  of  Justinian  as  that  the 
Dome  of  the  Rock  or  the  Golden  Gateway—  if 
Christian  buildings  —  ever  stood  within  its  pre- 
cincts.« 

Xir.  Church  of  Justirdan.  —  Nearly  two  cen- 
turies after  the  attempt  of  Julian,  Justinian  erected 
a  church  at  Jerusalem;  of  which,  fortunately,  we 
have  so  full  and  detailed  an  account  in  the  works 
of  Procopius  {de  ^Jdtjiciis  Const. )  that  we  can  have 
little  difficulty  in  fixing  its  site,  though  no  remains 
(at  least  above  ground)  exist  to  verify  our  conjec- 
tures. The  description  given  by  I'rocopius  is  so 
clear,  and  the  details  he  gives  with  regard  to  the 
necessity  of  building  up  the  substructure  point  m 


NORTH 


SOUTH, 


Plan  of  Jerusalem  in  the  12th  century. 


nnmistakably  to  the  spot  near  to  which  it  must 
have  stood,  that  almost  all  topographers  have 
jump.-d  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Mosque  el-Aksa 
is  the  identical  church  referred  to.  Apart  from  the 
consideration  already  mentioned,  the  architecture 
of  that  building  is  alone  sufficient  to  refute  any 
such  idea.  No  seven-aisled  basilica  was  built  in  that 
age,  and  least  of  all  by  Justinian,  whose  favorite 
plan  was  a  dome  on  pendentives,  which  in  fact,  in 
his  aoe,  had  l)ecome  tlie  type  of  an  Oriental  Church. 
Besides,  the  Aksa  has  no  apse,  and,  from  its  situa- 
tion, never  could  have  had  either  that  or  any  of  the 
essential  features  of  a  Cliristian  basilica.  Its  whole 
architecture  is  that  of  the  end  of  the  7th  century, 
and  its  ordinance  is  essentially  that  of  a  mosque. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  argue  this  point,  however, 
M  the  Aksa  stands  on  a  spot  which  was  perfectly 
known  then,  and  ever  afterwards,  to  be  the  very 
nutre  of  tha  site  of  Solomon's  Temple.  Not  only 
84 


is  this  shown  from  Julian's  attempt,  but  all  ttu 
historians.  Christian  and  Mohammedan,  who  refer 
to  Lhnar's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  relate  that  the  Sakhrah 
was  covered  with  filth  and  abhorred  by  the  Chris- 
tians ;  and  more  than  this,  we  have  the  direct  testi- 
mony of  Eutychius,  writing  in  the  9th  century, 
from  Alexandria  {Amiales,  ii.  289),  "That  the 
Christians  had  built  no  church  within  the  area  of 
the  Temple  on  account  of  the  denunciations  of  the 
Lord,  and  had  left  it  in  ruins." 

Notwithstanding  this  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
fixing  on  the  site  of  this  church,  inasmuch  as  the 
vaults  that  fill  up  the  southeastern  angle  of  the 
Haram  area  are  almost  certainly  of  the  age  of  Jus- 
thiian  (wood -cuts  Nos.  3,  4),  and  are  just  such  as 


«  *  The  only  authentic  historical  feet,  under  thii 
head,  is  that  the  emperor  Julian  made  an  abortiTi 
attempt  to  rebuild  the  Temple.  S.  W 


1880  JERUSALEM 

Plooopius  describes ;  so  that  if  it  were  situated  at 
the  northern  extremity  of  the  vaults,  all  the  argu- 
ments that  apply  to  the  Aksa  equally  apply  to  this 
gituation. 

We  have  also  direct  testiiuony  that  a  church  did 
exist  here  immediately  after  Justinian's  time  in  the 
following  words  of  Ant.  Martyr. :  "  Ante  ruinas 
vero  templi  Solomonis  aqua  decurrit  ad  foutem 
Siloam,  secus  porticuni  Solomonis  in  ecclesia  est 
Svides  in  qua  sedit  Pilatus  quando  audivit  Dominum  " 
(Jtln.  p.  16).  As  the  portico  of  Solomon  was  the 
eastern  portico  of  the  Temple,  this  exactly  describes 
the  position  of  the  church  in  question. 

But  whether  we  assume  the  Aksa,  or  a  church 
outside  the  Temple,  on  these  vaults,  to  have  been 
the  Mary  clmrch  of  Justinian,  how  comes  it  that 
Justinian  chose  this  remote  corner  of  the  city,  and 
80  difficult  a  site,  for  the  erection  of  his  church  ? 
Why  did  he  not  go  to  the  quarter  where  —  if  the 
modem  theory  be  correct  —  all  the  sacred  localities 
of  the  Christians  were  grouped  together  in  the 
uiiddle  of  the  city  ?  The  answer  seems  inevitable : 
that  it  was  because  in  those  times  the  Sepulchre 
and  Golgotha  \,cre  here,  and  nut  on  tht  spot  to 
wjtich  iht  Sepulchre  witJi  his  Mitry-church  have 
substquendy  been  transferred.  It  may  also  be 
added  that  the  fact  of  Justinian  having  built  a 
church  in  the  neighborhood  is  in  itself  ahuost  suf- 
ficient to  prove  that  in  his  age  the  site  and  dimen- 
sions of  the  Jewish  Temple  were  known,  and  also 
that  the  localities  immediately  outside  the  Temple 
were  then  considered  as  sacred  by  the  Christians. 
[See  §  IV.,  Amer.  ed.] 

XIII.  Conclusion.  —  Having  now  gone  through 
all  the  principal  sites  of  the  Christian  edifices,  as 
they  stood  anterior  to  the  destruction  of  the  churches 
by  el-Hakoem,  the  plan  (No.  4)  of  the  area  of  the 
Haram  will  l)e  easily  understood.  Both  Constan- 
tine's  and  Justinian's  churches  having  disappeared, 
of  course  the  restoration  of  these  is  partly  conjec- 
tural. Nothing  now  remains  in  the  Haram  area 
but  the  IMohammedan  buildings  situated  within 
the  area  of  Solomon's  Temple.  Of  the  Christian 
buildings  which  once  existed  there,  there  remain 
only  the  great  Anastasis  of  Constantine  —  now 
known  as  "  the  Mosque  of  Omar  "  and  "  the  Dome 
of  the  Kock"  —  certainly  the  most  interesting,  as 
well  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful  Christian  build- 
ings in  the  liast,  and  a  small  but  equally  interesting 
little  domical  building  called  the  Little  Sakhrah  at 
the  north  end  of  the  inclosure,  and  said  to  contain 
a* fragment  of  the  rock  which  the  angel  sat  upon, 
and  which  closed  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  (Ali  Bey, 
ii.  225).  These  two  buildings  are  entire.  Of  Con- 
Btantine's  church  we  have  only  the  festal  entrance, 
known  as  the  Golden  Gateway,  and  of  Justinian's 
only  the  substructiong. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  this  with  a  plan  of 
the  city  (wood-cut  No.  11)  made  during  the  Cru- 
Bades,  and  copied  from  a  manuscript  of  the  twelfth 
century,  in  the  Library  at  Brussels.  It  gives  the 
traditional  localities  pretty  much  as  they  are  now ; 
with  the  exception  of  St.  Stephen's  Gate,  which  was 
the  name  then  applied  to  that  now  known  as  the 
Damascus  Gate.  The  gate  which  now  bears  his 
name  was  then  known  as  that  of  the  Valley  of 
Jehoshaphat.  The  "  Temple  of  Solomon,"  i.  e.  the 
Mosque  of  el  Aksa,  is  divided  by  a  wide  street  from 
thai,  of  our  l^rd ;  and  the  Sepulchre  is  represented 
M  only  a  smaller  copy  of  its  prototype  within  the 
Uaram  area,  but  very  remarkably  similar  in  d'  «gn, 
to  Mj  the  least  cf  it. 


JERUSALEM 

Havmg  now  gone  through  the  main  outhoM  of 
the  topography  of  Jerusalem,  in  so  far  zi  the  limitt 
of  this  article  would  admit,  or  as  seems  necessary 
for  the  elucidation  of  the  subject,  the  many  details 
which  remain  will  be  given  under  their  separate 
titles,  as  Tejiple,  Tomb,  Palace,  etc  It  only 
remains,  before  concluding,  to  recapitulatt  here  that 
the  great  difficulties  which  seem  hitherto  to  have 
rendered  the  subject  confused,  and  in  fact  inex- 
plicable, were  (1)  the  improper  application  of  the 
name  of  Zion  to  the  western  hill,  and  (2)  the 
assumption  that  the  present  Cnurch  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre  was  tliat  built  by  Constantine. 

The  moment  we  transfer  the  name,  Zion,  from 
the  western  to  the  eastern  hill,  and  the  scenes  of  the 
Passion  from  the  present  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre 
to  the  area  of  the  Haram,  all  the  difficulties  dis- 
appear: and  it  oiily  requires  a  little  patience,  and 
perhaps  in  some  instances  a  little  further  investiga- 
tion on  the  spot,  for  the  topography  of  Jerusalem 
to  become  as  well,  or  better  established,  than  that 
of  any  city  of  the  ancient  world.  J.  F. 

*  IV.    TOJ'OGKAPHY    OF   THE    CiTY. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  preceding  that  the  two 
points  in  the  topography  of  Jerusalem  which  Mr. 
Fergusson  regarded  as  demanding  special  elucida- 
tion are  the  site  of  Mount  Zion,  and  the  site  of  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  With  reference  to 
both,  he  has  advanced  theories  which  are  original 
—  theories  which  not  only  have  not  been  broached 
l)efore,  and  are  unsupported  by  a  single  tradition, 
but  which,  so  far  as  is  known,  contradict  the  previ- 
ous impressions  of  the  Christian  world.  Specula- 
tions so  novel  respecting  localities  so  prominent  in 
the  history  of  the  sacred  city,  naturally  awaken  the 
reader's  surprise  and  suspicion,  and  demand  a  can- 
did scrutiny. 

We  will  examine  these  points  separately  — 

I.  Mount  Zion.  —  Mr.  Fergusson's  theory  is,  that 
the  Mouiit  Zion  of  the  sacred  writers  is  not  "  the 
western  hill  on  which  the  city  of  Jerusalem  now 
stands,  and  in  fact  always  stood,"  but  "  the  eastern 
hill,  or  that  on  which  the  Temple  stood." 

On  this  point  we  will  consider  — 

(1.)  The  testimony  of  the  Sacred  Sa'iptiires. — 
The  sacred  historian  says,  "As  for  the  Jebusites, 
the  inhal)itants  of  Jerusalem,  the  children  of  Israel 
could  not  drive  them  out,  but  the  Jebusites  dwell 
with  the  children  of  Judah  at  Jerusalem  unto  this 
day  "  (Josh.  xv.  63).  Four  hundred  years  later, 
"  David  and  all  Israel  went  to  Jerusalem,  which  is 
Jebus,  where  the  Jebusites  were,  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land.  And  the  inhabitants  of  Jebus  said  to 
David,  Thou  shalt  not  come  hither.  Nevertheless, 
David  took  the  castle  of  Zion,  which  is  the  City  of 
David.  And  David  dwelt  in  the  castle;  therefore 
they  called  it.  The  City  of  David  "  (1  Chr.  xi.  4, 
5,  7).  Here  was  his  citadel,  and  here  his  residence; 
and  hence  the  frequent  allusions  in  the  Bible  to  the 
towers,  bulwarks,  and  palaces  of  Zion.  A  few  yean 
later,  "  David  made  him  houses  in  the  City  of  David, 
and  prepared  a  place  for  the  ark  of  God,  and 
pitchetl  for  it  a  tent."  »  So  they  brought  the  ark 
of  God,  and  set  it  in  the  midst  of  tlie  tent  that 
David  had  pitched  for  it "  (1  Chr.  xv.  1).  Thirty 
years  after,  "  Solomon  began  to  build  the  house  of 
the  lx)rd  at  Jerusalem,  in  Mount  Moriah  "  (2  Chr 
iii.  1).  Seven  years  later,  "  Solomon  ^sembled 
the  elders  of  Israel  unto  Jerusalem,  to  bring  up  Um 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  l^rd,  out  of  the  City  of 
David,  which  is  Zion  "  ^2  Chr.  v.  2>,  and  then  bA 


JERUSALEM 

lows  the  account  of  their  removing  the  ark  a;:d 
depositing  it  in  the  Temple. 

From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  Jebusite  strong- 
nold  which  David  stormed,  and  where  he  dwelt, 
was  Zion,  or  the  City  of  David ;  that  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  was  brought  to  this  spot,  and  from  it  was 
transferred  to  the  Temple  on  Mount  Moriah;  and 
that  Mount  Moriah,  the  site  of  the  Temple,  could 
not  have  been  identical  with  Zion,  the  City  of  David. 
Tliis  view  appears  on  the  face  of  the  narrative,  and 
there  is  not  a  passage  of  Scripture  which  conflicts 
with  it,  or  which  it  renders  difficult  or  obscure. 

IMr.  Fergusson  says,  "  There  are  numberless  pas- 
sages in  which  Zion  is  spoken  of  as  a  holy  place,  in 
such  terms  as  are  never  applied  to  Jerusalem,  and 
which  can  only  be  applied  to  the  holy  Temple 
Mount."  Surely,  no  strains  could  be  too  elevated 
to  be  applied  to  the  mount  on  which  the  tabernacle 
was  pitched,  and  where  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
ibode  —  the  seat  of  the  theocracy,  the  throne  alike 
of  David  and  of  David's  Lord,  the  centre  of  domin- 
ion and  of  worship.  Indeed,  the  verse  quoted, 
"  Yet  have  I  set  my  king  upon  my  holy  hill  of 
Zion,"  could  anly  be  affirmed  of  that  western  hill 
which  was  the  royal  residence.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  verse  quoted  as  specially  difficult,  on  the 
received  theory,  in  its  allusion  to  the  sides  q/' the 
north,  the  reference  here  being  to  the  lofty  site  of 
the  city ;  and  to  one  who  approaches  it  from  the 
south,  the  precipitous  brow  of  Zion  invests  the 
description  with  a  force  and  beauty  which  would 
be  lost  by  a  transfer  to  the  other  eminence. 

It  is,  moreover,  a  mistaken  impression  that  greater 
sanctity  is  ascribed  to  Zion  than  to  Jerusalem,  or 
that  the  two  names  are,  in  this  respect,  carefully 
distinguished.  What  passage  in  the  Bible  recog- 
nizes greater  sacredness  in  a  locality  than  the  plain- 
tive apostrophe:  "If  I  forget  thee,  0  Jerusalem, 
let  my  right  hand  forget  her  cunning;  if  I  do  not 
remember  thee,  let  my  tongue  cleave  to  the  roof  of 
my  mouth;  if  I  prefer  not  Jerusalem  above  my 
chief  joy"?  The  Song  of  songs  sets  forth  the 
divine  beauty  of  the  bride,  or  loved  one,  by  the 
simile,  "  comely  as  Jerusalem  " ;  and  the  call  of  the 
evangeUcal  prophet  is,  "  Awake,  put  on  thy  strength, 
0  Zion,  put  on  thy  beautiful  garments,  O  Jeru- 
salem, the  holy  city."  The  localities  are  thus  con- 
stantly identified,  "  To  declare  the  name  of  the 
I>ord  in  Zion  and  his  praise  in  Jerusalem."  The 
names  are,  and  may  be,  used  interchangeably,  with- 
out "grating  on  the  ear";  and  the  extraordinary 
assertion,  "  It  is  never  said.  The  Lord  dwelleth  in 
Jerusalem,  or  loveth  Jerusalem,  or  any  such  expres- 
sion," we  meet  with  the  inspired  declarations  from 
the  Chronicles,  the  Psalms,  and  the  Prophets,  "  I 
have  chosen  Jerusalem  that  my  name  might  be 
there '" ;  "  The  God  of  Israel,  whose  habitation  is 
ill  Jerusalem  " ;  "  Blessed  be  the  Lord  out  of  Zion, 
who  dwelleth  at  Jerusalem";  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  I  am  returned  unto  Zion,  and  will  dwell  in 
Iho  midst  of  Jerusalem."  Our  Saviour  expressly 
for*>aJe  the  profanation  of  the  name;  and  through 
the  force  of  the  same  sacred  as.sociations,  the  be- 
lovec  disciple  could  find  no  more  fitting  type  of 
heaven  itself,  as  he  beheld  it  in  vision  —  the  New 
Terusalem  of  the  saints  in  glory. 

Mr.  Fergusson  remarks  "  that  the  sepulchres  of 
David  and  his  successors  were  on  Mount  Zion,  or 


a  *  «  The  southeast  slope  of  Zion,  down  which 
Hi  ere  was,  both  at  the  time  of  Nehemiah  (iii.  15)  and 
■<  Jomphus  (Kiafft,  Topograykie,  pp.  61,  152),  a  flight 


JERUSALEM  1331 

iu  the  City  of  David,  but  the  wicked  king  Ahuij 
fov  his  •primes,  was  buried  in  Jerusalem,  '  in  tin 
city,'  ar>d  'not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings. 
Jehoi-am  narrowly  escaped  the  same  punishment, 
and  the  distinction  is  so  marked,  that  it  cannot  be 
overlfioked."  The  burial  of  King  Ahaz  is  thus 
recorded :  "  And  they  buried  him  in  the  city,  in 
Jerusalem,  but  they  brought  him  not  into  the  sep- 
ulchres of  the  kings"  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  27).  That 
of  King  Jehoram  is  as  follows :  •'  He  departed  with 
out  being  desired,  howbeit  they  buried  him  in  the 
City  of  David,  but  not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the 
kings "  (2  Chr.  xxi.  20).  That  of  King  Joash 
(which  Mr.  Fergusson  overlooks)  is  as  follows  : 
"  They  buried  him  in  the  City  of  David,  but  they 
buried  him  not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings" 
(2  Chr.  xxiv.  25).  Mr.  Fergusson  assumes  that 
there  is  a  "marked  distinction"  between  the  first 
and  the  last  two  records.  We  assume  that  the 
three  accounts  are,  in  substance,  identical ;  and  we 
submit  the  point  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader, 
merely  adding,  that  of  the  three  monarchs,  Jehoram 
was  apparently  the  most  execrated,  and  Josephus, 
who  is  silent  about  the  burial  of  Ahaz,  describes 
that  of  Jehoram  as  ignominious. 

Mr.  Fergusson  says,  "  There  are  a  great  many 
passages  in  which  Zion  is  spoken  of  as  a  separate 
city  from  Jerusalem,"  and  adduces  instances  in 
which  the  Hebrew  scholar  will  recognize  simply  the 
parcdlelism  of  Hebrew  poetry;  no  more  proving 
that  Zion  was  a  separate  city  from  Jerusalem,  than 
the  exclamation,  "  How  goodly  are  thy  tents,  O 
Jacob,  and  thy  tabernacles,  0  Israel,"  proves  that 
Jacob  was  a  separate  people  from  Israel. 

The  term  Zion  came,  naturally,  to  be  employed 
both  by  sacred  and  profane  writers,  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  whole  city,  of  which  it  formed  so 
prominent  a  part.  It  was  thus  used  by  tlie  later 
prophets,  quoted  above,  as  also  in  the  Book  of  the 
Maccabees,  where  it  evidently  includes  the  Temple 
and  adjacent  mount. 

The  passage  cited  by  Mr.  P'ergusson  from  Nehe- 
miah (iii.  16)  which  he  pronounces  "  important," 
is  as  follows :  "  After  him  repaired  Nehemiah  the 
son  of  Azbuk,  the  ruler  of  the  half  part  of  Beth-zur, 
unto  the  place  over  against  the  sepulchres  of  David, 
and  to  the  pool  that  was  made,  and  unto  the  house 
of  the  mighty."  These  locahties,  with  many  others 
named  in  the  chapter,  can  only  be  fixed  conjectur- 
ally.  On  the  face  of  the  passage  they  accord  well 
with  the  received  theory  respecting  Mount  Ziou, 
with  which  locality  Dr.  Barclay,  after  carefully  ex- 
amining the  matter  on  the  ground,  associates  them, 
and  represents  the  wall  here  described  as  running 
'^  along  the  precipitous  brow  of  Zion  "  (City,  etc., 
pp.  126,  155).  This  interpretation  has  just  received 
striking  confirmation,  and  the  veree  precaling  (Neh. 
iii.  15)  becomes  a  proof-text  in  the  argument  which 
identifies  the  ancient  City  of  David  with  the  modem 
Zion.  In  this  verse  mention  is  made  of  "  the  stairs 
that  go  down  from  the  City  of  David,"  and  Mr. 
Tristram  reports  the  interesting  discovery  of  a  flight 
of  steps  in  the  rock,  in  some  excavations  made  by 
the  Anglican  Bishop  below  the  English  Cemetery 
on  Mount  Zion  {Land  of  Israel).'*  From  this, 
as  from  the  previous  Scripture  quotations,  Mr.  Fer- 
gusson's  theory  derives  uo  support.  This  dispose* 
of  the  Biblical  testimony 


of  steps  leading  down  from  the  '  City  of  David,'  a&  weL 
as  the  southwest  slope  down  which  another  flight  led, 
etc.  (Hitter,  Geog.  of  Pal.  iv.  52^ 


1332 


JERUSALEM 


We  will  now  consider  — 

(2.)  The  testimony  of  J osephus. — Josephus  does 
not  use  the  word  Zion ;  but  his  paraphrase  of  the 
Scriptural  narrative  accords  entirely  with  the  above : 
*'  David  took  the  lower  city  by  force,  but  the  citadel 
held  out  still"  {Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  2),  with  the  other 
particulars  as  already  given.  He  also  says,  "  The 
city  was  built  upon  two  hills,  and  that  which,  con- 
tains the  upper  city,  is  much  higher,  and  accord- 
ingly it  was  called  the  citadel  by  King  David" 
(Ant.  xiv.  15,  §  2).  In  the  siege  by  Pompey,  one 
party  within  counseling  resistance  and  the  other 
submission,  the  former  "  seized  upon  the  Temple 
and  cut  oft"  the  bridge  which  reached  from  it  to  the 
city,  and  prepared  themselves  to  abide  a  siege,  but 
the  others  admitted  Pompey's  array  in,  and  deliv- 
ered up  both  the  city  and  the  king's  palace  to  him  " 
(Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  2),  and,  having  secured  these,  he 
laid  siege  to  the  Temple,  and  captured  its  occupants. 
In  the  siege  by  Herod,  "  When  the  outer  court  of 
the  Temple  and  the  lower  city  were  taken,  the  Jews 
fled  into  the  inner  court  of  the  Temple  and  into  the 
upper  city"  (Ant.  xiv.  16,  §  2).  In  the  siege  by 
Titus,  after  the  lower  city  had  been  taken,  and  it 
became  necessary  to  raise  an  embankment  against 
the  upi^er  city,  *'the  works  were  erected  on  the 
west  side  of  the  city,  over  against  the  royal  palace  " 
(B.  J.  vi.  8,  §  1).  Describing  the  Temple,  Josephus 
says,  *'  In  the  western  parts  of  the  inclosure  of  the 
Temple  were  four  gates,  one  leading  over  to  the 
royal  palace:  the  valley  between  being  interrupted 
to  form  a  passage  "  {Ant.  xv.  11,  §  5).  Ke  says 
that  "  king  Agrippa  built  himself  a  very  large 
dining-room  in  the  royal  palace,"  from  which  he 
"could  observe  what  was  done  in  the  Temple"; 
which  so  displeased  the  Jews,  that  they  "erected  a 
wall  u{X)n  the  uppermost  building  which  belonged 
to  the  inner  court  of  the  Temple,  to  the  west;  which 
wall,  when  it  was  built,  intercepted  the  prospect 
of  the  dining-room   in   the  palace"  {Ant.  xx.  8, 

§  11)- 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  upper  city 
of  Josephus  is  identical  with  the  Zion,  or  City  of 
David,  of  the  sacred  Scriptures;  that  the  citadel 
and  the  royal  palace  were  on  this  western  hill ;  that 
the  Temple  was  on  the  lower  eastern  hill,  separated 
from  the  western  by  a  deep  valley,  which  was 
spanned  by  a  bridge;  and  that  the  site  of  the  Temple 
is  identical  with  the  Mount  Moriah  of  the  Bible, 
and  distinct  from  Mount  Zion.  This  view,  which  is 
in  harmony  with  the  Scriptural  view  already  given, 
accords  also  with  every  other  allusion  in  Josephus 
to  these  localities.  And  the  substructions  of  the 
bridge  above  referred  to,  are  the  most  striking 
feature  in  the  remains  of  the  modern  city.  With 
this,  we  take  leave  of  Josephus. 

(3. )  Chri)>ti(tn  Itineraries.  —  This  brings  us  to 
the  Christian  Itineraries,  etc.,  and  their  testimony 
is  uniform  and  unbroken.  Except  one  or  two  wild 
speculations,  no  other  Mount  Zion  has  been  known, 
from  the  days  of  Eusebius  down,  than  the  high 
western  hill  of  Jerusalem  which  now  bears  the 
vame.  So  late  as  1852,  Prof.  Robinson  referred  to 
this  as  one  of  the  few  points  "  yet  unassailcd " 
{Bibl.  Res.  p.  206). 

The  careful  reader  of  the  preceding  article,  in 
eluding  the  "  Annals  "  of  the  city,  will  notice  the 
confusion  which  has  been  introduced  into  it  by  this 
tlieory  of  its  "  Topography."  The  writers  of  the 
Hstorical  portions  (Messrs.  Grove  and  Wright), 
both  eniinent  Biblical  scholars,  have  passed  over  to 
kheir  feliow-contributor  (Mr.  Fergusson)  most  of 


JERUSALEM 

the  topographical   points;  but  it  wa«   impowfbk 

for  them  to  write  an  intelligible  narrative  without 
contradicting  him.  From  many  sentences  of  tha 
same  kind,  we  select  three  or  four  which  exhibit 
the  necessary  failure  of  the  attempt  to  harmonize 
the  theory  with  the  facts  of  history  and  topog- 
raphy. 

"  As  before,  the  lower  city  was  immediatelj  j&ken 
and,  as  before,  the  citadel  held  out.  The  unda  mted 
Jebusites  beheved  in  the  impregnability  of  their 
fortress.  A  crowd  of  warriors  rushed  forward,  and 
the  citadel,  the  fastness  of  Zion,  was  taken.  It  la 
the  first  time  that  that  memorable  name  appean 
in  the  history.  David  at  once  proceeded  to  secure 
himself  in  his  new  acquisition.  He  inclosed  the 
whole  of  the  city  with  a  wall,  and  connected  it  with 
the  citadel.  In  the  latter  he  took  up  his  own 
quarters,  and  the  Zion  of  the  Jebusites  became  the 
City  of  David."  —  (pp.  1282,  1283.) 

"  The  Temple  was  at  last  gained ;  but  it  seemed 
as  if  half  the  work  remained  to  be  done.  The  upper 
city,  higher  than  Moriah,  inclosed  by  the  original 
wall  of  David  and  Solomon,  and  on  all  sides  pre- 
cipitous, except  at  the  north,  where  it  was  defended 
by  the  wall  and  towers  of  Herod,  was  still  to  be 
taken.  Titus  first  tried  a  parley,  he  standing  on 
the  east  end  of  the  bridge,  between  the  Temple  and 
the  upper  city,  and  John  and  Simon  on  the  west 
end."  — (p.  1307.) 

"  Acra  was  situated  on  the  northern  side  of  the 
Temple,  on  the  same  hill,  and  probably  on  the  same 
spot  occupied  by  David  as  the  stronghold  of  Zion." 
—  (p.  1320.) 

"  There  is  no  passage  in  the  Bible  which  directly 
asserts  the  identity  of  the  hills  Zion  and  Moriah, 
though  [there  are]  many  which  cannot  well  be 
understood  without  this  ass\miption.  The  cumula^ 
tive  proof,  however,  is  such  as  almost  perfectly  to 
supply  this  want."  —  (p.  1321.) 

The  first  two  extracts  are  from  the  historical, 
and  the  last  two  from  the  topographical,  portion 
of  the  article ;  and  the  reader  will  see  that  they  are 
in  irreconcilable  conflict.  Before  quitting  the 
theme,  let  us  gather  into  one  sentence  such  points 
as  are  consistent  with  each  other  and  with  known 
facts  and  probabilities. 

The  city  or  stronghold  of  the  Jebusites  was  the 
southern  portion  of  the  western  ridge,  the  highest, 
most  inaccessible,  and  easily  fortified  ground  in  the 
city;  conquered  by  David,  it  became  his  fortified 
abode;  his  castle  or  citadel  was  here,  and  remained 
here;  his  palace  was  built  here,  and  through  suc- 
cessive reigns  and  dynasties,  down  to  the  Christian 
era,  it  continued  to  be  the  royal  residence:  it  was 
the  ancient  as  it  is  the  modern  Zion,  inclosed  by 
the  old  wall,  the  original  wall;  it  was  the  upper 
city,  the  upper  market-place;  it  was  here  that  the 
ai-k  abode  until  its  removal  to  the  Temple ;  the  royal 
sepulchres  were  here;  and  Moriah  was  the  southeni 
portion  of  the  eastern  ridge,  and  on  this  the  Temple 
was  i>uilt.  This  statenent  embodies,  we  believe, 
the  truth  of  history,  and  with  this  we  close  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  site  of  Mount  Zion. 

We  pass  now  to  the  other  point: 

II.  The  Church  of  the  I/oly  Sepvlchre.  —  Mr 
Fergusson's  theory  is,  "  that  the  building  now 
known  to  Christians  as  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  but 
by  Moslems  called  the  Dome  of  the  Kock,  is  the 
identical  church  which  Constantine  erecteid  over 
the  rock  which  contained  the  tomb  of  Christ.' 
Since  the  publication  of  the  preceding  article,  he 
has   renewed   the  discussion   of  this  point   in 


JERUSALEM 

pamphleifO  from  which  we  shall  also  quote,  as  it 
oontains  a  more  compact  summary  of  his  arau- 
ment. 

He  concedes,  above,  the  conclusiveness  of  the 
argument  by  which  Dr.  Robinson  has  shown  that 
the  present  church  does  not  cover  "  the  place  where 
the  Lord  lay."  This  has  been  the  battle-ground 
of  recent  writers  on  the  topography  of  the  city,  and 
the  concession  renders  it  unnecessary  to  adduce 
liere  tlie  proofs  which  the  Professor  has  brought 
together,  and  which  may  be  found  in  his  Biblical 
Researches  (in  1838,  ii.  64-80;  in  1852,  pp.  254- 
203,  631-633).  The  "  power  of  logic  "  with  which 
Uiey  are  presented  is  not  affected  by  any  theory 
which  may  be  held  respecting  the  identity  of  any 
of.her  spot.  The  argument  reaches  "  its  legitimate 
(Conclusion,"  alike  whether  the  reader  accepts  some 
other  site,  or  whether  he  regards  the  true  site  as 
beyond  the  reach  of  modern  discovery.  The  theory 
here  offered,  like  the  one  which  we  have  examined, 
is  novel  and  startling,  and  hke  that,  is  put  forth 
with  much  confidence  by  a  writer  who  has  never 
examhied  the  localities.  We  submit  our  reasons 
for  rejecting  it;  and  as  we  agree  with  Mr.  Fergus- 
son  that  the  site  of  the  church  is  not  the  place  of 
our  Lord's  burial,  our  interest  in  the  question  is 
purely  historical. 

Mr.  Fergusson's  theory  fails  to  explain  the  pres- 
ent church,  a  buUding  of  great  intrinsic  and  his- 
toric interest.  When,  and  by  whom  were  its  early 
foundations  laid  ?  Who  built  up  its  original  walls '? 
For  how  many  centuries  has  it  been  palmed  upon 
the  public  as  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre  ?  Has 
the  largest  and  most  remarkable  Christian  sanctuary 
in  the  East,  planted  in  the  very  centre  and  confiu- 
ftnce  of  Christian  devotion,  come  down  to  us  with- 
out a  chronicle  or  even  an  intimation  of  its  origin  ? 
We  repeat  that  the  early  history  of  such  an  edifice 
could  not,  since  the  Christian  era,  and  in  the  most 
conspicuous  spot  in  Christendom,  have  faded  into 
litter  oblivion,  like  that  of  some  temple  of  the  Old 
World,  around  which  the  sands  of  the  desert  had 
eatiiered  for  ages  before  Christ. 

Mr.  Fergusson's  theory,  while  failing  to  account 
for  the  existence  of  the  most  imposing  church  in 
the  East,  fails  also  to  account  for  the  disappearance 
of  every  vestige  of  another  church  of  imperial 
magnificence.  This  argument,  like  the  preceding, 
is  collateral,  and  we  do  not  offer  it  as  independent 
proof.  Church  edifices  in  Palestine,  large  and 
small,  have  been  destroyed  by  violence,  or  have 
crumbled  by  decay.  Some  of  them  have  been  re- 
built or  repaired,  and  perpetuated  on  their  present 
sites,  like  that  of  the  Nativity  in  Bethlehem,  or 
that  of  the  Sepulchre  in  Jerusalem;  and  others  are 
clearly  traceable,  if  not  impressive,  in  their  ruins, 
like  that  of  the  Baptist  in  Samaria,  that  of  St. 
George  in  Lydda,  that  of  St.  Aime  in  Eleutherop- 
f>lis,  and  the  ancient  cathedral  church  in  Tyre. 
But  what  church  of  the  largest  class  has  had  a  his- 
tory which  corresponds  with  this  theory?  The 
emperor  Justinian  had  a  passion  for  church-build- 
ing, and  decorated  his  metropolis  with  a  majestic 
temple,  which  is  still  its  boast.  He  erected  another 
In  Jerusalem,  which  he  designed  to  be  worthy  of 
"the  City  of  the  Great  Kiiig,"  and  cf  the  Virgin 
Mother,  in  whose  special  honor  it  was  built,  "on 
irhich  great  expense  and  labor  wsre  bestowed  to 
make  it  one  of  the  most  splendid  in  the  world." 


a  *  «  Notes  on  the  Site  of  the  Holy  Sepi:lchre  at 
f«niaalem,  lu  anewer  to  the  Edinburgh  Review.'''' 


JERUSALEM  t388 

It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  disturbeu  by  th# 
subsequent  convulsions  of  the  country ;  writers  wL 
descrite  the  injury  done  to  the  Church  of  ths  Sepi 
ulchre  in  the  sack  of  the  city  by  the  Persians,  and 
under  the  Fatimite  Khalifs  of  Egypt,  so  far  as  we 
know,  are  silent  respecting  this  edifice.  The  Mosque 
el-Aksa,  which  in  accordance  with  prevalent  tradi- 
tion, is  almost  universally  regarded  as  the  original 
church  of  Justinian,  Mr.  Fergusson  appropriates  as 
the  Mosque  of  Al>d  el-Melek.  This  leaves  the 
church  to  be  provided  for,  and  in  the  plan  of  the 
Haram  area,  which  he  has  introduced  into  the  Dic- 
tionary and  republished  in  his  Notes,  he  places  the 
church  of  Justinian,  and  sketches  its  walls,  where 
not  the  slightest  trace  apj^ars  of  a  foundation  an- 
cient or  modem.  It  is  purely  a  conjectural  sito, 
demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  his  theory,  accord  • 
ing  to  which  the  solid  walls,  pillars,  and  arches  of 
a  church  described  by  a  contemporary  historian, 
and  sketched  by  Air.  Fergusson  as  four  hundred 
feet  in  length  and  one  hundred  and  more  in  breadth, 
have  vanished  as  utterly  as  if  they  had  been  pul- 
verized and  .scattered  to  the  winds.  It  has  disap- 
peared, withal,  from  a  quarter  of  the  city  which 
was  never  needed  nor  used  for  other  purposes, 
where  no  dwellings  could  have  encroached  upon  it, 
and  where  no  rubbish  has  accumulated.  Consid- 
ering the  character,  the  location,  and  the  dimen- 
sions of  this  building,  and  the  date  of  its  erec- 
tion, we  hazard  the  assertion  that  no  parallel  to 
such  complete  annihilation  can  be  found  in  the 
East. 

The  Mosque  of  Omar  near  it,  Mr.  Fergusson 
claims  to  have  been  converted  by  the  Muslim  con- 
querors into  a  mosque  from  a  church ;  we  advance 
the  same  claim  for  the  Mosque  el-Aksa ;  and  there 
were  similar  transformations,  as  is  well  known,  of 
the  Church  of  St.  John  in  Damascus,  and  of  the 
Church  of  St.  Sophia  in  Constantinople,  built  also 
by  Justinian.  Instead  of  converting  to  the  same 
use  the  substantial  and  splendid  church  which  the 
same  emperor  had  erected  htjre,  what  could  have 
prompted  the  Moslems  to  obliterate  every  memo- 
rial of  it?  Within  the  same  inclosure,  according 
to  Mr.  Fergusson,  the  "great  Anastasis  of  Con- 
stantine,"  the  present  Mosque  of  Omar,  built  two 
centuries  earlier,  survives  in  all  its  essential  features. 
"  The  walls  of  the  octagon  still  remain  untouched 
in  their  lower  parts ;  the  circle  of  columns  and  piers 
that  divide  the  two  aisles,  with  the  entablatures, 
discharging  arches,  and  cornices,  still  remain  en- 
tirely unchanged  and  untouched;  the  pier  arches 
of  the  dome,  the  triforium  belt,  the  clere-story,  are 
all  parts  of  the  unaltered  construction  of  the  age 
of  Constantine  "  {Notes,  p.  29).  The  Mosque  of 
Abd  el-Melek,  the  present  el-Aksa,  abides  within 
the  same  inclosure  in  its  original  strength.  "  Its 
whole  architecture  is  that  of  the  end  of  the  seventh 
century  "  (p.  1329.)  But  the  church  of  Justinian, 
standing  by  their  side  in  rival  glory,  mysteriously 
passed  away  from  that  open  area  —  wall  and  col- 
umn and  arch  and  architrave  —  from  foundation 
to  top-stone,  smitten  like  the  psalmist's  bay-tree: 

"  And  lo,  it  vauiahed  from  the  ground, 
Destroyed  by  hands  unseen  ; 
Nor  root,  nor  branch,  nor  leaf  was  foand. 
Where  all  that  pride  had  been." 

Mr.  Fergusson's  theory  leaves  the  later  histoiy  ct 
the  church  of  Justinian  enveloped  in  the  sajiH 
darkness  as  the  earlier  history  of  the  Church  ol 
the  Sepulchre. 


1884 


JERUSALEM 


ITie  rtjocters  of  his  theory  recognize  this  ancient 
bouse  of  worship  in  the  building  adjacent  to  the 
louthern  wall  of  the  Haram,  two  hundred  and 
eighty  feet  long  by  one  hundred  and  ninety  broad, 
and  which,  with  later  appendages,  both  Christian 
and  Saracenic,  answers  to  the  description  of  Jus- 
tinian's Mary  Church,  and  whose  vaulted  passages 
below,  from  which  (Jhristian  visitors  had  long  been 
excluded,  were  among  the  impressive  objects  which 
it  was  our  fortune  to  examine  in  Jerusalem. 

What  has  been  said  of  Justinian's  church  may 
be  repeated  on  his  theory  respecting  the  church 
which  he  affirms  that  Constantine  built  within  the 
same  inclosure,  whose  walls  he  conjecturally  traces 
in  the  same  way,  with  no  more  signs  of  a  founda- 
tion or  site,  and  which  has  vanished  in  like  man- 
ner, except  a  festal  entrance  which  he  identifies 
with  the  present  Golden  Gateway  in  the  eastern 
wall  of  the  Haram  area. 

On  the  hypothesis  of  a  transfer  of  site,  not  the 
Christian  world  alone,  but  the  Moslem  world  like- 
wise, has  been  imposed  upon,  and  by  parties  who 
could  not  have  concocted  the  fraud  together.  And 
all  this  has  been  done  subsequent  to  the  seventh 
century.  So  late  as  the  close  of  that  century,  if 
this  theory  is  true,  all  Christians  and  all  Moslems, 
who  knew  anything  about  Jerusalem,  knew  that 
the  present  Mosque  of  Omar  was  not  then  a  mosque, 
and  never  had  been ;  and  that  the  present  Church 
of  the  Sepulchre,  or  one  on  its  site,  was  not  the 
Church  of  the  Sepulchre.  On  both  sides  they 
have  since  that  date  been  misled  by  designing  men. 
All  Christians,  residents  in  Jerusalem,  and  visitors, 
80  far  as  is  known,  have  from  the  first  ascribed  the 
Bite  of  the  present  church  to  the  emperor,  and  all 
Moslems,  residents  in  Jerusalem  and  visitors,  so  far 
as  is  known,  have  from  the  first  ascribed  the  pres- 
ent mosque  to  the  Khalif.  and  yet  in  all  these  cen- 
turies they  have  alike  been  the  dupes  and  victims 
of  a  double  delusion  and  imposition,  commencing 
we  knew  not  when.  Can  this  fact  be  matched, 
either  in  historic  annals,  or  in  the  fabulous  legends 
of  the  Dark  Ages? 

An  incident  in  the  Mohammedan  conquest  of  the 
city,  narrated  by  both  Christian  and  Arabian  writ- 
ers, may  properly  be  cited  in  this  connection.  We 
quote  from  the  historic  portion  of  the  article: 
"  The  Khalif,  after  ratifying  the  terms  of  capitu 
lation,  which  secured  to  the  Christians  liberty  of 
worship  in  the  churches  which  they  had,  but  pro- 
hibited the  erection  of  more,  entered  the  city  and 
was  met  at  the  gates  by  the  patriarch.  Omar 
then,  in  company  with  the  patriarch,  visited  the 
Church  of  the  Kesurrection,  and  at  the  Muslim 
time  of  prajer  knelt  down  on  the  eastern  steps  of 
the  basilica,  refusing  to  pray  within  the  buildings, 
m  order  that  the  possession  of  them  might  be  se- 
cured to  the  Christians.  Tradition  relates  that 
he  requested  a  site  whereon  to  erect  a  mosque  for 
the  Mohammedan  worship,  and  that  the  patriarch 
offered  him  the  spot  occupied  by  the  reputed  stone 
of  Jacob's  vision,"  etc.  (p.  1310).  Passing  by  the 
tradition,  we  have  the  historic  fact  that  the  Khalif 
declined  entering  the  church,  for  the  reason  above 
given,  stated  in  almost  the  same  words  by  another 
writer:  "In  order  that  his  followers  might  have 
no  pretext  to  claim  possession  of  the  church  after 
his  departure,  under  the  pretense  that  he  had  wor- 
shipped in  it  "  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  37).  Yet  if  we  may 
t-dxevc  Mr.  Fergusson,  this  plighted  faith,  under- 
itcod  alike  by  both  parties,  and  on  the  testimony 
ef  both  scrupulously  respected  at  the  outset,  was 


JEKTJSALEM 

afterwards  violated  without  any  known  protest  a 
remonstrance  on  the  part  of  Christians,  we  knoi* 
not  when,  history  and  tradition  being  both  a.s  sileu) 
respecting  this  transaction  as  in  regard  to  th« 
"  pious  fraud  "  by  which  the  homage  of  Christen- 
dom was  subsequently  transferred  to  another 
locality. 

We  pass  now  to  the  testimony  of  early  visitors 
and  writers. 

Eusebius,  who  was  contemporary  with  Constan- 
tine, and  his  biographer,  represents  the  church 
which  he  built  over  the  supposed  sepulchre,  as 
having  an  open  court  on  the  east,  towards  the 
entrances,  with  cloisters  on  each  side  and  gates  in 
front,  "  after  which,  in  the  very  midst  of  the  streef 
of  the  market  (or  in  the  middle  of  the  broad 
market-place)  the  beautiful  propylsea  (vestibule)  of 
the  whole  structure  presented  to  those  passing  by 
on  the  outside  the  wonderful  view  of  the  things 
seen  within"  {Vit.  Const,  iii.  39).  Along  the 
street  of  the  bazaars,  east  of  the  present  church, 
which  would  make  their  site  identical  with  '*  the 
market-place"  of  Eusebius,  and  corresix)nd  with 
the  position  of  the  propyleea,  are  three  granite  col- 
umns, the  apparent  remains  of  an  ancient  portico, 
and  which  can  be  referred  to  no  other  structure 
than  the  church  of  Constantine.  Mr.  Fergusson 
admits  that  the  propylsea  of  the  church  "  had  a 
broad  market-place  in  front  of  it,"  and  to  Professor 
Willis's  criticism  that  this  would  be  "  ludicrously 
impossible"  where  he  locates  the  building,  he  re- 
pUes:  "  There  is  now  an  extensive  cemetery  on  the 
spot  in  front  of  this  gateway;  and  where  men  can 
bury  they  can  buy ;  where  there  is  room  for  tombs, 
there  is  room  for  stalls"  {Notes,  p.  50).  With 
reference  to  this  locality,  we  quote  ]\Ir.  Grove: 
"  The  main  cemetery  of  the  city  seems  from  an 
early  date  to  have  been  where  it  is  stilly  on  th« 
steep  slopes  of  the  Valley  of  the  Kidron.  Here  it 
was  that  the  fragments  of  the  idol  abominations, 
destroyed  by  Josiah,  were  cast  out  on  the  'graves 
of  the  children  of  the  people'  (2  K.  xxiii.  6),  and 
the  valley  was  always  the  receptacle  for  impurities 
of  all  kinds"  (p.  1279).  Connect  with  this  the 
fact  that  the  spot  was  then,  as  it  is  now,  outside 
the  city,  and  on  its  least  populous  side,  and  we 
leave  the  reader  to  judge  what  element  of  absurdity 
is  lacking  in  Mr.  Fergusson's  supposition. 

The  testimony  of  Eusebius  on  another  point,  and 
that  of  all  the  other  writers  whom  Mr,  Fergusson 
depends  upon,  is  thus  summed  up  in  his  Notes:  — 

«« In  so  far  as  the  argument  is  concerned  I  would 
be  prepared,  if  necessary,  to  waive  the  architectural 
evidence  altogether,  and  to  rest  the  proof  of  what 
is  advanced  above  on  any  one  of  the  following  four 
points:  — 

"1,  The  assertion  of  Eusebius  that  the  new 
Jerusalem,  meaning  thereby  the  buildings  of  Con- 
stantine, was  opposite  to,  and  over  against,  the  old 
city. 

"  2.  The  position  assigned  to  the  Holy  Places  by 
the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim. 

"  3.  The  connection  pointed  out  by  Antoninus 
between  the  Bir  Arroah  and  Siloam. 

"  4.  The  assumed  omission  by  Arculfus  of  all 
mention  of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock,  and,  I  may  add, 
the  building  of  a  Mary  Church  by  Justinian  within 
the  precincts  of  the  Haram  area."  —  (p.  55.) 

We  will  take  up  in  their  order  and  fairly  examine 
the  "four  points"  here  named,  with  which  Mr 
Fergusson  agrees  to  stand  or  to  fall. 

"1.  The  assertion  of  Eusebius   that  the  dm 


JERUSALEM 

Jcrasalem,  meaning  thereby  the  buildings  of  Con- 
itantine,  was  opposite  to,  and  over  against,  the  old 
rity." 

The  assertion  referred  to,  he  quotes  as  follows :  — 

"  Accordingly  on  the  very  spot  which  witnessed 
the  Saviour's  sufferings  a  new  Jerusalem  vras  con- 
structed, over  against  the  one  so  celebrated  of  old, 
which,  since  tlie  foul  stain  of  guilt  brought  upon 
it  by  the  murder  of  the  Lord,  had  experienced  the 
extremity  of  desolation.  It  was  opposite  the  city 
that  the  emperor  began  to  rear  a  monument  to  the 
Saviour's  victory  over  death,  with  rich  and  lavish 
magnificence." 

To  this  he  adds  the  following  passage  from  Soc- 
rates :  — 

«  The  mother  of  the  emperor  built  a  magnificent 
house  of  p'*ayer  on  the  place  of  the  sepulchre, 
founding  a  new  Jerusalem  opposite  to  the  old  and 
•leserted  city." 

"  The  old  city,"'  in  respect  to  its  dwellings,  was 
divided  into  two  parts,  "the  upper"  and  "tlie 
lower."  The  former  was  on  Mount  Zion  and  the 
latter  on  Mount  Akra,  and  in  the  adjacent  valleys. 
The  site  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar  is  directly  opposite 
to  the  latter,  or  to  the  site  of  the  Church  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre,  which  "  stands  directly  on  the 
ridge  of  Akra  "  {Blbl.  Res.  i.  391).  The  site  of  the 
Temple  and  that  of  the  church  lie  "  over  against  " 
each  other.  These  are  the  points  which  Eusebius 
is  comparing.  He  does  not  refer  directly  to  the 
ruined  dwellings  of  either  the  upper  or  the  lower 
city;  he  refers  especially  to  the  deserted  ruins  of 
the  Temple.  By  "the  new  Jerusalem,"  says  Mr. 
Fergusson,  he  means  "  the  buildings  of  Constan- 
tine.''  Exactly  —  he  means  these  and  nothing  else. 
And  by  "  the  old  Jerusalem  "  he  means  the  build- 
ings of  the  Temple,  neither  more  or  less.  Or  rather, 
while  the  primary  meaning  is  on  each  side  thus 
restricted,  he  intends  to  designate  by  the  latter  tlie 
ancient  city,  of  which  the  Temple  was  the  crown, 
and  by  the  former,  the  modem  city,  of  which  the 
church  was  to  be  the  future  glory.  The  antithesis 
is  complete.  The  other  interpretation  makes  the 
comparison  incongruous  —  the  old  city  meaning  a 
collection  of  dwellings,  and  the  new  city  meanii?g 
simply  a  church.  Dr.  Stanley  has  justly  observed: 
"  Whatever  differences  of  opinion  have  arisen  about 
the  other  hills  of  Jerusalem,  there  is  no  question 
that  the  mount  on  which  the  Mosque  of  Omar 
stands,  overhanging  the  valley  of  the  Kidron,  has 
from  the  time  of  Solomon,  if  not  of  David,  been 
regarded  as  the  most  sacred  ground  in  Jerusalem  " 
(S.  4  P.  p.  177,  Amer.  ed.).  This  is  the  fact 
which  the  Christian  Fathers  recognize,  using  each 
■oo.5ility  as,  in  a  religious  sense,  the  representative 
of  the  city,  when  tiiey  say  that  the  emperor  Con- 
stantine  "  founded  a  new  Jerusalem,  opposite  to 
ihe  old  and  deserted  city,"  a  phrase,  withal,  more 
jipplicaljls  CO  the  eastern  hill,  which  was  burned 
Dvi?r,  swept  "  clear  of  houses,"  and  was  stiU  for- 
uxken,  tlwn  to  tiie  western  hill,  which  had  never 
been  thus  completely  desolated,  and  was  still  in- 
habited. Opposite  the  deserted  site  of  the  Hebrew 
Temple  Constantine  reared  the  Christian  sanctuary, 
^"'his  is  our  interpretation  of  Eusebius  and  Socrates; 
»nd  this  disposes  of  the  first  point. 

"  2.  The  [KJsition  assigned  to  the  Holy  Places  by 
Ihe  Bordeaux  Pilgrim." 

His  testimony  is:  — 

"  Inde  ut  eas  foris  murum  de  Sione  euntibus  ad 
■*CMrtam  Neopolitanam  ad  partem  dextram  deorsum 
b  valle  sunt  parietes  ubi  domus  fuit  sive  palatium 


JEllUSALEM 


1835 


Pontii  Pilati.  Ibi  Dominus  auditus  est  anlequam 
pateretur.  A  sinistra  autein  parte  est  raonticulua 
Golgotha,  ubi  Do>ninus  crucifixus  est.  Inde  quag: 
ad  lapidem  missum  est  cripta  ubi  corpus  ejut 
positum  fuit,  et  tertia  die  resurrexit.  Ibidem  mode 
jussu  Constantini  Imperatoris  Basilica  facta  est,  id 
est  Dominicum  mirae  pulchritudinis." 

There  is  no  allusion  here  to  a  "  Zion  Gofe,"  and 
none  then  existed.  {Arculf.  i.  1.)  Had  the  mod- 
ern gate  been  there,  no  visitor  would  have  passed 
out  of  it  to  go  to  the  opi)osite  side  of  the  city, 
either  to  the  right  or  the  left,  <tnd  especially  not  to 
the  left.  It  involves,  further,  the  absurd  supposi- 
tion that  the  governor's  house,  where  the  Saviour 
was  arraigned,  was  in  a  valley,  unprotected,  outoido 
of  the  city,  when  in  the  preceding  paragraph  the 
writer  has  asserted  that  the  residence  of  the  gov- 
ernor and  the  probable  scene  of  the  trial  was  the 
castle  of  Antonia. 

The  natural  course  of  one  who  passed  out  of  the 
eity  northward,  going  from  Zion  to  the  Neapolis 
Gate,  would  have  been  formerly,  as  now,  between 
the  Temple  area  and  the  site  of  the  Church  of  the 
Sepulchre,  near  to  the  latter,  and  the  objects  seen 
would  have  been  in  just  the  relative  position  in 
which  this  traveller  describes  them. 

Mr.  Fergusson  assumes  that  the  phrase  "  foris 
murum  "  requires  us  to  believe  that  the  visitor's 
course,  here  described,  from  Zion  to  the  Neapolis 
Gate  (called  Neapolis  then,  for  the  same  reason 
that  it  is  now  called  Damascus),  lay  outside  of  the 
wall.  If  so,  the  reference  is  to  the  inner  wall  along 
the  brow  of  Zion,  the  first  of  the  "  three  walls  " 
which  surrounded  this  part  of  the  city.  This  may 
be  the  meaning  of  the  barbarous  Latin  of  the  old 
Pilgrim,  but  far  more  probably,  we  think,  he  means 
simply  what  we  have  indicated  above.  There  never 
was  X  road  from  Zion  southward,  and  no  suggestion 
could  bb  more  improbable  than  that  of  plunging 
from  Zion  into  the  lower  Tyropoeon,  outside  the 
city,  ascending  the  opposite  slope,  and  making  the 
long  detour  by  the  northeast  corner  of  the  city  to 
reach  the  gate  named.  The  point  of  destination 
was  northward  from  Zion,  and  the  Pilgrim  says 
that  one  who  would  go  beyond  the  wall,  or  outside 
of  the  city,  passing  from  Zion  to  the  Neapolis 
Gate,  would  see  the  objects  described,  on  th* 
right  and  left.  The  peculiar  construction  of  th« 
sentence  favors  tWs  rendering  of  "foris  mMrum  " 
and  we  have  an  authority  for  it,  exactly  in  point: 
"  Foris ;  in  late  Latin,  with  the  accusative  =  be 
yond.  '  Constitutus  si  sit  fluvius,  qui  foris  agrum 
non  vagatur'  "  (Andrews's  Ixx.  in  loc).  Eithei 
of  these  interpretations  we  claim  to  be  more  natural 
and  probable  than  Mr.  Fergusson's,  for  the  reason* 
already  given  ;  and  this  disposes  of  the  secoiui 
point. 

"  3.  The  connection  pointed  out  by  Antoninui 
between  the  Bir  Arroah  and  Siloam." 

This  testimony  is :  — 

"  Near  the  altar  is  a  crypt,  where,  if  you  place 
your  ear,  you  will  hear  the  flowing  of  water;  and 
if  you  throw  in  an  apple,  or  anything  that  will 
swim,  and  go  to  Siloam  you  will  find  it  there." 
In  the  preceding  article,  Mr.  Fergusson  says '  "  In 
so  far  as  we  know,"  the  connection  exists;  meaning 
merely,  \Vc  do  not  know  that  it  does  not  exist.  In 
the  Notes  he  says :  "  It  is,  therefore,  a  fact  at  thii 
hour,"  that  the  connection  exists.  This  is  an  un- 
supported assertion.  The  connection  has  not  beei 
established,  and  the  subterranean  watercourses  of 
Jerusalem  are  still  involved  in  much  nncertaintsr 


1336 


JERUSALEM 


The  witeecs  cJted  in  support  of  the  alleged  fact 
pronounces  directly  against  its  probability,  and  in 
fovor  of  the  opposite  theory.  Dr.  Barclay  gives 
his  reasons  for  believing  that  the  subteiranean  con- 
duit of  Hezekiah  was  brought  down  on  the  west 
Bide  of  the  valley  running  south  from  the  Damascus 
Gate,  and  says  that  on  this  hypothesis  "  it  would 
pass  just  by  the  rock  Golgotha,"  the  traditionary 
site  of  the  sepulchre,  as  described  by  Antoninus 
{,City,  etc.,  pp.  94,  ;J00).  Furthermore,  in  examin- 
ing the  fountain  of  Siloam,  he  found  a  subterranean 
channel  which  supplied  it,  and  which  he  traversed 
for  nearly  a  thousand  feet;  and  on  locating  its 
course,  he  was  "  perfectly  satisfied  that  this  sub- 
terraneous canal  derived  its  former  supply  of  water, 
not  fi-om  Moriah,  but  from  Zion  "  (ib.  p.  523).  He 
also  says :  "  If  this  channel  was  not  constructed  for 
the  purpose  of  conveying  to  Siloam  the  surphis 
waters  of  Hezekiah's  aqueduct,  then  I  am  unable 
to  suggest  any  purpose  to  which  it  could  have  been 
applied"  {ib.  p.  309).  [Siloam,  Amer.  ed.]  So 
little  countenance,  so  palpable  a  contradiction, 
rattier,  is  given  to  the  "fact"  by  the  witness  cited 
u>  corroborate  it;  and  this  disposes  of  the  third 
point. 

"4.  The  assumed  omission  by  Arculfus  of  all 
mention  of  the  Dome  of  the  Rock,  and,  I  may  add, 
the  building  of  a  Mary  Church  by  Justinian  within 
the  precincts  of  the  Haram  area." 

We  do  not  see  the  bearing  of  the  last-named 
particular.  Churches  in  honor  of  the  Virgin  were 
erected  in  many  localities,  and  it  is  not  necessary 
to  account  for  the  selection  of  this  site,  though  it 
were  easy  to  conjecture  a  reason.  It  proves  nothing. 
The  remaining  specification,  like  the  other,  is  an 
argument  drawn  from  silence  and  conjecture,  and 
rates  no  higher  as  proof.  It  runs  thus:  If  this 
building  were  then  in  existence,  this  visitor  must 
have  described  it;  the  building  was  in  existence, 
and  the  opposite  theory  assumes  that  he  did  not 
allude  to  it ;  therefore,  the  current  theory  is  false. 
We  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  difference  be- 
tween this  position  and  the  principle  with  which 
Mr.  Fergusson  professedly  started,  of  "  admitting 
fiothing  which  cannot  be  proved,  either  by  direct 
testimony  or  by  local  indications"  (p.  1312). 
There  is  no  pretense  that  this  argument  rests  on 
either  of  these:  it  rests  on  nothing  but  an  unac- 
countable "  omission."  And  this  silence  is  offered 
M  not  merely  corroborati\-e  evidence,  but  as  ^'ital 
proof.  Mr.  Fergusson  adduces  this  as  one  of  four 
points,  "  any  one  "  of  which  establishes  his  theory 
beyond  question.  As  if  the  existence  of  St.  Paul's 
in  Ix)ndon,  or  of  St.  Peter's  in  Home,  at  any  period, 
would  be  absolutely  disproved  by  the  silence  of  a 
visitor  respecting  either,  in  a  professed  description 
of  the  objects  of  interest  in  the  city.  At  the  best, 
it  could  only  be  a  natural  inference;  it  could  never 
be  proof  positive.  And  here  we  might  rest;  for  if 
we  proceed  no  further,  Mr.  P'ergusson's  last  point 
b  disposed  of,  and  his  claim  is  prostrate. 

But  we  join  issue  with  him,  and  affirm  that  what 
Arculfus  describes  as  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre, 
was  the  building  standing  on  the  site  of  the  present 
v'hurch,  and  not  the  Mosque  of  Omar,  or  any  part 
of  it.  Neither  could  "  the  square  house  of  prayer 
greeted  m  the  site  of  the  Temple,"  have  been,  as 
be  alleges,  the  IMosque  el-Aksa.  The  phrase  "  vili 
febricati  aunt  opere,"  could  never  have  been  applied 
*o  this  structure.  The  immense  quadrangle,  rudely 
tuilt  with  beams  and  planks  over  the  remains  of 
^ling,  M  described  by  the  bishop,  would  seem  to  be 


JERUSALEM 

a  natural  account  of  the  building  erected  by  tlir 
Khahf  Omar  over  the  rock  es-Sukhrah,  as  Dr.  Bar- 
clay suggests,  "  which  in  the  course  of  half  a  cen- 
tury gave  place  to  the  present  elegant  octagonal  ed- 
ifice, erected  by  Abd  el-Melek  "  ( City,  etc.,  p.  336) 
If  the  assigned  date  of  the  completion  of  the  lattei 
edifice  is  correct,  this  would  serve  to  fix  more 
definitely  the  date  of  Arculfus's  visit,  which  is  only 
known  to  have  been  "  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
seventh  century "  (Wright's  Introduction,  p.  xii. 
Bohn's  ed.). 

In  the  Bishop's  description  of  "  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Sepulchre,"  whatever  other  changf's  may 
have  taken  place,  we  have  a  crucial  test  of  the  iden- 
tity of  the  building  described  with  the  church  or 
the  mosque,  in  the  account  of  the  cave  which  was 
the  reputed  tomb  of  the  Saviour.  For  this,  together 
with  that  of  W^illibald,  a  few  years  later,  and  that 
of  Ssewulf,  still  later,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Bibl. 
<Sac'?-rt,  xxiv.  137,  138. 

The  sepulchral  cave  of  the  church,  described  by 
these  writers,  INIr.  Fergusson  claims  to  have  been 
the  cave  in  the  rock  es-Sukhrah,  beneath  the  dome 
of  the  present  Mosque  of  Omar.  This  rock  has 
been  the  most  stationary  landmark  in  Jerusalem, 
and  has  probably  changed  as  little  as  any  other 
object.  For  such  accounts  as  have  reached  us  of 
the  cave  within  it,  we  refer  the  reader  to  Bibl. 
Saa-a,  xxiv.  138.  139. 

It  is  not  credible  that  these  and  the  preceding 
all  refer  to  the  same  excavation.  The  nan-ative  of 
Arculfus  can  he  adjusted  to  the  present  Church 
of  the  Sepulchre  and  its  reputed  tombs,  making 
due  allowance  for  the  changes  wrought  by  the  de- 
struction of  the  building.  But  by  no  practicable 
change,  by  no  possibility,  can  it  be  adjusted  to  the 
i-ock  es-Sukhrah  and  the  cave  beneath  it;  and  this 
disposes  of  the  fourth  point. 

\Ve  have  now  completed  our  examination  of  Mr. 
Fergusson's  " four  points."  He  offered  to  "rest 
the  proof"  of  his  theory  "on  any  one"  of  them; 
and  we  have  shown  that  on  a  fair  investigation  not 
one  of  them  sustains  his  theory  in  a  single  partic- 
ular, and  for  the  most  part  they  jwintedly  refute  it. 
There  remains  an  objection  to  this  theory,  as 
decisive  as  any,  which  can  be  best  appi-eciated  by 
those  who  have  been  on  the  ground.  The  site  of 
the  so-called  Mosque  of  Omar  could  not  have  been, 
in  our  Saviour's  day,  outside  of  the  walls.  The 
theory  would  break  up  the  solid  masonry  of  the 
ancient  substructions  of  the  Temple  area,  still  exist- 
ing, making  one  portion  modern  and  the  other 
ancient,  leaving  one  without  the  city,  and  retaining 
the  other  within  it,  in  a  way  which  is  simply  in- 
credible. Whatever  may  have  been  the  bearings 
and  dimensions  of  the  Temple,  with  its  courts  and 
porticoes,  in  the  inclosure  above,  the  massive  fou*'- 
dations  of  the  area  are  one  work,  and  that  a  work 
of  high  antiquity.  The  immense  beveled  stones  in 
the  southeast  corner  were  laid  at  the  same  time 
with  the  stones  in  the  southwest  comer.  '1  hey  ars 
of  the  same  magnitude,  and  it  does  not  need  the 
eye  of  an  architect  to  assure  us  that  they  aje  of  the 
same  age  and  style  of  workmanship.  They  wctc 
the  two  extremities  of  the  ancient  southern  wall, 
as  they  are  of  the  modem,  stretching,  as  Josephua 
informs  us,  from  valley  to  valley,  and  laid  with 
stones  "  immovable  for  all  time;  "  and  to-day  they 
confirm  his  testimony,  and  contradict  this  theory 
"  We  are  led  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion,"  saia 
Dr.  Robinson,  on  his  first  visit,  "  that  the  area  of 
the  Jewish  temple  was  identical  on  its 


JERUSALEM 


I,  anl  southern  sides  with  the  present  en- 
siosure  of  the  Ilarara."  "Ages  upon  ages  have 
»t)lled  away,  yet  tliese  foundations  endure,  and  are 
Immovable  as  at  the  beginning  "  [oi'jl.  lies.  i.  427). 
The  investigations  of  his  second  visit  confirmed  the 
conclusion  of  liis  first,  —  from  which  we  see  not 
how  any  visitor  who  lias  inspected  this  masonry  can 
withhold  his  assent  —  tliat  in  the  southwest  corner, 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  western  wall,  in  the 
southeast  corner  on  l)oth  sides,  and  along  the  south- 
ern wall,  we  have  before  us  "  the  massive  sub- 
structions of  the  ancient  .Jewish  Temple.  Such  has 
been  the  impression  received  by  travellers  for  cen- 
turies, and  such  it  will  probably  continue  to  be  so 
long  as  these  remains  endure  "  {Bibl.  ^es.  (1852) 
220). 

These  are  our  main  reasons  for  rejecting  Mr. 
Fergusson's  theory  of  the  Topography  of  Jerusalem, 
in  its  two  principal  points;  and  if  tliese  points  are 
untenable,  almost  the  entire  reasoning  of  his  section 
of  the  article  falls  with  them.  S.  W. 

*  V.  Mt)i)KKN  jKiiUSALEM.  —  Walls  and 
Gates.  —  The  present  walls  of  .Jerusalem  are  not 
older  than  the  16th  century,  though  the  materials 
of  which  they  are  built  belonged  to  former  walls 
and  are  much  more  ancient.  They  consist  of  hewn 
stones  of  a  moderate  size,  laid  in  mortar.  They 
are  *•'  built  for  the  most  part  with  a  breastwork ; 
that  is,  the  exterior  face  of  the  wall  is  carried  up 
several  feet  higher  tlian  the  interior  part  of  the 
wall,  leaving  a  broad  and  convenient  walk  along 
the  top  of  the  latter  for  the  accommodation  of  the 
defenders.  Tliis  is  protected  by  the  parapet  or 
breastwork,  which  has  battlements  and  loopholes. 
There  are  also  flights  of  steps  to  ascend  or  descend 
at  convenient  distances  on  the  inside  ''  (Rob.  Btbl. 
Res.  i.  3-52).  The  walls  embrace  a  circuit  of  about 
2^  miles.  On  the  west,  south,  and  east  sides 
they  stand  generally  as  near  the  edge  of  the  val- 
leys as  the  ground  will  allow;  except  that  the 
gouthern  extremity  of  Zion  and  a  part  of  Moriah 
(known  as  Opliel)  being  outside  of  the  city,  the 
walls  there  run  across  the  ridge  of  those  hills. 
They  vary  in  height  from  20  to  50  feet,  according 
to  the  depth  of  the  ravines  below,  which  formed  an 
important  part  of  the  natural  defenses  of  the  city. 
The  walls  on  the  north  side,  where  the  ground  is 
more  o[)en  and  level,  are  protected  to  some  extent 
by  ditches  or  trenches,  it  is  a  peculiarity  of  a 
part  of  this  northern  wall  that  it  consists  of  a  mass 
Df  natural  rock,  75  feet  higli,  with  strata  so  exactly 
lorresponding  with  those  of  the  opposite  ledge  that 
the  passage  between  them  must  be  artificial.  It 
uiay  have  been  a  quarry  for  obtaining  stones  for 
the  wall;4  of  the  city.  Fortifications  of  this  character, 
surrounded  as  they  are  by  higher  positions  in  the 
Vicinity,  would  be  utterly  useless  against  European 
tactics.  Vet,  imperfect  as  they  are  in  this  respect, 
these  ^alls  so  notched  with  battlements  and  seeming 
to  rise  and  fall  (like  a  waving  Ihie)  with  the  de- 
clivities of  the  ground,  especially  as  they  suddenly 
Bhow  themselves  to  the  traveller  approaching  the 
fiity  from  the  west,  form  a  picturesque  oriental  sight 
uever  to  be  forgotten. 

The  city  has  four  gates  at  present  in  use,  which 
look  towards  the  cardinal  points.  Though  they 
bear  otiier  names  among  the  natives,  they  are  knov/n 
to  travellers  as  the  yd/a  (.foppa)  Gate  on  the  west 
*ide,  the  Damascus  Gate  on  the  north  siiie,  the 
jate  of  St  Stephen  on  the  east,  and  of  Zion  on  the 
«outh.  The  first  two  are  so  called  after  the  places 
o  which  u^e  roads  starting  from  them  lead:  that 


JERUSALEM  1381 

of  St.  Stephen  from  a  popular  belief  that  this  marl^ri 
was  put  to  death  in  that  quarter,  and  that  of  Zion 
from  its  situation  on  the  hill  of  this  name.  Near 
the  Damascus  Gate  are  the  remains  of  towers,  sup- 
posed by  Robinson  to  have  been  the  guard-houses  of  a 
gate  which  stood  there  as  early  as  the  age  of  Herod. 
The  Yafa  Gate  forms  the  main  entrance,  and  on 
that  account  is  kept  open  half  an  hour  later  than 
the  other  gates.  The  custom  of  shutting  the  gates 
by  night  (see  Rev.  xxi.  23-25 )  is  common  in  eastern 
cities  at  the  present  day.  Three  or  four  smaller 
gates  occur  in  the  walls,  but  have  been  closed  up, 
and  are  now  seldom  or  never  used.  The  most 
remarkable  of  these  is  the  Golden  Gate  in  the  ci5t- 
ern  wall  which  overlooks  the  Valley  of  the  Kedrci. 
"  It  is  hi  the  centre  of  a  projection  55  feet  long 
and  standing  out  6  feet.  Its  portal  is  double, 
with  semicircular  arches  profusely  ornamented.  The 
Corinthian  capitals  which  sustain  the  entablatiu^ 
spring  like  corbels  froni  the  wall,  and  the  whole 
entablature  is  bent  round  the  arch.  The  exterior 
appearance,  independently  of  its  architecture,  bears 
no  mark  of  high  antiquity  ....  for  it  bears  no 
resemblance  to  the  massive  stones  along  the  lower 
part  of  the  wall  on  each  side,  and  indeed  the  new 
masonry  around  is  sufficiently  apparent "  (Porter, 
/JandOook,  i.  115  f.).  The  style  of  architecture, 
whether  the  structure  occupies  its  original  place  or 
not,  must  be  referred  to  an  early  Roman  period. 
[Wood-cut,  p.  1325.]  It  is  a  saying  of  the  Franks 
that  the  Mohammedans  have  walled  up  this  gate 
because  they  believe  that  a  king  is  to  enter  by  it 
who  will  take  possession  of  the  city  and  become 
Lord  of  the  whole  earth  (Rob.  BM.  lies.  i.  323). 
It  may  be  stated  that  the  largest  stones  in  the 
exterior  walls,  bearing  incontestable  marks  of  a 
Hebrew  origin,  and  occupying  their  original  places, 
are  found  near  the  southeast  angle  of  the  city  and 
in  the  substructions  of  the  Castle  of  David  so  called, 
not  tar  from  the  Vafa  Gate,  near  ^Jie  centre  of  the 
western  wall  of  the  city.  Some  of  the  alternate 
courses  at  the  former  point  measure  from  17  to  19 
feet  in  length  by  3  or  4  feet  in  height.  One  of  the 
stones  there  is  24-  feet  in  length  by  3  feet  in  height 
and  6  in  breadth.  This  part  of  the  wall  is  common 
both  to  the  city  and  the  Temple  area.  One  of  the 
stones  in  the  foundations  of  the  Castle  is  12 1  feet 
long  and  3  feet  5  inches  broad ;  though  most  of 
them  are  smaller  tha?i  those  at  the  southeast  angle. 
The  upper  part  of  this  Castle  or  Tower,  one  of  the 
most  imposing  structures  at  Jerusalem,  is  com- 
paratively modern ;  but  the  lower  part  exhibits  a 
different  style  of  workmanship  and  is  unquestionably 
ancient,  though  whether  a  remnant  of  Herod's 
Hippie  tower  (as  Robinson  supposes)  or  not,  is  stilJ 
disputed.  [Pu/ETOrium.]  The  Saviour's  language 
that  "  not  one  stone  should  be  left  on  another " 
(Matt.  xxiv.  2)  is  not  contradicted  by  such  facts. 
In  the  first  place  the  expression  may  be  a  proverbial 
one  for  characterizing  the  overthrow  as  signal,  the 
destruction  as  desolating,  irresistible.  In  the  next 
place  this  was  spoken  in  reahty  not  of  the  city  and 
its  walls,  but  of  "  the  buildings  of  the  temple,"  and 
in  that  application  was  fulfilled  in  the  strictest 
manner. 

Area,  Streets,  etc.  —  The  present  circumference 
of  the  city  includes  209.5  acres,  or  one  third  of  a 
square  mUe.  Its  longest  line  extends  from  N.  K 
to  S.  W.,  somewhat  less  than  a  mile  in  length 
[See  Plate  III.]  But  this  space  is  not  all  built 
upon ;  for  the  inclosure  of  the  TIaram  esh-Sheri/ 
(Moriah  or  the  site  of  the  Temple)  contains  33 


1338 


JERUSALEM 


icra  (alniust  one  sixth  of  the  whole),  and  large 
ipaces,  especially  on  Mount  Zion  and  the  hill 
Rezetha  at  the  north  end,  are  unoccupied.  Just 
within  the  Gate  of  St.  Stephen  is  an  open  tract 
where  two  or  three  Arab  tents  may  often  be  seen, 
spread  out  and  occupied  after  the  manner  of  the 
desert.  To  what  extent  the  territory  of  the  ancient 
city  coincided  with  the  modern  city  is  not  altogether 
certain.  The  ancient  city  embraced  tlie  whole  of 
Zion  beyond  question,  the  southern  projection  of 
Moriah  or  Ophel,  and  ix)ssibly  a  small  tract  on  the 
north,  though  the  remains  of  the  cisterns  there  are 
too  modern  to  be  alleged  as  proof  of  this  last  addi- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  those  who  maintain  the 
genuineness  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  must  leave  that 
section  of  the  city  out  of  the  Jerusalem  of  the 
Sciviour's  day. 

"  TJie  city  is  intersected  from  north  to  south  by 
Its  principal  street,  which  is  three  fifths  of  a  mile 
long,  and  runs  from  the  Damascus  Gate  to  Zion 
Gate.  From  this  principal  street,  the  others,  with 
the  exception  of  that  from  the  Damascus  Gate  to 
the  Tyropoeon  Valley,  generally  run  east  and  west, 
at  rii^ht  angles  to  it ;  amongst  these  is  the  '  Via 
Dolorosa '  along  the  north  of  the  Haram,  in  which 
is  the  Roman  archway,  called  Ecce  Homo.  The 
city  is  divided  into  quarters,  which  are  occupied  by 
the  different  rehgious  sects.  The  boundaries  of 
these  quarters  are  defined  by  the  intersection  of  the 
principal  street,  and  that  which  crosses  it  at  right 
angles  from  the  Jaffa  Gate  to  the  Gate  of  the  Ha- 
ram, called  Bab  as-SlUile,  or  Gate  of  the  Chain. 
The  Christians  occupy  the  western  half  of  the  city, 
the  northern  portion  of  which  is  called  the  Chris- 
tian quarter,  and  contains  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre;  the  southern  jwrtion  is  the  Armenian 
quarter,  having  the  Citadel  at  its  northwest  angle. 
The  JNIohammedan  quarter  occupies  the  northeast 
portion  of  the  city,  and  includes  the  Huvam  esh- 
Sherif.  The  Jewish  quarter  is  on  the  south,  be- 
tween the  Armenian  quarter  and  the  Haram." 
{Ordnance  Survey  oJ'Jerusaletn,  p.  9,  Lond.  1805.) 

It  has  been  stated  that  the  streets  are  not  known 
by  any  particular  names.  A  detailed  report  of 
inquiries  on  this  subject  (ap|)ended  to  the  Ordnance 
Survey)  shows  that  most  of  them  are  thus  known: 
being  distinguished  l)y  the  names  of  persons  or 
families,  from  trades  carried  on  in  them,  or  from 
the  places  to  which  the  streets  or  alleys  lead.  The 
streets  are  narrow,  uneven,  and  badly  paved,  for 
the  most  part  with  a  gutter  or  channel  in  the 
middle  for  beasts  of  burden.  Some  of  them,  those 
'uoot  frequented,  are  darkened  with  mats  or  stone 
inches  for  the  purpose  of  excluding  the  heat.  The 
aouses  are  built  of  limestone,  many  of  them  mere 
hovels,  others  more  substantial,  but  seldom  with 
any  pretension  to  elegance.  The  low  windows 
yarded  with  iron  grates  give  to  many  of  them  a 
dreary,  prison-like  appearance.  Some  of  them  have 
lattice  windows  toward  the  street;  but  generally, 
these  open  toward  the  inner  courts  on  which  the 
bousea  stand. 

Populai'mi.  —  In  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the 
place,  the  population  of  Jerusalem  is  very  dense. 
The  houses  in  general  are  closely  tenanted,  and  in 
Bome  quarters  they  are  piled  upon  one  another,  so 
M  to  extend  across  the  streets,  and  make  them 
»ppear  almost  like  subterranean  passages.  It  is 
difficiilt  (as  no  proper  system  of  registration  exists) 
tjC  ihs  the  precise  number  of  the  inhabitants.  Dr. 
ScLultz,  forirerly  Prussian  Consul  at  Jerusalem, 
pi*oc4  ii  Ji  I8ir>at  :".,000.     The  following  table 


JERUSALEM 

exhibits  the  different  classes  of  this  popuhtitt 
according  to  their  nationaUties  and  religious  coo 
fessions :  — 

5,0W 


I.  Mohanmiedans         .... 

, 

II.  Christians 

(a)  Greeks 

2,000 

(6)   Roman  Catholics 

900 

(c)   Armenians    . 

350 

(d)  Copts       .      . 

100 

(e)    Syrians    .     . 

20 

(/)  Abyssinians            .     . 

20 

II.  Jews 

(a)  Turkish  subjects  (S?;jA- 

arclim)        .     .     .     , 

6,000 

(6)  Foreigners  (As/ikenazim 

Poles,  Russians,  Ger- 

mans, etc. 

1,100 

(c)  Caraites                     .     . 

20 

15,510 

To  the  foregoing  we  are  to  add  the  65  or  7C 
persons,  European  Protestants  or  Catholics,  con- 
nected with  consulates  or  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ments, and  the  Turkish  garrison  of  800  or  1,000 
men;  and  we  have  then  the  aggregate  (as  stated 
above)  of  about  17,000.  The  number  of  pilgrims, 
greatest  at  Easter,  varies  from  time  to  time;  the 
maximum  may  be  10,000.  It  was  about  5,000  in 
1843,  and  about  3,000  in  1844  (Schidtz,  Jermalem, 
Eine  Vorlesung,  pp.  o3,  34).  The  estimate  in  the 
Ordnance  Survey  (18G5)  —  16,000  —  shows  that 
hardly  any  change  has  taken  place  in  the  popula- 
tion during  the  last  twenty  years.  The  statement 
(in  this  latter  work)  that  the  travellers  and  pilgrims 
at  Easter  swell  the  sum  to  30,000,  seems  almost 
incredible,  unless  it  be  understood  of  sonje  altogether 
exceptional  year.  Tobler  complains  {Denkbldtier 
aus  JeriLStdem,  p.  353)  that  the  Turkish  statistics 
are  extremely  uncertain.  It  is  generally  allowed 
that  the  Christian  inhabitants  slowly  increase  at 
the  expense  of  the  Mohammedans. 

Water  Supply.  —  Most  of  the  houses  are  fur- 
nished with  cisterns  in  which  the  rain-water  is 
collected  by  means  of  gutters  during  the  rains  from 
December  to  March.  The  better  houses  often  have 
two  or  three  such  cisterns,  so  arranged  that  when 
one  is  full  the  water  flows  into  another.  "  As  the 
water  which  runs  through  the  filthy  streets  is  also 
collected  in  some  of  these  cisterns,  it  can  only  be 
drunk  with  safety  after  it  is  filtered  and  freed  from 
the  numerous  worms  and  insects  which  are  bred 
in  it."  Some  water  is  obtained  from  Joab's  Well 
[En-Rogel],  whence  it  is  brought  in  goat-skins  on 
donkeys  and  sold  to  the  inhabitants.  The  ancient 
city  was  supplied  with  an  abundance  of  pure  water 
from  the  three  Pools  of  Solomon  near  Bethlehem. 
The  works  constructed  for  this  purpose,  "  in  bold  • 
ness  of  design  and  skill  in  execution,  rival  even 
the  most  approved  system  of  modern  engineers  " 
{Ordnance  Survey,  p.  10).  The  Pacha  of  Jeru- 
salem has  recently  repaired  the  conduit  from  Sol- 
omon's Pools  to  Jerusalem,  which  is  now  supplied 
from  Ain  £tan,  and  "  the  sealed  fountain  "  above 
the  upper  pool. 

Jews.  —  The  Jews  constitute  an  interesting  clasa 
of  the  inhabitants.  Very  many  of  them  are  piU 
grims  who  have  come  to  Jerusalem  to  fulfill  a  vow 
and  then  return  to  the  countries  where  they  wew 
born,  or  aged  persons  who  desire  to  spend  theii 


JERUSALEM 

iaiit'  days  in  the  holy  city,  and  be  buried  in  the 
ViUey  of  Jehoshaphat,  which  wccrding  to  their 
liaditions  is  to  be  the  scene  of  the  last  judgment. 
For  the  privilege  of  being  buried  there  they  are 
obliged  to  pay  a  large  sum ;  but  if  any  one  is  too 
poor  to  incur  this  expense,  the  body  is  taken  to  the 
slope  on  Mount  Zion  where  the  Tomb  of  David  is 
situated.  Among  them  are  representatives  from 
almost  every  land,  though  the  Spanish,  Polish,  and 
(ierman  Jews  compose  the  greater  number.  Like 
their  brethren  in  other  parts  of  Palestine,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  in  commercial  places,  they  are 
wretchedly  poor,  and  live  chiefly  on  alms  contrib- 
uted by  their  countrymen  in  liurope  and  America. 
They  devote  most  of  their  time  to  holy  employ- 
ments, as  they  are  called.  They  frequent  the  syn- 
agogues, roam  over  the  country  to  visit  places  mem- 
orable in  their  ancient  history,  and  read  assiduously 
the  Old  Testament  and  the  Talmudic  and  Rabbinic 
writings.  Tho^e  of  them  who  make  any  pretension 
to  learning  understand  the  Hebi'ew  and  Rabbinic, 
and  speak  as  their  vernacular  tongue  the  language 
>f  the  country  where  they  formerly  lived,  or  whence 
:heir  fathers  emigrated.  As  would  be  expected, 
from  the  character  of  the  motive  which  brings  them 
to  the  Holy  Land,  they  are  distinguished,  as  a  class, 
for  their  bigoted  attachment  to  Judaism.  The  Jews 
at  Jerusalem  have  several  synagogues  which  they 
attend,  not  promiscuously,  but  according  to  their 
national  or  geographical  affinities.  The  particular 
bond  which  unites  them  in  this  religious  associ- 
ation is  that  of  their  birth  or  sojourn  in  the  same 
foreign  land,  and  their  speaking  the  same  language 
(Comp.  Acts  vi.  9  ff.).  r'or  information  respecting 
the  Jews  in  Palestine,  the  reader  may  see  especially 
Wilson's  Laml  of  the  Bible  (2  vols.  Edinb.  1847) 
and  Bonar  and  M'Cheyne's  Narrative  of  a  Mis- 
sion of  Inquiry  to  the  Jews,  in  1839  (23th  thousand, 
Edinb.  1852).  The  statements  in  these  works  re- 
main substantially  correct  for  the  present  time. 

Burial  Places.  —  Modern  burial  places  surround 
the  city  on  all  sides.  Thus,  on  our  right  as  we  go 
out  of  St.  Stephen's  Gate  is  a  Mohammedan  cem- 
etery, which  covers  a  great  part  of  the  eastern  slope 
of  jNIoriah,  extending  to  near  the  southeast  angle 
of  the  Haram.  This  cemetery,  from  its  proximity 
to  the  sacred  area,  is  regarded  as  specially  sacred. 
The  largest  cemetery  of  the  Mohammedans  is  on 
the  west  side  of  the  city,  near  the  Btrket  Mamilla, 
')r  Upper  Gihon,  a  reservoir  so  named  still  in  use. 
"■  The  ^loslem  Sheikhs  or  '  Saints '  are  buried  in 
various  parts  of  the  city  and  neighborhood,  especially 
along  the  western  wall  of  the  Haram.  'I'he  Moslems 
are  buried  without  coffins,  being  simply  wrapped  in 
a  sheet,  and  are  carried  to  the  grave  in  a  sort  of 
wooden  box,  borne  on  the  shoulders  of  six  men. 
The  body  is  preceded  by  a  man  bearing  a  palm 
branch  and  followed  by  the  mourners.  Prayers  are 
offered  up  in  the  mosque  whilst  the  body  is  there, 
and  at  the  grave  the  Koran  is  recited,  and  the 
virtues  of  the  deceased  extolled."  I'he  outside 
portion  of  INIount  Zion  is  occupied  chiefly  as  a  place 
if  burial  for  the  Christian  communities,  i.  e.,  Cath- 
lics,  Greeks,  Armenians,  and  Protestants.  Not 
\ar  from  David's  Tomb  there  is  a  little  cemetery 
which  contains  the  remains  of  several  Americans 
who  have  died  at  Jerusalem.  One  of  the  gi-aves  is 
that  of  the  hte  Prof.  Fiske  of  Amherst  College, 
whose  memory  is  still  cherished  among  us  by  so 
many  pupils  and  friends.  The  great  Jewish  cem- 
Itery,  as  already  mentioned,  lies  along  the  base  and 
ip  the  sides  of  Olivet.    The  white  slabs  which  cover 


rEIlUSALE31  1339 

the  graves  are  slightly  elevated  and  marked  with 
Hel>rew  inscriptions.  It  should  be  slated  that  thf 
Caraite  Jews  have  a  separate  place  of  burial  ori  tht 
southwest  side  of  Hirmom,  near  tha  intersection 
of  the  road  which  crosses  the  valley  to  the  tombs  of 
Aceldama. 

Churches.  —  It  is  hnpossible  to  do  more  than 
glance  at  this  branch  of  the  subject.  The  Church 
of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  in  the  northwest  part  of 
the  city,  stands  over  the  reputed  place  of  the  Sa- 
viour's tomb,  mentioned  in  the  history  of  the  i^as- 
sion.  It  is  the  most  imposing  edifice  in  Jerusalem, 
after  the  Mosque  of  Omar.  It  was  built  in  1808, 
on  the  site  of  a  more  ancient  one  destroyed  by  fire. 
Some  monument  of  this  kind  has  marked  the  spoi, 
ever  since  the  time  of  the  Empress  Helena,  about 
A.  D.  326,  and  perhaps  earlier  still.  It  does  not 
belong  to  this  place  to  discuss  the  question  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  site.  For  a  convenient  resuir^ 
of  the  arguments  on  both  sides,  Stanley  refers  to 
the  Museum  of  Classical  Antiquities,  April,  1853. 
Nothing  decisive  has  more  recently  been  brought  to 
light.  This  church  is  in  reality  not  so  much  a  single 
church  as  a  cluster  of  churches  or  chapels.  The  church 
is  entered  by  a  door  leading  out  of  an  open  court  on 
the  south,  never  opened  except  by  a  member  of  the 
Moslem  family.  It  is  always  open  for  a  few  hours 
in  the  morning  and  again  in  the  afternoon.  The 
open  court  is  paved  with  limestone  and  worn  as 
smooth  as  glass  by  the  feet  of  pilgrims.  Here  the 
venders  of  souvenirs  of  the  Holy  Land  from  Beth- 
lehem expose  their  wares  and  drive  a  thriving  trade. 
On  the  east  side  are  the  Greek  convent  of  Abraham, 
the  Armenian  church  of  St.  John,  and  the  Coptic 
church  of  the  Angel ;  on  the  west  side  are  thre< 
Greek  chapels,  that  of  St.  James,  that  of  the  Forty 
Martyrs,  in  which  is  a  very  beautiful  font,  and  that 
of  St.  John ;  at  the  eastern  end  of  the  south  side 
of  the  court  is  a  Greek  chapel,  dedicated  to  th« 
Egyptian  Mary,  and  east  of  the  entrance  a  flight 
of  steps  leads  to  the  small  Latin  Chapel  of  tlie  Ag 
ony.  The  Chapel  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  is  in  the 
centre  of  the  Rotunda,  built  principally  of  the 
limestone  known  as  "  Santa  Croce  marble."  What 
is  shown  as  the  Tomb  of  our  Lord  is  a  raised 
bench,  2  feet  high,  6  feet  4  inches  long,  covered  on 
the  top  by  a  marble  slab.  •'  No  rock  is  visible  at 
present,"  says  Capt.  Wilson,  "but  may  exist  below 
the  marble  slab,  as  in  forming  the  level  floor  of  the 
Rotunda  a  great  quantity  of  rock  must  have  been 
cut  away,  and  the  portion  containing  the  tomb 
would  naturally  be  left  intact."  The  church  is  at 
present  undergoing  important  repairs. 

Near  St.  Stephen's  Gate  is  the  Church  of  St. 
Anne,  built  over  a  grotto,  which  looks  like  an 
ancient  cistern.  The  church  belongs  to  France, 
and  is  being  almost  rebuilt  at  great  expense.  It 
shows  the  scarcity  of  wood  that  the  timber  required 
in  these  repairs  has  to  be  imported  at  Yii/a,  and 
then  transported  over  the  heavy  roads  to  Jerusalem. 
The  Church  of  St.  James  in  the  Armenian  con- 
vent is  one  of  the  richest  in  gi.ding,  decorations, 
and  pictures  in  the  city.  Nearly  opposite  the  Pool 
of  Hezekiah  is  the  Greek  church  and  convent  of 
"  the  Forerunner,"  comparatively  modern  and 
dressed  out  with  gilding  and  paintings  in  the  usual 
Greek  style."     The  church  of  the  Anglo-Prussian 

«  *  We  have  taken  these  brief  statements  (to  houm 
extent,  verbally),  from  the  Onl nance  Survey  cf  Jemt- 
salem,  our  best  recent  authority  (1865).  It  may  Us  la 
place  to  say  here  that  Col.  Jame».  the  Director  31  thi 


1340 


JERUSALEM 


^iscopate  on  Mount  Zion,  though  not  large,  is  a 
neat  edifice,  built  of  limestone,  in  the  form  of  a 
cross.  The  preaching  in  this  church  on  the  Sab- 
bath and  at  other  times  is  in  German  and  in  Eng- 
lish. See  an  interesting  sketch  of  the  origin  and 
objects  of  this  episcopate  by  Glider  in  Herzog's 
Real-Encyhl.  vi.  503-505.  The  lx»ndon  Jews' 
Society  expends  large  sums  of  money  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Palestine  Jews,  through  the  agency  of  this 
Jerusalem  bishopric.  On  the  rising  ground  west  of 
the  city  stands  "  the  immense  Russian  pile,  a  new 
building,  which  completely  overshadows  every  other 
aroliitectural  feature.  It  combines  in  some  degree 
the  ai)pearance  and  the  uses  of  cathedral  close, 
public  ofhces,  barracks,  and  hostelry;  the  flag  of 
the  Russian  consulate  doats  over  one  part,  while 
the  tall  cupola  of  the  ch  arch  commands  the  centre. 
There  are  many  Russian  priests  and  monks,  and 
shelter  is  provided  for  the  crowds  of  Muscovite 
pilgrims  "  (Tristram,  Land  of  Israel,  p.  17-4,  2d 
ed. ).  All  recent  travellers  testify  that  the  distinc- 
tive oriental  character  of  Jerusalem  is  rapidly  fad- 
ing away  and  a  European  coloring  taking  its  place. 

Sublerranean  Quarry.  —  It  is  ascertained  that 
a  labyrinth  of  great  extent  and  of  complicated  in- 
tricacy exists  under  the  present  Jerusalem.  It  is 
unquestionably  very  ancient,  but  having  been  so 
recently  discovered  or  rediscovered,  belongs  in  that 
point  of  view  to  our  own  times,  quite  as  much  as  to 
its  own  proper  antiquity.  Dr.  Barclay  has  the 
merit  of  bringing  this  wonderful  excavation  to  the 
knowledge  of  European  and  American  travellers. 
We  insert  an  abridged  account  of  this  discovery  in 
the  words  of  Dr.  R.  G.  Barclay  (in  the  City  of  the 
Great  King,  pp.  460-403,  1st  ed.):  — 

"  Having  provided  ourselves  with  all  the  requisites 
for  such  a  furtive  adventure  —  matches,  candles, 
sompass,  tape-line,  paper,  and  pencils — a  little 
previous  to  the  time  of  closing  the  gates  of  the  city, 
NQ  sallied  out  at  different  points,  the  better  to  avoid 
exciting  suspicion,  and  rendezvoused  at  Jeremiah's 
Pool,  near  to  which  we  secreted  ourselves  within  a 
jrhite  enclosure  surrounding  the  tomb  of  a  departed 
Arab  Sheik,  until  the  shades  of  darkness  enabled 
MS  to  approach  unperceived,  when  we  issued  from 
our  hiding-place,  amid  tlie  screeching  of  owls, 
screaming  of  hawks,  howling  of  jackals,  and  the 
chirping  of  nocturnal  insects.  The  mouth  of  the 
cavern  being  immediately  below  the  city  wall,  and 
the  houses  on  Bezetha,  we  proceeded  cautiously  in 
the  work  of  removing  the  dirt,  mortar,  and  stones ; 
and,  after  undermining  and  picking  awhile,  a  hole 
(commenced  a  day  or  two  previous  by  our  dog)  was 
made,  though  scarcely  large  enough  for  us  to  worm 
our  way  serpentinely  through  the  ten  foot  wall. 

"  On  scrambling  through  and  descending  the 
inner  side  of  the  wall,  we  found  our  way  apparently 
obstructed  by  an  immense  mound  of  soft  dirt,  whicli 
had  been  thrown  in,  the  more  effectually  to  close 
up  the  entrance;  but,  after  examining  awhile,  dis- 
covered that  it  had  settled  down  in  some  places 
Bufficiently  to  allow  us  to  crawl  over  it  on  hand 
and  knee;  which  having   accompHshed,  we  found 


survey,  avows  his  belief  "  that  the  traditional  sites  are 
the  true  sites  of  Mount  Zion,  and  the  Holy  Sepulchre, 
and  Mount  Moriah  and  the  Temple  "  (^Preface,  p.  16). 
He  says  that  an  examination  of  the  ground  confirms 
the  report  that  Constantine  "  caused  the  rock  all  round 
the  Sepulchre  to  be  cut  away  to  form  a  spacious  in- 
lloeiue  round  it,  leaving  the  Sepulchre  itself  standing 
A  the  midst  "  (p  11).     P'or  the  traditions,  sacred  lo- 1 


JERUSALEM 

ourselves  enveloped  in  thick  darkness,  that  migbi 
be  felt,  but  not  penetrated  by  all  our  lights,  bo  Tail 
is  the  hall. 

"  For  some  time  we  were  almost  overcome  witi 
feelings  of  awe  and  admiration  (and  I  must  saj 
apprehension,  too,  from  the  immense  impending 
vaulted  roof),  and  felt  quite  at  a  loss  to  decide  ic 
which  direction  to  wend  our  way.  There  is  a  con- 
stant and  in  many  places  very  rapid  descent  from 
the  entrance  to  the  termination,  the  distance  be- 
tween which  two  points,  in  a  nearly  direct  line,  is 
750  feet ;  and  the  cave  is  upwards  of  3,000  feet  in 
circumference,  supported  by  great  numbers  of  rude 
natural  pillars.  At  the  southern  extremity  there 
is  a  very  deep  and  precipitous  pit,  in  which  we 
received  a  very  salutary  warning  of  caution  from 
the  dead  —  a  human  skeleton  !  supposed  to  be  that 
of  a  person  who,  not  being  sufficiently  suppUed  with 
lights,  was  precipitated  headlong  and  broke  his 
neck. 

"  We  noticed  bats  clinging  to  the  ceiling  m 
several  places,  in  patches  varying  from  fifty  to  a 
hundred  and  fifty,  hanging  together,  which  flew 
away  at  our  too  near  approach,  and  for  some  time 
continued  to  flit  and  scream  round  and  about  our 
heads  in  rather  disagreeable  propinquity.  Numerous 
crosses  marked  on  the  wall  indicated  that,  though 
unknown  to  Christendom  of  the  present  day,  the 
devout  Pilgrim  or  Crusader  had  been  there;  and  a 
few  Arabic  and  Hebrew  inscriptions  (though  too 
nmch  effaced  to  be  deciphered)  proved  that  the 
place  was  not  unknown  to  the  Jew  and  Arab. 
Indeed,  the  manner  in  which  the  beautiful  white 
sohd  limestone  rock  was  everywhere  carved  by  the 
mason's  rough  chisel  into  regular  pillars,  proved 
that  this  extensive  cavern,  though  in  pai-t  natural, 
was  formerly  used  as  the  grand  quarry  of  Jeru- 
salem. .  .  .  There  are  many  intricate  meandering 
passages  leading  to  immense  halls,  as  white  as  the 
driven  snow,  and  supported  by  colossal  pillars  of 
irregular  shape  —  some  of  them  placed  there  by  the 
hand  of  nature,  to  support  the  roof  of  the  various 
grottos,  others  evidently  left  by  the  stone  quarrier 
in  quarrying  the  rock  to  prevent  the  iutumbling 
of  the  city.  Such  reverberations  I  never  heard 
before. 

"  What  untold  toil  was  represented  by  the  vast 
piles  of  blocks  and  chippings,  over  which  we  had 
to  clamber,  in  making  our  exploration !  A  melan- 
choly grandeur  —  at  once  excking  and  depressing  — 
pervaded  tliese  vast  saloons.  This,  without  doubt, 
is  the  very  magazine  from  which  much  of  the 
Temple  rock  was  hewn  —  the  pit  from  which  wag 
taken  the  material  for  the  silent  growth  of  the 
Temple.  How  often,  too,  had  it  probably  been  the 
last  place  of  retreat  to  the  wretched  inhabitants  of 
this  guilty  city  in  the  agonizing  extremities  of  her 
various  overthrows !  It  will  probably  yet  form  the 
grave  of  many  that  are  living  over  it !  for  the  work 
of  disintegration  and  undermining  ig  going  on 
surely,  though  slowly." 

More  recent  explorers  confirm  this  report,  and 
supply  other  information.     "  The  roof  of  rock," 


calities,  and  ecclesiastical  establishments,  as  far  »■ 
relates  to  Jerusalem,  Dr.  Sepp's  Jerusalem  und  cuu 
Heil.  Land  (1863),  deserves  to  be  consulted.  Fnna 
Tobler's  Denkbldtter  aiis  Jerusale7n  (1853)  we  lean 
much  respecting  the  religious  cultus,  employraentt 
and  domestic  life  of  the  inhabitants.  See  also  Porter) 
Handbook,  i.  75  ff.  H. 


JERUSALEM 

Mji  Ttoomson,  «'  is  about  30  feet  high,  even  above 
the  huge  heaps  of  rubbish,  aud  is  sustained  by 
jffge,  shapeless  columns  of  the  original  rock,  left 
for  that  purpose  by  the  quarriers,  I  suppose.  ...  In 
some  places  we  climbed  with  difficulty  over  large 
masses  of  rock,  which  appear  to  have  been  shaken 
down  from  the  roof,  and  suggest  to  the  nervous  the 
possibility  of  being  ground  to  powder  by  similar 

masses  which  hang  overhead The  general 

direction  of  these  excavations  is  southeast,  and  about 
parallel  with  the  valley  which  descends  from  the 
Damascus  Gate.  I  susi^ect  that  they  extend  down 
to  the  Temple  area,  and  also  that  it  was  into  these 
caverns  that  many  of  the  Jews  retired  when  Titus 
took  the  Temple,  as  we  read  in  Josephus.  The 
whole  city  miglit  be  stowed  away  in  them ;  and  it 
is  my  opinion  that  a  great  part  of  the  very  white 
stone  of  the  Temple  must  have  been  taken  from 
these  subterranean  quarries"  {Land  and  B<x)k,  ii. 
491  f.). 

Capt.  Wilson  says  further :  "  In  places  the  stones 
have  been  left  half  cut  out,  and  the  marks  of  the 
chisel  and  pick  are  as  fresh  as  if  the  workmen  had 
just  left,  and  even  the  black  patches  made  by  the 
smoke  of  the  lamps  remain.  The  tools  employed 
Beem  to  have  been  much  the  same  as  those  now  in 
use,  and  the  quarrymen  to  have  worked  in  gangs 
of  5  or  6,  eacli  man  carrying  in  a  vertical  cut  4 
inches  broad  till  he  had  reached  the  required  depth. 
The  height  of  the  course  would  determine  the  dis- 
tance of  the  workmen  from  each  other;  in  these 
quarries  it  was  found  to  be  about  1  foot  7  inches. 
When  the  cuts  had  all  obtained  the  required  depth, 
the  stones  were  got  out  by  working  in  from  the 
end.  The  cuts  were  apparently  made  with  a  two- 
handed  pick,  and  worked  down  from  above.  .  .  . 
In  one  part  of  the  quarry  is  the  so-called  well, 
which  is  nothing  more  than  the  leakage  from  the 
cisterns  above,  and  the  constant  dripping  has  worn 
away  the  rock  into  the  foi-m  of  a  basin.  .  .  .  The 
steps  left  by  the  quarrymen  for  getting  about  can 
be  easily  traced.  On  the  opposite  side  of  the  road 
is  another  old  quarry,  worked  in  a  similar  manner, 
but  not  to  the  same  extent,  to  which  the  name  of 
Jeremiah's  Grotto  has  been  given "  ( Ordnance 
Survey,  p.  63  b).  "  In  many  places,"  says  Mr. 
Tristram  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  191,  2d  ed.),  "the 
very  niches  remained  out  of  which  the  great  blocks 
had  been  hewn  which  form  the  Temple  wall.  There 
lay  on  the  ground  in  one  comer  a  broken  monolith, 
which  had  evidently  split  in  the  process  of  removal, 
and  had  been  left  where  it  fell.  The  stone  here  is 
very  soft,  and  must  easily  have  been  sawn,  while, 
like  some  other  limestones,  it  hardens  almost  to 
marble  on  exposure." 

Antiquities  in  and  around  the  City.  —  Some  ac- 
0ount  has  been  given  of  these  in  previous  sections 
of  this  article.  The  only  point  on  which  we  pro- 
pose to  remark  here,  is  that  of  the  obscurity  still 
resting  on  some  of  these  questions  connected  with 
the  ancient  topography  of  the  city  and  the  im- 
possibility of  identifying  the  precise  scene  of  many 
j>f  the  events  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
history.  Traditions,  it  is  true,  are  current  among 
the  oriental  Christians,  which  pi-ofess  to  give  us 
%]1  the  information  on  this  subject  that  one  could 
desire.  But,  in  general,  such  traditioiig  are  nothing 
jaore  than  vague  conjectures;  they  are  incapable 
of  being  traced  back  far  enough  to  give  them  the 
ralue  of  historical  testimony,  and  often  are  con- 
tradicted by  facts  known  to  us  from  the  Bible,  or 
lluh  with  other  traditions  maintained  with  equal 


JERUSALEM  134^ 

confidence.  Even  conclusions  once  admitted  ai 
facts  into  our  manuals  of  geography  and  archa-ology 
have  been  from  time  to  tim/^  drawn  into  question 
or  disproved  by  the  results  of  further  study  and 
research. 

But  this  state  of  our  knowledge  should  not  dis- 
appoint or  surprise  the  reader.  It  admits  of  a 
ready  and  satisfactory  explanation.  "  No  ancient 
city,"  says  Raumer,  "  not  excepting  Rome  itself, 
has  undergone  (since  the  time  of  Christ)  so  many 
changes  as  Jerusalem.  Not  only  houses,  palacea 
temples,  have  been  demolished,  rebuilt,  and  de- 
stroyed anew,  but  entire  hills  on  which  the  citj 
stood  have  been  dug  down,  and  valleys  filled  up  '* 
{Paldstinrt,  p.  253,  3**  Aufl.).  When,  a  few  yean 
ago,  the  Episcopal  Church  was  erected  on  Mount 
Zion,  it  was  found  necessary  to  dig  through  the 
accumulated  rubbish  to  the  depth  of  50  feet  or 
more,  in  order  to  obtain  a  proper  support  for  the 
foundations.  In  some  more  recent  excavations  the 
workmen  struck  on  a  church  embedded  40  feet 
below  the  present  surface.  Capt.  Wilson  makes 
some  statements  on  this  subject  so  instructive  that 
they  deserve  to  be  mentioned.  "  We  learn  from 
history,  and  from  actual  exploration  under  ground, 
that  the  Tyropceon  Valley  has  been  nearly  filled 
up,  and  that  there  is  a  vast  accumulation  of  ruins 
in  most  parts  of  the  city.  Thus,  for  example,  it 
has  been  found,  by  descending  a  well  to  the  south 
of  the  central  entrance  to  the  Haram,  that  there  is 
an  accumulation  of  ruins  and  rubbish  to  the  extent 
of  84  feet ;  and  that  originally  there  was  a  spring 
there,  with  steps  down  to  it  cut  in  the  solid  rock." 
.  .  .  The  stairs  cut  in  the  rock  on  the  northern 
slope  of  Mount  Zion  "  were  covered  up  by  about 
40  feet  of  rubbish."  «  .  .  .  "  There  was  not  less 
than  40  feet  of  rubbish  in  the  branch  of  the  Val- 
ley of  the  Cheesemongers  (Tyropceon)  near  the 
citadel.  ...  In  fact,  we  know  that  it  was  part 
of  the  settled  policy  of  the  conquerors  of  the  city 
to  obliterate,  as  far  as  possible,  those  features  upon 
the  strength  of  which  the  upper  city  and  the  Tem- 
ple mainly  depended.  The  natural  accumulation 
of  rubbish  for  the  last  3,000  years  has  further  con- 
tributed to  obliterate,  to  a  great  extent,  the  natural 
features  of  the  ground  within  the  city  "  {Ordnance 
Survey  of  Jerusalem,  p.  7  f.).  The  latest  excava- 
tions by  Lieut.  Warren  near  "  Robinson's  Arch  " 
have  gone  to  a  depth  ''of  55  feet  below  the  surface 
before  coming  to  the  bottom  of  the  valley  between 
Zion  and  Moriah  ( The  Quiver,  p.  619,  June,  1868, 
Lond.).  In  many  places  the  present  level  of  the 
"  Via  Dolorosa "  is  not  less  than  30  or  40  feet 
above  its  original  level;  disproving,  by  the  way, 
the  claim  set  up  for  the  antiquity  of  its  sites.  In 
digging  for  the  foundations  of  the  house  cf  Lbs 
Prussian  Deaconesses,  a  subterranean  street  oi 
houses  was  found  several  feet  below  the  street 
above  it.     {Survey,  p.  56.) 

Views  of  Jerusalem.  —  1  be  summit  of  Oliv^ 
furnishes,  on  the  whole,  the  best  look-out  in  the 
vicinity  of  Jerusalem.  Yet  the  view  of  the  city 
from  this  point  is  too  distinct  to  be  very  imposing, 
for,  having  few  edifices  that  will  bear  inspection,  it 
must  be  seen,  like  Damascus,  at  a  distance  and  in 
the  mass,  in  order  to  produce  the  best  effect.  The 
vaulted  domes  surmounting  the  roofs  of  the  better 
houses,  and  giving  to  them  solidity  and  support, 
licrve  also  as  ornaments,  and  are  striking  objects  aa 


«  *  For  an  account  of  these  stair»  see  vol.  il.  p.  971, 
note  a,  Amer.  ed.  B. 


1242 


JERUSALEM 


wen  from  this  direction.  Such  domes  are  said  to 
be  peculiar  to  a  few  towns  in  the  south  of  Palestine. 
The  want  of  foliage  and  verdure  is  a  very  noticeable 
defect.  A  few  cypresses  and  dwarfish  palms  are  the 
only  trees  to  be  discovered  within  the  city  itself. 
The  minarets,  only  8  or  10  in  number,  which  often 
display  elsewhere  a  graceful  figure,  are  here  very 
ordinary,  and  add  little  or  nothing  to  the  scene. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  buildings  which  compose 
the  Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  arrest  attention 
at  once,  on  account  of  their  comparative  size  and 
elegance.  But  more  conspicuous  than  all  is  the 
Mosque  of  Omar,  which  being  so  near  at  hand,  on 
the  east  side  of  the  city,  can  be  surveyed  here  with 
great  advantage.  It  stands  near  the  centre  of  an 
inclosure  which  coincides  very  nearly  with  the 
court  of  the  ancient  Temple.  It  is  built  on  a  plat- 
form, 450  feet  from  east  to  west,  and  550  from 
north  to  south,  elevated  about  15  feet,  and  paved 
in  part  with  marble.  It  is  approached  on  the  west 
Bide  by  three  flights  of  stairs,  on  the  north  by  two, 
on  the  south  by  two,  and  on  the  east  by  one.  The 
building  itself  is  an  octagon  of  67  feet  on  a  side, 
the  walls  of  which  are  ornamented  externally  with 
variegated  marbles,  arranged  in  elegant  and  intri- 
cate patterns.  The  lower  story  of  this  structure  is 
46  feet  high.  From  the  roof  of  this  story,  at  the 
distance  of  about  one  half  of  its  diameter  from  the 
outer  edge,  rises  a  wall  70  feet  higher,  perforated, 
towards  the  top,  with  a  series  of  low  windows. 
Above  this  wall  rises  a  dome  of  great  beauty,  40 
feet  high,  surmounted  by  a  gilt  crescent.  The  en- 
tire altitude,  therefore,  including  the  platform,  is 
170  feet.  The  dome  is  covered  with  lead,  and  the 
roof  of  the  first  story  with  tiles  of  glazed  porcelain. 
The  Mosque  has  four  doors,  which  face  the  cardi- 
nal points,  guarded  by  handsome  porches.  The 
Mohammedans  regard  it  as  their  holiest  sanctuary 
after  that  of  Mecca.  (For  these  and  other  details 
see  Williams's  Holy  City,  ii.  301  fF.)  The  ample 
court  wliich  surrounds  the  Mosque,  as  seen  from 
Olivet,  appears  as  a  grass-plot,  shaded  with  a  few 
trees,  and  intersected  with  walks. « 

When  about  half  way  up  this  mount,  the  trav- 
eller finds  himself,  apparently,  off  against  the  level 
of  Jerusalem.  In  accordance  with  this,  the  Evan- 
gelist represents  the  Saviour  as  being  "  over  against 
the  Temple  "  as  he  sat  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and 
foretold  the  doom  of  the  devoted  city  (Mark  xiii. 
3).  Hence  the  disciples,  as  they  listened  to  him  at 
that  moment,  had  the  massive  "buildings  of  the 
Temple  "  in  full  view  before  them  across  the  valley 
of  the  Kedron,  to  which  they  had  just  called  his 
attention  with  so  much  pride,  and  of  which  they 
were  told  that  soon  "  not  one  stone  would  be  left 
en  another." 

Visitors  to  Jerusalem  by  the  way  of  Yafa  (Joppa) 
■»nd  Wady  Aly,  usually  obtain  their  first  sight  of  the 
city  from  the  northwest.  Even  from  this  side  the 
view  is  not  unimpressive.  The  walls  with  their 
battlements,  —  the  entire  circuit  of  which  lies  at 
once  lieneath  the  eye ;  —  the  bold  form  of  Olivet ; 
the  distant  hills  of  Moab  in  dim  perspective;  the 
turrets  of  the  Church  of  the  Sepulchre ;  the  lofty 
cupola  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar;  the  Castle  of  Da- 


o  *  The  Ordnance  Survey  (Lend.  1865)  furnishes  an 
elaborate  description  of  the  Haram  with  its  mosques 
Knd  various  appurtenances,  founded  on  careful  inspec- 
tion (pp.  29-46)  On  the  premises  were  found  20 
rmulto  or  cisterns,  varying  in  depth  from  23  to  62^ 
k*t ;  iome  contedning  water,  others  dry.     They  are 


JESHAIAH 

vid,  so  aiitique  and  massive;  —  all  come  BuddmJ} 
into  view,  and  produce  a  startling  eflTect. 

Yet,  as  Dr.  Kobinson  remarks,  the  traveller  maj 
do  better  to  "  take  the  camel-road  from  Ramleh  \» 
Jerusalem;  or,  rather,  the  road  lying  still  furthw 
north  by  the  way  of  Beth-horon.  In  this  way  ha 
will  pass  near  to  Lydda,  Gimzo,  Lower  and  Upper 
Beth-horon,  and  Gibeon ;  he  will  see  Ramah  and 
Gibeah  near  at  hand  on  his  left;  and  he  may  pause 
on  Scopus  to  gaze  on  the  city  from  one  of  the  finest 
points  of  view"  {Later  Res.  iii.  160).  Stanley 
prefers  the  approach  from  the  Jericho  road.  "  No 
human  being  could  be  disappointed  who  first  saw 
Jerusalem  from  the  east.  The  beauty  consists  in 
this,  that  you  thus  burst  at  once  on  the  two  great 
ravines  which  cut  the  city  off  from  the  surround- 
ing table-land,  and  that  then  only  you  have  a 
complete  view  of  the  Mosque  of  Omar  "  (S.  if  P. 
p.  167,  Amer.  ed.).  INIr.  Tristram  coincides  in  this 
impression.  "  Let  the  pilgrim  endeavor  to  enter 
from  the  east,  the  favorite  approach  of  our  I^ord, 
the  path  of  his  last  and  triumphal  entry.  It  is  a 
glorious  burst,  as  the  traveller  rounds  the  shoul- 
der of  Mount  Ohvet,  and  the  Haram  wall  starts 
up  before  him  from  the  deep  gorge  of  the  Kedron, 
with  its  domes  and  crescents  sparkling  in  the  sun- 
light —  a  royal  city.  On  that  very  spot  He  once 
paused  and  gazed  on  the  same  bold  cliffs  supporting 
a  far  more  glorious  pile,  and  when  He  beheld  the 
city  He  wept  over  it "  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  173  f. 
2d  ed.).  The  writer  was  so  fortunate  as  to  have 
this  view  of  Jerusalem,  and  would  add  that  no  one 
has  seen  Jerusalem  who  has  not  had  this  view. 

H. 

JERU'SHA  (Stt^n^  [i^ossessed  or  posses- 
sion]: 'Uf)ov<rd;  [Vat.  Epous;]  Alex.  Upovs'- Je- 
7'usa),  daughter  of  Zadok,  queen  of  Uzziah,  and 
mother  of  Jotham  king  of  Judah  (2  K.  xv.  33). 
In  Chronicles  the  name  is  given  under  the  altered 
form  of  — 

JERU'SHAH  (nK?:n^  [as  above]:  'u- 
povcrd;  [Vat.  -(rara']  Jerusa),  2  Chr.  xxvii.  1. 
See  the  preceding  article. 

JESAFAH  [3syl.]  {H^^tt?^  \Jeh(yvah  saves; 
or  his  salvatiori]:  'lecr^os;  [Vat.  Io-a)8a;  Alex. 
lecTfia:]  Jeseias).  1.  Son  of  Hananiah,  brother 
of  Pelatiah,  and  grandson  of  Zerubbabel  (1  Chr. 
iii.  21).  But  according  to  the  LXX.  and  the  Vul- 
gate, he  was  the  son  of  Pelatiah.  For  an  explana- 
tion of  this  genealogy,  and  the  diflSculties  connected 
with  it,  see  lA)rd  A.  Hervey's  Genealogies  of  our 
Lord,  eh.  iv.  §  v. 

2.  (^^V?P^  i-  «•  Jeshaiah:  'leerfa;  Alex.  leo- 
<reja;  [FA.  leo-trmO  Isa'ia.)  A  Benjamite,  whose 
descendants  were  among  those  chosen  by  lot  to  re-' 
side  in  Jerusalem  after  the  return  from  Babylon 
(Neh.  xi.  7). 

JESHAFAH  [3  8yl.].  1.  (^H^P'':'":  [salva- 
tion of  Jehovah] :  'lo-e'os  [Vat.  2oja*]  in  1  Chr. 
XXV.  3,  and  'Iwaia  [Vat.  -ada]  in  ver.  15;  in  the 
former  the  Alex.  MS.  has  leeio  kuI  'Zcfifi,  and  in 
the  latter  Icrjas;   [Comp.  'la-d'ia'-]  the  Vulg.  has 


now  supplied  by  surface  drainage.  Some  are  of  mod 
ern  date,  but  in  others  the  mouths  of  old  conduiti 
can  be  seen.  The  splendid  photographic  views  of  vari' 
ous  sections  of  the  Haram  wall  and  other  objects.  a6r 
greatly  to  the  value  of  this  publication.  B. 


.lESHANAH 

Itadat  and  Jescuas.)  One  of  the  six  sons  of  Ted- 
Rlhun,  set  apart  for  the  musical  service  a'^  the 
lemnle,  under  the  leadership  of  their  father,  the 
Inspired  uunstrel :  he  was  the  chief  of  the  eighth 
division  of  the  suigers.  The  Hehrew  name  is  iden- 
tical with  that  of  the  prophet  Isaiah. 

".  (Iwo-ias;  [Vat.]  Alex.  Ho-oias:  Isntas.)  A 
I^evite  in  the  reign  of  David,  eldest  son  of  Reha- 
biah,  a  descendant  of  Amram  through  Moses  (1 
Chr.  xxvi.  25).  He  is  called  Isshiah  in  1  Chr. 
xxiv.  21,  in  A.  V.,  though  the  Hebrew  io  merely 
the  shortened  form  of  the  name.  Shebuel,  one  of 
iiis  ancestors,  appears  among  the  Hemanites  in  1 
( ;hr.  XXV.  4,  and  is  said  in  Targ.  on  1  Chr.  xxvi. 
24  to  be  the  same  with  Jonathan  the  son  of  Ger- 
shom,  the  priest  of  the  idols  of  the  Danites,  who 
afterwards  returned  to  the  fear  of  Jehovah. 

3.  (n^Vti?*'.:  'lo-atas;  fVat.  lofffia;]  Alex. 
Hffojo:  Js(das.)  The  son  of  Athaliah  and  chief 
of  the  house  of  the  Bene  [sons  of]  FAaxn  who  re- 
turned with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  7).  In  1  Esdr.  viii. 
33  he  is  called  JosiAS. 

4.  Cladia;  [Vat.  ncajas:]  haias.)  A  Mera- 
rite,  who  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  19).  He 
is  called  Osaias  in  1  Esdr.  viii.  48. 

JESH'ANAH  (nSlf^  [ancient]:  ^  'Uawd; 
[Vat.  Kaua;]  Alex.  Ava;  Joseph.  ■>;  'ladvas-  Je,- 
mna),  a  town  which,  with  its  dependent  villages 
(Heb.  and  Alex.  LXX.  "daughters  "),  was  one  of 
the  three  taken  from  Jeroboam  by  Abijah  (2  Chr. 
xiii.  19).  The  other  two  were  Bethel  and  Ephraim, 
and  Jeshanah  is  named  between  them.  A  place 
of  the  same  name  was  the  scene  of  an  encounter 
between  Herod  and  Pappus,  the  general  of  An  tig- 
onus's  army,  related  by  Josephus  with  curious 
details  {Ant.  xiv.  15,  §  12),  which  however  convey 
no  Indication  of  its  position.  It  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  Onomnsticon,  unless  we  accept  the  conjecture 
of  Reland  {PalBstina  p.  861)  that  "  Jethaba,  urbs 
antiqua  Judaese,"  is  at  once  a  corruption  and  a 
translation  of  the  name  Jeshana,  which  signifies 
'old."  Nor  has  it  been  identified  in  modern 
.imes,  save  by  Schwarz  (p.  158),  who  places  it  at 
'Al-Sanim,  a  village  two  miles  W.  of  Bethel," 
w.t  undiscoverable  in  any  map  which  the  writer 
las  consulted.  G. 

JESHAREXAH  (nb«-j?r;^  \upnght  to- 
mrd  God:  but  see  Fijrst] :  'lo-ep-.irjA;  [Alex.]  lo- 
peT/Aa:  isreela),  head  of  the  seventh  of  the  24 
rards  into  which  the  musicians  of  the  Levites  were 
divided  (1  Chr.  xxv.  14).  ^Heman;  Jeduthun.] 
He  belonged  to  the  house  of  Asaph,  and  had  12 
»f  his  house  under  him.     At  ver.  2  his  name  is 

written  Asahelah,  with  an  initial  S  instead  of  "^ ; 
in  the  LXX.  'Epo^A.  A.  C  H. 

JESHE'BEAB  (3Sntt?.^  [a  father's  sent  or 
abode]:  'leo-/8aaA;  [Alex.  la^aa\:  Comp.  'lo-;8a- 
!».j8:]  Jshicib),  head  of  the  14th  course  of  priests 
(I  Chr.  xxiv.  13).     [Jeiioiarib.]        A.  C.  H. 

JE'SHER  ("^2?."^  [uprif/htness]  :  'lacrdp  ; 
I  Vat.]  Alex,  looacrap:  Jaser),  one  of  the  sons  Df 
I'aleb  the  son  of  Hezron  by  his  wife  Azubah  (1 
dhr.  h.   18).     In  two  of  Kennitotl'j  MSS.  it  is 

«rritten  "in**,  Jether,  from  the  preceding  verse, 
and  in  one  MS.  the  two  names  are  combined.  The 
Peshito  Syriac  has  Oshir,  the  same  form  in  which 
laaher  is  represented  in  2  Sam.  i.  18. 


JESIIISHAI 


1848 


JESH'IMON  (p^'^tr^.n  =  the.  wajt^ :  m 
Num.  71  eprf/jLos;  in  [IJ  Sam.  [xxiii.,]  6  'l6<r<ra< 
fi6s]  [xxiv.,  Kom.]  ^IsaarfixSs',  Alex.  Etetrtra/juot 
deseriwn,  solitudo,  ./eslmon),  a  name  which  occurs 
in  Num.  xxi.  20  and  xxiii.  28,  in  designating  the 
position  of  Pisgah  and   Peor:    both  Jesciibed  as 

"  facing  0.3Q "V5)  the  Jeshimon."  Not  knowing 
move  than  the  general  locality  of  either  Peor  or 
Pisgah,  this  gives  us  no  clew  to  the  situation  of 
Jeshimon.  But  it  is  elsewhere  used  in  a  similar  \ 
manner  with  reference  to  the  positicn  of  two  placet 
very  distant  from  both  the  above  —  the  hill  cf  Ha- 
chilah,  "on  the  south  of,"  or  "facing,  the  Jeshi- 
mon "  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  19,  xxvi.  1,  3),  and  the  ifil- 
derness  of  Maon,  also  south  of  it  (xxiii.  24).  Zipk 
(xxiii.  15 )  and  Maon  are  known  at  the  present  day. 
They  lie  a  few  miles  south  of  Hebron,  so  that  the 
district  strictly  north  of  them  is  the  hill-country 
of  Judah.  But  a  line  drawn  between  Macn  and 
the  probable  position  of  Peor  —  on  the  high  coun 
try  opposite  Jericho  —  passes  over  the  dreary, 
barren  waste  of  the  hills  lying  immediately  on  the 
west  of  the  Dead  Sea.  To  this  district  the  name, 
if  interpreted  as  a  Hebrew  word,  would  be  not  in- 
applicable, li  would  also  suit  as  to  position,  as  it 
would  be  full  in  view  from  an  elevated  point  on  the 
highlands  of  Moab,  and  not  far  from  north  of  Maon 
and  Ziph.  On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  the  word 
ha-Ardbah^  in  1  Sam.  xxiii.  24,  must  not  be  over- 
looked, meaning,  as  that  elsewhere  does,  the  sunk 
district  of  the  Jordan  and  Dead  Sea,  the  modern 
Ghor.  Beth-Jeshimoth  too,  which  by  its  name 
ought  to  have  some  connection  with  Jeshimon, 
would  appear  to  have  been  on  the  lower  level,  some- 
where near  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan.  [Beth- 
Jesiiimoth.]  Perhaps  it  is  not  safe  to  lay  much 
stress  on  the  Hebrew  sense  of  the  name.  The 
passages  in  which  it  is  first  mentioned  are  indis- 
putably of  very  early  date,  and  it  is  quite  possible 
that  it  is  an  archaic  name  found  and  adopted  by 
the  Ismelites.  G. 

*  Mr.  Tristram  {Land  of  Israel.,  p.  540,  2d  ed.) 
supposes  Jeshimon  to  be  used  for  "  the  barren  plain 
of  the  Ghor^^'  about  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan. 
Assuming  this,  he  makes  it  one  of  his  proofs,  that 
the  brow  of  the  Belka  range  "  over  against  Jeri- 
cho "  (Deut.  xxxiv.  1),  a«cended  by  him,  is  the 
Nebo  or  Pisgah  of  Moses.  [Nebo,  Amer.  ed.] 
The  article  is  always  prefixed  in  the  Hebrew,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  poetic  passages  (Deut.  xxxii, 
10;  Ps.  Ixviii.  7,  Ixxviii.  40,  cvi.  14,  cvii.  4;  and  Is, 
xliii.  19,  20).  It  is  really  questionable  whetha 
the  word  should  not  be  taken  as  appellative  rathsr 
than  a  proper  name.  In  the  former  case  the  par- 
ticular desert  meant  must  be  inferred  from  the  con- 
text, and  may  be  a  different  one  at  difTereiit  ti.ii», 
Lieut.  Warren  reports  that  after  8p(,'cial  iuqniry 
on  the  ground  he  was  unable  to  find  any  tiace  of 
the  name  of  Beth-Jeshimoth  (see  above)  in  th« 
vicinity  of  the  mouth  of  the  Jordan.  1  lo  speaks, 
however,  of  a  ruin  at  the  northeast  of  the  1  )ead  Sea 
called  Swairmh,  as  if  possibly  the  lost  site  may 
hav^  been  ther'^  {Repoi't,  etc.,  1S67-68,  p.  13).     H. 

JESHI'SHAI  [3  syl.]  {^W'^W)  {offspring 
of  one  old]:  'UadU  [Vat.  laai;]  Alex.  Ucffai'. 
Jesisi),  one  of  the  ancestors  of  the  Gadites  who 
dwelt  in  Gilead,  and  whose  genealogies  were  mad« 
out  in  the  days  of  Jotham  king  of  Judah  (1  Chr. 
V.  14).  In  the  Peshito  Syriac  tiie  latter  p*rt  d 
the  verse  is  omitted. 


1344 


JESHOHAIAH 


JESHOHA'IAH  [4  syl.]  (H^nStlt?':  [bowed 
down  by  Jehovah] :  'latrouio:  fsuhaia),  a  chief  of 
one  of  the  families  of  that  branch  of  the  Simeon- 
Ites,  which  was  descended  from  Shimei,  and  was 
more  numerous  than  the  rest  of  the  tribe  (1  Chr. 
iv.  36).  He  was  concerned  in  the  raid  upon  the 
Hamites  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 

JESH'UA  [fftb.  Jeshu'a]  (V^W^^  [Jehovah 
helps^  or  saves] :  'Itjo-ous:  Jesue,  [Jesua,]  and  Jo- 
sut),  a  later  Hebrew  contraction  for  Joshua,  or 
rather  Jehoshua.     [-Jehosiiua.] 

1.  [Josue.]  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  is  called 
Jeshua  in  one  passage  (Neh.  viii.  17).     [Joshua.] 

2.  [J(2ua,  Josm.]  A  priest  in  the  reign  of 
David,  to  whom  the  ninth  course  fell  by  lot  (1  Chr. 
xxiv.  11).  He  is  called  Jeshuah  in  the  A.  V. 
One  branch  of  thf  house,  namely,  the  children  of 
Jedaiah.  returned  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  L.  36;  but 
see  Jedaiah). 

3.  [Jesue.]  One  of  the  Invites  in  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah,  after  the  reformation  of  worship, 
placed  in  trust  in  the  cities  of  the  priests  in  their 
classes,  to  distribute  to  their  brethren  of  the  offer- 
ings of  the  people  (2  Chr.  xxxi.  15). 

4.  [Josue.]  Son  of  Jehozadak,  first  high-priest 
of  tlie  third  series,  namely,  of  those  after  the  Baby- 
lonish Captivity,  and  ancestor  of  the  fourteen  high- 
priests  his  successors  down  to  Joshua  or  Jason,  and 
Onias  or  Menelaus,  inclusive.  [High-pkiest.J 
Jeshua,  like  his  contemporary  Zerubbabel,  was 
probably  born  in  Babylon,  whither  his  father  Jehoz- 
adak had  been  taken  captive  while  young  (1  Chr. 
vi.  15,  A.  v.).  He  came  up  from  Babylon  in  the 
first  of  Cyrus  with  Zerubbabel,  and  took  a  leading 
part  with  him  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  and 
the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth. 
Every*,hing  we  read  of  him  indicates  a  man  of 
earnest  piety,  patriotism,  and  courage.  One  of 
less  faith  and  resolution  would  never  have  sur- 
mounted all  the  difficulties  and  opposition  he  had 
to  contend  with.  His  first  care  on  arriving  at 
Jerusalem  was  to  rebuild  the  altar,  and  restore  the 
daily  sacrifice,  which  had  been  suspended  for  some 
fifty  years.  He  then,  in  conjunction  with  Zerub- 
babel, hastened  to  collect  materials  for  rebuilding 
the  Temple,  and  was  able  to  lay  the  foundation  of 
it  as  early  as  the  second  month  of  the  second  year 
of  their  return  to  Jerusalem.  The  services  on  this 
occasion  were  conducted  by  the  priests  in  their 
proper  apparel,  with  their  trumpets,  and  by  the 
sons  of  Asaph,  the  Levites,  with  their  cymbals, 
according  to  the  ordinance  of  king  David  (Ezr.  iii.). 
However,  the  progress  of  the  work  was  hindered 
by  the  enmity  of  the  Samaritans,  who  bribed  the 
counsellors  of  the  kings  of  Persia  so  eflfectually  to 
obstruct  it  that  the  Jews  were  unable  to  proceed 
with  it  till  the  second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis  — 
an  interval  of  about  fourteen  years.  In  that  year, 
B.  c.  520,  at  the  prophesying  of  Haggai  and  Zech- 
ariah  (Ezr.  v.  1,  vi.  14;  Hagg.  i.  1,  12,  U,  ii.  1-9; 
Zech.  i.-viii.),  the  work  was  resumed  by  Jeshua 
and  Zerubbabel  with  redoubled  vigor,  and  was  hap- 
pily completed  on  the  third  day  of  the  month  Adar 
(=  March),  in  the  sixth  of  Darius.«  The  dedica- 
tion of  the  Temple,  and  the  celebration  of  the  Pass- 
over, in  the  next  month,  were  kept  with  great  sol- 
emnity and  rejoicing  (Ezr.  vi.  15-22),  and  especially 


JESHURUN 

"  twelve  he-goats,  according  to  the  number  of  tin 
tribes  of  Israel,"  were  offered  as  a  sin-oflTering  [ot 
all  Israel.  Jeshua's  zeal  in  the  work  is  commended 
by  the  Son  of  Sirach  (Ecclus.  xlix.  12).  Besid*^ 
the  great  importance  of  Jeshua  as  a  historical  char- 
acter, from  the  critical  times  in  which  he  lived, 
and  the  great  work  which  he  accomplisL.'d,  his 
name  Jesus,  his  restoration  of  the  Temple,  hig 
office  as  high- priest,  and  especially  the  two  prophe- 
cies concerning  him  in  Zech.  iii.  and  vi.  9-15, 
point  him  out  as  an  eminent  type  of  Christ. 
[High-priest.]  Nothing  is  known  of  Jeshua 
later  than  the  seventh  year  of  Darius,  with  which 
the  narrative  of  Ezr.  i.-vi.  closes.  Joseph  us,  who 
says  the  Temple  was  seven  years  in  building,  and 
places  the  dedication  of  it  in  the  ninth  of  Darius, 
contributes  no  information  whatever  concerning 
him:  his  history  here,  with  the  exception  of  the 
9th  sect,  of  b.  xi.  ch.  iv.,  being  merely  a  paraphrase 
of  Ezra  and  1  Esdras,  especially  the  latter.  [Zer- 
ubbabel.] Jeshua  had  probably  conversed  often 
with  Daniel  and  Ezekiel,  and  may  or  may  not  have 
known  Jehoiachin  at  Babylon  in  his  youth.  He 
probably  died  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  written  Jthushua 
or  Joshua  in  Zech.  iii.  1,  3,  &c.;  Hagg.  i.  1, 
12,  &c. 

5.  [In  Ezr.  ii.  40,  Yat.  Irjtroue;  Neh.  xii.  8, 
Alex.  iTjaov-  Josue,  Jesiia,  once.]  Head  of  a 
Levitical  house,  one  of  those  which  returned  from 
the  Babylonish  Captivity,  and  took  an  active  part 
under  Zerubbabel,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.  The 
name  is  used  to  designate  either  the  whole  family 
or  the  successive  chiefs  of  it  (Ezr.  ii.  40,  iii.  9; 
Neh.  iii.  19,«>  viii.  7,  ix.  4,  5,  xii.  8,  &c.).  Jeshua, 
and  Kadmiel,  with  whom  he  is  frequently  associa- 
ted, were  both  "  sons  of  Hodaviah  "  (called  Judah, 
Ezr.  iii.  9),  but  Jeshua's  more  immediate  ancestor 
was  Azaniah  (Neh.  x.  9).  In  Neh.  xii.  24  '•  Jeshua 
the  son  of  Kadmiel  "  is  a  manifest  corruption  of 
the  text.  The  LXX.  read  Kal  viol  KaBfiiiiK.  It 
is  more  likely  that  ]3  is  an  accidental  error  for  1. 

6.  [Josue.]  A  branch  of  the  family  of  Pahath- 
Moab,  one  of  the  chief  families,  probably,  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah  (Neh.  x.  14,  vii.  11,  &c.;  Ezr.  x. 
30).  His  descendants  were  the  most  numerous  of 
all  the  families  which  returned  with  Zerubbabel. 
The  verse  is  obscure,  and  might  be  translated, 
"  The  children  of  Pahath-Moab,  for  (i.  e.  repre- 
senting) the  children  of  Jeshua  and  Joab;"  so 
that  Pahath-Moab  would  be  the  head  of  the  family. 

A.  C.  H. 

JESH'UA  [ffeb.  Jeshu'a]  {V^\V;l  [see  above] : 
'irjo-oC:  Jesue),  one  of  the  towns  re-inhabited  by 
the  people  of  Judah  after  the  return  from  captisrity 
(Neh.  xi.  26).  Being  mentioned  with  Moladah, 
Beer-sheba,  etc.,  it  was  apparently  in  the  extreme 
south.  It  does  not,  however,  occur  in  the  original 
lists  of  Judah  and  Simeon  (Josh,  xv.,  xix.),  nor  is 
there  any  name  in  those  lists  of  which  this  would 
be  probably  a  corruption.  It  is  not  mentioned 
elsewhere.  G. 

JESH'UAH  [ffeb.  Jeshu'ah]  (?^t£^^  'lr]<rovst 
Jesua),  a  priest  in  the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr 
xxiv.  11),  the  same  as  Jeshua,  No.  2. 

JESHimUN,  and  once  by  mistake  in  A.  V 


a  The  7th,  after  the  Babylonian  reckoning,  accord- 
hg  to  Prideaux. 
t  The  connection  with  Bani,  Hanhabiah  (or  Ha«h- 


abniah),  Henadad,  and  the  I.eTitf>49  (17-19),  indicatac 
that  Jeshua,  the  father  of  £zer,  is  the  same  person  m 
in  the  other  passages  cited 


JESHURUN 

JESU'RUN,  Is.  xliv.  2  (l^ltt^^  [see  infra]: 
6  i}yaTrrifi.€vos,  OTice  with  the  addition  of  'Iirpo'^A, 
which  the  Arabic  of  the  Lond.  Polyglot  adopts  to 
tlie  exchision  of  the  former:  dileclus,  reclissimus)^ 
a  83'mholical  name  for  Israel  in  Deut.  xxxii.  15, 
xxxiii.  5,  26 ;  Is.  xliv.  2,  for  which  various  etymol- 
oc;ies  have  been  suggested.  Of  its  application  to 
Israel  there  seems  to  be  no  division  of  opinion. 
The  Tarr^um  and  Peshito  Syriac  uniformly  render 
Jeshurun  by  "Israel."     Kimchi   (on  Is.  xliv.  2) 

derives  it  from  the  root  ^t^"^,  ydshar,  "  to  be  right ' 
or  upright,"  because  Israel  was  "ui)right  among 
the  nations ;  "  as  D'^'ntT'),  yeshdnm,  "  the  up- 
right"  (Num.  xxiii.  10;  Ps.  cxi.  1)  is  a  poetical 
«j<pellation   of  the  chosen   people,   who  did   that 

which  was  right  ("llT^n,  hay-ydshdr)  in  the  eyes 
of  Jeho/ah,  in  contradistinction  from  the  idolatrous 
beatbei.  who  did  that  which  was  preeminently  the 

evil  (17  ^n,  hd-r'a)^  and  worshipped  false  gods. 
This  see  ns  to  have  been  the  view  adopted  by  Aquila, 
Symmac  bus,  and  Theodotion  —  who,  according  to 
the  account  of  their  version  given  by  Jerome  (on 
Is.  xliv.  :}),  must  have  had  evdus  or  cvOvtutos  — 
ind  by  Mie  ^'^ulgate  in  three  passages.  Malvenda 
(quoted  h\  Poole's  Sy7iopsis,  Deut.  xxxii.  15),  tak- 
ing the  same  root,  applies  it  ironically  to  Israel. 
For  the  Use  reason,  on  the  authority  of  the  above- 
aicntioneci  Father,  the  book  of  Genesis  was  called 
"the  book  of  the  just"  (evdecov),  as  relating  to 
th'j  histones  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Israel.     The 

temiinatio.i  ^^"  is  either  intensive,  as  the  Vulgate 
tak<js  it,  01  an  affectionate  diminutive  {'■^Fromm- 
chen^"'  Hit:dg,  and  Fiirst;  ^^  Lieblitir/,^'  Hendewerk, 
and  IJunsen;.  Siraonis  {Lex.  Ilebr.  s.  v.,  and 
Arc.  Form.  Nom.  p.  582)  connects  Jeshurun  with 

the  Arabic  root  y-wwO,  yasnra,  which  in  the  second 

conj.  signifies  "  to  prosper,"  and  in  the  4th  "  to  be 
wealthy,"   and   is  thus  cognate  with  the  Hebrew 

"ntrS,  dshnr,  which  in  Paul  signifies  "to  be 
blessed."  With  the  intensive  termination  Jeshu- 
run would  then  denote  Israel  as  supremely  happy 
or  prosperous,  and  to  this  signification  it  must  be 
allowed  the  context  in  Deut.  xxxii.  15  points. 
Michaelis  {SuppL  ad  Lex.  Ileb.)  considers  it  as  a 

diminutive  of  Israel,  and  would  read  'J^lli?'',  yis- 

7'An^  contracted  from  ^^7Sntp''_,  yisreelun.  Such 
too  was  the  opinion  of  Grotius  and  Vitringa,  and 
of  the  author  of  the  Veneto-Gk.  version,  who  ren- 
ders it  'lo-paeAtVvos.  For  this  theory,  though 
supported  by  the  weight  of  Gesenius'  authority,  it 
is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  there  is  not  the  smallest 
ftundation,  either  in  analogy  or  probability.  In 
the  application  of  the  name  Jeshurun  to  Israel,  we 
may  discover  that  fondness  for  a  play  upon  words 
of  which  there  are  so  many  examples,  and  which 
might  be  allowed  to  have  some  influence  in  the 
selection  of  the  appellation.  But  to  derive  the  one 
from  the  other  is  a  faricy  unworthy  of  a  scholar. 

Two  other  etymologies   of  the   name  may  be 
p.oticed  as  showing  to  what  lengths  conjecture  raay 


JESSE  1345 

go  when  not  regulated  by  any  definite  principlM. 
The  first  of  these,  which  is  due  to  Forster  (quoted 
by  Glassius,  Phil.  Sacr.  lib.  iv.  tr.  2),  connects  it 

with  Tlti7,  shor,  "  an  ox,"  in  consequence  of  the 
allusion  in  the  context  of  Deut.  xxxii.  15 ;  the  othei 
with  "l^tr,  shu7',  "  to  behold,"  because  Israel  be 
held  the  presence  of  God.  ■  W.  A.  \V. 

JESI'AH  (^njt27^,  i.  e.  YisshiyaTiu  [tchon 
.Jehovah  lends] :  'lr}(rovvl  [Vat.  FA.  -uei] ;  Alex 
lea-ia''  Jesla).  1.  A  Korhite,  one  of  the  mightj 
men,  "helpers  of  the  battle,"  who  joined  David'f 
standard  at  Ziklag  during  his  flight  from  Saul  (J 
Chr.  xii.  (J)- 

2.  (n-Jl£J\  'I(rtc£:  [Vat.  lo-cm;]  Alex.  Uaaia.' 
The  second  son  of  Uzziel,  the  son  of  Kohath  (1 
Chr,  xxiii.  20).  He  is  the  same  as  Jkshiah,  whose 
representative  was  Zechariah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  25);  but 
our  translators  in  the  present  instance  followed  the 
Vulg.,  as  they  have  too  often  done  in  the  case  of 
proper  names, 

JESIM'IEL  (bS^'^b'^  \jrh(ym  God  sets  up 
or  places] :  'la-fia^K ;  [Vat.  omits  :]  Ismiel),  a 
Simeonite,  descended  from  the  prolific  family  of 
Shimei,  and  a  prince  of  his  own  branch  of  the  tribe, 
whom  he  led  against  the  peaceful  Hamites  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah  (1  Chr.  iv.  3G). 

JES'SE  i'^^j),  i-  e.  Ishai  [perh.  strong,  Ges., 
or  gift,^  i.e.  of  God,  Dietr.] : «  'lecra-ai;  Joseph. 
'Ucra-aios'  Ism:  in  the  margin  of  1  Chr.  x.  14, 
our  translators  have  given  the  Vulgate  form),  the 
father  of  David,  and  thus  the  immediate  progenitor 
of  the  whole  line  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  and  ulti- 
mately of  Christ.  He  is  the  only  one  of  his  name 
who  appears  in  the  sacred  records.  Jesse  was  the 
son  of  Obkd,  who  again  was  the  fruit  of  the  union 
of  Boaz  and  the  Moabitess  Kuth.  Nor  was  Ruth's 
the  only  foreign  blood  that  ran  in  his  veins ;  for  his 
great-grandmother  was  no  less  a  person  than  Kahab 
the  (^'anaanite,  of  Jericho  (Matt.  i.  5).  Jesse's 
genealogy  *  is  twice  given  in  full  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, namely,  IJuth  iv.  18-22,  and  1  Chr.  ii.  5-12. 
We  there  see  that,  long  before  1  )avid  had  rendered 
his  family  illustrious,  it  I)elonged  to  the  greatest 
house  of  Judah.  that  of  Fharez,  through  Hezron 
his  eldest  son.  One  of  the  links  in  the  descent  was 
Nabshon  (N".  T.  Naasson),  chief  man  of  the  tribe 
at  the  critical  time  of  tlie  Exodus.  In  the  N.  T, 
the  genealogy  is  also  twice  given  (IMatt.  i.  3-5; 
Luke  iii.  32-34). 

He  is  commonly  designated  as  "  Jesse  the  Beth- 
lehemite"  (1  Sam.  xvi.  1,  18),  So  he  is  called  by 
his  son  David,  then  fresh  from  home  (xvii.  58  )j 
but  his  full  title  is  "  the  Ephrathite  of  Bethlehem 
Judah"  (xvii.  12),  The  double  expression  and  the 
use  of  the  antique  word  Ephrathite  perhaps  imply 
that  he  was  one  of  the  oldest  families  in  the  place. 
He  is  an  "old  man  "  when  we  first  meet  with  him 
(1  Sam.  xvii.  12),  with  eight  sons  (xvi.  10,  xvii.  12), 
residing  at  Bethlehem  (xvi,  4,  5).  It  would  appear, 
however,  from  the  terms  of  xvi.  4,  5,  and  of  Josephua 
{Ant.  vi.  8,  §  1),  that  Jesse  was  not  one  of  the 
"  elders  "  of  the  town.  The  few  slight  glimpses  we 
can  catch  of  him  are  soon  recalled.     Accord ii»g  to 


«  Jerome  {Liber  de  Nominibus)  gives  the  strange  windows  of  English  churches.  One  ot  the  finest  is  at 
Interpretation  of  insutcB  libamen.  ■.  Dorchester,  Oxon.     The  tree  springs  fr'-m  Jesse,  who 

b  This  genealogy  is  embodied  in  the  "  Jesse  tree,"  is  recumbent  at  the  bottom  of  the  windo^v,  and  con- 
not  uaiSrequently  to  be  found  in  the  reredos  and  east  |  tains  25  members  of  the  lin«»,  culmiaating  in  our  Lord 
S5 


1346  JESSE 

Ml  ancient  Jewish  tradition,  recorded  in  the  Targum 
on  2  Sam.  xxi.  19,  he  was  a  weaver  of  the  vails  of 
the  sanctuary,  but  as  there  is  no  contradiction, 
80  there  is  no  corroboration  of  this  in  the  Bible, 
and  it  is  possible  that  it  was  suggested  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  word  orc/im^  "  weavers,"  in  con- 
nection with  a  member  of  his  family.  [Jaare- 
Oregim.]     Jesse's  wealth  seems  to  have  consisted 

of  a  flock  of  sheep  and  goats  CJS!?,  A.  V.  "  sheep  " ), 
which  were  under  the  care  of  David  (xvi.  11,  xvii. 
3-i,  35).  Of  tlie  produce  of  this  flock  we  find  him 
on  two  occasions  sending  the  simple  presents  which 
in  those  days  the  highest  j^ersons  were  wont  to 
accept  —  slices  of  milk  cheese  to  the  captain  of  the 
division  of  the  army  in  which  his  sons  were  serving 
(xvii.  18),  and  a  kid  to  Saul  (xvi.  20);  with  the 
accompaniment  in  each  case  of  parched  corn  from 
the  fields  of  Boaz,  loa^'es  of  the  bread  from  which 
Bethlehem  took  its  very  name,  and  wine  from  the 
vineyards  which  still  enrich  the  terraces  of  the  hill 
below  the  village. 

When  David's  rupture  with  Saul  had  finally 
driven  him  from  the  court,  and  he  was  in  the  cave 
of  Adullam,  "his  brethren  and  all  his  father's 
house"  jouied  him  (xxii.  1).  His  "  brother"  (prob- 
ably Eliab)  is  mentioned  on  a  former  occasion  (xx. 
29)  as  taking  the  lead  in  the  family.  This  is  no 
more  than  we  should  expect  from  Jesse's  great  age. 
David's  anxiety  at  the  same  period  to  find  a  safe 
refuge  for  his  parents  from  the  probal)le  vengeance 
of  Saul  is  dso  quite  in  accordance  with  their  help- 
less condition.  He  took  his  father  and  his  mother 
hito  the  country  of  Moab,  and  deposited  them  with 
the  king,  and  there  they  disappear  from  our  view 
hi  the  records  of  Scripture.    But  another  old  Jewish 

tradition  (Rabboth  Seder,  StI72,  256,  col.  2)  states 
that  after  David  had  quitted  the  hold,  his  parents 
and  brothers  were  put  to  death  by  the  king  of  Moab, 
BO  that  there  remained,  besides  David,  but  one 
brother,  who  took  refuge  with  Nahash,  king  of  the 
Bene- Amnion. 

Who  the  wife  of  Jesse  was  we  are  not  told.  His 
eight  sons  will  be  found  displayed  under  David, 
i.  552.  The  fomily  contained  in  addition  two 
female  members,  Zeruiah  and  Abigail,  but  it  is 
inicertain  whether  these  were  Jesse's  daughters,  for 
though  they  are  called  the  sisters  of  his  sons  (1  Chr. 
ii.  16),  yet  Abigail  is  said  to  have  been  the  daugh- 
ter of  Nahash  (2  Sam.  xvii.  25).  Of  this  two 
explanations  have  been  proposed.  (1.)  The  Jewish 
—  that  Nahash  was  another  name  for  Jesse 
(Jerome,  Q.  Ihbv.  on  2  Sam.  xvii.  25  «).  (2.)  Pro- 
fessor Stanley's— that  Jesse's  wife  had  been  formerly 
wife  or  concubine  to  Nahash,  possibly  the  king  of 
the  Ammonites  (David,  i.  552). 

An  English  reader  can  hardly  fail  to  remark 
how  often  Jesse  is  mentioned  long  after  the  name 
of  David  had  become  famous  enough  to  supersede 


a  This  is  given  also  in  the  Targum  to  Ruthi  iv.  22. 
"  And  Obed  begat  lahai  (Jesse),  whose  name  is  Nachash, 
because  there  were  not  found  in  him  iniquity  and  cor- 
ruption, that  he  should  be  delivered  into  the  hand  of 
the  Angel  of  Death  that  he  should  take  away  his  soul 
from  him  ;  and  he  lived  many  days  until  was  fulfilled 
before  Jehovah  the  counsel  which  the  Serpent  gave  to 
Chavvah  the  wife  of  Adam,  to  eat  of  tlie  tree,  of  the 
fruit  of  wliich  when  they  did  eat  tliey  were  able  to 
discom  between  good  and  evil ;  and  by  reason  of  this 
MTUMfil  all  the  inhabiters  of  the  earth  became  guilty 


JESUS  THE  SON  OF   SIRACH 

that  of  his  obscure  and  humble  parent.  Whik 
David  was  a  struggling  outlaw,  it  was  natural  that 
to  friend  and  foe  —  to  Saul,  Doeg,  and  Nabal^  no 
less  than  to  the  captains  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  — 
he  should  be  merely  the  "son  of  Jesse"  (1  Sam. 
xxii.  9,  13;  comp.  xxiv.  16,  xxv.  10;  1  Chr.  xii.  18); 
but  that  Jesse's  name  should  be  brought  forward 
in  records  of  so  late  a  date  as  1  Chr.  xxix.  26,  and 
Ps.  Ixxii.  20,  long  after  the  establishment  of  Dand's 
own  house,  is  certainly  worthy  of  notice.^  Espe- 
cially is  it  to  be  observed  that  it  is  in  his  name  — 
the  "  shoot  out  of  the  stump  of  Jesse  ....  tlie 
root  of  Jesse  which  should  stand  as  an  ensign  to 
the  people  "  (Is.  xi.  1,  10),  that  Isaiah  announce! 
the  most  splendid  of  his  promises,  intended  to  rouse 
and  cheer  the  heart  of  the  nation  at  the  time  of  it« 
deepest  despondency.  G. 

JES'SUE  ('Itjo-ous:  Alex.  'Irjo-oue;  [Aid.  'leo- 
aovk'^  Jesu),  a  Levite,  the  same  as  Jeshua  (1  Esdr. 
V.  26;  comp.  Ezr.  ii.  40). 

JE'SU  CItjo-ous:  Jesu),  the  same  as  Jeshua 
the  Levite,  the  father  of  Jozabad  (1  Esdr.  \'iii.  63;     ♦ 
see  Ezr.  viii.  33),  also  called  Jessue,  and  Jesus. 

JES'UI  C^ltp")  [even,  level]  :  'Uaoi ;  Alex. 
leaovi :  Jessui),  the  son  of  Asher,  whose  descendants 
THE  Jesuites  were  numbered  in  the  plains  of 
Moab  at  the  Jordan  of  Jericho  (Num.  xxvi.  44). 
He  is  elsewhere  called  Isri  (Gen.  xlvi.  17)  and 
IsHUAi  (1  Chr.  vii.  30). 

JES'UITES,  THE  Oltf'^H  :  6  'U<rovt  [Vat 
-ei] :  JessuiUjp).  A  family  of  the  tribe  of  Asher 
(Num.  xxvi.  44). 

JESU'RUN.     [Jeshurun.] 

JE'SUS  CItjo-ovs  :  Jesu,  Jesus,  Josue),  the 
Greek  form  of  the  name  Joshua  or  Jeshua,  a  con-       g 

traction  of  Jehoshua  (^tp^H^),  that  is,  "help  of 
Jehovah"  or  "  Saviour "  (Niim.  xiii.  16).     [Jk- 

HOSHUA.] 

1.  Joshua  the  priest,  the  son  of  Jehozadak  (1 
Esdr.  V.  5,  8,  24,  48,  56,  68,  70,  vi.  2,  ix.  19; 
Ecclus.  xlix.  12).  Also  called  Jeshua.  [Jeshua, 
No.  4.] 

2.  {Jesus.)  Jeshua  the  Levite  (1  Esdr.  v.  58, 
ix.  48). 

3.  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun  (2  Esdr.  vii.  37; 
Ecclus.  xlvi.  1 ;  1  Mace.  ii.  55 ;  Acts  vii.  45 ;  Heb. 
iv.  8).     [Joshua.] 

JE'SUS  THE  FATHER  OF  SIRACH.       p 

[Jesus  the  Sox  of  Sirach.] 

JE'SUS  THE  SON  OF  SIRACH  Clriaovs 
vlhs  'S.eipdx  [Alex.  Sipax]  •  «^ts««  ^filius  Sirach) 
is  described  in  the  text  of  Ecclesiasticus  (1.  27)  as 
the  author  of  that  book,  which  in  the  LXX.,  and 
generally,  except  in  the  Western  Church,  is  celled 
by  his  name  the    Wisdom  of  Jesus  the   Son  of 


of  death,  and  in   that  iniquity  only  died  Misi  the 
righteous." 

b  *  In  the  phraseology  here  referred  to,  the  reader 
will  recognize  the  taste  of  the  oriental  mind,  which 
delights  in  a  sort  of  poetic  paraphi-ase.  Hence  the 
frequent  phrase,  "  Son  of  David,'  "  Seed  of  David," 
etc.,  as  applied  to  Christ.  The  son  is  often  designated 
by  the  father's  name,  as  above,  where  the  latter  il 
known  only  through  such  apscciation  of  his  name  ai 
In  the  address  to  Barak  :  "  Thou  son  of  Abinoam ' 
(Judg.  V.  12),  and  the  Saviour's  appeal  to  Petn 
"  Simou,  son  of  Jonas  "  (John  xxi.  15).  8.  W- 


JESUS 


i,  or  simply  the  Wuclom  of  Slrnch  (Ec- 
rucsiASTicas,  §  1).  The  same  passas^e  speaks 
if  him  as  a  native  of  Jerusalem  (Kcclus.  I.  C),  and 
iJie  internal  character  of  the  book  confirms  its 
Palestinian  origin.  The  name  .1  Hsus  was  of  fre- 
quent occurrence,  and  was  often  represented  by  the 
Greek  Jason.  In  the  apocryphal  list  of  the  Lxxri 
commissioners  sent  by  Eleazar  to  Ptolemy  it  occurs 
twice  (Arist.  IJist.  ap.  Hody,  De  text.  p.  vii.);  but 
there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  connecting  the 
author  of  Ecclesiasticus  with  either  of  the  persons 
there  mentioned.  The  various  conjectures  which 
have  been  made  as  to  the  position  of  the  son  of 
Sirach  from  the  contents  of  his  book;  as,  for 
instance,  that  he  was  a  priest  (from  vii.  29  ft'.,  xlv., 
xlLr.,  1.),  or  a  phj'sician  (from  xxxviii.  1  ff.),  are 
equally  unfounded. 

Among  the  later  Jews  the  •<  Son  of  Sirach  "  was 
celebrated  under  the  name  of  Ben  Sira  as  a  writer 
of  proverbs,  and  some  of  those  which  have  been 
preserved  offer  a  close  resemblance  to  passages  in 
Ecclesiasticus  [Ecclesiasticus,  §  4,  vol.  i.  p.  651, 
note  n] ;  but  in  the  course  of  time  a  later  com- 
pilation was  substituted  for  the  original  work  of 
IJen  Sira  (Zunz,  Gottesd.  Vortr.  d.  Juden,  p.  100 
ff.),  and  tradition  has  preserved  no  authentic  details 
of  his  person  or  his  life. 

The  chronological  difficulties  which  have  been 
raised  as  to  the  date  of  the  Son  of  ^rach  have  been 
already  noticed  [Ecclesiasticus,  §  4],  and  do 
not  call  for  further  discussion. 

According  to  the  first  prologue  to  the  book  of 
I'xclesiasticus,  taken  from  the  Synopsis  of  the 
I'.seudo-Athanasius  (iv.  p.  377,  ed.  Aligne),  the 
tninslator  of  the  book  bore  the  same  name  as  the 
author  of  it.  If  this  conjecture  were  true,  a  gene- 
alogy of  the  following  form  would  result :  1.  Sirach. 
2.  Jesus,  son  (father)  of  Sirach  {author  of  the 
book),  3.  Sirach.  4.  Jesus,  son  of  Sirach  (trans- 
Inf^rr  of  the  book).  It  is,  however,  most  likely 
that  the  last  chapter,  "  The  pmyev  of  Jesus  the 
son  of  Sirachj''  gave  occasion  to  this  conjecture. 
The  prayer  was  attributed  to  the  translator,  and 
then  the  table  of  succession  followed  necessarily 
from  the  title  attached  to  it.  B.  F.  W. 

JE'SUS  ['iTjo-oCs],  called  JUSTUS  [just], 
a  Christian  who  was  with  St.  Paul  at  Rome,  and 
joined  him  in  sending  salutations  to  the  Colossians. 
lie  was  one  of  the  fellow-workers  who  were  a  com- 
fort to  the  Ajwstle  (Col.  iv.  11).  In  the  Acta 
S  met.  .Tun.  iv.  67,  he  is  commemorated  as  bishop 
of  Eleutheropolis.  W.  T.  B. 

*  This  Je.ius  or  Justus  cannot  be  identical  with 
the  Justus  at  Corinth  (Acts  xviii.  7).  The  one 
here  mentioned  was  a  Jewish  Christian  (one  "  of  the 
v.reumcislon,"  Col.  iv.  11),  but  the  other  a  Gentile 
*.':o  had  been  a  Jewish  ])roselyte  ((re^Sfievos  rhv 
>«c»  I  before  he  embraced  the  Gospel.     [.Justus.] 

H. 
^  JE'SUS  CHRIST.  The  name  Jesus  ('Itjo-oCs) 
«:;nifies   Saviour.     Its  origin  is  explained  above, 
and  it  seems  to  have  been  not  an  uncommon  name 
among  the  .lews.    It  is  assigned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment  (1)  to  our  Lord   .Fesus  Christ,  who  "saves 
Hh  pe<iple  fmm   their  sins"  (Matt.   i.  21);  also  i 
(2)  to  .loshua  the  successor  of  IMoses.  who  brought  | 
the  Israelites  into  tlie  land  of  promise  (Num.  xxvii. 
18;  Acts  \ii.   45;   Ileb.  iv.  8);  and  (3)  to  Jesus 
wniamed  Justi..^.  a  converted  Jew,  associatea  with 
Jt.  Paul  (Col   iv.  11). 

The   name   of  Christ   (XpicttSs  from   xP^^j   I 


JESUS   CHRIST  1S47 

anoint)  signifies  Anointed.  Priests  were  anointed 
amongst  the  .Tews,  as  their  inauguration  to  theif 
office  (I  Chr.  xvi.  22;  Ps.  cv.  15),  and  kings  also 
(2  Mace.  i.  24;  Ecclus.  xlvi.  19).  In  the  New 
Testament  the  name  Christ  is  used  as  equivalent 

to   Messiah    (Greek    Mecrcrias ',    Hebrew  PftTtt: 

John  i.  41),  the  name  given  to  the  long  promised 
Prophet  and  King  whom  the  Jews  had  l)een  taught 
by  their  prophets  to  expect ;  and  therefore  ^  d 
ipXojmepos  (Acts  xix.  4;  Matt.  xi.  3).  The  use 
of  this  name  as  applied  to  the  l.,ord  lias  always  a 
reference  to  tlie  promises  of  the  Prophets.  In  Matt, 
ii.  4,  xi.  2,  it  is  assumed  that  the  Christ  when  He 
should  come  would  live  and  act  in  a  certain  way, 
described  by  the  Prophets.  So  Matt.  xxii.  42,  xxiii. 
10,  xxiv.  5,  23;  Mark  xii.  35,  xiii.  21 ;  Luke  ni.  15, 
XX.  41;  .John  vii.  27,  31,  41,  42,  xii.  34,  in  all  which 
places  there  is  a  reference  to  the  Messiah  as  de- 
lineated by  the  Prophets.  That  they  had  foretold 
that  Christ  should  suffer  appears  Luke  xxiv.  26,  46. 
The  name  of  Jesus  is  the  jjroper  name  of  our  Lord, 
and  that  of  Christ  is  added  to  identify  Ilim  with 
the  promised  Messiah.  Other  names  are  sometimes 
added  to  the  names  Jesus  Christ,  or  Christ  Jesus : 
thus  "  Ivord  "  (frequently),  "  a  King  "  (added  as  a 
kind  of  explanation  of  the  word  Christ,  Luke  xxiii. 
2),  "  King  of  Israel"  (Mark  xv.  32),  Son  of  David 
(Mark  xii.  35;  Luke  xx.  41),  chosen  of  God  (Luke 
xxiii.  35). 

Remarkable  are  such  expressions  as  "  the  Christ 
of  God  "  (Luke  ii.  26,  ix.  20;  Rev.  xi.  15,  xii.  10); 
and  the  phrase  "  in  Christ,"  which  occurs  about 
78  times  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  is  almost 
peculiar  to  them.  But  the  germ  of  it  is  to  be  found 
iu  the  words  of  our  Lord  Himself,  "  Abide  in  me, 
and  I  in  you.  As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of 
itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  no  more  can  ye, 
except  ye  abide  in  me "  (John  xv.  4,  also  5,  6, 
7,  9,  10).  The  idea  that  all  Christian  life  is  not 
merely  an  imitation  and  following  of  the  lx)rd,  but 
a  living  and  constant  union  with  Ilim,  causes  the 
AfX)stle  to  use  such  expressions  as  "  fallen  asleep 
in  Christ"  (1  Cor.  xv.  18),  "I  knew  a  man  in 
Christ "  (2  Cor.  xii.  2),  "  I  speak  the  truth  in 
Christ"  (1  Tim.  ii.  7),  and  many  others.  (See 
Schleusner's  Lexicon  ;  Wahids  Clavis ;  Fritzsche  on 
St.  Matthew ;  De  Wette's  Coinmentai-y  ;  Schmidt'a 
Greek  Concordance,  etc.) 

The  Life,  the  Person,  and  the  Work  of  our  Tx)rd 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  occupy  the  whole  of  the 
New  Testament.  Of  this  threefold  sulyect  the 
present  article  includes  the  first  part,  namely,  the 
Life  and  Teaching;  the  Person  of  our  Lord  will  be 
treated  imder  the  article  Son  of  God;  and  His 
Work  will  naturally  fall  under  the  word  Saviouk. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Herod  the 
Great,  arrived  that  "  fullness  of  time  "  which  God 
in  His  inscrutable  wisdom  had  apjwinted  for  the 
sending  of  His  Son ;  and  Jesus  was  born  at  Beth- 
lehem, to  redeem  a  sinful  and  ruined  world.  Ac- 
cording to  the  received  chronology,  which  is  in  fact 
that  of  Dionysius  Exiguus  in  the  6th  century,  this 
event  occurred  in  the  year  of  Rome  754.  But 
modern  writers,  with  hardly  an  exce[)tion,  believe 
that  this  calculation  places  the  nativity  some  years 
too  late;  a'though  they  diflPer  as  to  the  amount  of 
error.  Herod  the  Great  died,  accordin*;  to  Josephus, 
in  the  thirty-seventh  year  after  he  was  appointed 
king  {Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1;  B.  ./.  i.  33,  §  8).  HU 
elevation  coincides  with  the  consulship  of  Cn. 
Domitius  Calvin'is  xnd  C.  Asinius  PoUio,  and  thii 


1848 


JESUS  CHRIST 


letermines  the  date  A.  u.  c.  714  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv. 
14,  §  5).  There  is  reason  to  think  that  in  such 
calculatioi.s  Josephu3  reckons  the  years  from  the 
month  Nisan  to  the  same  month;  and  also  that 
the  death  of  Ilerod  took  place  in  the  beginning  of 
the  thirty-seventh  year,  or  just  before  the  Passover 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  9,  §  3);  if  then  thirty-six  com- 
plete years  are  added  they  give  the  year  of  Herod's 
death  a,  u.  c.  750  (see  Note  on  Chronology  at  the 
end  of  this  article).  As  Jesus  was  born  during 
the  life  of  Ilerod,  it  follows  from  these  data  that 
the  Nativity  took  place  some  time  before  the  month 
of  April  750,  and  if  it  took  place  only  a  few  months 
before  Herod's  death,  then  its  date  would  be 
four  years  earlier  than  the  Dionysian  reckoning 
(Wieseler). 

Three  otiier  chronological  data  occur  in  the 
Gos])els,  but  the  arguments  foimded  on  them  are 
not  coTiclusive.  1.  The  liaptism  of  Jesus  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  I'assover  (John  ii.  13),  at  which  certain 
Jews  mention  that  the  restoration  of  their  Temple 
had  been  in  progress  for  forty-six  years  (ii.  20), 
Jesus  himself  being  at  this  time  "about  thirty 
years  of  age  "  (Luke  iii.  23).  As  the  date  of  the 
Temple-restoration  can  be  ascertained,  it  lias  been 
argued  from  these  facts  also  that  the  nativity  took 
place  at  the  beginning  of  A.  u.  c.  750.  But  it  is 
sometimes  argued  that  the  words  that  determine 
our  Lord's  age  are  not  exact  enough  to  serve  as  the 
basis  for  such  a  calculation.  2.  The  appearance 
of  the  star  to  the  wise  men  has  been  thought  likely, 
by  the  aid  of  astronomy,  to  determine  the  date. 
\^\\t  the  opinion  that  the  star  in  the  Ea.st  was  a 
remarkable  conjunction  of  .hipiter  and  Saturn  in 
the  sign  Pisces,  is  now  rejected.  Besides  the  dif- 
ficulty of  reconciling  it  with  the  sacred  narrative 
(Matt.  ii.  9)  it  would  throw  back  tlie  birth  of  our 
Ix)rd  to  A.  u.  c.  747,  which  is  too  early.  3. 
Zacharias  was  »' a  priest  of  the  course  of  Abia'' 
(Lul^e  i.  5),  and  he  M'as  engaged  in  the  duties  of 
his  course  M'hen  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist  was 
foretold  to  him ;  and  it  has  been  thought  possible 
to  calcidate,  from  the  place  which  the  course  of 
Abia  lield  in  the  cycle,  the  precise  time  of  the 
Saviour's  birth.  All  these  data  are  discussed  below 
(p.  1381). 

In  treating  of  the  Life  of  Jesus,  a  perfect  record 
of  the  events  would  be  no  more  than  a  reproduction 
of  the  four  Gospels,  and  a  discussion  of  those  events 
would  swell  to  the  compass  of  a  voluminous  com- 
mentary. Neither  of  these  would  be  appropriate 
here,  and  in  the  present  article  a  brief  sketch  only 
of  the  Life  can  be  attempted,  dra^vn  up  with  a  view 
to  the  two  remaining  articles,  on  the  Son  of  God 
and  Saviouh. 

The  Man  who  was  to  redeem  all  men  and  do 
for  the  human  race  what  no  one  could  do  for  his 
brother,  was  not  born  into  the  world  as  others  are. 
The  salutation  addressed  by  the  Angel  to  Mary  His 
mother,  "Hail!  Thou  that  art  highly  favored," 
was  the  prelude  to  a  new  act  of  divine  creation ;  the 
first  Adam,  that  sinned,  was  not  bom  but  created; 
the  second  Adam,  thnt  restored,  was  born  indeed, 
but  in  supernatural  fashion.  "The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest 
ihall  overshadow  thee;  therefore  also  that  holy 
%hing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God  "  (Luke  i.  35).  Mary  received  the 
announcement  of  a  miracle,  the  full  import  of  which 
«he  could  not  have  understood,  with  the  submis- 
lion  of  one  who  knew  that  the  message  came  from 
Sod;  and  the  Angel  departed  from  her.     At  first. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

her  betrothed  husband,  when  he  heard  from  k« 
what  had  taken  place,  doul)ted  her,  but  a  super* 
natural  communication  convinced  liim  of  her  purity 
and  he  took  her  to  be  his  wife.  Not  only  was  the 
approaching  birth  of  Jesus  made  the  subject  of 
supernatural  comnumications,  but  that  of  John  the 
Baptist  the  forerunner  also.  Thus  before  the  birth 
of  either  had  actually  taken  place,  a  small  knot  of 
persons  had  been  prepared  to  expect  the  fulfillment 
of  the  divine  promises  in  the  Holy  One  that  should 
be  born  of  Mary  (Luke  i.). 

The  prophet  IMicah  had  foretold  (v.  2)  that  the 
future  king  should  be  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judaea, 
the  place  where  the  house  of  David  had  its  origin; 
but  Mary  dwelt  in  Nazareth.  Augustus,  however, 
had  ordered  a  general  census  of  the  Konian  empire, 
and  although  Jud.iea,  not  being  a  province  of  the 
empire,  would  not  necessarily  come  under  such  an 
order,  it  was  included,  prol)ably  because  the  inten- 
tion was  already  conceived  of  reducing  it  after  a 
time  to  the  condition  of  a  province  (see  Note  on 
Chronology).  That  such  a  census  was  made  we 
know  from  Cassiodorus  (  Var.  iii.  52).  That  in  its 
application  to  Palestine  it  should  be  made  with 
reference  to  Jewish  feelings  and  prejudices,  being 
caiTied  out  no  doubt  by  Herod  the  Jewish  king, 
was  quite  natural;  and  so  Joseph  and  Mary  went 
to  Bethlehem,  the  city  of  David,  to  be  taxed.  From 
the  well-known^nd  nmch- canvassed  passage  in  St. 
Luke  (ii.  2)  it  appears  that  the  taxing  was  not 
comi)leted  till  the  time  of  Quiriims  (Cyrenius),  some 
years  later;  and  how  far  it  was  carried  now,  cannot 
be  determined ;  all  that  we  learn  is  that  it  brought 
Joseph,  who  was  of  the  house  of  David,  from  his 
home  to  Bethlehem,  where  the  Lord  was  born.  As 
there  was  no  room  in  the  inn,  a  manger  was  the 
cradle  in  which  Christ  the  Lord  was  laid.  But 
signs  were  not  wanting  of  the  greatness  of  the  event, 
that  seemed  so  unimportant.  Lowly  shepherds 
were  the  witnesses  of  the  wonder  that  accompanied 
the  lowly  Saviour's  birth;  an  angel  proclaimed  to 
them  "good  tidings  of  great  joy;  "  and  then  the 
exceeding  joy  that  was  in  heaven  amongst  the  angels 
about  this  mystery  of  love  broke  through  the  silence 
of  night  with  the  words  —  "  Glory  to  God  in  the 
highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  towards 
men  "  (Luke  ii.  8-20).  We  need  not  suppose  that 
these  simple  men  were  cherishing  in  their  hearts 
the  expectation  of  the  Messiah  which  others  had 
relinquished;  they  were  chosen  from  the  humble, 
as  were  our  lord's  companions  afterwards,  in  orvler 
to  show  that  God  "  hath  chosen  the  weak  things 
of  the  world  to  confound  the  things  which  are 
mighty"  (1  Cor.  i.  26-31),  and  that  the  poor  and 
meek  could  apprehend  the  message  of  salvation  to 
which  kings  and  priests  could  turn  a  deaf  ear. 

The  sui)ject  of  the  Genealogy  of  our  Lord,  ai 
given  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Like,  is  discussed 
fully  in  another  article.  [See  Genealogy  of 
Jesus  Christ.] 

The  child  Jesus  is  circumcised  in  due  time,  it 
brought  to  the  Temple,  and  the  mother  makes  the 
offering  for  her  purification.  That  ottering  wanted 
its  peculiar  meaning  in  this  case,  which  was  an  act 
of  new  creation,  and  not  a  birth  after  the  common 
order  of  our  fallen  nature.  But  the  seed  of  the 
new  kingdom  was  to  grow  undiscemiiJy  as  yet;  no 
exemption  was  claimed  by  the  "  highly  favored  " 
mother,  and  no  portent  inten^ened.  She  made  bet 
humble  ofTering  like  any  other  Judaean  mother,  an- 
would  have  gone  her  way  unnoticed ;  but  here  to« 
God  suflTered  not  His  beloved  Son  to  be  without  t 


JESUS  CHRIST 

J,  and  Simeon  and  Anna,  taught  from  God 
that  the  object  of  their  earnest  lonijjings  was  before 
them,  prophesied  of  His  divine  work:  the  one  re- 
joicing that  his  eyes  had  seen  the  salvation  of  God, 
and  the  other  speaking  of  Him  "  to  all  that  looked 
for  redemption  in  Jerusalem"  (Luke  ii.  28-38). 

Thus  recognized  amongst  His  own  people,  the 
Saviour  was  not  without  witness  amongst  the 
heathen.  "Wise  men  from  the  East  " — that  is, 
Persian  magi  of  the  Zend  religion,  in  which  the  idea 
of  a  Zoziosh  or  Redeemer  was  clearly  known  — 
guided  miraculously  by  a  star  or  meteor  created  for 
the  purpose,  came  and  sought  out  the  Saviour  to 
pay  him  homage.  We  have  said  that  in  the  year 
747  occurred  a  remarkable  combination  of  the 
planets  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  and  this  is  supposed 
to  l)e  the  sign  by  which  the  wise  men  knew  that 
the  birth  of  some  great  one  had  taken  place.  But, 
as  has  been  said,  the  date  does  not  agree  with  this 
view,  and  the  account  of  the  Evangelist  describes  a 
single  star  moving  before  them  and  guiding  their 
steps.  We  must  suppose  that  God  saw  good  to 
speak  to  the  magi  in  their  own  way:  they  were 
seeking  light  from  the  study  of  the  stars,  whence 
only  physical  light  could  be  found,  and  He  guided 
tliem  to  the  Source  of  spiritual  light,  to  the  cradle 
of  his  Son,  by  a  star  miraculously  made  to  appear 
(o  them,  and  to  speak  intelligibly  to  them  through 
their  preconceptions.  The  offerings  which  they 
brought  have  been  regarded  as  symbolical :  the  gold 
was  tribute  to  a  king,  the  frankincense  was  for  the 
use  of  a  priest,  and  the  myrrh  for  a  body  preparing 
for  the  tomb  — 

"  Aurea  nascenti  fuderunt  munera  regi, 
Thura  dedere  Deo,  myrrham  tribuere  sepulto," 

Bays  Sedulius:  but  in  a  more  general  view  these 
were  at  any  rate  the  offerings  made  by  worshippers, 
and  in  that  light  must  the  magi  be  regarded.  The 
events  connected  with  the  birth  of  our  Lord  are 
all  significant,  and  here  some  of  the  wisest  of  the 
heathen  kneel  before  the  Redeemer  as  the  first-fruits 
of  the  Gentiles,  and  as  a  sign  that  his  dominion 
was  to  be  not  merely  Jewish,  but  as  wide  as  the 
whole  world.  (See  Matt.  ii.  1-12;  iSIiinter,  Dtr 
Stern  der  Weisen,  Copenhagen,  1827;  the  Com- 
mentaries of  Alford,  Williams,  Olshausen,  and 
Heubner,  where  the  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  star  are  discussed.) 

A  little  child  made  the  ijreat  Herod  quake  upon 
his  throne.  When  he  knew  that  the  magi  were 
come  to  hail  their  King  and  Lord,  and  did  not 
gtop  at  his  palace,  but  passed  on  to  a  humbler  roof, 
and  when  he  found  that  they  would  not  return  to 
betray  this  child  to  him,  he  put  to  death  all  the 
shildren  in  Bethlehem  that  were  under  two  years 
ol<L  Tlie  crime  was  great;  but  the  inmiber  of  the 
victims,  in  a  little  place  like  Betlilehem,  was  small 
linough  to  escape  special  record  amongst  the  wicked 
acts  of  Herod  from  Josephus  and  other  historians, 
as  it  had  no  iwlitical  interest.  A  confused  indica- 
tion of  it,  however,  is  found  in  Macrobius  {Saturn. 
ii.  4). 

Joseph,  warned  by  a  dream,  flees  to  Egypt  with  ! 
the  youncj  child,  beyond  the  reach  of  Herod's  arm.  I 
This  flight  of  our  Lord  from  his  own  land  to  the ' 
and  of  darkness  and  idolatry  —  a  land  associated  1 
#ven  to  a  proverb  with  all  that  was  hostile  to  (Jod 
ind  his  people,  impresses  on  us  the  reality  of  his 
cumiliation.  Herod's  cup  was  well  nigh  full;  and 
'X\c  doom  that  soon  overtook  him  could  base  arrested 
him  then   in  his  bloody  attempt;  but  Jesus,  in 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1349 


accepting  humanity,  accepted  all  its  incideuts.  He 
was  saved,  not  by  the  intervention  of  God,  but  by 
the  obedience  of  Joseph ;  and  from  the  storms  of 
persecution  He  had  to  use  the  conmion  means  of 
escape  (Matt.  ii.  13-23;  Thomas  a  Kempis,  iii.  15, 
and  Commentaries).  After  the  death  of  Herod,  in 
less  than  a  year,  Jesus  returned  with  his  parents  to 
their  own  land,  and  went  to  Nazareth,  where  they 
abode. 

Except  as  to  one  event  the  Evangelists  are  silent 
upon  the  succeeding  years  of  our  Lord's  life  down 
to  the  commencement  of  his  ministry.  When  He 
was  twelve  years  old  He  was  found  in  the  temple, 
hearing  the  doctors  and  asking  them  questions 
(Luke  ii.  40-52).  We  are  shown  this  one  fact  that 
we  may  know  that  at  the  time  when  the  Jews  con- 
sidered childhood  to  be  passing  into  youth,  Jesus 
was  already  aware  of  his  mission,  and  consciously 
preparing  for  it,  although  years  elapsed  before  its 
actual  commencement.  This  fact  at  once  confirms 
and  illustrates  such  a  general  expression  as  "  Jesus 
increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with 
God  and  man  "  (Luke  ii.  52).  His  public  ministry 
did  not  begin  with  a  sudden  impulse,  but  was  pre- 
pared for  by  his  whole  life.  The  consciousness  ol 
his  divine  nature  and  power  grew  and  ripened  and 
strengthened  until  the  time  of  his  showing  unto 
Israel. 

Thirty  years  had  elapsed  from  the  birth  of  our 
Lord  to  the  opening  of  his  ministry.  In  that  time 
great  changes  had  come  ovpr  the  chosen  people. 
Herod  the  Great  had  united  under  him  almost  all 
the  original  kingdom  of  David ;  after  the  death  of 
that  prince  it  was  dismembered  for  ever.  Archelaua 
succeeded  to  the  kingdom  of  Judaea,  under  the  title 
of  Ethnarch;  Herod  Antipas  became  tetrarch  of 
(lalilee  and  Peraea,  and  Philip  tetrarch  of  Tracho- 
nitis,  Gaulonitis,  Batansea,  and  Paneas.  The  Em- 
peror Augustus  promised  Archelaus  the  title  of 
king,  if  he  should  prove  worthy ;  but  in  the  tenth 
year  of  his  reign  (u.  c.  759)  he  was  deposed  in 
deference  to  the  hostile  feelings  of  the  Jews,  was 
banished  to  Vienne  in  Gaul,  and  from  that  time 
his  dominions  passed  under  the  direct  power  of 
Home,  being  annexed  to  Syria,  and  governed  by  a 
procurator.  No  king  nor  ethnarc^,  held  Judaea 
afterwards,  if  we  except  the  three  years  when  it  was 
under  Agrippa  I.  Marks  are  not  wanting  of  the 
irritation  kept  up  in  the  minds  of  the  Jews  by  the 
sight  of  a  foreigner  exercising  acts  of  power  over 
the  people  whom  David  once  ruled.  The  pubHcans 
(portitores)  who  collected  tribute  for  the  Roman 
empire  were  everywhere  detested ;  and  as  a  marked 
class  is  likely  to  be  a  degraded  one,  the  Jews  saw 
everywhere  the  most  despised  among  the  people 
exacting  from  them  all,  and  more  tl)an  all  (Luko 
iii.  13),  that  the  foreign  tyrant  required.  Constant 
changes  were  made  by  the  same  power  in  the  otiice 
of  high  priest,  perhaps  from  a  necessary  policy. 
Josephus  sajs  that  there  were  twenty-eight  high- 
priests  from  the  time  of  Herod  to  the  Inirning  of 
the  Temple  (A at.  xx.  10).  The  sect  of  .ludas  the 
Gaulonite,  which  protested  against  paying  tribute 
to  (Caesar,  and  against  bowing  the  neck  to  an  alien 
yoke,  expressed  a  conviction  which  all  Jews  shared. 
The  sense  of  oppression  and  wrong  would  tend  to 
shape  ah  the  hopes  of  a  Messiah,  so  far  as  they  still 
existed,  to  the  conception  of  a  warrior  who  should 
deliver  them  from  a  hateful  political  bondage 

It  was  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  the  Eni' 
peror,  reckoning  from  his  joint  rule  with  Augustm 
(Jan.  u.  c.  765^   a:id  not  from  hi.^  mh  rule  (Aujf 


1350  JESUS  CHRIST 

V.  c.  767),  that  John  the  Baptist  began  to  teach. 
In  this  year  (u.  c.  779)  Pontius  Pilate  was  pro- 
curator of  Judaea,  the  worldly  and  time-serving 
representative  of  a  cruel  and  imperious  master  ; 
Herod  Antipas  and  I'hihp  still  held  the  tetrarchies 
left  them  by  their  father.  Annas  and  Caiaphas  are 
both  described  as  holding  the  office  of  higli  priest; 
Annas  was  deposed  by  Valerius  Gratus  in  this  very 
year,  and  his  son-in-law  Joseph,  called  also  Caiaphas, 
was  appointed,  after  some  changes,  in  his  room; 
but  Annas  seems  to  have  retained  after  this  time 
(John  xviii.  13)  much  of  the  authority  of  the  office, 
which  the  two  administered  together.  John  the 
Baptist,  of  whom  a  full  account  is  given  below 
under  his  own  name,  came  to  preach  in  the  wilder- 
ness. He  was  the  last  representative  of  the  prophets 
of  the  old  covenant;  and  his  work  was  twofold  — 
to  enforce  re|)entance  and  the  terrors  of  the  old  law, 
and  to  revive  the  almost  forgotten  expectation  of 
the  ftlessiah  (^latt.  iii.  1-10;  Alark  i.  1-8;  Luke 
iii.  1-18).  Both  these  objects,  which  are  very 
apparent  in  his  preaching,  were  connected  equally 
with  the  coming  of  Jesus,  since  the  need  of  a 
Saviour  from  sin  is  not  felt  but  when  sin  itself  is 
felt  to  be  a  bondage  and  a  terror.  The  career  of 
John  seems  to  have  been  very  short;  and  it  has 
been  asked  how  such  great  influence  could  have 
been  attained  in  a  short  time  (Matt.  iii.  5).  But 
his  was  a  powerful  nature  which  soon  took  posses- 
sion of  those  who  came  within  its  reach;  and  his 
success  becomes  less  surjirising  if  we  assume  with 
Wieseler  that  the  preaching  took  place  in  a  sab- 
batical year  (Baumgarten,  Geschichie  Jesu,  40). 
It  is  an  old  controversy  whether  the  baptism  of 
John  was  a  new  institution,  or  an  imitation  of  the 
baptism  of  proselytes  as  practiced  ]»y  the  Jews. 
But  at  all  events  there  is  no  record  of  such  a  rite, 
conducted  in  the  name  of  and  with  reference  to  a 
particular  person  (Acts  xix.  4),  before  the  ministry 
of  John.  Jesus  came  to  Jordan  with  the  rest  to 
receive  this  rite  at  John's  hands;  first,  in  order 
that  the  sacrament  by  which  all  were  hereafter  to 
be  admitted  into  his  kingdom  might  not  want  his 
example  to  justify  its  use  (Matt.  iii.  15);  next,  that 
John  might  have  an  assurance  that  his  course  as 
the  herald  of  Christ  was  now  completed  by  his  ap- 
pearance (John  i.  33);  and  last,  that  some  pubhc 
token  might  be  given  that  He  was  indeed  the 
Anointed  of  God  (Heb.  v.  5).  A  supposed  dis- 
cre])ancy  between  Matt.  iii.  14  and  John  i.  31,  33, 
disappears  when  we  remember  that  from  the  rela- 
tionship between  the  fantilies  of  John  and  our  Lord 
(Luke  i.),  John  must  have  known  already  some- 
thing of  the  power,  goodness,  and  wisdom  of  .lesus: 
what  he  did  not  know  was,  that  this  same  Jesus 
was  the  very  3Iessiah  for  whom  he  had  come  to 
prepare  the  world.  Our  Lord  received  the  rite  of 
baptism  ut  his  servant's  hands,  and  the  lather 
attested  Him  by  the  voice  of  the  Spirit,  which  also 
was  seen  descending  on  Him  in  a  visible  shape: 
"  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased"  (Matt.  iii.  13-17;  Mark  i.  9-11;  Luke 
iii.  21,  22). 

Immediately  after  this  inauguration  of  his  min- 
istry Jesus  was  led  up  of  the  Spirit  into  the  wilder- 
ness to  be  tempted  of  the  Devil  (^L1tt.  iv.  1-1 1 ; 
Mark  i.  12,  13;  Luke  iv.  1-13).  As  the  baptism 
of  oiir  Lord  cannot  have  been  for  Him  the  token 
>f  repentance  and  intended  reformation  which  it 
ras  for  sinful  men,  so  does  our  Lord's  sinlessness 
effect  the  nature  of  his  temptation ;  for  it  was  the 
irial  of  one  who  could  not  possibly  have  fallen. 


JESUS   CHRIST 

This  makes  a  complete  conception  of  the  teniptatkni 
impossible  for  minds  wherein  temptation  is  alwayi 
associated  with  the  possibihty  of  sin.  But  whilst 
we  must  be  content  with  an  incomplete  conception, 
we  must  avoid  the  wrong  conceptions  that  are  oftec 
substituted  for  it.  Some  suppose  the  account  be- 
fore us  to  describe  what  takes  place  in  a  vision  or 
ecstasy  of  our  Lord;  so  that  both  the  temj)tation 
and  its  answer  arise  from  within.  Others  think 
that  the  temptation  was  suggested  from  within,  but 
in  a  state,  not  of  sleep  or  ecstasy,  but  of  complete 
consciousness.  Others  consider  this  narrative  to 
have  been  a  parable  of  our  Lord,  of  which  He  his 
made  Himself  the  subject.  All  these  suppcsitifng 
set  aside  the  historical  testimony  of  the  Gospfis: 
the  temptation  as  there  described  arose  not  fn-ni 
the  sinless  mind  of  the  Son  of  God,  where  indeed 
thoughts  of  evil  could  not  have  harbored,  but  iron; 
Satan,  the  enemy  of  the  human  race.  Nor  can  it 
be  supposed  that  this  account  is  a  mere  parable, 
unless  we  assume  that  Matthew  and  Luke  have 
wholly  misunderstood  their  Master's  meaning.  'J"he 
story  is  that  of  a  fact,  hard  indeed  to  be  under- 
stood, but  not  to  be  made  easier  by  explanations 
such  as  would  invalidate  the  only  testimony  on 
which  it  rests  (Heubner's  Practical  Conimtnlary 
on  Matthew). 

The  three  temptations  are  addressed  to  the  three 
forms  in  which  the  disease  of  sin  makes  its  appear- 
ance on  the  soul  —  to  the  solace  of  sense,  and  the 
love  of  praise,  and  the  desire  of  gain  (1  John  ii. 
10).  But  there  is  one  element  common  to  them 
all  —  they  are  attempts  to  call  up  a  willful  and 
wayward  spirit  in  contrast  to  a  patient  self-den}  ing 
one. 

In  the  first  temptation  the  Redeemer  is  an 
hungered,  and  when  the  Devil  bids  Him,  if  He  lie 
the  Son  of  God,  command  that  the  stones  ma\  be 
made  bread,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  great  sin 
in  this  use  of  divine  power  to  overcome  the  ])ressing 
human  want.  Our  Lord's  answer  is  required  to 
show  us  where  the  essence  of  the  temptation  lay. 
He  takes  the  words  of  INIoses  to  the  children  of 
Israel  (Deut.  viii.  3),  which  mean,  not  that  men 
must  dispense  with  bread  and  feed  only  on  the 
study  of  the  divine  word,  but  that  our  meat  iuid 
drink,  our  food  and  raiment,  are  all  the  work  of  tbe 
creating  hand  of  God ;  and  that  a  sense  of  ikjjtnd- 
ence  on  God  is  the  duty  of  man.  He  tells  the 
tempter  that  as  the  sons  of  Israel  standing  in  tbe 
wilderness  were  forced  to  humble  themselves  and 
to  wait  upon  the  hand  of  God  for  the  bread  irnm 
heaven  which  He  gave  them,  so  the  Son  of  j\Ian. 
fivinting  in  the  wilderness  from  hunger,  will  1  e 
humble  and  will  wait  upon  his  Father  in  hea\cn 
for  the  word  that  shall  bring  Him  food,  and  w^U 
not  be  hasty  to  deliver  Himself  from  that  dependent 
state,  but  will  wait  patiently  for  the  gilts  of  liie 
goodness.  In  the  second  temptation,  it  is  not  piub 
able  that  they  left  the  wilderness,  but  that  Satan 
was  allowed  to  suggest  to  our  Lord's  mind  tlie 
place,  and  the  marvel  that  could  be  wrought  there. 
They  stood,  as  has  been  suirgested,  on  the  loity 
porch  that  overhung  the  Valley  of  Kedron,  where 
the  steep  side  of  the  valley  wiis  added  to  the  height 
of  the  Temple  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  11.  §  5),  and  made 
a  depth  that  the  eye  could  scarcely  have  borne  to 
look  down  upon.  "  Cast  thyself  down  "  —  perform 
in  the  Holy  City,  in  a  public  place,  a  wonder  thai 
will  at  once  make  all  men  confess  that  none  but 
the  Son  of  God  could  perform  it.  A  passage 
from  the  91st  Psalm  is  quoted  to  give  a  color  U 


JESUS  CHRIST 

Uie  argument.  Our  Lord  replies  by  an  allusion 
to  another  text  that  carries  us  back  again  to  the 
Israelites  wandering  in  the  wilderness  •  "  Ye  shall 
not  tempt  the  Lord  your  God,  as  ye  tempted  Him 
in  Massah  "  (Deut.  vi.  IG).  Tiieir  conduct  is  more 
fully  described  by  the  I'salniist  as  a  tempting  of 
God:  "  They  tempted  God  in  their  heart  by  asking 
meat  for  their  lust;  yea,  they  spake  against  God: 
they  said,  Can  God  furnish  a  table  in  the  wilder- 
ness ?  Behold  he  smote  the  rock  that  the  waters 
gushed  out,  and  the  streams  overflowed.  Can  He 
give  bread  also?  Can  He  provide  flesh  for  his 
people?"  (l*s.  Ixxviii.)  Just  parallel  was  the 
temptation  here.  God  has  protected  Thee  so  far, 
brought  Thee  up,  put  his  seal  upon  Thee  by  man- 
ifest proofs  of  his  favor.  Can  He  do  this  also? 
Can  He  send  the  angels  to  buoy  Thee  up  in  Thy 
descent?  Can  He  make  the  air  thick  to  sustain, 
and  the  earth  soft  to  receive  Thee?  'Ihe  appro- 
priate answer  is,  "  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord 
thy  God."  In  the  third  temptation  it  is  not 
asserted  that  there  is  any  mountain  from  which  the 
eyes  of  common  men  can  see  the  world  and  its 
kingdoms  at  once  displayed ;  it  was  with  the  mental 
vision  of  One  who  knew  all  things  that  these  king- 
doms and  their  glory  were  seen.  And  Satan  has 
now  begun  to  discover,  if  he  knew  not  from  the 
beginning,  that  One  is  here  who  can  become  the 
King  over  them  all.  He  says,  "  All  these  things 
will  I  give  Thee  if  Thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worsliip 
me."  In  St.  Luke  the  words  are  fuller:  "  All  this 
power  will  I  give  Thee,  and  the  glory  of  them,  for 
that  is  delivered  unto  me,  and  to  whomsoever  I  will 
I  give  it:"  but  these  words  are  the  lie  of  the 
tempter,  which  he  uses  to  mislead.  "  Thou  art 
come  to  be  great  —  to  be  a  King  on  the  earth ;  but 
I  am  strong,  and  will  resist  Thee.  Thy  followers 
shall  be  imprisoned  and  slain ;  some  of  them  shall 
fall  away  through  fear;  others  shall  forsake  Thy 
cause,  loving  this  present  world.  Cast  in  Thy  lot 
with  me;  let  Thy  kingdom  be  an  earthly  kingdom, 
only  the  greatest  of  all  —  a  kingdom  such  as  the 
Jews  seek  to  see  established  on  the  throne  of  David. 
Worship  me  by  living  as  the  children  of  this  world 
live,  and  so  honoring  me  in  Thy  life:  then  all  shall 
36  Thine."  The  Lord  knows  that  the  tempter  is 
right  in  foretelling  such  trials  to  Him ;  but  though 
clouds  and  darkness  hang  over  the  path  of  his  min- 
istry He  must  work  the  work  of  Him  that  sent 
Him,  and  not  another  work:  He  must  worship 
God  and  none  other.  "  Get  thee  hence,  Satan ;  for 
it  is  written,  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  As  regards  the 
order  of  the  temptations,  there  are  internal  marks 
that  the  account  of  St.  JNIatthew  assigns  them  their 
historical  order:  St.  Luke  transposes  the  two  last, 
for  which  various  reasons  are  suggested  by  com- 
mentators (Matt.  iv.  1-11;  Mark  i.  12,  13;  Luke 
iv.  1-13). 

Deserting  for  a  time  the  historical  order,  we 
shall  find  that  the  records  of  this  first  portion  of 
his  ministry,  from  the  temptation  to  the  transfig- 
uration, consist  mainly  —  (1)  of  miracles,  which 
prove  his  divine  commission;  (2)  of  discourses  and 
parables  on  the  doctrine  of  "the  kingdom  of 
leaven;"  (3)  of  incidents  showing  the  behavior 
f  various  persons  when  brought  into  contact  with 
lur  I^rd.  The  two  former  may  '•equire  some  gen- 
eral remarks,  the  last  will  unfold  themselves  with 
the  nar/ative. 

1.    The  Miracles.  —  The  power  of  workhig  mir- 
idee  waa  granted  to  many  under  tl?'*  Old  Covenant : 


JESUS   CHRIST  1361 

Moses  (Ex.  iii.  20,  vii.-xi.)  delivered  the  people  of 
Israel  from  Egypt  by  means  of  them ;  and  Joshua, 
following  in  his  steps,  enjoyed  the  same  power  fot 
the  completion  of  his  work  (Josh.  iii.  13-16).  Sam- 
son (Judg.  XV.  19),  Elijah  (1  K.  xvii.  10,  &c.),  and 
Elisha  (2  K.  ii.-vi.)  possessed  the  same  gift.  Tin 
prophets  foretold  that  the  Messiah,  of  whom  Moses 
was  the  type,  would  show  signs  and  wonders  as  he 
had  done.  Isaiah,  in  describing  his  kingdom,  says 
—  "  Then  the  eyes  of  the  blind  shall  be  opened, 
and  the  ears  of  the  deaf  shall  be  unstopped.  Then 
shall  the  lame  man  leap  as  an  hart,  and  the  tongue 
of  the  dumb  sing"  (xxxv.  5,  G).  According  to 
the  same  prophet,  the  Christ  was  called  "  to  open 
the  blind  eyes,  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the 
prison,  and  them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the 
prison-house"  (xlii.  7).  And  all  who  looked  for 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah  expected  that  the  power 
of  miracles  would  be  one  of  the  tokens  of  his  com- 
mission. When  John  the  Baptist,  in  his  prison, 
heard  of  the  works  of  Jesus,  he  sent  his  disciples 
to  inquire,  "  Art  Thou  He  that  should  come  {6 
6px<^/"'f''oy  =  the  Messiah),  or  do  we  look  for  an- 
other? "  Our  Lord,  in  answer  to  this,  only  points 
to  his  miracles,  leaving  to  John  the  inference  from 
them,  that  no  one  could  do  such  works  except  the 
promised  One.  When  our  Lord  cured  a  blind  and 
dumb  demoniac,  the  people,  struck  with  the  mira- 
cle, said,  "  Is  not  this  the  Son  of  David  ?  "  (Matt, 
xii.  23).  On  another  like  occasion  it  was  asked, 
"  When  Christ  cometh  will  He  do  more  miraclm 
than  these  which  this  man  hath  done?  "  (John  vii- 
31).  So  that  the  expectation  that  Messiah  would 
work  miracles  existed  amongst  the  people,  and  was 
founded  on  the  language  of  prophecy.  Our  Lord's 
miracles  are  described  in  the  New  Testament  by 
several  names:  they  are  signs  (ar]fjL€7a)i  wonders 
(repaTa),  works  (epya,  most  frequently  in  St. 
John),  and  mighty  works  (Suvd/jLeis),  according  to 
the  point  of  view  from  which  they  are  regarded. 
They  are  indeed  astonishing  works,  v/rought  as 
signs  of  the  might  and  presence  of  God ;  and  they 
are  powers  or  mighty  works  because  they  are  such 
as  no  power  short  of  the  divine  could  have  effected. 
But  if  the  object  had  been  merely  to  work  wonders, 
without  any  other  aim  than  to  astonish' the  minds 
of  the  witnesses,  the  miracles  of  our  Lord  would 
not  have  been  the  best  means  of  producing  the 
eflTect,  since  many  of  them  were  wrought  for  the 
good  of  obscure  people,  before  witnesses  chiefly  of 
the  humble  and  uneducated  class,  and  in  the  course 
of  the  ordinary  life  of  our  Lord,  which  lay  not 
amongst  those  who  made  it  their  special  business 
to  inquire  into  the  claims  of  a  prophet.  When 
requests  were  made  for  a  more  striking  sign  than 
those  which  He  had  wrought,  for  "  a  sign  from 
heaven"  (Luke  xi.  16),  it  was  refused.  When 
the  tempter  suggested  that  He  should  cast  Himsell 
down  from  the  pinnacle  of  the  Temple  before  all 
men,  the  temptation  was  rejected.  The  miracles  of 
our  Lord  were  to  be,  not  wonders  merely,  but  signs; 
and  not  merely  signs  of  preternatural  power,  but  of 
the  scope  and  character  of  his  ministry,  and  of  the 
divine  nature  of  his  Person.  This  will  be  evident 
from  an  examination  of  those  which  are  more  par- 
ticularly described  in  the  Gospels.  Nearly  forty 
cases  of  this  khid  appear;  but  that  they  are  only 
examples  taken  out  of  a  very  great  number,  the 
Evangelists  frequently  remind  us  (John  ii.  23; 
Mat ♦■.  viii.  IG  and  parall. ;  iv.  23 ;  xii.  15  and  par- 
all.:  Luke  vi.  19;  Matt.  xi.  5:  xiii.  58;  ix.  35, 
xiv.  U,  36;  xv.  30;  xix.  2;  xxi.  J4}.    These  casM 


1852 


JESUS  CHRIST 


might  be  classified.  There  are  three  histances  of 
restoration  to  life,  each  under  peculiar  conditions : 
the  daughter  of  Jairus  was  lately  dead ;  the  wid- 
ow's son  at  Nain  was  being  carried  out  to  the 
grave ;  and  Lazarus  had  been  four  days  dead,  and 
was  returning  to  corruption  (Matt.  ix.  18;  Luke 
vii.  11,  12;  John  xi.  1,  &c.).  There  are  about  six 
cases  of  demoniac  possession,  each  with  its  own 
circumstances:  one  in  the  synagogue  at  Caper- 
naum, where  the  unclean  spirit  bore  witness  to 
Jesus  as  "the  holy  one  of  God  "  (Mark  i.  24);  a 
second,  that  of  the  man  who  dwelt  among  the 
tombs  in  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes,  whose 
state  is  so  forcibly  described  by  St.  Mark  (v.  2), 
and  who  also  bore  witness  to  Him  as  "  the  Son  of 
the  Most  High  God;  "  a  third,  the  case  of  a  dumb 
man  (Matt.  ix.  32);  a  fourth,  that  of  a  youth  who 
was  brought  to  Him  as  He  came  down  from  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration  (Matt.  xvii.  15),  and 
whom  the  disciples  had  vainly  tried  to  heal;  a 
fifth,  that  of  another  dumb  man,  whom  the  Jews 
thought  he  had  healed  "  through  Beelzebub  the 
prince  of  the  devils  "  (Luke  xi.  15);  and  a  sixth, 
that  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  girl  whose  mother's 
faith  was  so  tenacious  (Matt.  xv.  22).  There  are 
about  seventeen  recorded  cases  of  the  cure  of  Iwdily 
sickness,  including  fever,  leprosy,  palsy,  uiveterate 
weakness,  the  maimed  limb,  the  issue  of  blood  of 
twelve  years'  standing,  dropsy,  blindness,  deafness, 
and  dumbness  (John  iv.  47;  Matt.  viii.  2,  14,  ix. 
2;  John  v.  5;  Matt.  xii.  10,  viii.  5,  ix.  20,  27; 
Mark  viii.  22;  John  ix.  1;  Luke  xiii.  10,  xvii.  11, 
xviii.  35,  xxii.  51).  These  three  groups  of  mira- 
cles all  pertain  to  one  class ;  they  all  brought  help 
to  the  suffering  or  sorrowing,  and  proclaimed  what 
love  the  Man  that  did  them  bore  towards  the  chil- 
dren of  men.  There  is  another  class,  showing  a 
complete  control  over  the  powers  of  nature ;  first  by 
acts  of  creative  power,  as  when  in  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  He  made  the  water  wine ;  and  when 
He  fed  at  one  time  five  thousand,  and  at  another 
four,  with  bread  miraculously  provided  (John  ii.  7, 
vi.  10;  Matt.  xv.  32);  secondly,  by  setting  aside 
natural  laws  and  conditions  —  now  in  passing  un- 
seen through  a  hostile  crowd  (Luke  iv.  30);  now 
in  procuring  miraculous  draughts  of  fishes,  when 
the  fisher's  skill  had  foiled  (Luke  v.  4;  John  xxi. 
6);  now  in  stilling  a  tempest  (Matt.  viii.  26);  now 
in  walking  to  his  disciples  on  the  sea  (Matt.  xiv. 
25);  now  in  the  transformation  of  his  countenance 
by  a  heavenly  light  and  glory  (Matt.  xvii.  1 ) ;  and 
again  in  seeking  and  finding  the  shekel  for  the  cus- 
tomary tribute  to  the  Temple  in  the  fish's  mouth 
(Matt.  xvii.  27).  In  a  third  class  of  these  mira- 
cles we  find  our  Lord  overawing  the  wills  of  men ; 
as  when  He  twice  cleared  the  Temple  of  the  traders 
(John  ii.  13;  JNIatt.  xxi.  12);  and  when  his  look 
staggered  the  officers  that  came  to  take  Him  (John 
xviii.  6).  And  in  a  fourth  subdivision  M'ill  stand 
one  miracle  only,  where  his  power  was  used  for 
destruction  —  the  case  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (Matt. 
xxi.  18).  The  destruction  of  the  herd  of  swine 
does  not  properly  rank  here ;  it  was  a  permitted  act 
of  the  devils  which  he  cast  out,  and  is  no  more  to 
be  laid  to  the  account  of  the  Kedeemer  than  are  all 
tlie  sicknesses  and   sufferings  in  the  land  of  the 


«  The  Saviour's  miracles  are  — 
In  raising;  the  dead 
I.  Of  lOTe     \  In  curing  mental 

In  lieaiiag  the  body. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

Jews  which  He  permitted  to  waste  and  deetioj 
having,  as  He  showed  by  his  miracles,  abundani 
power  to  prevent  them.  All  the  miracles  of  thi« 
latter  class  show  our  Lord  to  be  one  who  wields  the 
power  of  God.  No  one  can  suspend  the  laws  of 
nature  save  Him  who  made  them:  when  bread  is 
wonderfully  midtiplied,  and  tl:e  fickle  sea  becomes 
a  firm  floor  to  walk  on,  the  God  of  the  universe  ia 
working  the  change,  directly  or  tlirough  his  deputy. 
Very  remarkable,  as  a  claim  to  divine  power,  is  the 
mode  in  which  Jesus  justified  acts  of  healing  on 
the  Sabbath  —  "  My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and 
I  work"  (John  v.  17):  which  means,  "As  God 
the  Father,  even  on  the  Sabbath-day,  keeps  all  the 
laws  of  the  universe  at  work,  making  the  j  Janets 
roll,  and  the  grass  grow,  and  the  animal  pidses 
beat,  so  do  I  my  work;  I  stand  above  the  law  of 
the  Sabbath,  as  He  does."  " 

On  reviewing  all  the  recorded  miracles,  we  see  st 
once  that  tliey  are  signs  of  the  nature  of  Christ's 
Person  and  mission.  None  of  them  are  done 
merely  to  astonish:  and  hardly  any  of  them,  even 
of  tliose  which  prove  his  power  more  than  his  love, 
but  tend  directly  towards  the  good  of  men  in 
some  way  or  other.  They  show  how  active  and 
unwearied  was  his  love;  they  also  show  the  diver- 
sity of  its  operation.  Every  degree  of  huiuan 
need  —  from  Lazarus  now  returning  to  dust  — 
through  the  palsy  that  has  seized  on  brain  and 
nerves,  and  is  almost  death  —  through  the  leprosy 
which,  appearing  on  the  skin,  was  really  a  subtle 
poison  that  had  tainted  every  drop  of  blood  i)i  the 
veins  —  up  to  the  injury  to  the  particular  limb  — 
received  succor  from  the  powerful  word  of  Christ; 
and  to  wrest  his  buried  friend  from  corrujition  and 
the  worm  was  neither  more  nor  less  difficult  than 
to  heal  a  withered  hand  or  restore  to  its  place  au 
ear  that  had  been  cut  off".  And  this  intimate  con- 
nection of  the  miracles  with  the  work  of  Christ  will 
explain  the  fact  that  faith  was  in  many  cases 
required  as  a  condition  for  their  perlbrmance. 
According  to  the  common  definition  of  a  miracle, 
any  one  would  seem  to  be  a  capable  witness  of  its 
performance:  yet  Jesus  sometimes  refrained  from 
working  wonders  before  the  unbelieving  (Mark  vi. 
5,  fi),  and  sometimes  did  the  work  that  was  asked 
of  him  because  of  the  faith  of  tliem  that  asked  it 
(Mark  vii.  29).  The  miracles  were  intended  to 
attract  the  witnesses  of  them  to  become  Ibllowera 
of  Jesus  and  members  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
Where  faith  was  already  so  far  fixed  on  Him  as  tc 
believe  that  He  cou.M  do  miracles,  there  was  the  fit 
preparation  for  a  faith  in  higher  and  heaveidy 
things.  If  they  knew  that  He  could  heal  the. body, 
they  only  requiretl  teaching  to  enlarge  their  view 
of  him  into  that  of  a  healer  of  the  diseased  spirit, 
and  a  giver  of  true  life  to  those  that  ai  e  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins.  On  the  other  hand,  whew 
men's  minds  were  in  a  state  of  lalterness  and  an- 
tagonism against  Him,  to  display  miracles  before 
them  would  but  increase  their  condemnation.  "  If 
I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works  which  none 
other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin;  but  now 
have  they  both  seen  and  hated  both  Me  and  mj 


In  creating. 

In  destroying. 
II    Of  power -j  In  setting  aside  the  ordinary  laws  of 
being. 

In  overawing  the  opposing  wills  of  men 
In  the  account  in  the  text,  the  uiirajles  that  tool 
place  after  the  Transfiguration  have  been  iaoloded 
for  the  sjvk«  of  corjipleteaesa. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

Father*'  (John  xv.  24).  This  result  was  inevita- 
ble :  in  order  to  offer  salvation  to  those  who  are  to 
be  saved,  the  offer  must  be  heard  by  some  of  those 
who  will  reject  it.  Miracles  then  have  two  pur- 
poses —  the  proximate  and  subordinate  purpose  of 
doing  a  work  of  love  to  them  that  need  it,  and  the 
higher  purpose  of  revealing  Christ  in  his  own  Per- 
son and  nature  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of 
men.  Hence  the  rejection  of  the  demand  for  a 
sign  from  heaven  —  for  some  great  celestial  phe- 
nomenon which  all  should  see  and  none  could 
dispute.  He  refused  to  give  such  a  sign  to  the 
"generation"  that  asked  it:  and  once  He  offered 
them  instead  the  fact  that  .Jonah  was  a  type  of 
Him  as  to  his  burial  and  resurrection:  thus  refus- 
ing them  the  kind  of  sign  which  they  required. 
So  again,  in  answer  to  a  similar  demand,  He  said, 
"  Destroy  this  temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise 
it  up  "  —  alluding  to  his  death  and  resurrection. 
It  is  as  though  He  had  said,  "  All  the  miracles 
that  I  have  been  working  are  only  intended  to  call 
attention  to  the  one  great  miracle  of  My  presence 
on  earth  in  the  form  of  a  servant.  No  other  kind 
of  miracle  will  I  work.  If  you  wish  for  a  greater 
sign,  I  refer  you  to  the  great  miracle  about  to  be 
wrought  in  Me  —  that  of  My  resurrection."  The 
lord's  words  do  not  mean  that  there  shall  be  no 
sign ;  He  is  working  wonders  daily :  but  that  He 
will  not  travel  out  of  the  plan  He  has  proposed  for 
Himself.  A  sign  in  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars 
would  prove  that  the  power  of  God  was  there ;  but  it 
would  not  teach  men  to  understand  the  mission  of 
God  Incarnate,  of  the  loving  and  suffering  friend  and 
brother  of  men.  The  miracles  which  He  wrouglit 
are  those  best  suited  to  this  purpose;  and  those 
who  had  faith,  though  but  in  small  measure,  were 
the  fittest  to  behold  them.  They  knew  Him  but 
a  little;  but  even  to  think  of  Him  as  a  Prophet 
who  was  able  to  heal  their  infirmity  was  a  germ  of 
faith  sufficient  to  make  them  fit  hearers  of  his  doc- 
trine and  spectators  of  His  deeds.  But  those 
gained  nothing  from  the  Divine  work  who,  unable 
to  deny  the  evidence  of  their  eyes  and  ears,  took 
refuge  in  the  last  argument  of  malice,  "  He  casteth 
out  devils  through  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  the 
devils." 

What  is  a  miracle  ?  A  miracle  must  be  either 
something  done  in  contravention  of  all  law,  or  it  is 
a  transgression  of  all  the  laws  known  to  us,  but 
not  of  some  law  which  further  research  may  dis- 
cover for  us,  or  it  is  a  transgression  of  all  natural 
laws,  whether  known  now  or  to  be  known  hereafter, 
on  account  of  some  higher  law  whose  operation 
interferes  with  them.  Only  the  last  of  these  def- 
initions could  apply  to  the  (Jhristian  miracles.  God 
having  chosen  to  govern  the  world  by  laws,  having 
impressed  on  the  face  of  nature  in  characters  not 
to  be  mistaken  the  great  truth  that  He  rules  the 
universe  by  law  and  order,  would  not  adopt  in  the 
kingdom  of  grace  a  different  plin  from  that  which 
\\  the  kingdom  of  nature  He  has  pursued.  If  the 
r^en  universe  requires  a  scheme  of  order,  and  the 
spiritual  world  is  governed  witliout  a  scheme  (so  to 
speak\by  caprice,  then  the  God  of  Nature  appears 
to  contradict  the  God  of  Grace.  Spinoza  has  not 
failed  to  make  the  most  of  this  argument ;  but  he 
issails  not  the  true  (Christian  idea  of  a  miracle,  but 
we  which  he  substitutes  for  it  {Trnct.  Theol. 
Pnlit.  6).  Nor  can  the  Christian  miracles  be  re- 
garded 9n  cases  in  which  the  wonder  depends  on 
ie  anticipation  only  of  some  law  that  is  not  now 
tnderstood.  but  shall  be  so  iiereafter.     In  the  firdt 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1353 


place  many  of  them  go  beyond,  in  the  amount  of 
their  operation,  all  the  wildest  hopes  of  the  scientific 
discoverer.  In  the  second  place,  the  very  concep- 
tion of  a  miracle  is  vitiated  by  such  an  explanation. 
All  distinction  in  kind  between  the  man  who  is 
somewhat  in  advance  of  his  age  in  physical  knowl- 
edge, and  the  worker  of  miracles,  would  be  taken 
away;  and  the  miracles  of  one  age,  as  the  steam- 
engine,  the  telegraph-wire,  become  the  tools  and 
toys  of  the  next.  It  remains  then  that  a  miracle 
is  to  be  regarded  as  the  overruling  of  some  physica/ 
law  by  some  higher  law  that  is  brought  in.  We 
are  invited  in  the  Gospels  to  regard  the  miracles 
not  as  wonders,  but  as  the  wonderful  acts  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  They  are  identified  with  the  work  of 
redemption.  There  are  even  cautions  against  teach- 
ing them  separately  —  against  severing  them  from 
their  connection  with  his  work.  Eye-witnesses  of 
his  miracles  were  strictly  charged  to  make  no  report 
of  them  to  others  (Matt.  ix.  30;  Mark  v.  43,  vii. 
3G).  And  yet  when  John  the  Baptist  sent  his  dis- 
ciples to  ascertain  whether  the  Messiah  were  indeed 
come  or  not,  the  answer  they  took  back  was  the 
very  thing  which  was  forbidden  to  others  —  a  report 
of  miracles.  The  explanation  of  this  seeming  con- 
tradiction is  that  wherever  a  report  of  the  signs  and 
wonders  was  likely  to  be  conveyed  without  a  right 
conception  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  the  kind 
of  doctrine  which  He  taught,  there  He  suffered  not 
the  report  to  be  earned.  Now  had  the  purpose 
been  to  reveal  his  divine  nature  onlv.  this  caution 
would  not  have  been  needed,  nor  would  faith  have 
been  a  needful  preUminary  for  the  a))prehension  of 
miracles,  nor  would  the  temptations  of  Satan  in 
the  wilderness  have  been  the  cuiming  snares  they 
were  intended  to  be,  nor  would  it  have  been  neces- 
sary to  refuse  the  convincing  sign  from  heaven  to 
the  Jews  that  asked  it.  But  the  part  of  his  work 
to  which  attention  was  to  be  directed  in  connection 
with  the  miracles,  was  the  mystery  of  our  redemp- 
tion by  One  "  who  being  in  the  form  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,  but 
made  Himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  Him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness 
of  men :  and  being  found  in  fasliion  as  a  rfian.  He 
humbled  Himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  Cross  "  (Phil.  ii.  5-8).  Very 
few  are  the  miracles  in  which  divine  power  is  exer- 
cised without  a  manifest  reference  to  the  purpose 
of  assisting  men.  He  works  for  the  most  part  as 
the  Power  of  God  in  a  state  of  humiliation  for  the 
good  of  men.  Not  insignificant  here  are  the  casea 
in  which  He  condescends  to  use  means,  wholly 
inadequate  indeed  in  any  other  hands  than  his; 
but  still  they  are  a  token  that  He  has  descended 
into  the  region  where  means  are  employed,  from 
that  in  which  even  the  spoken  word  can  control 
the  subservient  agents  of  nature.  He  laid  his  hand 
upon  the  patient  (Matt.  viii.  3,  15,  ix.  29,  xx.  34; 
Luke  vii.  14;  xxii.  51).  He  anointed  the  eyes  of 
the  blind  with  clay  (John  ix.  6).  He  put  his  finger 
into  the  ear  and  touched  the  tongue  of  the  deaf  and 
dumb  sufferer  in  Decapolis  (Mark  vii.  33,  34).  He 
treated  the  blind  man  at  Bethsaida  in  like  fashion 
(Mark  viii.  23).  Even  where  He  fed  the  five 
thousand  and  the  four.  He  did  not  create  bread 
out  of  nothing  which  would  have  been  as  easy  for 
Him,  but  much  bread  out  of  little ;  and  He  looked 
up  to  heaven  and  blessed  the  meat  as  a  thankful 
man  would  do  (Matt.  xiv.  19;  John  vi.  11;  Matt. 
XV.  36).  At  the  grave  of  Lazarus  He  lifted  up  his 
eyes  and  gave  thanks  that  the  Father  had  heard 


1854  JESUS  CHRIST 

Him  (John  xi.  41,  42),  and  this  great  miracle  is 
Mjcompanied  by  tears  an  1  groanings,  that  show  how 
Que  so  mighty  to  save  has  truly  become  a  man 
with  human  soul  and  sympathies.  The  worker  of 
the  miracles  is  God  become  Man ;  and  as  signs  of 
his  Person  and  work  are  they  to  be  measured. 
Hence,  when  the  question  of  the  credibility  of 
miracles  is  discussed,  it  ought  to  be  preceded  by 
the  question,  Is  redemption  from  the  sin  of  Adam 
a  probable  thing  ?  Is  it  probable  that  there  are 
spiritual  laws  as  well  as  natural,  regulating  the 
relations  between  us  and  the  Father  of  our  spirits  ? 
Is  it  probable  that,  such  laws  existing,  the  needs 
of  men  and  the  goodness  of  God  would  lead  to  an 
expression  of  them,  complete  or  partial,  by  means 
of  revelation  ?  If  these  questions  are  all  decided 
in  the  affirmative,  then  Hume's  argument  against 
miracles  is  already  half  overthrown.  "  No  testi- 
mony," says  Hume,  "  is  sufficient  to  establish  a 
miracle,  unless  the  testimony  be  of  such  a  kind 
that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  miraculous  than 
the  fact  which  it  endeavors  to  establish;  and  even 
in  that  case  there  is  a  mutual  destruction  of  argu- 
ments, and  the  superior  only  gives  us  an  assurance 
suitable  to  that  decree  of  force  which  remains  after 
deducting  the  inferior"  {Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  130). 
If  the  Christian  miracles  are  parts  of  a  scheme 
which  bears  other  marks  of  a  divine  origin,  they 
point  to  the  existence  of  a  set  of  spiritual  laws  with 
which  Christianity  is  connected,  and  of  which  it  is 
the  expression ;  and  then  the  difficulty  of  believing 
them  disappears,  'ihey  are  not  "  against  nature," 
but  above  it ;  they  are  not  the  few  caprices  of  Prov- 
idence breaking  in  upon  ages  of  order,  but  they  are 
glimpses  of  the  divine  spiritual  cosmos  permitted  to 
be  seen  amidst  the  laws  of  the  natural  world,  of 
which  they  take  precedence,  just  as  in  the  physical 
world  one  law  can  supersede  another.  And  as  to 
the  testimony  for  them  let  Paley  speak  :  "  If 
twelve  men,  whose  probity  and  good  sense  I  had 
long  known,  should  seriously  and  circumstantially 
relate  to  me  an  account  of  a  miracle  wrought  before 
their  eyes,  and  in  which  it  was  impossible  they 
should  be  deceived ;  if  the  governor  of  the  country, 
hearing  a  rumor  of  this  account,  should  call  those 
men  into  his  presence,  and  offer  them  a  short  pro- 
posal, either  to  confess  the  imposture  or  submit  to 
be  tied  up  to  a  gibbet;  if  they  should  refuse  with 
one  voice  to  acknowledge  that  there  existed  any 
falsehood  or  imposture  in  the  case;  if  this  threat 
•vere  communicated  to  them  separately,  yet  with 
no  different  effect ;  if  it  was  at  last  executed,  if  I 
myself  saw  them  one  after  another  consenting  to 
be  racked,  burnt,  or  strangled,  rather  than  give  up 
the  truth  of  their  account ;  .  .  .  there  exists  not 
a  skeptic  in  the  world  who  would  not  believe  them, 
or  who  would  defend  such  incredulity"  (Evidences, 
Introduction,  p.  6).  In  the  theory  of  a  "mutual 
destruction "  of  arguments  so  that  the  belief  in 
miracles  would  represent  exactly  the  balance  be- 
tween the  evidence  for  and  against  them,  Hume 
contradicts  the  commonest  religious,  and  indeed 
worldly,  experience;  he  confounds  the  state  of  de- 
liberation and  examination  with  that  of  conviction. 
When  Thomas  the  Apostle,  who  had  doubted  the 
great  central  miracle  of  the  resurrection,  was  allowed 
to  touch  the  Saviour's  wounded  side,  and  in  an 
v,cess  of  undoubting  faith  exclaimed,  "  My  Lord, 
wid  my  God !  "  who  does  not  see  that  at  that 
ittoment  all  the  former  doubts  were  wiped  out,  and 
iFore  08  though  they  had  never  been  ?  How  could 
ke  oarry  about  those  doubts  or  any  recollection  of 


JESUS  CHRIST 

them,  to  be  a  set-ofF  against  the  complete  couvift- 
tion  that  had  succeeded  them  ?  It  is  so  with  the 
Christian  life  in  every  case;  faith,  which  is  "the 
substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things 
not  seen,"  could  not  contiime  to  weigh  and  balance 
evidence  for  and  against  the  truth;  the  conviction 
either  rises  to  a  perfect  moral  certainty,  or  it  con- 
tinues tainted  and  worthless  as  a  principle  of  ac- 
tion. 

The  lapse  of  time  may  somewhat  alter  the  aspect 
of  the  evidence  for  miracles,  but  it  does  not  weaken 
it.  It  is  more  difficult  (so  to  speak)  to  cross- 
examine  witnesses  who  delivered  their  testimony 
ages  ago ;  but  another  kind  of  evidence  has  been 
gathering  strength  in  successive  ages.  The  miracles 
are  all  consequences  and  incidents  of  one  great 
miracle,  the  Incarnation;  and  if  the  Incarnation  is 
found  true,  the  rest  become  highly  prol)able.  But 
this  very  doctrine  has  been  thoroughly  proved 
through  all  these  ages.  Nations  have  adopted  it, 
and  they  are  the  greatest  nations  of  the  world. 
Men  have  lived  and  died  in  it,  have  given  up  their 
lives  to  preach  it ;  have  found  that  it  did  not  dis- 
appoint them,  but  held  true  under  them  to  the 
last.  The  existence  of  Christianity  itself  has  be- 
come an  evidence.  It  is  a  phenomenon  easy  to 
understand  if  we  grant  the  miracle  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, but  is  an  effect  without  an  adequate  cause  if 
that  be  denied. 

ftliracles  then  are  offered  us  in  the  Gospels,  not 
as  startling  violations  of  the  order  of  nature,  but  as 
consequences  of  the  revelation  of  Himself  made  by 
Jesus  Christ  for  men's  salvation,  and  as  such  they 
are  not  violations  of  order  at  all,  but  interferences 
of  the  spiritual  order  with  the  natural.  They  are 
abundantly  witnessed  by  earnest  and  competent 
men,  who  did  not  aim  at  any  earthly  reward  for 
their  teaching;  and  they  are  proofs,  together  with 
his  pure  life  and  holy  doctrine,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Son  of  God.  (See  Dean  Trench  On  the  Miracles, 
an  important  work;  [Mozley,  Bamptoii  Lectures^ 
1865;]  Baumgarten,  Leben  Jesu ;  Paley's  Evi- 
dences; Butler's  Analogy;  Hase,  Leben  Jesu;  with 
the  various  Commentaries  on  the  New  Testament.) 

2.  The  Parables.  —  In  considering  the  Lord's 
teaching  we  turn  first  to  the  jiarables.  In  all  ages 
the  aid  of  the  imagination  has  been  sought  to  assist 
in  the  teaching  of  abstract  truth,  and  that  in  various 
ways:  in  the  paral)le,  where  some  story  of  ordinary 
doings  is  made  to  convey  a  spiritual  meaning,  be- 
yond what  the  narrative  itself  contains,  and  without 
any  assertion  that  the  narrative  does  or  does  not 
present  an  actual  occurrence:  in  the  fable,  where 
a  story,  for  the  most  part  an  impossible  one,  o'' 
talking  beast  and  reasoning  bird,  is  made  the  vehicle 
of  some  shrewd  and  prudent  lesson  of  worldly  T\i3 
dom:  in  the  allegory,  which  is  a  story  with  a  moi-al 
or  spiritual  meaning,  in  which  the  lesson  taught  is 
so  prominent  as  almost  wholly  to  supersede  the 
story  that  clothes  it,  and  the  names  and  actions 
are  so  chosen  that  no  interpreter  shall  be  required 
for  the  application  :  and  lastly,  in  the  proverb, 
which  is  often  only  a  parable  or  a  fal)le  condensed 
into  a  few  pithy  words  [Parable]  (Eniesti,  Lex. 
Tech.  Gracum,  under  ivapa^oK-i),  \6yoSy  i.\\7)yif 
pi  a;  Trench,  On  the  Parables  ;  A 1  ford  on  Matt 
xiii.  1,  and  other  Commentators;  Hase,  Leben  Jesu, 
§  67,  4th  ed.;  Neander,  Leben  Jesu,  p.  5G8,  foil.). 
Nearly  fifty  parables  are  preserved  in  the  Gospela 
and  they  are  only  selected  from  a  larger  numbei 
(Mark  iv.  33).  Each  Evangelist,  even  St.  Mark 
has  preserved  some  that  are  pecuUar  to  hirasell 


JESUS  CHRISl 

Bi.  John  never  uses  tJie  word  parable,  bu*  that  of 
proverb  (wapoifxia),  which  the  other  EvangeHsts 
Qowliere  employ.  In  reference  tc  this  mode  of 
teaching,  our  Lord  tells  the  disciples,  "  Unto  you 
it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  but  to  others  in  parables,  that  seeing  they 
might  not  see,  and  hearing  tliey  might  not  under- 
stand "  (Luke  viii.  10);  and  some  have  hastily  con- 
cluded from  this  that  the  parable  —  the  clearest  of 
all  modes  of  teaching  —  was  employed  to  conceal 
knowledge  from  those  who  were  not  susceptible  of 
it.  and  that  this  was  its  chief  purpose.  But  it  was 
cliosen  not  for  this  negative  object,  but  for  its 
positive  advantages  in  the  instruction  of  the  dis- 
ci (iles.  The  nature  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
nut  understood  even  by  disciples;  hard  even  to  them 
were  the  sayings  that  described  it,  and  the  hearing 
of  tliera  caused  many  to  go  back  and  walk  no  more 
with  Him  (John  vi.  66).  If  there  was  any  mode 
of  teaching  better  suited  than  another  to  the  pur- 
pose of  preserving  truths  for  the  memory  that  were 
not  yet  accepted  by  the  heart  —  for  keeping  the 
seed  safe  till  the  time  should  arrive  for  the  quicken- 
ing Spirit  to  come  down  and  give  it  growth  —  that 
mode  would  be  the  best  suited  to  the  peculiar  posi- 
tion of  the  disciples.  And  any  means  of  translating 
an  abstract  thought  into  sensuous  language  has 
ever  been  the  object  of  poet  and  teacher  in  all 
countries.  He  who  can  best  employ  the  symbols 
of  the  visible  world  for  the  deeper  acts  of  thought 
has  been  the  clearest  and  most  successful  expositor. 
The  parable  affords  just  such  an  instrument  as  was 
required.  Who  could  banish  from  his  mind,  when 
once  understood,  the  image  of  the  house  built  on 
the  sand,  as  the  symbol  of  the  faithless  soul  unable 
to  stand  by  the  truth  in  the  day  of  temptation  V 
To  whom  does  not  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son 
bring  back  the  thought  of  God's  merciful  kindness 
towards  the  erring?  But  witliout  such  striking 
images  it  would  have  been  impossible  (to  use  mere 
human  language)  to  make  known  to  the  disciples 
in  their  half- enlightened  state  the  mysteries  of  faith 
in  the  Son  of  God  as  a  principle  of  life,  of  repent- 
ance from  sin,  and  of  an  assurance  of  peace  and 
welcome  from  the  God  of  mercy.  I^kstern  teachers 
have  made  this  mode  of  instruction  familiar;  the 
originality  of  the  parables  lay  not  in  the  method 
of  teaching  by  stories,  but  in  the  profound  and  new 
truths  which  the  stories  taught  so  aptly.  And 
Jesus  had  another  purpose  in  selecting  this  form 
of  Instruction:  lie  foresaw  that  many  would  reject 
Him,  and  on  them  He  would  not  lay  a  heavier 
burden  thati  they  needs  must  bear.  lie  did  not 
offer  them  d^ily  and  hourly,  in  their  plainest  form, 
the  grand  truths  of  sin  and  atonement,  of  judgment 
and  heaven  and  hell,  and  in  so  doing  multiply 
(iccasions  of  I)laspheming.  *'  Those  that  were  with- 
out" heard  the  parable;  but  it  was  an  aindess  story 
to  tliem  if  they  sought  no  moral  purpose  under  it, 
and  a  dark  saying,  passing  comprehension,  if  they 
did  so  seek.  When  the  Lord  gathered  round  Him 
those  that  were  willing  to  be  his,  and  explained  to 
thein  at  length  the  parable  and  its  application 
(Matt.  xiii.  10-18 ),  then  the  light  thus  thrown  on 
.t  was  not  easy  to  extinguish  in  their  memory. 
And  amongst  th  )se  witliout  there  was  no  doubt  a 
iifFerence;  some  listened  with  indifferent,  and  some 
fith  unl)elieving  and  resisting  minds;  and  of  both 
tiiads  some  remained  in  their  aversion,  nj*"'e  or 
less  active,  from  the  Son  of  God  unto  the  end,  and 
^omc  were  converted  after  He  was  risen.  To  th'^se 
ire  ma}  suppose  tliat  the  parables  which  had  rested 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1355 


in  their  memories  as  vivid  pictures,  yet  still  a  dead 
letter,  so  far  as  moral  import  is  concerned,  becauM 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  business  it  was  to  teach 
men  all  things  and  to  bring  all  things  to  their 
remembrance  (John  xiv.  26),  a  quick  and  powerfa 
light  of  truth,  lighting  up  the  dark  places  with  a 
brightness  never  again  to  fade  from  their  eyes. 
The  parable  unapplied  is  a  dark  saying ;  the  parable 
exjjlained  is  the  clearest  of  all  teaching.  When 
language  is  used  in  Holy  Scripture  which  would 
seem  to  treat  the  parables  as  means  of  concealment 
rather  than  of  instruction,  it  must  be  taken  to  refer 
to  the  unexplained  parable  —  to  the  cypher  with- 
out the  key  —  the  symbol  without  the  interpreta- 
tion. 

Besides  the  parables,  the  more  direct  teaching  of 
our  Lord  is  conveyed  in  many  discourses,  dispersed 
through  the  Gospels;  of  which  three  may  be  here 
selected  as  examples,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
(Matt,  v.-vii.),  the  discourse  after  the  feeding  of 
tiie  five  thousand  (.John  vi.  22-65),  and  the  finaJ 
discourse  and  prayer  which  preceded  the  i'assion 
(John  xiv.-xvii.).  These  are  selected  principally 
because  they  mark  three  distinct  periods  in  the 
ministry  of  Jesus,  the  opening  of  it,  the  principal 
change  in  the  tone  of  its  teaching,  and  the  solemn 
close. 

Notwithstanding  the  endeavor  to  establish  that 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  of  St.  Matthew  is  dif- 
ferent from  the  Sermon  on  the  Plain  of  St.  Luke, 
the  evidence  for  their  being  one  and  the  same  dis- 
course greatly  preiwnderates.  If  so,  then  its  his- 
torical position  must  be  fixed  from  St.  Luke;  and 
its  earlier  place  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  must  be 
owing  to  the  Evangelist's  wish  to  commence  the 
account  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  with  a  summary 
of  his  teaching ;  an  intention  further  illustrated  by 
the  mode  in  which  the  Evangelist  has  wrought  in 
with  his  report  of  the  discourse  several  sayings 
which  St.  Luke  connects  with  the  various  facts 
which  on  different  occasions  drew  them  forth  (comp. 
Luke  xiv.  3-1,  xi.  33,  xvi.  17,  xii.  58,  59,  xvi.  18, 
with  places  in  Matt.  v. ;  also  Luke  xi.  1-4,  xii.  33, 
3-1,  xi.  34-36,  xvi.  13,  xii.  22-31,  with  places  iji 
3Iatt.  vi.;  also  Luke  xi.  9-13,  xiii.  24,  25-27,  with 
places  in  Matt.  vii.).  Yet  this  is  done  without 
violence  to  the  connection  and  structure  of  the 
whole  discourse.  Matthew,  to  whom  Jesus  is  ever 
present  as  the  Messiah,  the  Anointed  Prophet  of 
the  chosen  people,  the  successor  of  Moses,  sets  at 
the  head  of  his  ministry  the  giving  of  the  Christian 
law  with  its  bearing  on  the  .Jewish.  From  Luke 
we  learn  that  Jesus  had  gone  up  into  a  mountain 
to  pray,  that  on  the  morning  following  He  made 
up  the  number  of  his  twelve  Apostles,  and  soleniidy 
appointed  them,  and  then  descending  He  sto-id 
upon  a  level  place  (Kara^as  fxer  avrav  iCTf]  eVI 
rSnou  TfeStvou,  Luke  vi.  17),  not  necessarily  at  the 
bottom  of  the  mountain,  but  where  the  multitude 
could  stand  round  and  hear;  and  t'ere  he  taught 
them  in  a  solemn  address  the  laws  and  constitution 
of  his  new  kingdom,  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.  He 
tells  them  who  are  meet  to  be  citizens  of  that 
heavenly  polity,  and  in  so  doing  rebukes  almost 
every  quality  on  which  the  world  sets  a  value.  The 
poor  in  spirit,  that  is  the  lowly-niinded,  the  mourn- 
ers and  the  meek,  those  who  hunger  and  thirst  fof 
righteousness,  the  merciful,  the  pure,  and  the  peace- 
makers, are  all  "  blessed,"  are  all  possessed  of  the 
temper  which  will  assort  well  with  that  heavenly 
kingdom,  in  contrast  to  the  proud,  the  confident^ 
the  great  and  suc-essfu.-,  whom  the  world  honors. 


1366 


JESUS  CHRIST 


(St.  Luke  adds  denunciations  of  woe  to  the  tempers 
which  are  opposed  to  the  Gospel,  which  St.  Matthew 
omits.)  This  novel  exordium  startles  all  the  hearers, 
for  it  seems  to  proclaim  a  new  world,  new  hopes,  and 
uow  virtues ;  and  our  Lord  then  proceeds  to  meet  the 
question  that  rises  up  in  their  minds  —  "  If  these 
dispositions  and  not  a  literal  ohedience  to  minute 
precepts  constitute  a  Christian,  what  then  becomes 
of  the  law"?  "  Answering  this  tacit  objection,  the 
Lord  bids  them  "  think  not  that  I  am  come  to  de- 
stroy {Karahvaai,  abolish)  the  law  and  the  prophets, 
I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfill  "  {irKripcoa-aL, 
complete,  Matt.  v.  17).  He  goes  on  to  tell  them 
that  not  one  point  or  letter  of  the  Law  was  written 
in  vain ;  that  what  was  temporary  in  it  does  not 
fall  away  till  its  purpose  is  answered,  what  was  of 
permanent  obligation  shall  never  be  lost.  He  tiien 
shows  how  far  more  deep  and  searching  a  moral 
lawgiver  He  is  than  was  JNIoses  his  prototype,  who 
lilte  Him  spoke  the  mind  of  God.  The  eternal 
principles  which  Moses  wrote  in  broad  lines,  such 
as  a  dull  and  unspiritual  people  nmst  read.  He 
applies  to  deeper  seated  sins  and  to  all  the  finer 
shades  of  evil.  Murder  was  denounced  by  the  Law; 
but  anger  and  provoking  speech  are  of  the  same 
stock.  It  is  not  only  murder,  but  hate,  that  is  the 
root  of  that  poisonous  fruit  which  God  abhors. 
Hate  defiles  the  very  offering  that  a  man  makes  to 
God ;  let  him  leave  his  gift  unoffered,  and  get  the 
hate  cast  out,  and  not  waste  his  time  in  an  unac- 
ceptable sacrifice.  Hate  will  aflfect  the  soul  forever, 
if  it  goes  out  of  the  world  to  meet  its  Judge  in 
that  defiling  garment;  "agree  with  thine  adversary 
quickly,  whiles  thou  art  in  the  way  with  him  " 
(ver.  25).  The  act  of  adultery  is  deadly,  and  Moses 
forbade  it.  But  to  permit  the  thought  of  lust  to 
rest  in  the  heart,  to  suflfer  the  desire  to  linger  there 
without  combating  it  {fi\4ireiv  vphi  rh  iTtiBuixri- 
aai)  is  of  the  same  nature,  and  shares  the  condem- 
nation. The  breach  of  an  oath  (Lev.  xix.  12)  was 
forbidden  by  the  Law;  and  the  rabbinical  writers 
had  woven  a  distinction  between  oaths  that  were 
and  oaths  that  were  not  binding  (Maimonides  in 
Lightfoot,  [lor.  Heb.  ii.  p.  127).  Jesus  shows  that 
all  oaths,  whether  they  name  the  Creator  or  not, 
are  an  appeal  to  Him,  and  all  are  on  that  account 
equally  binding.  But  the  need  of  an  oath  "  cometh 
of  evil ;  "  the  bare  asseveration  of  a  Christian  should 
be  as  solemn  and  sacred  to  him  as  the  most  binding 
oath.  That  this  in  its  simple  literal  application 
would  go  to  abolish  all  swearing  is  beyond  a  ques- 
tion ;  but  the  Lord  is  sketching  out  a  perfect  Law 
for  a  perfect  kingdom;  and  this  is  not  the  only 
part  of  the  sermon  on  the  Mount  which  in  the 
present  state  of  the  world  cannot  be  carried  out 
completely.  Men  there  are  on  whom  a  word  is  less 
binding  than  an  oath ;  and  in  judicial  proceedings 
the  highest  test  must  be  applied  to  them  to  elicit 
the  truth ;  therefore  an  oath  must  still  form  part 
of  a  legal  process,  and  a  good  man  may  take  wliat 
is  really  kept  up  to  control  the  wicked.  Jesus  Him- 
self did  not  refuse  the  oath  administered  to  Him 
in  the  Sanhedrim  (Matt.  xxvi.  63).  And  yet  tlie 
need  of  an  oath  "cometh  of  evil,"'  for  among  men 
who  respect  the  truth  it  would  add  nothing  to  the 
weight  of  their  evidence.  41niost  the  same  would 
ipply  to  the  precepts  with  which  our  Lord  replaces 
Jiff  much-abused  law  of  retaliation,  "  An  eye  for 
»n  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth "  (Ex.  xxi.  24). 
To  conquer  an  enemy  by  submission  where  he 
Sipectod  resistance  is  of  the  very  essence  of  the 
oospel;  it  is  an  exact  imitation  of  our  Lord's  own 


JESUS  CHRIST 

example,  who,  when  He  might  have  siimmcned 
more  than  twelve  legions  of  Angels  to  his  aid 
allowed  the  Jews  to  revile  and  slay  Him.  And  yet 
it  is  not  possible  at  once  to  wipe  out  from  our 
social  arrangements  the  principle  of  retribution. 
The  robber  who  takes  a  coat  nmst  not  be  encouraged 
to  seize  the  cloak  also;  to  give  to  every  one  that 
asks  all  that  he  asks  woiild  be  an  encouragement 
to  sloth  and  shameless  importunity.  But  yet  the 
awakened  conscience  will  find  out  a  hundred  ways 
in  which  the  spirit  of  this  precept  may  be  caiTied 
out,  even  in  our  imperfect  social  state;  and  the 
power  of  this  loving  policy  will  be  felt  by  those  who 
attempt  it.  Finally,  our  Lord  sums  up  this  portion 
of  his  divine  law  by  words  full  of  sublime  wisdom. 
To  the  cramped  and  confined  love  of  the  Kabbis, 
"  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  and  hate  thine 
enemy,"  He  opposes  this  nobler  rule  —  "  Love  your 
enemies,  bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to 
them  that  haie  you,  and  pray  for  them  which 
despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you,  that  ye 
may  be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven ;  for  He  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil 
and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and 
on  the  unjust.  .  .  .  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect"  (Matt, 
v.  44,  45,  48).  To  this  part  of  the  seimon,  which 
St.  Luke  has  not  preserved,  but  which  St.  Matthew, 
writing  as  it  were  with  his  face  turned  towards  his 
Jewish  countrymen,  could  not  pretermit,  succeed 
precepts  on  almsgiving,  on  prayer,  on  forgiveness, 
on  fasting,  on  trust  in  God's  providence,  and  on 
tolerance ;  all  of  them  tuned  to  one  of  two  notes : 
that  a  man's  whole  nature  nmst  be  offered  to  God, 
and  that  it  is  man's  duty  to  do  to  others  as  he 
would  have  them  do  to  him.  An  earnest  appeal  on 
the  difficulty  of  a  godly  life,  and  the  worthlcssness 
of  mere  profession,  cast  in  the  form  of  a  parable, 
concludes  this  wonderful  discourse.  The  differences 
between  the  reports  of  the  two  Evangehsts  are 
many.  In  the  former  Gospel  the  sermon  occupies 
one  hundred  and  seven  verses:  in  the  latter,  thirty. 
The  longer  report  includes  the  exposition  of  the 
relation  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Law:  it  also  draws 
together,  as  we  have  seen,  some  passages  which  St. 
Luke  reports  elsewhere  and  in  another  connection ; 
and  where  the  two  contain  the  same  matter,  that 
of  Luke  is  somewhat  more  compressed.  But  m 
taking  account  of  this,  tlie  purpose  of  St.  Matthew 
is  to  be  bonie  in  mind :  the  morality  of  the  Gospel 
is  to  be  fully  set  forth  at  the  beginning  of  our 
Lord's  ministr}',  and  especially  in  its  bearing  on 
the  Law  as  usually  received  by  the  Jews,  for  wliose 
use  especially  this  Gospel  was  designed.  And  when 
this  discourse  is  compared  with  the  later  examples 
to  which  we  shall  presently  refer,  the  fact  comes  out 
more  distinctly,  that  we  have  here  the  Code  of  the 
Christian  Lawgiver,  rather  than  the  whole  Gospel; 
that  the  standard  of  Christian  duty  is  here  fixed, 
but  the  means  for  raising  men  to  the  level  where 
the  observance  of  such  a  law  is  at  all  possible  are 
not  yet  pointed  out.  The  hearers  learned  how 
Christians  would  act  and  think,  and  to  what  degree 
of  moral  purity  they  would  aspire,  in  the  state  of 
salvation ;  but  how  that  state  was  to  be  purchased 
for  them,  and  conveyed  over  to  them,  is  not  ye* 
pointed  out. 

The  next  example  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  must 
be  taken  from  a  later  epoch  in  his  ministry.  It  ii 
probable  that  the  great  discourse  in  John  vi.  took 
place  about  the  time  of  the  Transfiguration,  ju« 
before  which  He  began  to  reveal  U>  the  disc'ples  tli» 


JESUS   CHRIST 

itory  of  his  sufferings  (Matt.  xvi.  and  parallels), 
vrhich  was  the  special  and  frequent  theme  of  his 
teaching  until  the  end.  The  effect  of  his  personal 
work  ou  the  disciples  now  becomes  tne  prominent 
subject.  He  had  tauglit  them  that  He  was  the 
Christ,  and  had  given  them  his  law,  wider  and 
deeper  far  than  that  of  Moses.  But  the  objection 
to  every  law  applies  more  strongly  the  purer  and 
higher  the  law  is;  and  •'  how  to  perform  that  which 
I  will "  is  a  question  that  grows  more  difficult  to 
answer  as  the  standard  of  obedience  is  raised.  It 
is  that  question  which  our  Lord  proceeds  to  answer 
here.  The  feeding  of  the  five  tliousand  had  lately 
taken  place;  and  from  this  miracle  He  preaches  yet 
a  greater,  namely,  that  all  spiritual  life  is  imparted 
to  the  disciples  from  Him,  and  that  tliey  must  feed 
on  Him  that  their  souls  may  Hve.  He  can  feed 
them  with  something  more  than  manna,  even  witli 
Himself;  "  for  the  bread  of  God  is  He  whicli  cometh 
down  from  heaven  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world  " 
(John  vi.  26-40).  The  Jews  murmur  at  this  hard 
doctrine,  and  He  warns  them  that  it  is  a  kind  of 
test  of  those  who  have  been  with  Him :  "  No  man 
can  come  to  Me  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent 
Me  draw  him."  He  repeats  that  He  is  tlie  bread 
of  life;  and  they  murmur  yet  more  (vers.  41-52). 
He  presses  it  on  them  still  more  strongly :  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no 
life  in  you.  Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
blood  hath  eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at 
the  last  day.  For  ray  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and 
my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh, 
and  drinketh  my  blood,  dwelleth  in  me  and  I  in 
him.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I 
live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he 
shall  live  by  me"  (vv.  53-57).  After  this  dis- 
course many  of  the  disciples  went  back  and  walked 
no  more  with  Him.  They  could  not  conceive  how 
salvation  could  depend  on  a  condition  so  strange, 
nay,  even  so  revolting.  However  we  may  blame 
them  for  their  want  of  confidence  in  their  Teacher, 
it  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  them  as  a  fault  that  they 
found  a  doctrine,  which  in  itself  is  difficult,  and 
here  was  clotlied  in  dark  and  obscure  expressions, 
beyond  the  grasp  of  their  understanding  at  that 
time.  For  that  doctrine  was,  that  Christ  had  taken 
our  fleshly  nature,  to  suffer  in  it,  and  to  slied  his 
blood  in  it;  and  that  those  to  whom  the  benefits 
of  his  atoning  death  are  imparted  find  it  to  be 
their  spiritual  food  and  life,  and  the  condition  of 
their  resurrection  to  life  everlasting. 

VVliether  this  passage  refers,  and  in  what  degree, 
to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  a  ques- 
tion on  which  commentators  have  been  much  di- 
vided, but  two  observations  should  in  some  degree 
guide  our  interpretation :  tlie  one,  that  if  the  pn- 
mary  reference  of  the  discourse  had  l>eeji  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  it  would  have  been  uttered  at  the 
Institution  of  that  rite,  and  not  before,  at  a  time 
when  the  disciples  could  not  possibly  make  applica- 
ton  of  it  to  a  sacrament  of  which  they  had  never 
fen  heard ;  the  other,  that  the  form  of  speech  in 
this  discourse  comes  so  near  that  which  is  used  in 
instituting  the  Lord's  Supper,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  exclude  all  reference  to  that  Sacrament.  The 
Redeemer  here  alludes  to  his  death,  to  the  body 
wrhich  shall  suffer  on  the  Cross,  and  to  the  blood 
i^hich  shall  be  poured  out.  This  great  sacrifice  is 
not  only  to  be  locked  on,  but  to  be  believed-  and 
Dot  only  believed,  but  appropriated  to  the  believer, 
to  become  part  of  his  very  heart  and  life.     Faith, 


JESUS  CHRIST  1367 

here  as  elsewhere,  is  the  means  of  apprehending  it, 
but  when  it  is  once  laid  hold  of,  it  will  be  as  muclr 
a  part  of  the  believer  as  the  food  that  nourishes  th« 

I  body  becomes  incorporated  with  the  body.  In  three 
passages  in  the  other  Evangelists,  in  which  our 
Lord  about  this  very  time  prepares  them  for  his 
sufferings.  He  connects  with  the  announcement  a 
warning  to  the  disciples  that  all  who  would  come 
after  Him  must  show  the  fruit  of  his  death  in  their 
lives  (Matt,  xvi.,  Mark  viii.,  Luke  ix.).  And  this 
new  principle,  infused  into  them  by  the  life  and 
death  of  the  Redeemer,  by  his  taking  our  flesh  and 
then  suffering  in  it  (for  neither  of  these  is  excluded), 
is  to  believers  the  seed  of  eternal  life.  The  be- 
Uever  '-hath  eternal  hfe;  and  I  will  raise  him  up 
at  the  last  day"  (John  vi.  54).  Now  the  words 
of  Jesus  in  instituting  the  lord's  Supper  come  very 
near  to  the  expressions  in  this  discourse :  "  This  is 
ray  body  which  is  given  for  you  {inrep  u/jlwu)  ■  •  . 
This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood,  which 
is  shed  for  you"  (Luke  xxii.  19,  20).  That  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  means  of  applying  to  us  through 
faith  the  fruits  of  the  incarnation  and  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  is  generally  admitted;  and  if  so, 
the  discourse  before  us  will  apply  to  that  sacrament, 
not  certainly  to  the  exclusion  of  other  means  of 
appropriating  the  saving  death  of  Christ,  but  still 
with  great  force,  inasmuch  as  the  l^ord's  Supper  is 
the  most  striking  symbol  of  the  application  to  us 
of  the  Lord's  body.  Here  in  a  bold  figure  the  dis- 
ciples are  told  that  they  must  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ 
and  drink  his  blood ;  whilst  in  the  sacrament  the 
same  figure  becomes  an  act.  Here  the  language  is 
meant  to  be  general;  and  there  it  finds  its  most 
striking  special  application,  but  not  its  only  one. 
And  the  uttering  of  these  words  at  an  epoch  that 
preceded  by  some  months  the  first  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  probably  intended  to  pre- 
clude that  special  and  limited  application  of  it 
which  would  narrow  it  down  to  the  sacrament  only, 
and  out  of  which  much  false  and  even  idolatrous 
teaching  has  grown.  (Compare  Commentaries  of 
Alford,  Liicke,  Meyer,  Stier,  Heubner,  Williams, 
Tholuck,  and  others,  on  this  passage.)  It  will  still 
be  asked  how  we  are  to  account  for  the  startling 
form  in  which  this  most  profound  Gospel-truth  was 
put  before  persons  to  whom  it  was  likely  to  prove 
an  offense.  The  answer  is  not  difficult.  Many 
had  companied  with  the  I^rd  during  the  early  part 
of  his  ministry,  to  see  his  miracles,  perhaps  to  de- 
rive some  fruit  from  them,  to  talk  about  Him,  and 
to  repeat  his  sayings,  who  were  quite  unfit  to  go 
on  as  his  followers  to  the  end.  There  was  a  wide 
dift'erence  between  the  two  doctrines,  that  Jesus  was 
the  Christ,  and  that  the  Christ  nmst  hang  upon 
the  tree,  as  to  their  effects  on  unregenerate  and 
worldly  minds.  For  the  latter  they  were  not  pre- 
pared: though  many  of  them  coidd  possibly  accept 
the  former.  Now  this  discourse  beloj  gs  -o  the 
time  of  transition  from  the  easier  to  the  harder 
doctrine.  And  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  meant 
to  sift  the  disciples,  that  the  good  grain  might  re- 
main in  the  garner  and  the  chaff  be  scattered  to 
the  wind.  Hence  the  hard  and  startling  form  in 
which  it  was  cast;  not  indeed  that  this  figure  of 

j  eating  and  drinking  in  reference  to  spiritual  things 

i  was  wliolly  unknown  to  Jewish  teachers,  for  Light- 
foot,   Schtittgen,    and  Wetstein,   have   shown   the 

j  contrary.  But  hard  it  doubtless  was ;  and  if  th«j 
condition  of  discipleship  had  been  that  they  should 
then  and  there  understand  what  they  heard,  theil 
taming  back  at  this  time  would  have  b«eu  irievit- 


1368 


JESUS  CHRIST 


»ble.  But  even  on  the  twelve  Jesus  imposes  no 
Buch  condition.  He  only  asks  them,  "  Will  ye  also 
go  away?"  If  a  beloved  teacher  says  something 
n^hich  overturns  the  previous  notions  of  the  taught, 
and  shocks  their  prejudices,  then  whether  they  will 
continue  by  his  side  to  hear  him  explain  further 
what  they  find  difficult,  or  desert  him  at  once, 
will  depend  on  the  amount  of  their  confidence  in 
him.  Slany  of  the  disciples  went  back  and  walked 
no  more  with  Jesus,  because  their  conviction  that 
He  was  the  Messiah  had  no  real  foundation.  The 
rest  remained  with  Him  for  the  reason  so  beauti- 
fully expressed  by  Peter:  "  Lx)rd,  to  whom  shall 
we  go  ?  Thou  hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.  And 
we  believe  and  are  sure  that  Thou  art  that  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God"  (John  vi.  68,  69). 
The  sin  of  the  faint-hearted  followers  who  now 
deserted  Him  was  not  that  they  found  this  diffi- 
cult; but  that  finding  it  difficult  they  had  not 
confidence  enough  to  wait  for  light. 

The  third  example  of  our  Lord's  discourses 
which  may  be  selected  is  that  which  closes  his 
ministry  —  "  Now  is  the  Son  of  Man  glorified,  and 
God  is  glorified  in  Him.  If  God  be  glorified  in 
Him,  God  shall  also  glorify  Him  in  Himself,  and 
Bhall  straightway  glorify  Him"  (John  xiii.  31,  32). 
This  great  discourse,  recorded  only  by  St.  John, 
extends  from  the  thirteenth  to  the  end  of  the  seven 
teenth  chapter.  It  hardly  admits  of  analysis.  It 
announces  the  Saviour's  departure  in  the  fulfillment 
of  his  mission ;  it  imposes  the  "  new  commandment  " 
on  the  disciples  of  a  special  love  towards  each  other 
which  should  be  the  outward  token  to  the  world  of 
their  Christian  profession;  it  consoles  them  with 
the  promise  of  the  Comforter  who  should  be  to 
them  instead  of  the  Saviour;  it  tells  them  all  that 
He  should  do  for  them,  teaching  them,  reminding 
them,  reproving  the  world  and  guiding  the  disciples 
into  all  truth.  It  offers  them,  instead  of  the  bodily 
presence  of  their  beloved  Master,  free  access  to  the 
throne  of  his  Father,  and  spiritual  blessings  such 
as  they  had  not  known  before.  Finally,  it  cul- 
minates in  that  sublime  pmyer  (ch.  xvii.)  by  which 
the  High-priest  as  it  were  consecrates  Himself  the 
victim;  and  so  doing,  prays  for  those  who  shall 
hold  fiist  and  keep  the  benefits  of  that  sacrifice, 
offered  for  the  whole  world,  whether  his  disciples 
already,  or  to  be  brought  to  Him  thereafter  by  the 
ministry  of  Apostles.  He  wills  that  they  shall  be 
with  Him  and  behold  his  glory.  He  recognizes 
the  righteousness  of  the  Father  in  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation, and  in  the  result  produced  to  the  disciples; 
in  whom  that  highest  and  purest  love  wherewith 
the  Father  loved  the  Son  shall  be  present,  and  with 
and  in  that  love  the  Son  Himself  shall  be  present 
with  them.  "  With  this  elevated  thought,"  says 
( /Ishausen,  "  the  Kedeemer  concludes  his  prayer 
l'>r  the  disciples,  and  in  them  for  the  Church 
through  all  ages.  He  has  compressed  into  the  last 
moments  given  Him  for  intercourse  with  his  own 
the  most  sublime  and  glorious  sentiments  ever 
uttered  by  human  hps.  Hardly  has  the  sound  of 
►he  last  word  died  away  when  Jesus  passes  with 
his  disciples  over  the  brook  Kedron  to  Gethsemane ; 
vnd  the  bitter  conflict  draws  on.  The  seed  of  the 
view  world  must  be  sown  in  death  that  thence  life 
way  spring  up." 

These  three  discourses  are  examples  of  the  Sav- 
»our'8  teaching  —  of  its  progressive  character  from 
the  opening  Of  his  ministry  to  the  close.  The  first 
5zhibits  his  practical  precepts  as  Lawgiver  of  his 
people;  the  second,  an  exposition  of  the  need  of  hia 


JESUS  CHRIST 

1  sacrifice,  but  addressed  to  the  world  without,  and 
intended  to  try  them  rather  than  to  attract;  and 
the  third,  where  Christ,  the  Lawgiver  and  the  High- 
j)riest,  stands  before  God  as  the  Son  of  God,  and 
speaks  to  Him  of  his  inmost  counsels,  as  one  who 
had  known  them  from  the  lieginning.  They  will 
serve  as  illustrations  of  the  course  of  his  doctrine; 
whilst  others  will  be  mentioned  in  the  narrative  as 
it  proceeds. 

The  Scene  of  the  LoriVs  Ministry.  —  As  to  the 
scene  of  the  ministry  of  Christ,  no  less  than  as  to 
its  duration,  the  three  Evangelists  -seem  at  first 
sight  to  be  at  variance  with  the  fourth.  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  record  only  our  Lord's  doings  in 
Galilee ;  if  we  put  aside  a  few  days  before  the  Pas- 
sion, we  find  that  they  never  mention  his  visiting 
Jerusalem.  John,  on  the  other  hand,  whilst  he 
records  some  acts  in  Galilee,  devotes  the  chief  part 
of  his  Gospel  to  the  transactions  in  Judaea.  But 
when  the  supplemental  character  of  John's  Gospel 
is  borne  in  mind  there  is  Uttle  difficulty  in  explain- 
ing this.  The  three  Evangehsts  do  not  profeas  to 
give  a  chronology  of  the  ministry,  but  rather  a 
picture  of  it:  notes  of  time  are  not  frequent  in 
their  narrative.  And  as  they  chiefly  confined  them- 
selves to  Galilee,  where  the  Kedeemer's  chief  acts 
were  done,  they  might  naturally  omit  to  mention 
the  feasts,  which  being  passed  by  our  Lord  at  Jeru- 
salem, added  nothing  to  the  materials  for  his  Gal- 
ilean ministry.  John,  on  the  other  hand,  writing 
later,  and  giving  an  account  of  the  Redeemer's 
life  which  is  still  less  complete  as  a  history  (for 
more  than  one  half  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  occupied 
with  the  last  three  months  of  the  ministry,  and 
seven  chapters  out  of  twenty-one  are  filled  with 
the  account  of  the  few  days  of  the  Passion),  vindi- 
cates his  historical  claim  by  sujjplying  several  pre- 
cise notes  of  time:  in  the  occurrences  after  the 
baptism  of  Jesus,  days  and  even  hours  are  speci- 
fied (i.  29,  35,  39,  43,  ii.  1);  the  fii-st  miracle  is 
mentioned,  and  the  time  at  which  it  was  wrought 
(ii.  1-11).  He  mentions  not  only  the  Passovers 
(ii.  13,  23;  vi.  4;  xiii.  1,  and  perhaps  v.  1).  but 
also  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  (vii.  2)  and  of  Dedi- 
cation (x.  22);  and  thus  it  is  ordered  that  the 
Evangelist  who  goes  over  the  least  part  of  the 
ground  of  our  Ix)rd'8  ministry  is  yet  the  same  who 
fixes  for  us  its  duration,  and  enaldes  us  to  arrange 
the  facts  of  the  rest  more  exactly  in  their  historical 
places.  It  is  true  that  the  three  (Jospels  record 
chiefly  the  occurrences  in  Galilee:  but  there  is  evi- 
dence in  them  that  labors  were  wrouglit  in  Judsea. 
Frequent  teaching  in  Jerusalem  is  implied  in  the 
Ix)r(l*s  lamentation  over  the  lost  city  (Matt,  xxiii. 
37).  The  appearance  in  Galilee  of  scribes  and 
Pharisees  and  others  from  Jerusalem  (Matt.  iv.  25, 
XV.  1)  would  be  best  explained  on  the  supposition 
that  their  enmity  had  been  excited  against  Him 
during  visits  to  Jerusalem.  The  intimacy  with 
the  family  of  Lazarus  (Luke.  x.  38  ft"),  and  the 
attachment  of  .Joseph  of  Arimathsea  to  the  Lord 
(Matt,  xxvii.  57),  would  imply,  most  probably, 
frequent  visits  to  Jerusalem.  But  why  was  Galilee 
chosen  as  the  principal  scene  of  the  ministry? 
The  question  is  not  easy  to  answer.  The  prophet 
would  resort  to  the  Temple  of  God ;  the  King  of 
the  Jews  would  go  to  his  own  royal  city;  the 
Teacher  of  the  chosen  people  would  preach  in  the 
midst  of  them.  But  their  hostility  prevented  it 
The  Saviour,  who,  accepting  all  the  infirmities  of 
"the  form  of  a  servant,"  which  He  had  taken,  fled 
in  his  childhood  to  Egypt,  betakes  Himself  to  (iai 


JESUS  CHRIST 

dee  to  avoid  Jewish  hatred  and  machinations,  and 
I»y8  the  foundations  of  his  church  amid  a  people 
af  impure  and  despised  race.  To  Jerusalem  He 
Bomes  occasionally,  to  teach  and  suffer  persecution, 
ind  tiually  to  die :  "  foi-  it  cannot  be  that  a  prophet 
perish  out  of  Jerusalem  "  (Luke  xiii.  33;.  It  was 
upon  the  first  outbreak  of  persecution  against  Him 
that  He  left  Judaea:  "  When  Jesus  had  heard  that 
John  was  cast  into  prison,  He  departed  into  Gal- 
ilee "  (Matt.  iv.  12).  And  that  this  persecution 
aimed  at  Him  also  we  gather  from  St.  John: 
"  When  therefore  the  Lord  knew  how  that  the 
Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John  ...  He  left  Judaea  and 
deiKirted  into  Galilee"  (iv.  1,  3).  If  the  light  of 
the  JSun  of  Righteousness  shone  on  the  Jews  hence- 
ibrward  Irom  the  far-off  shores  of  the  Galilean  lake, 
it  was  because  they  had  refused  and  abhorred  that 
light. 

Dardtion  of  the  Ministry.  —  It  is  impossible  to 
determine  exactly  from  the  Gospels  the  number  of 
years  during  which  the  Redeemer  exercised  his 
ministry  before  the  Passion;  but  the  doubt  lies 
between  two  and  three;  for  the  opinion,  adopted 
from  an  interpretation  of  Isaiah  Ixi.  2  by  more  than 
one  of  the  ancients,  that  it  lasted  only  one  year, 
cannot  be  borne  out  (Kuseb.  iii.  24;  Clem.  Alex. 
Strom,  lib.  i.  c.  21 ;  Origen,  Princ.  iv.  5).  The  data 
are  to  be  drawn  from  St.  John.  This  Evangelist 
mentions  six  feasts,  at  five  of  which  Jesus  was  pres- 
ent; the  Passover  that  followed  his  baptism  (ii.  13); 
•'  a  feast  of  the  Jews  "  {eoprr]  without  the  article, 
v.  1),  a  Passover  during  which  Jesus  remahied  m 
Galilee  (vi.  4);  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  which 
the  Lord  went  up  privately  (vii.  2);  the  feast  of 
Dedication  (x.  22);  and  lastly  the  feast  of  Pass- 
over, at  which  He  suffered  (xii.,  xiii.).  There  are 
certainly  three  Passovers,  and  it  is  possible  that 
"a  feast"  (v.  1)  may  be  a  fourth.  Upon  this 
possibility  the  question  turns.  Liicke  in  his  Com- 
mentary (vol.  ii.  p.  1),  in  collecting  with  great 
research  the  various  opinions  on  this  place,  is  un- 
able to  arrive  at  any  definite  conclusion  upon  it, 
and  leaves  it  unsolved.  But  if  this  feast  is  not  a 
Passover,  then  no  Passover  is  mentioned  by  John 
between  the  first  (ii.  13),  and  that  which  is  spoken 
of  in  the  sixth  chapter;  and  the  time  between 
those  two  must  be  assumed  to  be  a  single  year 
only.  Now,  although  the  record  of  John  of  this 
period  contains  but  few  facts,  yet  when  all  the 
Kvangelists  are  compared,  the  amount  of  labor 
compressed  into  this  single  year  would  be  too  much 
for  its  compass.  The  time  during  which  Jesus 
was  baptizing  (by  his  disciples)  near  the  Jordan 
vas  probably  considerable,  and  lasted  till  John's 
imprisonment  (John  iii.  22-36,  and  see  below). 
The  circuit  round  Galilee,  mentioned  in  Matt.  iv. 
23-25,  was  a  missionary  journey  through  a  country 
of  considerable  population,  and  containing  two 
hundred  towns;  and  this  would  occupy  some  time. 
But  another  such  journey  of  the  most  comprehen- 
sive kind,  is  undertaken  m  the  same  year  (Luke 
viii.  1),  in  which  He  "  went  throughout  every  city 
and  village."  And  a  thu'd  circuit  of  the  same 
kind,  and  equally  general  v^Matt.  ix.  35-38),  would 
clo.se  the  same  year.  Is  it  at  a"  probable  that 
Jesus,  after  spending  a  considerable  time  in  Judaea, 
would  be  able  to  make  three  circuits  of  Galilee  in 
the  remainder  of  the  year,  preaching   and  dohig 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1369 


•«  The  article  is  inserted  in  many  manuscripts,  in- 
llndiog  *\xii  Sinaitic,  and  tills  reading  is  adopted  by 


wonders  in  the  various  places  to  which  He  came? 
This  would  be  more  likely  if  the  journeys  were 
hurried  and  partial;  but  all  three  are  spoken  of  as 
though  they  were  the  very  opposite.  It  is,  to  say  the 
least,  easier  to  suppose  that  the  "  feast "  (John  v. 
1)  was  a  Passover,  dividing  the  time  hito  two,  and 
throwing  two  of  these  circuits  into  the  second  year 
of  the  n)inistry;  provided  there  be  nothing  to  make 
this  interpretation  improbable  in  itself.  The  words 
are,  "  After  this  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews ;  and 
Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem."  These  two  facts 
are  meant  as  cause  and  effect ;  the  feast  caused  the 
visit.  If  so,  it  was  probably  one  of  the  three  feasts 
at  which  the  Jews  were  expected  to  appear  before 
God  at  Jerusalem.  Was  it  the  Passover,  the  Pen- 
tecost, or  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles?  In  the  pre- 
ceding chapter  the  Passover  has  been  spoken  of  as 
"the  feast"  (ver.  45);  and  if  another  feast  \\ero 
meant  here  the  name  of  it  would  have  been  added, 
as  in  vii.  2,  x.  22.  The  omission  of  the  article  is 
not  decisive,"  for  it  occurs  in  other  cases  where  the 
Passover  is  certainly  intended  (Matt,  xxvii.  15; 
Mark  xv.  6);  nor  is  it  clear  that  the  Passover  was 
called  t/ie  feast,  as  the  most  eminent,  although  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  sometimes  so  described. 
All  that  the  omission  could  prove  would  be  that 
the  ICvangelist  did  not  think  it  needful  to  describe 
the  least  more  precisely.  The  words  iti  John  iv. 
35,  "  There  are  yet  four  months  and  then  cometh 
harvest,"  would  agree  with  this,  for  the  barley  har- 
vest began  on  the  IGth  Nisan,  and  reckoning  back 
four  months  would  bring  this  conversation  to  the 
beginning  of  December,  i.  e.  the  middle  of  Kisleu. 
If  it  be  granted  that  our  Lord  is  here  merely  quot- 
ing a  conunon  form  of  speech  (Alford),  still  it  is 
more  likely  that  He  would  use  one  appropriate  tc 
the  time  at  which  He  was  speaking.  And  if  these 
words  were  uttered  in  December,  the  next  of  thf 
three  great  feasts  occurring  would  be  the  Passover 
The  sliortness  of  the  interval  between  v.  1  and  vi 
4,  would  afford  an  objection,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
scantiness  of  historical  details  in  the  early  part  of 
the  ministry  in  St.  John:  from  the  other  Evan- 
gelists it  appears  that  two  great  journeys  might 
have  to  be  included  between  these  \'erses.  Upon 
the  whole,  though  there  is  nothing  that  amounts 
to  proof,  it  is  probable  that  there  were  four  Pass- 
overs, and  consequently  that  our  Lord's  ministry 
lasted  somewhat  more  than  three  years,  the  "  be- 
ginning of  miracles  "  (John  ii. )  having  been  wrought 
before  the  first  Passover.  On  data  of  calculation 
that  have  already  been  mentioned,  the  year  of  the 
first  of  these  Passovers  was  u.  c.  780,  and  the 
Baptism  of  our  Lord  took  place  either  in  the  begin- 
ning of  that  year  or  the  end  of  the  year  preceding. 
The  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  began  in  u.  C. 
779.  (See  Commentaries  on  John  v.  1,  especiallj 
Kuiniil  and  Liicke.  Also  Winer,  lie'fliodrteilmch, 
Art.  Jesus  Christ;  Greswell,  Dissertations,  \o\.  i. 
Diss.  4,  voL  ii.  Dls&.  22.) 

After  this  sketch  of  the  means,  the  scene,  and 
the  duration  of  the  Saviour's  ministry,  the  his- 
torical order  of  the  events  may  be  followed  without 
interruption. 

Our  Lord  has  now  passed  through  the  ordeal  of 
temptation,  and  his  ministry  is  begun.  At  Beth 
abara,  to  which  He  returns,  disciples  be?in  to  be 
drawn  towards  Him ;  a.i drew  and  Another,  prob- 
ably John,  the  sole  narrator  of  the  fact,  see  Jesus, 


Tisohendorf  in  the 

(1864). 


ed.  of  his  Synopsis  Eva-xgeliea 


1360  JESUS  CHRIST 

and  hear  the  Baptist's  testimony  conceniing  Him. 
Andrew  brings  Simon  Peter  to  see  Him  also;  and 
He  rectiives  from  the  Lord  the  name  of  Cephas. 
Then  Philip  and  Nathanael  are  brought  into  con- 
tact with  our  Lord.  All  these  reappear  as  Apostles, 
if  Nathanael  be,  as  has  often  been  supposed,  the 
same  as  Bartholomew ;  but  the  time  of  their  calling 
to  that  office  was  not  yet.  But  that  their  minds, 
even  at  this  early  time,  were  wrought  upon  by  the 
expectation  of  the  Messiah  appears  by  the  confes- 
sion of  Nathanael :  "  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God ; 
Thou  art  the  King  of  Israel"  (John  i.  35-51). 
The  two  discijiles  last  named  saw  Ilim  as  He  was 
about  to  set  out  for  (ialilee,  on  the  third  day  of  his 
Bojourn  at  Bethalara.  The  third  day«  after  this 
interview  Jesus  is  at  Cana  in  Galilee,  and  works 
his  first  miracle,  by  making  the  water  wine  (John 
i.  29,  35,  43;  ii.  P.  All  these  particulars  are  sup- 
plied from  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  come  in  between 
the  11th  and  12th  verses  of  the  4th  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew.  They  show  that  our  Lord  left  Galilee 
expressly  to  be  baptized  and  to  suffer  temptation, 
and  returned  to  his  own  country  when  these  were 
accomplished.  He  now  betakes  Himself  to  Caper- 
naum, and  after  a  sojourn  there  of  "not  many 
days,"  sets  out  for  Jerusalem  to  the  Passover,  which 
was  to  be  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  iu  Juda;a 
(John  ii.  12,  13). 

The  cleansing  of  the  Temple  is  associated  by  St. 
John  with  this  first  Passover  (ii.  12-22),  and  a 
similar  cltansing  is  assigned  to  the  last  Passover 
by  the  other  ICvangelists.  These  two  cannot  be 
unfounded  without  throwing  discredit  on  the  his- 
torical character  of  one  narrative  or  the  other;  the 
notes  of  time  are  too  precise.  But  a  host  of  inter- 
preters have  pointed  out  the  probability  that  an 
action  symbolical  of  the  power  and  authority  of 
Messiah  should  be  twice  performed,  at  the  opening 
of  the  ministry  and  at  its  close.  1"he  expulsion  of 
the  traders  was  not  likely  to  produce  a  permanent 
effect,  and  at  the  end  of  three  years  Jesus  found 
the  tumult  and  the  traffic  defiling  the  court  of  the 
Temple  as  they  had  done  when  He  visited  it  before. 
Besides  the  difference  of  time,  the  narrative  of  St. 
John  is  by  no  means  identical  with  those  of  the 
others;  he  mentions  that  Jesus  made  a  scourge  of 
email  cords  {(ppayfXXtov  iK  (Txoiviuv,  ii-  15)  as  a 
symbol  —  we  need  not  prove  that  it  could  be  no 
more  —  of  his  power  to  punish;  that  here  He  cen- 
sured them  for  making  the  Temple  "  a  house  of 
merchandise,"  whilst  at  the  last  cleansing  it  was 
pronounced  "  a  den  of  thieves,"  with  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  two  passages  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah 
(Is.  Ivi.  7 ;  Jer.  vii.  11).  Writers  like  Strauss  would 
persuade  us  that  "  tact  and  good  sense  "  would  pre- 
vent the  Pedeemer  from  attempting  such  a  violent 
measure  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  before 
his  authority  was  admitted.  The  aptness  and  the 
greatness  of  the  occasion  have  no  weight  with  such 
critics.  The  usual  sacrifices  of  the  law  of  Jehovah, 
ind  the  usual  half-shekel  pand  for  tribute  to  the 
Temple,  the  very  means  that  were  appointed  by 
God  to  remind  them  that  they  were  a  consecrated 
people,  were  made  an  excuse  for  secularizing  even 
the  Temple;  and  in  its  holy  precincts  all  the  busi- 
ness of  the  world  went  on.  It  was  a  time  when 
"  the  zeal  of  God's  house  "  might  well  supersede 
the  "  tact  "  on  which  the  German  philosopher  lays 
itress;  and  Jesus  failed  not  in  the  zeal,  nor  did  the 


•  o  ThiB  third  day  may  be  reckoned  from  different 
niou.     rBfTHABAKV,  Amer.  ed.]  U. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

accusing  consciences  of  the  traders  fail  to  jiietity  it, 
for  at  the  rebuke  of  one  man  they  retreated  from 
the  scene  of  their  gains.  Their  hearts  told  them 
even  though  tliey  had  been  long  inmiersed  in  hard- 
ening traffic,  that  the  house  of  God  could  belong 
to  none  other  but  God;  and  Mhen  a  Prophet 
claimed  it  for  Him,  conscience  deprived  them  of 
the  power  to  resist,  hnmediately  after  this,  the 
Jews  asked  of  Huii  a  sign  or  jtroof  of  his  riglit  to 
exercise  this  authority  He  answered  them  by  a 
promise  of  a  sign  by  which  He  would  herealter 
confirm  his  mission,  "  Destroy  this  'lemple  and  in 
three  days  I  will  raise  it  up"  (John  ii.  liJ).  allud- 
ing, as  the  EvangeUst  explains,  to  his  resurrection. 
But  why  is  the  name  of  the  buihliiig  before  them 
applied  by  our  Lord  so  darkly  to  Himself  V  There 
is  doubtless  a  hidden  reference  to  the  Temple  as  a 
type  of  the  Church,  which  Christ  by  his  death  and 
resurrection  would  found  and  raise  up.  He  who 
has  cleared  of  buyers  and  sellers  the  courts  of  a 
perishable  Temple  made  with  hands,  will  prove 
hereafter  that  He  is  the  Founder  of  an  eternal 
Temple  made  without  hands,  and  your  destroying 
act  shall  be  the  cause.  The  reply  was  indeed  ob- 
scure; but  it  was  meant  as  a  refusal  of  their 
demand,  and  to  the  disciples  afterwards  it  became 
abundantly  clear.  At  the  time  of  the  Passion  this 
saying  was  brought  against  Him,  in  a  perverted 
form  —  "  At  the  last  came  two  false  witnesses,  and 
said,  This  fellow  said,  I  am  able  to  destroy  the 
temple  of  God,  and  to  build  it  in  three  days" 
(Matt.  xxvi.  61).  They  hardly  knew  perhaps  how 
utterly  false  a  small  alteration  in  the  tale  had  made 
it.  They  wanted  to  hold  him  up  as  one  who  dared 
to  thuik  of  the  destruction  of  the  Temple ;  and  to 
change  "  destroy "  into  "  I  can  destroy,"  might 
seem  no  great  violence  to  do  to  the  truth.  But 
those  words  contained  not  a  mere  circumstance  but 
the  very  essence  of  the  saying,  '•  you  are  the  de- 
stroyers of  the  Temple;  you  that  were  polluting  it 
now  by  turning  it  into  a  market-place  shall  destroy 
it,  and  also  your  city,  by  staining  its  stones  with  my 
blood."  Jesus  came  not  to  destroy  the  Temple  but 
to  widen  its  foundations;  not  to  destroy  the  law 
but  to  complete  it  (Matt.  v.  17).  Two  syllables 
changed  their  testimony  into  a  lie. 

The  visit  of  Nicodemus  to  Jesus  took  place  about 
this  first  Passover.  It  implies  that  our  Lord  had 
done  more  at  Jerusalem  than  is  recorded  of  Him 
even  by  John;  since  we  have  here  a  Master  of 
Israel  (John  iii.  10),  a  member  of  the  Sanliedrim 
(John  vii.  50),  expressing  his  behef  in  Him,  although 
too  timid  at  this  time  to  make  an  open  profession. 
The  object  of  the  visit,  though  not  directly  stated, 
is  still  clear:  he  was  one  of  the  better  Pharisees, 
who  were  expecting  the  kingdom  of  Messiah,  and 
having  seen  the  miracles  that  Jesus  did,  he  came 
to  inquire  more  fully  about  these  sigr.s  of  its  ap- 
proach. This  indicates  the  connection  between  the 
remark  of  Nicodemus  and  the  Lord's  reply :  "  You 
recognize  these  miracles  as  signs  of  the  kingdon. 
of  God ;  verily  I  say  unto  you,  no  one  can  truly  se« 
and  know  the  kingdom  of  God,  unless  he  be  born 
again  (6j'a)0€»', /'W  above:  see  Lightfoot,  T/w. 
Ihbr.  in  loc,  vol.  iv.).  The  visitor  boasted  the 
blood  of  Abraliam.  and  expected  to  stand  high  in 
the  new  kingdom  in  virtue  of  that  birthriglit.  He 
did  not  wish  to  surrender  it,  and  set  his  hopes 
upon  some  other  birth  (comp.  Matt.  iii.  9):  and 
there  is  something  of  willfulness  in  the  question  — 
"How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old?  "  (vet 
4).    Our  Lord  again  uislsts  on  the  necessit,y  of  Um 


JESUb   CHRIST 

renewed  heart,  in  him  who  would  be  admitted  to 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  new  birth  is  real 
though  it  is  unseen,  like  the  wind  which  blows 
hither  and  thither  though  the  eye  cannot  watch  it 
save  in  its  effects.  Ev  »n  so  the  Spirit  sways  the 
heart  towards  good,  carries  it  away  towards  heaven, 
brings  over  the  soul  at  one  time  the  cloud,  at  an- 
other the  sunny  weather.  The  sound  of  Him  is 
heard  in  the  soul,  now  as  the  eager  east  wind  bring- 
ing pain  and  remorse ;  now  breathing  over  it  the 
soft  breath  of  consolation.  In  all  this  He  is  as 
powerful  as  the  wind ;  and  as  unseen  is  the  mode 
of  his  operations.  For  the  new  birth,  of  water  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  which  none  can  come 
to  God,  faith  in  the  Sou  of  God  is  needed  (ver.  18) ; 
and  as  implied  in  that,  the  renouncing  of  those  evil 
deeds  that  bUnd  the  eyes  to  the  truth  (vv.  19,  20). 
It  has  been  well  said  that  this  discourse  contains 
the  whole  Gospel  in  epitome ;  there  is  the  kingdom 
of  grace  into  which  God  will  receive  those  who  have 
offended  Him,  the  new  truth  which  God  the  Holy 
Spirit  will  write  in  all  those  who  seek  the  kingdom ; 
and  God  the  Son  crucified  and  slain  that  all  who 
would  be  saved  may  look  on  Him  when  He  is  lifted 
up,  and  find  health  thereby.  The  three  Persons 
of  the  Trinity  are  all  before  us  carrying  out  the 
scheme  of  man's  salvation.  If  it  be  asked  how 
Nicodemus,  so  timid  and  half-hearted  as  yet,  was 
allowed  to  hear  thus  early  in  the  ministry  what  our 
Lord  kept  back  even  from  his  disciples  till  near  the 
end  of  it,  the  answer  must  be,  that,  wise  as  it  was 
to  keep  bade  from  the  general  body  of  tlie  hearers 
the  doctrine  of  the  Crucifixion,  the  Physician  of 
souls  would  treat  each  case  with  the  medicine  tliat 
it  most  required.  Nicodemus  was  an  inquiring 
spirit,  ready  to  believe  all  the  Gospel,  but  for  his 
Jewish  prejudices  and  his  social  position.  He  was 
one  whom  even  the  shadow  of  the  Cross  would  not 
estrange ;  and  the  Lord  knew  it,  and  laid  open  to 
him  all  the  scheme  of  salvation.  Not  in  vain.  The 
tradition,  indeed,  may  not  be  thoroughly  certain, 
which  reports  his  oi^en  conversion  and  his  baptism 
by  Peter  and  John  (Phot.  Biblioth.  Cod.  171). 
But  three  years  after  this  conversation,  when  all 
the  disciples  have  been  scattered  by  the  death  of 
Jesus,  he  comes  forward  with  Joseph  of  Arimathaea, 
at  no  little  risk,  although  with  a  kind  of  secrecy 
still,  to  perform  the  last  offices  for  the  Master  to 
whom  his  soul  cleaves  (John  xix.  39). 

After  a  sojourn  at  Jerusalem  of  uncertain  dura- 
tion, Jesus  went  to  the  Jordan  with  his  disciples ; 
and  they  there  baptized  in  his  name.  The  Baptist 
was  now  at  Mixon  near  Salim ;  and  the  jealousy  of 
his  disciples  against  Jesus  drew  from  John  an 
avowal  of  his  position,  which  is  remarkable  for  its 
humiUty  (John  iii.  27-30),  "  A  man  can  receive 
nothing  except  it  be  given  him  from  heaven.     Ye 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1361 


«  *  We  have  the  data,  on  the  whole,  for  a  probable 
eonclusion  in  regard  to  this  question.  If  the  Saviour 
passed  through  Samaria  near  the  end  of  November  or 
the  beginning  of  December  (about  4  months  before  the 
time  of  harvest)  he  must  have  spent  the  interval  be- 
tween the  Passover  and  that  time  (John  ii.  13  and  iv. 
85)  at  Jerusalem  and  in  Judaea,  i.  e.,  about  8  months. 
Of  course  there  is  some  doubt  whether  in  speaking  of 
the  interval  between  sowing  and  reaping  as  "  four 
months "  lie  employed  the  language  of  a  proverb 
merely,  or  meant  that  this  was  the  actual  time  to 
elapse  before  the  fields  around  them  just  sown  would 
yielfi  a  harvest.  Even  if  such  a  proverb  was  iri  use 
(wMcn  has  not  been  shown)  his  availing  Himself  of  it 
vould  be  the  more  significant  if  the  4  months  of  the 


yourselves  bear  me  witness,  that  I  said,  I  am  not 
the  Christ,  but  that  I  have  been  sent  before  Ilim 
He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom;  but  the 
friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which  standeth  and  heareth 
him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bridegroom's 
voice:  this  my  joy  therefore  is  fulfilled.  He  must 
increase,  but  I  nmst  decrease."  The  speaker  is  one 
who  has  hitherto  eiyo^ed  the  highest  honor  and 
popularity,  a  prophet  extolled  by  all  the  people. 
Before  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  his  reflected  light 
is  turning  pale ;  it  shall  soon  be  extinguished.  Yet 
no  word  of  reluctance,  or  of  attempt  to  cling  to  a 
temporary  and  departing  greatness,  escapes  him. 
"  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease."  It  had 
been  the  same  before ;  when  the  Sanhedrim  sent  to 
inquire  about  him  he  claimed  to  be  no  more  than 
"  the  voice  of  One  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Make 
straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  the  prophet 
Esaias"  (John  i.  23);  there  was  one  "  who  coming 
after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  whose  shoe's  latchet 
I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose"  (i.  27).  Strauss 
thinks  this  height  of  self-renunciation  beautiful,  but 
impossible  {Leben  Jesu,  ii.  ],  §  46);  but  what  divine 
influence  had  worked  in  the  Baptist's  spirit,  adorn- 
ing that  once  rugged  nature  with  the  grace  of 
humility,  we  do  not  admit  that  Dr.  Strauss  is  in  a 
position  to  measure. 

How  long  this  sojourn  in  Judaea  lasted  is  uncer- 
tain.«  But  in  order  to  reconcile  John  iv.  1  with 
Matt.  iv.  12,  we  must  suppose  that  it  was  much 
longer  than  the  "  twenty-six  or  twenty-seven  "  days, 
to  which  the  learned  Mr.  Gresvvell  upon  mere  con- 
jecture would  limit  it.  From  the  two  passages 
together  it  would  seem  that  John  was  after  a  short 
time  cast  into  prison  (Matt.),  and  that  Jesus,  seeing 
that  the  enmity  directed  against  the  Baptist  would 
now  assail  Him,  because  of  the  increasing  success 
of  his  ministry  (John),  resolved  to  withdraw  from 
its  reach. 

In  the  way  to  Galilee  Jesus  passed  by  the  shortest 
route,  through  Samaria.  This  country,  peopled  by 
men  from  five  districts,  whom  the  king  of  Assyria 
had  planted  there  in  the  time  of  Hoshea  (2  K. 
xvii.  24,  (fee),  and  by  the  residue  of  the  ten  tribes 
that  was  left  behind  from  the  Captivity,  had  once 
abounded  in  idolatry,  though  latterly  faith  in  the 
true  God  had  gained  ground.  The  Samaritans 
even  claimed  to  share  with  the  people  of  Judaea  the 
restoration  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  were 
repulsed  (Ezra  iv.  1-3).  In  the  time  of  our  I^rd 
they  were  hated  by  the  Jews  even  more  than  if  they 
had  been  Gentiles.  Their  corrupt  worship  was  a 
shadow  of  the  true ;  their  temple  on  Gerizim  was  a 
rival  to  that  which  adorned  the  hill  of  Zion.  "  He 
that  eats  bread  from  the  hand  of  a  Samaritan," 
says  a  Jewish  writer,  "  is  as  one  that  eats  swine's 
flesh."  Yet  even  in  Samaria  were  souls  to  be  saved; 

proverb  happened  on  this  occasion  to  coincide  with 
the  season  of  the  year. 

It  may  be  added  that  so  prolonged  a  sojourn  of  the 
Saviour  in  Judaea  at  this  time  accounts  best  for  his 
having  so  many  friends  and  followers  in  that  province 
who  are  mentioned  quite  abruptly  in  the  later  parta 
of  the  history.  The  Bethany  family  (John  xi.  1  ff.), 
the  owner  of  the  guest-chamber  (Luke  xxli.  10  ff.),  the 
owner  of  Gethsemane  (which  must  have  belonged  to 
some  one  friendly  to  Him),  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  (Luke 
xxiii.  50),  and  others  (Luke  xix.  33  ff.),  are  examples 
of  this  discipleship,  more  or  less  intimate,  the  origin 
of  which  presupposes  some  such  sojourn  in  Judaea  al 
this  early  period  ot  Christ's  ministry.  a 


1362 


JESUS  CHRIST 


and  Jesus  would  not  shake  off  even  that  dust  from 
his  feet.  He  came  in  his  journey  to  Sichem,  which 
the  Jews  in  mockery  had  chanj^^ed  to  Sychar,  to 
indicate  that  its  people  were  drunkards  (Lightfoot), 

or  that  they  followed  idols  ("P.^j  Kelaiid,  see  Hab. 

ii.  18).  Wearied  and  athirst  He  sat  on  the  side 
of  Jacob's  well.  A  woman  from  the  neij^hboring 
town  came  to  draw  from  the  well,  and  was  aston- 
ished that  a  Jew  should  address  her  as  a  neighbor, 
with  a  request  for  water.  The  conversation  that 
ensued  might  be  taken  for  an  example  of  the  mode 
in  which  Christ  leads  t»j  Himself  the  souls  of  men. 
The  awakening  of  her  attention  to  the/privilege  she 
is  enjoying  in  connnuning  with  Him  (John  iv.  10- 
15);  the  self-knowledge  and  self-conviction  which 
He  arouses  (vv.  15-19),  and  which  whilst  it  pains 
does  not  repel ;  the  complete  revelation  of  Himself, 
which  she  cannot  but  I>elieve  (vv.  19-2!)),  are  effects 
that  He  has  wrought  in  many  another  case.  The 
woman's  lightness  and  security,  until  she  finds  her- 
self in  the  presence  of  a  Pro|)het,  who  knows  all 
her  past  sins ;  her  readiness  afterwards  to  enter  on 
a  religious  question,  which  i>erhaps  had  often  l>een 
revolved  in  her  mind  in  a  worldly  and  careless  way, 
are  so  natural  that  they  are  almost  enough  of  them- 
selves tx)  establish  the  historical  character  of  the 
account. 

In  this  remarkable  dialogue  are  many  things  to 
ponder  over.  The  living  water  which  Christ  would 
give;  the  announcement  of  a  change  in  the  worship 
of  Jew  and  Samaritan ;  lastly,  the  confession  that 
He  who  sjieaks  is  truly  the  Messiah,  are  all  note- 
worthy. The  0{)en  avowal  that  He  is  the  Messiah, 
made  to  the  daughter  of  an  abhorred  people,  is 
accounted  for  if  we  remember  that  this  was  the 
first  and  last  time  when  He  taught  personally  in 
Samaria,  and  that  the  woman  showed  a  special 
fitness  to  receive  it,  for  she  expected  in  the  Christ 
a  spiritual  teaeher,  not  a  temporal  prince :  "  ^Vhen 
He  is  come  He  will  tell  us  all  things"  (ver.  25). 
The  very  absence  of  national  pride,  which  so  l)eset 
the  Jews,  preserved  in  her  a  right  conception  of  the 
Christ.  Had  she  thought  —  had  she  said,  "  When 
He  is  come  He  will  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel, 
and  set  his  followers  in  high  places,  on  his  right 
and  on  his  left,"  then  He  could  not  have  answered, 
as  now,  "  I  that  speak  unto  thee  am  He."  The 
words  would  have  comejed  a  falsehood  to  her. 
The  Samaritans  came  out  to  Him  on  the  report  of 
the  woman ;  they  heard  Him  and  believed :  "  We 
have  heard  Him  ourselves,  and  know  that  this  is 
hideed  the  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  the  world  "  (ver. 
42).  ^^'^as  this  great  grace  thrown  away  upon  them  ? 
Did  it  abide  by  them,  or  was  it  lost  ?  In  the  per- 
secution that  arose  about  Stei)hen,  Philip  "  went 
down  to  a  city  of  Samaria  (not  "  the  city,"  as  in 
the  English  version),  and  preached  Christ  unto 
them"  (Acts  viii.  5).  We  dare  not  pronounce  as 
certain  that  this  city  was  Sychar:  but  the  readi- 
ness of  the  Samaritans  to  believe  (viii.  6)  recalls 
the  candor  and  readiness  of  the  men  of  Sychar, 
and  it  is  diificult  not  to  connect  the  two  events 
together. 

Jesus  now  returned  to  Galilee,  and  came  to 
Nazareth,  his  own  city.  In  the  Synagogue  He 
expounded  to  the  people  a  passage  from  ^aiah 
(h.i.  1),  telling  them  that  its  fulfillment  was  now 
at  hand  in  his  person.  The  same  truth  that  had 
filled  the  Samaritans  with  gratitude,  wiought  up 
to  fiiry  the  men  of  Nazareth,  who  would  have  de- 
■tn^jed  Him  if  He  had  not  escaped  out  of  their 


JESUS  CHRIST 

hands  (Luke  iv.  16-30).  He  came  now  t<>  Caper 
naum.  On  his  way  hithei,  when  He  had  reached 
Cana,  He  healed  the  son  of  one  of  the  courtiers  of 
Herod  Antipas  (John  iv.  46-54),  who  "  himself  be- 
lieved, and  his  whole  house."  This  was  the  second 
Gahlean  miracle.  At  Capernaum  He  wrought  many 
miracles  for  them  that  needed.  Here  two  disciples 
who  had  known  Him  before,  namely,  Simon  Peter 
and  Andrew,  were  called  from  their  fishing  to  be- 
come "  fishers  of  men  "  (Matt.  iv.  19),  and  the  two 
sons  of  Zebedee  received  the  same  summons.  After 
heaUng  on  the  Sabbath  a  demoniac  in  the  Syn- 
agogue, a  miracle  which  was  witnessed  by  many, 
and  was  made  known  everywhere.  He  returned  th« 
same  day  to  Simon's  house,  and  healed  the  mother- 
in-law  of  Simon,  who  was  sick  of  a  fever.  At  sun- 
set, the  multitude,  now  fuUy  ai-oused  by  what  thej 
had  heard,  brought  their  sick  to  Simon's  door  to 
get  them  healed.  He  did  not  refuse  his  succor, 
and  healed  them  all  (Mark  i.  29-i{4).  He  now, 
after  showering  down  on  Caiiernaum  so  many  cures, 
turned  his  thoughts  to  the  rest  of  Gahlee,  where 
other  "  lost  sheep  "  were  scattered :  "  Let  us  go  into 
the  next  towns  {Kuixon6Kfis)  that  I  may  preach 
there  also,  for  therefore  came  I  forth  "  (Mark  i.  38). 
The  journey  through  Galilee,  on  which  He  now 
entered,  must  have  been  a  general  circuit  of  that 
country.  His  olject  was  to  call  on  the  Gahleana 
to  repent  and  beUeve  the  Gospel.  This  could  only 
be  done  completely  by  taking  ssuch  a  journey  that 
his  teaching  might  be  accessible  to  all  in  turn  at 
some  point  or  other.  Joseph  us  mentions  that  there 
were  two  hundred  and  four  towns  and  villages  in 
Galilee  (  ViUi,  45) :  therefore  such  a  circuit  as  should 
in  any  real  sense  embrace  the  whole  of  Galilee  would 
require  some  months  for  its  performance.  "  The 
course  of  the  present  circuit,"  says  Air.  Greswell 
{Dlssertaliuns,  vol.  ii.  293),  "  we  may  conjecture, 
was,  upon  the  whole,  as  follows  :  First,  along  the 
western  side  of  the  Jordan,  northward,  which  would 
disseminate  the  fame  of  Jesus  ui  Decapolis  ; 
secondly,  along  the  confines  of  the  tetrarchy  of 
Philip,  westward,  which  would  make  Him  known 
throughout  Syria;  thirdly,  by  the  coasts  of  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  southward ;  and,  lastly,  along  the  verge 
of  Samaria,  and  the  western  region  of  the  Lake  of 
Galilee  —  the  nearest  points  to  Jud«a  proper  and 
to  Perffa  —  until  it  returned  to  Cai^ernaum."  In 
the  course  of  this  circuit,  besides  the  works  of  mercy 
spoken  of  by  the  Evangelists  (Matt.  iv.  23-25; 
Mark  i.  32-34:  Luke  iv.  40-44),  He  had  probably 
called  to  Him  more  of  his  Apostles.  Four  at  least 
were  his  companions  from  the  beginning  of  it.  The 
rest  (except  perhaps  Judas  Iscariot)  were  Galileans, 
and  it  is  not  imi)robablc  that  they  were  found  by 
their  Master  during  this  circuit.  Phihp  of  Beth- 
saida  and  Nathanael  or  Bai-tholomew  were  already 
prepared  to  become  his  disciples  by  an  earlier  inter- 
view. On  this  circuit  occurred  the  first  case  of  the 
healing  of  a  leper;  it  is  selected  for  record  by  the 
EvangeUsts,  because  of  the  incurableness  of  the  ail- 
ment. So  great  was  the  dread  of  this  disorder  — 
so  strict  the  precautions  against  its  infection  —  that 
even  the  raising  of  Jairus'  daughter  from  the  dead, 
which  probably  occurred  at  Capernaum  about  the 
end  of  this  circuit,  would  hardly  impress  the  be- 
holders  more  profoundly. 

Second  Year  of'  the  Ministry.  —  Jesus  went  up 
to  Jerusalem  to  "  a  feast  of  the  Jews,"  which  we 
have  shown  (p.  1359)  to  have  been  probably  the 
Passover.  At  the  pool  Bethesda  ( =  tiouse  of 
mercy),  which  was  near  the  Sheep  ijfate  (Neh.  iii  1 


JESUS   CHRIST 

>n  the  northeast  side  of  the  Temple,  Jesus  saw 
many  infirm  persons  waiting  their  turn  for  the 
healing  virtues  of  the  water.  (John  v.  1-18.  On 
ihe  genuineness  of  the  fourth  verse,  see  Scholz, 
N.  T. ;  Tischendorf,  N.  T.  ;  and  Liicke,  in  be.  It 
is  wanting  in  three  out  of  the  four  chief  MSS.  [and 
in  Sin.]  ;  it  is  singularly  disturbed  with  variations  in 
the  MSS.  that  insert  it,  and  it  abounds  in  words 
which  do  not  occur  again  in  this  Gospel.)  Among 
them  was  a  man  who  had  had  an  infirmity  thirty- 
eight  years:  .Jesus  made  him  wliole  by  a  word,  bid- 
ding liim  take  up  his  bed  and  walk.  The  miracle 
was  done  on  the  Sabbath ;  and  the  Jews,  by  whicli 
name  in  St.  .lohn's  Gospel  we  are  to  understand  the 
Jewish  authorities,  who  acted  against  Jesus,  re- 
buked the  man  for  carrying  his  bed.  It  was  a 
labor,  and  as  such  forbidden  (Jer.  xvii.  21).  The 
answer  of  the  man  was  too  logical  to  be  refutetl : 
^  He  that  made  me  whole,  the  same  sairl  unto  me, 
Take  up  thy  bed  and  walk"  (v.  11).  If  He  had 
not  authority  for  the  latter,  whence  came  his  power 
to  do  the  former?  Their  anger  was  now  directed 
against  Jesus  for  healing  on  the  Sabbath,  even  for 
well-doing.  They  sought  to  put  Him  to  death.  In 
our  Lord's  justification  of  Himself,  "JNIy  Father 
worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work"  (v.  17),  there  is  an 
unequivocal  claim  to  the  Hivine  nature.  God  the 
Father  never  rests :  if  sleep  could  visit  his  eyeUds 
for  an  instant ;  if  his  hand  could  droop  for  a 
moment's  rest,  the  universe  would  coUapse  in  ruin. 
He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  fi'ora  the  creation  of 
new  beings;  but  from  the  maintenance  of  those 
that  exist  He  never  rests.  His  love  streams  forth 
oia  every  day  alike ;  as  do  the  impartial  beams  from 
the  sun  that  he  has  placed  in  the  heavens.  The 
Jews  rightly  understood  the  saying:  none  but  God 
could  utter  it;  none  could  quote  God's  example,  as 
setting  Him  over  and  above  God's  law,  save  One 
who  was  God  Himself.  They  sought  the  more  to 
kill  Him.  He  expounded  to  them  more  fully  his 
relation  to  the  Father.  He  works  with  the  strength 
of  the  Father  and  according  to  his  will.  He  can 
do  all  that  the  Father  does.  He  can  raise  men  out 
of  bodily  and  out  of  spiritual  death;  and  He  can 
judge  all  men.  John  bore  witness  to  Him;  the 
works  that  He  does  bear  even  stronger  witness. 
The  reason  that  the  Jews  do  not  believe  is  their 
want  of  discernment  of  the  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  that  comes  from  their  worldliness,  their 
desire  of  honor  from  one  another.  Unbelief  shall 
bring  condemnation ;  even  out  of  their  Law  they 
ean  be  condemned,  since  they  believe  not  even 
Moses,  who  foretold  that  Christ  should  come  (John 
V.  l!i-47). 

Another  discussion  about  the  Sabbath  arose  from 
the  disciples  plucking  the  ears  of  corn  as  they  went 
through  the  fields  (Matt.  xii.  1-8).  The  time  of 
this  is  somewhat  uncertain :  some  would  place  it  a 
year  later,  just  after  the  third  I'assover  (Clausen); 
but  its  place  is  much  more  probably  here  (New- 
come,  Kobinson,  etc.).  The  needy  were  permitted 
by  the  Law  (l)eut.  xxiii.  25)  to  pluck  the  ears  of 
corn  with  their  hand,  even  without  waiting  for  the 
;>wner's  ijerraission.  The  disciples  must  have  been 
Uving  a  hard  and  poor  life  to  resort  to  such  means 
of  sustenance.  But  the  Pharisees  would  not  allow 
that  it  was  lawful  on  the  Sabbath-day.  Jesus 
reminds  them  that  David,  whose  example  they  are 
not  likely  to  challenge,  ate  the  sacre<I  shewbread  in 
the  tabernac'e,  which  it  was  not  lawful  to  eat.  The 
priests  might  partake  of  it,  but  not  a  stranger  (Ex. 
uix.  33 ;  Lev.  xxiv.  5,  9  .    David,  on  the  principle 


JESUS  CHRIST  1363 

that  mercy  was  better  than  sacrifice  (Hos.  vi.  6), 
took  it  and  gave  to  the  young  men  that  were  with 
him  that  they  n)ight  not  jjerish  for  hunger.  In 
order  further  to  show  that  a  literal  mechanical  ob 
servance  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  would  lead  t« 
absurdities,  Jesus  reminds  them  that  this  law  ia 
perpetually  set  aside  on  account  of  another :  "  The 
priests  profane  the  Sabljath  and  are  blameless" 
(Matt.  xii.  5).  The  work  of  sacrifice,  the  placing 
of  the  shewbread,  go  on  on  the  Sabbath,  and  tabor 
even  on  that  day  may  be  done  by  priests,  and  may 
please  God.  It  was  the  root  of  the  Pharisees'  fault 
that  they  thought  sacrifice  better  than  mercy,  ritual 
exactness  more  than  love:  "  If  ye  had  known  what 
this  meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice, 
ye  would  not  have  condemned  the  guiltless.  For 
the  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath-day '' 
(Matt.  xii.  7,  8).  These  last  words  are  inseparable 
from  the  meaning  of  our  Lord's  answer.  In  plead- 
ing the  example  of  David,  the  king  and  prophet, 
and  of  the  priests  in  the  1  emple,  tlie  Lord  tacitly 
implies  the  greatness  of  his  own  position.  He  is 
indeed  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King;  and  had  he  been 
none  of  these,  the  argument  woidd  have  been  not 
merely  incomplete,  but  misleading.  It  is  unde- 
niable that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  w;is  very  strict. 
Against  labors  as  small  as  that  of  winnowing  the 
corn  a  severe  penalty  was  set.  Our  Lord  ({uotes 
cases  where  the  law  is  superseded  or  set  aside,  be- 
cause He  is  One  who  has  power  to  do  the  same. 
And  the  rise  of  a  new  law  is  implied  in  those  words 
which  St.  INIark  alone  has  recorded :  "  The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Siibbath." 
The  law  upon  the  Sabbath  was  made  in  love  tc 
men,  to  preserve  for  them  a  due  measure  of  rest, 
to  keep  room  for  the  worehip  of  God.  The  Son 
of  Man  has  power  to  readjust  this  law,  if  its  work 
is  done,  or  if  men  are  fit  to  receive  a  higher. 

This  may  have  taken  place  on  the  way  firora 
Jerusalem  after  the  Passover.  On  another  Sab- 
bath, probably  at  Cajjernaum,  to  which  Jesus  had 
returned,  the  Pharisees  gave  a  far  more  striking 
proof  of  the  way  in  which  their  hard  and  narrow 
and  unloving  interpretation  would  turn  tlie  be- 
neficence of  the  Law  into  a  blighting  oppression, 
Our  Lord  entered  into  the  synagogue,  and  found 
there  a  man  with  a  withered  hand  —  some  poor 
artisan,  perhaps,  whose  handiwork  was  his  meana 
of  life.  Jesus  was  about  to  heal  him  —  which 
would  give  back  life  to  the  sufferer  —  which  would 
give  joy  to  every  beholder  who  had  one  touch  of 
pity  in  his  heart.  The  Pharisees  interfere :  "  Is  it 
lawful  to  heal  on  the-  Sabbath-day?  "  Their  doc- 
tors would  have  allowed  them  to  pull  a  sheep  out 
of  a  pit;  but  they  will  not  have  a  man  rescued 
from  the  depth  of  misery.  Rarely  is  that  loving 
Teacher  wroth,  but  here  his  anger,  mixed  with 
grief,  showed  itself:  He  looked  round  about  upon 
them  "  with  anger,  being  grieved  at  the  hardness 
of  their  hearts,"  and  answered  their  cavils  by  heal- 
ing the  man  (Matt.  xii.  9-1-t ;  Mark  iii.  1-G ;  Luke 
V-.  6-11). 

In  placing  the  ordination  or  calling  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  just  before  the  Sermon  on  the  INIount,  we 
are  under  the  guidance  of  St.  Luke  (vi.  13,  17). 
But  this  more  solemn  separation  for  their  work  by 
no  means  marks  the  time  of  their  first  approach  to 
Jesus.  Scatteretl  notices  prove  that  some  of  them 
at  least  were  drawn  gradually  to  the  Lord,  »>  that 
it  would  be  difEcult  to  identify  the  moment  wnen 
they  earned  thf  name  of  disciples.  In  the  case  of 
St.  Peter,  five  degrees  or  stages  might  be  traced 


1364 


JESUS  CHRIST 


(John  i.  41-43;  Matt.  iv.  19,  xvi.  17-19;  Luke 
txil.  31,  32;  John  xxi.  15-19),  at  each  of  which 
he  came  somewhat  nearer  to  his  Master.  That 
which  takes  place  here  is  the  appointment  of  twelve 
disciples  to  be  a  distinct  body,  under  the  name  of 
Apostles.  They  are  not  sent  forth  to  preach  until 
later  in  the  same  year.  The  number  twelve  must 
have  reference  to  the  number  of  the  Jewish  tribes ; 
it  is  a  number  selected  on  account  of  its  symboli- 
cal meaning,  for  the  work  confided  to  them  might 
have  been  wrought  by  more  or  fewer.  Twelve  is 
used  with  tlie  same  symbolical  reference  in  many 
passages  of  the  0.  T.  Twelve  pillars  to  the  altar 
which  Moses  erected  (Ex.  xxiv.  4);  twelve  stones 
to  commemorate  the  passing  of  the  ark  over  Jor- 
dan (Josh.  iv.  3);  twelve  precious  stones  in  the 
breastplate  of  tlie  priest  (Ex.  xxviii.  21);  twelve 
cxen  bearing  up  the  molten  sea  in  the  Temple  of 
Solomon  (1  K.  vii.  25);  twelve  officers  over  Solo- 
mon's household  (1  K.  iv.  7):  all  these  are  exam- 
ples of  the  perpetual  repetition  of  the  Jewish  num- 
ber. Bahr  {SymboUk,  vol.  i.)  has  accumulated 
passages  from  various  authors  to  show  that  twelve, 
the  multiple  of  four  and  three,  is  the  type  or  sym- 
bol of  the  universe;  but  it  is  enough  here  to  say 
that  the  use  of  the  number  in  the  foundation  of 
the  Christian  Church  has  a  reference  to  the  tril)es 
of  the  Jewish  nation.  Hence  the  number  continues 
to  be  used  after  the  addition  of  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  made  it  inapplicable.  The  Ix)rd  Himself  tells 
them  that  they  "  shall  sit  on  thrones  judging  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel"  (Matt.  xix.  27,  28).  When 
He  began  his  ministry  in  Galilee,  He  left  his  own 
home  at  Nazareth,  and  separated  himself  from  his 
kinsmen  after  the  flesh,  in  order  to  devote  Himself 
more  completely  to  his  prophetical  office ;  and  these 
Twelve  were  "  to  be  with  Him  "  (Mark),  and  to 
be  instead  of  family  and  friends.  But  the  enmity 
of  the  Jews  separated  Him  also  from  his  country- 
men. Every  day  the  prospect  of  the  Jews  receiving 
Him  as  their  Messiah,  to  their  own  salvation,  be- 
came more  feint ;  and  the  privileges  of  the  favored 
people  passed  gradually  over  to  the  new  Israel,  the 
new  Church,  the  new  Jemsalem,  of  which  the 
Apostles  were  the  foundation.  The  precise  day  in 
which  this  defection  was  completed  could  not  be 
specified.  The  Sun  of  Kighteousness  rose  on  the 
world,  and  set  for  the  .Jews,  through  all  the  shades 
of  twilight.  In  the  education  of  the  Twelve  for 
their  appointed  work,  we  see  the  supersedure  of  the 
Jews;  in  the  preservation  of  the  symbolical  numljer 
we  see  preserved  a  recognition  of  their  original 
right. 

In  the  four  lists  of  the  names  of  the  Apostles 
preserved  to  us  (Matt,  x.,  Mark  iii.,  Luke  vi..  Acts 
i.),  there  is  a  certain  order  preserved,  amidst  varia- 
tions. The  two  pairs  of  brothers,  Simon  and  An- 
drew, and  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  are  always  named 
the  first;  and  of  these  Simon  Peter  ever  holds  the 
first  place.  Philip  and  Bartholomew,  Thomas  and 
Matthew,  are  always  in  the  next  rank;  and  of 
them  Philip  is  always  the  first.  In  the  third  rank 
James  the  son  of  Alphseus  is  the  first,  as  Judas 
Iscariot  is  always  the  last,  with  Simon  the  Zealot 
ind  Thaddaeus  between.  The  principle  that  gov- 
irns  this  arrangement  cannot  be  determined  very 
oositively;  but  as  no  doubt  Simon  Peter  stands 
first  because  of  his  zeal  in  his  Master's  service,  and 
Judas  ranks  last  because  of  his  treason,  it  is  nat- 
anil  to  suppose  that  they  are  all  arranged  with 
lome  reference  at  least  to  their  zeal  and  fitness  for 
-lia  ayostolic  o&ce.      Some  of  the  Apostlts  were 


JESUS   CHRIST 

certainly  poor  and  unlearned  men;  it  is  probabk 
that  the  rest  were  of  the  same  kind.  Four  of  them 
were  fishermen,  not  indeed  tlie  poorest  of  theii 
class;  and  a  fifth  was  a  "publican,"  one  of  the 
portitores^  or  tax-gatherers,  who  collected  the  taxes 
farmed  by  Romans  of  higher  rank.  Andrew,  who 
is  mentioned  with  Peter,  is  less  conspicuous  in  the 
history  than  he,  but  he  enjoyed  free  access  to  his 
Master,  and  seems  to  have  been  more  intimate  with 
him  than  the  rest  (John  vi.  8,  xii.  22,  with  Mark 
xiii.  3).  But  James  and  John,  who  are  sometimes 
placed  above  him  in  the  list,  were  especially  distin- 
guished by  Jesus.  They  were  unmarried ;  and  theii 
mother,  of  whose  ambition  we  have  a  well-known 
instance,  seems  to  have  had  much  influence  ovei 
them.  The  zeal  and  fire  of  their  disposition  is  in- 
dicated in  the  name  of  Boanerges  bestowed  upon 
them.  One  seems  hardly  to  recognize  in  tlie  fierce 
enthusiasts  who  would  have  called  down  fire  from 
heaven  to  consume  the  inhospitable  Samaritans 
(Luke  ix.  52-56)  the  Ajwstle  of  Love  and  his 
brother.  It  is  probable  that  the  Bartholomew  of 
the  Twelve  is  the  same  as  Nathanael  (John  i.); 
and  the  Lebbaeus  or  Thaddaeus  the  same  as  Judas 
the  brother  of  James.  Simon  the  Zealot  was  so 
called  probably  from  his  belonging  to  the  sect  of 
Zealots,  who,  from  Num.  xxv.  7,  8,  took  it  on  them- 
selves to  punish  crimes  against  the  law.  If  the 
name  Iscariot  (=  man  of  Cariot  =  Kerioth )  refers 
the  birth  of  the  traitor  to  KEHun'H  in  Judah  (Josh. 
XV.  25),  then  it  would  appear  that  the  traitor  alone 
was  of  Judaean  origin,  and  the  eleven  faithful  ones 
were  despised  Galileans. 

From  henceforth  the  education  of  the  Twelve 
Apodtles  will  l)e  one  of  the  principal  features  o 
the  Lord's  ministry.  First  He  instructs  them 
then  He  takes  them  with  Him  as  companions  of 
his  wayfaring;  then  He  sends  them  forth  to  teach 
and  heal  for  Him.  The  Semion  on  the  Mount, 
although  it  is  meant  for  all  the  disciples,  seems  to 
have  a  special  reference  to  the  chosen  Twelve  (Matt 
v.  11  fl^".).  Its  principal  features  have  been  sketched 
already;  but  they  will  miss  their  full  meaning  if  it 
is  forgotten  that  they  are  the  first  teaching  which 
the  Apostles  were  called  on  to  listen  to  after  their 
appointment. 

About  this  time  it  was  that  John  the  Baptist, 
long  a  prisoner  with  little  hojje  of  release,  sent  his 
disciples  to  Jesus  with  the  question,  "Art  thou  He 
that  should  come,  or  do  we  look  for  another?  " 
In  all  the  Gospels  there  is  no  more  touching  inci- 
dent. Those  who  maintain  that  it  was  done  solely 
for  the  sake  of  the  disciples,  and  that  John  himself 
needed  no  answer  to  supjiort  his  foith,  show  as 
little  knowledge  of  the  human  mind  as  exactness 
in  explaining  the  words  of  the  accoiuit.  The  great 
privilege  of  John's  life  was  that  he  was  apiiointixi 
to  recognize  and  bear  witness  to  the  Messiah  (John 
i.  31).  After  languishuig  a  3 ear  in  a  dungeon, 
after  learning  that  even  yet  Jesus  had  made  no 
steps  towards  the  establishment  of  his  kingdom  of 
the  Jews,  and  that  his  following  consisted  of  only 
twelve  poor  Galileans,  doubts  began  to  cloud  over 
his  spirit.  Was  the  kingdom  of  IVlessiah  as  near  as 
he  had  thought?  Was  Jesus  not  the  Messiah,  but 
some  forerunner  of  that  DeHvercr,  as  iie  himself 
had  been  ?  There  is  no  unl)elief ;  he  does  not  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  has  deceived;  when  the  doubts 
arise,  it  is  to  Jesus  that  he  submits  them.  But  it 
was  not  without  great  depression  and  perplexity 
that  he  put  the  question,  "  Art  tlum  He  that  should 
come?  "     The  scope  of  the  answer  given  lies  in  iti 


JESUS   CHRIST 

^calling  John  to  the  grounds  of  his  former  confi- 
ieiice.  The  very  miracles  are  being  wrought  that 
were  tn  be  the  signs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven; 
and  tiieiefore  that  kingdom  is  conte  (Is.  xxxv.  5, 
iHi.  6,  7).  There  is  more  of  grave  encourage- 
ment tlian  of  rebuke  in  the  words,  "  Blessed  is  he 
who  shall  not  be  offended  in  me"  (Matt.  xi.  G). 
They  bid  the  Forerunner  to  iiave  a  good  heart,  and 
to  hope  and  believe  to  the  end.  He  has  allowed 
sorrow,  and  the  apparent  triumph  of  wickedness, 
which  is  a  harder  trial,  to  trouble  his  view  of  the 
divine  plan ;  let  him  remember  that  it  is  blessed  to 
attain  that  state  of  confidence  which  these  things 
cannot  disturb ;  and  let  the  signs  which  Jesus  now 
exhibits  suffice  him  to  the  end  (Matt.  xi.  1-G; 
Luke  vii.  18-23). 

The  testimony  to  John  which  our  Lord  graciously 
adds  is  intended  to  reinstate  him  in  that  place  in 
the  minds  of  his  own  disciples  which  he  had  occu- 
pied before  this  mission  of  doubt.  John  is  not  a 
weak  waverer;  not  a  luxurious  courtier,  attaching 
himself  to  the  new  dispensation  from  worldly  mo- 
tives; but  a  prophet,  and  more  than  a  prophet,  for 
the  prophets  spoke  of  Jesus  afar  off,  but  John  stood 
before  the  Messiah,  and  with  his  hand  pointed  Him 
out.  He  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  L^ijah 
(Mai.  iii.  1,  iv.  5),  to  prepare  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  And  yet,  great  as  he  was,  the  least  of  those 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  when  it  is  completely 
planted  should  enjoy  a  higher  degree  of  religious 
illumination  than  he  (Matt.  xi.  7-11;  Luke  vii. 
24-28). 

Now  commences  the  second  circuit  of  Galilee 
(Luke  viii.  1-3),  to  which  belong  the  parables  in 
Matt,  xiii.,  the  visit  of  our  Lord's  mother  and 
brethren  (Luke  viii.  19-21),  and  the  account  of 
his  reception  at  Nazareth  (Mark  vi.  1-6). 

During  this  time  the  twelve  have  jounieyed  with 
Him.  But  now  a  third  circuit  in  Galilee  is  re- 
corded, which  probably  occurred  during  the  last 
three- mouths  of  this  year  (Matt.  ix.  35-38);  and 
during  this  circuit,  after  reminding  them  how  great 
is  the  harvest  and  how  pressing  the  need  of  labor- 
ers, He  carries  the  training  of  the  disciples  one  step 
further  by  sending  them  forth  by  themselves  to 
teach  (^latt.  x.,  xi.).  Such  a  mission  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  identical  in  character  with  the  mis- 
sion of  the  Apostles  after  the  Resurrection.  It  was 
limited  to  the  Jews;  the  Samaritans  and  heathen 
were  excluded ;  but  this  arose,  not  from  any  nar- 
rowness in  the  limits  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
(Matt,  xxviii.  19;  Mark  xvi.  15),  but  from  the 
limited  knowledge  and  abilities  of  the  Apostles. 
They  were  sent  to  proclaim  to  the  Jews  that  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  which  their  prophets  taught 
them  to  look  for,  was  at  hand  (Matt.  x.  7);  but 
rhey  were  unfit  as  yet  for  the  task  of  explaining  to 
Jews  the  true  nature  of  that  kingdom,  and  still 
•nore  to  Gentiles  who  had  received  no  preparation 
for  any  such  doctrine.  The  preaching  of  the  Apos- 
rles  whilst  Jesus  was  yet  on  earth  was  only  ancil- 
ary  to  his  and  a  preparation  of  the  way  for  Him. 
.'t  was  probably  of  the  simplest  character.  "  As  ye 
^0,  preach,  saying,  The  kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at 
hand."  Power  was  given  them  to  confirm  it  by 
ligns  and  wonders ;  and  the  purpose  of  it  was  to 
Jirow  the  minds  of  those  who  heard  it  into  an  in- 
quiring state,  so  that  they  might  seek  and  find  the 
Ix>rd  Himself.  But  whilst  their  instructions  as  to 
whe  matter  of  their  preaching  were  thus  brief  and 
limple,  the  cautions,  warnings,  and  encourage- 
ueuts  as  to  their  own  condition  were  far  more  full. 


JESUS  CHRIST 


136i 


Tliey  were  to  do  their  work  without  anxiety  fof 
their  welfare.  No  provision  was  to  be  made  for 
their  journey;  in  the  house  that  first  received  them 
in  any  city  they  were  to  abide,  not  seeking  to  find 
the  best.  Dangers  would  befall  them,  for  they 
were  sent  forth  "  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves ' 
(Matt.  x.  IG);  but  they  were  not  to  allow  this  to 
disturb  their  thoughts.  The  same  God  who 
wrought  their  miracles  for  them  would  protect 
them ;  and  those  who  confessed  the  name  of  Christ 
before  men  would  be  confessed  by  Christ  before  the 
Father  as  his  disciples.  These  precepts  for  the 
Apostles  even  went  somewhat  beyond  what  their 
present  mission  required ;  it  does  not  appear  that 
they  were  at  this  time  delivered  up  to  councils,  or 
scourged  in  synagogues.  But  in  training  their 
feeble  wings  for  their  first  flight  the  same  rules  and 
cautions  were  given  which  would  be  needed  even 
when  they  soared  the  highest  in  their  zeal  and 
devotion  to  their  crucified  Master.  There  is  no 
difficulty  here,  if  we  remember  that  this  sending 
forth  was  rather  a  training  of  the  Apostles  than  a 
means  of  converting  the  Galilean  people. 

They  went  forth  two  and  two;  and  our  Lord 
continued  his  own  circuit  (Matt.  xi.  1),  with  what 
companions  does  not  appear.  By  this  time  the 
leaven  of  the  Lord's  teaching  had  begun  powerfully 
to  work  among  the  people.  Herod,  we  read,  "  was 
perplexed,  because  that  it  was  said  of  some,  that 
John  was  risen  from  the  dead,  and  of  some  that 
Elijah  had  appeared ;  and  of  others,  that  one  of  the 
old  prophets  was  risen  again "  (Luke  ix.  7,  8). 
The  false  apprehensions  about  the  Messiah,  that  he 
should  be  a  temporal  ruler,  were  so  deep-rooted, 
that  whilst  all  the  rumors  concurred  in  assigning 
a  high  place  to  Jesus  as  a  prophet,  none  went  be- 
yond to  recognize  Him  as  the  King  of  Israel  —  the 
Saviour  of  his  people  and  the  world. 

After  a  journey  of  perhaps  two  months'  duration 
the  twelve  return  to  Jesus,  and  give  an  account  of 
their  ministry.  The  third  Passover  was  now  draw- 
ing near;  but  the  Lord  did  not  go  up  to  it,  because 
his  time  was  not  come  for  submitting  to  the  maUce 
of  the  Jews  against  Him ;  because  his  ministry  in 
Galilee  was  not  completed ;  and  especially,  because 
He  wished  to  continue  the  training  of  the  Apostles 
for  their  work,  now  one  of  the  chief  objects  of  hia 
ministry.  He  wished  to  commune  with  them  pri- 
vately upon  their  work,  and,  we  may  suppose,  to 
add  to  the  instruction  they  had  already  received 
from  Him  CMark  vi.  30,  31 ).  He  therefore  went 
with  them  from  the  neighlwrhood  of  Capernaum 
to  a  mountain  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Sea  of 
Tiberias,  near  Bethsaida  Julias,  not  far  from  the 
head  of  the  sea.  Great  multitudes  pursued  them ; 
and  here  the  Lord,  moved  to  compassion  by  the 
hunger  and  weariness  of  the  people,  wrought  for 
them  one  of  his  most  remarkable  miracles.  Out 
of  five  barley  loaves  and  two  small  fishes,  He  pro- 
duced food  for  five  thousand  men  besides  women 
and  children.  The  act  was  one  of  creation,  and 
therefore  was  both  an  assertion  and  a  proof  of  divine 
power  ;  and  the  discourse  which  followed  it,  re- 
corded by  -John  only,  was  an  important  step  in  the 
training  of  the  Apostles,  for  it  hinted  to  them  for 
the  first  time  the  unexpected  truth  that  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  that  is,  his  Passion,  must  be- 
come the  means  of  man's  salvation.  This  view  of 
the  doctrine  of  th«  kingdom  of  heaven  which  they 
had  been  preachmg,  could  not  have  been  under- 
stood :  but  it  would  prepare  those  who  still  clave  to 
Jesus  to  expect  the  hard  JacU  that  were  to  follow 


1366 


JESUS  CHRIST 


whese  harJ  ^ords.  The  discourse  itself  has  already 
Deeti  cxaaiined  (p.  1356).  After  the  miracle,  but 
before  the  comment  on  it  was  delivered,  the  dis- 
ciples crossed  tiie  sea  from  Bethsaida  Julias  to 
Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  and  Jesus  retired  alone  to  a 
mountain  to  connnune  with  the  Father.  They  were 
toiling  at  the  oar,  for  the  wind  was  contrary,  when, 
as  the  night  drew  towards  morning,  they  saw  Jesus 
walkirig  to  them  on  the  sea,  having  passed  the 
whole  night  on  the  mountain.  They  were  amazed 
and  terrified,  lie  came  into  the  ship  and  the  wind 
ceased.  They  worshipjjed  Him  at  this  new  pixx)f 
of  divine  power  —  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son 
of  God"  (Matt.  xiv.  33).  The  storm  had  been 
another  trial  of  their  faith  (comp.  Matt.  viii.  23- 
26),  not  in  a  present  Master,  as  on  a  former  occa- 
sion, but  in  an  absent  one.  But  the  words  of  St. 
Mark  intimate  that  even  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  had  not  built  up  their  faith  in  Him,  — 
"  for  they  considered  not  the  miracle  of  the  loaves : 
for  their  heart  was  hardened "  (vi.  52).  Peter, 
however,  as  St.  ]\Iatthew  relates,  with  his  usual 
Eeal  wishing  to  show  that  he  really  possessed  that 
faith  in  Jesus,  which  perhaps  in  the  height  of  the 
storm  had  been  somewhat  forgotten,  requests  Jesus 
to  bid  Iiini  come  to  Him  upon  the  water.  When  he 
made  the  effort,  his  faith  began  to  fail,  and  he  cried 
out  for  succor.  Christ's  rebuke,  '*  0  thou  of  little 
faith,  wherefore  didst  thou  doubt?  "  does  not  imply 
that  he  had  no  faith,  or  that  it  icholly  deserted  him 
now.  All  the  failings  of  Peter  were  of  the  same 
kind ;  there  was  a  faith  full  of  zeal  and  eagerness, 
but  it  was  not  constant.  He  believed  that  he  could 
walk  on  the  waters  if  Jesus  bade  him ;  but  the  rx)ar 
of  the  waves  appalled  him,  and  he  sank  from  the 
tame  cause  that  made  him  deny  his  Lord  after- 
wards. 

When  they  reached  the  shore  of  Gennesaret  the 
whole  people  showed  their  faith  in  Him  as  a  Healer 
of  disease  (Mark  vi.  63-56);  and  he  performed  very 
many  miracles  on  them.  Nothing  could  surpass 
the  eagerness  with  which  they  sought  Him.  Yet 
on  the  next  day  the  great  discourse  just  alluded  to 
was  uttered,  and  "  from  that  time  many  of  his  dis- 
ciples went  back  and  walked  no  more  with  Him  " 
(John  vi.  66). 

Tliird  Yenrof  the  Ministry.  —  Hearing  perhaps 
that  Jesus  was  not  coming  to  the  feast.  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  from  .Jerusalem  went  down  to  see  Him 
at  Caj)ernaum  (Matt.  xv.  1).  They  found  fault 
with  his  disciples  for  breaking  the  tradition  about 
purifying,  and  eating  with  unwashen  hands.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  sup{K)se  that  they  came  to  lie  in 
wait  for  Jesus.  The  objection  was  one  which  they 
would  naturally  take.  Our  Lord  in  his  answer 
tries  to  sliow  them  how  far  external  rule,  claiming 
to  be  religious,  may  lead  men  away  from  the  true 
spirit  of  the  Gospel.  «  Ye  say,  whosoever  shall  say 
to  his  father  or  his  mother,  it  is  a  gift,  by  what- 
soever thou  mightest  be  profited  by  me ;  and  honor 
;iot  his  father  or  his  mother,  he  shall  be  free " 
(Matt.  XV.  5,  6).  They  admitted  the  obligation 
of  the  fifth  commandment,  but  had  introduced  a 
means  of  evading  it,  by  enabling  a  son  to  say  to 
his  father  and  mother  who  sought  his  lielp  that  he 
had  made  his  property  "  a  gift "  to  the  Temple, 
which  took  precedence  of  his  obligation.  Well 
might  He  apply  to  a  people  where  such  a  miserable 
evasion  could  find  place,  the  words  of  Isaiah  (xxix. 
13)  —  "  This  people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with 
Iheir  mouth,  and  honoreth  me  with  their  lips,  but 
their  heart  U  far  from  me.     But  in  vaiu  they  do 


JESUS   CHRIST 

worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men." 

leaving  the  neighborhood  of  Capernaum  oui 
Lord  now  travels  to  the  northwest  of  Galilee,  tc 
the  region  of  'lyre  and  Sid  on.  The  time  is  not 
strictly  determined,  but  it  was  probably  the  early 
summer  of  this  year.  It  does  not  appear  that  He 
retired  into  this  heathen  country  for  the  purpose 
of  ministering;  more  probably  it  was  a  retreat  from 
the  machinations  of  tlie  Jews.  A  woman  of  the 
country,  of  Greek  education  {"E.\Kr\v\s  2,vpo(poi- 
yiKLo-a-a,  Mark),  came  to  entreat  Him  to  heal  her 
daughter,  who  was  tormented  with  an  enl  spirit. 
The  Lord  at  first  repelled  her  by  saying  that  He 
was  not  sent  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel;  but  not  so  was  her  maternal  love  to  be 
baffled.  She  besought  Him  again  and  was  again 
repelled ;  the  bread  of  the  children  was  not  to  be 
given  to  dogs.  Still  persisting,  she  besought  his 
help  even  as  one  of  the  dogs  so  despised :  "  the 
dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  tliat  fall  from  the  Master's 
table."  Faith  so  sincere  was  not  to  be  resisted. 
Her  daughter  was  made  whole  (Matt.  xv.  21-28; 
ALark  vii.  24-30). 

Ketuming  thence  He  passed  round  by  the  north 
of  the  sea  of  Galilee  to  the  region  of  Decapolis  on 
its  eastern  side  (Mark  vii.  31-37).  In  this  district 
He  performed  many  miracles,  and  especially  the 
restoration  of  a  deaf  man  who  had  an  impediment 
in  his  speech,  reniarkal)le  for  the  seeming  eflort 
with  which  He  wrought  it.  To  these  succeeded 
the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand  with  the  seven 
loaves  (Matt.  xv.  32).  He  now  crossed  the  Lake 
to  ]\Iagdala,  where  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
asked  and  were  refused  a  "  sign ;  "  some  great  won- 
der wTOught  expressly  for  them  to  pro\e  that  He 
was  the  Christ.  He  answers  them  as  He  had  an- 
swered a  similar  request  before :  "  the  sign  of  the 
prophet  Jonas  "  was  all  that  they  should  have. 
His  resurrection  after  a  death  of  three  days  should 
be  the  great  sign,  and  yet  in  another  sp'^se  no  sign 
should  be  given  them,  for  they  should  neither  see 
it  nor  believe  it.  The  unnatural  alliance  between 
Pharisee  and  Sadducee  is  worthy  of  remark.  The 
zealots  of  tradition,  and  the  political  partizans  of 
Herod  (for  '« leaven  of  the  Sadducees,"  in  Matt, 
xvi.  6  =  "leaven  of  Herod,"  Mark  viii.  15)  joined 
together  for  once  with  a  common  object  of  hatred. 
After  they  had  departed,  Jesus  crossed  the  lake  with 
his  disciples,  and,  combining  }ierhaps  for  the  use  of 
the  disciples  the  remembi-ance  of  the  feeding  of  the 
four  thousand  with  that  of  the  conversation  they 
had  just  heard,  warned  them  to  "  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees  and  of  the  leaven  of 
Herod"  (Mark  viii.  15).  So  little  however  were 
the  disciples  prepared  for  this,  that  they  mistook 
it  for  a  reproof  for  having  lirought  only  one  loaf 
with  them!  They  had  forgotten  the  five  thousand 
and  the  four  thousand,  or  tlity  would  have  known 
that  where  He  was,  natural  bread  could  not  fail 
them.  It  was  needful  to  oxplani  to  them  that  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees  was  the  doctrine  of  those 
who  had  made  the  word  of  (Jod  of  none  effect  by 
traditions  which,  appearing  to  promote  religion, 
really  overlaid  and  destroyed  it,  and  the  leaven  of 
the  Sadducees  was  the  doctrine  of  those  who,  un- 
der the  show  of  sujierior  enlighlenment,  denied  the 
foundations  of  the  fear  of  God  by  denying  a  future 
state.  At  Bethsaida  Jidias,  Jes^us  restored  sight  to 
a  blind  man ;  and  here,  as  in  a  former  case,  the 
form  and  preparation  which  He  adopted  are  to  b« 
remarked.     As  though  tlie  human  Saviour  has  U 


JESUS  CHRIST 

mestle  with  and  painfully  overcome  the  sufferings 
of  His  people,  He  takes  liiin  by  the  hand,  and  leads 
him  out  of  the  town,  and  spits  on  his  eyes  and  asks 
him  if  he  sees  aught.  At  first  the  sense  is  restored 
imperfectly;  and  Jesus  lays  his  hand  again  upon 
him  and  the  cure  is  complete  (Mark  viii.  22-26). 

The  ministry  in  Galilee  is  now  drawing  to  its 
close.  Through  the  length  and  breadth  of  that 
country  Jesus  has  proclaimed  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  has  showni  by  mighty  works  that  He  is  the 
Christ  that  was  to  come.  He  begins  to  ask  the 
disciples  what  are  the  results  of  all  his  labor. 
"  Whom  say  the  people  that  I  am?  "  (Luke  ix.  18). 
It  is  true  that  the  answer  shows  that  they  took 
Him  for  a  prophet.  But  we  are  obliged  to  admit 
that  the  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the  Galileans  had 
been  as  complete  as  his  preaching  to  them  had  been 
universal.  Here  and  there  a  few  may  have  received 
the  seeds  that  shall  afterwards  be  quickened  to  their 
conversion.  But  the  great  mass  had  heard  without 
earnestness  the  preached  word,  and  forgotten  it 
without  regret.  "  Whereunto  shall  I  liken  this 
generation?  "  says  Christ.  "  It  is  like  unto  chil- 
dren sitting  in  the  market,  and  calling  unto  their 
fellows,  and  saying,  We  have  piped  unto  you,  and 
ye  have  not  danced ;  we  have  niourned  unto  you, 
and  ye  have  not  lamented  "  (Matt.  xi.  16,  17). 
This  is  a  picture  of  a  wayward  people  without 
earnest  thought.  As  children,  from  want  of  any 
real  purpose,  cannot  agree  in  their  play,  so  the 
GaUleans  quarrel  with  every  form  of  religious  teach- 
ing. The  message  of  John  and  that  of  Jesus  they 
did  not  attend  to;  but  they  could  discuss  the  ques- 
tion whether  one  was  right  in  fasting  and  the  other 
in  eating  and  drinking.  He  denounces  woe  to  the 
cities  where  He  had  wrought  the  most,  to  Chorazin, 
Bethsaida,  and  Capernaum,  for  their  strange  insen- 
sibiUty,  using  the  strongest  expressions.  "  Thou, 
Capernaum,  which  art  exalted  unto  heaven,  shalt 
be  brought  down  to  hell ;  for  if  the  mighty  works 
which  have  been  done  in  thee  had  been  done  in 
Sodom,  it  would  have  remained  until  this  day. 
But  I  say  unto  you  that  it  shall  be  more  tolerable 
for  the  land  of  Sodom  in  the  day  of  judgment  than 
for  thee  "  (Matt.  xi.  23,  24).  Such  awful  language 
could  only  be  used  to  describe  a  complete  rejection 
of  the  Lord.  And  in  truth  nothing  was  wanting 
to  aggravate  that  rejection.  The  lengthened  jour- 
neys through  the  land,  the  miracles,  far  more  than 
ve  recorded  in  detail,  had  brought  the  Gospel  home 
10  all  the  people.  Capernaum  was  the  focus  of  his 
ministry.  Through  Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  He  had 
no  doubt  passed  with  crowds  behind  Him,  drawn 
together  by  wonders  that  they  had  seen,  and  by 
the  hope  of  others  to  follow  them.  Many  thousands 
had  actually  been  benefited  by  the  miracles;  and 
yet  of  all  these  there  were  only  twelve  that  really 
clave  to  Him,  and  one  of  them  was  Judas  the 
traitor.  With  this  rejection  an  epoch  of  the  his- 
tory is  connected.  He  begins  to  unfold  now  the 
doctrine  of  his  Passion  more  fully.  First  inquiring 
who  the  jjeople  said  that  He  was,  He  then  put  the 
Bame  question  to  the  Apostles  themselves.  Simon 
Peter,  the  ready  spokesman  of  the  rest,  answers, 
"  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
It  might  almost  seem  that  such  a  manifest  inference 
rem  the  wonders  they  had  witnessed  was  too  ob- 
tIous  to  deserve  praise,  did  not  the  sight  of  a  whole 
••ountry  which  had  witnessed  the  same  wonders, 
Uid  despised  them,  prove  how  thoroughly  callous 
the  Jewish  heart  was.  "  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon 
Bar- Jona :  for  iiesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1367 


unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in  heavcm.  And 
I  say  also  unto  thee.  That  thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church ;  and  th« 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  And  I 
will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven" 
(Matt.  xvi.  16-20).  We  compare  the  language 
applied  to  Capernaum  for  its  want  of  feith  with 
that  addressed  to  Peter  and  the  Apostles,  and-we 
see  how  wide  is  the  gulf  between  those  who  believe 
snd  those  who  do  not.  Jesus  now  in  the  plainest 
language  tells  them  what  is  to  be  the  mode  of  his 
departure  from  the  world ;  "  how  that  He  must  go 
imto  Jerusalem,  and  suffer  many  things  of  the 
elders  and  chief  priests  and  scribes,  and  be  killed, 
and  be  raised  again  the  third  day  "  (Matt.  xvi.  21). 
Peter,  who  had  spoken  as  the  representative  of  all 
the  Apostles  before,  in  confessing  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  now  speaks  for  the  rest  in  offering  to  our 
Lord  the  commonplace  consolations  of  the  children 
of  this  world  to  a  friend  beset  by  danger.  The 
danger  they  think  will  be  averted :  such  an  end  can- 
not befall  one  so  great.  The  Lord,  "  when  he  had 
turned  about  and  looked  on  his  disciples"  (Mark), 
to  show  that  He  connected  Peter's  words  with 
them  all,  addresses  Peter  as  the  tempter  —  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan ;  thou  art  an  offense  unto 
me."  These  words  open  up  to  us  the  fact  that 
this  period  of  the  ministry  was  a  time  of  special 
trial  and  temptation  to  the  sinless  Son  of  God. 
''  Escape  from  sufferings  and  death !  Do  not  drink 
the  cup  prepared  of  Thy  Father;  it  is  too  bitter; 
it  is  not  deserved."  Such  was  the  whisper  of  the 
Prince  of  this  World  at  that  time  to  our  Lord; 
and  Peter  has  been  unwittingly  taking  it  into  his 
mouth.  The  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  so 
plainly  exhibited  in  the  prophets,  had  receded  from 
sight  in  the  current  religion  of  that  time.  The 
announcement  of  it  to  the  disciples  was  at  once 
new  and  shocking.  By  repelling  it,  even  when 
offered  by  the  Lord  Himself,  they  fell  into  a  deeper 
sin  than  they  could  have  conceived.  The  chief 
of  them  was  called  "  Satan,"  because  he  was  un- 
consciously pleading  on  Satan's  side  (Matt.  xvi.  21 
23). 

Turning  now  to  the  whole  body  of  those  who 
followed  Him  (Mark,  Luke),  He  published  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  self-denial.  The  Apostles  had 
just  shown  that  they  took  the  natural  view  of  suf- 
fering, that  it  was  an  evil  to  be  shunned.  They 
shrank  from  conflict,  and  pain,  and  death,  as  it  is 
natural  men  should.  But  Jesus  teaches  that,  in 
comparison  with  the  higher  life,  the  life  of  the  scul, 
the  life  of  the  body  is  valueless.  And  as  the  re- 
newed life  of  the  Christian  implies  his  dying  to 
his  old  wishes  and  desires,  suffering,  which  causes 
the  death  of  earthly  hopes  and  wishes,  may  be  a 
good.  "  If  any  man  will  come  after  Me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  Me. 
For  whosoever  will  save  hi.s  life  shall  lose  it,  and 
whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  My  sake  shall  find  it. 
For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  should  gain  the 
whole  world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  or  what  shall 
a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul?  "  (Matt,  xvi.) 
From  this  part  of  the  history  to  the  end  we  shsdl 
not  lose  sight  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Lord.  The 
Cross  is  darkly  seen  at  the  end  of  our  path ;  and 
we  shall  ever  draw  nearer  that  mysterious  imple> 
ment  of  huir  ui  salvation  (Matt.  xvi.  21-28 ,  Marfc 
viU.  31-38;    .uke  ix.  22-27). 


1368 


JESUS  CHRIST 


The  Tmnsfiguration,  which  took  place  jugt  a 
reek  after  this  conversation,  is  to  be  understood  in 
connection  with  it.  The  minds  of  the  twelve  were 
greatly  disturbed  at  what  they  had  heard.  The 
Messiah  was  to  perish  by  the  wrath  of  men.  The 
Master  whom  they  served  was  to  be  taken  away 
from  them.  Now,  if  ever,  they  needed  support  for 
their  perplexed  spirits,  and  this  their  loving  Master 
failed  not  to  give  them.  He  takes  with  Him  three 
chosen  disciples,  Peter,  John,  and  James,  who 
formed  as  it  were  a  smaller  circle  nearer  to  Jesus 
than  that  of  the  rest,  into  a  high  mountain  apart 
by  themselves.  There  are  no  means  of  determining 
the  position  of  the  mountain;  although  Caesarea 
Philippi  was  the  scene  of  the  former  conversations, 
It  does  not  follow  that  this  occurred  on  the  eastern 
iide  of  the  lake,  for  the  intervening  week  would 
have  given  time  enough  for  a  long  journey  thence. 
There  is  no  authority  for  the  tradition  which  iden- 
tifies this  mountain  with  Mount  Tabor,  although  it 
miiy  be  true.  [Hermon;  Tabor.]  The  three 
disciples  were  taken  up  with  Him,  who  should  after- 
wards be  the  three  witnesses  of  his  agony  in  the 
garden  of  Gethsemane :  those  who  saw  his  glory  in 
the  holy  mount  would  be  sustained  by  the  remem- 
brance of  it  when  they  beheld  his  lowest  humilia- 
tion. The  calmness  and  exactness  of  the  narrative 
preclude  all  doubt  as  to  its  historical  character.  It 
is  no  myth,  nor  vision ;  but  a  sober  account  of  a 
miracle.  When  Jesus  had  come  up  into  the  moun- 
tain He  was  praying,  and  as  He  prayed,  a  great 
change  came  over  Him.  "  His  face  did  shine  as 
the  sun  (Matt.);  and  His  raiment  became  shhiing, 
exceeding  white  as  snow :  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth 
can  white  them"  (Mark).  Inside  Him  appeared 
Moses  tlie  great  lawgiver,  and  Elijah,  great  amongst 
the  prophets ;  and  they  spake  of  his  departure,  as 
though  it  was  something  recognized  both  by  I>aw 
and  prophets.  I'he  three  disciples  were  at  first 
asleep  with  weariness;  and  when  they  woke  they 
saw  the  glorious  scene.  As  Moses  and  Elijah  were 
departing  (Luke),  Peter,  wishing  to  arrest  them, 
uttered  those  strange  words,  "  Lord,  it  is  good  for 
as  to  be  here,  and  let  us  make  three  tabernacles, 
one  for  Thee,  and  one  for  Moses,  and  one  for  Eli- 
jah." They  were  the  words  of  one  astonished 
and  somewhat  afraid,  yet  of  one  who  felt  a  stmnge 
peace  in  this  explicit  testimony  from  the  Father 
that  Jesus  was  his.  It  was  good  for  them  to  be 
there,  he  felt,  where  no  Pharisees  could  set  traps 
for  them,  where  neither  Pilate  nor  Herod  could 
take  Jesus  by  force.  Just  as  he  spoke  a  cloud  came 
over  them,  and  the  voice  of  the  Heavenly  Father 
attested  once  more  his  Son  —  "  This  is  my  beloved 
Son;  hear  Him."  There  has  been  much  discus- 
sion on  the  purport  of  this  great  wonder.  But 
thus  much  seems  highly  probable.  First,  as  it  was 
connected  with  the  prayer  of  Jesus,  to  which  it  was 
no  doubt  an  answer,  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  kind 
of  inauguration  of  Him  in  his  new  office  as  the 
High-priest  who  should  make  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  the  people  with  his  own  blood.  The  mys 
tery  of  his  trials  and  temptations  lies  too  deep  for 
speculation:  but  He  received  strength  against  hu 
man  infirmity  —  against  the  prospect  of  sufferings 
io  terrible  —  in  this  his  glorification.  Secondly, 
as  the  witnesses  of  this  scene  were  the  same  three 
disciples  who  were  with  the  Master  in  the  garden 
*>£  Gethsemane  it  may  be  assumed  that  the  one 
^aa  intended  to  prepare  them  for  the  other,  and 
(hat  they  were  to  be  borne  up  under  the  spectacle 
3f  his  humiliation  by  the  remembrance  that  they 


JESUS  CHRIST 

had  been  eye-witnesses  of  his  majesty   (2  Pet.  i 
16-18). 

As  they  came  down  from  the  mountain  He 
charged  them  to  keep  secret  what  they  had  seen 
till  after  the  Resurrection ;  which  shows  that  this 
miracle  took  place  for  his  use  and  for  theirs,  rather 
than  for  the  rest  of  the  disciples.  This  led  to 
questions  about  the  meaning  of  his  rising  again 
from  the  dead,  and  in  the  course  of  it,  and  arising 
out  of  it,  occurred  the  question,  "  Why  then  {oZv^ 
which  refers  to  some  preceding  conversation)  say 
the  scribes  that  Elias  must  first  come  ?  "  They 
had  been  assured  by  what  they  had  just  seen  that 
the  time  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  now  come; 
and  the  objection  brought  by  the  Scribes,  that  be- 
fore the  Messiah  Elijah  must  reappear,  seemed  hard 
to  reconcile  with  their  new  conviction.  Our  Lord 
answers  them  that  the  Scribes  have  rightly  under- 
stood the  prophecies  that  Elijah  would  first  come 
(Mai.  iv.  5,  6),  but  have  wanted  the  discernment 
to  see  that  this  prophecy  was  already  fulfilled. 
♦'  Elias  has  come  already,  and  they  knew  him  not, 
but  have  done  unto  him  whatever  they  listed." 
In  John  the  Baptist,  who  came  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  FJijah,  were  the  Scriptures  fulfilled  (Matt, 
xvii.  1-13;  Mark  ix.  2-13;  Luke  ix.  28-36). 

Meantime  amongst  the  multitude  below  a  scene 
was  taking  place  which  formed  the  strongest  con- 
trast to  the  glory  and  the  peace  which  they  had 
witnessed,  and  which  seemed  to  justify  Peter's 
remark,  "  It  is  good  for  us  to  be  here."  A  poor 
youth,  lunatic  and  possessed  by  a  devil  —  for  here 
as  elsewhere  the  possession  is  superadded  to  some 
known  form  of  that  bodily  and  mental  evil  which 
came  in  at  first  with  sin  and  Satan  —  was  brought 
to  the  disciples  who  were  not  with  Jesus,  to  be 
cured.  They  could  not  prevail;  and  when  Jesus 
appeared  amongst  them  the  agonized  and  disap- 
pointed father  appealed  to  Him,  with  a  kind  of 
complaint  of  the  impotence  of  the  disciples.  "  0 
faithless  and  perverse  generation !  "  said  our  Lord; 
"  how  long  shall  I  be  with  you  ?  how  long  shall  I 
suflTer  you  ?  "  The  rebuke  is  not  to  the  disciples, 
but  to  all,  the  father  included;  for  the  weakness 
of  faith  that  hindered  the  miracle  was  in  them  all. 
St.  Mark's  account,  the  most  complete,  describes 
the  paroxysm  that  took  place  in  the  lad  on  our 
lx)rd's  ordering  him  to  be  brought;  and  also  records 
the  remarkable  saying,  which  well  described  the 
father's  state,  "  Lord,  I  believe,  help  Thou  my 
unbelief!  "  What  the  disciples  had  failed  to  do, 
Jesus  did  at  a  word.  He  then  explained  to 
them  that  their  want  of  faith  in  their  own  power 
to  heal,  and  in  his  promises  to  bestow  the  power 
upon  them,  was  the  cause  of  their  inability  (Matt. 
xvii.  14-21 ;  Mark  ix.  14-29 ;  Luke  ix.  37-43). 

Once  more  did  Jesus  foretell  his  sufferings  oz. 
their  way  back  to  Capernaum ;  but  "  they  under- 
stood not  that  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask  Him  " 
(Mark  ix.  30-32). 

But  a  vague  impression  seems  to  have  been  pro- 
duced on  them  that  his  kingdom  was  now  very 
near.  It  broke  forth  in  the  shape  of  a  disput* 
amongst  them  as  to  which  should  rank  the  highest 
in  the  kingdom  when  it  should  come.  Taking  a 
little  child,  He  told  them  that,  in  his  kingdom,  not 
ambition,  but  a  childlike  humility,  would  entitle  to 
the  highest  place  (Matt,  xviii.  1-5;  Mark  ix.  33- 
37;  Luke  ix.  46-48).  The  humility  of  the  Chris- 
tian is  so  closely  connected  with  consideration  for 
the  souls  of  others,  that  the  transition  to  a  warn- 
ing against  causing  offense  (MaU,.,  Mark),  whick 


I 


JESUS  CHRIST 

might  appear  abrupt  at  first,  is.  most  natural. 
From  this  Jesus  passes  naturally  to  the  subject  of 
a  tender  consideration  for  "  the  lost  sheep;  "  thence 
to  the  duty  of  forgiveness  of  a  brother.  Both  of 
these  last,  points  are  illustrated  by  parables.  These, 
and  some  other  discourses  belonging  to  the  same 
time,  are  to  be  regarded  as  designed  to  carry  on 
the  education  of  the  Apostles,  whose  views  were 
still  crude  and  unformed,  even  after  all  that  had 
been  done  for  them  (Matt,  xviii.)- 

From  the  Feast  of  Tahernacks,  Third  Year.  — 
The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  now  approaching. 
For  eighteen  months  the  ministry  of  Jesus  had 
been  confined  to  Galilee;  and  his  brothers,  not 
hostile  to  Him,  yet  only  half-convinced  about  his 
doctrine,  urged  Ilim  to  go  into  Judaea  that  his 
claims  might  be  known  and  confessed  on  a  more 
conspicuous  field.  This  kind  of  request,  founded 
in  human  motives,  was  one  which  our  Lord  would 
not  assent  to ;  witness  his  answer  to  Mary  at  Cana 
ui  Galilee  when  the  first  miracle  was  wrought.  H©  i 
told  them  that,  whilst  all  times  were  alike  to  them, 
whilst  they  could  always  walk  among  the  Jews 
without  danger,  his  appointed  time  was  not  come. 
They  set  out  for  the  feast  without  Him,  and  He 
abode  in  Gahlee  for  a  few  days  longer  (John  vii. 
2-10).  Afterwards  He  set  out,  taking  the  more 
direct  but  less  frequented  route  by  Samaria,  that 
his  journey  might  be  "in  secret."  It  was  in  this 
journey  that  James  and  John  conceived  the  wish  — 
so  closely  parallel  to  facts  in  the  Old  Covenant,  so 
completely  at  variance  with  the  spirit  of  the  New, 
that  fire  should  be  commanded  to  come  down  from 
heaven  to  consume  the  inhospitable  Samaritans 
(Luke  ix.  51-62). 

St.  Luke  alone  records,  in  connection  with  this 
journey,  the  senduig  forth  of  the  seventy  disciples. 
This  event  is  to  be  regarded  in  a  different  light 
from  that  of  the  twelve.  The  seventy  had  received 
no  special  education  from  our  Lord,  and  their  com- 
mission was  of  a  temporary  kind.  The  number 
has  reference  to  the  Gentiles,  as  twelve  had  to  the 
Jews ;  and  the  scene  of  the  work,  Samaria,  reminds 
us  that  this  is  a  movement  directed  towaiJs  the 
stranger.  It  takes  place  six  months  after  the  send- 
ing forth  of  the  twelve ;  for  the  Gospel  was  to  be 
delivered  to  the  Jew  first  and  afterwards  to  the 
Gentile.  In  both  cases  probably  the  preaching  was 
of  the  simplest  kind  —  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is 
come  nigh  unto  you."  The  instructions  given  were 
the  same  in  spirit;  but,  on  comparing  them,  we 
»ee  that  now  the  danger  was  becoming  greater  and 
llie  time  for  labor  shorter  (Luke  x.  1-16). 

After  healing  the  ten  lepers  in  Samaria,  He  came 
»'  about  the  midst  of  the  feast "  to  Jerusalem. 
Here  the  minds  of  the  people  were  strongly  excited 
and  drawn  in  different  ways  concerning  him.  The 
Pharisees  and  rulers  sought  to  take  Him;  some  of 
the  people,  however,  believed  in  Him,  but  concealed 
their  opinion  for  fear  of  the  rulers.  To  this  divis- 
ion of  opinion  we  may  attribute  the  failure  of  the 
repeated  attempts  on  tlie  part  of  the  Sanhedrim  to 
take  One  who  was  openly  teaching  in  the  Temple 
(John  vii.  11-53;  see  especially  vv.  30,  32,  44,  45, 
46).  The  officers  were  partly  afraid  to  seize  in  the 
presence  of  the  people  the  favorite  Teacher;  and 
^hey  themselves  were  awed  and  attracted  by  Him. 
rhey  came  to  seize  Him,  but  could  not  lift  their 
lands  against  Him.  Notwithstanding  the  ferment 
»f  opinio)^  and  the  fixed  hatred  of  those  in  power, 
lie  seej^s  to  have  taught  daily  to  the  end  of  the 
feiAt  in  the  Temple  before  the  people. 


JESUS  CHRIST  1369 

The  history  of- the  woman  taken  in  adultery  be- 
longs to  this  time.  But  it  must  be  premised  that 
several  MSS.  of  highest  authority  omit  this  passage, 
and  that  in  those  which  insert  it  the  text  is  singu- 
larly disturbed  (see  Liicke,  in  loc,  and  Tischendorf, 
Or.  Test,  ed.  vii.).  The  remark  of  Augustine  ia 
perhaps  not  far  from  the  truth,  that  this  story 
formed  a  genuine  portion  of  the  apostolic  teaching, 
but  that  mistaken  peo{)le  excluded  it  from  their 
copies  of  the  written  Gospel,  thinking  it  might  be 
perverted  into  a  license  to  women  to  sin  (Ad  PoUenU 
ii.  ch.  7).  That  it  was  thus  kept  apart,  without 
the  safeguards  which  Christian  vigilance  exercised 
over  the  rest  of  the  text,  and  was  only  admitted 
later,  would  at  once  account  for  its  absence  from 
the  JNISS.  and  for  the  various  forms  assumed  by  the 
text  where  it  is  given.  But  the  history  gives  no 
ground  for  such  apprehensions.  The  law  of  JNIosea 
gave  the  power  to  stone  women  taken  in  adultery. 
But  Jewish  morals  were  sunk  very  low,  like  Jewish 
faith ;  and  the  punishment  could  not  be  inflicted 
on  a  sinner  by  those  who  had  sinned  in  the  same 
kind :  "  Etenim  non  est  ferendus  accusator  is  qui 
quod  in  altero  vitium  reprehendit,  in  eo  ipso  depre- 
henditur"  (Cicero,  c.  Vtrreiii^m.).  Thus  the  pun- 
ishment had  passed  out  of  use.  But  they  thought, 
by  proposing  this  case  to  our  Lord,  to  induce  Him 
either  to  set  the  Law  formally  aside,  in  which  csw-e 
they  might  accuse  Him  of  profaneness ;  or  to  sen- 
tence the  guilty  wretch  to  die,  and  so  become  ob- 
noxious to  the  charge  of  cruelty.  From  such 
temptations  Jesus  was  always  able  to  escape.  He 
threw  back  the  decision  upon  them;  He  told  them 
that  the  man  who  was  free  from  that  sin  might 
cast  the  first  stone  at  her.  Conscience  told  them 
that  this  was  unanswerable,  and  one  by  one  they 
stole  away,  leaving  the  guilty  woman  alone  before 
One  who  was  indeed  her  Judge.  It  has  been  sup- 
l)osed  that  the  words  "  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee" 
convey  an  absolute  pardon  for  the  sin  of  which  she 
had  just  been  guilty.  But  they  refer,  as  has  long 
since  been  pointed  out,  to  the  doom  of  stoning  only. 
"As  they  have  not  punished  thee,  neither  do  I; 
go,  and  let  this  danger  warn  thee  to  sui  no  more  " 
(John  viii.  1-11). 

The  conversations  (John  viii.  12-59)  show  in  a 
strong  hght  the  perversity  of  the  Jews  in  misun- 
derstanding our  Lord's  words.  They  refuse  to  see 
any  spiritual  meaning  in  them,  and  drag  them  as 
it  were  by  force  down  to  a  low  and  carnal  interpre- 
tation. Our  Lord's  remark  explains  the  cause  of 
this,  "  Why  do  ye  not  understand  my  speech  [way 
of  speaking]  ?  Even  Irecause  ye  cannot  hear  my 
word "  (ver.  43).  His  mode  of  expression  was 
strange  to  them,  because  they  were  neither  able  nor 
willing  to  understand  the  real  puri^rt  of  his  teaAih- 
ing.  To  this  place  belongs  the  account,  given  by 
John  alone,  of  the  healing  of  one  who  was  bom 
bUnd,  and  the  conse(]uences  of  it  (John  ix.  1-41,  x. 
1-21).  The  iX)or  patient  was  excommunicated  for 
refusmg  to  undervalue  the  agency  of  Jesus  in  re- 
storing him.  He  believed  on  Jesus;  whilst  the 
Pharisees  were  only  made  the  worse  for  what  they 
had  witnessed.  Well  might  Jesus  exclaim,  "  For 
judgment  I  am  come  into  this  world,  that  they 
which  see  not  might  see;  and  that  they  which  see 
might  be  made  blind  "  (ix.  39).  The  well-known 
parable  of  the  good  shepherd  is  an  answer  to  the 
calumny  of  the  Pharisees,  that  He  was  an  impostor 
and  breaker  of  the  law,  "  This  man  is  not  of  God, 
because  he  keejnjtl  not  the  Sabbath  day  "  (ix.  16). 

We  now  approach  a  difiicult  portion  of  the  sJicied 


1370 


JESUS  CHEIST 


nistory.  The  note  of  time  given  us  by  John  im- 
mediately afterwards  is  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication, 
which  was  celebrated  on  the  25th  of  Kisleu,  answer- 
ing nearly  to  December.  According  to  tliis  Evange- 
list our  Lord  does  not  apjjear  to  have  returned  to 
Galilee  between  the  Feast  of  Taljernacles  and  that 
of  Dedication,  but  to  have  passed  the  time  m  and 
near  Jerusalem.  Matthew  and  Mark  do  not  allude 
to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  Luke  ap})ears  to  do 
so  in  ix.  51 ;  but  tlie  words  there  used  would  imply 
that  this  was  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  Now 
in  St.  Luke's  Gospel  a  large  section,  from  ix.  51  to 
xviii.  14,  seems  to  belong  to  tlie  time  preceding  the 
departure  from  Galilee;  and  the  question  is  how  is 
this  to  be  arranged,  so  that  it  shall  harmonize  with 
the  narrative  of  St.  Jolui  ?  In  most  Harmonies  a 
retm-n  of  our  I^rd  to  Galilee  has  been  assumed,  in 
order  to  find  a  place  for  this  part  of  Luke's  Gospel. 
"  But  the  manner,"  says  the  English  editor  of 
liobinson's  Harmony,  "  in  which  it  has  been  ar- 
ranged, after  all,  is  exceedingly  various.  Some,  as 
Le  Clerc,  Harm.  Evaiuj.  p.  2G4,  insert  nearly  the 
whole  during  this  supposed  journey.  Others,  as 
Lightfoot,  assign  to  this  journey  only  what  precedes 
Luke  xiii.  23 ;  and  refer  the  remahider  to  our  Lord's 
sojourn  beyond  Jordan,  John  x.  40  ( Chron.  Temp. 
N.  T.  0pp.  II.  pp.  37,  39).  Greswell  {Dissert,  xvi. 
vol.  ii.)  maintains  that  the  transactions  in  Luke  ix. 
51-xviii.  14,  all  belong  to  the  journey  from  Ephraim 
(through  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  Peraea)  to  Jeru- 
salem, which  he  dates  in  the  interval  of  four  months., 
between  the  least  of  Dedication  and  our  Ix)rd's 
last  Passover.  Wieseler  {Clmm.  Synops.  p.  328) 
makes  a  somewhat  different  arrangement,  according 
to  which  Luke  ix.  51  —  xiii.  21  relates  to  the 
period  from  Christ's  journey  from  Galilee  to  the 
Feast  of  the  Tabernacles,  till  alter  the  Feast  of 
Dedication  (parallel  to  John  vii.  10  —  x.  42).  Luke 
xiii.  22  —  xvii.  10  relates  to  the  interval  between 
that  time  and  our  Ix)rd's  stay  at  Ivphraim  (parallel 
to  Jolni  xi.  1-54);  and  Luke  xvii.  11  —  xviii.  14 
relates  to  the  journey  from  Ephraim  to  Jerusalem, 
through  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  Peraea"  (Robinson's 
Harmony,  English  ed.  p.  92).  If  the  table  of  the 
Harmony  of  the  Gospels  given  above  is  referred  to 
[Gosi'iiLs],  it  will  be  found  tliat  this  great  division 
of  St.  Luke  (x.  17 — xviii.  14)  is  inserted  entire 
between  John  x.  21  and  22;  not  tliat  this  appeared 
certainly  correct,  but  that  there  are  no  jwints  of 
contaet  with  the  other  Gosi)els  to  assist  us  in 
breaking  it  up.  That  this  division  contains  partly 
or  chiefly  i-eminiscences  of  occurrences  in  Galilee 
prior  to  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  is  untenable.  A 
journey  of  some  kind  is  implied  in  the  course  of  it 
(see  xiii.  22),  and  beyond  this  we  shall  hardly  ven- 
ture to  go.  It  is  quite  possil)le,  as  Wieseler  sup- 
poses, that  part  of  it  should  be  placed  before,  and 
part  after  the  Feast  of  Dedication.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  uncertainty,  it  is  as  the  history  of  this 
period  of  the  Kedeemer's  career  that  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Luke  possesses  its  chief  distinctive  value  for  us. 
Some  of  the  most  striking  parables,  preserved  only 
by  this  Evangelist,  belong  to  this  period.  The 
oarables  of  the  good  Samaritan,  the  prodigal  son, 
the  unjust  steward,  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  and 
the  Pliarisee  and  publican,  all  pecuhar  to  this 
Gospel,  Ijelong  to  the  present  section.  The  in- 
Btrudtive  account  of  Mary  and  Martha,  on  which 
no  many  have  taken  a  wrong  view  of  Alartha's  con- 
iuct,  reminds  us  that  there  are  two  ways  of  serving 
the  truth,  that  of  active  exertion,  and  that  of  con- 
templation.    7'be  preference   is  given  to  Mary's 


JESUS  CHRIST 

meditation,  because  Martha's  labor  belonged  U 
household  cares,  and  was  only  indirectly  religious. 
The  fiiracle  of  the  ten  lepers  belongs  to  this  portion 
of  the  narrative.  Besides  these,  scattered  sayings 
that  occur  in  St.  Matthew  are  here  repeated  ui  a 
new  connection.  Here  too  belongs  the  return  of 
the  seventy  disciples,  but  we  know  not  precisely 
where  they  rejoined  the  Ix)rd  (Luke  x.  17-20).  They 
were  full  of  triumph,  because  they  found  even  the 
devils  subject  to  them  through  the  weight  of  Christ  s 
word.  In  anticipation  of  the  victory  which  was 
now  begun,  against  the  powers  of  darkness,  Jesus 
replies,  "  I  beheld  Satan  as  lightning  fall  from 
heaven."  He  sought,  however,  to  humble  their 
triumphant  spirit,  so  near  akin  to  spiritual  pride; 
"  Notwithstanding,  in  this  rejoice  not,  that  the 
spirits  are  subject  unto  you;  but  rather  rejoice, 
because  your  names  are  written  in  heaven." 

The  account  of  the  bringing  of  young  children 
to  Jesus  unites  again  the  three  Evangehsts.  Here, 
as  often,  St.  Mark  gives  the  most  minute  account 
of  what  occuiTed.  After  the  announcement  that 
the  disposition  of  little  children  was  the  most  meet 
for  the  kingdom  of  God,  "  He  took  them  up  in  his 
arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them  and  blessed  them." 
The  childlike  spirit,  which  in  nothing  depends  upor 
its  own  knowledge  but  seeks  to  be  taught,  is  i:i 
contrast  with  the  haughty  pharisaism  with  its 
boast  of  learning  and  wisdom ;  and  Jesus  tells  them 
that  the  former  is  the  passport  to  his  kingdom 
(Matt.  xix.  13-15;  Mark  x.  13-16  ;  Luke  xviu. 
15-17). 

The  question  of  the  ruler,  "  What  shall  I  do  to 
inherit  eternal  Hfe?  "  was  one  conceived  wholly  in 
the  spirit  of  Judaism.  The  man  asked  not  how 
he  should  be  delivered  from  sin,  but  how  his  will, 
already  free  to  righteousness,  might  select  the  best 
and  most  meritorious  line  of  conduct.  The  words, 
"  Why  cailest  thou  me  good  ?  there  is  none  good 
but  one,  that  is,  God,"  were  meant  first  to  draw 
him  down  to  a  humbler  view  of  his  own  state;  the 
title  g(XKl  is  easy  to  give,  but  hard  to  justify,  except 
when  apphed  to  the  One  who  is  all  good.  Jesus 
by  no  means  repudiates  the  title  as  applied  to 
Himself,  but  only  as  applied  on  any  other  ground 
than  that  of  a  reference  to  his  true  divine  nature. 
Then  the  Lord  opened  out  to  him  all  the  moral 
law,  which  in  its  full  and  complete  sense  no  man 
has  observed ;  but  the  ruler  answered,  perhaps  sin- 
cerely, that  he  had  observed  it  all  from  his  youth 
up.  Duties  however  there  might  be  which  had  not 
come  within  the  range  of  his  thoughts ;  and  as  the 
demand  had  reference  to  his  own  special  case,  our 
Lord  gives  the  special  advice  to  sell  all  his  posses- 
sions and  to  give  to  the  poor.  Then  for  the  first 
time  did  the  man  discover  that  his  devotion  to  God 
and  his  yearning  after  the  eternal  life  were  not  so 
Ijerfect  as  he  had  thought;  and  he  went  away  sor- 
rowful, unable  to  bear  this  sacrifice.  And  Jesus 
told  the  disciples  how  hard  it  was  for  those  who 
had  riches  to  enter  the  kingdom.  Peter,  ever  the 
most  ready,  now  contrasts,  with  somewhat  too  much 
emphasis,  the  mode  in  which  the  disciples  had  left 
all  for  Him,  with  the  conduct  of  this  rich  ruler. 
Our  Lord,  sparing  him  the  rebuke  which  he  might 
have  expected,  tells  them  that  those  who  have  made 
any  sacrifice  shall  have  it  richly  repaid  even  in  this 
hfe  in  the  shape  of  a  consolation  and  comfort,  which 
even  persecutions  cannot  take  away  (Mark);  and 
shall  have  eternal  life  (JMatt.  xix.  16-30:  Mark  x 
17-31 ;  Luke  xviii.  18-30).  Words  of  waniinjf 
close  the  narrative,  "  Many  that  are  first  shall  \A 


JESUS  CHRIST 

last  and  the  last  shall  be  fiiyt,"  lest  the  disciples 
should  be  thinking  too  much  of  the  sacrifices,  not 
so  very  great,  that  they  had  made.  And  in  St. 
Matthew  only,  the  well-known  parable  of  the  labor- 
ers in  the  vineyard  is  added  to  illustrate  the  same 
lesson.  Whatever  else  the  parable  may  contain  of 
reference  to  the  calling  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  the 
first  lesson  Christ  was  to  give  was  one  of  caution 
to  the  Apostles  against  thinking  too  much  of  their 
early  calling  and  arduous  labors.  They  would  see 
many,  who,  in  comparison  with  themselves,  were  as 
the  laborers  called  at  the  eleventh  hour,  who  should 
be  accepted  of  God  as  well  as  they.  But  not  merit, 
not  seh-sacrifice,  but  the  pure  love  of  God  and  his 
mere  bounty,  conferred  salvation  on  either  of  them  : 
"  Is  it  not  lawful  for  mc  to  do  what  1  will  with  my 
own?"  (Matt.  xx.  1-lG). 

On  the  way  to  Jerusalem  through  Persea,  to  the 
Feast  of  Dedication,  Jesus  again  puts  before  the 
minds  of  the  twelve  what  they  are  never  now  to 
forget,  the  sufferings  that  await  Him.  They  "  un- 
derstood none  of  these  things"  (Luke),  for  they 
could  not  recojicile  this  foreboding  of  suffering  with 
the  signs  and  announcements  of  the  coming  of  his 
kingdom  (Matt.  xx.  17-19;  iMark  x.  32-34;  Luke 
xviii.  31-34).  In  consequence  of  this  new,  though 
dark,  intimation  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom, 
Salome,  with  her  two  sons,  James  and  John,  came 
to  bespeak  the  two  places  of  highest  honor  in  the 
kingdom.  Jesus  tells  them  that  they  know  not 
what  they  ask;  that  the  places  of  honor  in  the 
kingdom  shall  be  bestowed,  not  by  Jesus  in  answer 
to  a  chance  request,  but  upon  those  for  whom  they 
are  prepared  by  the  Father.  As  sin  ever  provokes 
sin,  the  ambition  of  the  ten  was  now  aroused,  and 
Shey  began  to  be  much  displeased  with  James  and 
John.  Jesus  once  more  recalls  the  principle  that 
the  childlike  disposition  is  that  which  He  approves. 
"  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise 
dominion  over  them,  and  they  that  are  great  exer- 
cise authority  upon  them.  But  it  shall  not  be  so 
hiiiong  you:  but  whosoever  wiU  be  great  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  minister;  and  whosoever  will 
be  chief  among  you,  let  him  be  your  servant :  Even 
as  the  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto 
but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many"  (Matt.  xx.  20-28:  Mark  x.  35-45). 

The  healing  of  the  two  bUnd  men  at  Jericho  is 
chiefly  remarkable  among  the  miracles  from  the 
difficulty  which  has  arisen  in  harmonizing  tlie  ac- 
counts. Mattliew  speaks  of  tivo  bUnd  men,  and  of 
the  occasion  as  the  departure  from  Jericho;  Mark 
of  one,  whom  he  names,  and  of  their  arrival  at 
Jericho;  and  Luke  agrees  with  him.  This  point 
has  received  much  discussion;  but  the  view  of 
Lightfoot  finds  favor  with  many  eminent  expositors, 
that  there  were  two  lilind  men,  and  both  were 
healed  under  similar  circumstances,  except  that 
Bartimseus  was  on  one  side  of  the  city,  and  was 
healed  by  Jesus  as  He  entei^l,  and  the  other  was 
healed  on  the  other  side  as  they  departed  (see  Gres- 
well,  Diss.  XX.  ii.;  VVieseler,  Chron.  Syn.  p.  332; 
Matt.  XX.  29-34  ;  Mark  x.  46-52 ;  Luke  xviii. 
35-43).     [Baktim.kl's,  Amer.  ed.J 

The  calling  of  Zacchseus  has  more  than  a  mere 
■)ersonal  interest.  He  was  a  publican,  one  of  a  class 
Wated  and  despised  by  the  Jews.  But  he  was  one 
who  sought  to  serve  God ;  he  gave  large^v  to  the 
>oor,  and  restored  fourfold  when  he  had  injured 
(toy  man.  Justice  and  love  were  the  law  of  his 
ife.  Brom  such  did  Jesus  wish  to  call  his  dis- 
uples,  whethei  tliey  were  publicans  or  not.    "  This 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1371 


day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house,  for  that  he  alsc 
is  a  son  of  Abmham.  For  the  Son  of  Man  is  come 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost"  (Luke 
xix.  1-10). 

We  have  reached  now  the  Feast  of  Dedication . 
but,  as  has  been  said,  the  exact  place  of  the  events 
in  St.  Luke  about  this  jurt  of  the  ministry  h;ui  not 
been  conclusively  deternrned.  After  being  present 
at  the  feast,  Jesus  returned  to  Bethabara  l»eyoud 
Jordan,  where  John  had  formerly  baptizeil,  and 
abode  there.  The  place  which  the  beginning  -of 
his  ministry  had  consecrated,  was  now  to  be 
adorned  with  his  presence  as  it  drew  towards  it« 
close,  and  the  scene  of  John's  activity  was  now  to 
witness  the  presence  of  the  Saviour  whom  he  had 
I  so  faitlifully  proclaimed  (John  x.  22-42).  The  Lord 
intended  by  this  choice  to  recall  to  the  minds  of 
many  the  good  which  John  had  done  them,  and 
also,  it  may  be,  to  prevent  an  undue  exaltation  of 
John  in  the  minds  of  some  who  had  beard  him 
only.  "Many,"  we  read,  "resorted  to  Him,  and 
said,  John  did  no  miracle,  but  all  things  that  .lohn 
spake  of  this  man  were  trae.  And  many  believed 
on  Him  there"  (vv.  41,  42). 

How  long  He  remained  here  does  not  appear. 
It  was  probably  for  some  weeks.  The  sore  need  of 
a  family  in  Bethany,  who  were  what  men  call  the 
intin)ate  friends  of  our  Lortl,  called  Him  thence. 
Lazarus  was  sick,  and  his  sisters  sent  word  of  it  to 
Jesus,  whose  power  they  well  knew.  Jesus  an- 
swered that  the  sickness  was  not  unto  death,  but 
for  the  glory  of  (iod,  and  of  the  Son  of  God.  This 
had  reference  to  the  miracle  about  to  be  wrought ; 
even  though  he  died,  not  his  death  but  his  restora- 
tion to  life  was  the  purpose  of  the  sickness.  But 
it  was  a  trial  to  tlie  faith  of  the  sisters  to  find  the 
irords  of  their  friend  apparently  falsified.  Jesus 
abode  for  two  days  where  He  was,  and  then  pro- 
posed to  the  disciples  to  return.  The  rage  of  the 
Jews  against  him  filled  tlie  disciples  with  alarm ; 
and  Thomas,  whose  mind  leant  always  to  the 
desponding  side,  and  saw  nothing  in  the  exi^edition 
but  certain  death  to  all  of  them,  said,  "  Let  us  also 
I  go  that  we  may  die  with  Him."  It  was  not  till 
I  Lazarus  had  been  four  days  in  the  grave  that  the 
Saviour  appeared  on  the  scene.  The  practical 
energy  of  Martha,  and  the  retiring  character  of 
Mary,  show  themselves  here,  as  once  l)efore.  It  was 
Martha  who  met  Him,  and  addressed  to  Him  words 
of  sorrowful  reproach.  Jesus  probed  her  faith 
deeply,  and  found  that  even  in  this  extremity  of 
sorrow  it  would  not  f\iil  her,  Mary  now  joined 
them,  summoned  by  her  sister;  and  she  too  re- 
proached the  Lonl  for  the  delay.  Jesus  does  not 
resist  the  contagion  of  their  sorrow,  and  as  a  Man 
He  weeps  true  human  tears  by  the  side  of  the 
grave  of  a  friend.  But  with  the  power  of  God  He 
breaks  the  fetters  of  brass  in  which  Lazarus  was 
held  by  death,  and  at  His  word  the  man  on  whom 
corruption  had  already  begun  to  do  its  work  came 
forth  alive  and  whole  (John  xi.  1-45).  It  might 
seem  difficult  to  account  for  the  omission  of  this, 
perhaps  the  most  signal  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus, 
by  the  three  synoptical  Evangelists.  No  doubt  it 
was  intentional;  and  the  wish  not  to  direct  atten- 
tion, and  perhaps  persecution,  to  Laaiarus  in  his 
lifetime  may  go  far  to  account  for  it.  But  it  stai!:J» 
well  in  the  pages  of  John,  whose  privilege  it  has  beeo 
to  announce  the  highest  truths  conn'»cted  with  th« 
divine  nati'^e  of  Jesus,  and  who  is  now  also  per- 
mitted to  show  Him  touched  with  syini>athy  for  a 
sorrowing  family  with  whom  he  lived  in  iutimswy. 


1372 


JESUS   CHRIST 


A  miracle  so  public,  for  Bethany  was  close  to 
Jerusalem,  and  the  family  of  Lazarus  well  known 
to  many  people  in  the  mother-city,  could  not 
escJipe  the  notice  of  the  Sanhedrim.  A  meeting 
of  this  Council  was  called  without  loss  of  time,  and 
the  matter  discussed,  not  without  symptoms  of 
alarm,  for  the  members  believed  that  a  {wpular 
outbreak,  with  Jesus  at  its  head,  was  imjiending, 
and  that  it  would  excite  the  jealousy  of  the  Romans 
and  lead  to  the  taking  away  of  their  "  place  and 
nation."  Caiaphas  the  high-priest  gave  it  as  his 
opinion  that  it  was  expedient  for  them  that  one 
man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  that  the  whole 
nation  should  not  i)erish.  The  Evangelist  adds 
that  these  words  bore  a  prophetic  meaning,  of 
which  the  spealcer  was  unconscious :  "  This  spake 
hjB  not  of  himself,  l)ut  being  high-priest  that  year 
he  prophesied  that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation." 
That  a  bad  and  worldly  man  may  prophesy  the 
case  of  Balaam  proves  (Num.  xxii.);  and  the  Jews, 
as  Schottgen  shows,  believed  that  prophecy  might 
also  be  unconscious.  But  the  coimection  of  the 
gift  of  prophecy  with  the  office  of  the  high-priest 
offers  a  difficulty.  It  has  been  said  that,  though 
this  gift  is  never  in  Scripture  assigned  to  the  high- 
priest  as  such,  yet  the  popular  belief  at  tliis  time 
was  that  he  did  enjoy  it.  There  is  no  proof,  how- 
ever, except  this  passage,  of  any  such  belief;  and 
the  Evangelist  would  not  appeal  to  it  except  it 
were  true,  and  if  it  were  true,  then  the  O.  T. 
would  contain  some  allusion  to  it.  The  endeavors 
to  escajDe  from  the  difficulty  by  changes  of  punctua- 
tion are  not  to  be  thought  of.  The  meaning  of 
the  passage  seems  to  be  this :  The  Jews  were  about 
to  commit  a  crime,  the  real  results  of  which  they 
did  not  know,  and  God  overruled  the  words  of  one 
of  them  to  make  him  declare  the  reality  of  the 
transaction,  but  unconsciously:  and  as  Caiaphas 
was  the  high-priest,  the  highest  minister  of  God, 
and  tlierefore  the  most  conspicuous  in  the  sin,  it 
was  natural  to  exj^ect  that  he  and  not  another 
would  be  the  chaimel  of  the  prophecy.  The  con- 
nection between  his  office  and  the  prophecy  was  not 
a  necessary  one ;  but  if  a  prophecy  was  to  be  ut- 
tered by  unwilling  lips,  it  was  natural  that  the 
high-priest,  who  offered  for  the  people,  should  be 
the  person  oomi)elled  to  utter  it.  The  death  of 
Jesus  was  now  resolved  on,  and  He  fled  to  Ephraim 
for  a  few  days,  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  come 
(John  xi.  45-57). 

We  now  approach  the  final  stage  of  the  history, 
and  every  word  and  act  tend  towards  the  great  act 
of  suffering.  The  hatred  of  the  Pharisees,  now 
inverted  into  a  settled  purpose  of  murder,  the 


o  *  This  arrangement  places  the  supper  in  the  house 
of  Simon  "  six  days''  before  the  Passover  (John  xii.  1  fiF.), 
whereas,  according  to  Matt.  xxvi.  2  and  Mark  xiv.  1, 
the  supper  appears  to  have  taken  place  on  the  evening 
before  the  Passover.  It  is  no  doubt  correct  to  under- 
stand John  xii.  I  of  our  Lord's  coming  from  Jericho 
to  Bethany.  This  apparent  discrepancy  between  the 
♦nrlters  haa  been  variously  explained.  The  following 
is  perhaps  the  best  solution  of  the  difficulty.,  John, 
it  will  be  seen,  is  tlie  only  one  of  the  Evangelists  who 
speaks  of  the  Saviour's  stopping  at  Bethany  on  the 
way  between  Jericho  and  Jerusalem.  Hence,  this  feast 
being  the  principal  event  which  John  associates  with 
Bethany  during  these  last  days,  he  not  unnaturally 
tisert<i  tlie  account  of  the  fbast  immediately  after 
Ipeaking  of  the  arrival  at  Bethany.  But  having  (so 
fco  speak)  discharged  his  mind  of  that  recollection,  he 
Oma  tuto»  back  and  resumes  the  historical  order, 


JESUS  CHRIST 

vile  wickedness  of  Judas,  and  the  utter  fi<  klenesa  of 
the  people  are  all  displayed  before  us.  Each  daj 
is  marked  by  its  own  events  or  instructions.  Oui 
Lord  entered  into  Bethany  on  Friday  the  8th  of 
Nisan,  the  eve  of  the  Sabbath,  and  remained  ova 
the  Sabbath. 

Saturday  the  9th  of  Nisan  {April  l«/).a  —  Ag 
He  was  at  supper  in  the  house  of  one  Simon,  sur- 
named  "  the  leper,"  a  relation  of  Lazarus,  who  wag 
at  table  with  Him,&  Mary,  full  of  gratitude  for  the 
wonderful  raising  of  her  brother  from  the  dead,  took 
a  vessel  containing  a  quantity  of  pure  ointment  of 
spikenard  and  anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  and  wiped 
his  feet  with  her  hair,  and  anointed  his  head  Ukewise. 
She  thought  not  of  the  cost  of  the  precious  oint- 
jnent,  in  an  emotion  of  love  wliich  was  willing  to 
part  with  anything  she  possessed  to  do  honor  to  so 
great  a  Guest,  so  mighty  a  Benefactor.  Judas  the 
ti-aitor,  and  some  of  the  disciples  (Matt.,  jNlark  , 
who  took  their  tone  from  him,  began  to  murmur 
at  the  waste :  "  It  might  have  been  sold  for  more 
than  three  hundred  jience,  and  have  been  given  to 
the  poor."  But  Judas  cared  not  for  the  poor; 
already  he  was  meditating  the  sale  of  his  Master's 
life,  and  all  that  he  thought  of  was  how  he  might 
lay  hands  on  something  more,  beyond  the  price  of 
blood.  Jesus,  however,  who  knew  how  true  was 
the  love  which  had  dictated  this  sacrifice,  silenced 
their  censure.  He  opened  out  a  meanuig  in  the 
action  which  they  had  not  sought  there :  "  She  is 
come  aforehand  to  anoint  my  body  to  the  bury- 
ing." 

Passion  Week.  Sunday  the  10th  of  Nisan 
{Aptii  2d).  —  The  question  of  John  the  Baptist 
had  no  doubt  often  been  repeated  in  the  hearts  of 
the  expectant  disciples :  *'  Art  thou  He  that  should 
come,  or  do  we  look  for  another?  "  AH  his  con- 
versations with  them  of  late  had  been  filled,  not 
with  visions  of  glory,  but  with  forebodings  of 
approaching  death.  The  world  thinks  them  de- 
ceived, and  its  mockery  begins  to  exercise  some 
influence  even  over  them.  They  need  some  en- 
couraging sign  under  influences  so  depressing,  and 
this  Jesus  affords  them  in  the  triumphal  entry  into 
Jerusalem.  If  the  narrative  is  carefully  exan'ined, 
it  will  be  seen  how  remarkably  the  assertion  of  a 
kingly  right  is  combined  with  the  most  scrupulous 
care  not  to  excite  the  political  jealousy  of  the 
Jewish  powers.  When  He  arrives  at  the  Mount  of 
Olives  He  commands  two  of  his  disciples  to  go  into 
the  village  near  at  hand,  where  they  would  find  an 
ass,  and  a  colt  tied  with  her.  They  were  neither 
to  buy  nor  hire  them,  and  "  if  any  man  shall  say 
aught  unto  you,  ye  shall  say  the  Lord  hath  need  of 

namely,  that  on  the  next  day  afrer  coming  to  Bcfhany 
(xii.  12  ff.),  Jesus  made  his  public  entry  into  Jeru^ii- 
lem,  as  related  by  the  Syiioptists  (3Iatt.  xxi.  1  ff. ; 
Mark  xi.  1  ff. ;  Luke  xix.  29  If.).  But  the  Synoptists 
pass  over  the  night  sojourn  at  Bethany,  and  thus  rep- 
resent Christ  as  making  apparently  an  uninterrupted 
journey  from  Jericho  to  Jeru-salem.  What  John 
therefore  states,  as  compared  with  the  other  Evangel- 
ists, is  tliat  Jesus  came  to  Bethany  6  days  before  the 
Passover,  and  not  that  He  attended  the  feast  thert  0 
days  before  the  Passover;  and.  further,  that  JesuE 
went  to  Jerusalem  on  the  following  day  after  His  ar 
rival  at  Bethany,  and  not  on  the  day  after  the  supper. 
This  view,  if  adopted,  requires  some  transposition  in 
the  scheme  given  above.  H. 

b  **  It  is  said  that  I^azams  was  one  of  the  guest* 
(els  rSiv  avaKeifjiivuv,  John  xii.  2),  but  not  th»^  tai 
was  a  relation.  tl. 


JESUS   CHRISl- 

hem,  and  straightway  he  will  send  them."  With ' 
.hese  beasts,  impressed  as  for  the  service  of  a  King, 
He  was  to  enter  into  Jerusalem. «  The  disciples 
ipread  upon  the  ass  their  ragged  cloaks  for  Him  to 
Bit  on.  And  the  multitudes  cried  aloud  before 
Him,  in  the  words  of  the  llSth  Psalm,  "  Hosanna, 
Save  now !  blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord."  This  Messianic  psalm  they  applied 
to  Him,  from  a  belief,  sincere  for  the  moment,  that 
He  was  the  Messiah.  It  was  a  striking,  and  to  the 
I'harisees  an  alarming  sight ;  but  it  only  serves  in 
the  end  to  show  the  feeble  hearts  of  the  Jewish 
people.  The  same  lips  that  cried  Hosanna  will 
before  long  be  crying,  Crucify  Hira,  crucify  Him ! 
.Meantime,  however,  all  thoughts  were  carried  back 
to  the  promises  of  a  Messiah.  The  very  act  of 
riding  in  upon  an  ass  revived  an  old  prophecy  of 
Zechariah  (ix.  9).  Words  of  prophecy  out  of  a 
psalm  sprang  unconsciously  to  their  lips.  All  the 
city  was  moved.  Blind  and  lame  came  to  the 
Temple  when  He  arrived  there  and  were  healed. 
The  august  conspirators  of  the  Sanhedrim  were  sore 
displeased.  But  all  these  demonstrations  did  not 
deceive  the  divine  insight  of  Christ.  He  wept  over 
the  city  that  was  haiUng  Him  as  its  King,  and  said, 
"  If  thou  hadst  known,  even  thou,  at  least  in  this 
thy  day,  the  things  which  belong  unto  thy  peace ! 
but  now  they  are  hid  from  thuie  eyes  "  (Luke). 
He  goes  on  to  prophesy  the  destruction  of  the  city, 
just  as  it  aftei-wards  came  to  pass.  After  working 
miracles  in  the  Temple  He  returned  to  Bethany. 
The  10th  of  Nisan  was  the  day  for  the  separation 
of  the  paschal  lamb  (Ex.  xii.  3).  Jesus,  the  Lamb 
of  God,  entered  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple  on  this 
day,  and  although  none  but  He  knew  that  He  was 
the  Paschal  Lamb,  the  coincidence  is  not  unde- 
signed (Matt.  xxi.  1-11,  14-17;  Mark  xi.  1-11; 
Luke  xix.  29-44;  John  xii.  12-19). 

Monday  the  11th  of  Nisan  (Ajn'il  3d).  —  The 
next  day  Jesus  returned  to  Jerusalem,  again  to 
take  advantage  of  the  mood  of  the  people  to  in- 
struct them.  On  the  way  He  approached  one  of 
the  many  fig-trees  which  grew  in  that  quarter 
(Bethphage  =  "  house  of  figs  "),  and  found  that  it 
was  full  of  foliage,  but  without  fruit.  He  said, 
"Xo  man  eat  fruit  of  thee  hereafter  for  ever!" 
and  the  fig-tree  withered  away.  This  was  no 
doubt  a  work  of  destruction,  and  as  such  was  un- 
like the  usual  tenor  of  His  acts.  But  it  is  hard  to 
understand  the  mind  of  those  who  stumble  at  the 
destruction  of  a  tree,  which  seems  to  have  ceased  to 
bear,  by  the  word  of  God  the  Son,  yet  are  not 
offended  at  the  famine  or  the  pestilence  wrought  by 
God  the  Father.  The  right  of  the  Son  must  rest 
on  the  same  ground  as  that  of  the  Father.  And 
this  was  not  a  wanton  destruction ;  it  was  a  type 
and  a  warning.  The  barren  fig-tree  had  already 
l)een  made  the  subject  of  a  parable  (Luke  xiii.  G), 
and  here  it  is  made  a  visible  type  of  the  destruction 
of  the  Jewish  people.  He  had  come  to  them  seek- 
uig  fruit,  and  now  it  was  time  to  pronounce  their 
doom  as  a  nation  —  there  should  be  no  fruit  on 
^hem  for  ever  (Matt.  xxi.  18, 19;  Mark  xi.  12-14). 
c*roceeding  now  to  the  Temple,  He  cleared  its  court 
of  the  crowd  of  traders  that  gathered  there.  He 
•lad  performed  the  same  act  at  the  beginning  of 
his  ministry,  and  now  at  the  close  He  repeats  it, 
for  the  house  of  prayer  was  as  much  a  den  of 
thieves  as  ever.     With  zeal  for  God's  hruse  his 


a  *  Stanley  has  a  graphic  passage  relating  to  the 
■Saviour's  entry  into  Jerusalem,  in  which  h)  points 


JESUS  CHRIST  1373 

ministry  began,  with  the  same  it  ended  (see  p 
1360;  Matt.  xxi.  12,  13;  Mark  xi.  15-19;  Luke 
xix.  45-48).     In  the  evening  He  returned  again  tc 

Bethany. 

Tuesday  the  12th  of  Nisan  {Apiil  Ath).  —  On 
this  the  third  day  of  Passion  Week  Jesus  went  into 
Jerusalem  as  before,  and  visited  the  Temple.  The 
Sanhedrim  came  to  Him  to  call  Him  to  account 
for  the  clearing  of  the  Temple.  "  By  what  au- 
thority doest  thou  these  things?"  The  Lord 
answered  their  question  by  another,  which,  when 
put  to  them  in  their  capacity  of  a  judge  of  spiritual 
things,  and  of  the  pretensions  of  prophets  and 
teachers,  was  very  hard  either  to  answer  or  to  pau 
in  silence  —  what  was  their  opinion  of  the  baptism 
of  John  ?  If  they  replied  that  it  was  from  heaven, 
their  own  conduct  towards  John  would  accuse 
them ;  if  of  men,  then  the  people  would  not  Usten 
to  them  even  when  they  denounced  Jesus,  because 
none  doubted  that  John  was  a  prophet.  They 
refused  to  answer,  and  Jesus  refused  in  like  mannei 
to  answer  them.  In  the  parable  of  the  Two  Sons, 
given  by  Matthew,  the  Lord  pronounces  a  strong 
condemnation  on  them  for  saying  to  God,  ''I  go, 
Sir,"  but  not  going  (Matt.  xxi.  23-32;  M»rk  xi. 
27-33;  Luke  xx.  1-8).  In  the  parable  of  the 
wicked  husbandmen  the  history  of  the  Jews  is  rep- 
resented, who  had  stoned  and  killed  the  prophets, 
and  were  about  to  crown  their  wickedness  by  the 
death  of  the  Son.  In  the  parable  of  the  wedding 
garment,  the  destruction  of  the  Jews,  and  the  in- 
vitation to  the  Gentiles  to  the  feast  in  their  stead, 
are  vividly  represented  (Matt.  xxi.  33-46,  xxii.  1- 
14;  Mark  xii.  1-2;  Luke  xx.  9-19). 

Not  content  with  their  plans  for  his  death,  the 
different  parties  try  to  entangle  Him  in  argument 
and  to  bring  Him  into  contempt.  First  come  the 
Pharisees  and  Herodians,  as  if  to  ask  Him  to  settle 
a  dispute  between  them.  "  Is  it  lawful  to  give 
tribute  to  Caesar,  or  not?"  The  spirit  of  the 
answer  of  Christ  lies  here:  that,  since  they  had 
accepted  Caesar's  money,  they  had  confessed  his 
rule,  and  were  bound  to  render  to  the  civil  power 
what  they  had  confessed  to  be  due  to  it,  as  they 
were  to  render  to  God  and  to  his  holy  temple  the 
offerings  due  to  it.  Next  appeared  the  Sadducees, 
who  denied  a  future  state,  and  put  before  Him  a 
contradiction  which  seemed  to  them  to  arise  out  of 
that  doctrine.  Seven  brethren  in  succession  mar- 
ried a  wife  (Deut.  xxv.  5) :  whose  wife  should  she 
be  in  a  future  state  ?  The  answer  was  easy  to  find. 
The  law  in  question  referred  obviously  to  the  pres- 
ent time:  it  would  pass  away  in  another  state,  and 
so  would  all  such  earthly  relations,  and  all  jealous- 
ies or  disputes  founded  on  them.  Jesus  now  retorts 
the  argument  on  the  Sadducees.  Appealing  to  the 
Pentateuch,  because  his  hearers  did"  not  acknowl- 
edge the  authority  of  the  later  books  of  the  Bible, 
He  recites  the  words,  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraliara, 
and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,"  as 
used  to  Moses,  and  draws  from  them  the  argument 
that  these  men  must  then  have  been  alive.  Al- 
though the  words  would  not  at  first  sight  suggest 
this  inference,  they  really  contain  it ;  for  the  form 
of  expression  implies  that  He  still  exists  and  they 
still  exist  (Matt.  xxii.  15-33;  Mark  xii.  13-27; 
Luke  XX.  20-40).  Fresh  questions  awaited  Him, 
but  his  wisdom  never  failed  to  give  the  appropriate 
answer.     And  then  he  uttered  to  all  the  people 


out  the  correspondences  between  the  narrative  and  tM 
localities  (5.  ^  P.  pp.  187-190,  Amer.  ed.).  U 


1374 


JESUS  CHRIST 


that  terrible  denunciation  of  woe  to  the  Pharisees, 
with  which  we  are  familiar  (Matt,  xxiii.  1-39). 
[f  we  compare  it  with  our  Lord's  account  of  his 
own  iwsition  in  reference  to  the  Law,  in  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  JMount,  we  see  that  the  principles  there 
laid  down  are  everywhere  violated  by  the  Pharisees. 
Their  alnisgivins^  was  ostentation;  their  distinctions 
about  oaths  led  to  falsehood  and  profaneness ;  they 
were  exact  alx)ut  the  small  observances  and  neg- 
lected the  weiglitier  ones  of  the  Law;  they  adorned 
the  tombs  of  the  prophets,  saying  that  if  they  had 
lived  in  the  time  of  their  fathers  they  would  not 
have  slain  them ;  and  yet  they  were  about  to  fill 
up  the  measure  of  their  fathers'  wickedness  by 
slaying  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  and  perse- 
cuting and  slaying  his  followers.  After  an  indig- 
nant denunciation  of  the  hypocrites  who,  with  a 
show  of  religion,  had  thus  contrived  to  stifle  the 
true  spirit  of  religion  and  were  in  reality  its  chief 
persecutors.  He  apostrophizes  Jerusalem  in  words 
full  of  compassion,  yet  carrying  with  them  a  sen- 
tence of  death:  "0  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou 
that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest  them  which 
are  sent  unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gath- 
ered thy  children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gathereth 
her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye  would  not! 
Itehold,  your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate.  For 
I  say  unto  you,  ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth,  till 
ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Ix>rd"  (Matt,  xxiii.). 

Another  great  discourse  belongs  to  this  day, 
which,  more  than  any  other,  presents  Jesus  as  the 
great  Prophet  of  His  people.  On  leaving  the 
Temple  his  disciples  drew  attention  to  the  beauty 
of  its  structure,  its  "goodly  stones  and  gifts," 
their  remarks  probably  arising  from  the  threats  of 
destruction  which  had  so  lately  been  uttered  by 
Jesus.  Their  Master  answered  that  not  one  stone 
of  the  noble  pile  should  be  left  upon  another. 
When  they  reached  the  IMount  of  Olives  the  dis- 
ciples, or  rather  the  first  four  (Mark),  speaking  for 
the  rest,  asked  Him  when  this  destruction  should 
be  accomplislied.  To  understand  the  answer  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Jesus  warned  them 
that  He  was  not  giving  them  an  historical  account 
Buch  as  would  enal)le  them  to  anticipate  the  events. 
"  Of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not 
the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only."  Exact 
data  of  time  are  to  be  purposely  withheld  from 
them.  Accordingly,  two  events,  analogous  in  char- 
acter but  widely  sundered  by  time,  are  so  treated 
in  the  prophecy  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  dis- 
entartgle  them.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and 
the  day  of  judgment  —  the  national  and  the  uni- 
versal days  of  account  —  are  spoken  of  together  or 
ilternately  without  hint  of  the  great  interval  of 
time  that  separates  them.  Thus  it  may  seem  that 
t  most  important  fact  is  omitted ;  but  the  highest 
H'ork  of  i)rophecy  is  not  to  fix  times  and  seasons, 
but  to  disclose  the  divine  significance  of  events. 
W'^hat  was  most  important  to  them  to  know  was 
that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  followed  upon 
the  probation  and  rejection  of  her  people,  and  that 
the  crucifixion  and  that  destruction  were  coimected 
IS  cause  and  eflect  (Matt.  xxiv. ;  Mark  xiii. ;  Luke 
xxi.).  Tlie  conclusion  which  Jesus  drew  from  his 
awn  awful  warning  was,  that  they  were  not  to  at- 
tempt to  fix  the  date  of  his  return:  "Therefore  be 
,  e  also  ready,  for  in  such  an  hour  as  ye  think  not 
the  Son  of  Man  cometh."  The  lesson  of  the  par- 
Able  of  the  Ten  Virgins  is  the  same;  the  Christian 
soul  ifl  to  be  ever  in  a  state  of  vigilantje  and  prepar- 


JESUS  CHRIST 

ation  (Matt.  xxiv.  44,  xxv.  13).  And  the  parablt 
of  the  Talents,  here  repeated  in  a  miKlified  form, 
teacheo  how  precious  to  souls  are  the  uses  of  time 
(xxv.  14-30).  In  concluding  this  momentous  dis- 
course, our  Ix)rd  puts  aside  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  displays  to  our  eyes  the  picture  of  the 
final  judgment.  There  will  He  Himself  Ije  present, 
and  will  separate  all  the  vast  family  of  mankind 
into  two  classes,  and  shall  appraise  the  works  of 
each  class  as  works  done  to  Himself,  present  in  the 
world  though  invisible;  and  men  shall  see,  some 
with  terror  and  some  with  joy,  that  their  life  here 
was  spent  either  for  Him  or  against  Him,  and  that 
the  good  which  lay  before  them  to  do  was  provided 
for  them  by  Him,  and  not  by  chance,  and  the  re- 
ward and  punishment  shall  be  apportioned  to  each 
(Matt.  xxv.  31-46). 

With  these  weighty  words  ends  the  third  day; 
and  whether  we  consider  the  importance  of  His 
recorded  teaching,  or  the  amount  of  opposition  and 
of  sorrow  presented  to  His  mind,  it  was  one  of  the 
greatest  days  of  all  His  earthly  ministrations.  The 
general  reflections  of  John  (xii.  37-50),  which  con- 
tain a  retrospect  of  His  ministry  and  of  the  strange 
reception  of  Him  by  his  people,  may  well  be  read 
as  if  they  came  in  here. 

Wednesday  the  13th  of  Nisan  {Apiil  bih). — 
Tliis  day  was  passed  in  retirement  with  the  Apos- 
tles. Satan  had  put  it  into  the  mind  of  one  of 
them  to  betray  Him ;  and  Judas  Iscariot  made  a 
covenant  to  betray  Him  to  the  chief  priests  for 
thirty  pieces  of  silver.  The  character  of  Judas, 
and  the  degrees  by  which  he  reached  the  abyss  of 
guilt  in  which  he  was  at  last  destroyed,  deserve 
nmch  attention.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
when  he  was  chosen  by  Jesus  he  possessed,  like 
the  rest,  the  capacity  of  being  saved,  and  was  en- 
dued with  gifts  which  might  have  made  him  an 
able  minister  of  the  New  Testament.  But  the 
imiate  worldliness  and  covetousness  were  not 
purged  out  from  him.  His  practical  talents  made 
him  a  kind  of  steward  of  the  slender  resources  of 
that  society,  and  no  doubt  he  conceived  the  wish 
to  use  the  same  gifts  on  a  larger  field,  which  the 
realization  of  "the  kingdom  of  Heaven"  would 
open  out  before  him.  These  practical  gifts  were 
his  ruin.  Between  him  and  the  rest  there  could 
be  no  real  harmony.  His  motives  were  worldly, 
and  theirs  were  not.  They  lo^•ed  the  Saviour  more 
as  they  knew  Him  better.  Judas,  living  under  tba 
constant  tacit  rebuke  of  a  most  holy  example,  grew 
to  hate  the  Ixrd;  for  nothing,  perhaps,  more 
strongly  draws  out  evil  instincts  than  the  enforced 
contact  with  goodness.  And  when  he  knew  that 
his  Master  did  not  trust  him,  was  not  deceived  by 
him,  his  hatred  grew  more  intense.  But  this  did 
not  break  out  into  overt  act  until  Jesus  began  to 
foretell  his  own  crucifixion  and  death.  If  these 
were  to  happen,  all  his  ho\yes  that  he  had  built  on 
following  the  Lord  would  be  dashed  down.  If  they 
should  crucify  the  Master  they  woulil  not  spare  the 
servants ;  and,  in  place  of  a  heavenly  kingdom,  he 
would  find  contempt,  jjersecution,  and  probably 
death.  It  was  high  time,  therefore,  to  treat  with 
the  powers  that  seemed  most  likely  to  prevail  m 
the  end;  and  he  ojiened  a  negutiation  with  the 
high-priests  in  secret,  in  order  that,  if  his  Master 
were  to  fall,  he  might  be  the  instrument,  and  s« 
make  friends  among  the  triun)phant  persecutors. 
And  yet,  strange  contradiction,  he  did  not  whollj 
cease  to  believe  in  Jesus:  possibly  he  thought 
that  he  would  so  act  that  he  might  be  safe  eitlei 


JESUS  CHRIST 

ray.  If  Jesua  was  the  Prophet  and  INIighty  One 
that  he  had  once  thought,  then  the  attempt  to  take 
Him  might  force  Him  to  put  forth  all  his  resources 
and  to  assume  the  kingdom  to  which  He  laid  claim, 
Mid  then  the  agent  in  the  treason,  even  if  discov- 
ered, might  plead  that  he  foresaw  the  result:  if 
He  were  unable  to  save  Himself  and  his  disciples, 
then  it  were  well  for  Judas  to  betake  himself  to 
those  who  were  stronger.  The  bribe  of  money, 
not  very  considerable,  could  not  have  been  the  chief 
motive ;  but  as  two  vicious  appetites  could  be  grat- 
ified instead  of  one,  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  be- 
came a  part  of  the  temptation.  The  treason  was 
successful,  and  the  money  paid ;  hut  not  one  mo- 
ment's pleasure  did  those  silver  pieces  purchase 
for  their  wretched  possessor,  not  for  a  moment  did 
he  reap  any  fruit  from  his  detestable  guilt.  After 
the  crucifixion,  the  avenging  belief  that  Jesus  was 
what  He  professed  to  be  rushed  back  in  full  force 
upon  his  mind.  He  went  to  those  who  had  hired 
him ;  they  derided  his  remorse.  He  cast  away  the 
accursed  silver  pieces,  defiled  with  the  "  innocent 
blood  "  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  went  and  hanged 
himself  (Matt.  xxvi.  14-16 ;  Mark  xiv.  10-11 ;  Luke 
xxii.  1-6). 

Thursday  the  lUh  of  Nisin  {April  Uh).  —  On 
"  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,"  when  the 
Jews  were  wont  to  put  away  all  leaven  out  of  their 
houses  (Lightfoot,  Ilor.  Ihb.  on  Mark  xiv.  12), 
the  disciples  asked  their  Master  where  they  were  to 
eat  the  Passover.  He  directed  Peter  and  John  to 
go  into  Jerusalem,  and  to  follow-  a  man  whom  they 
should  see  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water,  and  to  de- 
mand of  him,  in  their  Master's  name,  the  use  of 
the  guestchamber  in  his  house  for  this  purpose." 
All  happened  as  Jesus  had  told  them,  and  in  the 
evening  they  asseml)led  to  celebrate,  for  the  last 
time,  the  paschal  meal.  The  sequence  of  the  events 
is  not  quite  clear  from  a  comparison  of  the  Evan- 
gelists ;  but  the  difficulty  arises  with  St.  Luke,  and 
there  is  external  evidence  that  he  is  not  following 
the  chronological  order  (Wieseler,  Chron.  Sipi.  p. 
399).  The  order  seems  to  be  as  follows.  When 
they  had  taken  their  places  at  table  and  the  supper 
had  begun,  Jesus  gave  them  the  first  cup  to  divide 
amongst  themselves  (Luke).  It  was  customary  to 
drink  at  the  paschal  supper  four  cups  of  wine  mixed 
with  water;  and  this  answered  to  the  first  of  them. 
Tlicre  now  arose  a  contention  among  the  disciples 
which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest;  perhaps  in 
connection  with  the  places  which  they  had  taken 
at  this  feast  (Luke).  After  a  solemn  warning 
against  pride  and  ambition  Jesus  performed  an  act 
which,  as  one  of  the  last  of  his  life,  must  ever  have 
been  remembered  by  the  witnesses  as  a  great  lesson 
of  humility.  He  rose  from  the  table,  poured  water 
into  a  basin,  girded  himself  with  a  towel,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  wash  the  disciples'  feet  (John).  It  was 
an  office  for  slaves  to  perform,  and  from  Him, 
knowing  as  He  did,  "  that  the  Father  had  given 
all  things  into  his  hand,  and  that  He  was  come 
from  Qod  and  went  to  God,"  it  was  an  unspeakable 
jondescension.  But  his  love  for  them  was  infinite, 
and  if  there  were  any  way  to  teach,  them  the  humility 
which  as  yet  they  had  not  learned.  He  would  not 
fail  to  adopt  it.  Peter,  with  his  usual  readiness, 
was  the  first  to  refuse  to  accept  such  menial  ser- 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1875 


*  o  The  task  of  fetching  water  for  domestic  uses  is 
iM)mmonly  performed  in  the  East  by  women.  The 
inlter  recalls  but  two  instances  during  a  period  of 
OMrlv  tliree  months  in  Palestine,  in  wliich  h»  saw  I 


vice  — '« Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet?  "  Whep 
he  was  told  that  this  act  was  significant  of  the 
greater  act  of  humiliation  by  which  Jesus  saved 
his  disciples  and  united  them  to  Himself,  his  scru 
pies  vanished.  After  all  had  been  washed,  tht 
Saviour  explained  to  them  the  meaning  of  what 
He  had  done.  "  If  I,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have 
washed  your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one 
another's  feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example, 
that  ye  should  do  as  I  have  done  to  you."  But 
this  act  was  only  the  outward  symbol  of  far  greater' 
sacrifices  for  them  than  they  could  as  yet  under- 
stand. It  was  a  small  matter  to  wash  their  feet; 
it  was  a  great  one  to  come  down  from  the  gloriea 
of  heaven  to  save  them.  Later  the  Ajwstle  Pawl 
put  this  same  lesson  of  humility  into  another  form, 
and  lested  it  upon  deeper  grounds.  "  Let  this 
mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus: 
who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God ;  but  made  himself  of 
no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a 
servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  vind 
being  found  in  fashion  aa  a  man  He  humbled  Him- 
self and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross  "  (Phil.  ii.  5-8;  Matt.  xxvi.  17- 
20;  Mark  xiv.  12-17;  Luke  xxii.  7-30;  John  xiii. 
1-20). 

From  this  act  of  love  it  does  not  seem  that  even 
the  traitor  Judaa  was  excluded.  But  his  treason 
was  thoroughly  known ;  and  now  Jesus  denounces 
it.  One  of  them  should  betray  Him.  They  were 
all  sorrowful  at  this,  and  each  asked  "Is  it  I?" 
and  even  Judas  asked  and  received  an  affirmative 
answer  (INIatt.),  but  probably  in  an  undertone,  for 
when  Jesus  said  "  That  thou  doest  do  quickly," 
none  of  the  rest  understood.  The  traitor  having 
gone  straight  to  his  wicked  object,  the  end  of  the 
Saviour's  ministry  seemed  already  at  hand.  "  Now 
is  the  Son  of  Man  glorified,  and  God  is  glorified 
in  Hira."  He  gave  them  the  new  commandment, 
to  love  one  another,  as  though  it  were  a  last  be- 
quest to  them.  To  love  was  not  a  new  thing,  it 
was  enjoined  in  the  old  Law;  but  to  be  distin- 
guished for  a  special  Christian  love  and  mutual 
devotion  was  what  He  would  have,  and  this  wag 
the  new  element  in  the  commandment.  Founded 
by  a  great  act  of  love,  the  Church  was  to  be  marked 
by  love  (Matt.  xxvi.  21-25;  Mark  xiv.  18-21; 
Luke  xxii.  21-23;  John  xiii.  21-35). 

Towards  the  close  of  the  meal  Jesus  instituted 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  He  took  bread 
and  gave  thanks  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  his  dis- 
ciples, saying,  "  This  is  my  body  which  is  given  for 
you;  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  He  then 
took  the  cup,  which  coiresponded  to  the  i/tlrd  cup 
in  the  usual  course  of  the  paschal  supper,  and  after 
giving  thanks.  He  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  "  Th)i 
is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament  [covenant]  vihich 
is  shed  for  many."  It  was  a  memorial  of  his  paa- 
sion  and  of  this  last  supper  that  preceded  it,  and 
in  dwelling  on  his  Passion  in  this  sacrament,  in 
true  faith,  all  believers  draw  nearer  to  the  cross  of 
his  suflTerings  and  taste  more  strongly  the  sweetness 
of  his  love  and  the  efficacy  of  his  atoning  death 
(Matt.  xxvi.  26-2!) ;  Mars  xiv.  22-25 ;  Luke  xxii. 
19  20;  1  Cor.  xi.  23-25). 

The  denial  of  Peter  is  now  foretold,  and  to  no 

"a  man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water."  As  ttie  hod* 
was  to  be  identified  by  this  circumstance,  it  eeems  U 
be  implied  that  tlie  practice  was  unusual.  H. 


1376  JESUS   CHRIST 

ane  would  such  an  announcement  be  more  incredible 
than  to  Peter  himself.  "  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow 
thee  now?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thy  sake." 
Tlie  zeal  was  sincere,  and  as  such  did  the  Lord 
regai-d  it;  but  here,  as  elsewhere,  Peter  did  not 
count  the  cost.  By  and  by,  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
has  come  down  to  give  them  a  strength  not  their 
own,  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  disciples  will  be  bold 
to  resist  persecution,  even  to  the  death.  It  needs 
strong  love  and  deep  insight  to  view  such  an  act  as 
this  denial  with  sorrow  and  not  with  indignation 
(Matt.  xxvi.  31-35;  Mark  xiv.  27-31;  Luke  xxii. 
31-38;  John  xiii.  36-38). 

That  great  final  discourse,  which  John  alone 
has  recorded,  is  now  delivered.  Although  in  the 
middle  of  it  there  is  a  mention  of  departure  (John 
xiv.  31),  this  perhaps  only  implies  that  they  pre- 
pared to  go;  and  then  the  whole  discourse  was 
delivered  in  the  house  before  they  proceeded  to 
ijethsemane.  Of  the  contents  of  this  discourse, 
which  is  the  voice  of  the  Priest  in  the  holy  of 
holies,  something  has  been  said  already  (p.  1358; 
John  xiv.-xvii.). 

Fndny  the  I5th  of  Nisan  (April  7),  including 
part  of  the  eve  of  it.  —  "  When  they  had  sung  a 
hymn,"«  which  perhaps  means,  when  they  had 
sung  the  second  part  of  the  Hallel,  or  song  of  praise, 
which  consisted  of  Psalms  cxv.-cxviii.,  the  former 
part  (Psalms  cxiii.-cxiv.)  having  been  sung  at  an 
earlier  part  of  the  supper,  they  went  out  into  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  They  came  to  a  place  called 
(lETiisEMANE  {oil-pv€ss),  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  place  now  pointed  out  to  travellers  is  the  real 
scene  of  that  which  follows,  and  even  that  its  huge 
olive-trees  are  the  legitimate  successors  of  those 
which  were  there  when  Jesus  visited  it.  A  moment 
of  terrible  agony  is  approaching,  of  which  all  the 
Apostles  need  not  be  spectators,  for  He  thinks  of 
them,  and  wishes  to  spare  them  this  addition  to 
their  sorrows.  So  He  takes  only  his  three  proved 
companions,  Peter,  James,  and  John,  and  passes 
with  them  fartlier  into  the  garden,  leaving  the  rest 
seated,  probably  near  the  entrance.  No  pen  can 
attempt  to  describe  what  passed  that  night  in  that 
Bccludcd  spot.  1  le  tells  them  "  my  soul  is  exceed- 
ing sorrowful,  even  unto  death :  tarry  ye  here  and 
;ratch  with  me,"  and  then  leaving  even  the  three 
He  goes  further,  and  in  solitude  wrestles  with  an 
inconceivable  trial.  The  words  of  Mark  are  still 
more  expressive— "He  began  to  be  sore  amazed,  and 
to  be  very  heavy"  {iKeafifieta-dai  Kal  di^-n/xoveTy, 
xiv.  33).  The  former  word  means  that  he  was 
struck  with  a  great  dread ;  not  from  the  fear  of 
physical  suffering,  however  excruciating,  we  may 
well  believe,  but  from  the  contact  with  the  sins  of 
the  world,  of  which,  in  some  inconceivable  way,  He 
hei-e  felt  the  bitterness  and  the  weight.  He  did 
not  merely  contemplate  them,  but  bear  and  feel 
them.  «t  is  impossible  to  explain  this  scene  in 
Gethsemane  in  any  other  way.  If  it  were  merely 
the  fear  of  the  terrors  of  death  that  overcame  Him, 
then  the  martjT  Stephen  and  many  another  would 
surpass  Him  in  constancy.  But  when  He  says, 
"  Abba,  Father,  all  things  are  iwssible  unto  Thee; 
take  away  this  cup  from  me :  nevertheless  not  what 
I  will  but  what  thou  wilt"  (Mark),  the  cup  was 
Qlled  with  a  far  bitterer  potion  than  death ;  it  was 
flavored  with  the  poison  of  the  sins  of  all  mankind 


o  *  »t  Having  sung  "  is  more  correct  for  ifjLv^<rauTei , 
Malt.  xxvi.  80  and  Mark  xiv.  28.  A  group  of  Psalms 
wu  DO  doubt  suQg  at  that  time.     The  A.  V.  renders 


JESUS  CHRIST 

against  its  God.  Whilst  the  sinless  Son  is  thus 
carried  two  ways  by  the  present  horror  and  the 
strong  determination  to  do  the  Father's  will,  the 
disciples  have  sunk  to  sleep.  It  was  ui  search  of 
consolation  that  He  came  back  to  them.  ITie  dis- 
ciple who  had  been  so  ready  to  ask  "  ^Vhy  cannot 
I  follow  thee  now?"  must  hear  another  question, 
that  rebukes  his  former  confidence  — "  Couldest 
not  thou  watch  one  hour?"  A  second  time  He 
departs  and  \vrestles  in  prayer  with  the  Father; 
but  although  the  words  lie  utters  are  almost  the 
same  (Mark  says  "  the  same  "),  He  no  longer  asks 
that  the  cup  may  pass  away  from  Him  — «'  If  this 
cup  may  not  pass  away  from  me  except  I  drink  it, 
Thy  will  be  done  "  (Matt.).  A  second  time  He 
returns  and  finds  them  sleeping.  The  same  scene 
is  repeated  yet  a  third  time;  and  then  all  is  con- 
cluded. Henceforth  they  may  sleep  and  take  their 
rest ;  never  more  shall  they  be  asked  to  watch  one 
hour  with  Jesus,  for  his  ministry  in  the  flesh  is  at 
an  end.  "  The  hour  is  at  hand,  and  the  Son  of 
Man  is  betrayed  into  the  hands  of  sinners  "  (Matt.). 
The  prayer  of  Jesus  in  this  place  has  always  been 
regarded,  and  with  reason,  as  of  great  weight  against 
the  monothelite  heresy.  It  expresses  the  natural 
shrinking  of  the  human  ^ill  from  a  horror  which 
the  divine  nature  has  admitted  into  it,  yet  without 
sin.  Never  does  He  say,  "I  will  flee;  "He  says, 
"  If  it  be  possible;  "  and  leaves  that  to  the  decision 
of  the  Father.  That  horror  and  dread  arose  from 
the  spectacle  of  human  sin ;  from  the  bearing  the 
weight  and  guilt  of  human  sin  as  about  to  make 
atonement  for  it;  and  from  a  conflict  with  the 
powers  of  darkness.  Thus  this  scene  is  in  complete 
contrast  to  the  Transfiguration.  The  same  com- 
panions witnessed  both ;  but  there  there  was  peace, 
and  glory,  and  honor,  for  the  sinless  Son  of  God ; 
here  fear  and  conflict:  there  God  bore  testimony 
to  Him ;  here  Satan  for  the  last  time  tempted  Him. 
(On  the  account  of  the  Agony  see  Krummacher, 
Der  Leidende  Christus,  p.  206 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  36-46 ; 
Mark  xiv.  32-42;  Luke  xxii.  39-46;  John  xviii.  1.) 

Judas  now  appeared  to  complete  his  work.  In 
the  doubtful  light  of  torches,  a  kiss  from  him  was 
the  sign  to  the  officers  whom  they  should  take. 
Peter,  whose  name  is  first  given  in  John's  Gospel, 
drew  a  sword  and  smote  a  servant  of  the  high-priest, 
and  cut  out  off  his  ear;  but  his  Lord  refused  such 
succor,  and  healed  the  wounded  man.  [Malchus.] 
He  treated  the  seizure  as  a  step  in  the  fulfillment 
of  the  prophecies  about  Him,  and  resisted  it  not. 
All  the  disciples  forsook  Him  and  fled  (Matt.  xxvi. 
47-56;  Mark  xiv.  43-52;  Luke  xxii.  47-53;  John 
xviii.  2-12). 

There  is  some  difficulty  in  arranging  the  events 
that  immediately  follow,  so  as  to  embrace  all  the 
four  accounts.  —  The  data  will  be  found  in  the 
Commentary  of  Olshausen,  in  Wieseler  ( Chron.  Syn. 
p.  401  ff.),  and  in  Greswell's  Dissertations  (iiL 
200  fi".).  On  the  capture  of  Jesus  He  was  firs 
taken  to  the  house  of  Annas,  the  father-in-law  of 
Caiaphas  (see  p.  1350)  the  high-priest.  It  has  been 
argued  that  as  Annas  is  called,  conjointly  with 
Caiaphas,  the  high-priest,  he  nmst  have  held  some 
actual  office  in  connection  with  the  priesthood,  and 
Lightfoot  and  others  suppose  that  he  was  the  vicar 
or  deputy  of  the  high-priest,  and  Selden  th&t  he 
was  president  of  the  Council  of  the  Sanhedrim 


the  same  word  "  sang  praises,"   Acts  zvi.   25,  u 
"  will  Bing  praise,"  Ueb.  ii.  12.  H. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

out  this  h  uncertain."     It  might  appear  from  the 
course  of  John's  narrative  that  the  examination  of 
our  Lord,  and  the  first  denial  of  Peter,  toolc  place 
in  the  house  of  Annas  CJolui  xviii.  13,  14).     But 
the  24th  verse  is  retrospective  —  •  Now  Annas  had 
Bent  Him  bound  unto  Caiaphas  the  high-priest " 
(dWeTTCiXe,    aorist    for    plui)erfect,    see  Winer's 
Grammar);  and  probal)Iy  «//  that  occurred  after 
verse  14  took  place  not  at  the  house  of  Annas,  but 
at  that  of  Caiaphas.     It  is  not  likely  that  Peter 
gained   admittance  to  two  houses   in  which   two 
separate  judicial  examinations  took  place  with  which 
he  had  nothing  ostensibly  to  do,  and  this  would  be 
<brced  on  us  if  we  assumed  that  John  described 
what    cook   place   before   Annas,    and    the   other 
Evangelists  what  took  place  before  Caiaphas.     The 
house  of  the  high-priest  consisted  probably,  like 
other  Eastern  houses,  of  an  open  central  court  with 
chambers  round  it.    Into  this  court  a  gate  admitted 
them,  at  which  a  woman  stood  to  open.     Peter, 
who  had  fled  like  the  rest  from  the  side  of  Jesus, 
followed   afar  off  with  another  disciple,   probably 
John,  and  the  latter  procured  him  admittance  into 
the  court  of  the  high-priest's  house.    As  he  passed 
in,  the  lamp  of  the  portress  threw  its  light  on  his 
face,  and  she  took  note  of  him ;  and  afterwards,  at 
the  fire  which  had  been  lighted,  she  put  the  ques- 
tion to  him,  "  Art  not  thou  also  one  of  this  man's 
disciples?  "  (John.)     All  the  zeal  and  boldness  of 
Peter  seems  to  have  deserted  him.    This  was  indeed 
i  time  of  great  spiritual  weakness  and  depression, 
and  the  power  of  darkness  had  gained  an  influence 
over  the   Apostle's   mind.     He  had   come  as  in 
secret;   he  is  determined  so   to  remain,   and  he 
denies  his  Master !     Feeling  now  the  danger  of  his 
situation,  he  went  out  into  the  porch,  and  there 
some  one,  or,  looking  at  all  the  accounts,  probably 
several  persons,  asked  him  the  question  a  second 
time,  and  he  denied  more  strongly.  About  an  hour 
after,  when  he  had  returned  into  the  court,  the 
same  question  was  put  to  him  a  third  time,  with 
the  same  result.     Then  the  cock  crew;  and  Jesus, 
who  was  within  sight,  probably  in  some  oi)en  room 
eommunicating  with  the  court,  "  turned  and  looked 
upon  Peter.     And  Peter  remembered  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  how  He  had  said  unto  him,  Belore  the 
cock  crow,  thou  shalt  deny  Me  thrice.     And  Peter 
went  out  and  wept  bitterly  "  (Luke).     Let  no  man 
who  cannot  fathom  the  utter  perplexity  and  distress 
of  such  a  time  presume  to  judge  the  zealous  dis- 
ciple hardly.    He  trusted  too  much  to  his  strength ; 
ie  did  not  enter  into  the  full  meaning  of  the  words, 
"  Watch  and  pray  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation." 
Self-confidence  betrayed  him  into  a  great  sin :  and 
he  most  merciful  Lord  restored  him  after  it.  "  Let 
him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed  lest  he 
fall"  (ICor.   X.   12;  Matt.   xxvi.  57,  58,69-75; 
Mark  xiv.  53,  54,  6G-72;  Luke  xxii.  54-62;  John 
xviii.  13-18,  24-27). 

The  first  interrogatory  to  which  our  Lord  was 
suoject  (John  xviii.  19-24)  was  addressed  to  Him 
by  Caiaphas  (Annas?,  Olshausen,  Wieseler),  prob- 
ably before  the  Sanhedrim  had  time  to  assemble. 
It  was  the  questioning  of  an  inquisitive  person  who 
had  an  important  criminal  in  his  presence,  rather 
than  a  formal  examination.  The  Ix)rd's  refusal  to 
answer  is  thus  explained  and  justified.  When  the 
more  regular  proceedings  begin   He  is   ready  to 


JESUS   CHRIST 


1377 


o  Mr.  Greswell  sees  no  uncertainty  ;  and  asserts  ai 
»  feet  that  he  wag  the  high-priest,  vicar,  and  vice 
president  of  the  Sanhedrun  (p.  200). 
87 


answer.  A  servant  of  the  high-priest,  knowing 
that  he  should  thereby  please  his  master,  smote  the 
cheek  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  palm  of  his  hand. 
But  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  horrors.  At 
the  dawn  of  day  the  Sanhedrim,  summoned  by  the 
high-priest  in  the  course  of  the  night,  assembled, 
and  brought  their  band  of  false  witnesses,  whom 
they  must  have  had  ready  before.  These  gave  theii 
testimony  (see  Psalm  xxvii.  12),  but  even  before 
this  unjust  tribunal  it  could  not  stand,  it  was  so 
full  of  contradictions.  At  last  two  false  witnesstr 
came,  and  their  testimony  was  very  like  the  truth 
They  deposed  that  He  had  said,  "  I  will  destroj 
this  temple,  that  is  made  with  hands,  and  within 
three  days  I  will  build  another  made  without 
hands"  (Mark  xiv.  58).  The  pervei-sion  is  slight 
but  important;  for  Jesus  did  not  say  that  He  would 
destroy  (see  John  ii.  19),  which  was  just  the  point 
that  would  irritate  the  Jews.  Even  these  two  fell 
into  contradictions.  The  high-priest  now  with  a 
solemn  adjuration  asks  Him  whether  He  is  the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God.  He  answers  that  He  is, 
and  foretells  his  return  in  glory  and  power  at  the 
last  day.  This  is  enough  for  their  purpose.  They 
pronounce  Him  guilty  of  a  crime  tor  which  death 
should  be  the  punishment.  It  appears  that  thr 
Council  was  now  suspended  or  broken  up ;  for  Jesua 
is  delivered  over  to  the  brutal  violence  of  the  people, 
which  could  not  have  occurred  whilst  the  supreme 
court  of  the  Jews  was  sitting.  The  prophets  hati 
foretold  this  violence  (Is.  1.  6),  and  also  the  meek- 
ness with  which  it  would  be  borne  (Is.  liii.  7).  And 
yet  this  "  lamb  led  to  the  slaughter  "  knew  that  it 
was  He  that  should  judge  the  world,  including- 
every  one  of  his  jiersecutors.  The  Sanhedrim  had 
been  within  the  range  of  its  duties  in  taking  cog- 
nizance of  all  who  claimed  to  be  prophets.  If  the 
question  put  to  Jesus  had  been  merely.  Art  Thou 
the  Messiah  ?  this  body  should  have  gone  into  the 
question  of  his  right  to  the  title,  and  decided  upon 
the  evidence.  But  the  question  was  really  twofold, 
"  Art  Thou  the  Christ,  and  in  that  name  dost 
Thou  also  call  Thyself  tiie  Son  of  God  ?  "  There 
was  no  blasphemy  in  claiming  the  former  name, 
but  there  was  in  assuming  the  latter.  Hence  the 
proceedings  were  cut  short.  They  had  closed  their 
eyes  to  the  evidence,  accessible  to  all,  of  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  that  He  was  indeed  the  Son  of  God,  and 
without  these  they  were  not  likely  to  believe  thac 
He  could  claim  a  title  belonging  to  no  other  among 
the  children  of  men  (John  xviii.  19-24 ;  Luke  xiii 
63-71;  Matt.  xxvi.  59-08;  Mark  xiv.  55-65). 

Although  they  had  proiiounced  Jesus  to  be  guilty 
of  death,  the  Sanhedrim  possessed  no  power  to 
carry  out  such  a  sentence  (Josephus,  Ant.  xx.  6). 
So  as  soon  as  it  was  day  they  took  Him  to  Pilate, 
the  Roman  procurator.  The  hall  of  judgment,  or 
prgetorium,  was  probaljly  a  part  of  the  tower  of 
Antonia  near  the  Temple,  where  the  Roman  gar- 
rison was.  Pilate  hearing  that  Jesus  was  an  offender 
under  their  law,  M'as  about  to  give  them  leave  to 
treat  him  accordingly;  and  this  would  have  made  it 
quite  safe  to  execute  Him.  But  the  council,  wish- 
ing to  shift  the  responsibility  from  themselves,  from 
a  fear  of  some  reaction  amongst  the  people  in  favor 
of  the  Lord,  such  as  they  had  seen  on  the  first  day 
of  that  week,  said  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  them 
to  put  any  man  to  death :  and  having  condemned 
Jesus  for  blasphemy,  they  now  strove  to  have  Him 
condemned  by  Pilate  for  a  political  crime,  for  calling 
Himself  the  King  of  the  Jews.  But  the  Jewish 
punishment  was  stoning;  whilst  crucifixion  wa«  • 


1378 


JESUS  CHRIST 


Roman  punishment,  inflicted  occasionally  on  those 
who  were  not  Koman  citizens ;  and  thus  it  came 
about  that  the  Lord's  saying  as  to  the  mode  of  his 
death  was  fulfilled  (Matt.  xx.  39,  with  John  xii. 
32,  33).  From  the  first  Jesus  found  favor  in  the 
eyes  of  Pilate;  his  answer  that  his  kingdom  was 
not  of  this  world,  and  therefore  could  not  menace 
the  Roman  rule,  was  accepted,  and  Pilate  pro- 
nounced that  he  found  no  fault  in  Him.  Not  so 
easily  were  the  Jews  to  be  cheated  of  their  prey. 
They  heaped  up  accusations  against  Him  as  a  dis- 
turber of  the  public  peace  (Luke  xxiii.  5).  Pilate 
was  no  match  for  their  vehemence,  binding  that 
Jesus  was  a  Galilean,  he  sent  Him  to  Herod  to  be 
dealt  with;  but  Herod,  after  cruel  mockery  and 
persecution,  sent  Him  back  to  Pilate.  Now  com- 
menced the  fearful  struggle  between  the  Roman 
procurator,  a  weak  as  well  as  cruel  man,  and  the 
Jews.  Pilate  was  detested  by  the  Jews  as  cruel, 
treacherous,  and  oppressive.  Other  records  of  his 
life  do  not  represent  him  merely  as  the  weakling 
that  he  appears  here.  He  had  violated  their  na- 
tional prejudices,  and  had  used  the  knives  of  assas- 
sins to  avert  the  consequences,  liut  the  Jews  knew 
the  weak  point  in  his  breastplate.  He  was  the 
merely  worldly  and  professional  statesman,  to  whom 
the  favor  of  the  ICmperor  was  life  itself,  and  the 
only  evil  of  life  a  downfall  from  that  favor.  It  was 
their  policy  therefore  to  threaten  to  denounce  him 
to  Caesar  for  lack  of  zeal  in  suppressing  a  rebellion, 
the  leader  of  which  was  aiming  at  a  crown.  In  his 
way  Pilate  believed  in  Christ;  this  the  greatest 
crime  of  a  stained  life  was  that  witli  which  his  own 
will  had  the  least  to  do.  liut  he  did  not  telieve, 
80  as  to  make  him  risk  delation  to  his  Master  and 
all  its  possible  consequences.  He  yielded  to  the 
stronger  purpose  of  the  Jews,  and  suffered  Jesus  to 
be  put  to  death.  Not  many  years  after,  the  con- 
sequences which  he  had  stained  his  soul  to  avert 
came  upon  him.  He  was  accused  and  banished, 
and  like  Judaa,  the  other  great  accomplice  in  this 
crime  of  the  Jews,  put  an  end  to  his  own  life  [see 
Pilate].  The  well-known  incidents  of  the  second 
inter\'iew  are  soon  recalled.  After  the  examination 
by  Herod,  and  the  return  of  Jesus,  Pilate  proposed 
to  release  Him,  as  it  was  usual  on  the  feast-day  to 
release  a  i)risoner  to  the  Jews  out  of  grace.  Pilate 
knew  well  that  the  priests  and  rulers  would  object 
to  this ;  but  it  was  a  covert  appeal  to  the  people, 
also  present,  with  whom  Jesus  had  so  lately  been 
in  favor.  The  multitude,  persuaded  by  the  priests, 
preferred  another  prisoner,  called  Barabbas.  In 
the  mean  time  the  wife  of  Pilate  sent  a  warning  to 
Pilate  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  death  of 
"  that  just  man,"  as  she  had  been  troubled  in  a 
dream  on  account  of  Him.  Obliged,  as  he  thought, 
to  yield  to  the  clamors  of  the  people,  he  took 
water  and  washed  his  hands  before  them,  and 
adopting  the  phrase  of  his  wife,  which  perhaps  rep- 
resented the  opinion  of  both  of  them  formed  before 
this  time,  he  stud,  "  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of 
this  just  person;  see  ye  to  it."  The  people  im- 
precated on  their  own  heads  and  those  of  their 
children  the  blood  of  Him  whose  doom  was  thus 
sealed. 

Pilate  released  unto  them  Barabbas  «'that  for 
sedition  and  murder  was  cast  into  prison  whom 
they  had  desired  "  (comp.  Acts  iii.  14).  This  was 
no  unimportant  element  in  their  crime.  Tlie  choice 
was  offered  them  between  one  who  had  broken  the 
laws  of  God  and  man,  and  One  who  had  given  his 
whole  life  up  to  the  doing  good  and  speaking  truth 


JESUS  CHRIST 

amongst  them.  They  condemned  the  latter  tc 
death,  and  were  eager  for  the  deliverance  of  th« 
former.  "  And  in  fact  their  demanding  the  sic- 
quittal  of  a  murderer  is  but  the  parallel  to  thei» 
requiring  the  death  of  an  innocent  person,  as  St- 
Ambrose  observes :  for  it  is*  but  the  very  law  of 
iniquity,  that  they  which  hate  innocence  should 
love  crime.  They  rejected  therefore  the  Prince  of 
Heaven,  and  chose  a  robber  and  a  murderer,  and 
an  insurrectionist,  and  they  received  the  object  of 
their  choice;  so  was  it  given  them,  for  insurrections 
and  murders  did  not  fail  them  till  the  last,  when 
their  city  was  destroyed  in  the  midst  of  murders 
and  insurrections,  which  they  now  demanded  of 
the  Roman  governor  "  (WilUams  on  the  Passion^ 
p.  215). 

Now  came  the  scourging,  and  the  blows  and  in- 
sults of  the  soldiers,  who,  uttering  truth  when  they 
thought  they  were  only  revihng,  crowned  Him  and 
addressed  Him  as  King  of  the  Jews.  According 
to  John,  Pilate  now  made  one  more  effort  for  his 
release.  He  thought  that  the  scourging  might  ap- 
l^ease  their  rage,  he  saw  the  frame  of  Jesus  bowed 
and  withered  with  all  that  it  had  gone  through ; 
and,  hoping  that  this  moving  sight  might  inspire 
them  with  the  same  pity  that  he  felt  himself,  he 
brought  the  Saviour  forth  again  to  them,  and  said, 
"  Behold  the  man  !  "  Not  even  so  was  their  violence 
assuaged.  He  had  made  Himself  the  Son  of  God, 
and  must  die.  He  still  sought  to  release  Jesus: 
but  the  last  argument,  which  had  been  in  the  minds 
of  both  sides  all  along,  was  now  openly  applied  to 
him :  "  If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's 
friend."  This  saying,  which  had  not  been  uttered 
till  the  vehemence  of  rage  overcame  their  decent 
respect  for  Pilate's  position,  decided  the  question. 
He  delivered  Jesus  to  be  crucified  (Matt,  xxvii. 
15-30;  Mark  xv.  G-19;  Luke  xxiii.  17-25;  John 
xviii.  39,  40,  xix.  1-16).  John  mentiono  that  this 
occurred  about  the  sixth  hour,  whereas  the  cruci- 
fixion, according  to  Mark,  was  accomplished  at  the 
third  hour;  but  there  is  every  reason  to  think,  with 
Greswell  and  Wieseler,  that  John  reckons  from 
midnight,  and  that  this  took  place  at  six  in  the 
morning,  whilst  in  Mark  the  Jewish  reckoning  from 
six  in  the  morning  is  followed,  so  that  the  cruci- 
fixion took  place  at  nine  o'clock,  the  iutenening 
time  having  been  spent  in  preparations.  [HoUK, 
Amer.  ed.] 

Difficult,  but  not  insuperable,  chronological  ques- 
tions arise  in  connection  with  (n)  John  xiii.  1,  "  be- 
fore the  feast  of  the  Passover;  "  {b)  John  xviii.  28, 
'*  and  they  themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment- 
hall  lest  they  should  be  defiled,  but  that  they  might 
eat  the  Passover;  "  and  (c)  John  xix.  14,  "  And  it 
was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  about  the  sixth 
hour,"  in  all  of  which  the  account  of  John  seems 
dissonant  with  that  of  the  other  Evangehsts.  These 
passages  are  discussed  in  the  various  commentaries, 
but  nowhere  more  fully  than  in  a  paper  by  Dr 
Robinson  {Bibl.  Sacra,  1845,  p.  405),  reproduced 
in  his  (English)  Harmony  in  an  abridged  form. 

One  Pei-son  alone  has  been  calm  amidst  the  ex- 
citements of  that  night  of  horrors.  On  Him  j» 
now  laid  the  weight  of  his  cross,  or  at  least  of  thr 
transverse  beam  of  it;  and,  with  this  pressing  Him 
down,  they  proceed  out  of  the  city  to  Golgotha  or 
Calvary,  a  place  the  site  of  which  is  now  uncertain. 
As  He  began  to  droop,  his  persecutors,  unwilling  tc 
defile  themselves  with  the  accursed  burden,  lay  hoU 
of  Simon  of  CjTene  and  compel  him  to  carry  tb« 
cross  after  Jesus.     Amongst  the  great  multitud* 


JESUS  CHRIST 

Jiat  followed,  were  several  women,  who  bewailed 
ind  lamented  Him.  He  bade  them  not  to  weep 
for  Him,  but  for  the  widespread  destruction  of  their 
nation  which  should  be  the  punishment  for  his 
death  (Luke).  After  offering  Him  wine  and  myrrh, 
they  crucified  Him  between  two  thieves.  Nothing 
was  wanting  to  his  humiliation ;  a  thief  had  been 
preferred  before  Him,  and  two  thieves  share  his 
punishment.  The  soldiers  divided  his  garments 
and  cast  lots  for  tliem  (see  Psalm  xxii.  18).  Pilate 
set  over  Him  in  three  languages  the  inscription 
"  Jesus,  the  King  of  the  Jews."  The  chief-priests 
took  exception  to  this  that  it  did  not  denounce 
Him  as  falsely  calling  Himself  by  that  name,  but 
Pilate  refused  to  alter  it.  The  passers-by  and  the 
Roman  soldiers  would  not  let  even  the  minutes  of 
deadly  agony  pass  in  peace ;  they  reviled  and 
mocked  Him.  One  of  the  two  thieves  underwent 
II  change  of  heart  even  on  the  cross :  he  reviled  at 
first  (Matt.);  and  then,  at  the  sight  of  the  con- 
stancy of  Jesus,  repented  (Luke)  (Matt,  xxvii.; 
Mark  xv. ;  Lukexxiii.;  John  xix.). 

In  the  depths  of  his  bodily  suffering,  Jesus  calmly 
commended  to  John  (?),  who  stood  near,  the  care 
of  Mary  his  mother.  "  Behold  thy  son !  behold 
thy  mother."  From  the  sixth  hour  to  the  ninth 
there  was  darkness  over  the  whole  land.  At  the 
ninth  hour  (3  p.  M.)  Jesus  uttered  with  a  loud 
voice  the  opening  words  of  the  22d  Psalm,  all  the 
inspired  words  of  which  referred  to  the  suffering 
Messiah.  One  of  those  present  dipped  a  sponge  in 
the  common  sour  wine  of  the  soldiers  and  put  it 
on  a  reed  to  moisten  the  sufferer's  lips.  Again  He 
cried  with  a  loud  voice,  "It  is  finished"  (John), 
"Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit" 
(Luke) ;  and  gave  up  the  ghost.  His  words  upon 
the  cross  had  all  of  them  shown  how  truly  He  pos- 
sessed his  soul  in  patience  even  to  the  end  of  the 
sacrifice  He  was  making:  "  Father,  forgive  them!  " 
waa  a  prayer  for  his  enemies.  "  This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise,"  was  a  merciful  ac- 
ceptance of  the  offer  of  a  penitent  heart.  "  \Voman, 
behold  thy  son,''  was  a  sign  of  loving  consideration, 
even  at  the  last,  for  those  He  had  always  loved. 
"Why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me ?"  expressed  the 
fear  and  the  need  of  God.  "  I  thirst,"  the  only 
word  that  related  to  Himself,  was  utterefl  because 
it  was  prophesied  that  they  were  to  give  Him 
vinegar  to  drink.  "It  is  finished,"  expresses  the 
completion  of  that  work  which,  when  He  was  twelve 
years  old,  had  been  present  to  his  mind,  and  never 
absent  since;  and  -'Into  Thy  hands  I  commend 
My  spirit,"  was  the  last  utterance  of  his  resignation 
of  Himself  to  what  was  laid  upon  Him  (Matt,  xxvii. 
31-56;  Mark  xv.  20-41;  Luke  xxiii.  33-49;  John 
xix.  17-30). 

On  the  death  of  Jesus  the  veil  which  covered  the 
most  Holy  Place  of  the  Temple,  the  place  of  the 
more  especial  presence  of  Jehovah,  was  rent  in 
twain,  a  symbol  that  we  may  now  have  "  boldness 
to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Jesus  by 
a  new  and  living  way  which  He  hath  consecrated 
for  us,  through  the  veil,  that  is  to  say,  through  his 
flesh"  (Ileb.  x.  19,  20).  The  priesthood  of  Christ 
-uperseded  the  priesthood  of  the  law.  There  was 
A  great  earthquake.  Many  who  were  dead  rose 
from  their  graves,  although  they  returned  to  the 
dust  again  after  this  great  token  of  Christ's  quick- 
ening power  had  been  given  to  many  (Matt.):  they 
vere  "  saints  "  that  slept  —  probably  those  who  had 
paost  earnestly  longed  for  the  salvation  of  Christ 
R«re  the  first  to  taste  the  fruits  of  his  conquast  of 


JESUS  CHRIST  1379 

death.  [Saints,  Amer.  ed.]  The  centurion  whc 
kept  guard,  witnessing  what  had  taken  place,  cann 
to  the  same  conclusion  as  Pilate  and  his  wife, 
"  Certainly  this  was  a  righteous  man;"  he  went 
beyond  them,  "  Truly  this  man  was  the  Son  of 
God  "  (Mark).  Even  the  people  who  had  joinet". 
in  the  mocking  and  reviling  were  overcome  by  the 
wonders  of  his  death,  and  "  smote  their  breasts 
and  returned  "  (Luke  xxiii.  48).  The  Jews,  very 
zealous  for  the  Sabbath  in  the  midst  of  their  mur- 
derous work,  begged  Pilate  that  he  would  put  an 
end  to  the  punishment  by  breaking  the  legs  of  the 
criminals  (Lactant.  iv.  26)  that  they  might  be  taken 
down  and  buried  before  the  Sabbath,  for  which 
they  were  preparing  (Deut.  xxi.  23;  .Joseph.,  B.  J. 
iv.  5,  §  2).  Those  who  were  to  execute  this  duty 
found  that  Jesus  was  dead  and  the  thieves  still 
living ;  so  they  performed  this  work  on  the  latter 
only,  that  a  bone  of  Him  might  not  be  broken 
(Ex.  xii.  46;  Psalm  xxxiv.  20).  The  death  of  the 
Lord  before  the  others  was,  no  doubt,  partly  the 
consequence  of  the  previous  mental  suffering  which 
He  had  undergone,  and  partly  because  his  will  to 
die  lessened  the  natural  resistance  of  the  frame  to 
dissolution.  Some  seek  for  a  "  mysterious  cause  " 
of  it,  something  out  of  the  course  of  nature;  but 
we  must  beware  of  such  theories  as  would  do  away 
with  the  reality  of  the  death,  as  a  punishment  in- 
flicted by  the  hands  of  men.  Joseph  of  Arimathaea, 
a  member  of  the  Council  but  a  secret  disciple  of 
Jesus,  came  to  Pilate  to  beg  the  body  of  Jesus,  that 
he  might  bury  it.  Nicodenms  assisted  in  this  work 
of  love,  and  they  anointed  the  body  and  laid  it  hi 
Joseph's  new  tomb  (JNIatt.  xxvii.  50-61 ;  Mark  xv. 
37-47;  Lukexxiii.  46-56;  John  xix.  30-42). 

Saturday  the  IGth  of  Nisan  {April  8th). — Love 
having  done  its  part,  hatred  did  its  part  also.  The 
chief  priests  and  Pharisees,  with  Pilate's  permis- 
sion, set  a  watch  over  the  tomb,  "  lest  his  disciples 
come  by  night  and  steal  Him  away,  and  say  unto 
the  people  He  is  risen  from  the  dead  "  (Matt,  xxvii. 
62-66). 

Sumlay  the  17th  of  Nisan  {April  Q/A).  — The 
Sabbath  ended  at  six  on  the  evening  of  Nisan  16th. 
Early  the  next  morning  the  resurrection  of  Jesua 
took  place.  Although  He  had  lain  in  the  grave  for 
about  thirty-six  or  forty  hours,  yet  these  formed 
part  of  three  days,  and  thus,  by  a  mode  of  speaking 
not  unusual  to  the  Jews  (.Josephus  frequently 
reckons  years  in  this  manner,  the  two  extreme  por- 
tions of  a  year  reckoning  as  two  years),  the  time 
of  the  dominion  of  death  over  Him  is  spoken  of  as 
three  days.  The  order  of  the  events  that  follow  is 
somewhat  difficult  to  harmonize ;  for  each  Evangelist 
selects  the  facts  which  belong  to  his  purpose.^  The 
exact  hour  of  the  resurrection  is  not  mentioned  by 
any  of  the  EvangeUsts.  But  from  Mark  xvi.  2  and 
9  we  infer  that  it  was  not  long  before  the  coming 
of  the  women ;  and  from  the  time  at  which  the 
guards  went  into  the  city  to  give  the  alarm  the 
same  hiference  arises  (Matt,  xxviii.  11).  Of  the 
great  mystery  itself,  the  resumption  of  life  by  Him 
who  was  truly  dead,  we  see  but  Uttle.  "  There 
was  a  great  earthquake,  for  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
descended  from  heaven,  and  came  and  rolled  b.ack 
the  stone  from  the  door  and  sat  upon  it.  Hia 
countenance  was  like  lightning,  and  his  raiment 
white  as  snow;  and  for  fear  of  him  the  keepers  did 

a  In  what  follows,  much  use  has  been  made  of  an 
excellent  paper  by  Dr.  Bobinson,  BM.  Sacra,  1R1&. 
p.  162. 


1380 


JESUS  CHRIST 


ihake,  and  became  as  dead  men"  (Matt.)-  The 
women,  who  had  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus,  had 
prepared  spices  on  the  evening  before,  perhaps  to 
complete  the  embalming  of  our  Lord's  body,  already 
performed  in  haste  by  Joseph  and  Nicodemus. 
They  came  very  early  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
to  the  sepulchre.  'I'he  names  of  the  women  are 
differently  put  by  the  several  luangelists.  but  with 
no  real  discrepancy.  Mattliew  mentions  the  two 
Marys;  IVIark  adds  Salome  to  these  two;  Luke  has 
the  two  Marys,  Joanna,  and  others  Mith  them;  and 
John  mentions  Mary  Magdalene  only.  In  thus 
citing  such  names  as  seemed  good  to  him,  each 
Kvangelist  was  no  doubt  guided  by  some  reason. 
John,  from  the  especial  share  which  Mary  Mag- 
dalene took  in  the  testimony  to  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection,  mentions  her  only.  The  women  dis- 
cuss with  one  another  who  should  roll  away  the 
stone,  that  they  might  do  their  pious  office  on  the 
body.  IJut  when  they  arrive  they  find  the  stone 
rolled  away,  and  Jesus  no  longer  in  the  Sepulchre. 
He  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Mary  Magdalene  at 
this  point  goes  back  in  haste;  and  at  once,  believing 
that  the  body  has  been  removed  by  men,  tells  Peter 
and  John  that  the  Lord  has  been  taken  away.  The 
other  women,  however,  go  into  the  Sepulchre,  and 
they  see  an  angel  (Matt.,  Mark),  or  two  angels 
(Luke),  in  bright  apparel,  who  declare  to  them  that 
the  Lord  is  risen,  and  will  go  before  the  disciples 
into  Galilee.  The  two  angels,  mentioned  by  St. 
Luke,  are  probably  two  separate  ajjpearances  to 
different  members  of  the  group ;  for  he  alone  men- 
tions an  indefinite  numl)er  of  M'omen.  They  now 
leave  the  sepulchre,  and  go  in  haste  to  make  known 
the  news  to  the  Apostles.  As  they  were  going, 
"  Jesus  met  them,  saying,  All  hail.  And  they  came 
and  held  Him  by  the  feet,  and  worshij»ped  Him. 
Then  said  Jesus  unto  them.  Be  not  afraid ;  go  tell 
My  brethren  that  they  go  into  Galilee,  and  there 
shall  they  see  Me."  The  eleven  do  not  believe  the 
account  when  they  receive  it.  In  the  mean  time 
Peter  and  John  came  to  the  Sepulchre.  They  ran, 
in  their  eagerness,  and  John  arrived  first  and  looked 
in;  Peter  afterwards  came  up,  and  it  is  character- 
istic that  the  awe  which  had  prevented  the  other 
disciple  from  going  in  appears  to  have  been  unfelt 
by  Peter,  who  entered  at  once,  and  found  the  grave- 
clothes  lying,  but  not  Him  who  had  worn  them. 
This  fact  must  have  suggested  that  the  removal 
was  not  the  work  of  htmian  hands.  They  then 
returned,  wondering  at  what  they  had  seen.  Mary 
Magdalene,  however,  remained  weeping  at  the  tomb, 
and  she  too  saw  the  two  angels  in  the  tomb,  though 
Peter  and  John  did  not.  'J'hey  address  her,  and 
she  answers,  still,  however,  without  any  sn.spicion 
that  the  Lord  is  risen.  As  she  turns  away  she  sees 
lesus,  but  in  the  tumult  of  her  feelings  does  not 
even  recognize  Him  at  his  first  address.  15ut  He 
calls  her  by  name,  and  then  she  joyfully  recognizes 
her  Master.  He  says,  "  Touch  Me  not,  for  I  am  not 
yet  ascended  to  My  Father:  but  go  to  My  brethren, 
and  say  unto  them,  I  ascend  unto  My  Father  and 
your  Father,  and  to  My  God  and  your  God."  The 
meanuig  of  the  prohibition  to  touch  Him  must  be 
sought  in  the  state  of  mind  of  Mary,  since  Thomas, 
for  whom  it  was  desirable  as  an  evidence  of  the 
identity  of  Jesus,  was  permitted  to  touch  Him. 
Hitherto  she  had  not  realized  the  mystery  of  the 
Resurrection.  She  saw  the  Lord,  and  would  have 
touched  his  hand  or  his  garment  in  her  joy.  Our 
lx)rd'8  answer  means,  "  Death  has  now  set  a  gulf 
between  us.     Touch  not,  as  you  once  might  have 


JESUS  CHRIST 

done,  this  body,  which  is  now  glorified  by  its  coiv 
quest  over  death,  for  with  this  body  J  ascend  to  tin 
Father  "  (so  Euthymius,  Theophylact,  and  others).* 
Space  has  been  wanting  to  discuss  the  ditficultici 
of  arrangement  that  attach  to  this  part  of  the  nar- 
rative. The  remainder  of  the  appearances  present 
less  matter  for  dispute ;  in  enumerating  them  the 
important  passage  in  1  Cor.  xv.  must  be  brought 
in.  The  third  appearance  of  our  Lord  was  to  Petei 
(Luke,  Paul);  the  fourth  to  the  two  disciples  going 
to  Emmaus  in  the  evening  (Mark,  Luke);  the  fifth 
in  the  same  evening  to  the  eleven  as  they  sat  at 
meat  (Mark,  Luke,  John).  All  of  these  occurred 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  very  day  of  the 
Resurrection.  Exactly  a  week  after,  lie  appeared 
to  the  Apostles,  and  gave  Thomas  a  convincing 
proof  of  his  Pesurrection  (John);  this  w.ns  the  sixth 
api)earance.  The  seventh  was  in  Galilee,  where 
seven  of  the  Apostles  were  assembled,  some  of  theru 
probably  about  to  return  to  their  old  tnide  of  fish- 
ing (John).  The  eighth  was  to  the  eleven  (Matt.) 
and  probably  to  five  hundred  brethren  assembled 
with  them  (Paul)  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee.  The 
ninth  was  to  James  (Paul);  and  the  last  to  the 
Apostles  at  Jerusalem  just  before  the  Ascension 
(Acts). 

.  Whether  this  be  the  exact  enumeration,  whether 
A  single  appearance  may  have  been  quoted  twice, 
or  two  distinct  ones  identified,  it  is  clear  that  for 
forty  days  the  Lord  appeared  to  His  disciples  and 
to  others  at  intervals.  These  disciples,  according 
to  the  common  testimony  of  all  the  Evangelists 
were  by  no  means  enthusiastic  and  prejudiced  ex- 
pectants of  the  Kesurrection.  They  were  sober- 
minded  men.  They  were  only  too  slow  to  appre- 
hend the  nature  of  our  Lord's  kingdom.  Almost 
to  the  last  they  shrank  from  the  notion  of  his  suf- 
fering death,  and  thought  that  such  a  calamity 
would  be  the  absolute  termination  of  all  their 
hopes.  Rut  from  the  time  of  the  Ascension  they 
went  about  preaching  the  truth  that  Jesus  was 
risen  from  the  dead.  Kings  could  not  alter  their 
conviction  on  this  point:  the  fear  of  death  could 
not  hinder  them  from  proclaiming  it  (see  Acts  ii. 
24,  32,  iv.  8-13,  iii..  x.,  xiii.;  1  Cor.  xv.  5;  1  Pet. 
i.  21).  Against  this  event  no  real  objection  has 
ever  been  brought,  except  that  it  is  a  miracle.  So 
far  as  historical  testimony  goes,  nothing  is  better 
establishefl. 

In  giving  his  disciples  their  final  commis.sion, 
the  Lord  said,  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  earth.  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  M'hatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  worid  "  (Matt,  xxviii.  18-20). 
The  living  energy  of  Christ  is  ever  present  M'illi 
his  Church,  even  though  He  has  withdrawn  from 
it  his  bodily  presence.  And  the  facts  of  the  life 
that  has  been  before  us  are  the  substance  of  the 
apostolic  teaching  now  as  in  all  ages.  That  God 
and  man  were  reconciled  by  the  mission  of  the 
Redeemer  into  the  world,  and  by  his  self-devotion 
to  death  (2  Cor.  v.  18;  Eph.  i.  10;  Col.  i.  20), 
that  this  sacrifice  has  procured  for  man  the  restora- 
tion of  the  divine  love  (Hom.  v.  8,  viii.  32;  1  Johc 
iv.  9);  that  we  by  his  incarnation  become  the  chil 


a  •  On  the  meaning  of  this  expression  "  Touch  Mi 
not,"  etc  ,  see  note  under  'Iart  M-vgdaleke  (Amer 
ed).  H. 


JESUS  CHRIST 

Iren  of  God,  knit  to  Him  hi  bonds  of  love,  instead 
jf  slaves  under  the  bondage  of  the  law  (Uora.  viii. 
15,  2d;  Gal.  iv.  1);  these  are  the  common  ideas 
af  the  apostolic  teaching.  Brought  nito  such  a 
relation  to  Christ  and  his  life,  we  see  in  all  its  acts 
and  stages  something  that  belongs  to  and  instructs 
us.  His  birth,  his  biiptism,  temptation,  lowliness 
of  life  and  mind,  his  sufferings,  death,  burial,  resur- 
rection, and  ascension,  all  enter  into  the  apostolic 
preaching,  as  furnishing  motives,  examples,  and 
analogies  for  our  use.  Hence  every  Christian 
BhouJd  study  well  this  sinless  life,  not  in  human 
commentaries  only,  still  less  in  a  bare  abstract  like 
the  present,  but  in  the  living  pages  of  inspiration. 
Even  if  he  began  the  study  with  a  lukewarm  belief, 
he  might  hope,  with  God's  grace,  that  the  convic- 
tion would  break  in  upon  him  that  did  upon  the 
Centurion  at  the  cross  — "  Truly  this  is  the  Son 
of  God." 

Chkoxology.  —  Year  of  the  Birth  of  Christ. 
—  It  is  certain  that  our  Lord  was  born  before  the 
death  of  Herod  the  Great.  Herod  died,  according 
to  Josephus  {Ant.  xvii.  8,  §  1),  "having  reigned 
thirty-four  years  from  the  time  that  he  had  pro- 
cured Antigorms  to  be  slain ;  but  thirty-seven  from 
the  time  that  he  had  been  declared  king  by  the 
Romans  "  (see  also  B.  J.  i.  33,  §  8).  His  appoint- 
ment as  king,  according  to  the  same  writer  (Ant. 
juv.  14,  §  5),  coincides  with  the  184th  Olympiad, 
and  the  corisulship  of  C.  Domitius  Calvinus  and 
C.  Asinius  Pollio.  It  appears  that  he  was  made 
king  by  the  joint  influence  of  Antony  and  Octavius; 
and  the  reconciliation  of  these  two  men  took  place 
on  the  death  of  Fulvia  in  the  year  714.  Again, 
the  death  of  Antigonus  and  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
which  form  the  basis  of  calculation  for  the  thirty- 
four  years,  coincide  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiv.  16,  §  4)  with 
the  consulship  of  M.  Vipsanius  Agrippa  and  L. 
Caninius  Gallus,  that  is  with  the  year  of  Rome 
717;  and  occurred  in  the  month  Sivan  (=June 
or  July).  From  these  facts  we  are  justified  in 
placing  the  death  of  Herod  in  a.  u.  c.  750.  Those 
who  place  it  one  year  later  overlook  the  mode  in 
which  Josephus  reckons  Jewish  reigns.  Wieseler 
shows  by  several  passages  that  he  reckons  the  year 
6x)m  the  month  Nisan  to  Nisan,  and  that  he  counts 
the  fragment  of  a  year  at  either  extreme  as  one 
complete  year.  In  this  morie,  thirty-four  years, 
fi'om  June  or  July  717,  would  apply  to  any  date 
between  the  first  of  Nisan  750,  and  the  first  of 
Nisan  751.  And  thirty-seven  years  from  714 
would  apply  likewise  to  any  date  within  the  same 
termini.  Wieseler  finds  facts  confirmatory  of  this 
in  the  dates  of  the  reigns  of  Herod  Antipas  and 
Archelaus  (see  his  Chrunobf/isrhe  Synapse,  p.  55). 
Between  these  two  dates  Josephus  furnishes  means 
for  a  more  exact  determination.  Just  after  Herod's 
'laith  the  Passover  occurred  (Nisan  15th),  and 
upon  Herod's  death  Archelaus  caused  a  seven-days' 
mourning  to  be  kept  for  him  (Ant.  xvii.  9,  §  3, 
xvii.  8,  §  4);  so  that  it  would  appear  that  Herod 
died  somewhat  more  than  seven  days  before  the 
Passover  in  750,  and  therefore  in  the  first  few  days 
*f  the  month  Nisan  A.  u.  c.  750.  Now,  as  Jesus 
was  born  before  the  death  of  Herod,  it  follows  that 
ihe  Dionysian  era,  which  corresponds  to  a.  u.  c 
'54,  is  at  least  four  years  too  lute. 

Many  have  thought  that  the  star  seen  by  ihe 
vise  men  gives  grounds  for  an  exact  calculation  of 
ihe  time  of  our  IvOrd's  birth.  It  will  be  found 
kowever,  that  this  is  not  the  case.  For  it  has  first 
>Ben  assumed  that  the  star  was  not  properly  a  star 


JESUS  CHRIST  1381 

but  an  astronomical  conjunction  of  known  stai» 
Kepler  finds  a  conjunction  of  Jupiter  and  Saturn 
in  the  sign  Pisces  in  A.  u.  C.  747,  and  again  in  the 
spring  of  the  next  year,  with  the  planet  Mars 
added ;  and  from  this  he  would  place  the  birth  of 
Jesus  in  748.  Ideler,  on  the  same  kind  of  calcu- 
lation, places  it  in  A.  u.  C.  747.  But  this  process 
only  proves  a  highly  improbable  date,  on  highly 
improbable  evidence.  The  words  of  St.  JNlatthew 
are  extremely  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  notion  of  a 
conjunction  of  planets;  it  was  a  star  that  api)eared, 
and  it  gave  the  JNIagi  ocular  proof  of  its  puri)Ose 
by  guiding  them  to  where  the  young  child  was. 
But  a  new  light  has  been  thrown  on  the  subject  by 
the  Rev.  C.  Pritchard,  who  has  made  the  calcula- 
tions afresh.  Ideler  (Handbuch  d.  Chronoloyie) 
asserts  that  there  were  three  conjunctions  of  Jupi- 
ter and  Saturn  in  b.  c  7,  and  that  in  the  third 
they  approached  so  near  that,  "  to  a  person  with 
weak  eyes,  the  one  planet  would  almost  seem  to 
come  within  the  range  of  the  disi)ersed  light  of  the 
other,  so  that  both  might  apijear  as  one  star." 
Dean  Alford  puts  it  much  more  strongly,  that  on 
November  12  in  that  year  the  planets  were  so  close 
"  that  an  ordinary  eye  would  regard  them  as  one 
star  of  surpassing  brightness  "  (Greek  Test,  in  loc). 
Mr.  Pritchard  finds,  and  his  calculations  have  been 
verified  and  confirmed  at  Greenwich,  that  this  con- 
junction occurred  not  on  November  12  but  early 
on  December  5;  and  that  even  with  Ideler's  some- 
what strange  postulate  of  an  observer  with  weak 
eyes,  the  planets  could  never  have  appeared  as  one 
star,  for  they  never  approached  each  other  within 
double  the  apparent  diameter  of  the  moon  (il/e- 
?n()irs  R.  Astr.  Sac.  vol.  xxv.).  [Stak  in  tub 
East.]  Most  of  the  chronologists  find  an  clement 
of  calcidation  in  the  order  of  Herod  to  destroy  all 
the  children  "  from  two  years  old  and  under  "  (airh 
SteroCy  Kal  KaTU'Tcpw,  Matt.  ii.  IG).  But  the 
age  within  which  he  destroyed,  would  be  measured 
rather  by  the  extent  of  his  fears  than  by  the  accu- 
racy of  the  calculation  of  the  Magi.  Greswell  has 
labored  to  show  that,  from  the  inclusi\'e  mode  of 
computing  j-ears,  mentioned  above  in  this  article, 
the  phrase  of  the  Evangelist  would  apply  to  all 
children  just  turned  one  year  old,  which  is  true; 
but  he  assumes  that  it  would  not  apply  to  any  that 
were  older,  say  to  those  aged  a  year  and  eleven 
months.  Herod  was  a  cruel  man,  angry,  and 
afraid;  and  it  is  vain  to  assume  that  he  adjusted 
the  limit  of  his  cruelties  with  the  nicest  accuracy. 
As  a  basis  of  calculation  the  visit  of  the  INIagi, 
though  very  important  to  us  in  other  respects, 
nmst  be  dismissed  (but  see  Greswell,  Bissert'tdona 
etc..  Diss.  18th;  Wieseler,  Chron.  Syn.  p.  57  ffi, 
with  all  the  references  there). 

The  census  taken  by  Augustus  Caesar,  which 
led  to  the  journey  of  Mary  from  Nazareth  just 
before  the  birth  of  the  Lord,  has  also  been  looked 
on  as  an  important  note  of  time,  in  reference  to 
the  chronology  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Several  dif- 
ficulties have  to  be  disposed  of  ir  considering  it. 
(i.)  It  is  argued  that  there  is  no  record  in  other 
histories  of  a  census  of  the  whole  Roman  empire 
in  the  time  of  Augustus,  (ii.)  Such  a  census,  if 
held  during  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great,  would 
not  have  included  Judaea,  for  it  was  not  yet  a  Ro- 
man province,  (iii.)  The  Roman  mode  of  taking 
such  a  census  was  with  reference  to  actual  residence, 
so  that  it  would  not  have  been  requisite  for  Joseph 
to  go  to  Bethlehem,  (iv.)  The  state  of  Mary  a< 
the  time  would  render  such  a  journey  less  prcba()I« 


1382 


JESUS  CHRIST 


(v.)  St  Luke  himself  seems  to  say  that  this  census 
■ras  not  actually  taken  until  ten  years  later  (ii.  2). 
To  these  objections,  of  which  it  need  not  be  said 
tjtrauss  has  made  the  worst,  answers  may  be  given 
in  detail,  though  scarcely  in  this  place  with  the 
proper  completeness,  (i.)  "As  we  know  of  the 
ie<^is  actionea  and  their  abrogation,  which  were 
quite  as  important  in  respect  to  the  early  period 
of  Koman  history,  as  the  census  of  the  empire  was 
in  respect  to  a  later  period,  not  from  the  historical 
works  of  Livy,  Dionysius,  or  Polybius,  but  from  a 
legal  M'ork,  the  Jnatitutes  of  Gains;  so  we  should 
think  it  strange  if  the  works  of  Paullus  and  L'lpian 
De  Censibus  had  come  down  to  us  perfect,  and  no 
mention  were  made  in  them  of  the  census  of  Au- 
gustus ;  while  it  would  not  surprise  us  that  in  the 
ordinary  histories  of  the  time  it  should  be  passed 
over  in  silence"  (Iluschke  in  Wieseler,  p.  78). 
♦'  If  Suetonius  in  his  life  [of  Augustus]  does  not 
mention  this  census,  neither  does  Spartian  in  his 
life  of  Hadrian  devote  a  single  syllable  to  the  edic- 
iwn  perpetmim,  which,  in  later  times,  has  chiefly 
adorned  the  name  of  that  emperor"  (ibid.).  Thus 
it  seems  that  the  or<jumentum  de  taciturnitate  is 
very  far  from  conclusive.  The  edict  possibly  af- 
fected only  the  provinces,  and  in  them  was  not  car- 
ried out  at  once ;  and  in  that  case  it  would  attract 
less  attention  at  any  one  particular  moment. 

In  the  time  of  Augustus  all  the  procurators  of 
the  empire  were  brought  under  his  sole  control  and 
supervision  for  the  first  time  A.  U.  c.  731  (Dion. 
Cass.  liii.  32).  This  movement  towards  central- 
ization renders  it  not  improbable  that  a  general 
census  of  the  empire  should  be  ordered,  although 
it  may  not  have  been  carried  into  effect  suddenly, 
nor  intended  to  be  so.  But  proceedings  in  the 
way  of  an  estimate  of  the  empire,  if  not  an  actual 
census,  are  distinctly  recorded  to  have  taken  place 
in  the  time  of  Augustus.  "  Huic  addendae  sunt 
raensurae  limitum  et  terminorum  ex  libris  Augusti 
et  Neronis  Caesarum:  sed  et  Balbi  mensoris,  qui 
temporibus  Augusti  omnium  provinciarura  et  civi- 
tatum  formas  et  mensuras  compertas  in  commen- 
tarios  retulit  et  legem  agrariam  j^er  univcrsitatem 
provinciarum  distinxit  et  declaravit"  (Frontinus, 
in  the  Rei  Agrar.  Auct.  of  Goes,  p.  109,  quoted 
by  Wieseler).  This  is  confirmed  from  other  sources 
(Wieseler,  pp.  81,  82).  Augustus  directed,  as  we 
learn,  a  "  breviarium  totius  imperii "  to  be  made, 
.n  which,  according  to  Tacitus,  "Opes  publicoe 
coiitinebantur:  quantum  civium  sociorumque  in 
armis,  quot  classes,  regna,  provinciae,  tribnta  aut 
vectigalia  et  necessitates  ac  largitiones"  (Tacit. 
Ann.  i.  11;  Sueton.  Auf/.  28,  101;  Dion.  Cass, 
liii.  30,  Ivi.  33,  given  in  AVieseler;  see  also  Kitsch  I, 
in  Rhein.  Mm.  J'iii'  Philol.  New  Series,  i.  481). 
All  this  makes  a  census  by  order  of  Augustus  in 
the  highest  degree  probable,  apart  from  St.  Luke's 
'estimony.  The  time  of  our  Lord's  birth  was  most 
propitious.  Except  some  troubles  in  Dacia,  the 
'Joman  world  was  at  peace,  and  Augustus  was  in 
the  full  enjoyment  of  his  power.  ]3ut  there  are 
persons  who ,  though  they  M'ould  at  once  believe  this 
fact  on  the  testimony  of  some  inferior  historian, 
added  to  these  confirmatory  facts,  reject  it  just  be- 
cause an  Evangelist  has  said  it.  (ii.  and  iii.)  Next 
somes  the  objection,  that,  as  Judsea  was  not  yet  a 
Roman  province,  such  a  census  womd  not  have  in- 
cluded that  country,  and  that  it  was  not  taken  from 
the  residence  of  each  person,  but  from  the  place 
>f  his  origin.  It  is  very  probable  that  the  mode 
)f  taking  the  census  would  afford  a  clew  to  the 


JESUS  CHRIST 

origin  of  it.  Augustus  was  willing  to  include  U 
his  census  all  the  tributary  kingdoms,  for  the  rttjna 
are  mentioned  in  the  passage  in  Tacitus ;  but  thii 
could  scarcely  be  enforced.  Perhaps  Herod,  desir- 
ing to  gratify  the  emperor,  and  to  emulate  him  in 
his  love  for  this  kind  of  information,  was  ready  to 
undertake  the  census  for  Judsea,  but  in  order  that 
it  might  appear  to  be  his  rather  than  the  emperor's, 
he  took  it  in  the  Jewish  manner  rather  than  in  the 
Koman,  in  the  place  whence  the  family  sprang, 
rather  than  in  that  of  actual  residence.  There 
might  be  some  hardship  in  this,  and  we  might 
wonder  that  a  woman  about  to  become  a  mother 
should  be  compelled  to  leave  her  home  for  such  a 
purpose,  if  we  Avere  sure  that  it  was  not  voluntary. 
A  Jew  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David  would 
not  willingly  forego  that  position,  and  if  it  were 
necessary  to  assert  it  by  going  to  the  city  of  David, 
he  would  probably  make  some  sacrifice  to  do  so. 
Thus  the  oljection  (iv.),  on  the  ground  of  the  state 
of  Mary's  health,  is  entitled  to  little  consideration. 
It  is  said,  indeed,  that  "  all  went  to  be  tixed,  every 
one  into  his  own  city"  (Luke  ii.  3);  but  not  that 
the  decree  prescribed  that  they  should.  Nor  could 
there  well  be  any  means  of  enforcing  such  a  regu- 
lation. Vtwi  the  principle  being  adopted,  that  Jewa 
were  to  be  taxed  in  the  places  to  which  their  fam- 
ilies belonged,  St.  Luke  tells  us  by  these  words  that 
as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  generally  followed,  (v.) 
The  olijection  that,  according  to  St.  Luke's  own 
admission,  the  census  was  not  taken  now,  but  when 
Quirinus  was  governor  of  Syria,  remains  to  be  dis- 
posed of.  St.  Luke  makes  two  statements,  that  at 
the  time  of  our  Lord's  birth  ("in  those  days") 
there  was  a  decree  for  a  census,  and  that  this  taxing 
first  came  about,  or  took  efllect  (irpcirrj  t-ytVeTo), 
when  Cyrenius,  or  Quirinus,  was  governor  of  Syria 
(Luke  ii.  1,  2).  And  as  the  two  statements  are 
quite  distinct,  and  the  very  form  of  expression  calls 
special  attention  to  seme  remarkable  circumstance 
about  this  census,  no  historical  inaccuracy  is  proved, 
unless  the  statements  are  shown  to  be  contradic- 
tory, or  one  or  other  of  them  to  be  untrue.  That 
Strauss  makes  such  a  charge  without  establishing 
either  of  these  grounds,  is  worthy  of  a  writer  so 
dishonest  (Ltben  Jtsu,  i.,  iv.  32).  Now,  without 
going  into  all  the  theories  that  have  been  proposed 
to  explain  this  second  vei-se,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  words  of  St.  Luke  can  be  explained  iu  a  nat- 
ural manner,  without  violence  to  the  sense  or  con- 
tradiction. Herod  undertakes  the  census  according 
to  Jewish  forms;  but  his  death  the  same  year  puts 
an  end  to  it,  and  no  more  is  heard  of  it:  but  for 
its  influence  as  to  the  place  of  our  Lord's  birth  it 
would  not  have  been  recorded  at  all.  Put  the 
Evangelist  knows  that,  as  soon  as  a  census  (oiro- 
ypatp^)  is  mentioned,  persons  conversant  with  Jew- 
ish history  will  think  at  once  of  the  census  taker, 
after  the  banishment  of  Archelaus,  or  about  ten 
years  later,  which  was  avowedly  a  Koman  census, 
and  which  caused  at  first  some  resistance  in  conse- 
quence (Joseph.  A7it.  xviii.  1,  §  1).  The  second 
verse  therefore  means  —  "  No  census  was  actually 
completed  then,  and  I  know  that  the  first  Koman 
census  was  that  which  followed  the  banishment  of 
Archelaus;  but  the  decree  went  out  much  earlier, 
in  the  time  of  Herod."  That  this  is  the  only  pes' 
sible  explanation  of  so  vexed  a  passage  cannot  of 
course  be  aflBrmed."    But  it  wiU  bear  this  inter- 


a  See  a  summary  of  the  older  theories  in  Kuinu^ 
(in  Lu2  ii.  2) ;  also  in  Meyer  (in  Luc.  ii.  2),  who  givei 


JESUS  CHRIST 

jretation,  and  upon  the  whole  evidence  tnere  is  no 
ground  whatever  for  denying  either  assertion  of  the 
Evangelist,  or  for  considering  them  irreconcilable. 
Many  writers  have  confounded  an  obscurity  with  a 
proved  inaccuracy.  The  value  of  this  census,  as  a 
fact  in  the  chronology  of  the  life  of  Christ,  depends 
on  the  connection  which  is  souglit  to  be  established 
between  it  and  the  insurrection  which  broke  out 
uuder  Matthias  and  Judas,  the  son  of  Sariphoeus, 
in  the  last  iUness  of  Herod  (Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  6,  § 
1),  If  the  insurrection  arose  out  of  the  census,  a 
point  of  connection  between  the  sacred  history  and 
that  of  Josephus  is  made  out.  Such  a  connection, 
howsver,  has  not  been  clearly  made  out  (see  Wiese- 
ler,  Olshausen,  and  others,  for  the  grounds  on  which 
it  is  supposed  to  rest). 

The  age  of  Jesus  at  his  baptism  (Luke  iii.  23) 
affords  an  element  of  calculation.  "And  Jesus 
Himself  began  to  be  about  (wcreO  thirty  years  of 
age."  Born  in  the  beginning  of  A.  u.  c.  750  (or 
the  end  of  749),  Jesus  would  be  thirty  in  the  be- 
giiming  of  A.  u.  c.  780  (a.  d.  27).  Greswell  is 
probably  right  in  placing  the  baptism  of  our  Lord 
in  the  beginning  of  this  year,  and  the  first  Passover 
during  his  ministry  would  be  that  of  the  same 
year;  Wieseler  places  the  baptism  later,  in  the 
spring  or  summer  of  the  same  year.  (On  the 
sense  of  apxofJieuos,  see  the  commentators.)  To 
this  fii-st  Passover  after  the  baptism  attaches  a  note 
of  time  which  will  confirm  the  calculations  already 
made.  "  Then  said  the  Jews,  Forty  and  six  years 
was  this  Temple  in  building  (w/coSo/z^flrj),  and  wilt 
Thou  rear  it  up  in  three  days?"  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  this  refers  to  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple  by  Herod:  it  cannot  mean  the  second 
Temple,  built  after  the  Captivity,  for  this  was  fin- 
ished in  twenty  years  (u.  C.  535  to  B.  c.  515). 
Herod,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign  (Joseph. 
Ant.  XV.  11,  §  1\  began  to  reconstruct  the  Temple 
on  a  larger  and  more  splendid  scale  (a.  u.  c.  73-i). 
The  work  was  not  finished  till  long  after  his  death. 
till  A.  V.  c.  818.  It  is  inferred  from  Josephus 
(Ant.  XV.  11,  §§  5,  6)  that  it  was  begun  in  the 
month  Cisleu,  a.  u.  c.  731.  And  if  the  Passover 
at  which  this  remark  was  made  was  that  of  A.  u. 
C.  780,  then  forty-five  years  and  some  months  have 
elapsed,  which,  according  to  the  Jewish  mode  of 
reckoning  (p.  1381),  would  be  spoken  of  as  "forty 
and  six  years." 

Thus  the  death  of  Herod  enables  us  to  fix  a 
boundary  on  one  side  to  the  calculations  of  our 
l/)rd's  birth.  The  building  of  the  Temple,  for 
forty-six  years,  confirms  this,  and  also  gives  a 
boundary  on  the  other.  From  the  star  of  the  Magi 
nothing  conclusive  can  be  gathered,  nor  from  the 
census  of  Augustus.  One  datum  remains:  the 
commencement  of  the  preaching  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist is  connected  with  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign 
»f  Tiberius  Caesar  (Luke  iii.  1).  The  rule  of  Ti- 
jerius  may  be  calculated  either  from  the  beginning 
of  his  sole  reign,  after  the  death  of  Augustus,  A. 
u.  c.  7G7,  or  from  his  joint  government  with  Au- 
gustus, i.  e.  from  the  beginning  of  A.  u.  c.  765. 
\n  the  latter  case  the  fifteenth  year  would  corre- 


JESUS  CHRIST 


1388 


an  account  of  the  view,  espoused  by  many,  that  Quir- 
Inui  was  now  a  special  commissioner  for  this  census  in 
Syria  (ijyefioi'evoi'Tos  t^s  Supias),  wLich  the  Greek 
will  not  bear.  But  if  the  theory  of  the  younger  Zumpt 
;[Bee  above,  Cyrenius)  be  correct,  then  Quirinus  was 
iwlce  govornor  of  Syria,  and  the  Evangelist  would 
hwe  refer  to  \v'*  former  rule.    The  difficulty  is  that 


spond  with  A.  u.  c.  779,  which  goes  to  confirm  tht 
rest  of  the  calculations  relied  on  in  this  article. 

An  endeavor  has  been  made  to  deduce  the  time 
of  the  year  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  the  fact  that 
Zacharias  was  "a  priest  of  the  course  of  Abia" 
(Luke  i.  5).  The  twenty-four  courses  of  priests 
served  in  the  Temple  according  to  a  regular  weekly 
cycle,  the  order  of  which  is  known.  The  date  of 
the  conception  of  John  would  be  about  fifteen 
months  before  the  birth  of  our  Lord,  and  if  the 
date  of  the  latter  be  A.  u.  c.  750,  then  the  former 
would  fall  in  A.  u.  c.  748.  Can  it  be  ascertained 
in  what  part  of  the  year  748  the  course  of  Abia 
would  be  on  duty  in  the  Temple?  The  Talmud 
preserves  a  tradition  that  the  Temple  was  destroyed 
l)y  Titus,  A.  D.  70,  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  month 
Ab.  Josephus  mentions  the  date  as  the  10th  of 
Ab  {B.  J.  vi.  4,  §§  5,  8).  Without  attempthig  to 
follow  the  steps  by  which  these  are  reconciled,  it 
seems  that  the  "course"  of  Jehoiarib  had  just 
entered  upon  its  weekly  duty  at  the  time  the  Tem- 
ple was  destroyed.  Wieseler,  assuming  that  the 
day  in  question  would  be  the  same  as  the  5th  of 
August,  A.  U.  c.  823,  reckons  back  the  weekly 
courses  to  A.  u.  c.  748,  the  course  of  Jehoiarib 
being  the  first  of  all  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  7).  "  It  fol- 
lows," he  says,  "  that  the  ministration  of  the  course 
of  Abia,  74  years  10  months  and  2  days,  or  (reck- 
oning 19  intercalary  years)  27,335  days  earlier  (= 
162  hieratic  circles  and  119  days  earlier),  fell  be- 
tween the  3d  and  9th  of  October,  a.  u.  c.  748. 
Reckoning  from  the  10th  of  October,  on  which 
Zacharias  m'ght  reach  his  house,  and  allowing 
nine  months  for  the  pregnancy  of  Elizabeth,  to 
which  six  months  are  to  be  added  (Luke  i.  26), 
we  have  in  the  whole  one  year  and  three  months, 
which  gives  the  10th  of  January  as  the  date  of 
Christ's  birth."  Greswell,  however,  from  the  same 
starting-point,  arrives  at  the  date  April  5th;  and 
when  two  writers  so  laborious  can  thus  differ  in 
their  conclusions,  we  must  rather  suspect  the  sound- 
ness of  their  method  than  their  accuracy  in  the  use 
of  it. 

Similar  differences  will  be  found  amongst  eminent 
writers  iu  every  part  of  the  chronology  of  the  Gos- 
pels. For  example,  the  birth  of  our  I^rd  is  placetl 
in  n.  c.  1  by  Pearson  and  Hug:  ii.  c.  2  by  Scaliger; 
B.  c.  3  by  Baronius,  Calvisius,  Siiskind,  and  Paulus ; 
B.  c.  4  by  Lamy,  Bengel,  Anger,  Wieseler,  and 
Greswell;  B.  c.  5  by  Usher  and  Petavius;  b.  c.  7 
by  Ideler  and  Sanclemente.  And  whilst  the  cal- 
culations given  above  seem  sufficient  to  determine 
us,  with  Lamy,  Usher,  Petavius,  Bengel,  ^Vieseler, 
and  Greswell,  to  the  close  of  B.  c.  5,  or  early  part 
of  B.  c.  4,  let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  there  is  a 
distinction  between  these  researches,  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  has  left  obscure  and  doubtful,  and  "  the 
weightier  matters  "  of  the  Gospel,  the  things  which 
directly  pertain  to  man's  salvation.  The  silence  of 
the  inspired  writers,  and  sometimes  the  obscurity 
of  their  allusions  to  matters  of  time  and  place, 
have  given  rise  to  disputation.  But  their  words 
admit  of  no  doubt  when  they  tell  us  that  Christ 
Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  and  that 


Jc»*phus  {Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  1)  mentions  that  Quirmut 
Wad  sent,  after  the  banishment  of  Archelaus,  to  tak« 
a  census.  Either  Zumpt  would  set  this  authority 
asii;,  or  would  hold  that  Quirinus,  twice  governor, 
twice  made  a  census  ;  which  is  scarcely  an  easier  hy« 
pothesis  than  some  others.  [See  addition  to  CyaEwiW 
jy  Dr.  Woolsey.  Amer.  ed.  —  U..1 


1384 


JESUS  CHRIST 


wicked  hands  crucified  and  slew  Him,  and  that  we 
und  all  men  must  own  Uim  as  the  Lord  and  Re- 
deemer. 

Sources.  —  The  bibliography  of  the  subject  of 
the  Life  of  Jesus  has  been  most  fully  set  out  in 
Hase,  Leben  Jesu,  Leipsic,  1854,  4th  edition.  It 
would  be  vain  to  attempt  to  rival  that  enormous 
catalogue.  The  principal  worits  employed  in  the 
present  article  are  the  Four  Gospels,  and  the 
best-known  commentaries  on  them,  including  those 
of  Bengel,  Wetstein,  Lightfoot,  De  Wette,  Liicke, 
Olshausen,  Stier,  Alford,  AVilhams,  and  others; 
Neander,  i-eftew  Jesu  (Hamburg,  1837  -  [5e  Aufl. 
1852,  Eng.  transl.  by  M'Clintock  and  Blumenthal, 
New  York,  1848]),  as  against  Strauss,  Lebcn  Jesu 
(Tiibingen,  1835),  also  consulted;  Stackhouse's 
History  of  the  Bible  ;  Ewald,  Geschichte  des  Volkes 
Israel,  vol.  v.,  Clirisius  (Giittingen,  1857  [3e  Ausg. 
1867]);  Baumgarten,  Geschichte  Jesu  (Brunswick, 
1859);  Krummacher,  JJer  I^eidende  Chiistus 
(Bielefeld,  1854).  Upon  the  harmony  of  the  Gos- 
pels, see  the  list  of  works  given  under  Gospels: 
the  principal  works  used  for  the  present  article  have 
been,  Wieseler,  Chronok)(jische  Synopse,  etc.,  Ham- 
burg, 1843  ;  Greswell's  Ilavviony,  Prolegomena, 
and  Dissertations.  Oxford,  v.  y. ;  two  papers  by  Dr. 
Robinson  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  1845;  and  Clausen, 
Tabulce  Synopticce,  Havnia?,  1829.  Special  works, 
Buch  as  Dean  Trench  on  the  Parables  and  on  the 
Miracles,  have  also  been  consulted ;  and  detached 
monographs,  sermons,  and  essays  in  periodicals. 
For  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  the  7th  edition  of 
Tischendorf 's  Greek  Test,  has  been  employed. 

W.  T. 

*  Moral  Character  of  Jestis.  —  According  to 
the  unanimous  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
faith  of  universal  Christendom,  Jesus  was  a  divine- 
human  person,  the  God-Man  (eedvOpwiros),  and 
hence  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  race.  The  idea  and  aim  of  religion, 
as  union  and  communion  of  man  with  God,  was 
fully  actualized  in  Christ,  and  can  be  actualized  in 
us  only  in  proportion  as  we  become  united  to  Him. 
The  Synoptic  Gospels  represent  Him  predominantly 
fts  the  divine  man,  the  Gospel  of  John  as  the  incar- 
nate God ;  the  result  in  liotii  is  the  same. 

The  human  side  of  Christ  is  expressed  by  the 
designation  the  Son  of  Man  (d  v'lhs  rod  avOpdirov 
—  mark  the  article),  the  divine  side  by  the  term 
the  Son  of  God  {&  vlhs  rod  Bfov,  also  with  the 
definite  article,  to  distinguish  Him  as  the  eternal, 
only  begotten  Son  from  ordinary  vloi  or  tckvu  deov 
whose  adoption  is  derived  from  his  absolute  Son- 
ship).  The  term  6  vihs  rod  av6pu>irovy  which  Christ 
applies  to  himself  about  eighty  times  in  the  Gospels, 
is  probably  derived  from  Dan.  vii.  13,  where  it  sig- 
nifies the  Messiah,  as  the  head  of  a  universal  and 
>ternal  kingdom,  and  from  the  ideal  representation 
.  f  man  as  the  divine  image  and  head  of  creation  in 
Ps.  viii.  In  the  Syriac,  the  Saviour's  native  dialect, 
bar  nosho,  the  son  of  man,  is  man  generically: 
the  fiUal  part  of  the  compound  denotes  the  identity 
and  purity  of  the  generic  idea.  This  favorite  des- 
ignation of  the  Gospels  places  Christ,  on  the  one 
harid,  on  a  common  level  with  other  men  as  par- 
taking of  their  nature  and  constitution,  and,  on  the 
other,  above  all  other  men  as  the  absolute  and  per- 
fect man,  the  representative  head  of  the  race,  the 
second  Adam  (comp.  Rom.  v.  12  ff. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  27, 
Heb  1.  2-3).  The  best  and  greatest  of  men  are 
bounded  by  their  nationality.  Abraham,  Moses, 
•od  Elyal:   were  Jaws,  and  could  not  commaod 


JESUS  CHRIST 

universal  sympathies.  Solon,  Socrates,  and  PlaU 
were  Greeks,  and  can  only  be  fully  appreciated  aa 
types  of  the  Greek  character.  Christ  is  the  king 
of  men,  who  "  draws  all  men  "  to  him,  because  h< 
is  the  universal,  absolute  man,  elevated  above  the 
Umitations  of  race  and  nationality  and  the  prejudices 
of  any  particular  age.  He  had  the  purest  humanity, 
free  from  the  demoniac  adulteration  of  sin.  He  is 
most  intensely  human.  Never  man  felt,  spake, 
acted,  suffered,  died  so  humanly,  and  so  as  to  ap- 
peal to  the  sympathies  and  to  call  out  the  affections 
of  all  men  without  distinction  of  race,  generation, 
and  condition  of  society.  It  was  an  approach  to 
this  idea  of  an  universal  humanity  when  the  Jewish 
philosopher  Philo,  a  contemporary  of  Christ,  called 
the  Logos,  the  eternal  Word.  6  a\T]6ii/hs  i'luOpwTros. 
As  sin  and  death  proceeded  from  the  f.ist  Adam 
who  was  of  the  earth  earthly,  so  righteousness  and 
life  proceed  from  the  second  Adam  who  is  &x)m 
heaven  heavenly. 

The  perfect  humanity  of  Christ  has  been  the 
subject  of  peculiar  interest  and  earnest  investiga- 
tion in  the  present  age,  and  a  deeper  insight  into 
it  is  perhaps  the  most  substantial  modern  contribu- 
tion to  Christology,  which  is  the  very  heart  of  the 
Christian  system. 

(1.)  The  singular  perfection  of  Christ's  character 
viewed  as  a  man,  according  to  the  record  of  the 
Gospels  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  church  and 
the  experience  of  the  believer,  consists  first  in  hig 
absolute  freedom  from  sin  both  oriffinal  and  actual. 
This  must  not  be  confounded  with  freedom  from 
temptation.  Temptability  and  peccability  {jyosst 
peccare)  is  an  essential  feature  in  the  nioi-al  con- 
stitution of  man,  and  actual  temptation  is  necessary 
as  a  test  of  virtue ;  hence  Christ  as  a  true  man  was 
tempted,  like  Adam  and  all  other  men  {ireirttpa<T- 
fjLfvov  Kara  trdura  KaG"  6/JLOi6rr)Ta),  not  only  in  the 
wilderness  but  throughout  his  whole  life  (Matt.  iv. 
1-11;  Luke  xxii.  28;  Heb.  iv.  15).  But  he  never 
yielded  to  temptation,  and  turned  every  assault  of 
the  power  of  sin  into  a  victory  of  virtue.  He  and 
he  alone  of  all  men  stood  in  no  need  of  pardon 
and  redemption,  of  regeneration  and  conversion;  be 
and  he  alone  could  challenge  even  his  bitter  foes 
with  the  question  (John  viii.  40):  "Which  of  you 
can  convince  me  of  sin  ?  "  No  such  claim  has  ever 
been  set  up  by  any  great  man.  It  is  true,  Xenophon 
says  of  Socrates,  that  no  one  ever  saw  him  do  or 
heard  him  say  any  thing  impious  or  unholy  {ovSds 
irdiroTi  ^coKparovs  ovScj'  aaffifs  oude  avSaiop 
of/re  irpdrTOVTOS  eT5e)/,  oijT€  XtyovTOS  ¥,Kov<T(Vy 
Memorab.  i.  11).  But  this  is  the  judgment  not 
of  Socrates  himself,  but  of  a  warm  admirer,  a  judg- 
ment moreover  that  must  be  judged  by  the  heathen 
standard  of  morality.  Christ's  sinlessness  rests  not 
only  on  the  unanimous  testimony  of  John  the 
Baptist  and  of  his  disciples  (Acts  iii.  14;  1  Pet.  i. 
19,  ii.  22,  iii.  18;  2  Cor.  v.  21;  1  John  ii.  29, 
iii.  5,7;  Heb.  iv.  15,  vii.  26),  and  even  his  enemie* 
or  outside  observers  (Matt,  xxvii.  19,  24-54 ;  Luke 
xxiii.  22-47;  Matt,  xxvii.  4),  but  is  confirmed  by 
his  own  solemn  testimony,  the  whole  course  of  hie 
life,  and  the  very  purpose  for  which  he  appeared. 
Self-deception  in  this  case  would  border  on  mad- 
ness; falsehood  would  overthrow  the  whole  moral 
foundation  of  Christ's  character.  If  he  was  a  sin- 
ner, he  must  have  been  conscious  of  it,  and  shown 
it  in  some  word  or  deed,  or  confessed  it  in  the  name 
of  common  honesty.  To  niaintain  a  successful  shov 
of  sinless  perfection  without  a  corresiwnding  realiti 
through  the  imst  trying  situations  of  Ufe,  weak 


JESUS  CHRIST 

pe  itself  the  greatest  mora,  miracle,  or  monstrosity 
jtither,  that  can  be  imagined. 

(2).  Perfect  holiness  is  the  positive  side  of  sin- 
lessness.  it  consists  in  the  beautiful  harmony  and 
symmetry  of  all  virtues  and  graces.  Christ's  life 
was  one  continued  act  of  love  or  self-consecration 
to  God  and  to  man.  "  It  was  absolute  love  to  God 
in  purest  humanity."  The  opposite  and  to  us  ap- 
parently contradictory  virtues  were  found  in  him 
in  equal  proportion.  He  was  free  from  aU  one- 
sidedness,  which  constitutes  the  weakness  as  well 
as  the  strength  of  the  most  eminent  men.  The 
moral  forces  were  so  well  tempered  and  moderated 
by  each  other  that  none  was  unduly  prominent, 
none  carried  to  excess,  none  alloyed  by  the  kindred 
failing.  Each  was  checked  and  completed  by  the 
opposite  grace.  He  combined  innocence  with 
strength,  love  with  earnestness,  humility  with  dig- 
nity, wisdom  with  courage,  devotion  to  God  with 
interest  in  man.  He  is  justly  compared  to  the 
lamb  and  the  lion.  His  dignity  was  free  from 
pride,  his  self-denial  free  from  moraseness ;  his  zeal 
never  degenerated  into  passion,  nor  his  constancy 
into  obstinacy,  iior  his  benevolence  into  weakness, 
nor  his  tenderness  into  sentimentality ;  he  was 
equally  removed  from  the  excesses  of  the  legalist, 
the  pietist,  the  mystic,  the  ascetic,  and  the  enthu- 
siast. His  character  from  tender  childhood  to  ripe 
manhood  was  absolutely  unique  and  original,  moving 
in  unbroken  communion  with  God,  overflowing  with 
the  purest  love  to  man,  free  from  every  sin  and 
error,  exhibiting  in  doctrine  and  example  the  ideal 
of  virtue,  sealing  the  purest  life  with  the  sublimest 
death,  and  ever  acknowledged  since  as  the  perfect 
model  of  goodness  for  universal  imitation.  All 
human  greatness  loses  on  closer  inspection;  but 
Christ's  chamcter  grows  more  pure,  sacred,  and 
lovely,  the  better  we  know  him.  The  whole  range 
of  history  and  fiction  furnishes  no  parallel  to  it. 
His  person  is  the  great  miracle  of  which  his  works 
are  only  the  natural  manifestations. 

Such  a  perfect  man  in  the  midst  of  universal 
Imperfection  and  sinfulness  can  only  be  understood 
on  the  ground  of  the  godhead  dwelling  in  Him. 
The  perfection  of  his  humanity  is  the  proof  of  bis 
divinity.  All  other  theories,  the  theory  of  enthu- 
siasm and  self-deception,  the  theory  of  imposture, 
and  the  theory  of  mythical  or  legendary  fiction, 
explain  nothing,  but  substitute  .an  unnatural  mon- 
strosity for  a  supernatural  miracle.  Only  a  Jesus 
could  have  invented  a  Jesus.  Even  Renan  must 
admit  that  "  whatever  be  the  surprises  of  the  future, 
Jesus  will  never  be  surpassed ;  his  worship  will  grow 
young  without  ceasing;  his  legend  (?)  will  call  forth 
tears  without  end  ;  his  sufferings  will  melt  the 
noblest  hearts ;  all  ages  will  proclaim  that,  among 
the  sons  of  men,  there  is  none  born  greater  than 
Jesus."  liut  this  and  similar  admissions  of  modern 
infidels  refute  their  own  hypothesis,  and  have  no 
meaning  unless  we  admit  the  truth  of  Christ's 
testimony  concerning  his  unity  with  the  Father  and 
his  extraordinary  claims  which  in  the  mouth  of 
every  other  man  would  be  l)lasphemy  or  madness, 
while  from  his  lips  they  excite  no  surprise  and  ap- 
pear as  natural  and  easy  as  the  rays  of  the  shining 
pun.  The  church  of  all  ages  and  denor...nations 
in  response  to  these  claims  worships  and  adores, 
fxclaiming  with  Thomas :  '•  My  Lon'  ind  my  God ! " 
This  is  the  testimony  of  the  soul  left  to  its  deepest 
instincts  and  noblest  aspirations,  the  soul  which 
ras  originally  made  for  Christ  and  finds  in  Him 
Jio  solution  of  all  moral  nrobleniii,  the  satisfactioo 


JESUS  CHRIST  1386 

of  all  its  wants,  the  unfailing  fovmtain  of  everlasting 
life  and  peace. 

Personal  Appearance  of  Jesus.  —  None  of  the 
Evangelists,  not  even  the  beloved  disciple  and 
bosom  friend  of  Jesus  has  given  us  the  least  hint 
of  his  countenance  and  stature.  In  this  respect  our 
instincts  of  natural  affection  have  been  wisely  over- 
ruled. He  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  and  the  perfect 
exemplar  of  humanity  should  not  be  identified  with 
the  particular  lineaments  of  one  race  or  nationality. 
We  should  cling  to  the  Christ  in  the  spirit  and  in 
glory  rather  than  to  the  Christ  in  the  flesh.  Never- 
tlieless  there  must  have  been  an  overawing  majesty 
and  irresistible  charm  even  in  his  personal  appear- 
ance to  the  spiritual  eye,  to  account  for  the  readi- 
ness with  which  the  disciples  forsaking  all  things 
followed  him  in  reverence  and  boundless  devotion. 
He  had  not  the  physiognomy  of  a  sinner.  He 
reflected  from  his  eye  and  countenance  the  serene 
peace  and  celestial  beauty  of  a  sinless  soul  in  l>lessed 
harmony  with  God.  In  the  absence  of  authentic 
representation.  Christian  art  in  its  irrepressible 
desire  to  exhibit  in  visible  form  the  fairest  among 
the  children  of  men,  was  left  to  its  own  i-mperfect 
conception  of  ideal  beauty.  The  church  under 
persecution  in  the  first  three  centuries  was  rather 
averse  to  all  pictorial  representations  of  Christ,  and 
associated  with  him  in  his  state  of  humiliation  (but 
not  in  his  state  of  exaltation)  the  idea  of  uncomeli- 
ness ;  taking  too  literally  the  prophetic  description 
of  the  suffering  Messiah  in  the  twenty-second  Psalm 
and  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah.  The  victorious 
church  after  Constantine,  starting  from  the  Mes- 
sianic picture  in  the  forty-fifth  Psalm  and  the  Song 
of  Solomon,  saw  the  same  Lord  in  heavenly  glory, 
"  fairer  than  the  children  of  men  "  and  "  altogether 
lovely."  Yet  the  diflerence  was  not  so  great  as  it  is 
sometimes  represented.  For  even  the  ante-Nicene 
fathers  (especially  Clement  of  Alexandria),  besides 
expressly  distinguishing  between  the  first  appear- 
ance of  Christ  in  lowliness  and  humility,  and  his 
second  appearance  in  glory  and  majesty,  did  not 
mean  to  deny  to  the  Saviour  even  in  the  days  of 
his  flesh  a  higher  order  of  spiritual  beauty,  "  the 
glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father  full  of 
grace  and  of  truth,"  which  shone  through  the  veil 
of  his  humanity,  and  which  at  times,  as  on  the 
mount  of  transfiguration,  anticipated  his  future 
glory. 

The  first  formal  description  of  the  personal  ap- 
pearance of  Christ,  whicli,  though  not  authentic  and 
certainly  not  older  than  the  fourth  century,  exerted 
great  influence  on  the  pictorial  representations,  is 
ascribed  to  the  heathen  Publius  Leiitulus,  a  sup- 
posed contemporary  of  Pilate  and  Proconsul  of 
Judaea,  in  an  apocryphal  Latin  letter  to  the  Roman 
Senate  which  was  first  discovered  in  a  MS.  copy 
of  the  writings  of  Anselm  of  Cantarbury,  and  is  tut 
follows :  — 

"In  this  time  appeared  a  mac,  who  lives  tiQ 
now,  a  man  endowed  with  great  powers.  Men  call 
Him  a  great  prophet;  his  own  disciples  term  Hira 
the  Son  of  God.  His  name  is  Jesus  Christ.  Ha 
restores  the  dead  to  life,  and  cures  the  sick  of  all 
manner  of  diseases.  This  man  is  of  noble  and  well- 
pro-wrtioned  stature,  with  a  face  full  of  kindness 
and  yet  firmness,  so  that  the  beholders  both  love 
Hira  and  fear  Him.  His  hair  is  the  color  of  wine, 
and  golden  at  the  root;  straight,  and  without 
lustre,  but  from  the  level  of  the  ears  curling  and 
glossy,  and  divided  down  the  centre  after  the  fashiot 
?f  the  Nazarenes.    His  forehead  is  even  and  smooth 


1386  JESUS  CHRIST 

his  face  without  blemisli,  and  enhanced  by  a  tem- 
pered bloom.  His  countenance  ingenuous  and  kind. 
Nose  and  mouth  are  in  no  way  faulty.  His  beard 
is  full,  of  the  same  color  as  his  hair,  and  forked  in 
form;  his  eyes  blue,  and  extremely  brilliant.  In 
reproof  and  rebuke  he  is  formidable ;  in  exhortation 
and  teachino;,  gentle  and  amiable  of  tongue.  None 
have  seen  Him  to  laugh ;  but  many,  on  the  con- 
trary, to  weep.  His  person  is  tall;  his  hands  beau- 
tiful and  straight.  In  speaking  He  is  deliberate 
and  grave,  and  little  given  to  loquacity.  In  beauty 
surpassing  most  men."  Another  description  is 
found  in  the  works  of  the  Greek  theologian  John 
of  Damascus  of  the  8th  century.  It  ascribes  to 
Christ  a  stately  person,  beautiful  eyes,  curly  hair, 
"  black  beard,  yellow  complexion  and  long  fingers. 
like  his  mother." 

On  the  ground  of  these  descriptions  and  of  the 
Abgar  and  the  Veronica  legends,  arose  a  vast  num- 
ber of  pictures  of  Christ  which  are  divided  into  two 
classes:  the  Salvator  pictures,  with  the  expression 
of  calm  serenity  and  dignity,  without  the  faintest 
mark  of  grief,  and  the  Jicce  Homo  pictures  of  the 
Buffering  Saviour  with  the  crown  of  thorns.  But 
"  no  figure  of  Chi  ic*,  in  color,  or  bronze,  or  marble, 
can  reach  the  ideal  of  perfect  beauty  which  came 
forth  into  actual  reality  in  the  Son  of  God  and  Son 
of  Man.  The  highest  creations  of  art  are  here  but 
feeble  reflections  of  the  original  in  heaven  ;  yet 
prove  the  mighty  influence  which  the  living  Christ 
continually  exerts  even  upon  the  imagination  and 
Bentiment  of  the  great  painters  and  sculptors,  and 
which  He  will  exert  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
(Schaff's  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  iii.  p.  571.) 

LiTKHATUKE.  —  I.  General  works  on  the  Lift 
of  Christ  not  mentioned  in  the  above  article.  — 
J.  J.  Hess,  Lebensfjeschichte  Jesu,  3  vols.  Ziirich, 
1781,  8th  ed.  1823".  H.  E.  G.  Paulus,  Das  Leben 
Jesu,  2  Theile  in  -4  Abth.  Heidelb.  1828,  and  C  F. 
von  Anmion,  Die  Gesch.  des  Lcbens  Jesu,  3  vols. 
Leipz.  1842-47  (rationalistic).  K.  Hase,  Das  Le- 
ben Jesu,  5th  ed.  18G5  (abridged  trans,  from  an 
earlier  ed.  by  J.  F.  Clarke,  Boston,  1860).  J.  P. 
Lange,  Das  Leben  Jtsu,  3  vols.  Heidelb.  1847 
(English  trans.  6  vols.  Edinb.  186-4).  J.  J.  van 
Oosterzee,  Leven  van  Jezus,  3  vols.  1846-51,  2d 
ed.,  1863-65.  Kiggenbach,  Vorlesungen  iiber  das 
Leben  Jesu,  Basel,  1858.  J.  N.  Sepp  (R.  Cath.), 
Das  Leben  Jesu,  2d  ed.  6  vols.  Regensburg,  1865. 
J.  Bucher  (R.  Cath.),  Das  Leben  Jesu,  Stuttgart, 
1859.  F.  Schleiermacher,  Das  Leben  Jesu,  Berlin, 
1865  (a  posthumous  work  of  little  value).  D.  F. 
Strauss,  Das  I^e/ten  Jesu,  kritisch  bearbeitet,  the 
large  work  in  2  vols.  Tiibingen,  1835  sq.,  4th  ed. 
1840,  English  transl.,  3  vols.  Lond.  1846,  2  vols. 
New  York,  1856;  the  smaller  and  more  popular 
work,  Das  Leben  Jesu  fiir  das  Deutsche  Volk,  in 
1  vol.  I^ipzig,  1864,  English  transl.  2  vols.  Lond. 
1865  (the  mythical  theory).  Comp.  also  Strauss's 
Der  Christus  des  Glaubens  und  der  Jesus  der  Ges- 
ckichte,  and  Die  Ilalben  und  die  Ganzen  (against 
Schenkel  and  Hengstenberg),  Berlin,  1865.  The 
literature  against  Strauss  is  very  large ;  see  Hase. 
E.  Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  Paris,  1863,  13^  ^d.,  revue 
et  augment(:e,  1867  (the  legendary  hypothesis). 
Renan  also  called  forth  a  whole  library  of  books 
md  essays  in  reply.  E.  de  Pressens(5,  Jesus  Christ, 
ton  temps,  sa  vie,  son  osun-e  (against  Renan), 
Paris,  1866.  (Translated  into  German  and  Eng- 
lish.) G.  UhUiom,  Die  modernen  Darstellungen 
tes  I^ebens  Jesu,  Hanover,  1866,  English  transl., 
Tke  Modern  Representations  of  the  Life  of  Jesus^ 


JESUS  CHRIST 

by  C.  E.  Grinnell,  Boston,  1868.  ITieod.  Kelm 
Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  vol.  i.,  Ziirich,  1867. 
English  and  American  works:  C.  J.  Ellicott,  Hii- 
torical  Lectures  on  the  Life  of  our  Loi-d  Jesus 
Christ,  1859,  reprinted  Boston,  1862.  S.  J.  An 
drews.  The  Lift  of  our  Lord  upon  the  Earth,  New 
York,  1862.  Of  a  popular  character,  Henry  Ware 
Jr.,  The  Life  of  the  Savimir,  Boston,  1833,  r«- 
printed  1868;  Z.  Eddy,  The  Life  of  Christ,  1868 
In  course  of  preparation,  H.  W.  Beecher,  Life  of 
Christ.    See  lurther  the  literature  under  Gospels. 

II.  On  the  Chronoloyy  of  the  Life  of  Christ.  — 
K.  Wieseler,  Chronoloyische  Synojisedtrvier  Lvan^ 
gelien,  I  Iamb.  1843  (English  trans.  Lond.  1864); 
R.  Anger,  Zur  Chronol.  des  Lehramtes  Christi, 
1848;  C.  H.  A.  Krafft,  Chronoiogie  n.  Ilaj'moniii 
der  vier  Evangelien,  Erlangen,  1848;  F.  W,  J. 
Lichtenstein,  Lebensgeschichte  des  Herrn  J.  C.  in 
chronol.  Uebersicht,  Erlangen,  1856;  comp.  his 
art.  Jesus  Christus  in  Herzog's  lieal-Encykl.  vi. 
563-596.  On  the  year  of  Christ's  birth  see  also 
F.  Piper,  De  externa  Vitte  J.  C.  Chroiiologia, 
Getting.  1835 ;  Seyffarth,  Chronobgia  Sacra,  Leipz. 
1846;  G.  Ktsch,  Zum  Geburisjahr  Jesu,  in  the 
Jahrb.  f  Deutsche  Theol.  1866,  xi.  3-48,  332. 

III.  On  the  Moral  Character  and  Sinltssness  cf 
Christ.  —  Abp.  Newcome,  Obsei-vations  on  our 
Lord^s  Conduct  as  a  Divine  Jnstrucioi%  etc.,  Lond. 
1782,  reprinted  Charlestown,  1810.  F.  V,  Rein- 
hard,  Vtrsuch  iiber  den  Plan  Jesu,  5th  ed.  by 
Heubner,  Wittenberg,  1830  (English  transl.  by  0. 
A.  Taylor,  N.  Y.  and  Andover,  1831).  C.  UU- 
mann,  Die  Siindlosigkeit  Jesu,  7th  ed.,  Hamburg, 

1864  (EngUsh  translation  by  IJ.  C.  L.  Brown, 
Edinb.  1858,  from  the  sixth  edition,  which  is  su- 
perseded by  the  seventh ).  W.  E.  Channing,  sermon 
on  the  Character  of  Christ  (Matt.  xvii.  5),  in  his 

Woi-ks,  Boston,  1848,  vol.  iv.  pp.  7-29.  Andrews 
Norton,  Internal  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  Boston,  1855,  pp.  54-62,  245  ff.  John 
Young,  The  Christ  of  Histoi'y,  Lond.  and  New 
York,  1855,  new  ed.  1868.  W.  F.  Gess,  Die  Lehre 
von  der  Person  Cliristi  entwickelt  aus  dem  Selbat- 
beunisstsein  Christi  und  aus  dem  Zeugniss  der  Ajjos- 
tel,  Base4,  1856.  Fred,  de  Rougemont,  ChHst  ei 
ses  tenioins,  2  vols.  Paris,  1856.  Horace  Bushnell, 
77/e  Character  of  Jesus,  foi-bidding  his  possible 
Classification  uith  Men,  New  York,  1861  (a  sepa- 
rate reprint  of  the  tenth  chapter  of  his  Nature 
and  the  Svpei-natwal,  N.  Y".  1859).  J.  J.  van 
Oosterzee,  Das  Bild  Christi  nach  der  Schrift,  from 
the  Dutch,  Hamb.  1864.  Dan.  Schenkel,  Dai 
Charakterbild  Jesu  (a  caricature  rather),  Wies- 
baden, 3d  ed.  1864  (translated,  with  Introduc- 
tion and  Notes,  by  W.  H.  Fumess,  2  vols.  Boston, 
1866;  comp.  Furness's  History  of  Jesus,  Boston, 
1853,  and  other  works).  Theod.  Keim,  Der  ges- 
chichlliche  Christus,  Ziirich,  3d  ed.  1866.  Phil. 
Schaff,  The  Person  of  Christ  the  Miracle  of  His- 
tory ;  with  a  Reply  to  Strauss  and  Renan,  and  a 
Collection  of  Testimonies  of  Unbelievers,  Boston, 

1865  (the  same  in  German,  Gotha,  1865;  in 
Dutch,  with  an  Introduction  by  Dr.  van  Oosterzee, 
Groningen,  1866;  and  in  French).  Ecce  Homo, 
London  and  Boston,  5th  ed.  1867  (an  anony- 
mous sensation  book  of  great  ability,  classical  style, 
and  good  tendency,  but  bad  exegesis,  on  the  h  iman 
perfection  of  Christ  as  the  founder  of  a  new  king 
dom,  and  the  kindler  of  ei  thusiasm  for  huraanitj 
Comp.  among  the  innumerable  reviews  favorabl* 
and  unfavorable,  those  of  Domer  in  the  Jahrb.  f 
Deutsche  Theol.  for  1867,  p.  344  ff.,  and  Ghdatoni 


JETHER 

in  Good  Words,  1868,  reprinted  in  a  separate  vo.- 
■me).  Ecce  Deus,  I^nd.  18G7  (an  anonymous  coun- 
terpart of  J-Jcce  Homo).  Deus  Ilotivo,  by  Theophi- 
.U8  Parsons,  Chicago,  18G7  'Swedenborgian).  C  A. 
Row,  The  Jesus  of  the  EvcirKjelists:  or,  an  Exam- 
ination of  the  Internal  Evidence  for  our  Lord's 
Divine  Mission,  Lond.  1868. 

IV.  On  Jmarjes  of  Christ.  —  P.  E.  Jablonski 
(1757),  De  m'iffine  imar/inum  Christi  Domini,  Lugd. 
Batav.  180-t.  ^V.  Grimm,  Die  Sof/e  vom  Ursprung 
der  Christusbibler,  Berlin,  1843.  Dr.  I^gia  Gliick- 
Belig,  Christus-Archdoloffie.  Das  Bach  von  Jesu^ 
Chrislus  und  seinem  wahren  Ebenhilde,  Prasj,  1863, 
4to.  IMrs.  Jameson  and  Lady  Eastlake,  The  His- 
tory of  our  Ijfrd  as  exemplified  in  Works  of  Art 
(with  illustrations),  2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Lond.  1865. 

P.  S. 

JE'THER  ("in*!  \ string,  cord,  and  abun- 
dance, residue]).  1.  ('lodSp'  Jethro.)  Jethro, 
the  father-in-law  of  IVIoses,  is  so  called  in  Ex.  iv. 
18  and  the  margin  of  A.  V.,  though  in  the  Heb.- 

Sam.  text  and  Sam.  version  the  reading  is  "llin*^, 
as  in  the  Syriac  and  Targ.  Jon.,  one  of  Kennicott's 
MSS.,  and  a  MS.  of  Targ.  Onk.,  No.  16  in  De 
Rossi's  collection. 

2.  Cueep:  Jether.)  The  firstborn  of  Gideon's 
seventy  sons,  who  were  all,  with  the  exception  of 
Jotham,  the  youngest,  slain  at  Ophrah  by  Abime- 
lech.  At  the  time  of  his  father's  victorious  pursuit 
of  the  Midianites  and  capture  of  their  kings  he  was 
still  a  lad  on  his  first  battle-field,  and  feared  to 
draw  his  sword  at  Gideon's  bidding,  and  avenge,  as 
the  representative  of  the  family,  the  slaughter  of 
his  kinsmen  at  Tabor  (Judg.  viii.  20). 

3.  {'Udep  in  1  K.  ii.  5,  32;  *loe6p  in  1  Chr.  ii. 
17;  the  Alex.  MS.  has  UOep  in  all  the  passages: 
Jether.)  The  father  of  Aniasa,  captain-general  of 
Absalom's  army.  Jether  is  merely  another  form 
of  Ithra  (2  Sam.  xvii.  25),  the  latter  being  prob- 
ably a  corruption.  He  is  described  in  1  Chr.  ii. 
17  as  an  Ishmaelite,  which  again  is  more  likely  to 
be  correct  than  the  "Israelite"  of  the  Heb.  in  2 
Sam.  xvii.,  or  the  "  Jezreelite"  of  the  LXX.  and 
Vulg.  in  the  same  passage.  *'  Ishmaelite  "  is  said 
by  the  author  of  the  Qiicest.  Tlebr.  in  lib.  Reg.  to 
have  been  the  reading  of  the  Hebrew,  but  there  is 
no  trace  of  it  in  the  MSS.  One  MS.  of  Chronicles 
jeads  "Israelite,"  as  does  the  Targum,  which  adds 
that  he  was  called  Jether  the  Ishmaelite,  "  because 
he  girt  his  loins  with  the  sword,  to  help  Da\id 
with  the  Arabs,  when  Abner  sought  to  drive  away 
David  and  all  the  race  of  Jesse,  who  were  not  pure 
to  enter  the  congregation  of  Jehovah  on  account 
of  Ruth  the  Moabitess."  According  to  Jarchi, 
Jether  was  an  Israelite,  dwelling  in  the  land  of 
Ishmael,  and  thence  acquired  his  surname,  like  the 
house  of  Obededom  the  Gittite.  Josephus  calls 
him  'UBaparis  {Ant.  vii.  10,  §  1).  He  married 
Abigail,  David's  sister,  probably  during  the  sojourn 
of  the  family  of  Jesse  in  the  land  of  Moab,  under 
the  protection  of  its  king. 

4.  The  son  of  Jada,  a  descendant  of  Hezron,  of 
the  tribe  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii.  32).  He  died  witb- 
vut  children,  and  being  the  eldest  son  the  succes- 
lion  fell  to  his  brother's  family. 

5.  The  son  of  Ezra,  whose  name  occurs  in  a  di»- 
ocated  passage  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah  (1  Chr. 
•  17).  In  the  LXX.  the  name  is  repeated:  "  and  ' 
fether  begat  Miriam,"  tic.     By  the  author  of  tne  1 


JETHRO 


1387 


Qiuzst.  Ilebr.  in  Par.  he  is  said  to  have  bees 
Aaron,  Ezra  being  another  name  for  Anitara. 

0.  Cue-np;  Alex.  Udep.)  The  chief  of  a  fam- 
ily of  warriors  of  the  line  of  Asher,  and  father  of 
Jephunneh  (1  Chr.  vii.  38).  He  is  probably  Iht 
same  as  Ithran  in  the  preceding  verse.  One  of 
Kennicott's  MSS.  and  the  Alex,  had  Jether  in  botb 
cases.  W.  A.  W. 

JE'THETH  (rin")  Ipin,  nail,  Sim.] :  'l60€>, 
[Alex.  U&ep,  UOeB;  Vat.  in  1  Chr.  Uder:]  Je- 
theih),  one  of  the  phylarchs  (A.  "V  "  dukes  ")  wh« 
came  of  Esau  (Gen.  xxxvi.  40;  1  Chr.  i.  51), 
enumerated  separately  from  the  genealogy  of  Esau'i 
chi'^Iren  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  chapter,  "  accord- 
ing to  their  families,  after  their  places,  by  theil 
names,"  and  "  according  to  their  habitations  in  th« 
land  of  their  possession  "  (vv.  40-43).  This  record 
of  the  Edomite  phylarchs  may  point  specially  to 
the  places  and  habitations,  or  towns,  named  after, 
or  occupied  by  them ;  and  even  otherwise,  we  may 
look  for  some  trace  of  their  names,  after  the  custom 
of  the  wandering  tribes  to  leave  such  footprints  in 
the  changeless  desert.  Identifications  of  several  in 
the  list  have  been  proposed :  Jetheth,  as  far  as  the 
writer  knows,  has  not  been  yet  recovered.  He  may, 
however,  be  probably  found  if  we  adopt  the  likely 

suggestion  of  Simonis,  nri^  =  n7.0o  "a  nail," 
"  a  tent-pin,"  etc.  (and  metaphorically  "  a  prince," 

etc.,  as  being  stable,  frm)  =  Ara,h .  Jo«,  tXJ^., 

with  the  same  signification.   El-Wetideh,  SJo*Ji 

(n.  of  unity  of  the  former),  is  a  place  in  Nejd,  said 
to  be  in  the  Dahna  (see  Ishbak);  there  is  also  a 
place  called  El-Wetid;  and  El-Wetidat  (perhaps 
pi.  of  the  first-named ),  which  is  the  name  of  moun- 
tains belonging  to  Benee  'Abd-Allah  Ibn  Ghatfan 
{Mardsid,  s.  vv.).  E.  S.  P. 

JETH'LAH  Cnhn^,  i.  e.  Jithlah  [high, 
elevated,  Ges. ;  hill-place,  Fiirst] :  ^i\ad<i',  [Vat. 
SetAafla;]  Alex.  [Aid.  Comp.]  'Udxd:  Jethela), 
one  of  the  cities  of  the  tribe  of  Dan  (Josh.  xix. 
42),  named  with  Ajalon  and  Thimnathah.  In  the 
Onomasticon  it  is  mentioned,  without  any  descrip- 
tion or  indication  of  position,  as  ^led\du.  It  has 
not  since  been  met  with,  even  by  the  indefatigable 
Tobler  in  his  late  Wandering  in  that  district.  G. 

JETH'RO  0~ir]'),  i.  e.  Jithro  [preeminence, 
superiority]  :  *lod6p :  [Jethro] ),  called  also  Jether 
and  Hobab ;  the  son  of  Reuel,  was  priest  or  prince 
of  Midian,  both  oflSces  probably  being  combined  in 
one  person.  Moses  spent  the  forty  years  of  hia 
exile  from  Egypt  with  him,  and  married  his  daugh- 
ter Zipporah.  By  the  advice  of  Jethro,  Mosea  ap- 
pointed deputies  to  judge  the  congregation  and 
share  the  burden  of  government  with  himself  (Ex. 
xviii.).  On  account  of  his  local  knowledge  he  was 
entreated  to  remain  with  the  Israelites  throughout 
their  journey  to  Canaan;  his  room,  however,  was 
supplied  by  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  super- 
naturally  indicated  the  places  for  encampuig  (Nun?. 
X  31,  33).  The  idea  conveyed  by  tlie  name  of 
Jethro  or  Jether  is  probably  that  of  excellence  ^ 
and  as  Hobab  may  mean  beloved,  it  is  quite  possi- 
ble that  both  appellations  were  given  to  the  same 
person  fcr  similar  reasons.  That  the  custom  of 
having  n  ore  than  one  name  was  common  amcDg 


1388  JETHRO 

khe  Jews  we  see  in  the  case  of  Benjamin,  Beuoui; 
Solonion,  Jedidiah,  etc. 

It  is  said  in  Ex.  ii.  18  that  the  priest  of  Midian 
whose  daughter  Moses  married  was  Keuel;  after- 
wards, at  ch.  iii.  1,  he  is  called  Jethro,  as  also  in 
eh.  xviii. ;  but  in  Num.  x.  29  "Ilobab  the  son  of 
Raguel  the  Midianite"  is  called  Moses'  father-in- 
law:  assuming  the  identity  of  Ilobab  and  Jethro, 
we  must  suppose  that  "  their  father  Keuel,''  in  Ex. 
ii.  18,  was  really  their  grandfather,  and  that  the 
person  who  "said,  How  is  it  that  ye  are  come  so 
Boon  to-day?  "  was  the  priest  of  ver.  16:  whereas, 
proceeding  on  the  hypothesis  that  Jethro  and  Ho- 
bab  are  not  the  same  individual,  it  seems  difficult  to 
determine  the  relationship  of  Keuel.  Jethro,  Ilobab, 
and  jMoses.  The  hospitality,  freehearted  and  un- 
sought, which  Jethro  at  once  extended  to  the  un- 
known homeless  wanderer,  on  the  relation  of  his 
daughters  that  he  had  watered  their  flock,  is  a  pic- 
ture of  eastern  manners  no  less  true  than  lovely. 
We  may  perhaps  suppose  that  Jethro,  before  his 
acquaintance  with  Moses,  was  not  a  worshipper  of 
the  true  (iod.  'J'races  of  this  appear  in  the  delay 
which  Moses  had  suffered  to  take  place  with  respect 
to  the  circumcision  of  his  son  (I'^x.  iv.  24-26): 
indeed  it  is  even  jwssible  that  Zipporah  had  after- 
wards  been   subjected  to  a  kind  of  divorce  (Ex. 

xviii.  2,  rT'n^vtt"'),  on  account  of  her  attachment 
to  an  alien  creed,  but  that  growing  convictions 
were  at  work  in  the  mind  of  Jethro,  from  the  cir- 
cumstance of  Israel's  continued  prosperity,  till  at 
last,  acting  upon  these,  he  brought  back  his  daugh- 
ter, and  declared  that  his  intpressions  were  con- 
firmetl,  for  ^'■noiv  he  knew  that  the  Lord  was 
greater  than  all  gods,  for  in  the  thing  wherein  they 
dealt  proudly,  he  was  above  them :  "  consequently 
we  are  told  that  "Jethro,  Moses'  father-in-law, 
took  a  burnt-off"ering  and  sacrifices  for  God:  and 
Aaron  came  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel  to  eat  bread 
with  Moses'  father-in-law  before  (Jod; "  as  though 
to  celebrate  the  event  of  his  conversion.  Whetlier 
or  not  the  account  given  at  Num.  x.  29-32  refers 
to  this  same  event,  the  narrative  at  Ex.  xviii.  27 
coincides  with  Hobab's  own  words  at  Num.  x.  30; 
and,  comparing  the  two,  we  may  suppose  that 
Moses  did  not  prevail  upon  his  father-in-law  to 
stay  with  the  congregation.  Calvin  (m  5  lib.  Moais 
Comment.)  understands  vv.  31,  32  thus:  "Thou 
hast  gone  with  us  hitherto,  and  hast  been  to  us 
instead  of  eyes,  and  now  what  profit  is  it  to  thee 
if,  having  8uff"ered  so  many  troubles  and  difficulties, 
thou  dost  not  go  on  with  us  to  inherit  the  promised 
blessing?"  And  INIat.  Henry  imagines  that  Ho- 
bab  complied  with  this  invitation,  and  that  traces 
of  the  settlement  of  his  ^posterity  in  the  land  of 
Canaan  are  apparent  at  Judg.  i.  16  and  1  Sam.  xv. 
6.  Some,  and  among  them  Calvin,  take  Jethro 
and  lleuel  to  be  identical,  and  call  Hobab  the 
hro^her-in-lno  oi  Moses.  The  present  punctuation 
cf  our  Bibles  does  not  warrant  this.     Why,  at 

Judg.  i.  16,  ISIoses'  father-in-law  is  called  ^3*'f2 
(Kenite,  comp.  Gen.  xv.  19),  or  why,  at  Num.  xii. 
1,  Zipporah,  if  it  be  Zipporah,  is  called  H^tTS, 
A..  V.  Ethiopian,  is  not  clear. 

The  Mohammedan  name  of  Jethro  is  Shoaib 
\Kovon,  7,  11).  There  is  a  tale  in  the  Midrash 
that  Jeth'-o  was  a  counsellor  of  Pharaoh,  who  tried 
'a  disauade  him  from  slaughtering  the  Israelitish 
children,  and  consequently,  on  account  of  his  clem- 
wxc}',  was  forced  to  flee  into  Midian,  but  was  re- 


JEW 

warded  by  becoming  the  father-in-law  of  HilxMi 
(see  Weil's  Biblical  Ler/endg,  p.  93,  note).  [Jb. 
thkr;  Hol.au.]  S.  L. 

JETUR  ("l^ti^  fprob.  nomadic  camp  or  cir 
cle]  :  'leTovp,  'UTTovp,  'Irovoaloi;  [Tat.  in  1  Cht 
V.  19,  Tovpaiai/:]  JtlLur,  [./etur,  Jturtei]),  Gen 
XXV.  15;  1  Chr.  i.  31,  v.  19.     [Ituk^ea.] 

JEUOSL.  1.  (^S^^"^  [perh.  treasure  of 
God^:  'U7)\;  [Vat.  netTjA:]  Jehuel.)  A  chief 
man  of  Judah,  one  of  the  Bene-Zerah  [sons  of 
Z.] ;  apparently  at  the  time  of  the  first  settlement 
in  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  ix.  6;  comp.  2). 

2.  (Feou^A;  Alex.  leouTjA:  (Jebel.)  One  of  the 
Bene-Adonikam  [sons  of  A.]  who  returned  to  Je- 
rusalem with  Esdras  (1  Esdr.  viii.  39).     [Jkiel.] 

For  other  occurrences  of  this  name  see  Jeikl. 

JE'USH  (tt^^r")  \collecting  or  haateningy. 
'Icovy,  'leouA,  'l€i5j,  'loous,  'l€c6y,  'Iwcfy:  Jefius, 
Jaus). 

1.  ['Uovsy  *Uov\;  Alex,  in  Gen.  xxxai.  14, 
Ifus:  Jehus.]  Son  of  Esau,  by  Aholibamah,  the 
daughter  of  Anah,  the  son  of  Zibeon  the  Hivit« 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  5,  14,  18;  1  Chr.  i.  35).  It  appears 
from  Gen.  xxxvi.  20-25,  that  Anah  is  a  man's  name 
(not  a  woman's,  as  might  be  thought  from  ver.  2), 
and  by  comparison  with  ver.  2,  that  the  Horites 
were  llivites.     Jeush  was  one  of  the  Edomitish 

dukes  (ver.  18;.  The  Cethib  has  repeatedly  ^"^V), 
Jeisb. 

2.  ['loous;  Alex.  l€»s.]  Head  of  a  Benjamitc 
house,  which  existed  in  David's  time,  son  of  Bil- 
han,  son  of  Jediael  (1  Chr.  vii.  10,  11). 

3.  ['Icociy;  Alex,  omits:  Jmis.]  A  Le^ite,  of 
the  house  of  Shimei,  of  the  family  of  the  Gershon- 
ites.  He  and  his  brother  Beriah  Avere  reckoned 
as  one  house  in  the  census  of  the  Levites  taken  in 
the  reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  10,  11). 

4.  ['l6ou$;  Vat.  laovB;  Alex,  omits:  Jehus.'] 
Son  of  Behoboam  king  of  Judah,  by  Abihail,  the 
daughter  of  Eliab,  the  son  of  Jesse  (2  Chr.  xi.  18, 
19).  A.  C.  H. 

JETTZ  (V^^?  [counseling]:  'U0ovs;  [Vat. 
I5a>s;]  Alex.  Icovs:  Jehus),  head  of  a  Benjamite 
house  in  an  obscure  genealogy  (1  Chr.  viii.  10), 
apparently  son  of  Shaharaim  and  Hodesh  his  third 
wife,  and  born  in  Moab.  A.  C.  H. 

JEW  C^^^.^n^  [patronjm.,  see  Judah]  :  'loy 
Saios  '  Judceus,  i.  e.  Judsean;  'lovdai^ou,  Esth. 
viii.  17,  [Gal.  ii.  14;  'lowSoi/ct^y,  2  Mace.  viii.  11, 
xiii.  21;  'lowSoi/fcSs,  "as  do  the  Jews,"  Gal.  ii.  14; 

n"^"7^n"^,  'lovdaitrri,  "in  the  Jews'  language," 
2K.'xvii*i.  26,  28;  2  Chron.  xxxii.  18;  Neh.  iii. 
24;  Is.  xxxvi.  11,  13]).  lliis  name  was  properly 
applied  to  a  member  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  after 
the  separation  of  the  ten  tribes.  In  this  sense  it 
occurs  twice  in  the  second  book  of  Kings,  2  K. 
xvi.  6,  XXV.  25,  and  seven  times  in  the  later  chap- 
ters of  Jeremiah :  Jer.  xxxii.  12,  xxxiv.  9  (in  con- 
nection with  Hel)rew),  xxxviii.  19,  xl.  12,  xli.  3, 
xliv.  l,lii.  28.  After  the  Beturn  the  word  received 
a  larger  application.  Partly  from  the  predominance 
of  the  members  of  the  old  kingdom  of  Judah  among 
those  who  returned  to  Palestine,  partly  from  the 
identification  of  Judah  with  the  religious  ideas  and 
hopes  of  the  people,  all  the  members  of  the  new 
state  were  called  Jews  (Judiseans),  and  the  nam« 
was  extended  to  the  remnants  of  the  race  scatters 


I 


JEW 

Ihroiighoit  the  nations  (Dan.  ili.  8,  12;  Ezr.  iv. 
12,  23,  Ac. ;  Neh.  i.  2,  ii.  IG,  v.  1,  <fec. ;  Esth.  iii. 
i  ff.,  etc.  Cf.  J<>s.  Atd.  xi.  5,  §  7,  ewAi^drjo-aj/  5e 
rh  oyofia  ClouBaioi)   ^|  ^s  ij/xepai  av4^r\<Tav  c'/c 

Under  the  name  of  **  Judaeans,"  the  people  of 
Israel  wero  known  to  classical  writers.  The  most 
femous  and  interestini?  notice  by  a  heathen  writer 
is  that  of  Tacitus  {lllsl.  v.  2  ft'.;  cf.  Oreili's  Ex- 
cursus). The  trait  of  extreme  exclusiveness  with 
wliicli  he  specially  charged  them  is  noticed  by  many 
other  writers  (Juv.  S<U.  xiv.  103;  Diod.  Sic.  Ed. 
34,  1;  (^uint.  Jnst.  iii.  7,  21).  The  account  of 
Strabo  (xvi.  p.  7G0  fF.)  is  more  favorable  (cf.  Just, 
xxxvi.  2),  but  it  was  impossible  that  a  stranger 
could  clearly  understand  the  meaning  of  Judaism 
as  a  discipline  and  preparation  for  a  universal  relig- 
ion (F.  C.  Meier,  JiuUuca^  seu  veleruin  scnptorum 
pvo/'anorurn  de  rebus  Judaicis  fraymenta.,  Jenae, 
1832). 

The  force  of  the  title  'Ioi/5aros  is  seen  particu- 
larly in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  While  the  other 
evangelists  scarcely  ever  use  the  word  except  in 
the  title  "  King  of  the  Jews  "  (as  given  by  Gen- 
tiles),«  St.  John,  standing  within  the  boundary  of 
the  Christian  age,  ^'ery  rarely  uses  any  other  term 
to  describe  the  opponents  of  our  Lord.  The  name, 
indeed,  appeared  at  the  close  of  the  Ajwstle's  life  to 
be  the  true  antithesis  to  Christianity,  as  describing 
the  limited  and  definite  form  of  a  national  religion ; 
but  at  an  earlier  stage  of  the  progress  of  the  faith, 
it  was  contrasted  with  Greek  {"EKKt]v)  as  implying 
an  outward  covenant  with  God  (Kom.  i.  16,  ii.  9, 
10;  Col.  iii.  11,  &c.).  In  this  sense  it  was  of 
wider  application  than  Hebrew^  which  was  the 
correlative  of  Ilellmisl  [IIkllexist],  and  marked 
a  division  of  language  subsisting  within  the  entire 
body,  and  at  the  same  time  less  expressive  than 
IsraelUe,  which  brought  out  with  especial  clearness 
the  privileges  and  hopea  of  the  children  of  Jacob 
(2  Cor.  xi.  22;  John  i.  47;  1  Mace.  i.  43,  53,  and 
often). 

The  history  of  Judaism  is  divided  by  Jost  —  the 
most  profound  writer  who  has  investigated  it  — 
into  two  great  eras,  the  first  extending  to  the  close 
of  the  collections  of  the  oral  laws,  53(>  b.  c.  —  600 
A.  D. :  the  second  reaching  to  the  present  time. 
According  to  this  view  the  first  is  the  period  of 
original  development,  the  second  of  formal  construc- 
tion; the  one  furnishes  the  constituent  elements, 
the  second  the  varied  shape  of  the  present  faith. 
But  as  far  as  Judaism  was  a  great  stage  in  the  Di- 
vine revelation,  its  main  interest  closes  with  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70  A.  D.  From  that 
date  its  present  living  force  was  stayed,  and  its 
history  is  a  record  of  the  human  shapes  in  which 
the  Divine  truths  of  earlier  times  were  enshrined 
and  hidden.  The  old  age  (alcau)  passed  away,  and 
the  new  age  began  when  the  Holy  City  was  finally 
wrested  from  its  citizens  and  the  worship  of  the 
Temple  closed. 

Yet  this  shorter  period  from  the  Return  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  pregnant  with  great 
thanges.  Four  different  dynasties  in  succession 
duected  the  energies  and  influenced  the  character 
3f  the  Jewish  nation.  The  dominion  of  Persia 
'.636-333  n.  c),  of  Greece  (333-167  b  c),  of  the 
^smonaeans  (167-63  b.  c),  of  the  ilerods  (40  b.  c, 

a  The  exceptions  are,  Matt,  xxviii.  15  (a  note  of  thfc 
iTangelist  of  later  date  than  the  a^bstancti  ol   the 


JEWRY  1381? 

70  A.  D.)  sensibly  furtherefl  in  ?aiious  way.i  the 
discipline  of  the  people  of  God,  and  prepared  the 
way  for  a  final  revelation.  An  outline  of  the  char- 
acteristic features  of  the  several  periods  is  given  in 
other  articles.  Briefly  it  may  be  said  that  tlie  su- 
premacy of  Persia  was  marked  by  the  growth  of 
organization,  order,  ritual  [Cykl's;  Disi'Kk.sioji 
OF  THE  Jews],  that  of  Greece  by  the  sjjread  of 
liberty,  and  speculation  [Alexander;  Alexan- 
dhia;  Hellenists],  that  of  the  Asmonaeans  by' 
the  strengthening  of  independence  and  fwfh  [Macv 
cabees],  that  of  the  Herods  by  the  finai  separa- 
tion of  the  elements  of  temporal  and  spiritual  do- 
minion into  antagonistic  systems  [Hehod];  and 
so  at  length  the  inheritance  of  six  centuries,  paiii- 
fully  won  in  times  of  exhaustion  and  persecution 
and  oppression,  was  transferred  to  the  treasury  of 
the  Christian  Church.  B.  F.  \V. 

JEW  Ol^n*;:  I'lovSatot:  Judoeus]\  JEWS 

(D'^l^n";,  Ch.  r^7=^n^  in  Ezr.  and  Dan.). 
Originally  "man,  or  men  of  Judah."  The  term 
first  makes  its  appearance  just  before  the  Captivity 
of  the  ten  tribes,  and  then  is  used  to  denote  the 
men  of  Judah  who  held  Elath,  and  were  driven  out 
by  Kezin  king  of  Syria  (2  K.  xvi.  6).  Elath  had 
been  taken  by  Azariah  or  Uzziah,  and  made  a  col- 
ony of  Judah  (2  K,  xiv.  22).  The  men  of  Judah 
in  prison  with  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxii.  12)  are  called 
"Jews  "  in  our  A.  V.,  as  are  those  who  deserted 
to  the  Chaldaeans  (Jer.  xxxviii.  19),  and  the  frag- 
ments of  the  tribe  which  were  dispersed  in  Moab, 
Edom,  and  among  the  Ammonites  (Jer.  xl.  11;. 
Of  these  latter  were  the  confedei-ates  of  Ishmael 
the  son  of  Nethaniah,  who  were  of  the  blood-royal 
of  Judah  (.Jer.  xli.  3).  The  fugitives  in  Egypt 
(Jer.  xliv.  1)  belonged  to  the  two  tribes,  and  \vere 
distinguished  by  the  name  of  the  more  important; 
and  the  same  general  term  is  applied  to  those  who 
were  carried  captive  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  Iii. 
28,  30)  as  well  as  to  the  remnant  which  was  left  in 
the  land  (2  K.  xxv.  25;  Neh.  i.  2,  ii.  16,  Ac). 
That  the  term  Yehudi  or  "Jew"  was  in  the  latter 
history  used  of  the  members  of  the  tribes  of  Judah 
and  Benjamin  without  distinction  is  evident  from 
the  case  of  Mordecai,  who,  though  of  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  is  called  a  Jew  (Esth.  ii.  6,  <fec.),  while 
the  people  of  the  Captivity  are  called  "  the  people 
of  Mordecai"  (p]sth.  iii.  6).  After  the  Captivity 
the  appellation  was  universally  given  to  those  who 
returned  from  Babylon.  W.  A.  W. 

JEWEL.  [Precious  Stones.] 
JEWESS  ClovSaia''  Judcea),  a  woman  of 
Hebrew  birth,  without  distinction  of  tribe  (Acte 
xvi.  1,  xxiv.  24).  It  is  applied  in  the  former  pas- 
sage to  Eunice  the  mother  of  Timothy,  who  was 
unquestionably  of  Hebrew  origin  (comp.  2  Tim.  iiL 
15),  and  in  the  latter  to  Drusilla,  the  wife  of  Felil 
and  daughter  of  Herod  Agrippa  I. 

JEWISH  ('lovSaiK6s:  Judaicv^),  of  or  be- 
longing to  Jews :  an  epithet  applied  to  the  rabbin- 
ical legends  against  which  the  elder  apostle  wame 
his  younger  brother  (Tit.  i.  14). 

JEW^RY  ("T^rr*. :  '\ovZaia:  Judcea),  the  same 
word  elsewhere  rendered  Judati  and  Juvma.  It 
occurs  but  once  in  the  O.  T.,  Dan.  v.  13,  in  which 
verse  the  Hebrew  is  translated  both  by  Judah  and 


Gospel);  Mark  vii.  3  (a  similar  nota' :  liUke  vfi.  9^ 
xxiii.  51. 


1390 


JEWS'  LANGUAGE 


Jewry:  the  A.  V.  retaining  the  latter  as  it  stands 
in  Coverdale,  Tyndale,  and  the  Geneva  Bible.  The 
variation  possibly  arose  from  a  too  faithful  imitation 
of  the  Vulg.,  which  has  Juda  and  Judcea.  Jewry 
comes  to  us  through  the  Norman- French,  and  is 
of  frequent  occurrence  in  Old  English.  It  is  found 
besides  in  1  Esdr.  i.  32,  ii.  4,  iv.  49,  v.  7,  8,  57, 
d.  1,  viii.  81,  ix.  3;  Bel,  33;  2  Mace.  x.  24; 
Luke  xxiii.  5;  John  vii.  1.  [The  earlier  English 
♦ersions  have  generally  "Jewry"  {Jurie)  for  Ju 
djea  in  the  N.  T.  See  Trench,  Authorized  Ver- 
tim,  p.  49,  2d  ed.  —  II.] 

JEWS'  LANGUAGE,  IN  THE  (nn^np. 
Literally  "Jewishly:"  for  the  Hebrew  must  be 
taken  adverbially,  as  in  the  LXX.  ClovSaiffTi)  and 
Vulgate  (Judnice).  The  term  is  only  used  of  the 
language  of  the  two  southern  tribes  after  the  Cap- 
tivity of  the  northern  kingdom  (2  K.  xviii.  2G,  23 ; 
2  Chr.  xxxii.  18;  Is.  xxxvi.  11,  13),  and  of  that 
spoken  by  the  captives  who  returned  (Neh.  xiii. 
24).  It  therefore  denotes  as  well  the  pure  Hebrew 
as  the  dialect  acquired  during  the  Captivity,  which 
was  characterized  by  Aramaic  forms  and  idioms. 
Elsewhere  (Is.  xix.  18)  in  the  poetical  language  of 
Isaiah  it  is  called  "  the  lip  of  Canaan." 

*  JEWS'  RELIGION  (2  Mace.  viii.  1,  xiv. 
38;  Gal.  i.  14,  15).     [Judaism.] 

JEZANI'AH  (=^n;3.t^  [whom  Jehovah  hears] : 
*ECovlas  [Vat.  FA.]  Alex.  Utopias  in  Jer.  xl.  8: 
J^^— ^  i  'A^ap/as  in  Jer.  xlii.  1 :  Jezonins),  the  son 
of  Hoshalah,  the  Maachathite,  and  one  of  the  cap- 
tains of  the  forces,  who  had  escaped  from  Jerusa- 
lem during  the  final  attack  of  the  beleaguering 
army  of  the  Chaldajans.  In  the  consequent  pur- 
suit which  resulted  in  the  capture  of  Zedekiah,  the 
army  was  scattered  from  him  and  dispei-sed  through- 
out the  open  country  among  the  neighboring  Am- 
monites and  Moabites,  watching  from  thence  the 
progress  of  events.  When  the  Babylonians  had 
departed,  Jezaniah,  with  the  men  under  his  com- 
mand, was  one  of  the  first  who  returned  to  Geda- 
liah  at  Mizpah.  In  the  events  which  followed  the 
assassination  of  that  officer  Jezaniah  took  a  prom- 
inent part.  He  joined  Johanan  in  the  pursuit  of 
Ishmael  and  his  murderous  associates,  and  in  the 
general  consternation  aJid  distrust  which  ensued  he 
became  ono  of  the  foremost  advocates  of  the  mi- 
gration into  Egypt,  so  strongly  opix)sed  by  Jere- 
miah. Indeed  in  their  interview  with  the  prophet 
at  the  Khan  of  Chinham,  when  M'ords  ran  high, 
Jezaniah  (there  called  Azariah)  was  apparently  the 
leader  in  the  dispute,  and  for  once  took  precedence 
:>f  Johanan  (Jer.  xliii.  2).  In  2  K.  xxv.  23  he  is 
called  Ja.vzamah,  in  which  form  the  name  was 
easily  coirupted  into  Azariah,  or  Zechariah,  as  one 
MS.  of  the  LXX.  reads  it.  The  Syriac  and  Jo- 
Bcphus  iolhw  the  Hebrew.  In  the  LXX.  his  father's 
Lan'.s  is  Maaseiah. 

JEZ'EBEL  (b^rS:  LXX.  and  N.  T.  'i^^a- 
J-f)\;  Joseph.  'Ie^a)8aA7j:  Jezabel:  probably  a 
uame,  like  Agnes,  signifying  "  chaste,"  sine  coitu, 


a  Amongst  the  Spanish  Jews  the  name  of  Jezebel 
vas  given  to  Isabella  "  the  Catholic,"  in  consequence 
nf  the  detestation  in  which  her  memory  was  held  as 
thejr  persecutor  (Ford's  Ham/book  of  Spain,  2d  ed. 
p.  486).  Whether  the  name  Isabella  was  originally 
totuected  with  that  of  Jezet)el  is  doubtful. 

b  According  to  the  reading  of  A.  V.  and  the  older 


JEZEBEL 

Gesenius  in  roc),  wife  of  Ahab,  king  of  Israel,  and 
mother  of  Athaliah,  queen  of  Judah,  and  Ahaziab 
and  Joram,  kings  of  Israel."  She  was  a  Phoeni- 
cian princess,  daughter  of  "Ethbaal  king  of  the 
Zidonians  "  (or  Ithobal  king  of  the  Syrians  and 
Sidonians,  Menander  opiul  Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  13, 
§2;  c.  Apian,  i.  18).  Her  marriage  with  Ahab 
was  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  Israel.  Not 
only  was  the  union  with  a  Canaanitish  wife  unpre- 
cedented in  the  northern  kingdom,  but  the  charac- 
ter of  the  queen  gave  additional  force  and  signifi- 
cance to  what  might  else  have  been  regarded  merely 
as  a  commercial  and  political  measure,  natural  to  a 
king  devoted,  as  was  Ahab,  to  the  arts  of  peace 
and  the  splendor  of  regal  luxury.  She  was  a  wo- 
man in  whom,  with  the  reckless  and  licentious 
habits  of  an  oriental  queen,  were  united  tlie  stern- 
est and  fiercest  qualities  inherent  in  the  Phoenician 
people.  The  royal  family  of  Tyre  was  remarkable 
at  that  time  both  for  its  religious  lanalicism  and 
its  savage  temper.  Her  father  Ethbaal  united  with 
his  royal  office  the  priesthood  of  the  goddess  As- 
tarte,  and  had  come  to  the  throne  by  the  murder 
of  his  predecessor  Phelles  (Joseph,  c.  Apion,  i.  18). 
The  next  generation  included  within  itself  Sichseus, 
or  jMatgenes,  king  and  priest  of  Baal,  the  murderer 
Pygmalion,  and  Elisa  or  Dido,  foundress  of  Car- 
thage {ib. ).  Of  this  stock  came  Jezebel.  In  her 
hands  her  husband  became  a  mere  puppet  (1  K. 
xxi.  25).  Even  after  his  death,  through  the  reigns 
of  his  sons,  her  influence  was  the  evil  genius  of 
the  dynasty.  Through  the  marriage  of  her  daugh- 
ter Athaliah  with  the  king  of  Judah,  it  extended 
even  to  the  rival  kingdom.  The  wild  license  of 
her  life,  the  magical  fascination  of  her  arts  or  of 
her  character,  became  a  pro\erb  in  the  nation  (2 
K.  ix.  22).  Long  afterwards  her  name  lived  as 
the  byword  for  all  that  was  execrable,  and  in  the 
Apocalypse  it  is  given  to  a  church  or  an  individual* 
in  Asia  Minor,  combining  in  hke  manner  fanaticism 
and  profligacy  (Kev.  ii.  20).  If  we  may  trust  the 
numbers  of  the  text,  she  must  have  married  Ahab 
before  his  accession.  He  reigned  22  years;  and 
12  yeai"s  from  that  time  her  grandson  Ahaziah  was 
21  years  of  age.  Her  daughter  Athaliah  must 
have  been  born  therefore  at  least  37  years  before. 

The  first  effect  of  her  influence  was  the  in)me- 
diate  establishment  of  the  Phoenician  worship  on  a 
grand  scale  in  the  court  of  Ahab.  At  her  table 
were  supported  no  less  than  450  prophets  of  Baal, 
and  400  of  Astarte  (1  K.  xvi.  31,  32,  xviii.  39). 
The  prophets  of  Jehovah,  who  up  to  this  time  had 
found  their  chief  refuge  in  the  northern  kingdom, 
were  attacked  by  her  orders  and  put  to  the  sword 
(1  K.  xviii.  13;  2  K.  ix.  7).  When  at  last  the 
people,  at  the  mstigation  of  Elijah,  rose  against  her 
ministers,  and  slaughtered  them  at  the  foot  of 
Carmel,  and  when  Ahab  was  ten-ified  into  submis- 
sion, she  alone  retained  her  presence  of  mind ;  and 
when  she  received  in  the  palace  of  Jezreel  the  tid- 
ings that  her  religion  was  all  but  destroyed  (1  K. 
xix.  1),  her  only  answer  was  one  of  those  fearful 
vows  which  have  made  the  leaders  of  Semitic 
nations   so   terrible  whether  for  goxl  or  evil  — 


Tersions,  it  is  t>jv  yvvalKo.  trov,  "  thy  wtfe."  In  that 
case  she  must  be  the  wife  of  the  "  angel ; "  and  tht 
expression  would  thus  coniirm  the  interpretation 
which  makes  "  the  angel  "  to  be  the  bishop  or  pi*- 
siding  officer  of  the  Church  of  Thyatira ;  and  'Jiil 
woman  would  thus  bo  his  wift- 


k 


JEZEBEL 

■xpretued  m  a  message  to  the  very  man  who,  as  it 
might  have  seemed  but  an  hour  before,  had  her 
life  iu  his  power:  "As  surely  as //<om  art  Elijah 
and  as  /  am  Jezebel  (LXX.)  so  may  God  do  to 
me  and  more  also,  if  by  this  time  to-moiTOW  I 
make  not  thy  life  as  the  life  of  one  of  them  " 
(1  K.  xix.  2).  Elijah,  who  had  encountered  un- 
daunted the  kin,:jj  and  the  whole  force  of  the 
prophets  of  Baal,  "  feare<l  "  (LXX.)  the  wrath  of 
the  awful  queen,  and  fled  for  his  life  beyond  the 
furthest  limits  of  Israel  (1  K.  xix.  3).     [Elijah.] 

ITie  next  instance  of  her  power  is  still  more 
characteristic  and  complete.  ^Vhen  she  found  her 
husband  cast  down  by  his  disappointment  at  being 
thwarted  l)y  Naboth,  she  took  the  matter  into  her 
own  hands,  with  a  spirit  which  reminds  us  of 
Clytemnestra  or  \My  INIacbeth.  "  Dost  i/iou  now 
govern  the  kingdom  of  Israel?  (play  the  king, 
iroieTs  fia.(n\4a^  LXX).  Arise  and  eat  bread  and 
let  thine  heart  be  merry,  and  /  will  give  thee  the 
vineyard  of  Naboth  the  Jezreelite  "  (1  K.  xxi.  7). 
She  wrote  a  warrant  in  Ahab's  name,  and  sealed 
it  with  his  seal.  It  was  couched  in  the  ofllcial 
language  of  the  Israelite  law  —  a  solemn  fast  — 
witnesses  —  a  charge  of  blasphemy  —  the  author- 
ized punishment  of  stoning.  To  her,  and  not  to 
Ahab,  was  sent  the  announcement  that  the  royal 
wishes  were  accomplished  (1  K.  xxi.  14),  and  she 
bade  her  husband  go  and  take  the  vacant  property, 
and  on  her  accordingly  fell  the  prophet's  curse,  as 
well  as  on  her  husband  (1  K.  xxi.  23). 

We  hear  no  more  of  her  for  a  long  period.  But 
she  survived  Ahab  by  14  years,  and  still,  as  queen- 
mother  (after  the  oriental  custom),  was  a  great 
personage  in  the  court  of  her  sons,  and,  as  such, 
became  the  special  mark  for  vengeance  when  Jehu 
advanced  against  Jezreel  to  overthrow  the  dynasty 
of  Ahab.  "  What  peace  so  long  as  the  whoredoms 
of  thy  mother  Jezebel  and  her  witchcrafts  are  so 
many?"  (2  K.  ix.  22).  But  in  that  supreme 
hour  of  her  house  the  spirit  of  the  aged  queen  rose 
within  her,  equal  to  the  dreadful  emergency.  She 
was  in  the  palace,  which  stood  by  the  gate  of  the 
city,  overlooking  the  approach  from  the  east.  Be- 
neath lay  the  open  sp^ce  under  the  city  walls. 
She  determined  to  face  the  destroyer  of  her  family, 
whom  she  saw  rapidly  advancing  in  his  chariot." 
She  painted  her  eyelids  in  the  eastern  fashion  with 
antimony,  so  as  to  give  a  darker  border  to  the 
eyes,  and  make  them  look  larger  and  brighter 
(Keil),  possibly  in  order  to  induce  Jehu,  after  the 
manner  of  eastern  usurpers,  to  take  her,  the  widow 
of  his  predecessor,  for  his  wife,''  but  more  probably 
as  the  last  act  of  regal  splendor.*-'  She  tired 
("made  good  ")  her  head,  and,  looking  down  upon 
him  from  the  high  latticed  window  in  the  tower 
(Joseph.  Ant.  ix  6,  §  4),  she  met  him  by  an  allu- 
sion to  a  former  act  of  treason  in  the  history  of 
her  adopted  country,  which  conveys  a  different  ex- 


JEZBBEL 


1391 


o  A  graphic  conception  of  this  scene  occurs  in 
Bocinc's  Athalif,  Act  II.  So.  6- 

f>  According  to  the  explanation  of  S.  Ephrem  Syrus 
ad  loc. 

c  » The  A.  V.  (2  K.  ix.  30)  renders  the  Hebrew 

(n"'3'^37  ?f^55  Dbn]\  in  the  text,  «  painted  he'- 
bice;  "  but  in  the  margin  more  strictly,  "  put  her  eyes 
In  painting  "  (or  "  in  paiut ").  The  act  referred  to  is 
a  familiar  one  among  Syrian  women  at  the  present 
^me.  "They  'paint'  or  blacken  the  eyelids  and 
Dfowfl  with  k^kl,  and  prolong  the  application  in  a  de- 
biBMlng  pencil,  »)  as  to  len^cthen  and  reduce  the  eye 


pression,  according  as  we  take  one  or  other  of  tU« 
different  interpretations  given  to  it.  (1.)  »*  Wa» 
there  peace  to  Zimri,  who  slew  his  '  lord  '  ?  "  as  if 
to  remind  Jehu,  now  in  the  fullness  of  his  triumph, 
how  Omri,  the  founder  of  the  dynasty  which  he 
was  destroying,  had  himself  come  into  power  aa 
the  avenger  of  Zimri,  who  had  murdered  Baasha, 
as  he  now  had  murdered  Jehoram :  or  (2)  a  direct 
address  to  Jehu,  as  a  second  Zimri:  "Is  it 
peace  ?  "  (following  up  the  question  of  her  son  in  - 
2  K.  ix.  31).  "  Is  it  peace,  O  Zimri,  slayer  of  hia 
lord  ?  "  (So  Keil  and  LXX.  ^  etp^i/ij  Zafi^ol  6 
((>ouevT-fjS  rod  Kupiou  avrov',)  Or  (3)  "  Pa*ce  to 
Zimri,  who  slew  his  '  lord  '  "  —  (according  to  Jo-- 
sephus,  Ant.  ix.  6,  §  4,  KuAhs  5ov\os  6  airoKTel 
vas  rhv  S€airoT-f}v)  —  which  again  may  be  taken 
either  as  an  ironical  welcome,  or  (accordiiie:  to 
Ewald,  iii.  1G6,  260)  as  a  reminder  that  as  Zimri 
had  spared  the  seraglio  of  Baasha,  so  she  was  pre- 
pared to  welcome  Jehu.  The  general  character  of 
Jezebel,  and  the  doubt  as  to  the  details  of  the  his- 
tory of  Zimri,  would  lead  us  rather  to  adopt  the 
sterner  view  of  her  speech.  Jehu  looked  up  from 
his  chariot  —  and  his  answer,  again,  is  variously 
given  in  the  LXX.  and  in  the  Hebrew  text,  in 
the  former  he  exclaims,  "Who  art  t/iouf — Come 
down  to  me."  In  the  latter,  "  Who  is  on  my  side, 
who?  "  In  either  case  the  issue  is  the  same.  Two 
or  three  eunuchs  of  the  royal  harem  show  their 
faces  at  the  windows,  and  at  his  command  dashed  ^ 
the  ancient  princess  down  ft-om  the  chamber.  She 
fell  immediately  in  front  of  the  cotiqueror's  chariot. 
The  blood  flew  from  her  mangled  corpse  over  the 
palace-wall  behind,  and  over  the  advancing  horses 
in  front.  The  merciless  destroyer  passed  on ;  and 
the  last  remains  of  life  were  tranipled  out  by  the 
horses'  hoofs.  The  body  was  left  in  that  open 
space  called  in  modern  eastern  language  "  the 
mounds,"  where  offal  is  thrown  from  the  city-walls. 
The  dogs  of  eastern  cities,  which  prowl  around 
these  localities,  and  which  the  present  writer  met 
on  this  very  spot  by  tlie  modern  village  which  oc- 
cupies the  site  of  Jezreel,  pounced  upon  this  unex- 
pected prey.  Nothing  was  left  by  them  but  the 
hard  portions  of  the  human  skeleton,  the  skull, 
the  hands,  and  the  feet.  Such  was  the  sight  which 
met  the  eyes  of  the  messengers  of  Jehu,  whom  he 
had  sent  from  his  triumphal  banquet,  struck  with 
a  momentary  feeling  of  compassion  for  the  fall  of 
so  much  greatness.  "  Go,  see  now  this  cursed 
woman  and  bury  her,  for  she  is  a  king's  daughter.'' 
When  he  heard  the  fate  of  the  body,  he  exclaimed 
in  words  which  no  doubt  were  long  remembered  as 
the  epitaph  of  the  greatest  and  wickedest  of  the 
queens  of  Israel  —  "  This  is  the  word  of  Jehovah, 
which  He  spake  by  his  servant  Elijah  the  Tishbitc. 
saying.  In  the  portion*  of  Jezreel  shall  the  dogg 
eat  the  flesh  of  Jezebel ;  and  the  carcase  of  Jezebel 
shall  be  as  dung  on  the  face  of  the  earth ;  so  that 


in  appearance  to  what  is  called  almond  sh,ipe 

The  powder  from  which  kohl  is  made  is  collected  from 
burning  almond  shells,  or  frankincense,  and  is  in- 
tensely black.  Antimony,  and  various  ores  of  lea-l. 
are  a.sio  employed.  The  powder  is  applied  by  a  small 
probe  of  wood,  ivory,  or  silver,  called  wee/."  (Thom- 
son. Land  and  Book,  ii.  184.)  ^or  figures  of  the 
instriuajnts  used  iu  the  process,  see  also  the  work  re- 
ferred to.  H. 

d  t2tttt7,  "dash,"  as  from  a  precipice  (P».  cxU.  61 
e  phn,  "smooth  field." 


1392 


JEZELXTS 


Ihey  shall  not  say,  This  is  Jezebel "  (2  K.  ix.  36 
87).  A.  P.  S. 

JEZE'LUS  CleC^Aos;  [Vat.  UOvKos-]  Zech 
tileus).  1.  The  same  as  Jaiiaziel  (1  Esdr.  viii, 
32). 

2-  (['le^Aoy.*]  Jehelus.)  Jehiel,  the  father 
of  Obadiah  (1  Esdr.  viii.  35). 

JE'ZER  ("1!|.^  {formallon,  image]:  'laadap 
In  Gen.  xlvi.  24;  'leaep,  Num.  xxvi.  49,  Alex. 
Uffpi;  'Aa-fjp,  1  Clir.  vii.  13,  Alex.  2aop,  [V^at. 
laaeirjp,  Coinp.  Aid.  'leo-o-e'^:]  Jeser),  the  third 
son  of  Naphtali,  and  father  of  the  family  of  the 
Jezerites,  who  were  numbered  in  the  plains  of 
Moab. 

JE'ZERITES,  THE  (^"3|^n :  6  'Ucrepi 
[Vat.  -pel],  Alex,  o  lecrpi'  Jeseritce).  A  family 
of  the  tribe  of  Naphtaii,  descendants  of  Jezer  (Num. 
ixvi.  49). 

JEZI'AH  Cn^-V  [whom  Jehovah  sprinkles, 
or  ^piates]  :  'h(la ;  [Vat.  A^em,  FA.  ASeta :] 
Jezia),  properly  Yizzlyyah,  a  descendant  of  Parosh, 
and  one  of  those  amoiij:;  the  laymen  after  the  return 
frofn  Babylon  who  had  marrietl  strange  wives,  and 
at  Ezra's  bidding  had  promised  to  put  them  away 
(Ezr.  X.  25).  In  1  Esdr.  ix.  2G  he  is  called  Eddias. 
The  Syriac  of  Ezra  reads  Jezaniah. 

JE'ZIEL  (bW1t;»,  Keri  bsn^  which  is  the 
reading  of  some  MSS.  [nsseinhhj  of  God]  :  'ia>'<jX; 
FA.  AC'r?A;  [Aid.  'la^t^A;  Comp.  'E^t^A:]  Jazid), 
one  of  the  skilled  Benjumite  archers  or  slingers  who 
joined  David  in  his  retreat  at  Ziklag.  He  was 
probably  tlie  son  of  Azmaveth  of  Bahurim,  one  of 
David's  heroes  (1  Chr.  xii.  3).  In  the  SjTiac  Jeziel 
is  omitted,  and  the  sons  of  Azmaveth  are  there 
Pelet  and  Berachah. 

JEZLI'AH  (nS"^bT>  [Jehovah  delivers, 
Furst]:  'le^A/as ;  [Vat.  Zapeio ;]  Alex.  ECAjo  ; 
[Comp.  Aid.  'le^eA/a:  Jezlia]),  one  of  a  long  list 
of  Benjamite  heads  of  houses,  sons  of  Elpaal,  who 
dwelt  at  Jerusalem  (1  Chr.  viii.  18). 

A.  C.  II. 

JEZO'AR  ("^nbi'?  [shining,  brilliant,  as  a 
verb] :  :2,a6.p'-  Isaar),  the  son  of  Helah,  one  of  the 
wives  of  Aslier,  the  father  or  founder  of  Tekoa,  and 
posthumous  son  of  Ilezron  (1  Chr.  iv.  7).     The 

Keri  has  "IH^I  "  and  Zohar,"  which  was  followed 
by  the  LXX".  and  by  the  A.  V.  of  IGll.  [Zoar, 
at  the  end.] 

JEZRAHI'AH  (n^nnri  [Jehovah  causes 
I)  break  forth,  i.e.  into  life]:  [Vat.  Alex.  FA. 
omit ;  FA.!*]  U^pias ;  [Comp.  Aid.  'U^ovp  0 
Jezrala),  a  Levite,  the  leader  of  the  choristers  at 
the  solemn  dedication  of  the  wall  of  Jerusale.n 
jnder  Nehcmiah  (Neh.  xii.  42).  The  singers  had 
built  themselves  villages  in  the  environs  of  the  city, 
and  the  Oasis  of  the  Jordan,  and  with  the  minstrels 
bhey  gathei-ed  themselves  together  at  the  first  sura- 
aaons  to  keep  the  dedication  with  gladness. 

JEZ'REEL  (bS^~t>  [God  will  sow  or 
tcatter]:  'leCjoa^A;  [VatV  ACporjA;  Alex.i  U^- 
oeoTjA,  Alex.'-^  uCpiV^'-]  Jezrahel),ticcordhig  to  the 
received  text,  a  descendant  of  the  father  or  founder 
of  Etam,  of  the  line  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iv.  3).     But 


a  In  Jos.  Ant.  viii.  13.  §  G,  tt  is  called  'Utrpitfka, 
i^apov  ffoAis ;  In  viii.  13,  §  7  'I^apou  ttoAiv  singly ; 


JEZREEL 

as  the  verse  now  stands,  we  must  supply  some  such 
word  as  "families;"  "these  (are  the  families  of; 
the  father  of  Etam."     Both  the  LXX.  and  Vulg. 

read  "^32,  "sons,"  for  ''^W,  "father,"   and  six 

of  Kennicott's  MSS.  have  the  same,  while  in  two 
of  De  Rossi's  the  readings  are  combined.  The 
Syriac  is  singularly  difterent  from  all :  « And 
these  are  the  sons  of  Aminodob,  Achizar'el,  etc., 
Neshmo,  and  Dibosh,"  the  hist  clause  of  ver.  3 
being  entirely  omitted.  But,  although  the  Syriac 
text  of  the  Chronicles  is  so  corrupt  as  to  be  of  little 
authority  in  this  case,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  genealogy  in  vv.  3,  4  is  so  confused  as  to 
be  attended  with  almost  insuperable  difficulties. 
Tremellius  and  Junius  regard  Etam  as  the  proper 
name  of  a  person,  and  Jezreel  as  one  of  his  sons, 
while  Bertheau  considers  them  both  names  of 
places.  The  Targum  on  Chron.  has,  "  And  these 
are  the  Rabbis  dwelling  at  Etam,  Jezreel,"  etc.  In 
ver.  4  Hur  is  referred  to  as  the  ancestor  of  this 
branch  of  tlie  tribe  of  Judah,  and  therefore,  if  the 
present  text  be  adopted,  we  must  i"ead,  "  and  these, 
namely,  Abi-Etam,  Jezreel,"  etc.  But  the  prob- 
abihty  is  that  in  ver.  3  a  clause  has  been  omitted. 

W.  A.  W. 
JEZ'REEL    (bsr"ir    [see  above]  :  LXX. 

'ifrrpacA,  ['le^paeA,  'leJ^po^A,  'Etrpoe;  Alex,  also 
I^parjA,  ItrpoTjA,  le^ajSeA,  etc:  Vulg.  Jezrahel, 
Jtzraely  Jtsrael,]  Joseph.  'Ifo-poTyAo,  Ant.  viii. 
13,  §  G,  'letrpaeAa,  Ant.  ix.  6,  §  4,  'lCopo,«  Ant. 
viii.  15,  §§  4,  G ;  'EaSp-fjAwfi,  or  'EaSo-fiXwv,  Jud. 
i.  8,  iv.  6;  'E<TSpdr}\a,  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  in 
Onomasticon,  voce  .Jezrael,  Latinized  into  IStradela. 
See  Bordeaux  Pilgrim  in  Itin.  IJierosol.  p.  586). 
Its  modern  name  is  Zerin,  which  is  in  fact  the 
same  word,  and  which  first  appears  in  William  of 
Tyre  (xxi.  2G)  as  Gerin  {Gerinum),  and  Benjamin 
of  Tudela  as  Zarzin.  The  history  of  the  identifica- 
tion of  these  names  is  well  given  in  Robinson,  B.  JR. 
1st  ed.  iii.  1G3,  1G5,  and  is  curious  as  an  example 
of  the  tenacity  of  a  local  tradition,  in  spite  of  the 
carelessness  of  modem  travellers. 

The  name  is  used  in  2  Sam.  ii.  9  and  (?)  iv.  4, 
and  Hos.  i.  5.  for  the  valley  or  plain  between  Gilboa 
and  Little  Hermon;  and  to  this  plain,  in  its  widest 
extent,  the  general  form  of  the  name  I^sdraelon 
(first  used  in  Jud.  i.  8)  has  been  applied  in  modem 
times.  It  is  probably  from  the  richness  of  the  plain 
that  the  name  is  derived,  "  God  has  sown,"  "  God's 
sowing."  For  the  events  connected  with  this  great 
battle-field  of  Palestine,  see  Esduaelon. 

In  its  more  limited  sense,  as  applied  to  the  city, 
it  first  appears  in  Josh.  xix.  18,  where  it  is  men- 
tioned as  a  city  of  Issachar,  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Chesulloth  and  Shunem;  and  it  had  citizens 
(1  K.  xxi.  1-3),  elders,  and  nobles  of  its  own  (1  K. 
xxi.  8-11).  But  its  historical  importance  datee 
fix)m  the  reign  of  Ahab;  who  chose  it  for  his  chi'»' 
residence,  as  Omri  had  chosen  Samaria,  and  Baasba 
Tirzah. 

The  situation  of  the  modem  village  of  Zei-in  still 
remains  to  show  the  fitness  of  his  choice.  It  is  on 
one  of  the  gentle  swells  which  rise  out  of  the  fertile 
plain  of  Esdraelon ;  but  with  two  pecuUaritics  which 
mark  it  out  from  the  rest.  One  is  its  strength 
On  the  N.  E.  the  hill  presents  a  steep  rocky  descent 
of  at  least  100  feet  (Robinson,  1st  ed.  iii.  162). 


in  Till.  15,  §§  4,  6,  'Ifapa.    Various  readings  are  giwi 
of  'Ic^apa,  'Axapov,  'A^opov,  'ACaoa. 


JEZBEEL 

The  other  is  its  central  locality.  It  stands  at  the 
opening  of  the  middle  branch  of  the  three  eastern 
forks  of  the  plain,  and  looivs  straiglit  towards  the 
wide  western  level ;  thus  commanding  tlie  view 
towards  the  Jordan  on  the  east  (2  K.  ix.  17),  and 
visible  from  Carniel  on  the  west  (1  K.  xviii.  4G). 

In  the  neighborliood,  or  within  the  town  prob- 
ably, was  a  temple  and  grove  of  Astarte,  with  an 
establishment  of  400  priests  supported  by  Jezebel 
(1  K.  xvi.  33;  2  K.  x.  II).  Tlie  palace  of  Ahab 
(1  K.  xxi.  1,  xviii.  40),  probably  containing  his 
"  ivory  house"  (1  K.  xxii.  39),  was  on  the  eastern 
side  of  the  city,  forming  part  of  the  city  wall  (comp. 
1  K.  ixi.  1;  2  K.  ix.  25,  30,  33).  The  seraglio, 
in  which  Jezebel  lived,  was  on  tlie  city  wall,  and 
hail  a  high  window  feeing  eastward  (2  K.  ix.  30). 
Close  by,  if  not  forming  part  of  this  seraglio  (as 
Josephus  supposes,  aracra  i-n\  tqv  vvpyov,  Ant. 
ix.  6,  §  4),  was  a  watch-tower,  on  which  a  sentinel 
stood,  to  give  notice  of  arrivals  from  the  disturbed 
district  beyond  the  Jordan  (2  K.  ix.  17).  This 
watch-tower,  well-known  as  "  the  tower  in  Jezreel," 
may  possibly  have  been  the  tower  or  'i  migdol  "  near 
which  the  Egyptian  ai'my  was  encamped  in  the 
battle  between  Necho  and  Josiah  {Herod,  ii.  159). 
An  ancient  square  tower  which  stands  amongst  the 
hovels  of  the  modern  \illage  may  be  its  representa- 
tive. The  gateway  of  the  city  on  the  east  was  also 
the  gateway  of  the  palace  (2  K.  ix.  34).  Imme- 
diately in  front  of  the  gateway,  and  under  the  city 
wall,  was  an  open  space,  such  as  existed  before  the 
neighboring  city  of  Bethshan  (2  Sam.  xxi.  12),  and 
is  usually  found  by  the  walls  of  eastern  cities,  under 
the  name  of  "the  mounds"  (see  Arabian  Nights, 
passim),  whence  the  dogs,  the  scavengers  of  the 
East,  prowled  in  search  of  offal  (2  K.  ix.  25).  Here 
Jezebel  met  with  her  end  (2  K.  ix.  35).  [Jezebel.] 
A  little  further  east,  but  adjoining  to  the  royal 
domain  (1  K.  xxi.  1),  was  a  smooth  tract  of  land 
cleared  out  of  the  uneven  valley  (2  K.  ix.  25), 
which  belonged  to  Naboth,  a  citizen  of  Jezreel 
(2  K.  ix.  25),  by  an  hereditary  riglit  (1  K.  xxi.  3); 
but  the  royal  grounds  were  so  near  that  it  would 
have  been  easily  turned  into  a  garden  of  herbs  for 
the  royal  use  (I  K.  xxi.  2).  Here  Elijah  met 
Ahab,  Jehu,  and  Bidkar  (1  K.  xxi.  17);  and  here 

»Jehu  met  Joram  and  Ahaziah  (2  K.  ix.  21,  25). 
[Elijah  ;  Jehu.]  Whether  the  vineyard  of 
Naboth  was  here  or  at  Samaria  is  a  doubtful  ques- 
tion.    [Nahoth.] 

Still   in    the  same  eastern   direction   are   two 

springs,  one  12  minutes  from  the  town,  the  other 

20  minutes  (Kobinson,  Isted.  iii,  167).    This  latter 

spring  "  flows  from  under  a  sort  of  cavern  in  the 

wall  of  conglomerate  rock,  which  here  forms  the 

bise  of  Gilboa.    The  water  is  excellent;  and  issuing 

from  crevices  in  the  rocks,  it  spreads  out  at  once 

into  a  fine  limpid  pool,  40  or  50  feet  in  diameter, 

full  cf  fish"  (Kobinson,  Bibl.  lies.  iii.  1G8).     This 

probably,  both   from   its  size   and  situation,  was 

known   as  "the   Spuing  of  Jezueel"   (mis- 

K  translated  A.  V.   "a  fountain,"!  Sam.   xxix.  1), 

H  where  Said  was  encamped  before  the  battle  of  Gil- 

V  boa;  and    probably   the   same   as   the   spring   of 

B  «*  Harod,"  where  Gideon  encar^iped  before  his  night 

B  attack  on  the  Alidianites   (Judg.  vii.  1,  mistrans- 

H  lated  A.  V.  "the  well'').     The  name  of  Harod, 

H  »» trembling,"  probably  was  taken  from  tht  '•  trem- 

B  bling  "  of  Gideon's  army  (Judg.  vii.  3^,    It  was  the 

B  scene  of  successive  encampments  of  t^  3  Crusaders 

B  and   Saracens;  and   was  called  by  the  Christians 

^K  Tubania,  and  by  the  Arabs  ^Ain  .Idlud,  "  the  sprir.g 

II 


89 


JEZREELITB  1393 

of  Goliath  "  (Robinson,  Bihl.  Res.  iii.  C9).  This 
last  name,  which  it  still  bears,  is  derivetl  from  a 
tradition  mentioned  by  tlie  Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  that 
here  David  killed  Goliath.  The  tradition  may  be  a 
confused  reminiscence  of  many  battles  fought  in  its 
neighborhood  (Ritter,  ^wt^.'/n,  p.  416);  or  tlie  word 
may  be  a  corruption  of  "  Gilead,"  supjiosing  that 
to  be  the  ancient  name  of  GilI)Oa,  and  tluis  explain- 
ing Judg.  vii.  3,  "  depart  from  Mount  Gilead  '* 
(Schwarz,  334). 

According  to  Josephus  {Ant.  viii.  15,  §§  4,  6), 
this  spring,  and  the  pool  attached  to  it,  was  the 
spot  where  Naboth  and  his  sons  were  executed, 
where  the  dogs  and  swine  licked  up  their  blood  and 
that  of  Ahab,  and  where  the  harlots  bathed  in  the 
blood-stained  water  (LXX).  But  the  natural  in- 
ference from  the  present  text  of  1  K.  xxii.  38  makes 
the  scene  of  these  events  to  be  the  pool  of  Samaria. 
[See  Naboth.] 

^yith  the  fall  of  the  house  of  Ahab  the  glory  of 
Jezreel  departed.  No  other  king  is  described  as 
living  there,  and  the  name  was  so  deeply  associated 
with  the  family  of  its  founder,  that  when  the  Divine 
retribution  overtook  the  house  of  their  destroyer, 
the  eldest  child  of  the  prophet  Hosea,  who  was  to 
be  a  living  witness  of  the  coming  vengeance,  was 
called  "Jezreel;  "  "  for  I  will  avenge  the  blood  of 
Jezreel  upon  the  house  of  Jehu  .  .  .  and  at  that 
day  I  will  break  the  bow  of  Israel  in  the  valley  of 
Jezreel ;  .  .  .  and  great  shall  be  the  day  of  ./ez- 
?"ee/"  (Hos.  i.  4,  5,  11).  And  then  out  of  that 
day  and  place  of  humiliation  the  name  is  to  go 
back  to  its  original  signification  as  derived  from 
the  beauty  and  fertility  of  the  rich  plain,  and  to 
become  a  pledge  of  the  revived  beauty  and  richness 
of  Israel.  "  I  will  '  hear  and  answer '  the  heavens, 
and  » they  will  hear  and  answer '  the  earth,  and  the 
earth  shall  '  hear  and  answer '  the  corn  and  the 
wine  and  the  oil  [of  that  fruitful  plain],  and  they 
shall  '  hear  and  answer '  Jezreel  [that  is,  the  seed 
of  God],  and  /  will  soio  her  unto  me  in  tlie  earth  " 
(Hos.  ii.  22;  see  Ewald  ad  loc,  and  Gesenius  in 
voce  Jezreel).  From  this  time  the  image  seems  to 
have  been  continued  as  a  prophetical  expression  for 
the  sowing  the  people  of  Israel,  as  it  were  broad- 
cast; as  though  the  whole  of  Palestine  and  the 
world  were  to  become,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  one  rich 
plain  of  Jezreel.  "  I  will  soio  them  among  the 
people,  and  they  shall  remenil)er  me  in  far  coun- 
tries" (Zech.  X.  9).  "  Ye  shall  be  tilled  and  soicn, 
and  I  will  multiply  men  upon  you"  {Vx.  xxxvi.  9, 
10).  "  I  will  soiv  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house 
of  Judah  with  the  seed  of  men  and  with  the  seed 
of  beasts"  (Jer.  xxxi.  27).  Hence  the  consecration 
of  the  image  of  "  sowing,"  as  it  appears  in  the 
N.  T.,  Matt.  xiii.  2. 

2.  ['Iapt7j\;  Alex.  leo-SpaeX;  Comp.  Aid.  'le^- 
p€f\'  JezraeL]  A  town  in  Judah,  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  southern  Carmel  (.losh.  xv.  56). 
Here  David  in  his  wanderings  took  Ahinoam  the 
Jezreelitess  for  his  first  wife  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  3,  xxx. 
5).  A.  P.  S. 

JEZ'REEL  (bw^'ir:  'u(pa4\:  Jezrahet). 

The  eldest  son  of  the  prophet  Hosea  (Hos.  i.  4), 
significantly  so  called  because  Jehovah  said  to  the 
prophet,  "Yet  a  little  while  and  I  will  avenge 
the  blood  of  Jezreel  ui)on  the  house  of  Jehu,"  and 
"  I  will  break  the  bow  of  Israel  in  the  valley  of 
Jezreel."  W.  A.  W. 

JEZ'REELITE  ('V^^"^.T^  'UCpaTi^irnti 


1394  JEZREELITESS 

Alex.  l<rparj\iT'ns,  once  2  K.  ix.  21  l(parj\irr]5' 
JezrahiUta).  An  inhabitant  of  Jezreel  (1  K.  xxi. 
1,4,6,7,15,16;  2  K.  ix.  21,  25). 

W.  A.  W. 
JEZ'REELITESS  (n^bsi?nr  :  'le^- 
oaTjArrts;  [Vat.  l(rpar{\eiTis,  exc.  2  Sam.  iii.  2, 
-At-;]  Alex.  Et^paTjAejTts,  I^aijAtrts,  l(rpar]\iri9- 
Jezrahelilis,  [J ezra/i elites,]  Jezrdelites,  J ezmtlliis). 
A  woman  of  Jezreel  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  3,  xxx.  5;  2 
Sam.  ii.  2,  iii.  2;  1  Chr.  iii.  1).  W.  A.  W. 

JIB'SAM  (Cb?';  [pZe«s«n/,  /t;re/?/J :  'i^^ua- 
edv '  [Vat.  Bao-o*/  ;J  Alex.  U^aaufi ;  [Comp. 
'Iai8<r({i/:]  Jebseni),  one  of  the  sons  of  Tola,  the 
son  of  Issachar,  who  were  heads  of  their  father's 
house  and  heroes  of  miglit  in  their  generations 
(1  Chr.  vii.  2).  His  descendants  appear  to  have 
served  in  David's  army,  and  with  others  of  the 
Bame  clan  mustered  to  the  number  of  upwards  of 
22,000. 

JID'LAPH  (^^"f1,  tceepinff,  Ges.  [inelting, 
languishing,  Fiirst]  :  'leASoc^:  J edlaph),  a,  son  of 
Nahor  (Gen.  xxii.  22),  whose  settlements  have  not 
been  identifietl,  though  they  most  probably  are  to 
be  looked  for  in  the  Euphrates  country. 

E.  S.  P. 

JIM'NA  (nj!?^  [good fortune,  luck]:  'Jafiiv: 
[Vat.]  Alex,  lafxeiv :  Jemnn),  the  firstborn  of 
Asher,  represented  in  the  numbering  on  the  plains 
of  Moab  by  his  descendants  the  Jimnites  (Nun). 
xxvi.  44).  He  is  elsewhere  called  in  the  A.  V. 
JiMNAu  (Gen.  xlvi.  17)  and  Imnaii  (1  Chr.  vii. 
30),  the  Hebrew  in  both  instances  being  the  same. 

JIM'NAH    (HDPV    ^Uf,ud;  Alex.   Uf^ya: 
/amne)  =  Jim.na  =  Imxaii  (Gen.  xlvi.  17). 
JIM'NITES,  THE  (Tl^^^'n  [see  above]: 

I.  e.  the  Jimnah ;  Sam.  and  one  MS.  '*3D'*n  :  & 
^lafjLii/l;  [Vat.  0  lafifivei;]  Alex,  o  lafifivi'  Jem- 
nattce),  descendants  of  the  preceding  (Num.  xxvi. 
44). 

JIPH'TAH  (nri^^  {.  e.  Yiftacb  [Ae,  i.  e. 
Jehovah  opens,  frees]:  Vat.  omits;  Alex.  [Comp. 
Aid.]  'l6<^aci:  Jephthn),  one  of  the  cities  of  Judah 
in  the  maritime  lowlands,  or  Shefelah  (.Josh.  xv. 
43).  It  is  named  in  the  same  group  with  Mareshah, 
Nezib,  and  others.  Uoth  tiie  last-mentioned  places 
have  been  discovered,  the  former  to  the  south,  the 
latter  to  the  east  of  Bvil-.J ihrhi,  not  as  we  should 
sxpect  on  the  plain,  but  in  the  mountains.  Here 
Jiphtah  may  some  day  be  found,  though  it  bag  not 
yet  been  met  with."  G. 

JIPHTHAH-EL,  THE  VALLEY  OP 
PSTtri*?";  "^3  :  rai(pa-f}\,  'EKyaT  Kal  *eoi^A; 
Alex.  Tat  lec^SoTjA,  Evyai  UipOa-nK'  [rallis]  Jeph- 
lahel),  a  valley  which  served  as  one  of  the  land- 
marks for  the  boundary  both  of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix. 
14)  and  Asher  (27).  The  district  was  visited  in 
1852  by  Dr.  Kobinson,  who  suggests  that  Jiphtah-el 
was  identical  with  Jotapati,  the  city  which  so  long 
withstood  Vespasian  (Joseph.  B. ./.  iii.  7),  and  that 
they  survive  in  the  modern  Jefdt,  a  village  in  the 
mountains  of  Galilee,  half-way  between  the  Bay  of 
Acre  and  the  Lake  of  Gennesareth.     [Jotapata, 

a  *  The  A.  V.  represents  the  same  llebrew  word  by 
Jephthah  (which  see),  but  without  any  reason  for  the 
rariation.  U. 

6  By  .TosephuB  (,Anl.  vii.  1,  §  8),  his  name  is  given 


JOAB 

Amer.  ed.]  In  this  case  the  valley  is  the  giCMl 
Wady-Abilin,  Mhicli  "  has  its  head  in  the  hills  near 
Jefat,  and  runs  thence  westward  to  the  maritime 
plain  "  (Robinson,  iii.  107).  Van  de  A'elde  concurs 
in  this,  and  identifies  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  27), 
which  he  considers  to  be  a  town,  with  the  ruins  of 
Abilin  {Memoir,  p.  326).  It  should,  however,  be 
remarked  that  the  Hebrew  word  Ge,  here  rendered 
"  valley,"  has  commonly  rather  the  force  of  a  ravine 
or  glen,  and  is  distinct  from  Nachnl,  which  answers 
exactly  to  the  Arabic  Wac/y  (Stanley,  S.  <f  P. 
App.  §§  2,  38).  G. 

JO'AB  (nSV:  Jehovnh-faiher  [or,  whose 
father  is  Jehovah]:  'lu)d$:  Joab),  the  eldest  and 
most  remarkable  of  the  three  nephews  of  1  )avid,  the 
children  of  Zeruiah,  David's  sister.  Their  father 
is  unknown,''  but  seems  to  have  resided  at  Beth- 
lehem, and  to  have  diefl  before  his  sons,  as  M'e  find 
mention  of  his  sepulchre  at  that  place  (2  Sam.  ii. 
32).  They  all  exhibit  the  activity  and  courage  of 
David's  constitutional  character.  But  they  never 
rise  beyond  thjs  to  the  nobler  qualities  which  lift 
him  above  the  wild  soldiers  and  chieftains  of  the 
time.  Asahel,  who  was  cut  oflT  in  his  youth,  and 
seems  to  have  been  the  darling  of  the  family,  is 
only  known  to  us  from  his  gazelle-like  agility  (2 
Sam.  ii.  18).  Abishai  and  Joab  are  alike  in  their 
implacable  revenge.  Joab,  however,  combines  with 
these  ruder  qualities  something  of  a  more  states- 
man-like character,  which  brings  him  more  nearly 
to  a  level  with  his  youthfid  uncle;  and  unquestion- 
ably gives  him  the  second  j)lace  in  the  whole  history 
of  David's  reign. 

I.  He  first  appears  after  David's  accession  to  the 
throne  at  Hebron,  thus  differing  from  his  brother 
Abishai,  who  was  already  David's  companion  during 
his  wanderings  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  0).  He  with  his  two 
brothers  went  out  from  Hebron  at  the  head  of 
David's  "servants,"  or  guards,  to  keep  a  watch  on 
the  movements  of  Abner,  who  with  a  considerable 
force  of  Benjamites  had  crossed  the  Jordan,  and 
come  as  far  as  Gibeon,  perhaps  on  a  pilgrimage  to 
the  sanctuary.  The  two  parties  sate  opposite  each 
other,  on  each  side  of  the  tank  by  that  city.  Abner'g 
challenge,  to  which  Joab  assented,  led  to  a  desperate 
struggle  between  twelve  champions  from  either  side.. 
[GiBKox.]  The  left-handed  Benjamites,  and  the 
right-handed  men  of  Judah  —  tlieir  sword-hands 
thus  coming  together  —  seized  each  his  adversary 
by  the  head,  and  the  whole  number  fell  by  the 
mutual  wounds  they  received. 

This  roused  the  i)lood  of  the  rival  trilies ;  a  gen- 
eral encounter  ensued  ;  Abner  and  his  company 
were  defeated,  and  in  his  flight,  being  hard  pressed 
by  the  swift-footed  Asahel,  he  reluctantly  killed  the 
unfortunate  youth.  The  expressions  which  he  uses, 
«'  Wherefore  should  I  smite  thee  to  the  ground  r 
how  then  should  I  hold  up  my  face  to  Joab  thy 
brother'?"  (2  Sam.  ii.  22),  imply  that  up  to  this 
time  there  had  been  a  kindly,  if  not  a  friendly,  feel- 
ing between  the  two  chiefs.  It  was  rudely  extin- 
guished by  this  deed  of  blood.  The  other  soldiers 
of  Judah,  when  they  came  up  to  the  dead  body  of 
their  young  leader,  halted,  struck  dumb  by  grief. 
But  his  two  brothers,  on  seeing  the  corpse,  only 
hurried  on  with  greater  fury  in  the  pursuit.  At 
sunset  the  Benjamite  force  rallied  round  Abner,' 


as  Suri  (2ovpO  ;  but  this  may  be  merely  a  repetiUac 
of  Saroiiiah  (Sapowta). 

c  The  word  describing  the  halt  of  Abner's  bond, 
«nd  rendered  <'  troop  "in  the  A.  Y.  (2  Sam.  ii.  25),  il 


JOAB 

ftud  he  then  made  an  appeal  to  the  generosity  of 
Joab  not  to  push  the  war  to  extremities.  Joab 
reluctantly  consented,  drew  off  his  troops,  and  re- 
lumed, after  the  loss  of  only  nineteen  men,  to 
Hebron.  They  took  the  corpse  of  Asaliel  with  them, 
and  on  the  way  halted  at  Betldehem  in  the  early 
morning,  or  at  dead  of  niglit,  to  inter  it  in  their 
family  burial-place  (2  Sam.  ii.  32). 

But  Joab's  revenge  on  Abner  was  only  postponed. 
lie  had  been  on  another  of  these  predatory  excur- 
sions from  Hebron,  when  he  was  informed  on  his 
return  that  Abner  had  in  his  absence  paid  a  visit 
to  David,  and  been  received  into  favor  (2  Sam.  iii. 
23).  He  broke  out  into  a  violent  remonstrance 
with  the  king,  and  then,  without  David's  knowl- 
edge, immediately  sent  messengers  after  Abner,  who 
was  overtaken  by  them  at  the  well  of  Sirah,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus  (Ant.  vii.  1,  §  5),  about  two  miles 
from  Hebron. «  Abner,  with  the  unsuspecting  gen- 
erosity of  his  noble  nature,  returned  at  once.  Joab 
and  Abishai  met  him  in  the  gateway  of  the  town ; 
Joab  took  him  aside  (2  Sam.  iii.  27),  as  if  with  a 
peaceful  intention,  and  then  struck  him  a  deadly 
blow  "  under  the  fifth  rib."  It  is  possible  that 
with  the  passion  of  vengeance  for  his  brother  may 
have  been  mingled  the  fear  lest  Abner  should  sup- 
plant him  in  the  king's  fovor.  David  burst  into 
passionate  invective  and  imprecations  on  Joab  when 
he  heard  of  the  act,  and  forced  him  to  appear  in 
sackcloth  and  torn  garments  at  the  funeral  (iii.  31). 
But  it  was  an  intimation  of  Joab's  jwwer,  which 
David  never  forgot.  The  awe  in  which  he  stood 
of  the  sons  of  Zeruiah  cast  a  shade  over  the  whole 
remainder  of  his  life  (iii.  39). 

II.  There  was  now  no  rival  left  in  the  way  of 
Joab's  advancements,  and  soon  the  opportunity 
occurred  for  his  legitimate  accession  to  the  highest 
post  that  David  could  confer.  At  the  siege  of 
Jebus,  the  king  offered  the  office  of  chief  of  the 
army,  now  grown  into  a  "host,"  to  any  one  who 
would  lead  the  forlorn  hope,  and  scale  the  precipice 
on  which  the  besieged  fortress  stood.  ^Vitll  an 
agility  equal  to  that  of  David  himself,  or  of  his 
brother  Asahel,  Joab  succeeded  in  the  attempt,  and 
became  in  consequence  commander-in-chief —  "cap- 
tain of  the  host  "  —  the  same  office  that  Abner  had 
held  under  Saul,  the  highest  in  the  state  after  the 
kuig  (1  Chr.  xi.  6;  2  Sam.  vlii.  16).  His  im- 
portance was  immediately  shown  by  his  undertaking 
the  fortification  of  the  conquered  city,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  David  (1  Chr.  xi.  8). 

In  this  post  he  was  content,  and  served  the  king 
with  undeviating  fidelity.  In  the  wide  range  of 
wars  which  David  undertook,  .Joab  was  the  acting 
general,  and  he  therefore  may  be  considered  as  the 
founder,  as  far  as  military  prowess  was  concerned, 
the  Marlborough,  the  Belisarius,  of  the  Jewish  em- 
pire. Abishai,  his  brother,  still  accompanied  him, 
as  captain  of  the  king's  "  mighty  men  "  (1  Chr.  xi. 
20;  2  Sam.  x.  10).  He  had  a  chief  armor-bearer 
of  his  own,  Naharai,  a  Beerothite  (2  Sam.  xxiii. 
37;  1  Chr.  xi.  39),  and  ten  attendants  to  carry  his 
equipment  and  baggage  (2  Sam.  xviii.  15).  He 
tiad  the  charge,  formerly  belonging  to  the  king  or 
judge,  of  giving  the  signal  by  tnmipet  for  advance 
»r  retreat  (2  Sam.  xviii.  16).  He  was  called  by 
the  almost  regal  title  of  "  Lord  "  (2  Sam.  xi.  11), 


kn  unusual  one,  JT^SSt  {Agtid/iah),  elsewhere  em- 
^oyed  for  a  bumh  or  knot  of  hyssop, 
o  Possibly  the  spring  which  still  exists  about  that  I 


JOAB  1395 

"  the  prince  of  the  king's  army  "  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  84> 
His  usual  residence  (except  when  campaigning)  wu 
in  Jerusalem  —  but  he  had  a  house  and  property, 
with  barley-fields  adjoining,  in  the  country  (2  Sam. 
xiv.  30),  in  the  "wilderness"  (1  K.  ii.  34),  prob- 
ably on  the  N.  E.  of  Jerusalem  (comp.  1  Sam.  xiii. 
18,  Josh.  viii.  15,  20),  near  an  ancient  sanctuary, 
called  from  its  nomadic  village  "  Baal-hazor "  (2 
Sam.  xiii.  23;  comp.  with  xiv.  30),  where  there 
were  extensive  sheepwalks.  It  is  iwssible  that  this 
"  house  of  Joab "  may  have  given  its  name  to 
Ataroth,  Beth-Jonb  (1  Chr.  ii.  54),  to  distinguish 
it  from  Ataroth-adar.  There  were  two  Ataroths 
in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  [see  Atakoth]. 

1.  His  great  war  was  that  against  Amnion,  whicl 
he  conducted  in  person.  It  was  divided  into  three 
campaigns,  {(u)  The  first  was  against  the  allied 
forces  of  Syria  and  Ammon.  He  attacked  and 
defeated  the  Syrians,  whilst  his  brother  Abishai 
did  the  same  for  the  Ammonites.  The  Syrians 
rallied  with  their  kindred  tribes  from  beyond  the 
Euphrates,  and  were  finally  routed  by  David  him- 
self. [HAnARKZiCR.]  (/a)  The  second  was  against 
Edom.  The  decisive  victory  was  gained  by  David 
himself  in  the  "  valley  of  salt,"  and  celebrated  by  a 
triumphal  monument  (2  Sam.  viii.  13).  But  Joab 
had  the  charge  of  carr}ing  out  the  victory,  and 
remained  for  six  months,  extirpating  the  male  pop- 
ulation, whom  he  then  buried  in  the  tombs  of  Petra 
(1  K.  xi.  15,  10).  So  long  was  the  terror  of  his 
name  preserved  that  only  when  the  fugitive  prince 
of  Edom,  in  the  Egyptian  court,  heard  tliat  "  David 
slept  with  his  fathers,  and  that  Jonb  the  cctjilain 
of  the  host  was  demf,''  did  he  venture  to  return  to 
his  own  country  {lb.  xi.  21,  22).  (c.)  The  third 
was  against  the  Ammonites.  They  were  again  left 
to  Joab  (2  Sam.  x.  7-19).  He  went  against  them 
at  the  beginning  of  the  next  year  "  at  the  time 
when  kings  go  out  to  battle  "  —  to  the  siege  of 
Kabbah.  The  ark  was  sent  with  him,  and  the 
whole  army  was  encamped  in  booths  or  huts  round 
the  beleaguered  city  (2  Sam.  xi.  1,  11).  After  a 
sortie  of  the  inhabitants,  which  caused  some  loss  to 
the  Jewish  army,  Joab  took  the  lower  city  on  the 
river,  and,  then,  with  true  loyalty,  sent  to  ui^ 
David  to  come  and  take  the  citadel,  "  llabbah," 
lest  the  glory  of  the  capture  should  pass  from  the 
king  to  his  general  (2  Sam.  xii.  20-28). 

2.  The  services  of  Joab  to  the  king  were  not 
confined  to  these  military  achievements.  In  the 
entangled  relations  which  grew  up  in  David's  do- 
mestic life,  he  bore  an  important  part,  (a.)  The 
first  occasion  was  the  unhappy  correspondence  which 
passed  between  him  and  the  king  during  the  Am- 
monite war  respecting  Uriah  the  Hittito,  which  led 
to  the  treacherous  sacrifice  of  Uriah  in  the  above- 
mentioned  sortie  (2  Sam.  xi.  1-25).  It  shows  both 
the  confidence  reposed  by  David  in  Joab,  and  Joab's 
too  unscrupulous  fidelity  to  David.  From  the  pos- 
session which  Joab  thus  acquired  of  the  terrible 
secret  of  the  royal  household,  has  been  dated,  with 
some  probability,<»  his  increivsed  power  over  the 
mind  of  the  king. 

(b.)  The  next  occasion  on  which  it  was  displayed 
was  in  his  successful  endeavor  to  reinstate  Absalom 
in  David's  favor,  after  the  murder  of  Amnon.  It 
would  almost  seem  as  if  he  had  been  guided  by 

distance  out  of  Hebron  on  the  left  of  the  road  going 
northward,  and  bears  the  name  of  Ain-Serah.     Th« 
road  has  doubtless  always  followed  tho  same  track. 
b  See  Blunt's  Coincidencea.  51.  vl 


1396 


JOAB 


the  effect  produced  on  the  king  by  Nathan's  parable. 
A  similar  apologue  he  put  into  the  mouth  of  a 
"wise  woman  of  Tekoah."  The  exclamation  of 
David  on  perceiving  the  application  intimates  the 
high  opinion  which  he  entertained  of  his  general, 
"Is  not  the  hand  of  Joab  in  all  this?"  (2  Sam. 
xiv.  1-20).  A  like  indication  is  found  in  tlie  con- 
fidence of  Absalom  that  Joab,  who  had  thus  pro- 
cured his  return,  could  also  go  a  step  further  and 
demand  his  admission  to  his  father's  presence. 
Joab,  who  evidently  thought  that  he  had  gained  as 
much  as  could  be  expected  (2  Sam.  xiv.  22),  twice 
refused  to  visit  the  prince,  but  having  been  en- 
trapped into  an  interview  by  a  stratagem  of  Absa- 
lom, undertook  the  mission,  and  succeeded  in  this 
also  {ib.  xiv.  28-3;]). 

(o.)  'i'he  same  keen  sense  of  his  master's  interests 
that  had  prompted  this  desire  to  heal  the  breach  in 
the  royal  family  ruled  the  conduct  of  Joab  no  less, 
when  the  relations  of  the  father  and  son  were  re- 
versed by  the  successful  revolt  of  Absalom.  His 
former  intimacy  with  the  prince  did  not  impair 
his  fidelity  to  the  king.  He  followed  him  beyond 
the  Jordan,  and  in  the  final  battle  of  Ephraim 
assumed  the  responsibility  of  taking  the  rebel 
prince's  dangerous  life  in  spite  of  David's  injunc- 
tion to  spare  him,  and  when  no  one  else  had  cour- 
age to  act  so  decisive  a  part  (2  Sam.  xviii.  2, 11-15). 
He  wiis  well  aware  of  the  terrible  effect  it  would 
have  on  the  king  {ib.  xviii.  20),  and  on  this  account 
possibly  dissuaded  his  young  friend  Ahimaaz  from 
bearing  the  news;  but,  when  the  tidings  had  teen 
broken,  he  had  the  spirit  himself  to  rouse  David 
from  the  frantic  grief  which  would  have  been  fatal 
to  the  royal  cause  (2  Sam.  xix.  5-7).  His  stern 
resolution  (as  he  had  himself  anticipated)  well-nigh 
proved  fatal  to  his  own  interests.  The  king  could 
not  forgive  it,  and  went  so  far  in  his  unreasonable 
resentment  as  to  transfer  the  command  of  the  army 
from  the  too  faithful  Joab  to  his  other  nephew 
Amasa,  the  son  of  Abigail,  who  had  even  sided 
with  the  insurgents  (2  Sam.  xix.  13).  In  like 
manner  he  returned  only  a  reproachful  answer  to 
the  vindictive  loyalty  of  Joab's  brother,  Abishai 
{ib.  22). 

(</.)  Nothing  brings  out  more  strongly  the  good 
and  bad  qualities  of  Joab  than  his  conduct  in  this 
trying  crisis  of  his  history.  On  the  one  hand,  he 
remained  still  faithful  to  his  master.  On  the  other 
band,  as  before  in  the  case  of  Abner,  he  was  de- 
termined not  to  lose  the  post  he  so  highly  valued. 
Amasa  was  commander-in-chief,  but  Joab  had  still 
his  own  small  following  of  attendants;  and  with 
him  were  the  mighty  men  conmianded  by  his 
brother  Abishai  (2  Sam.  xx.  7,  10),  and  the  body- 
guard of  the  king.  With  these  he  went  out  in 
pursuit  of  the  renmants  of  the  rebellion.  In  the 
heat  of  pursuit,  he  encountered  his  rival  Amasa, 
more  leisurely  engaged  in  the  same  quest.  At 
"the  great  stone"  in  Gibeon,  the  cousins  met. 
Joab's  sword  was  attached  to  his  girdle;  by  de- 
lign  or  accident  it  protruded  from  the  sheath: 
Imasa  rushed  into  the  treacherous  embrace,  to 
which  Joab  invited  him,  holding  fast  his  sword  by 
his  own  right  hand,  whilst  the  unsheathed  sword 
in  his  left  hand  plunged  into  Amasa's  stomach; 
a  single  blow  from  that  pmcticed  arm,  as  in  the 
ca**^  .)f  Abner,  sufficed  to  do  its  work.  Joab  and 
his  brother  huiTied  on  to  discharge  their  commis- 
lion,  whilst  one  of  his  ten  attendants  staid  by  the 
corpse,  callirg  on  the  royal  party  to  follow  after 
Joi^.     But  the  deed  produced  a  frightful  impres- 


JOAB 

8ion.  The  dead  body  was  lying  in  a  pool  of  blood 
by  the  roadside;  every  one  halted,  as  they  came 
up,  at  the  ghastly  sight,  till  the  attendant  dragged 
it  out  of  the  roatl,  and  threw  a  cloak  over  it. 
Then,  as  if  the  spell  was  broken,  they  followed 
Joab,  now  once  more  captain  of  the  host  (2  Sam 
XX.  5-13).  He,  too,  when  they  overtook  him, 
presented  an  as|iect  long  afterwards  remembered 
with  horror.  The  blood  of  Ama.oa  had  spirted  all 
over  the  girdle  to  which  the  sword  was  attached, 
and  the  sandals  on  his  feet  were  red  with  the  stuiiu 
left  by  the  falling  corpse  (1  K.  ii.  5). 

(e.)  But,  at  the  moment,  all  were  absorbed  in 
the  pursuit  of  the  rebels.  Once  more  a  proof  was 
given  of  the  wide-spread  confidence  in  Joab's  judg- 
ment. In  the  besieged  town  of  Abel  Beth-maachah, 
far  in  the  north,  the  same  appeal  was  addressed  to 
his  sense  of  the  evils  of  an  endless  civil  war,  that 
had  been  addressed  to  him  years  before  by  Abner 
near  Gil)eon.  He  demanded  only  the  surrender  of 
the  rebel  chief,  and  on  the  sight  of  his  head  thrown 
over  the  wall,  withdrew  the  army  and  returned  to 
Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  xx.  16-22).     [Siikba.] 

(/.)  His  last  remonstrance  with  David  was  on 
the  announcement  of  the  king's  desire  to  number 
the  people.  "The  kii/g  prevailed  against  Joab" 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  1-4).  But  Joab's  scruples  were  so 
strong  that  he  managed  to  avoid  inmibering  two 
of  the  tribes,  Levi  and  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  xxi.  6). 

3.  There  is  something  mournful  in  the  end  of 
Joab.  At  the  close  of  his  long  life,  his  loyalty,  so 
long  unshaken,  at  last  wavered.  "  Though  he 
hatl  not  turned  after  Absalom  (or,  as  in  LXX.  or 
Joseph.  Ant.  viii.  1,  §  4,  'He  turned  not  after  Sol- 
omon'), he  turned  after  Adonijah"  (1  K.  ii.  28). 
This  probably  filled  up  the  measure  of  the  king's 
long  cherished  resentment.  We  learn  from  Da- 
vid's last  song  that  his  powerlessness  over  his  cour- 
tiers was  even  then  present  to  his  mind  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  6,  7),  and  now,  on  his  deathbed,' he  recalled 
to  Solomon's  recollection  the  two  murders  of  Abner 
and  Amasa  (1  K.  ii.  5,  G),  with  an  injunction  not 
to  let  the  aged  soldier  escape  with  impunity. 

The  revival  of  the  pretensions  of  Adonijah  aftei 
David's  death  was  sufficient  to  awaken  the  suspi- 
cions of  Solomon.  The  king  deposed  the  high- 
priest  Abiathar,  Joab's  friend  and  fellow-conspir- 
ator —  and  the  n«  ws  of  this  event  at  once  alarmed 
Joab  himself.  He  claimed  the  right  of  sanctuary 
within  the  curtains  of  the  sacred  tent,  under  the 
shelter  of  the  altar  at  Gibeon.  He  was  pursued 
by  Benaiah,  who  at  first  hesitated  to  violate  the 
sanctuary  of  the  refuge;  but  Solomon  urged  that 
the  guilt  of  two  such  murders  overrode  all  such 
protection.  With  his  hands  on  the  altar  therefore, 
the  gray-headed  warrior  was  slaughtered  by  hi* 
successor.  The  budv  was  carried  to  his  house  "  in 
the  wilderness,"  and  tlnre  interred.  He  left  de- 
scendants, but  nothing  is  known  of  them,  unless 
it  may  be  inferred  from  the  double  curse  of  David 
(2  Sam.  iii.  29)  and  of  Solomon  (1  K.  ii.  33)  that 
they  seemed  to  dwindle  away,  stricken  by  a  suc- 
cession of  visitations  —  weakness,  leprosy,  lameness, 
murder,  starvation.  His  nanie  is  by  some  supposed 
(in  allusion  to  his  part  in  Adonijah's  coronation  on 
that  spot)  to  be  preserved  in  tlie  modern  appellsr- 
tion  of  En-rogel  —  "  the  well  of  Job  "  —  corrupted 
from  Joab.  A.  P.  S. 

2.  (2SV:  'ift,j3({/3;  Alex.  itoajS:  Joab.)  Soi 
of  Seraiah,  and  descendant  of  Kenaz  (1  Chr.  w 
14).     He  was  father,  or  prince,  as  Jarchi  expUini 


JOACHAZ 

It,  of  the  valley  of  Charashlm,  or  smiths,  so  called, 
according  to  the  tradition  quoted  by  Je"onie  (  Q.u<xst. 
Hchr.  in  Pa  ml.),  because  the  architects  of  the 
Temple  were  seiecied  from  among  his  sons. 

3.  ('iwcijS;  [Vat.  in  Ezr.  ii.  6,  Neh.  vii.  11, 
Iwfiafi:  Joab,]  Job  in  1  Esdr.)  The  head  of  a 
family,  not  of  priestly  or  Le\itical  rank,  whose 
descendants,  with  those  of  Jeshua,  were  the  most 
numerous  of  all  who  returned  with  Zerubbabel 
(lizr.  ii.  6,  viii.  9;  Neh.  vii.  11;  1  l^dr.  viii.  35). 
It  is  not  clear  whether  Jeshua  and  Joab  were  two 
prominent  men  among  the  cliildren  of  I'ahath- 
Moab,  the  ruler  er  sultan  {shidlon)  of  ^loab,  as  the 
Syriac  renders,  or  whether,  in  the  registration  of 
those  who  returned,  the  descendants  of  Jeshua  and 
Joab  were  represented  by  the  sons  of  Pahath-Moab. 
The  latter  is  more  probably  the  true  solution,  and 
the  verse  (Ezr.  ii.  6;  Neh.  vii.  11)  should  then  be 
rendered:  "the  sons  of  Pahath-jNIoab,  for  (t.  e. 
representing)  the  sons  of  Jeshua  and  Joab.''  In 
this  case  the  Joab  of  Ezr.  viii.  9  and  1  Esdr.  nil. 
35  was  probably  a  distinct  personage. 

JO'ACHAZ  CUxov/as;  Alex.  laxoC?  [Aid. 
'I«ax«C-]  •/ec7«t>/u"«s)  =  JEiiOATiAZ  (1  Esdr.  i. 
34),  the  son  of  Josiah.  The  LXX.  and  Vulgate 
are  in  this  case  followed  by  St.  Matthew  (i.  11),  or 
have  been  altered  so  as  to  agree  with  him. 

JO'ACHIM  Cla>a/C6J/i;  [Aid.  'icwaxetVO  -^^ 
akim).     1.  (Bar.  i.  3)  =  Jeiioiakim,  called  also 

JOACI.M. 

2.  \^lu)aKiifx'  JoaJcim.]  A  "high-priest"  (6 
tepevs)  at  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  Baruch  "the 
Bon  of  Chelcias,"  i.  e.  Hilkiah  (Bar.  i.  7).  The 
name  does  not  occur  in  the  list  1  Chr.  vi.  13  ff. 

13.  F.  W. 

JO'ACIM  ('IwaAcf/t;  [Vat.  Iwa/cei/*;]  Alex. 
la>K€ifi  and  IcaaKeifx'-  Joaclin).  1.  =Jehoiakim 
(1  Esdr.  i.  37,  38,  39).     [Jehoiaicim,  1.] 

2.  {[^looaKi/x',  Vat.  Alex.  -Kei/x'-]  Jonchin)  = 
Jehoiaciun  (1  Esdr.  i.  43). 

3.  ['Iwa/cj/t;  Vat.  Alex.  -Kei/x'-  Joacim.']  = 
Joiakim,  the  son  of  Jeshua  (1  Esdr.  v.  5).  He  is 
by  mistake  called  the  son  of  Zerubbabel,  as  is  clear 
from  Neh.  xii.  10,  28 ;  and  the  passage  has  in  con- 
gequence  been  corrected  by  Junius,  who  renders  it 
"  Jeschuahh  filius  Jehotzadaki  cum  Jehojakimo  filio." 
Burrington  {Geneal.  i.  72)  proposed  to  omit  the 
words  'Ia>a/ci^  6  rod  altogether  as  an  interpolation. 

W.  A.  W. 

4.  ['Ici>tt«iyu>  ^^^-  S*"-  Alex,  -/cez/x:  Elinchim, 
Joricim.]  "  The  high-priest  which  was  in  Jerusa- 
lem "  (Jud.  iv.  6,  14)  in  the  time  of  Judith,  who 
welcomed  the  heroine  after  the  death  of  Holofernes, 
in  company  with  "  the  ancients  of  the  children  of 
Israel "  {rj  yepouaia  rStv  viiHv  ^l(rpa-f)\,  xv.  8  fF.). 
The  name  occurs  with  the  various  reading  Eliakim, 
but  it  is  impossible  to  identify  him  with  any  his- 
torical chamcter.  No  such  name  occurs  in  the 
lists  of  high-priests  in  1  Chr.  vi.  (Joseph.  Artt.  x. 
8,  §  6);  and  it  is  a  mere  arbitrary  conjecture  to 
suppose  that  EUakim  mentioned  in  2  K.  xviii.  18 
was  afterwards  raised  to  that  dignity.  Still  less 
can  be  said  for  the  identification  of  Joacim  with 
Hilkiah  (2  K.  xxii.  4;  'EAio/ctos,  Joseph.  Ant.  x. 
*,  §  2;  XeA/cias,  LXX.).  The  name  itself  is  ap- 
propriate to  the  position  which  the  high-priest 
occupies  in  the  story  of  Judiiu  (•'  The  Lord  hath 
let  up"),  and  the  person  must  be  regarded  as  a 
aeceasary  part  of  the  fiction. 

5.  ['Ia>a/c€i/x:  Jonkiin,  but  ed.  1590  Joachim.'] 
ITie  husband  of  Susanna  (Sus.  1  ff.).     The  name 


JOAHAZ  139T 

seems  to  have  been  chosen,  as  in  the  former  caw, 
with  a  reference  to  its  meaning ;  and  it  was  prob- 
ably for  the  same  reason  that  the  husband  of  Anna, 
the  mother  of  the  Virgin,  is  called  Joacim  't\\  early 
legends  (Protev.  Jac,  i.,  Ac). 

JOADA'NUS  {'IwaSdvos-  Joadeus),  one  of 
the  sons  of  Jeshua,  the  son  of  Jozadak  (1  Esdr.  ix. 
19).  His  name  occupies  the  same  position  as  that 
of  Gedaliah  in  the  corresponding  list  in  Ezr.  a.  18, 
but  it  is  uncertain  how  the  corruption  originated 
Probably,  as  Burrington  suggests  {Gcneat.  I.  167), 
the  r  was  corrupted  into  I,  and  AI  into  N,  a  change 
which  in  the  uncial  character  would  be  very  slight 

JO'AH  (nSV  [Jehovah  his  brothe7'=: irlcnd]: 
'Iwds  in  Kings,  'Icwax  in  Isaiah;  Alex,  luaacpar 
in  2  K.  xviii.  18,  26,  and  laas  in  ver.  37;  [Vat. 
and  Comp.  ^Icods  in  Is.  xxxvi.  11;  Sin.i  Iwx  in  Is. 
xxxvi.  3,  ver.  11  omits,  ver.  22,  Icuax']  Joahe). 
1.  The  son  of  Asaph,  and  chronicler,  or  keeper 
of  the  records,  to  Ilezekiah.  He  was  one  of  the 
three  chief  officers  sent  to  communicate  with  the 
Assyrian  general  at  the  conduit  of  the  upper  pool 
(Is.  xxxvi.  3,  11,  22),  and  probably  belonged  to  the 
tribe  of  Levi. 

2.  ('Ia>aj8;  Alex.  I«ox"  Joah.)  The  son  or 
grandson  of  Zimmah,  a  Gershonite  (1  Chr.  vi.  21), 
and  apparently  the  same  as  Ethan  (ver.  42),  unless, 
as  is  not  improbable,  in  the  latter  Hst  some  names 
are  supplied  which  are  omitted  in  the  former,  and 
vice  versa.  For  instance,  in  ver.  42  Shiniei  is 
added,  and  in  ver.  43  Libni  is  omitted  (comp.  ver. 
20).  If  Joah  and  Ethan  are  identical,  the  passage 
must  have  been  early  corrupted,  as  all  ancient  ver- 
sions give  it  as  it  stands  at  present,  and  there  are 
no  variations  in  the  MSS. 

3.  Clwdd;  Alex.  Icoaa'  Joaha.)  The  third 
son  of  Obed-edom  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  4),  a  Korhite,  and 
one  of  the  door-keepers  appointed  by  David.  AVith 
the  rest  of  his  family  he  is  characterized  as  a  man 
of  excellence  in  strength  for  the  service  (ver.  8). 
They  were  appointed  to  keep  the  southern  gate  of 
the  Temjjle,  and  the  house  of  Asuppim,  or  "  gath- 
erings," which  was  either  a  storehouse  or  council- 
chamber  in  the  outer  court  (ver.  15). 

4.  ('Ia?5ac£5;  [Vat.  omits;]  Alex.  lajo;  [Comp. 
'I«c£x']  Jo'^th.)  A  Gershonite,  the  son  of  Zim- 
mah, and  father  of  Eden  (2  Chr.  xxix.  12).  Aa 
one  of  the  representatives  of  the  great  Levitical 
family  to  which  he  belonged,  he  took  a  leading  part 
in  the  purification  of  the  Temple  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah.  In  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  the  LXX. 
have  'looaxd,  which  is  the  reading  of  both  NSS.; 
but  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  same  person 
is  not  in  both  instances  intended,  nor  any  MS- 
authority  for  the  various  reading. 

5.  Cloucix;  [Aid.]  Alex.  'Iwds;  [Comp.  'Ia>e£:j 
Joha.)  The  son  of  Joahaz,  and  keeper  of  the  rec- 
ords, or  annalist  to  Josiah.  Together  with  the  chief 
officers  of  state,  Shaphan  the  scribe,  and  INIaaseiah, 
the  governor  of  the  city,  he  superintended  the  repair 
of  the  Temple  which  had  been  neglected  during  the 
two  previous  reigns  (2  Chr.  xxxiv.  8).     Josephua 

calls  him  'Iwottjs,  as  if  he  read    HSV.      The 
S}Tiac  and  Arabic  omit  the  name  altogether. 

JO'AHAZ  (TnSr  [whom  Jehovah  hokh, 
takes  as  by  the  hand]:  ^Iwdxa^'i  [Vat.  Ia>ox-] 
Joachaz),  the  father  of  Joah,  the  chronicler  or 
keei)er  of  the  records  to  king  Josiah  (2  Chr.  xxxiv. 

8;.  One  of  Kennicott's  MS.  reads  '^^  ,  i  e.  Ahaa 


1398 


JOANAN 


ftnd  the  margin  of  Romberg's  Bible  gives  TriMirf^, 
i.  e.  Jelioahaz.  In  the  Syr.  and  Arab,  versions  the 
name  is  omitted. 

JOA'NAN  Cluvdu;  Alex.  [Aid.]  'iwavdy: 
fona(Iias)==  J oiixnA^  9,  the  son  of  Eliashib  (1 
Esdr.  ix.  1). 

JOAN'NA  [properly  Joajj'nas]  ('icoaj/i/a?; 
[Lachm.  Tisch.  'IVeg.,]  luaydu:  Joanna),  son  of 
Kiiesa,  according  to  the  text  of  Luke  iii.  27,  and 
one  of  the  ancestors  of  Cln-ist.  But  according  to 
the  view  explained  in  a  previous  article,  son  of 
Zerubbabel,  and  the  same  as  Ilananiah  in  1  Chr. 
iii.  19.    [Geneal.  ov  Ciiiust;  Haxaxiah,  8.] 

A.  C.  II. 

JOANIS'A  {'ludvva,  modern  form  "Joan," 
of  the  same  origin  with  'Iwoi/j/as,  the  reading  of 
most  MSS.,  also  rendered  A.  V.  « Joanna,"  St. 
Luke  iii.  27,  and  '10)01/1/775  =  Ilebr.  Jkhoiianax), 
the  name  of  a  woman,  occurring  twice  in  Luke 
(viii.  y,  xxiv.  10),  but  evidently  denoting  the  same 
person.  In  the  first  passage  she  is  expressly  stated 
to  have  been  "wife  of  Chusa  [Chuzas],  steward 
{iiriTpoiros),  of  Herod,"  that  is,  Antipas,  tetrarch 
of  Galilee.  Professor  Blunt  has  observed  in  his 
Coincidences,  that  "  we  find  here  a  reason  why 
Herod  should  say  to  his  servants  (Matt.  xiv.  2), 
« This  is  John  the  Baptist '  .  .  .  because  his 
steward's  wife  was  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  and  so  there 
would  be  frequent  mention  of  him  among  the  ser- 
vants in  Herod's  court "  (Alford,  ad  loc. ;  comp. 
Luke  ix.  7).  Professor  Blunt  adds  the  still  more 
interesting  instimce  of  Manaen  (Acts  xiii.  1),  the 
tetrarch's  own  "foster-brother"  {avuTpo(\)OS,  Blunt, 
p.  263,  ed.  1859).  Another  couicidence  is,  that 
our  Lord's  ministry  was  mostly  confined  to  Galilee, 
the  seat  of  Herod's  jurisdiction.  Further,  if  we 
might  suppose  Herod  at  length  to  have  dismissed 
Chusa  [Chuzas]  from  his  service,  on  account  of 
Joanna's  attachment  to  one  already  in  ill  odor  with 
the  higher  ix)wers  (see  particularly  Luke  xiii.  31), 
the  suppression  of  her  husband's  name,  now  no 
longer  holding  a  distinguished  office,  would  be  very 
natural  in  the  second  passage.  However,  Joanna 
continued  faithful  to  our  Ix)rd  throughout  his  min- 
istry; and  as  she  M-as  one  of  those  whose  circum- 
stances permitted  them  to  "  minister  unto  Him  out 
of  their  substance  "  during  his  lifetime,  so  she  was 
one  of  those  who  brought  spices  and  ointments  to 
embalm  his  body  when  dead.  E.  S.  Ff. 

JOAN'KAN  {'looavvdp ;  Alex,  iwaw-qs  '■ 
Joannes),  the  eldest  brother  of  Judas  Maccabseus 
(1  Mace.  ii.  2).  He  had  the  surname  of  Caddis, 
and  is  elsewhere  called  John.  [Joiix,  2.] 
*  JOAN'NAS,  Luke  iii.  27.  [Joaxxa.] 
JO'ARIB  ('lwojC)/)3;  Alex.  I«apei/t ;  [Sin. 
Iwapt/x:]  Joarib),  chief  of  the  first  of  the  twenty- 
four  courses  of  priests  in  the  reign  of  David,  and 
ancestor  of  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  ii.  1).  His 
name  appears  also  in  the  A.  V.  as  Jkhoiarib 
(1  Chr.  xxiv.  7),  and  Jaiub  (1  Mace.  xiv.  29). 
Josephus  retains  the  form  adopted  by  the  LXX. 
'^Ant.  xii.  G,  §  1). 

JO'ASH  (tt*S*'^*'  [whom  Jehovah  gave],  the 
tontracted  form  of  the  name  jEiiOAsn,  in  which 
It  is  frequently  found :  'Iwaj:  Joas).  1.  Son  of 
4ha7iah  king  of  Judah,  and  the  only  one  of  his 
;uiidren  who  escaped  the  murderous  hand  of  Ath- 
fcliah.  Jehoram  having  himself  killed  all  his  own 
drethren,  and  all  his  sons,  except  Ahaziab,  having 


JOASH 

been  killed  by  the  irruption  of  the  Philigtinea  and 
Arabians,  and  all  Ahaziah's  remoter  relations  hav- 
ing  been  slain  by  Jehu,  and  now  all  his  sons  being 
put  to  death  by  Athaliah  (2  Chr.  xxi.  4,  17 ;  xxii 
1,  8,  9,  10),  the  house  of  David  was  reduced  to  the 
lowest  ebb,  and  Joash  appears  to  ha\'e  been  the  onlj 
suniving  descendant  of  Solomon.  After  his  father'a 
sister  Jehoshabeath,  the  wife  of  Jehoiada,  had  stolen 
him  from  among  the  king's  sons,  he  was  hid  for  6 
years  in  the  chambers  of  the  Temple.  In  the  7th 
year  of  his  age  and  of  his  concealment,  a  successful 
revolution  placed  him  on  the  throne  of  his  ances- 
tors, and  freed  the  countrj-  from  the  tyranny  and 
idolatries  of  Athaliah.  [Jehoiada.]  For  at  least 
23  years,  while  Jehoiada  lived,  this  reign  was  very 
prosperous.  Excepting  that  the  high-places  were, 
still  resorted  to  for  incense  and  sacrifice,  pure  re- 
ligion was  restored,  large  contributions  were  n)ade 
for  the  repair  of  the  Temple,  which  was  accordingly 
restored ;  and  the  country  seems  to  have  been  free 
from  foreign  invasion  and  domestic  disturbance. 
But,  after  the  death  of  Jehoiada,  Joash,  who  was 
evidently  of  weak  character,  fell  into  the  hands  of 
bad  advisers,  at  whose  suggestion  he  revived  the 
worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtaroth.  When  he  was 
rebuked  for  this  by  Zechariah,  the  son  of  Jehoiada, 
who  had  probably  succeeded  to  the  high-priesthood, 
with  base  ingratitude  and  daring  impiety  Joash 
caused  him  to  be  stoned  to  death  in  the  very  court 
of  the  Lord's  house,  "  between  the  Temple  and  the 
altar"  (Matt,  xxiii.  35).  The  vengeance  impre- 
cated by  the  murdered  high-priest  was  not  long 
delayed.  That  very  year,  Hazael  king  of  Syria, 
after  a  successful  campaign  against  the  Philistines, 
came  up  against  Jerusalem,  and  carried  off"  a  vast 
booty  as  the  ]mce  of  his  departure.  A  decisive 
victory,  gained  by  a  small  band  of  Syrians  over  a 
great  host  of  the  king  of  Judah,  had  thus  placed 
Jerusalem  at  his  mercy.  This  defeat  is  expressly 
said  to  be  a  judgment  upon  Joash  for  having  for- 
saken the  God  of  his  fathers.  He  had  scarcely 
escaped  this  danger,  when  he  fell  into  another  and 
a  fatal  one.  Two  of  his  servants,  taking  advantage 
of  his  severe  illness,  some  think  of  a  wound  received 
in  battle,  conspired  against  him,  and  slew  him  in 
his  bed  in  the  fortress  of  Millo,  thus  avenging  the 
innocent  blood  of  Zechariah.  He  was  buried  in 
the  city  of  David,  but  not  in  the  sepulchres  of  the 
kings  of  Judah.  Possibly  the  fact  of  Jehoiada 
being  buried  there  had  something  to  do  with  this 
exclusion.  Joash's  reign  lasted  40  years,  from  878 
to  838  B.  c.  He  was  "lOth  king  from  David  in- 
clusive, reckoning  the  reign  of  the  usurper  Athaliah. 
He  is  one  of  the  three  kings  (Aha/iah,  Joash, 
Amaziah)  omitted  by  St.  Matthew  in  the  genealogy 
of  Christ. 

With  regard  to  the  difl^erent  accounts  of  the 
Syrian  invasion  given  in  2  K.  and  in  2  Chr.,  which 
have  led  some  (as  Thenius  and  many  older  com- 
mentators) to  imagine  two  distinct  Syrian  invasions 
and  others  to  see  a  direct  contradiction,  or  at  least 
a  strange  incompleteness  in  the  narratives,  as  Winer, 
the  difficulty  exists  solely  in  the  minds  of  the  critics. 
The  narrative  given  above,  which  is  also  that  of 
Keil  and  E.  Bertheau  (Exe(/.  Ilnndb.  z.  A.  T.)  ^ 
well  as  of  Josephus,  perfectly  suits  the  two  accounts, 
which  are  merely  difl^erent  abridgments  of  the  one 
fuller  account  contained  in  the  original  chronicles 
of  the  kingdom.  Gramberg  pushes  the  system  of 
incredulous  criticism  to  such  an  absurd  pitch,  thai 
he  speaks  of  the  murder  of  Zacharias  as  a  pun 
feble  (Winer,  Realwortb.  art.  Jehoasch). 


JOAJsH 

It  should  be  added  that  the  propoet  Elisha 
Bourished  in  Israel  throughout  the  days  of  Joash; 
3md  there  is  some  ground  for  concluding  with  Winer 
(agreeing  witli  Cretlner,  ISIovers,  Hitzig,  Meier,  and 
others)  that  the  prophet  Joel  also  prophesied  in  the 
former  part  of  this  reign.  (See  Movers,  Chronik, 
pp.  119-121.) 

2.  Son  and  successor  of  Jehoahaz  on  the  throne 
of  Israel  from  c.  c.  840  to  825,  and  for  two  full 
years  a  contemporary  sovereign  with  the  preceding 
(2  K.  xiv.  1;  comp.  with  xii.  I,  xiii.  10).  When 
he  succeeded  to  the  crown,  the  kingdom  was  in  a 
deplorable  state  from  the  devastations  of  Hazael 
and  lien-hadad,  kings  of  Syria,  of  whose  power  at 
this  time  we  had  also  evidence  in  the  preceding 
article.  In  spite  of  the  perseverance  of  Joash  in 
the  worship  set  up  by  Jeroboam,  God  took  com- 
passion upon  the  extreme  misery  of  Israel,  and  in 
remembrance  of  his  co\enant  with  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  interposed  to  save  them  from  entire 
destruction.  On  occasion  of  a  friendly  visit  paid 
by  Joash  to  Elisha  on  his  deathbed,  where  he  wept 
over  his  face,  and  addressed  him  as  "  the  chariot 
of  Israel  and  the  horsemen  thereof,"  the  prophet 
promised  him  deliverance  from  the  Syrian  yoke  in 
Aphek,  the  scene  of  Ahab's  great  victory  over  a 
former  Ben-hadad  (1  K.  xx.  26-30).  He  then  bid 
him  smite  upon  the  ground,  and  the  king  smote 
thrice  and  then  stayed.  The  prophet  rebuked  him 
for  staying,  and  limited  to  three  his  victories  over 
Syria.  Accordingly  Joash  did  beat  Ben-hadad^iree 
times  on  the  field  of  battle,  and  recovered  ^om 
him  the  cities  which  Hazael  had  taken  from  Je- 
hoahaz. The  other  great  military  event  of  Joash's 
reign  was  his  successful  war  with  Amaziah  king 
of  Judah.  The  grounds  of  this  war  are  given  fully 
in  2  Chr.  xxv.  [Amaziah. J  The  hiring  of  100,- 
uOO  men  of  Israel  for  100  talents  of  silver  by 
Amaziah  is  the  only  instance  on  record  of  such  a 
transaction,  and  implies  that  at  that  time  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  was  free  from  all  lear  of  the  Syrians. 
These  mercenary  soldiers  having  been  dismissed  by 
Amaziah,  at  the  instigation  of  a  prophet,  without 
being  allowed  to  take  part  in  the  Edomitish  expe- 
dition, returned  in  great  ^^Tath  to  their  own  coun- 
try, and  sacked  and  plundered  the  cities  of  Judah 
in  revenge  for  the  slight  put  upon  them,  and  also 
to  indemnify  themselves  for  the  loss  of  their  share 
of  the  plunder.  It  was  to  avenge  this  injury  that 
Amaziah,  on  his  return  from  his  triumph  over  the 
Edomites,  declared  war  against  Joash,  in  spite  of 
the  warning  of  the  prophet,  and  the  contemptuous 
dissuasion  of  Joash  under  the  fable  of  the  cedar 
and  the  thistle.  The  result  was  that  the  two 
armies  met  at  Beth-shemesh,  that  Joash  was  vic- 
torious, put  the  array  of  Amaziah  to  the  rout,  took 
him  prisoner,  brought  him  to  Jerusalem,  broke 
•lown  tlie  wall  of  Jerusalem,  all  along  the  north  side 
from  the  Gate  of  Ephraim  to  the  Corner  Gate,  a 
distance  of  400  cubits,  plundered  the  Temple  of  its 
gold  and  silver  vessels,  seized  the  king's  treasures, 
took  hostages,  and  then  returned  to  Samaria,  where 
he  died,  probably  not  very  long  afterwards,  and 
was  buried  in  the  sepulchres  of  the  kings  of  Israel 
He  died  in  the  15th  jear  of  Amaziah  king  of  Judah, 
arid  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Jeroboam  II.  There 
fe  a  discrepance  between  the  Bible  account  of  his 
rharacter  and  that  given  by  Josephus.  For  whereas 
'ha  former  says  of  him,  "  He  did  that  which  was 
Bvil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  "  (2  K.  xiii.  11),  the 
Atter  says  that  he  was  a  good  man,  and  very  dif- 
'•rent  from   his   father.     Josephus  probably  was 


JOASH  1399 

guided  by  the  account  of  Joash's  friendly  intei^ 
course  with  Elisha,  which  certainly  indicates  scm» 
good  disposition  in  him,  although  he  followed  the 
sin  of  Jeroboam.  A.  C.  H. 

3.  The  father  of  Gideon,  and  a  wealthy  mxn 
among  the  Abiezrites.  At  the  time  of  the  Midian.- 
itish  occupation  of  the  country,  he  appears  to  have 
gone  so  far  with  the  tide  of  i)opular  opinion  in 
favor  of  idolatry,  that  he  had  on  his  own  ground 
an  altar  dedicated  to  Baal,  and  an  Asherah.  In 
this,  however,  he  submitted  rather  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  time,  and  the  influence  of  his  family  and 
neighbors,  and  was  the  first  to  defend  the  daring 
act  of  his  son,  and  protect  him  from  the  vengeance 
of  the  Abiezrites,  by  sarcasm  only  less  severe  than 
that  which  Elijah  employed  against  the  priests  of 
Baal  in  the  memorable  scene  on  Carmel  (Judg.  vi. 
11,  29,  30,  31,  vii.  14,  viii.  13,  29,  32).  The  LXX. 
put  the  speech  in  vi.  31  most  inappropriately  into 
the  mouth  of  Gideon,  but  this  is  corrected  in  the 
Alex.  MS.  In  the  Vulg.  the  name  is  omitted  in 
vi.  31  and  viii.  13. 

4.  Apparently  a  younger  son  of  Ahab,  who  held 
a  subordinate  jurisdiction  in  the  lifetime  of  his 
father,  or  was  appointed  viceroy  {^p^ovra,  LXX. 
of  2  Chr.  xviii.  25)  during  his  absence  in  the  attack 
on  Kamoth-Gilead  (1  K.  xxii.  26;  2  Chr.  xviii.  25). 
Or  he  may  have  been  merely  a  prince  of  the  blood- 
royal.  But  if  Geiger  be  right  in  his  conjecture, 
that  Maaseiah,  "the  king's  son,"  in  2  Chr.  xxviii. 

7,  was  a  prince  of  the  Moloch  worship,  Joash  would 
be  a  priest  of  the  same.  There  is,  however,  but 
slender  foundation  for  the  belief  (Geiger,  Urschrift, 
etc.,  p.  307).  The  Vulgate  calls  him  "the  son  of 
Amelech,"  taking  the  article  as  part  of  the  noun, 
and  the  whole  as  a  proper  name.  Thenius  suggests 
that  he  may  have  been  placed  with  the  governor 
of  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  military  education. 

5.  [Vat.  corrupt.]  A  descendant  of  Shelah  the 
son  of  Judah,  but  whether  his  son  or  the  son  of 
Jokim,  as  Burrhigton  {Genealogies,  i.  179)  sup- 
poses, is  not  clear  (1  Chr.  iv.  22).  The  Vulgat« 
rendering  of  this  name  by  Secw'us,  according  to  its 
etymology,  as  well  as  of  the  other  names  in  the 
same  verse,  is  very  remarkable.  The  Hebrew  tra- 
dition, quoted  by  Jerome  (  Qucest.  Ilebr.  in  Paral.) 
and  Jarchi  {Comm.  in  loc),  applies  it  to  Mahlon, 
the  son  of  Elimelech,  who  married  a  IMoabitess. 
The  expression  rendered  in  A.  V.,  "  who  had  the 

dominion  (^7^2,  bddlii)  in  Moab,"  would,  accord- 
ing to  this  interpretation,  signify  "  who  married 
in  Moab."  The  same  explanation  is  given  in  the 
Targum  of  R.  Joseph. 

6.  [Rom.  FA.  'Iwcis;  Vat.  Icoa;  Alex.  Iwpos.] 
A  Benjamlte,  son  of  Shemaah  of  Gibeah  (1  Chr. 
xii.  3).  He  was  one  of  the  heroes,  "  helpers  of  tho 
battle,"  who  resorted  to  David  at  Ziklag,  and  as- 
sisted him  in  his  excursions  against  the  maraudhig 
parties  to  whose  attacks  he  was  exposed  (ver.  21). 
He  was  probably  with  David  in  his  pursuit  of  the 
Amalekites  (comp.  1  Chr.  xii.  21,  with  1  Sam.  xxx. 

8,  where  T^TS  should  be  "  troop "  in  both  pas- 
sages). The  Peshito-Syriac,  reading  "^^2  for 
■^33,  makes  him  the  son  of  Ahiezer. 

7.  One  of  the  officers  of  David's  household,  to 
whose  charge  were  entrusted  the  store-houses  of 
oil,  the  produce  of  the  pLaniations  of  sycamorw 
and  the  olive-yards  of  the  lowlands  of  Judah  (7 
Chr.  xxvii.  28).  W.  A.  W 


L 


1400 


JOA8H 


JO'ASH  ftr^rV  [to  whmn  Jehovah  hastens], 
K  diflbrent  name  from  the  preceding:  'Iwds-  Joas), 
son  of  IJecher,  and  head  of  a  Benjamite  house, 
which  existed  in  the  time  of  king  David  (1  Chr. 
vii.  8).  A.  C.  H. 

JO'ATHAM  Cludda/xi  Joatham)  =  3 oth am 
the  son  of  Uzziah  (Matt.  i.  9). 

JOA^ABTDUS  ('Ic6Ca)85os;  [Vat.  Za)8Sos; 
Aid.  'I&)c{(}x)3So$  :]  .lovddus)  =  Jozabap  the 
Levite  (1  Esdr.  ix.  48;  comp.  Neh.  viii.  7). 

JOB  (3V  [iierh.  =  n-^tT^  ;  mil  return,  or  re- 
tiiriier,  convert]:  ^A<rovix\  Alex.  la<rov<p;  [Aid. 
'lotrou^:]  Job),  the  third  son  of  Issachar  (Gen. 
xlvi.  i;J),  called  in  another  genealogy  Jashub 
(1  Chr.  vii.  1),  which  is  the  reading  of  the  lleb. 
Sam.  Codex  in  Genesis,  as  it  was  also  in  all  prob- 
ability of  the  two  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  2  being 
frequently  represented  by  /t. 

JOB  (3T*Sj  *•  ^-  ^y^  [^^  persecuted,  af- 
flicted:  see  further,  Fiirst,  Ilanduo.  s.  v.;  Ges. 
Thesaur.  s.  v.]:  'IcojQ:  Job).  The  numerous  and 
lifficult  questions  touching  the  integrity  of  this 
book,  its  plan,  object,  and  general  character;  and 
the  probable  age,  country,  and  circumstances  of  its 
author,  cannot  l)e  satisfactorily  discussed  without 
a  previous  analysis  of  its  contents.  It  consists  of 
.  five  parts:  the  introduction,  the  discussion  between 

'  Job  and  his  three  friends,  the  speech  of  Elihu,  the 

manifestation  and  address  of  Almighty  God,  and 
the  concluding  chapter. 

I.  Analysis.  —  1.  The  Introduction  supplies  all 
the  facts  on  which  the  argument  is  based.  Job,  a 
chieftain  in  the  land  of  Uz,"  of  immense  wealth 
and  high  rank,  «« the  greatest  of  all  the  men  of  the 
East,"  is  represented  to  us  as  a  man  of  perfect 
integrity,  blameless  in  all  the  relations  of  life, 
declared  indeed  by  the  Lord  Himself  to  be  "  with- 
out his  like  in  all  the  earth,"  *'  a  perfect,  and  an 
upright  man,  one  that  feareth  God,  and  escheweth 
evil."  The  highest  goodness,  and  the  most  perfect 
temporal  happiness  are  combined  in  his  person; 
under  the  protection  of  God,  surrounded  by  a  nu- 
merous family,  he  enjoys  in  atlvanced  life^  an 
almost  paradisiacal  state,  exemplifying  the  normal 
results  of  human  obedience  to  the  will  of  a  right- 
eous God.  One  question  could  be  raised  by  envy ; 
may  not  the  goodness  which  secures  such  direct 
md  tangible  rewards  be  a  refined  form  of  selfish- 
ness? In  the  world  of  spirits,  where  all  the  mys- 
teries of  existence  are  brought  to  light,  Satan,  the 
accusing  angel,  suggests  the  doubt,  "  doth  Job  fear 
God  for  nought?  "  and  asserts  boldly  that  if  those 
external  blessings  were  withdrawn  Job  would  cast 
off  his  allegiance,  —  "  he  will  curse  thee  to  thy 
face."  The  problem  is  thus  distinctly  propounded 
which  this  book  is  intended  to  discuss  and  solve. 
[See   addition,  Amer.  ed.]     Can   goodness   exist 


a  The  situation  of  Uz  is  doubtful.  Ewald  (Das  Buck 
Jjob,  p.  20)  supposes  it  to  have  been  the  district  south 
of  Bashan.  Spanheim  and  Rosenmiiller  (Proll  pp. 
29-33)  fix  it  in  the  N.  E.  of  the  desert  near  the  Eu- 
pbrites.     See  also  Dr.  Ix;e,  Introduction  to  Job,  p.  29. 

b  From  eh.  xlii.  IG  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  was 
ftbout  70  years  old  at  this  time. 

*  "n?  KoX  @eov  /car'  aiiTov  x'^povvro^.  Didymus  Alex. 
^.  Migne,  col.  1125. 

d  *  The  Hebrew  words  are  properly  rendered  (ac- 
SOTding  to  Ge.senius  and  other  eminent  Hebraists), 
*  Blws  Qod  and  die."      It  is  a  taunting  reproach. 


JOB 

irrespective  of  reward,  can  the  fear  of  God  be  n. 
tained  by  man  when  every  inducement  to  selfish 
ness  is  taken  away  ?  The  problem  is  obviously  of 
infinite  in)portance,  and  could  only  be  answered  bj 
inflicting  upon  a  man,  in  whom,  while  prosperous, 
malice  itself  could  detect  no  evil,  the  calamities 
which  are  the  due,  and  were  then  believed  to  be 
invariably  the  results,  even  in  this  life,  of  wicked- 
ness. The  accuser  receives  permission  to  make  the 
trial.  He  destroys  Job's  property,  then  his  chil- 
dren ;  and  afterwards,  to  leave  no  possible  opening 
for  a  cavil,  is  allowed  to  inflict  upon  him  the  mort 
terrible  disease  known  in  the  East.  Each  of  these 
calamities  assumes  a  form  which  produces  an  im- 
pression that  it  must  be  a  visitation  from  God,« 
precisely  such  as  was  to  be  expected,  supposing  that 
the  patriarch  had  been  a  successful  hypocrite,  re- 
sei-ved  for  the  day  of  vTath.  Job's  wife  breaks 
down  entirely  imder  the  trial  —  in  the  very  words 
which  Satan  had  anticipated  the  patriarch  himself 
would  at  last  utter  in  his  despair,  she  counsels  him 
"  to  curse  God  and  die."  <^  Job  remains  steadfast. 
The  destruction  of  his  property  draws  not  from 
him  a  word  of  complaint :  the  death  of  his  children 
elicits  the  suMimest  words  of  resignation  which 
ever  fell  from  the  lips  of  a  mourner  —  the  disease 
which  made  him  an  object  of  loathing  to  man,  and 
seemed  to  designate  him  as  a  visible  example  of 
divine  wrath,  is  borne  without  a  murmur;  he  re- 
pels his  wife's  suggestion  with  the  simple  words, 
♦'What!  shall  we  receive  good  at  the  hand  of  the 
Lord,  and  shall  we  not  receive  evil?"  "In  all 
this  Job  did  not  sin  with  his  lips." 

The  question  raised  by  Satan  was  thus  answered. 
His  assaults  had  but  issued  in  a  complete  removal 
of  the  outer  forms  which  could  mislead  men's  judg- 
ment, and  in  developing  the  highest  type  of  disin- 
terested worth.  Had  the  nairative  then  ended, 
the  problem  could  not  be  regarded  as  unsolved, 
while  a  sublime  model  would  ha\'e  been  exhibited 
for  men  to  admire  and  imitate. 

2.  Still  in  that  case  it  is  clear  that  many  points 
of  deep  interest  would  have  been  lei't  in  obscurity. 
Entire  as  was  the  submission  of  Job,  he  must  have 
been  inwardly  perplexed  by  events  to  which  he  had 
no  clew,  which  were  quite  unaccountable  on  any 
hypothesis  hitherto  entertained,  and  seemed  repug- 
nant to  the  ideas  of  justice  engraven  on  man's 
heart.  It  was  also  most  desirable  that  the  im- 
pressions made  upon  the  generality  of  men  by 
sudden  and  unaccountable  calamities  should  be 
thoroughly  discus.sed,  and  that  a  broader  and  firmer 
basis  than  heretofore  should  be  found  for  specula- 
tions concerning  the  providential  government  of 
the  world.  An  opportunity  for  such  discussion  is 
afforded  in  the  most  natural  manner  by  the  intro- 
duction of  three  men,  representing  the  wisdom  and 
experience  of  the  age,  who  came  to  condole  with 
Job  on  hearing  of  his  misfortunes.  Some  time* 
appears  to  have  elapsed  in    the   interim,  during 


"Bless  God  (if  you  will),  and  die  ;  »  for  that  is  all 
that  will  come  of  it.  This  language  is  consistent  with 
her  own  spirit  of  di?trust,  which  could  see  no  ground 
for  his  unshaken  confidence  in  God.  But  no  reason 
can  be  given,  why  she  should  say  to  him,  "Curs* 
God,  and  die."     Did  she  want  to  be  rid  of  him  ? 

T.  J.  C. 
e  Otherwise  it  would  be  difficult  to  meet  Rosen. 
miiller's  objection  (p.  8).  It  seems  indeed  probable 
that  some  months  even  might  pass  by  before  the  new 
would  reach  the  friends,  and  they  could  arrange  theb 
meeting. 


JOB 

irhich  thii  disease  had  made  formidable  progress, 
»nd  ,T.'^b  had  thoroughly  realized  the  extent  of  his 
miser; .  The  laeeting  is  described  with  singular 
beaut}'.  At  a  distance  they  greet  him  with  the 
wild  demonstrations  of  sympathizing  grief  usual  in 
the  East;  coming  near  they  are  overpowered  by 
tlie  sight  of  his  wretcliedness,  and  sit  seven  days 
and  seven  nights  without  uttering  a  word.  This 
awful  silence,  whether  Job  felt  it  as  a  proof  of  real 
sympivthy,  or  as  an  indication  of  inward  suspicion  « 
on  their  part,  drew  out  all  his  anguish.  In  an 
agony  of  desperation  he  curses  the  day  of  his  birth, 
and  sees  and  hopes  for  no  end  of  his  misery,  but 
death. 

With  the  answer  to  this  outburst  begins  a  series 
of  discussions,  continued  probably  (as  Ewald  shows, 
p.  55)  with  some  intervals,  during  several  successive 
days.  Eliphaz,  Bildad,  and  Zophar  in  turn,  bring 
forward  arguments,  which  are  severally  answered 
by  Job. 

The  results  of  the  ^rst  discussion  (from  c.  iii. 
-xiv.)  may  be  thus  summed  up.  We  have  on  the 
part  of  Job's  friends  a  theory  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment resting  upon  an  exact  and  uniform  correlation 
between  sin  and  punishment  (iv.  0,  11,  and  through- 
out).* Atliictions  are  always  penal,  issuing  in  the 
destruction  of  those  who  are  radically  opposed  to 
God,  or  who  do  not  submit  to  his  chastisements. 
They  lead  of  course  to  correction  and  amendment 
of  life  when  the  sufferer  repents,  confesses  his  sins, 
puts  them  away,  and  turns  to  (iod.  In  that  case 
restoration  to  peace,  and  even  increased  prosperity 
may  be  expected  (vv.- 17-27).  Still  the  fact  of  the 
suffering  always  proves  the  commission  of  some 
special  sin,  while  the  demeanor  of  the  sufferer  in- 
dicates the  true  internal  relation  between  him  and 
God. 

These  principles  are  applied  by  them  to  the  case 
of  Job.  They  are  in  the  first  place  scandalized  by 
the  vehemence  of  his  complaints,  and  when  they 
find  that  he  maintains  his  freedom  from  willful,  or 
conscious  sin,  they  are  driven  to  the  conclusion 
that  his  fiiith  is  radically  unsound ;  his  protesta- 
tions appear  to  them  almost  blasphemous,  they 
become  convinced  that  he  has  been  secretly  guilty 
of  some  unpardonable  sin,  and  their  tone,  at  first 
sourteous,  though  warning  (comp.  c.  iv.  with  c. 
XV.),  becomes  stern,  and  even  harsh  and  menacing. 
It  is  clear  that  unless  they  are  driven  from  their 
partial  and  exclusive  theory  they  must  be  led  on  to 
an  unqualified  condenmation  of  Job. 

In  this  part  of  the  dialogue  the  character  of  the 
three  friends  is  clearly  developed.  Eliphaz  repre- 
eents  the  true  patriarchal  chieftain,  grave  and  dig- 
nified, and  erring  only  from  an  exclusive  adherence 
to  tenets  hitherto  unquestioned,  and  influenced  in 
the  first  place  by  genuine  regard  for  Job,  and  sym- 
pathy with  his  affliction.  Bildad,  without  much 
originality  or  independence  of  character,  reposes 
partly  on  the  wise  saws  of  antiquity,  partly  on  the 
authority  of  his  older  friend.  Zophar  differs  from 
both,  he  seems  to  be  a  young  man;  his  language 
is  violent,  and  at  times  even  coarse  and  offensive 
(see  especially  his  second  speech,  c.  xx.)  He  rep- 
resents the  prejudiced  and  narrow-minded  bigots 
of  his  age. 

In  order  to  do  justice  to  the  position  and  argu- 
ments of  Job,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the 
direct  object  of  the  trial  was  to  ascertain  whether 


o  Thus  Schlottmann. 

6  It  ia  curious  tiat  this  theory  was  revivecl  and 


JOB  1401 

he  would  deny  or  forsake  God,  and  that  his  read 
integrity  is  asserted  by  God  Himself.  His  answers 
throughout  corresiwnd  with  these  data.  He  knows 
with  a  sure  uiward  conviction  that  he  is  not  an 
offender  in  the  sense  of  his  opponents :  he  is  there 
fore  confident  that  whatever  may  he  the  object  of 
the  afflictions  for  which  he  cannot  account,  God 
knows  that  he  is  innocent.  This  consciousness, 
which  from  the  nature  of  things  cannot  be  tested 
by  others,  enables  him  to  examine  fearlessly  their' 
position.  He  denies  the  assertion  that  punishment 
follows  surely  on  guilt,  or  proves  its  commission. 
Appealing  boldly  to  experience,  he  declares  that  in 
point  of  fact  prosperity  and  misfortune  are  not 
always,  or  generally,  commensurate ;  both  are  often 
irrespective  of  man's  deserts,  "  the  tabernacles  of 
robbers  prosper,  and  they  that  provoke  God  are 
secure"  (c.  xii.  6).  In  the  government  of  Provi- 
dence he  can  see  but  one  point  clearly,  namely, 
that  all  events  and  results  are  absolutely  in  God's 
hand  (xii.  9-25),  but  as  for  the  principles  which 
underlie  those  events  he  knows  nothing.  In  fact, 
he  is  sure  that  his  friends  are  equally  uninformed, 
and  are  sophists,  defending  their  position,  out  of 
mere  prejudice,  by  arguments  and  statements  false 
in  themselves  and  doubly  offensive  to  God,  being 
hypocritically  advanced  in  his  defense  (xiii.  1-13). 
Still  he  doubts  not  that  God  is  just,  and  although 
he  cannot  see  how  or  when  that  justice  can  be 
manifested,  he  feels  confident  that  his  innocence 
must  be  recognized.  "  Though  He  slay  me,  yet 
I  will  trust  in  Him;  He  also  will  be  my  salvation" 
(xiii.  14,  IG).  There  remains  then  but  one  course 
open  to  him,  and  that  he  takes.  He  turns  to  sup- 
plication, implores  God  to  give  him  a  foir  and  open 
trial  (xiii.  18-28).  Admitting  his  liability  to  such 
sins  as  are  common  to  man,  being  unclean  by  birth 
(xiii.  26,  xiv.  4),  he  yet  protests  his  substantial 
innocence,  and  in  the  bitter  struggle  with  his 
misery,  he  first  meets  the  thought  which  is  after- 
wards developed  with  remarkable  distinctness.  Be- 
lieving that  with  death  all  hope  connected  with 
this  world  ceases,  he  prays  that  he  may  be  hidden 
in  the  grave  (xiv.  13 j,  and  there  reserved  for  the 
day  when  God  will  try  his  cause  and  manifest  Him- 
self in  love  (ver.  15).  This  prayer  represents  but 
a  dim,  yet  a  profound  and  true  presentiment,  drawn 
forth,  then  evidently  for  the  first  time,  as  the  pos- 
sible solution  of  the  dark  problem.  As  for  a  re- 
newal of  life  liere,  he  dreams  not  of  it  (14),  nor 
will  he  allow  that  the  possible  restoration  or  pros- 
perity of  hi?  descendants  at  all  meets  the  exigen- 
cies of  hjs  '•ase  (21,  22).    ■ 

In  the  secoml  discussion  (xv.-xxi.)  there  is  a 
more  resolute  elaborate  attempt  on  the  part  of 
Job's  friends  to  vindicate  their  theory  of  retributive 
justice.  This  requires  an  entire  overthrow  of  the 
position  taken  by  Job.  They  cannot  admit  hi» 
innocence.  The  fact  that  his  caL-^iities  are  unpar- 
allelea,  proves  to  thein  that  there  must  be  some- 
thing quite  unique  in  his  guilt.  Eliphaz  (c.  xv.), 
who,  as  usual,  lays  down  tlie  basis  of  the  argument, 
does  not  now  hesitate  to  impute  to  Job  the  worst 
crimes  of  which  man  could  be  guilty.  His  defense 
is  blasphemous,  and  proves  that  he  is  quite  godless; 
that  he  disregards  the  wisdom  of  age  and  exi)eri- 
ence,  denies  the  fundamental  truths  of  religion  (3- 
16),  and  by  his  rebellious  struggles  (25-27)  against 
God  deserves  every  calamity  which  can  befall  him 

systematized  by  Basilides,  to  the  great  scandal  of  th« 
ftarly  Fathers.     See  Clem.  Al.  Utrom.  iv.  p.  506. 


1402 


JOB 


(2S-30).  BJIdad  ^xviii.)  takes  up  this  suggestion 
of  ungodliness,  and  after  enlarging  upon  the  inev- 
itable results  of  all  iniquity,  concludes  that  the 
special  evils  which  had  come  upon  Job,  such  as 
agony  of  heart,  ruin  of  home,  destruction  of  family, 
are  peculiarly  the  penalties  due  to  one  who  is  with- 
out God.  Zophar  (xx.)  draws  the  further  hiference 
that  a  sinner's  sufferings  must  needs  be  propor- 
tioned to  his  former  enjoyments  (5-14),  and  his 
losses  to  his  former  gains  (15-19),  and  thus  not 
only  accounts  for  Job's  present  calamities,  but  men- 
aces him  with  still  greater  evils  (20-23). 

In  answer  Job  recognizes  the  hand  of  God  in  his 
afflictions  (xvi.  7-JG,  and  xix.  G-20),  but  lejects 
the  charge  of  ungodliness ;  he  has  never  forsaken 
bis  Maker,  and  never  ceased  to  pray.  Ihis  being 
a  matter  of  inward  consciousness  cannot  of  course 
be  proved.  He  appeals  tlierefore  directly  to  earth 
and  heaven:  "My  witness  is  in  heaven,  and  my 
record  is  on  high"  (xvi.  19).  The  train  of  thought 
thus  suggested  carries  him  nmch  farther  in  the  way 
towards  the  great  truth  —  that  since  in  this  life  the 
righteous  certainly  are  not  saved  from  evil,  it  fol- 
lows that  their  ways  are  watched  and  their  suffer- 
ings recorded,  with,  a  view  to  a  future  and  perfect 
manifestation  of  the  divine  justice.  This  view  be- 
comes gradually  brighter  and  more  definite  as  the 
controversy"  proceeds  (xvi.  18,  19,  xvii.  8,  9,  and 
perhaps  13-16),  and  at  last  finds  expression  in  a 
strong  and  clear  declaration  of  his  conviction  that 
at  the  latter  da)  (evidently  that  day  which  Job  had 
expressed  a  longing  to  see,  c.  xiv.  12-14)  God  will 
personally  manifest  Himself,  and  that  he,  Job,  will 
then  see  him,  in  his  body,''  with  his  own  eyes,  and 
notwithstanding  the  destruction  of  his  skin,  i.  e., 
the  outward  man,  retaining  or  recovering  his  per- 
sonal identity  (xix.  25-27).  There  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Job  here  virtually  anticipates  the  final 
answer  to  all  difficulties  supplied  by  the  Christian 
revelation. 

On  the  other  hand,  stung  by  the  harsh  and 
narrow-minded  bigotry  of  his  opponents,  Job  draws 
out  (xxi.)  with  terrible  force  the  undeniable  fact, 
that  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  their  lives 
ungodly  men,  avowed  atheists  (vv.  14,  15),  persons, 
In  fact,  guilty  of  the  very  crimes  imputed,  out  of 
mere  conjecture,  to  himself,  frequently  enjoy  great 
and  unbroken  prosperity.  From  this  he  draws  the 
inference,  which  he  states  in  a  very  unguarded 
aianner,  and  in  a  tone  calculated  to  give  just  offense, 
hat  an  impenetrable  veil  hangs  over  the  temporal 
dispensations  of  God. 

In  the  ifiird  dialogue  (xxii.-xxxi.)  no  real  prog- 
ress is  made  by  Job's  opponents.  They  will  not 
give  up  and  cannot  defend  their  position.  Eliphaz 
(xxii. )  makes  a  last  effort,  and  raises  one  new  jwint 
nrhich  he  states  with  some  ingenuity.  The  station 
in  which  Job  was  formerly  placed  presented  tempta- 
lions  to  certain  crimes ;  the  punishments  which  he 
undergoes  are  precisely  such  as  might  be  expected 


o  This  gradual  and  progressive  development  was 
perhaps  first  brought  out  distinctly  by  Ewald. 

h  ^^'^W'Ztp,  lit.  "  from  my  flesh,"  may  mean  in 
the  body,  or  out  of  the -body.  Each  rendering  is 
equally  tenable  on  grammatical  grounds ;   but  the 

Bpccification  of  the  time  ("Jl'^nS)  and    the    place 

("15  J?"  v3?)  requires  a  personal  manifestation  of  God, 
»nd  a  personal  recognition  on  the  part  of  Job.     Com- 
jlete  pei-sonalit"  In  the  mind  c*'  the  ancients  implies 
liTiag  bodj 


JOB 

had  those  crimes  been  committed;  hence  he  infen 
they  actually  were  committed.  The  tone  of  thii 
discourse  thoroughly  harmonizes  with  the  character 
of  Eliphaz.  He  could  scarcely  con.e  to  a  different 
conclusion  without  surrendering  his  fundamental 
principles,  and  he  urges  with  much  dignity  and 
impressiveness  the  exhortations  and  warnuigs  which 
in  his  opinion  were  needed.  Bildad  has  nothing 
to  add  but  a  few  solemn  words  on  the  incompre- 
hensible majesty  of  God  and  the  nothingness  of 
man.c  Zophar,  the  most  violent  and  least  rational 
of  the  three,  is  put  to  silence,  and  retkes  from  the 
contest. 

In  his  two  last  discourses  Job  does  not  alter  his 
position,  nor,  properly  speaking,  adduce  any  new 
argument,  but  he  states  with  incomparable  force 
and  eloquence  the  chief  points  wliich  he  regards  as 
estabhshed  (c.  xxvi.).  All  creation  is  confounded 
by  the  majesty  and  might  of  God ;  man  catches  but 
a  faint  echo  of  God's  word,  and  is  baffled  in  ths 
attempt  to  comprehend  his  ways.  He  then  (c.  xxvii.) 
describes  even  more  completely  than  his  opponents 
had  done<^  the  destruction  which,  as  a  rule,  ulti- 
mately falls  upon  the  hj-pocrite,  and  M'hich  he  cer- 
tainly would  deserve  if  he  were  hypocritically  to 
disguise  the  truth  concerning  himself,  and  deny 
his  own  integrity.  He  thus  recognizes  what  was 
true  in  his  opponent's  arguments,  and  corrects  his 
own  hasty  and  unguarded  statements.  Then  fol- 
lows (xxviii.)  the  grand  description  of  Wisdom,  and 
the  declaration  that  human  wisdom  does  not  con  • 
sist  in  exploring  the  hidden  and  inscrutalile  ways 
of  God,  but  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  turning 
away  from  evil.  The  remainder  of  tliis  discourse 
(xxix.-xxxi.)  contains  a  singularly  beautiful  de- 
scription of  his  former  life,  contrasted  with  his 
actual  misery,  together  with  a  full  vindication  of 
his  character  from  all  the  cliarges  made  or  insin- 
uated by  his  opponents. 

3.  Thus  ends  the  discussion,  in  which  it  is 
evident  both  parties  had  partially  failed.  Job  has 
been  betrayed  into  very  hazardous  statements,  while 
his  friends  had  been  on  the  one  hand  disingeimous, 
on  the  other  bigoted,  harsh,  and  pitiless,  llie 
points  which  had  been  omitted,  or  imperfectly  de- 
veloped, are  now  taken  up  by  a  new  interlocutor 
(xxxii.-xxxvii.).  Ehhu,  a  young  man,  descended 
from  a  collateral  branch  of  the  family  of  Abraliam,* 
has  listened  in  indignant  silence  to  the  arguments 
of  his  elders  (xxxii.  7 ),  and,  impelled  by  an  inward 
inspiration,  he  now  addresses  himself  to  both  parties 
in  the  discussion,  and  specially  to  Job.  He  shows, 
1.  that  they  had  accused  Job  uixin  false  or  insuf- 
ficient grounds,  and  failed  to  convict  him,  or  to 
vindicate  God's  justice.  Job  again  had  assumed 
his  entire  innocence,  and  had  arraigned  that  justice 
(xxxiii.  9-11).  These  errors  he  traces  to  their  both 
overlooking  one  main  object  of  all  suffering.  God 
speaks  to  man  by  chastisement  (14,/  19-22)  — 
warns  him,  teaches  him  self-knowledge  and  humility 


c  Mr.  Froude,  on  Tlie  Book  of  Job,  seems  not  t« 
perceive,  or  to  ignore,  the  ground  on  which  Eliphai 
reasons. 

d  See  Herder's  excellent  remarks,  quoted  by  Itosen- 
ml'iller,  p.  24.  Mr.  Froude  quite  overlooks  the  feet 
that  Job  here,  as  elsewhere,  takes  up  his  opponents 
arguments,  and  urges  all  the  truth  which  they  may 
involve  with  greater  force,  thus  showing  himself  mast«l 
of  the  position. 

c  A  Buzite. 

/  A  point  well  drawn  out  by  Schlottmann,  p.  8t 
Job  iiad  specially  complained  of  the  silence  of  God. 


JOB 

.'16,  17)  —  and  prepares  him  (23)  by  the  mediation 
jf  a  spiritual  interpreter  (the  angel  Jehavaho  of 
brenesis)  to  implore  and  to  ol>tain  pardon  (24-), 
renewal  of  life  (25),  perfect  access  and  restoration 
(26).  This  statement  does  not  involve  any  charge 
of  special  guilt,  such  as  the  friends  had  alleged  and 
Job  had  repudiated.  Since  the  warning  and  suffer- 
ing are  preventive,  as  well  as  remedial,  the  visita- 
tion anticipates  the  corn  mission  of  sin;  it  saves  man 
from  pride,  and  other  temptations  of  wealth  and 
power,  and  it  effects  the  real  olject  of  all  divine 
interpositions,  the  entire  submission  to  God's  will. 
Again,  Klihu  argues  (xxxiv.  10-17)  that  any  charge 
of  injustice,  direct  or  implicit,  against  God  involves 
a  contradiction  in  terms.  God  is  the  only  source 
of  justice;  the  very  idea  of  justice  is  derived  from 
his  governance  of  the  universe,  the  principle  of 
which  is  love.  In  his  absolute  knowledge  God  sees 
all  secrets,  and  by  his  absolute  power  he  controls 
all  events,  and  that,  for  the  one  end  of  bringing 
righteousness  to  light  (21-30).  IMan  has  of  course 
no  claim  upon  God ;  what  he  receives  is  purely  a 
matter  of  grace  (xxxv.  6-9).  'I'he  occasional  ap- 
pearance of  unanswered  prayer  (9),  when  evil  seems 
to  get  the  upper  hand,  is  owing  merely  to  the  fact 
that  man  prays  in  a  proud  and  insolent  spirit  (12, 
13).  Job  may  look  to  his  heart,  and  he  wiU  see 
if  that  is  true  of  himself. 

Job  is  silent,  and  Elihu  proceeds  (xxxvi.)  to  show 
that  the  Almightiness  of  God  is  not,  as  Job  seems 
to  assert,  associated  with  any  contempt  or  neglect 
of  his  creatures.  Job  by  ignoring  this  truth,  has 
been  led  into  grave  error,  and  terrible  danger  (12; 
cf.  18),  but  God  is  still  drawing  him,  and  if  he 
yields  and  follows  he  will  yet  be  delivered.  The 
rest  of  the  discourse  brings  out  forcibly  the  lessons 
taught  by  the  Hianifestations  of  goodness,  as  well 
as  greatness  in  creation.  Indeed,  the  great  object 
of  all  natural  phenomena  is  to  teach  men  —  "  who 
teachetli  Uke  Him?  "  This  part  differs  from  Job's 
magnificent  description  of  the  mystery  and  majesty 
of  God's  works,  inasmuch  as  it  indicates  a  clearer 
iBCOgnition  of  a  loving  purpose  —  and  from  the 
address  of  the  I^rd  which  follows,  by  its  discursive 
and  argumentative  tone.  The  last  words  are  evi- 
dently spoken  while  a  violent  storm  is  coming  on, 
in  which  Elihu  views  the  signs  of  a  Theophany, 
which  cannot  fail  to  produce  an  intense  reaUzatiou 
of  the  nothirigness  of  man  before  God. 

4.  From  the  preceding  analysis  it  is  obvious  that 
many  weighty  truths  have  been  developed  in  the 
course  of  tlie  discussion  —  nearly  every  theory  of  the 
objects  and  uses  of  suffering  has  been  reviewed  — 
while  a  great  advance  has  been  made  towards  the 
apprehension  of  doctrines  hereafter  to  be  revealed, 
such  as  were  known  only  to  God.  But  the  mystery 
is  not  as  yet  really  cleared  up.  The  position  of  the 
Ihree  original  opponents  is  shown  to  be  untenable 
—  the  views  of  Job  himself  to  be  but  imperfect  — 
while  even  Elihu  gives  not  the  least  intimation 
that  he  recognizes  one  special  object  of  calamity. 
In  the  case  of  Job,  as  we  are  expresslv  told,  that 


«  Thus  A.  Schultens.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
'*  angel,"  not  *'  messenger,"  is  the  true  translatioi. , 
^or  that  the  angel,  the  one  of  a  thousand,  is  the 

■  T^n"^   *7Sb?3  of  Genesis. 

6  This  bearing  of  the  statement  upon  the  whole 
Mgument  is  satisfactorily  shown  by  llahn  (Introduction 
'o  Job,  p.  4),  and  by  Schlottmann  in  his  commentary 
n  thn  passage  (p.  489). 

e  Tbi8  is  the  straofcaly  exasperated  form  in  which 


JOiJ  1403 

object  was  to  try  his  sincerity,  and  to  demonstrate 
that  goodness,  integrity  in  all  relations,  and  devout 
faith  in  God,  can  exist  independent  of  external  cir- 
cumstances. [See  addition,  Amer.  cd.]  This  object 
never  occurs  to  the  mind  of  any  one  of  the  inter- 
locutors, nor  could  it  be  proved  without  a  revelation. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  exact  amount  of  censure  due 
to  Job  for  the  excesses  into  which  he  had  been  be- 
trayed, and  to  his  three  opponents  for  their  harshness 
and  want  of  candor,  could  only  be  awarded  by  an  cm-* 
niscient  Judge.  Hence  the  necessity  for  the  Theoph- 
any —  from  the  midst  of  the  storm  Jehovah  speaks. 

In  language  of  inconiparable  grandeur  He  re- 
proves and  silences  the  murmurs  of  Job.  God  does 
not  condescend,  strictly  speaking,  to  argue  with 
his  creatures.  The  speculative  questions  discussed 
in  the  colloquy  are  unnoticed,  but  the  declaration 
of  God's  absolute  power  is  illustrated  by  a  marve- 
lously  beautiful  and  comprehensive  suney  of  tho 
glory  of  creation,  and  his  all-embracing  Providence 
by  reference  to  the  phenomena  of  the  animal  king- 
dom. He  who  would  argue  with  the  I-ord  must 
understand  at  least  the  olyects  for  which  instincts 
so  strange  and  manifold  are  given  to  the  beings  far 
below  man  in  gifts  and  powers.  This  declaration 
suffices  to  bring  Job  to  a  right  mind :  he  confesses 
his  inability  to  comprehend,  and  therefore  to  answer 
his  Maker  (xl.  3,  4).  A  second  address  completes 
the  work.  It  proves  that  a  charge  of  injustice 
against  God  involves  the  consequence  that  the  ac- 
cuser is  more  competent  than  He  to  rule  the  uni- 
verse. He  should  then  be  able  to  control,  to  punish, 
to  reduce  all  creatures  to  order  —  but  he  cannot 
even  subdue  the  monsters  of  the  irrational  creation. 
Baffled  by  leviathan  and  behemoth,  how  can  he 
hold  the  reins  of  government,  how  contend  with 
Him  who  made  and  rules  them  all '?  * 

5.  Job's  unreserved  submission  terminates  the 
trial.  He  expresses  deep  conti'ition,  not  of  course 
for  sins  falsely  imputed  to  him,  but  for  the  bitter- 
ness and  aiTOgance  which  had  characterized  some 
portions  of  his  complaints.  In  the  rebuke  then 
addressed  to  Job's  opponents  the  integrity  of  his 
character  is  distinctly  recognized,  while  they  are 
condenmed  for  untruth,  which,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
not  willful,  but  proceeded  from  a  real  but  narrow- 
minded  conviction  of  the  Divine  justice,  is  pardoned 
on  the  intercession  of  Job.  The  restoration  of  his 
external  prosperity,  which  is  an  inevitable  result 
of  God's  personal  manifestation,  symbolizes  the 
ultimate  compensation  of  the  righteous  for  all  suf- 
ferings undergone  upon  earth. 

From  this  analysis  it.  seems  clear  that  certain 
views  concerning  the  general  object  of  the  book  are 
partial  or  erroneous.  It  cannot  be  the  object  of 
the  writer  to  prove  that  there  is  no  connection  be- 
tween guilt  and  sorrow,^  or  that  the  old  orthodox 
doctrine  of  retribution  was  radically  unsound.  Job 
himself  recognizes  the  general  truth  of  the  doctrine, 
which  is  in  fact  confirmed  by  his  ultimate  restora- 
tion to  happiness.*^  Nor  is  the  development  of  the 
great  doctrine  of  a  future  state  the  primary  object.* 


Mr.  Froude  represents  the  views  of  Ewald.  Nothing 
can  be  more  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  book. 

d  See  Ewald's  remarks  in  his  Jalirh.  1858,  p.  38 
The  notion  that  Job  is  a  type  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
in  their  sufferinsjs,  and  that  the  book  was  written  to 
console  them  in  their  exile,  held  by  Cl«!ricus  and  Bp. 
Warburton,  is  generally  rejected.  See  Roseruul'dleri 
pp  ia-18. 

e  Ewald's  th<)ory,  on  which  ScblottmanQ  has  woBu 
excellent  obserratious  (p.  48). 


1404 


JOB 


ft  would  not  in  that  case  have  been  passed  over  in 
Job's  Ias<  discourse,  in  the  speech  of  EHhu,  or  in 
the  address  of  the  r>ord  God.  In  fact,  critics  who 
hold  that  view  admit  that  the  doctrine  is  rather 
suggested  than  developed,  and  amounts  to  scarcely 
more  than  a  wish,  a  presentiment,  at  the  most  a 
Bubjective  conviction  of  a  truth  first  fully  revealed 
by  Him  "who  broujfht  life  and  immortality  to 
light."  The  great  olyect  must  surely  be  that  which 
is  distinctly  intimated  in  the  introduction,  and 
confirmed  in  the  conclusion,  to  show  the  effects  of 
calamity  in  its  worst  and  most  awful  form  upon  a 
truly  religious  s[)irit.  Job  is  no  Stoic,  no  Titan 
(Ewald,  p.  26 ),  struggling  rebelliously  against  God ; 
no  Prometheus,"  victim  of  a  jealous  and  unrelenting 
Deity:  he  is  a  suffering  man,  acutely  sensitive  to 
all  impressions  inward  and  outward,  grieved  by  the 
loss  of  wealth,  position,  domestic  happiness,  the 
respect  of  his  countrymen,  dependents,  and  fol- 
lowers, tortured  by  a  loathsome  and  all  but  unen- 
durable disease,  and  stung  to  an  agony  of  grief  and 
passion  by  the  insinuations  of  conscious  guilt  and 
hypocrisy.  Under  such  provocation,  being  wholly 
without  a  clew  to  the  cause  of  his  misery,  and 
hopeless  of  restoration  to  happiness  on  earth,  he  is 
shaken  to  the  utmost,  and  driven  almost  to  des- 
peration. Still  in  the  centre  of  his  being  he  re- 
mains firm  and  unmovetl — with  an  intense  con- 
sciousness of  his  own  integrity  —  without  a  doubt 
as  to  the  power,  wisdom,  truth,  or  absolute  justice 
of  God,  and  therefore  awaiting  with  longing  exjiec- 
tation  ^  the  final  judgment  which  he  is  assured 
must  come  and  bring  him  deliverance.  The  repre- 
sentation of  such  a  character,  involving  the  dis- 
comfiture of  man's  great  enemy,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  manifold  problems  which  such  a 
spectacle  suggests  to  men  of  imperfect  knowledge, 
but  thoughtful  and  inquiring  minds,  is  the  true 
object  of  the  writer,  who,  like  all  great  spirits  of 
tJie  ancient  world,  dealt  less  with  abstract  proposi- 
tions than  with  the  objective  reaUties  of  existence. 
Such  is  the  impression  naturally  made  by  the  book, 
and  which  is  recognized  more  distinctly  in  propor- 
tion as  the  reader  grasps  the  tenor  of  the  arguments, 
and  realizes  the  characters  and  events.  [See  ap- 
pended remarks,  Amer.  ed.] 

II.  InUujrily  of  the  book.  —  It  is  satisfactory  to 
find  that  the  arguments  employed  by  those  who 
impugn  the  authenticity  of  considerable  portions 
jf  this  book  are  for  the  most  part  mutually  de- 
sti-uctive,  and  that  the  most  minute  and  searching 
investigations  bring  out  the  most  convincing  proofs 
of  the  unity  of  its  composition,  and  the  coherence 
Df  its  constituent  parts.  One  jwint  of  great  im- 
wrtance  is  noted  by  the  latest  and  one  of  the  most 
igenious  writers  (M.  K.  Kenan,  Le  Litre  de  Job, 
.*aris,  1859)  on  this  subject.  After  some  strong 
.-emarks  upon  the  inequality  of  the  style,  and  ap- 
pearance of  interpolation,  M.  E.  Renan  observes 
'p.  xliv.) :  "  The  Hebrews,  and  Orientals  in  general, 
diflfered  widely  from  us  in  their  views  about  com- 
position.    Their  works  never  have  that  perfectly 


JOB 

defined  outline  to  which  we  are  acfustoine<1,  and  wc 
should  be  careful  not  to  assume  inteqwlationa  or 
alterations  {retouches)  when  we  meet  with  defects 
of  sequence  which  surprise  us."  He  then  shows 
that  in  parts  of  the  work,  acknowledged  by  ali 
critics  to  be  by  one  hand,  there  are  very  strong  in- 
stances of  what  Europeans  might  regard  as  repeti- 
tion, or  suspect  of  interpolation :  c  thus  Elihu 
recommences  his  argument  four  times;  while  dis- 
courses of  Job,  which  have  distinct  portions,  such 
as  to  modern  critics  might  seem  unconnected  and 
even  misplaced,  are  impressed  with  such  a  charac- 
ter of  sublimity  and  force  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
they  are  the  product  of  a  single  inspiration.  To 
this  just  and  true  observation  it  must  be  added 
that  the  assumed  want  of  coherence  and  of  logical 
consistency  is  for  the  most  part  only  apparent,  and 
results  from  a  radical  difference  in  the  mode  of 
thinking  and  enunciating  thought  between  the  old 
Eastern  and  modern  European. 

Four  parts  of  the  book  have  been  most  generally 
attacked.  Objections  have  been  made  to  the  intro- 
ductory and  concluding  chapters  (1 )  on  account  of 
the  style.  Of  course  there  is  an  obvious  and  nat- 
ural difference  between  the  prose  of  the  narrative 
and  the  highly  poetical  language  of  the  colloquy. 
Yet  the  best  critics  now  acknowledge  that  the  style 
of  these  portions  is  quite  as  antique  in  its  simple 
and  severe  grandeur  f^  as  that  of  the  Pentateuch 
itself  (to  which  it  bears  a  striking  resemblance  c), 
or  as  any  other  part  of  this  book,  while  it  is  as 
strikingly  unUke  the  narrative  style  of  all  the  later 
productions  of  the  Hebrews.  Ewald  says  with 
perfect  truth,  "these  prosaic  words  harmonize 
thoroughly  with  the  old  poem  in  subject-matter 
and  thoughts,  in  coloring  and  in  art,  also  in  lan- 
guage, so  far  as  prose  can  be  like  ix>etry."  It  is 
said  again  that  the  doctrinal  views  are  not  in  har- 
mony with  those  of  Job.  This  is  wholly  unfounded. 
The  fundamental  principles  of  the  patriarch,  as 
developed  in  the  most  solemn  of  his  discourses,  are 
identical  with  those  maintained  throughout  the 
book.  The  form  of  worship  belongs  essentially  to 
the  early  patriarchal  type;  with  little  of  ceremonial 
ritual,  without  a  separate  priesthood,  thoroughly 
domestic  in  form  and  spirit.  The  representation 
of  the  angels,  and  their  appellation,  "  sons  of  God," 
jieculiar  to  this  book  and  to  Genesis,  accord  entirely 
with  the  intimations  in  the  earliest  documents  of 
the  Semitic  race.  It  is  moreover  alleged  that  there 
are  discrepancies  between  the  facts  related  in  th6 
introduction,  and  statements  or  allusions  in  the 
dialogue.  But  the  apparent  contradiction  between 
xix.  17  and  the  statement  that  all  Job's  children 
had  perished,  rests  upon  a  misinterpretation  of  the 

words  '^^t?^  '^SS,  "children  of  my  womb,"  t.  e. 

"of  the  womb  that  lare  me"  —  "my  brethren," 
not  "my  children"  (cf.  iii.  10):  indeed  the  de- 
struction of  the  patrianli's  whole  family  is  re- 
peatedly assumed  in  the  dialogue  (e.  g.  viii.  4,  xxix. 
5).     Again,  the  omission  of  all  refei-ence  to  the 


«  Schlottmann  (p.  46),  who  draws  also  a  very  in- 
teresting comparison  between  Job  and  Viframitra,  in 
the  Ramayana  (p.  12S). 

b  See  the  passages  quoted  by  Ewald,  p.  27. 

c  It  is  a  very  remarkable  instance  both  of  the  in- 
consistency of  M.  Itenan,  and  of  the  little  reliance 
which  can  be  placed  upon  the  judgment  of  critics  upon 
Buch  questions,  that  he  and  Ewald  are  at  direct  issue 
M  to  the  state  in  which  the  text  of  this  book  has  been 
(utDiMl  down  to  us.     Evrald  considers  that  it  is  pure 


—  that  the  MSS.  must  have  been  very  good  —  the 
verbal  connection  is  accurate  —  and  emendations  un- 
necessary (see  p.  66).  M.  Renan  assert*,  "  Cet  antique 
monument  nous  est  parvenu,  j'en  suis  per$.uad<5,  dans 
un  ^tat  fort  misi^rable  et  macultS  en  plusieurs  en- 
droits  "  (p.  Ix.). 

d  Renan:  '' Le  grand  caract^re  du  rticit  est  niM 
preuve  de  son  anciennet^." 

e  For  a  list  of  coincidences  see  Dr.  Lee's  .Toft,  | 


JOB 

defeat  of  Satan  in  the  last  chapter  is  quite  in  ac- 
xjrdance  with  the  grand  simplicity  of  the  poem 
(Schlottmann,  pp.  39,  40).  It  waa  too  obvious  a 
result  to  need  special  notice,  and  it  had  in  fact 
been  accomplished  by  the  steadfast  faith  of  the 
patriarch  even  before  the  discussions  commenced. 
No  allusion  to  the  agency  of  that  spirit  was  to  be 
expected  in  the  colloquy,  since  Job  and  his  friends 
are  represented  as  wholly  ignorant  of  the  transac- 
tions in  heaven.  At  present,  indeed,  it  is  generally 
acknowledged  «  that  tlie  entire  work  would  be  un- 
intelligible without  these  iwrtions. 

2.  Strong  objections  are  made  to  the  passage 
sxvii.  from  ver.  7  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Here 
Job  describes  the  ultimate  fate  of  the  godless  hypo- 
crite in  terms  which  some  critics  hold  to  be  in  di- 
rect contradiction  to  the  whole  tenor  of  his  argu- 
ments in  other  discourses.  Dr.  Kennicott,  whose 
opinion  is  adopted  by  Eichhom,  Froude,  and  others, 
held  that,  owing  to  some  confusion  or  omission  in 
the  MS.,  the  missing  speech  of  Zophar  has  been 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Job.  The  fact  of  the  con- 
tradiction is  denied  by  able  writers,  who  have  shown 
that  it  rests  upon  a  misapprehension  of  the  patri- 
arch's character  and  fundamental  principles.  He 
had  been  provoked,  under  circumstances  of  peculiar 
aggravation,  into  statements  which  at  the  close  of 
the  discussion  he  would  be  anxious  to  guard  or  re- 
call :  he  was  bound,  having  sjwken  so  harshly,  to 
recognize,  what  beyond  doubt  he  never  intended  to 
deny,  the  general  justice  of  divine  dispensations 
even  in  this  Avorld.  Moreover  he  intimates  a  belief 
or  presentiment  of  a  future  retribution,  of  which 
there  are  no  indications  in  any  other  speaker  (see 
ver.  8).  The  whole  chapter  is  thoroughly  coherent : 
the  first  part  is  admitted  by  all  to  belong  to  Job ; 
nor  can  the  rest  be  disjoined  from  it  without  in- 
jury to  the  sense.  Ewald  says,  "  only  a  grievous 
misunderstanding  of  the  whole  book  could  have 
misled  the  modern  critics  who  hold  that  this  pas- 
sage is  interpolated  or  misplaced."  Other  critics 
have  abundantly  vindicated  the  authenticity  of  the 
passage  (Hahn,  Schlottmann,  etc.).  As  for  the 
style,  E.  Renan,  a  most  competent  authority  in  a 
matter  of  taste,  declares  that  it  is  one  of  the  finest 
developments  of  the  poem.  It  certainly  differs  ex- 
ceedingly in  its  breadth,  loftiness,  and  devout  spirit, 
from  the  speeches  of  Zophar,  for  whose  silence  sat- 
isfactory reasons  have  been  already  assigned  (see 
the  analysis). 

3.  The  last  two  chapters  of  the  address  of  the 
Almighty  have  been  rejected  as  interpolations  by 
many,  of  course  rationalistic,  writers  (Stuhlmann, 
Bernstein,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Meier);  partly  be- 
cause of  an  alleged  inferiority  of  style;  partly  as 
not  having  any  bearing  upon  the  argument;  but 
the  connection  of  reasoning,  involved,  though,  as 
was  to  be  expected,  not  drawn  out  in  this  discourse, 
has  been  shown  in  the  preceding  analysis;  and  as 


JOB 


1405 


o  Hahn,  p.  13;  RosenmuUer,  p.  46;  Eichhom, 
Ewald,  Schlottmann,  Kenan,  etc. 

A  "Le  style  du  fragment  dont  nous  parlon?  est  celui 
)es  meilleurs  endroits  du  po'eme.  Nulle  part  la  coupe 
n'est  plus  vigoureuse,  le  parallt^lisme  pluj  sonore: 
tout  indique  que  cc  singulier  morceau  est  dt»  'a  meme 
•Jiain,  mais  noa  pas  du  meuie  Jut,  que  le  redce  du  dis- 
Bours  de  J6hovah  "  (p.  L.). 

c  Bertholdt,  Oesenius,  Scharer,  Jahn,  Umbreit, 
iosenmlUler ;  and  of  course  by  moderate  or  orthodox 
writers,  as  Ilavernick,  llahn,  Stickel,  llengstenberg, 
Mid  Schlottmann.  Mr.  Froude  ventures,  nevertheless, 
k>  aaeert  that  this  speech  ia  "now  decisively  pro- 


for  the  style,  few  who  have  a  true  ear  foi  the  » 
sonant  grandeur  of  ancient  Hebrew  poetry  will  dis- 
sent from  the  judgment  of  E.  Eenan,^  whose  sug- 
gestion, that  it  may  have  been  written  ])y  the  same 
author  at  a  later  date,  is  far  from  weakenhig  the 
force  of  his  observation  as  to  the  identity  cf  the  style. 
4.  The  speech  of  Elihu  presents  greater  diffi- 
culties, and  has  been  rejected  by  several  rationalists, 
whose  opinion,  however,  is  controverted  not  only 
by  orthodox  writers,  but  by  some  of  the  most 
skeptical  commentators.*-*  The  former  support  their 
decision  chiefly  on  the  manifest,  and  to  a  certain 
extent  the  real,  difference  between  this  and  other 
parts  of  the  book  in  tone  of  thought,  in  doctrinaJ 
views,  and  more  positively  in  language  and  generel 
style.  Much  stress  also  is  laid  upon  the  facts  that 
Elihu  is  not  mentioned  in  the  introduction  nor  at 
the  end,  and  that  his  speech  is  unanswered  by  Job, 
and  unnoticed  in  the  final  address  of  the  Almighty. 
These  points  were  observed  by  very  early  writerSf 
and  were  accounted  for  in  various  ways.  On  the 
one  hand,  Elihu  was  regarded  as  a  specially  inspired 
person  (Schlottmann,  p.  53).  In  the  Seder  Olam 
(a  rabbinical  system  of  chronology)  he  is  reckoned 
among  the  prophets  who  declared  the  will  of  God 
to  the  Gentiles  before  the  promulgation  of  the  law. 
S.  Bar  Nachman  (12th  century)  notes  his  connec- 
tion with  the  family  of  Abraham  as  a  sign  that  he 
was  the  fittest  person  to  expound  the  w.ays  of  God. 
The  Greek  Fathers  generally  follow  Chrysostom  in 
attributing  to  him  a  superior  intellect ;  while  many 
of  the  best  critics  of  the  two  last  centuries  '^  con- 
sider that  the  true  dialectic  solution  of  the  great 
problems  discussed  in  the  book  is  to  be  found  in  his 
discourse.  On  the  other  hand,  Jerome,«  who  is 
followed  by  Gregory,/  and  many  ancient  as  well  as 
modern  writers  of  the  Western  Church,  speak  of 
his  character  and  arguments  with  singular  con- 
tempt. Later  critics,  chiefly  rationalistsjfi'  see  in 
him  but  an  empty  babbler,  introduced  only  to 
heighten  by  contrast  the  effect  of  the  last  solemn 
and  dignified  discourse  of  Job.  The  alternative  of 
rejecting  his  speech  as  an  interpolation  was  scarcely 
less  objectionable,  and  has  been  preferred  by  Stuhl- 
mann, Bernstein,  Ewald,  Renan,  and  other  writers 
of  similar  opinions  in  our  country.  A  candid  and 
searching  examination,  however,  leads  to  a  different 
conclusion.  It  is  proved  (see  Schlottmann,  Einl. 
p.  55)  that  there  is  a  close  internal  connection  be- 
tween this  and  other  parts  of  the  book ;  there  are 
references  to  numerous  passages  in  the  discoursefj 
of  Job  and  his  friends ;  so  covert  as  only  to  be  dis- 
covered by  close  inquiry,  yet,  when  pointed  cut,  so 
striking  and  natural  as  to  leave  no  room  for  doubt. 
Elihu  supplies  exactly  what  Job  repeatedly  demancla 
—  a  confutation  of  his  opinions,  not  merely  pro- 
duced by  an  overwhelming  display  of  divine  [X)wer, 
but  by  rational  and  human  arguments,  and  pro 
ceeding  from  one,  not  like  his  other  opponents 


nounced  by  Hebrew  scholars  not  to  be  genuine,"  an^ 
he  disposes  of  the  question  in  a  short  note  ( Tlie  Book 
of  Job,  p.  24). 

d  Thus  Calvin,  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  A.  Schultens 
who  speaks  of  his  speech  thus:  "Elihui  moderatis- 
sima  ilia  quidem,  sed  tamen  zelo  Dei  flagrantissima 
redargutio,  qua  Jobum  subtiliter  non  minus  quam 
graviter  compescere  aggreditur." 

c  The  commentary  on  Job  ia  not  by  Jerome,  but 
one  of  his  disciples,  and  probably  expresses  hit 
tnoughts. 

/  Moralia  Magna,  lib.  xxviii.  1,  11. 

0  Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  Umbreit. 


1406  JOB 

bigoted  or  hypocritical,  but  upright,  candid,  and 
truthfvil  (conip.  xxxiii.  3  with  vi.  24,  25).  The 
reasonings  of  Elihu  are,  moreover,  such  as  are 
needed  for  the  development  of  the  doctrines  incul- 
cated in  the  book,  while  they  are  necessarily  cast 
in  a  form  which  could  not  without  irreverence  be  as- 
signed to  the  Almighty."  As  to  the  objection  that 
the  doctrinal  system  of  Elihu  is  in  some  points 
more  advanced  than  that  of  Job  or  his  friends,  it 
may  be  answered,  first,  that  there  are  no  traces  in 
this  discourse  of  certain  doctrines  which  were  un- 
doubtedly known  at  the  earliest  date  to  which  those 
critics  would  assign  the  interpolation ;  whereas  it  is 
evident  (hat  if  known  they  would  have  been  ad- 
duced as  the  very  strongest  arguments  for  a  warn- 
ing and  consolation.  No  reader  of  the  Psalms  and 
of  the  prophets  could  have  foiled  to  urge  such  topics 
as  the  resurrection,  the  future  judgment,  and  the 
personal  advent  of  Messiah.  Secondly,  the  doc- 
trinal system  of  I-^lihu  differs  rather  in  degree  than 
in  kind  from  that  which  has  been  either  developed 
or  intimated  in  several  passages  of  the  work,  and 
consists  chiefly  in  a  specific  application  of  the  me- 
diatorial theory,  not  unknown  to  Job,  and  in  a 
deeper  appreciation  of  the  love  manifested  in  all 
providential  dispensations.  It  is  quite  consistent 
with  the  plan  of  the  writer,  and  with  the  admirable 
skill  shown  in  the  arrangement  of  the  whole  work, 
that  the  highest  view  as  to  the  object  of  afflictions, 
and  to  the  source  to  which  men  should  apply  for 
comfort  and  instruction,  should  be  reserved  for  this, 
which,  so  far  as  regards  the  human  reasoners,^  is 
the  culminating  point  of  the  discussion.  Little  can 
be  said  for  Lightfoot's  theory,  that  the  whole  work 
was  composed  by  Elihu;  or  for  E.  Kenan's  con- 
jecture that  this  discourse  may  have  been  composed 
by  the  author  in  his  old  age ;  c  yet  these  views 
imply  an  unconscious  impression  that  Elihu  is  the 
fullest  exponent  of  the  truth.  It  is  satisfactory  to 
know  that  two  '^  of  the  most  impartial  and  discern- 
ing critics,  who  unite  in  denying  this  to  be  an 
original  and  integral  portion  of  the  work,  fully 
acknowledge  its  intrinsic  excellence  and  beauty. 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  omis- 
sion of  Elihu's  name  in  the  introduction.  No  per- 
sons are  named  in  the  book  until  they  appear  as 
agents,  or  as  otherwise  concerned  in  the  events. 
Thus  Job's  brethre»  are  named  incidentally  in  one 
of  his  speeches,  and  his  relatives  are  for  the  first 
time  in  the  concluding  chapter.  Had  Elihu  been 
.nentioned  at  first,  we  should  of  course  have  ex- 
pected him  to  take  part  in  the  discussion,  and  the 
impression  made  by  his  startling  address  would 
have  been  lost.  Job  does  not  answer  him,  nor  in- 
deed could  he  deny  the  cogency  of  his  arguments ; 
while  this  silence  brings  out  a  curious  point  of  coin- 
cidence with  a  previous  declaration  of  the  patriarch 
(vi.  24,  25).  Again,  the  discourse  being  substan- 
tially true  did  not  need  correction,  and  is  therefore 


a  See  Schlottmann  {I.  c).  The  reader  will  remem- 
)er  the  just,  though  sarcastic,  criticism  of  Pope  on 
5Iilton'8  irreverence  and  bad  taste. 

&  Ilahn  says  of  Elihu :  "  A  young  wise  man,  rep- 
resenting all  the  intelligence  of  his  age''  (p.  5).  Cf. 
V.  Schultens  and  Ilengstenberg  in  Kitto's  Cyd.  of 
Bibl.  Lit. 

c  Page  Ivii.  This  implies,  at  any  rate,  that  in  his 
opinion  there  is  no  absolute  incompatibility  between 
this  and  other  parts  of  the  book  in  point  of  style  or 
thought.  The  conjecture  is  a  striking  instance  of  in- 
XJDSistency  in  a  very  dogmatic  writer. 

''  Bwal.J  and  Renan.     Ewald  says :  "  The  thoughts 


JOB 

left  unnoticed  in  the  final  decision  of  the  Almightj. 
Nothing  indeed  could  be  more  in  harmony  with 
the  ancient  traditions  of  the  East  than  that  a  youtli, 
moved  by  a  special  and  supernatural  impulse  tc 
speak  out  God's  truth  in  the  presence  of  his  elders, 
should  retire  into  obscurity  when  he  had  done  hii 
work.  More  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  the  objec- 
tion resting  upon  diversity  of  style,  and  dialectic 
peculiarities.  The  most  acute  critics  diflfer  indeed 
in  their  estimate  of  both,  and  are  often  grossly 
deceived  (see  Schlottmann,  p.  Gl),  still  there  can 
be  little  doubt  as  to  the  fact.  It  may  be  accounted 
for  either  on  the  supposition  that  the  author  ad- 
hered strictly  to  the  form  in  which  tradition  handed 
down  the  dialogue;  in  which  case  the  speech  of  a 
Syrian  might  be  expected  to  bear  traces  of  his  dia- 
lect:/ or  that  the  Chaldaic  forms  and  idioms,  which 
are  far  from  resembling  later  vulgarisms  or  corrup- 
tions of  Hebrew,  and  occur  only  in  highly  poetic 
passages  of  the  oldest  writers,  are  such  as  pecu- 
liarly suit  the  style  of  the  young  and  fiery  speaker 
(see  Schlottmann,  Einl.  p.  61).  It  has  been  ob- 
sen'ed,  and  with  apparent  truth,  that  the  discoursea 
of  the  other  interlocutors  have  each  a  very  distinct 
and  characteristic  coloring,  shown  not  only  in  the 
general  tone  of  thought,  but  in  peculiarities  of 
expression  (Ewald  and  Schlottmann).  The  exces- 
sive obscurity  of  the  style,  which  is  universally 
admitted,  may  be  accounted  for  in  a  similar  man- 
ner. A  young  man  speaking  under  strong  excite- 
ment, embarrassed  by  the  presence  of  his  elders, 
and  by  the  peculiar  responsibility  of  his  position, 
might  be  expected  to  use  language  obscured  by 
repetitions;  and,  though  ingenious  and  true,  yet 
somewhat  intricate  and  imperfectly  developed  argu- 
ments ;  such  as  in  fact  present  great  difficulties  in 
the  exegesis  of  this  portion  of  the  book. 

III.  Historical  Character  of  the  Work.  —  Three 
distinct  theories  have  been  maintained  at  various 
times  —  some  believing  the  book  to  be  strictly  his- 
torical ;  others  a  religious  fiction ;  others  a  composi- 
tion based  upon  facts.  Until  a  comparati\ely  late 
time  the  prevalent  opinion  was,  not  only  that  the 
persons  and  events  which  it  describes  are  real,  but 
that  the  very  words  of  the  speakers  were  accurately 
recorded.  It  was  supposed  either  that  Job  himself 
employed  the  latter  years  of  his  life  in  Amting  it 
(A.  Schultens),  or  that  at  a  very  early  age  some 
inspired  Hebrew  collected  the  facts  and  sayings, 
faithfully  preserved  by  oral  tradition,  and  presented 
them  to  his  countrymen  in  their  own  tongue.  By 
some  the  authorship  of  the  work  was  attributed  to 
Moses ;  by  others  it  was  believed  (and  this  theory 
has  lately  been  sustained  with  much  ingenuity  ff) 
that  Moses  became  acquainted  with  the  documents 
during  his  residence  in  Midian,  and  that  he  added 
the  introductory  and  concluding  chapters. 

The  fact  of  Job's  existence,  and  the  substantial 
truth  of  the  narrative,  were  not  likely  to  be  denied 


in  this  speech  are  in  themselves  exceedingly  pure  and 
true,  conceived  with  greater  depth,  and  presented  with 
more  force  than  in  the  rest  of  the  book  "  (p.  .320). 

c  This  seems  a  sufficient  answer  to  an  objection 
more  likely  to  occur  to  a  modem  European  than  to  a 
Hebrew. 

/  Stickel  supposes  that  the  Aramaic  forms  wer« 
intentionally  introduced  by  the  author  on  account  oT 
the  Syrian  descent  of  Elihu. 

g  By  Dr.  Lee  ;  see  his  Introduction.  He  nccounti 
thus  for  the  use  of  the  name  mrT^,  found,  with  out 
exception,  only  in  these  chapters. 


JOB 

by  HebreMTS  or  Cliristians,  considering  the  terms  | 
In  which  the  patriarch  is  named  in  the  14th  of  Ez&- 
kiel  and  in  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  (ver.  11).  It 
seemed  to  early  writers  incompatible  with  any  idea 
of  inspiration  to  assume  that  a  narrative,  certainly 
not  allegorical,  should  be  a  mere  fiction ;  and  irrev- 
erent to  suppose  that  the  Almighty  would  be  in- 
troduced as  a  speaker  in  an  imaginary  colloquy. 
In  the  East  numerous  traditions  (Ewald,  pp.  17, 18; 
Bee  D'llerbelot,  s.  v.  Ayoub)  about  the  patriarch 
and  his  fiimily  show  the  deep  impression  made  by 
his  character  and  calamities :  these  traditions  may 
|)083il)ly  have  been  derived  from  the  book  itself; 
but  it  is  at  least  equally  probable  that  they  had  an 
independent  origin.  We  are  led  to  the  same  con- 
clusion by  the  soundest  principles  of  criticism. 
Kwald  says  {FAnl.  p.  15)  most  truly,  "The  inven- 
tion of  a  history  without  foundation  in  facts  —  the 
creation  of  a  person,  represented  as  having  a  real 
historical  existence,  out  of  the  mere  head  of  the 
poet  —  is  a  notion  so  entirely  alien  to  the  spirit  of 
all  antiquity,  that  it  only  began  to  develop  itself 
gradually  in  the  latest  epoch  of  the  literature  of 
any  ancient  people,  and  in  its  complete  form  belongs 
only  to  the  most  modern  times."  In  the  canonical 
books  there  is  not  a  trace  of  any  such  invention. 
Of  all  people  the  Hebrews  were  the  least  likely  to 
mingle  the  mere  creations  of  imagination  with  the 
sacred  records  reverenced  as  the  peculiar  glory  of 
their  race. 

This  principle  is  corroborated  by  special  argu- 
ments. It  is,  to  say  the  least,  highly  improbable 
that  a  Hebrew,  had  he  invented  such  a  character 
as  that  of  Job,  should  have  represented  him  as  be- 
longing to  a  race  which,  though  descended  from 
1  common  ancestor,  was  never  on  friendly,  and 
generally  on  hostile,  terms  with  his  own  people. 
Uz,  the  residence  of  Job,  is  in  no  way  associated 
with  Israelitish  history,  and,  apart  from  the  patri- 
arch's own  history,  would  have  no  interest  for  a 
Hebrew.  The  names  of  most  persons  introduced 
have  no  meaning  connected  with  the  part  attribu- 
ted to  them  in  the  narrative.  The  name  of  Job 
himself  is  but  an  apparent  exception.     According 

to  most  critics  ^I'^M  is  derived  from  ^''Sl,  infen- 
Btts  J'uif,  and  means  "  cruelly  or  hostilely  treated ;  " 
according  to  others  (Ewald  and  Rosenmuller)  of 
high  authority  it  may  signify  "  a  true  penitent," 

corresponding  to  i«^Ut,  so  applied  to  Job,  and 

evidently  with  reference  to  his  name,  in  the  Koran 
(Sur.  38,  44).  In  either  case  the  name  would  give 
but  a  very  partial  view,  and  would  indeed  fail  to 
represent  the  central  principle «  of  the  patriarch's 
heroic  character.  It  is  moreover  far  from  improb- 
able that  the  name  previously  bonie  by  the  hero 
may  have  been  changed  in  commemoration  of  the 


a  A  fictitious  name  would  of  course  have  meant 
what  the  ancients  supposed  that  Job  must  signify. 
Vh  *I(bp  ovoixa  VTTOfJiOvr)  I/oetTa^,  KaC  ecTTtv,  w?  yeveVffat 
ouToi'  o  npoeKKiqOr],  t)  KKriOrivai  OTrep  eyeVcTO.  Didymus 
A.lexand.  col.  1120,  ed.  Migne. 

b  This  is  assumed  by  all  the  critics  who  believe  ths 
details  of  the  work  to  be  a  pure  creation  of  the  poet. 
"He  has  represented  the  simple  relations  of  patri- 
wchal  life,  and  sustained  the  assumed  character  of  a 
rich  Arabian  chieftain  of  a  nomad  tribe,  with  the 
greatest  truthfulness."  (Hahn.)  Thus  Ewald,  Schlott- 
mann,  etc.,  p.  70. 

c  Both  races  probably  dwelt  near  the  land  of  Uz. 
<ee  Rosenm.  Proll.  pp.  30.  31. 


JOB  1401 

event.  Such  was  the  case  with  Abraham,  Jacob 
Joshua,  and  in  all  probability  with  many  other  his- 
torical personages  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
worth  noting,  without  laying  much  stress  upon  the 
fact,  that  in  a  notice  appended  to  the  Alexandrian 
version  it  is  stated,  "  he  bore  previously  the  name 
of  Jobab;"  and  that  a  tradition  adopted  by  the 
Jews  and  some  Christian  Fathers,  identifies  Job 
with  Jobab,  prince  of  Edom,  mentioned  in  Gen. 
xxxvi.  33.  Moreover  a  coincidence  between  the 
name  and  the  character  or  history  of  a  real  person 
is  not  uncommon  in  any  age.  To  this  it  is  objected 
that  the  resemblance  in  Greek  does  not  exist  in  tha 

Hebrew — a  strange  assertion:  DVS  and  ^^*1^ 
are  certainly  not  much  less  alike  than  'I<6j8  and 

To  this  it  must  be  added  that  there  is  a  singular 
air  of  reality  in  the  whole  narrative,  such  as  must 
either  proceed  naturally  from  a  faithful  adherence 
to  objective  truth,  or  be  the  result  of  the  most  con- 
summate art.^  The  effect  is  produced  partly  h} 
the  thorough  consistency  of  all  the  characters, 
especially  that  of  Job,  not  merely  as  drawn  in 
broad  strong  outlines,  but  as  developed  under  a 
variety  of  most  trying  circumstances:  partly  also 
by  the  minute  and  accurate  account  of  incidents 
which  in  a  fiction  would  probably  have  been  noted 
by  an  ancient  writer  in  a  vague  and  general  man- 
ner. Thus  we  remark  the  mode  in  which  the 
supernatural  trial  is  carried  hito  execution  by  nat 
ural  agencies  —  by  Chaldaean  and  Sabean  c  robberi 
—  by  whirlwinds  common  in  and  peculiar  to  the 
desert  —  by  fire  —  and  lastly  by  the  elephantiasis 
(see  Schlottmann,  p.  15 ;  Ewald,  /.  c. ;  and  Heng- 
stenberg),  the  most  formidable  disease  known  in 
the  East.  The  disease  was  indeed  one  which  the 
Indians ''  and  most  Orientals  then  probably  believed 
to  be  peculiarly  indicative  of  divine  wrath,  and 
would  therefore  be  naturally  selected  by  the  writer 
(see  the  analysis  above).  But  the  symptoms  are 
described  so  faithfully  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
the  writer  must  either  have  introduced  them  with 
a  view  of  giving  an  air  of  truthfulness  to  his  work, 
or  have  recorded  what  he  himself  witnessed,  or 
received  from  an  exact  tradition.  The  former  sup- 
position is  confuted  by  the  fact  that  the  peculiar 
symptoms  are  not  described  in  any  one  single  pas- 
sage so  as  to  attract  the  reader's  attention,  but  are 
made  out  by  a  critical  and  scientific  examination 
of  words  occurring  here  and  there  at  intervals  in 
the  complaints  of  the  suflferer.^  The  most  refined 
art  fails  in  producing  such  a  result:  it  is  rarely 
attempted  in  the  most  "artificial  ages ;  was  never 
dreamed  of  by  ancient  writers,  and  must  here  bo 
regarded  as  a  strong  instance  of  the  undesigned 
coin.ndences  which  the  soundest  criticism  regarcli 
as  the  best  evidence  of  genuineness  and  autheir- 
i\r.\iy  in  any  work. 

d  Thus  Origen,  c.  C^ls.  vi.  6,  2 ;  Abulfeda,  Hist 

AnteisL,  4>*4>«  aJl^O*}  P-  27,  ed.  FM*?her, 
t.        his  bodv  was  smitten  with  elephantiasis  (the 

^|(_V,"«w),  and  eaten  by  worms.     The  disease  is  de 

scribed  by  Ainsho  D-ansactions  R.  S.,  and  Bruce. 
See  Ewald,  p.  23. 

e  Ch.  ii.  7,  3  ;  rii.  5, 13  ;  xvi,  8 ;  xix.  17,  20 ;  ixx. 
18 ;  and  other  passaged  See  the  valuable  remark* 
of  Ewald,  p.  22. 


1408  JOB 

Forcible  as  these  arguments  may  appear,  many 
3ritic8  have  adopted  the  opinion  either  that  the 
whole  work  is  a  moral  or  religious  apologue,  or 
that,  upon  a  substratum  of  a  few  rudimental  facts 
preserved  by  tradition,  the  genius  of  an  original 
thinker  has  raised  this,  the  most  remarkable  mon- 
ument of  the  Semitic  mind.  The  first  indications 
of  this  opinion  are  found  in  the  Talmud  {Baba 
Bathra,  l-t-16).  In  a  discussion  upon  the  age  of 
this  book,  while  the  Rabbins  in  general  maintain 
its  historical  character,  Samuel  Bar  Nachman  de- 
clares his  conviction  "  Job  did  not  exist,  and  was 
not  a  created  man,  but  the  work  is  a  parable."" 
Hai  Gaon,''  A.  D.  1000,  who  is  followed  by  Jarchi, 
alters  this  passaije,  to  "  Job  existed  and  was  created 
to  become  a  parable."  They  had  evidently  no  crit- 
ical ground  for  the  change,  but  bore  witness  to  the 
prevalent  tradition  of  the  Hebrews.  Maimonides 
{Aforeh  Nevochiin^  iii.  22),  with  his  characteristic 
freedom  of  mind,  considers  it  an  open  question  of 
little  or  no  moment  to  the  real  value  of  the  inspired 
book.  Kalbag,  i.  e.  R.  Levi  Ben  Gershom,  treats 
it  as  a  philosophic  work.  A  late  Hebrew  commen- 
tator, Simcha  Arieh  (Schlottmann,  p.  4),  denies 
the  historical  truth  of  the  narrative,  on  the  ground 
that  it  is  incredible  the  patriarchs  of  the  chosen 
race  should  be  surpassed  in  goodness  by  a  child  of 
Edom.  This  is  worth  noting  in  corroboration  of  the 
argument  that  such  a  fact  was  not  likely  to  have 
been  invented  by  an  Israelite  of  any  age.<^ 

Luther  first  suggested  the  theoj-y  which,  in  some 
form  or  other,  is  now  most  generally  received.  In 
his  introduction  to  the  first  edition  of  his  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  he  speaks  of  the  author  as  having 
BO  treated  the  historical  facts  as  to  demonstrate  the 
truth  that  God  alone  is  righteous  —  and  in  the 
Tischreden  (ed.  Walch,  torn.  xxii.  p.  2093),  he  says, 
"  I  look  upon  the  book  of  Job  as  a  true  history,  yet 
I  do  not  believe  that  all  took  place  just  as  it  is 
written,  but  that  an  ingenious,  pioUf<,  and  learned 
man  brought  it  into  its  present  form."  This  po- 
sition was  strongly  attacked  by  13ellarmin,  and  other 
Roman  theologians,  and  was  afterwards  repudiated 
by  most  Lutherans.  The  fact  that  Spinoza,  Cler- 
icus  [I.e  Clerc],  Uu  I'in,  and  Father  Simon,  held 
nearly  the  same  opinion,  the  first  denying,  and  the 
others  notoriously  holding  low  views  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  Scripture,  had  of  course  a  tendency  to  bring 
it  into  disrepute.  J.  1>.  Michaelis  first  revived  the 
old  theory  of  Bar  Nachman,  not  upon  critical  but 
dogmatic  grounds.  In  a  mere  history,  the  opinions 
or  doctrines  enounced  by  Job  and  his  friends  could 
have  no  dogmatic  authority ;  whereas  if  the  whole 
book  were  a  pure  inspiration,  tlie  strongest  argu- 
ments could  be  deduced  from  them  on  behalf  of  the 
great  truths  of  the  resurrection  and  a  future  judg- 
ment, which,  though  implied  in  other  early  books, 
are  nowhere  so  distinctly  inculcated.  The  arbitrary 
character  of  such  reasoning  is  obvious.  At  present 
DO  critic  doubts  that  the  narrative  rests  on  facts, 
although  the  prevalent  opinion  among  continental 
scholars  is  certainly  that  in  its  form  and  general 


n'^n.  MashcU  has  a  much  wider  signification  than 
parable,  or  any  English  synonym. 

b  E'.vaia  and  Dukess  Eeitrage,  iil.  165. 

c  Theodorus  of  Mopsuestia  stands  alone  in  denying 
the  inspiration,  while  he  admits  the  historical  char- 
iCter  of  the  book,  which  he  asserted,  in  a  passage 
jondemned  at  the  second  Council  of  Constantinople, 
o  be  replete  with  statements  derogatory  to  God,  and 


JOB 

features,  in  its  reasonings  and  representations  of 
character,  the  lx>ok  is  a  work  of  creative  genius. 

The  question,  however,  cannot  be  settled,  nor 
indeed  thoroughly  understood,  without  reference  to 
other  arguments  by  wliich  critics  have  endeavored 
to  determine  the  date  at  which  the  work  was  com- 
pleted in  its  present  form,  and  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  composed.  We  proceed,  there- 
fore, to  consider  — 

IV.  The  probable  Age,  Country,  and  Position  of 
the  Author.  —  The  Innyuage  alone  does  not,  as  some 
have  asserted,  supply  any  decisive  test  as  to  the  date 
of  the  composition.  Critics  of  the  last  century  gen- 
erally adopted  the  opinion  of  A.  Schultens  {Prcef. 
ad  libi'um  Jobi),  who  considered  that  the  indications 
of  external  influences  were  best  accounted  for  on 
the  supposition  that  the  book  was  written  at  a  very 
early  period,  before  the  difl'erent  branches  of  the 
Semitic  race  had  completely  formed  their  distinct 
dialects.  The  fact  that  the  language  of  this  work 
approaches  far  more  nearly  to  the  Arabic  than  any 
other  Hebrew  production  was  remarked  by  Jerome 
and  is  recognized  by  the  soundest  critics.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  undoubtedly  many  Aramai** 
words,''  and  grammatical  forms,  which  some  critics 
have  regarded  as  a  strong  proof  that  the  WTiters 
must  have  lived  during,  or  even  after  the  Captivity. 
At  present  this  hypothesis  is  universally  given  up 
as  untenable.  It  is  proved  (Ewald,  Renan,  Schlott^ 
mann,  and  Kosegarten)  that  there  is  a  radical  dif- 
ference between  the  Aramaisms  of  the  later  Hebrew 
writings  and  those  found  in  the  Ijook  of  Job.  These 
latter  are,  without  an  exception,  such  as  charac- 
terize the  antique  and  highly  poetic  style;  they 
occur  in  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  Song  of 
Deborah,  in  the  earliest  Psalms,  and  the  Song  of 
Solomon,  all  of  which  are  now  aihnittcd  even  by 
the  ablest  rationalistic  critics  to  lie  among  the  ear- 
liest and  purest  productions  of  Heiirew  literature.* 
So  far  as  any  argument  can  be  dra\m  from  idiom- 
atic peculiarities,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  settled 
point  that  the  book  was  written  long  before  the 
exile  (see  some  good  observations  by  Hiivernick, 
/.  c);  while  there  is  al)Solutely  nothing  to  pi-ove  a 
later  date  than  the  Pentateuch,  or  even  those  parts 
of  the  Pentateuch  which  appear  to  belong  to  the 
patriarchal  age. 

Tliis  impression  is  home  out  by  the  style.  All 
critics  have  recognized  its  grand  archaic  character. 
Firm,  compact,  sonorous  as  the  ring  of  a  pure 
metal,  severe  and  at  times  rugged,  yet  always  dig- 
nified and  majestic,  the  language  belongs  ait«gethe» 
to  a  period  when  thought  was  slow,  but  profound 
and  intensely  concentrated,  when  the  weighty  and 
oracular  sayings  of  the  wise  were  wont  to  be  en- 
graved upon  rocks  with  a  pen  of  iron  and  in  char- 
acters of  molten  lead  (see  xix.  24).  It  is  truly  a 
lapidary  style,  such  as  was  natural  only  in  an  age 
when  writing,  though  known,  was  rarely  used,  before 
language  had  acquired  clearness,  fluency,  and  flex- 
ibility, but  lost  much  of  its  freshness  and  native 
force.     IMuch  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  fact 


such  as  could  only  proceed  from  a  vain  and  ignorant 
heathen.  Aben  Ezra,  among  the  Jews,  maintained  the 
same  opinion. 

d  A  list  is  given  by  Lee,  p.  50.  See  also  Iliivemick, 
IntrorJ.  to  O.  T.  p.  176,  Eng.  Tranf. 

e  Kenan's  good  taste  and  candor  here,  as  elsewhem 
neutralize  his  rationalistic  tendency.  In  the  Histoir 
des  Lavgues  Semitiques,  ed.  1857,  he  held  that  th| 
Aramaisms  indicate  a  very  late  date ;  in  the  prefect 
to  Job  he  has  adopted  the  opinion  here  expressed. 


JOB 

that  liie  book  bears  a  closer  resemblance  to  the 
Proverbs  of  Solomon  than  to  any  other  Hebrew 
work  (see  especially  Kosenniiiller,  Proll.  p.  38). 
This  is  true  to  a  remarkable  extent  with  regard  to 
the  thoughts,  words,  and  forms  of  expression,  while 
the  metre,  which  is  somewhat  peculiar  and  strongly 
marked,"  is  almost  identical,  tlence  it  has  been 
inferred  that  the  comix)sition  belongs  to  the  Solo- 
monian  era,  or  to  the  period  between  Solomon  and 
Hezekiah,  by  whose  orders,  as  we  are  expressly  in- 
formal, a  great  part  of  the  book  of  I'roverbs  was 
compiled.  But  the  argument  loses  much  of  its 
force  when  we  consider  that  Solomon  did  not  merely 
.ivent  the  proverbs,  but  collected  the  most  ancient 
and  curious  sayings  of  olden  times,  not  only  of  the 
Hebrews,  but  probably  of  other  nations  with  whom 
he  had  extensive  intercourse,  and  in  whose  philos- 
ophy he  is  supposed,  not  without  good  reason,  to 
have  taken  deep  interest,  even  to  the  detriment  of 
his  religious  principles  (see  lienan's  Job,  p.  xxiii. ) ; 
while  those  proverbs  which  he  invented  himself 
would  as  a  matter  of  course  be  cast  in  the  same 
metrical  form  and  take  an  archaic  character. 
Again,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  passages 
in  which  the  resemblance  is  most  complete  and 
striking,  were  taken  from  one  book  by  the  author 
of  the  other,  and  adapted,  according  to  a  Hebrew 
custom  common  among  the  prophets,  to  the  special 
purposes  of  his  work.  On  comparing  these  pas- 
sages, it  seems  impossible  to  deny  that  they  be- 
longed in  the  first  instance  to  the  book  of  .lob,^ 
where  they  are  in  thorough  hai-mony  with  the 
tenor  of  the  argument,  and  have  all  the  character- 
istics of  the  author's  genius.  Taking  the  resem- 
blance as  a  fact,  we  are  entitled  to  conclude  that 
we  have  in  Job  a  composition  not  later  than  the 
most  ancient  proverbs,  and  certainly  of  much  earlier 
date  than  the  entire  book. 

The  extent  to  which  the  influence  of  this  book 
is  perceptible  in  the  later  literature  of  the  Hebrews 
is  a  subject  of  great  interest  and  importance;  but 
it  has  not  yet  been  thoroughly  investigated.  Hii- 
vernick  has  a  few  good  remarks  in  his  general  In- 
troduction to  the  Old  Testament,  §  30.  Dr.  Lee 
{Inti'od.  section  vii.)  has  led  the  way  to  a  more 
complete  and  searching  inquiry  by  a  close  examina- 
tion of  five  chapters,  in  which  he  produces  a  vast 
number  of  parallel  passages  from  the  Pentateuch 
(which  he  holds  to  be  contemporary  with  the  Intro- 
duction, and  of  a  later  date  than  the  rest  of  the 
book),  from  Ruth,  Samuel,  the  Psalms,  Proverbs, 
Eoclesiastes,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Hosea,  Joel, 
Amos,  Micah,  and  Nahum,  all  of  which  are  probably, 
and  some  of  them  demonstrably,  copied  from  Job. 


JOB 


1409 


a  Each  verse,  with  very  few  exceptions,  consists  of 
two  parallel  members,  and  each  member  of  three 
words :  when  that  number  is  exceeded,  it  is  owing  to 
the  pjirticles  or  subordinate  words,  which  are  almost 
always  so  combined  as  to  leave  only  three  tones  in 
each  member  (Schlottmann,  p  68). 

0  See  Rosenmiiller,  ProU.  p.  40.  Even  Renan,  who 
believes  that  Job  was  written  qftfr  the  time  of  Solo- 
mon, holds  that  the  description  of  Wisdom  (eh.  xxviii.) 
ia  the  original  source  of  the  idea  which  we  find  in 
Proverbs  (chs.  yiii.,  ix.). 

c  See  some  excellent  remarks  by  Renan.  p.  xxxvii. 

(I  The  Makamat  of  Hariri,  and  the  life  of  Timour 
by  Arabshah,  in  Arabic,  the  works  of  Lycophron  in 
Greek,  are  good  examples.  Somewnat  of  this  char- 
acter may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  last  chapters  of 
Kcclesiastes,  while  it  is  conspicuous  in  the  apocryphal 
l»ookB  of  Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  Baruch.     lu- 


Considerable  weight  must  also  be  attached  to 
the  fact  that  Job  is  far  more  remarkable  for  obscu- 
rity than  any  Hebrew  writing.^  There  is  an  ob- 
scurity which  results  from  confusion  of  thought, 
from  carelessness  and  inaccuracy,  or  from  studied 
involutions  and  artificial  combination  of  metaphors 
indicating  a  late  age.''  But  when  it  is  owing  to 
obsolete  words,  intense  concentration  of  thought 
and  language,  and  incidental  allusions  to  long-for- 
gotten traditions,  it  is  an  all  but  infallible  proof  of 
primeval  antiquity.  Such  are  precisely  the  diffi- 
culties in  this  book.  The  enormous  mass  of  notes 
which  a  reader  must  wade  through,  before  he  can 
feel  himself  competent  to  decide  upon  the  most 
probable  interpretation  of  a  single  chapter,^  proves 
that  this  book  stands  apart  from  all  other  produc- 
tions of  the  Hebrews,  belongs  to  a  different  epoch, 
and,  in  accordance  with  the  surest  canons  of  crit-. 
icism,  to  an  earlier  age. 

We  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion  from  consider- 
ing the  institutions,  manners,  and  historical  facts 
described  or  alluded  to  in  this  book.  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  no  ancient  writer  ever  succeeded 
in  reproducing  the  manners  of  a  past  age;/  to  use 
the  words  of  M.  Renan,  "antiquity  had  not  an 
idea  of  what  we  call  local  coloring."  The  attempt 
was  never  made  by  any  Hebrew ;  and  the  age  of 
any  writer  can  be  positively  determined  when  we 
know  the  date  of  the  institutions  and  customs  which 
he  describes.  Again  it  is  to  the  last  degree  improb- 
able (being  without  a  precedent  or  parallel)  that  an 
ancient  author  3  should  intentionally  and  success- 
fully avoid  all  reference  to  historical  occuiTences, 
and  to  changes  in  religious  forms  or  doctrines  of  a 
date  posterior  to  that  of  the  events  which  he  nar- 
rates. These  points  are  now  generally  recognized, 
but  they  have  rarely  been  applied  with  consistency 
and  candor  by  commentators  on  this  book. 

In  the  first  place  it  is  distinctly  admitted  that 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  no  reference  what- 
ever is  made  to  the  Mosaic  law,  or  to  any  of  the 
peculiar  institutions  of  Israel,  ^  or  to  the  great  car- 
dinal events  of  the  national  history  after  the  Ex- 
odus. It  cannot  be  proved »  that  such  reference 
was  unlikely  to  occur  in  connection  with  the  argu- 
ment. The  sanctions  and  penalties  of  the  Law,  if 
known,  could  scarcely  have  been  passed  over  by  the 
opponents  of  Job,  while  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
and  the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptians  supplied  ex- 
actly the  examples  which  they  required  in  order  to 
silence  the  complaints  and  answer  the  arguments 
of  Job.  The  force  of  this  argument  is  not  affected 
by  the  answer  that  other  books  written  long  after 
the  establishment  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  contain  few 


stances  in  our  own  literature  will  occur  to  every 
reader. 

«  The  ana^  keyoixeva,  and  passages  of  which  the 
interpretation  is  wholly  a  matter  of  conjecture,  fer 
surpass  those  of  any  portion  of  the  0.  T. 

/  This  is  true  of  the  Greek  dramatists,  and  of  th« 
greatest  original  writers  of  our  own,  and  indeed  of 
every  country  before  the  18th  century. 

ff  In  fact,  scarcely  one  work  of  fiction  exists  iu 
which  a  searching  criticism  does  not  detect  anachron- 
isms or  inconsistencies. 

h  See  Renan,  p.  xvi.  It  should  be  noted  that  eyea 
the  word  rTmn,  so  common  in  every  other  book, 
especially  in  those  of  the  post-Da vidic  age,  occurs  only 
once  in  Job  (xxii.  22),  and  then  not  in  the  special  « 
technical  signification  of  a  received  code. 

i  See,  on  th«  '>ther  side,  Pareau  ap.  Rosenm. 


1410 


JOB 


or  no  allusions  to  those  institutions  or  events.  The 
statement  is  inaccurate.  In  each  of  the  books  spe- 
cified «  there  are  abundant  traces  of  the  Law.  It 
was  not  to  be  expected  that  a  complete  view  of  the 
Levitical  rites,  or  of  historical  facts  unconnected 
with  the  subject-matter  of  those  works,  could  be 
/erived  from  them ;  but  they  abound  in  allusions 
to  customs  and  notions  pecuhar  to  the  Hebrews 
trained  under  the  Law,  to  the  services  of  the  Tab- 
ernacle or  Temple,  and  they  all  recognize  most  dis- 
tinctly the  existence  of  a  sacerdotal  system,  whereas 
our  author  ignores,  and  therefore,  as  we  may  rea- 
sonably conclude,  was  unacquainted  with  any  forms 
of  religious  service,  save  those  of  the  patriarchal  age. 
Ewald,  whose  judgment  in  this  case  will  not  be 
questioned,''  asserts  very  positively  that  in  all  the 
descriptions  of  manners  and  customs,  domestic, 
social,  and  political,  autl  even  in  the  indirect  allu- 
sions and  illustrations,  the  genuine  coloring  of  the 
age  cf  Job,  that  is  of  the  period  between  Abraham 
and  IMoses,  is  very  faithfully  observed ;  that  all  his- 
torical examples  and  allusions  are  taken  exclusively 
from  patriarchal  times,  and  that  there  is  a  com- 
plete and  successful  avoidance  of  direct  reference  to 
later  occurrences,*^  which  in  his  opinion  may  have 
been  known  to  the  writer.  All  critics  concur  in 
extolling  the  fresh,  antique  simplicity  of  maimers 
described  in  this  book,  the  genuine  air  of  the  wild, 
free,  vigorous  life  of  the  desert,  the  stamp  of  hoar 
antiquity,  and  the  thorough  consistency  in  the 
development  of  characters,  equally  remarkable  for 
originality  and  force.  There  is  an  absolute  con- 
trast between  the  man^iers,  thoughts,  and  feelings, 
and  those  which  characterized  the  Israelites  during 
the  monarchical  period ;  while  whatever  difference 
exists  between  the  customs  of  the  older  patriarchs 
as  described  in  Genesis  and  those  of  Job's  family 
wid  associates,  is  accounted  for  by  the  progress  of 
events  in  the  intervening  period.  The  chieftain 
lives  in  considerable  splendor  and  dignity;  menial 
oflBces,  such  as  commonly  devolved  upon  the  elder 
patriarchs  and  their  children,  are  now  performed 
by  servants,  between  whom  and  the  family  the  dis- 
tuiction  appears  to  be  more  strongly  marked.  Job 
visits  the  city  frequently,  and  is  there  recei^'ed  with 
high  respect  as  a  prince,  judge,  and  distinguished 
warrior  (xxix.  7-9).  There  are  allusions  to  courts 
of  judicature,  written  indictments,^'  and  regular 
forms  of  procedure  (xiii.  26,  and  xxxi.  28).  Men 
had  begun  to  observe  and  reason  upon  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature,  and  astronomical  observations 
were  connected  with  curious  speculations  upon 
primeval  traditions.  We  read  (xx.  15,  xxiii.  10, 
xivii.  16,  17,  xxviii.  1-21)  of  mining  operations, 
great  buildings,  ruined  sepulchres,  perhaps  even  of 
sculptured   figures   of   the   dead,e   and    there   are 


«  M.  Renan  says:  "On  sMtonnait  de  ne  trouver 
dans  le  livre  de  Job  aucune  trace  dcs  prescriptions 
mosaiques.  Mais  on  n'en  trouve  pas  davantage  dans 
h  livre  des  Proverbes,  dans  I'histoire  des  Juges  et  des 
remiers  Rois,  et  en  gent^ral  dans  les  ^crivains  antt5- 
-eurs  a  la  derniere  epoque  du  royaume  de  Juda." 
U.  must  be  remembered  that  this  writer  denies  the 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

b  Einleitimg,  p.  57.  M.  Renan,  Hahn,  Schlott- 
mann,  and  other  critics,  agree  fully  with  this  opinion. 

c  The  entire  disappearance  of  the  bushmen  (Job 
XXX.  4-7)  belongs  to  a  very  early  age.  Ewald  supposes 
them  to  have  been  descendants  of  the  Horites  ;  and 
Schlottmann  (p.  15)  observes,  truly,  that  the  writer 
must  liave  known  them  from  his  own  observation. 
th\B  throws  us  of  course  back  to  the  Mosaic  age. 


JOB 

throughout  copious  allusions  to  the  nataml  pro- 
ductions and  the  arts  of  Egypt.  Great  revolutioiis 
had  occurred  within  the  time  of  the  writer;  nations 
once  independent  had  been  overthrown,  and  whole 
races  reduced  to  a  state  of  misery  and  degradation. 
All  this  might  be  expected,  even  supposing  the 
work  to  have  been  written  before  or  near  the  date 
of  the  Exodus.  The  communications  with  Egypt 
were  frequent,  and  indeed  uninterrupted  during  the 
patriarchal  age,  and  in  that  country  each  one  of 
the  customs  upon  which  most  reliance  is  placed  as 
indicating  a  later  date  is  now  proved  to  have  been 
common  long  before  the  age  of  Moses  (see  Lepaius, 
Schlottmann,  p.  107).  IMoreover,  there  is  sufficient 
reason  to  believe  that  under  favorable  circumstances 
a  descendant  of  Abraham,  who  was  himself  a  war- 
rior, and  accustomed  to  meet  princes  on  terms  ol 
equaUty,  would  at  a  very  early  age  acquire  the 
habits,  position,  and  knowledge  which  we  admire  in 
Job.  lie  was  the  head  of  a  great  family,  success- 
ful in  war,  prosperous  in  peace,  suppUed  abundantly 
with  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  enjoying  many  of 
its  luxuries ;  he  Uved  near  the  great  cities  on  the 
Euphrates/  and  Tigris,  and  on  the  route  cf  the 
caravans  which  at  the  remotest  periods  exchanged 
the  productions  of  Egypt  and  the  far  East,  and  had 
therefore  abundant  opportunities  of  procuring  in- 
formation from  those  merchants,  supposing  that  he 
did  not  himself  visit  a  country  so  full  of  interest  to 
a  thoughtful  mind. 

Such  a  progress  in  civihzation  may  or  may  not 
be  admitted  by  historical  critics  to  be  probable 
within  the  limits  of  time  thus  indicated,  but  no 
positive  historical  fact  or  allusion  can  be  produced 
from  the  book  to  prove  that  it  could  not  have  been 
written  before  the  time  of  Moses.  The  single  ob- 
jection (Kenan,  p.  40)  which  presents  any  difficulty 
is  the  mention  of  the  Chaldseans  in  the  introductory 
chapter.  It  is  certain  that  they  appear  first  in 
Hebrew  history  about  the  year  B.  c.  770.  But  the 
name  of  Chesed,  the  ancestor  of  the  race,  is  found 
in  the  genealogical  table  in  Genesis  (xxii.  22),  a 
fact  quite  sufficient  to  prove  the  early  existence  of 
the  people  as  a  separate  tribe.  It  is  highly  prob- 
able that  an  ancient  race  bearing  that  name  in 
Curdistan  (see  Xenoph.  Cyr.  iii.  1,  §  34;  Anab. 
iv.  3,  §  4.  V.  5,  §  17)  was  the  original  source  of  the 
nation,  who  were  there  trained  in  predatory  habits, 
and  accustomed,  long  before  their  appearance  in 
history,  to  make  excursions  into  the  neighboring 
deserts ;  0  a  view  quite  in  harmony  with  the  part 
assigned  to  them  in  this  book. 

The  arguments  which  have  induced  the  generahty 
of  modern  critics  to  assign  a  later  date  to  this  book, 
notwithstanding  their  concurrence  in  most  of  the 
points  and  principles  which  we  have  just  considered, 


d  Known  in  Egypt  at  an  early  period  (Died.  Sic.  i. 
p.  75). 

e  Ch.  xxi.  32.    The  interpretation  is  very  doubtful. 

/  The  remarkable  treatise  by  Chwolsohn,  Ueber  die 
Ueberreste  der  Babylonisdun  Literatur  in  Arabischen 
Uebersetzungen,  proves  an  advance  in  mental  cultl 
vation  in  those  regions  at  a  far  earlier  age,  mort 
than  sufficient  to  answer  every  objection  of  this  na- 
ture. 

g  This  is  now  generally  admitted.  See  M.  Renan, 
Hiftoire  Generate  des  I.angues  Scmitiqves^  ed.  1868, 
p.  56.  He  says  truly  that  they  were  "  redout^s  dan« 
tout  I'Orient  pour  leurs  brigandages "  (p  65).  Se« 
also  Chwolsohn,  Die  Ssabier,  vol.  i.  p.  312.  Ur  ol  th« 
Chaldaeans  was  undoubtedly  so  named  because  it  wa* 
founded  or  occupied  by  that  people. 


) 


JOB 

may  be  reduced  to  two  lieads,  which  we  will  now 
sxaniine  aepara^<^ly :  — 

1.  We  are  told  tliat  the  doctrinal  system  is  con- 
liderably  in  advance  of  the  Mosaic ;  in  fact  that  it 
Is  the  result  of  a  recoil  from  the  stern,  narrow  dog- 
matism of  the  Pentateuch.  Here  of  course  there 
can  he  no  common  ground  between  those  who 
admit,  and  those  who  secretly  or  openly  deny  the 
authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Mosaic  writings. 
Still  even  rationalistic  criticism  cannot  show,  what 
it  so  confidently  assumes,  that  there  is  a  demon- 
Btrable  difference  in  any  essential  point  between  the 
principles  recognized  in  Genesis  and  those  of  our 
author.  The  absence  of  all  recognition  of  the 
peculiar  views  and  institutions  first  introduced  or 
developed  in  the  Law  has  been  already  shown  to  be 
an  evidence  of  an  earlier  date  —  all  that  is  really 
proved  is  that  the  elemeniary  truths  of  primeval 
revelation  are  represented,  and  their  consequences 
developed  under  a  great  variety  of  striking  and 
original  forms  —  a  fact  sufficiently  accounted  for  by 
the  highly  thoughtful  character  of  the  l)Ook,  and 
the  undoubted  genius  of  the  writer  (comp.  Job  x. 
9;  Gen.  iii.  19;  Isa.  xxvii.  3;  Gen.  ii.  7,  vii.  22; 
Job  xxii.  15,  16,  with  the  account  of  the  deluge). 
In  G^enesis  and  in  this  work  we  have  the  same 
theology;  the  attributes  of  the  Godhead  are  iden- 
tical. Man  is  represented  in  all  his  strength  and 
in  all  his  weakness,  glorious  in  capacities,  but  infirm 
and  impure  in  his  actual  condition,  with  a  soul  and 
spirit  allied  to  the  eternal,  but  with  a  physical  con- 
gtitution  framed  from  the  dust  to  which  it  must 
return.  The  writer  of  -Job  knows  just  so  much  of 
the  fall  of  Adara  and  the  early  events  of  man's  his- 
tory, including  the  deluge  (xxii.  15,  16),  as  was 
likely  to  be  preserved  by  tradition  in  all  the  families 
descended  from  Shem.  And  with  reference  to  those 
points  in  which  a  real  progress  was  made  by  the 
Israelites  after  the  time  of  Moses,  the  position  from 
which  this  writer  starts  is  precisely  that  of  the  law- 
giver. One  great  problem  of  the  book  is  the  recon- 
ciliation of  unmerited  suffering  with  the  love  and 
justice  of  God.  In  the  prophets  and  psahns  the 
fubject  is  repeatedly  discussed,  and  receives,  if  not 
•I  complete,  yet  a  substantially  satisfactory  settle- 
ment in  connection  with  the  great  doctrines  of 
Messiah's  kingdom,  priesthood,  sufferings,  and  sec- 
ond advent,  involving  the  resun-ection  and  a  future 
judgment.  In  the  book  of  Job,  as  it  has  been 
shown,  there  is  no  indication  that  the  question  had 
previously  been  raised.  The  answers  given  to  it 
are  evidently  elicited  by  the  discussions.  Even  in 
tlie  discourse  of  Elihu,  in  which  the  nearest  ap- 
proach to  the  full  development  of  the  true  theory 
f)f  providential  dispensations  is  admitted  to  be  found, 
and  which  indeed  for  that  very  reason  has  been 
suspected  of  interpolation,  there  is  no  sign  that  the 
writer  knew  those  characteristics  of  Messiah  which 
iTom  the  time  of  David  were  continually  present  to 
tlie  mind  of  the  Israelites. 

Again  it  is  said  that  the  representation  of  angels, 
and  still  more  specially  of  Satan,  belongs  to  a  later 
spoch.  Some  have  even  asserted  that  the  notion 
taust  have  been  derived  from  Persian  or  Assyrian 


«  To  the  epoch  of  the  Achsemenidae. 

ft  See  Reaan,  p.  xxxix.  This  was  previously  pointed 
out  by  Herder. 

c  Dr.  Lee  {Introduction  to  Job,  p.  13)  observes  that 
although  Satan  is  not  named  in  Genesis,  yet  the  char- 
icfcer  which  that  name  implies  is  clearly  intimated 

m  tha  words,  "  I  will  put  enmity   (H^'^M)  between 


JOB  1411 

mythology.  That  hypothesis  is  now  generaHy  re- 
jected —  on  the  one  hand  it  would  fix  a  far  latei 
date «  for  the  composition  than  any  critic  of  the 
least  authority  would  now  assign  to  the  book ;  on 
the  other  it  is  proved  '^  that  Satan  bears  no  resem- 
blance to  Ahriman;  he  acts  only  by  permission 
from  God,  and  differs  from  the  angels  not  in  essence 
but  in  character.  It  is  true  that  Satan  is  not 
named  in  the  Pentateuch,  but  there  is  an  exact 
correspondence  between  the  characteristics  of  the' 
malignant  and  envious  accuser  in  this  book  and 
those  of  the  enemy  of  man  and  God,  which  are 
developed  in  the  history  of  the  Fall.c  The  appella- 
tion of  "  sons  of  God  "  is  peculiar  to  this  book  and 
that  of  Genesis. 

It  is  also  to  be  remarked  that  no  charge  of  idol- 
atry is  brought  against  Job  by  his  opponents  when 
enumerating  all  the  crimes  which  they  can  imagine 
to  account  for  his  calamities.  The  only  allusion 
to  the  subject  (xxxi.  26)  refers  to  the  earliest  form 
of  false  religion  known  in  the  East.'^'  To  an  Israelite, 
living  after  the  introduction  of  heathen  rites,  such 
a  charge  was  the  very  first  which  would  have  sug- 
gested itself,  nor  can  any  one  satisfactory  reason  be 
assigned  for  the  omission. 

2.  Nearly  all  modern  critics,  even  those  who 
admit  the  inspiration  of  the  author,  agree  in  the 
opinion  that  tiie  composition  of  the  whole  work,  the 
highly  systematic  development  of  the  plot,  and  the 
philosophic  tone  of  thought  indicate  a  considerable 
progress  in  mental  cultivation  far  beyond  what  can, 
with  any  show  of  probability,  be  supposed  to  have 
existed  before  the  age  of  Solomon.  We  are  told 
indeed  that  such  topics  as  are  here  introduced  occu- 
pied men's  minds  for  the  first  time  when  schools 
of  philosophy  were  formed  under  the  influence  of 
that  prince.  Such  assertions  are  easily  made,  and 
resting  on  no  tangible  grounds,  they  are  not  easUy 
disproved.  It  should,  however,  be  remarked  that 
the  persons  introduced  in  this  book  belong  to  a 
country  celebrated  for  wisdom  in  the  earliest  times; 
insomuch  that  the  writer  who  speaks  of  those 
schools  considers  that  the  peculiarities  of  the  Soi- 
omonian  writings  were  derived  from  intercourse 
with  its  inhabitants  (Renan,  pp.  xxiii.-xxv.).  The 
book  of  Job  differs  from  those  writings  chiefly  in 
its  greater  earnestness,  vehemence  of  feeling,  vivacity 
of  imagination,  and  free  independent  inquiry  into 
the  principles  of  divine  government;  characteristics 
as  it  would  seem  of  a  primitive  race,  acquainted 
only  with  the  patriarchal  form  of  religion,  rather 
than  of  a  scholastic  age.  There  is  indeed  nothing 
in  the  composition  incompatible  with  the  Mosaic 
age,  admitting  (what  all  rationalistic  critics  whf 
assign  a  later  date  to  this  book  deny)  the  authen- 
ticity and  integrity  of  the  Pentateuch. 

We  should  attach  more  weight  to  the  ai^iment 
derived  from  the  admirable  arrangement  of  the 
entire  book  (Schlottmann,  p.  108),  did  we  not 
remember  how  completely  the  same  course  of 
reasoning  misled  the  acutest  critics  in  the  case  of 
the  Homeric  poems.  There  is  a  kind  of  artifice  in 
style  and  arrangement  of  a  subject  which  is  at  once 
recognized  as  an  infallible  indication  of  a  highly 

thee  and  him."  The  connection  between  this  word 
and  the  name  of  Job  is  perhaps  more  than  an  acci- 
dental coincidence. 

d  The  worship  of  the  moon  was  introduced  into 
Mesopotamia,  probably  in  the  earliest  age,  by  the 
Aryans.      See  Chwolsohn,  Die  Ssabier  I.  p.  318. 


1412 


JOB 


cultivated  op  Jeclinins;  literature.  This,  however, 
differs  essentia%  from  the  liarnionious  and  majestic 
simplicity  of  form,  and  the  natur.tl  development  of 
a  great  thought  which  characterize  the  first  grand 
productions  of  genius  in  every  nation,  and  produce 
80  powerful  an  impression  of  reality  as  well  as  of 
grandeur  in  every  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  book 
of  Job. 

These  considerations  lead  of  course  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  book  must  have  been  written  before 
the  promulgation  of  the  Law,  by  one  speaking  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  thoroughly  conversant  with 
the  traditions  preserved  in  the  family  of  Abraham. 
Whether  the  writer  had  access  to  original  docu- 
ments«  or  not  is  mere  matter  of  conjecture;  but  it 
can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  he  adhered  very  closely 
to  the  accounts,  whether  oral  or  written,  which  he 
received. 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  consider  the  ar- 
guments of  those  who  hold  that  the  writer  lived 
near  the  time  of  the  Captivity  —  that  view  is  now 
all  but  universally  repudiated :  but  one  hypothesis 
which  has  been  lately  brought  forward  (by  Stickel, 
who  is  followed  by  Schlottmann),  and  supported 
by  very  ingenious  arguments,  deserves  a  more  spe- 
cial notice.  It  meets  some  of  the  objections  which 
have  been  here  adduced  to  the  prevalent  opinion  of 
modem  critics,  who  maintain  that  the  writer  must 
have  lived  at  a  period  when  the  Hebrew  language 
and  literature  had  attained  their  full  development; 
while  it  accounts  in  a  satisfactory  manner  for  some 
of  the  most  striking  peculiarities  of  the  book.  That 
supposition  is,  that  Job  may  have  been  vTitten  after 
the  settlement  of  the  Israelites  by  a  dweller  in  the 
south  of  Judaea,  in  a  district  immediately  bordering 
upon  the  Idumean  desert.  The  inhabitants  of  that 
district  were  to  a  considerable  extent  isolated  from 
the  rest  of  the  nation :  their  attendance  at  the  fes- 
tivals and  ordinances  of  the  Tabernacle  and  of  the 
Temple  before  the  time  of  the  later  kings  was  prob- 
ably rare  and  irregular,  if  it  were  not  altogether 
interrupted  during  a  long  period.  In  that  case  it 
would  be  natural  that  the  author,  while  recognizing 
and  enforcing  the  fundamental  principles  of  religion, 
should  be  sparing  in  allusions  to  the  sanctions  or 
observances  of  the  Law.  A  resident  in  that  district 
would  have  peculiar  opportunities  of  collecting  the 
varied  and  extensive  information  which  was  pos- 
sessed by  the  author  of  Job.  It  was  not  far  from 
the  country  of  Eliphaz ;  and  it  is  probable  that  the 
intercourse  with  all  the  races  to  which  the  persons 
named  in  the  book  belonged  was  frequent  during 
the  early  years  of  Israelitish  history.  The  caravans 
of  Tenia  and  Sheba  (Job  vi.  19)  crossed  there  in 
a  route  much  frequented  by  merchants,  and  the 
communications  with  Egypt  were  of  course  regular 
and  uninterrupted.  A  man  of  wealth,  station,  and 
cultivated  mind,  such  aa  we  cannot  doubt  the  au- 
thor must  have  been,  would  either  learn  from  con- 
versation with  merchants  the  peculiarities  to  which 
he  so  frequently  alludes,  or,  as  is  highly  probable, 
he  would  avail  himself  of  the  opportunity  thus 
afforded  of  visiting  that  country,  of  all  the  most 
interesting  to  an  ancient.  The  local  coloring,  so 
strikingly  characteristic  of  this  book,  and  so  evi- 
dently natural,  is  just  what  might  be  expected  from 


a  The  most  skeptical  critics  admit  that  the  Israel- 
ites had  written  documents  in  the  age  of  Moses.  See 
)L  Kenan,  Histoire  des  Langues  Scmitiques,  p.  116. 

»  .e:  e.  3NnD  for  ni^Htt,  vi.  8;  PpDT2  for 


Job 

such  a  writer:  the  families  in  Southern  I'aJettine 
even  at  a  later  age,  lived  very  much  after  the  mso- 
ner  of  the  patriarchs;  and  illustrations  denied 
from  the  free,  wild,  vigorous  life  of  the  desert,  and 
the  customs  of  pastoral  tribes,  would  spontaneously 
suggest  themselves  to  his  mind.  The  people  appear 
also  to  have  been  noted  for  freshness  and  originahty 
of  mind  —  qualities  seen  in  the  woman  of  Tekoah, 
or  still  more  remarkably  in  Amos,  the  poor  and 
unlearned  herdman,  also  of  Tekoah.  It  has  also 
been  remarked  that  Amos  seems  to  have  known 
and  imitated  the  book  of  Job  (comp.  Am.  iv.  13, 
v.  8,  ix.  6,  with  Job  ix.  8,  9,  xxxviii.  31,  xii.  15; 
Schlottmann,  p.  109) :  a  circumstance  scarcely  to 
be  explained,  considering  the  position  and  impw 
feet  education  of  that  prophet,  excepting  on  the 
supposition  that  for  some  reason  or  other  this  book 
was  peculiarly  popular  in  that  district.  Some 
weight  may  also  be  attached  to  the  obsen-ation 
(Stickel,  p.  276;  Schlottmann,  p.  Ill)  that  the 
dialectic  peculiarities  of  Southern  Palestine,  espe- 
cially the  softening  of  the  aspirates  and  exchangee 
of  the  sibilants,  resemble  the  few  divergences  ^  frona 
pure  Hebrew  which  are  noted  in  the  book  of  Job. 

The  controversy  about  the  authorship  cannot 
ever  be  finally  settled.  From  the  introduction  it 
may  certainly  be  inferred  that  the  writer  lived  many 
years  after  the  death  of  Job.  From  the  strongest 
internal  evidence  it  is  also  clear  that  he  must  either 
have  composed  the  work  before  the  Law  was  pro- 
mulgated, or  under  most  peculiar  circumstances 
which  exempted  him  from  its  influence.  The  for- 
mer of  these  two  suppositions  has  nothing  against 
it  excepting  the  arguments,  which  have  been  shown 
to  be  far  from  conclusive,  derived  from  language, 
composition,  and  indications  of  a  high  state  of 
mental  cultivation  and  general  civilization.  It  has 
every  other  argument  in  its  favor,  while  it  is  free 
from  the  great,  and  surely  insuperable,  difficulty 
that  a  devout  Israelite,  deeply  interested  in  all  re- 
ligions spect-lations,  should  ignore  the  doctrines 
and  institutions  which  were  the  peculiar  glory  of 
his  nation:  a  supposition  which,  in  addition  to  ita 
intrinsic  improbability,  is  scarcely  consistent  with 
any  sound  view  of  the  inspiration  of  holy  writ. 

A  complete  list  and  fair  estimate  of  all  the  pre- 
ceding commentators  on  Job  is  given  by  Rosen- 
miiller  (Klencfius  Jnierjyp.  Jobi,  1824).  The  best 
rabbinical  commentators  are  —  Jarchi,  in  the  12th 
century ;  Aben  Ezra,  a  good  Arabic  as  well  as  He- 
brew scholar,  f  A.  i>.  1168;  Levi  Ren  Gershom, 
commonly  known  as  Ralbag,  f  1370;  and  Nach- 
manides  in  the  13th  century.  Saadia,  the  well- 
known  translator  of  the  Pentateuch,  has  written  a 
paraphrase  of  Job,  and  Tanchum  a  good  commen- 
tary, both  in  Arabic  (Ewald,  Vwrede,  p.  xi.)-  The 
early  Fathers  contributed  little  to  the  explanation 
of  the  text;  but  some  good  remarks  on  the  general 
argument  are  found  in  Chrysostom,  Didymus  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  other  Greek  Fathers  quoted  in  the 
Catenae  of  Nicetas,  edited  by  Junius,  I^ndon,  fol., 
1637  —  a  work  chiefly  valuable  with  reference  to 
the  Alexandrian  version.  Ephrem  Syrns  has  scholia, 
chiefly  doctrinal  and  practical,  vol.  ii.,  Romse,  1740. 
The  translation  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  by  Jerotne  it 
of  great  value;  but  the  commentary  ascribed  tc 


rpwdj  Ti.  10 ;  Dt2?in  for  DD"^n,  v.  n ;  pna? 

for  pTl'2\  vii.  16. 


JOB 

ftim  consists  merely  of  excerpts  from  the  work  of 
I'hilip,  one  of  Jerome's  disciples  (see  Tillemont, 
Mem.  Kcc.  xii.  G61):  it  is  of  little  or  no  use  for 
the  interpretation.  The  great  work  of  (Gregory  M. 
is  practical,  spiritual,  or  mystical,  but  has  little 
connection  with  the  literal  meaning,  which  the  au- 
thor does  not  profess  to  explain.  Among  the  long 
list  of  able  and  learned  Komanists  who  have  left 
commentaries  on  the  book,  few  had  any  knowledge 
of  the  Hebrew  language:  from  Caietan,  Zuniga, 
little  can  be  learned;  but  A.  Schultens  speaks  very 
highly  of  Pineda,  whose  commentary  has  passed 
through  many  editions.  Rosenmiiller  says  the 
German  translation  of  Job  by  T.  A.  Dereser  is  one 
of  the  l)est  in  that  language.  The  early  Protes- 
tants, Bucer,  Oecolampadius,  and  Calvin,  contrib- 
uted somewhat  to  the  better  understanding  of  the 
text;  but  by  far  the  best  commentary  of  that  age 
is  that  prepared  by  C.  Bertram,  a  disciple  of  Mer- 
cer, after  the  death  of  his  master,  from  his  MS. 
notes.  This  work  is  well  worth  consulting.  JNIercer 
was  a  sound  Hebrew  scholar  of  Keuchlin's  school, 
»nd  a  man  of  acute  discernment  and  excellent  judg- 
ment. The  great  work  of  Albert  Schultens  on  Job 
(a.  d.  1737)  far  surpasses  all  preceding  and  con- 
temporary expositions,  nor  has  the  writer  as  yet 
been  surpassed  in  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and 
cognate  languages.  He  was  the  first  who  brought 
all  the  resources  of  Arabic  literature  to  bear  upon 
the  interpretation  of  Job.  The  fault  of  his  book 
is  difFuseness,  especially  in  the  statement  of  opin- 
ions long  since  rejected,  and  uninteresting  to  the 
Btudent.  The  best  works  of  the  present  century 
are  those  of  Kosenniiiller,  3  vols.  1824;  and  H. 
fi^wald,  whose  translation  and  commentary  are  re- 
markable for  accurate  learning  and  originality  of 
genius,  but  also  for  contempt  of  all  who  believe  in 
the  inspiration  of  Scripture.  The  Vorrede  is  most 
painful  in  tone.  The  commentaries  of  Umbreit, 
Vaihinger,  Lange,  Stickel,  Halm,  Hirzel,  De  Wette, 
Knobel,  and  Vatke  are  generaUy  characterized  by 
diligence  and  ingenuity:  but  have  for  the  most 
part  a  strong  rationalistic  tendency,  especially  the 
three  last.  The  most  useful  analysis  is  to  be  found 
in  the  introduction  to  K.  Schlottmann's  transla- 
tion, Berlin,  1851 ;  but  his  commentary  is  deficient 
in  philological  research.  M.  Kenan  has  lately  given 
an  excellent  translation  in  French  {Le  Livre  de 
Job,  Paris,  1859),  with  an  introduction,  which, 
notwithstanding  its  thoroughly  skeptical  character, 
shows  a  genial  appreciation  of  some  characteristic 
excellences  of  this  book.  In  England  we  have  a 
great  number  of  translations,  commentaries,  etc., 
of  various  merit:  among  which  the  highest  rank 
must  be  assigned  to  the  work  of  Dr.  Lee,  espe- 
cially valuable  for  its  copious  illustrations  from 
oriental  sources.  F.  C.  C. 

*  The  personal  character  of  Job,  and  his  senti- 
ments and  conduct  under  his  afflictions,  are  to  be 
learned  from  the  statements  respecting  them  in  the 
•ntroductory  and  concluding  chapters.  These  are 
k)  be  taken  as  the  complete  exposition  of  his  char- 
acter and  conduct.  The  whole  is  summed  up  in 
his  memorable  words  (ch.  i.  21),  "The  I^rd  gave, 
*nd  the  Lord  hath  taken  away;  blessed  be  the 
lame  of  the  I>ord." 

The  poetical  portion,  intervening  between  the 
mtroductory  and  concluding  chapters,  is  th3  in- 
spired writer's  own  discussion  of  the  topics  therein 
considered,  under  the  names  of  Job  and  his  friends. 
flis  immediate  ol)ject,  in  this  instructive  discussion, 
«  to  exhibit,  in  strongest  contrast,  the  antagonistic 


JOB 


1413 


views  suggested  by  observation  of  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God,  in  order  to  deduce  from  them  the 
only  practical  lessons  which  that  observation  can 
teach,  or  is  capable  of  comprehending.  Hence  he 
gives  to  these  conflicting  views  the  freest  scope  and 
the  most  impassioned  expression,  so  as  to  exhibit 
their  antagonisms  in  the  strongest  light.  To  im- 
pute to  Job,  personally,  sentiments  which  the  writer 
himself  desired  to  express  through  one  of  the  par- 
ties in  the  discussion,  would  be  no  less  absurd,  than 
it  would  be  to  regard  the  sublime  poetry  of  this 
book  as  the  verbatim  report  of  an  actual  debate. 

But  what  is  the  object  of  the  book,  and  what 
are  the  lessons  which  it  teaches?  To  say  (as 
above,  p.  1400,  col.  1 )  that  the  problem  is,  "  Can 
goodness  exist  irrespective  of  reward,"  is  to  ignore 
the  greater  part  of  the  discussion ;  for  it  takes  a 
far  wider  range  than  this.  It  is  justly  said  (on  p. 
1403,  col.  2)  that  the  object  of  the  calamities  in- 
flicted on  Job  was  "to  try  his  sincerity;"  but 
this  throws  no  light  on  the  object  of  the  book  and 
its  discussions,  to  which  the  sufferings  of  Job  only 
furnished  the  occasion. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  (as  on  p.  1404,  col.  1)  that 
the  object  is,  "  to  show  the  eflfects  of  calamity, 
in  its  worst  and  most  awful  form,  upon  a  truly 
religious  spirit."  If  this  were  the  object,  it  was 
already  attained  in  the  record  of  Job's  conduct 
given  in  the  two  introductory  chapters.  It  is  seen 
in  his  tender  and  faithful  expostulation  with  his 
erring  wife  (ch.  ii.  10),  "shall  we  receive  good  at 
the  hand  of  God,  and  shall  we  not  receive  evil?  " 
It  is  expressed  in  his  grateful  and  submissive  recog- 
nition of  God's  hand,  in  what  he  gives  and  what 
he  withholds  (ch.  i.  21),  "  The  I^ord  gave,  and  the 
Lord  hath  taken  away ;  blessed  l)e  the  name  of  the 
Lord."  Here  is  seen  "the  effect  of  calamity  on  a 
truly  religious  spirit;  "  and  in  all  ages  of  the  church 
it  has  been  justly  regarded  as  the  highest  and  fullest 
attainment  of  the  religious  life.  (Compare  James 
V.  11.)  This,  moreover,  is  the  historical  record  of 
Job's  calamities,  and  of  their  effect  on  him.  The 
poetical  discussion,  which  follows,  is  of  quite  ao 
other  character,  and  has  a  very  different  object. 

The  discussion,  on  the  part  of  the  human  dispu- 
tants, covers  all  which  observation  can  attain,  re- 
specting the  moral  government  of  God,  and  (includ- 
ing the  discourses  of  Elihu)  the  uses  of  adversity. 
But  all  fails  to  solve  the  great  problem  of  the 
divine  government,  in  view  of  the  apparently  in- 
discriminate distribution  of  happiness  and  misery 
to  the  good  and  evil  among  men.  Many  facts  of 
human  life  are  correctly  stated,  as  all  experience 
proves,  and  much  also  that  is  false;  many  princi- 
ples are  avowed,  that  are  true  and  just  and  salu- 
tary, as  well  as  many  that  are  false  and  injurious. 
The  whole  discussion  is  instructive,  as  exhibiting 
the  various  aspects  under  which  the  divine  govern- 
ment may  be  viewed;  and  especially  as  showing 
the  conflicts  which  may  agitate  the  breast  even  of 
the  good  man,  in  view  of  the  strange  and  unex- 
plained distribution  of  good  and  evil  in  this  life. 
It  is  no  solution  of  the  problem,  that  this  hfe  is 
fragmentary;  that  all  will  be  rightly  adjusted  in 
another  state  of  existence.  For  if  it  will  be  just 
to  make  the  distinction  there  between  right  and 
wrong,  whv  is  it  not  made  here?  « 


a  *  A  ve-y  interesting  and  instructive  diacussion  of 
this  problem  in  one  of  its  aspects,  as  it  presented  it- 
self to  th«5  uiind  of  an  intelligent  and  reflecting  hea- 
then, is  given  in  Plutarch's  trea*^ise  '  On  the  Delay  ol 


1414  JOB 

By  a  skillftj  manoeuvre,  another  disputant  is  now 
Introduced.  An  important,  though  a  subordinate, 
view  of  the  subject  still  remained,  which  could  not 
be  considered  in  connection  with  the  topics  of  the 
preceding  discussion.  To  have  presented  it  in  the 
person  of  one  equal  or  superior  in  age  to  those  who 
had  already  spoken,  would  have  given  to  him  the 
appearance  of  an  umpire,  and  to  his  views  an  im- 
portance not  at  all  deserved ;  for  they  do  not  pene- 
trate to  the  heart  of  the  subject,  and  only  ofter  cer- 
tain practical  suggestions,  which  might  occur  to  a 
superficial  observer,  but  are  worthy  to  be  taken  into 
account.  In  the  final  arbitrament,  they  are  passed 
over  in  silence,  as  something  aside  from  the  main 
issue.  It  is  to  a  young  man,  therefore,  that  this 
part  is  fitly  assigned ;  and  with  admirable  skill  he 
is  made  to  speak  in  character,  both  in  the  views 
ascribed  to  him.  and  in  the  manner  of  expressing 
them. 

According  to  this  speaker,  the  divine  judgments 
are  corrective  in  their  design ;  the  chastisement  of 
a  wise  and  tender  parent,  seeking  to  reclaim  a  way- 
ward child.  Such  chastisement  is  an  index,  there- 
fore, of  the  moral  state  of  its  subject.  It  must  be 
graduated,  consequently,  to  the  necessities  of  the 
case,  and  its  severity  is  an  exact  measure  of  the 
moral  desert  of  the  recipient.  The  view  neces- 
sarily assumes,  that  a  great  sufferer  must  have 
been  a  great  sinner;  and  consequently  that  Job, 
contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  his  outward  life,  and 
to  the  express  testimony  of  the  Searcher  of  the 
heart,  must  have  been  secretly  as  eminent  in  sin  as 
he  was  now  in  suffering. 

Human  wisdom  is  thus  shown  to  be  utterly  at 
feult,  in  its  efforts  to  comprehend  the  mystery  of 
God's  government  on  earth.  Is  there,  then,  no 
help  ?  Is  there  no  rest  for  the  human  spirit,  no 
stable  ground  of  trust  and  confiding  submission, 
where  it  may  find  secure  repose  V 

The  sacred  writer  now  breaks  off  the  discussion, 
which  has  reached  no  satisfactory  result,  by  the 
sudden  manifestation  of  the  Deity  in  the  terrors  of 
the  storm.  As  the  office  had  been  assigned  to  Job 
of  refuting  the  false  assumptions  of  the  three  friends, 
and  of  boldly  questioning  the  rectitude  of  the  di- 
vine government,  the  answer  of  God  is  addressed 
directly  to  him.  This  answer  demands  special 
attention,  as  the  key  to  the  design  and  instructions 
of  the  book.  That  it  is  so,  is  clear ;  for  why  should 
the  Deity  be  introduced  at  all,  except  as  the  su- 
preme Arbiter,  to  whom  the  final  decision  is 
assigned?  The  introduction  of  the  Almighty, 
the  supreme  Judge  of  all,  for  any  less  purpose, 
would  have  been  a  gross  violation  of  every  rule  of 
propriety  in  composition,  and  one  with  which  the 
author  of  a  work  so  perfect  in  design  and  execu- 
tion should  not  be  charged." 

These  sublime  discourses  are  justly  regarded  as 
the  most  fitting  reply,  on  the  part  of  the  Supieme 
Kuler  and  Judge,  to  the  presumptuous  charges 
against  his  moral  government.  They  do  not  con- 
descend to  vindicate  his  ways,  or  attempt  to  make 
them  intelhgible  to  finite  comprehension.  But  they 
"urnish  overwhelming  proofs,  from  the  vast  system 


•he  Deity  in  punishing  the  wicked  ;  "  the  Greek  text, 
<rith  notes,  by  Profs,  llackett  and  Tyler,  1867. 

T.  J.  C. 

a  *  It  is  one  of  the  strange  incongruities  of  Heng- 

itenberg's  theory  of  the  design  and  teachings  of  the 

Xtok,  that  the  Almighty  is  made  to  appear,  simply  for 

ite  purpose  of  indorsing  the  opinions  of  the  youthful 


JOB 

oi  Nature  and  Providence,  of  infinite  power,  wi»- 
Jom,  and  goodness;  and  in  these  the  grounds  foi 
the  firm  belief,  that  He  governs  aright  the  worldi 
which  he  has  made,  and  that  for  those  who  confid« 
in  him  it  is  safe  to  trust  him. 

From  this  brief  analysis,  the  subject  of  the  book 
appears  to  be.  The  Mystkky  of  God's  Prov 

IDENTIAL   GOVEUNMENT    OVER    MeN.        In    the 

treatment  of  it,  the  sacred  writer  shows  first,  the 
difficulties  which  it  presents  to  the  finite  mind, 
and  the  confiicting  views  and  false  conclusions  of 
the  human  spirit,  in  its  attempts  to  reconcile  them ; 
and  secondly,  the  tn:e  position  of  man,  in  refef- 
ence  to  the  Eternal  and  Infinite. 

I'he  important  lessons  of  the  book  are  expressed 
in  the  following  propsitions :  ^  — 

1.  The  apparently  arbitrary  distriljution  of  the 
good  and  evil  of  this  life  is  not  the  result  of  chauoe 
or  caprice.  God,  the  Creator  and  Judge  of  all, 
presides  over  and  controls  the  affairs  of  earth.  His 
providential  care  extends  to  all  his  creatures.  He 
has  the  power  to  restrain  or  chastise  wrong,  and 
avenge  suffering  innocence;  and  this  power  he  uses, 
when  and  how  he  will. 

2.  The  government  of  the  world  belongs,  of 
right,  to  Him  who  created  it;  whose  infinite  justice 
can  do  no  wrong :  whose  perfect  wisdom  and  love 
devise  only  what  is  best;  whose  omniscience  can- 
not err  in  the  choice  of  means ;  who  is  infinite  in 
power,  and  does  all  his  pleasure. 

3.  To  know  this  is  enough  for  man;  and  more 
than  this  he  cannot  know.  God  can  impart  to 
him  no  more;  since  omniscience  alone  can  com- 
prehend the  purposes  and  plans  of  the  Infinite. 

4.  Man's  true  position  is  implicit  trust  in  the 
infinitely  Wise,  Just,  and  Good,  and  submission 
to  his  will.  Here  alone  the  finite  comes  into  har- 
mony with  the  Infinite,  and  finds  true  peace;  for 
if  it  refuses  to  trust,  until  it  can  comprehend,  it 
must  be  in  eternal  discord  with  God  and  with 
itself. 

Such  are  the  grand  and  imposing  teachings  of 
this  book.  They  have  never  been  set  aside  or 
superseded.  The  ages  have  not  advanced  a  step 
beyond  them ;  nor  is  the  obligation  or  the  neces- 
sity less  now  than  then,  of  this  implicit  trust  of 
the  finite  in  the  Infinite.*' 

Alany  objections  have  been  raised  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  discourses  of  Ehhu  (chs.  xxxii.- 
xxxvii.).  I'hey  are  of  little  weight,  however,  ex- 
cept those  drawn  from  certain  peculiarities  of  lan- 
guage, namely,  in  wwcls,  in  J'wms  and  significa- 
tions of  words,  and  in  constructions  and  phi'ases. 

A  careful  examination  shows  that  these  alleged 
peculiarities  are  less  immerous  than  has  been  sup- 
posed. But  few  of  them  are  really  characteristic 
of  EUhu's  manner;  and  these  may  justly  be  re- 
garded as  intentional  on  the  part  of  the  author, 
who  distinguishes  each  of  the  speakers  by  peculiar 
modes  of  thought  and  expression.  The  writer  has 
given  (Book  of  Job,  Part  First,  Introduction,  pp. 
viii.-x.)  a  list  of  all  these  alleged  peculiarities,  with 
the  reasons  for  their  use  in  the  connection  in  which 


Elihu,  having  himself  nothing  to  say  that  has  any 
bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  discussion.      T,  J.  C. 

h  *  From  the  writer's  work  on  the  Book  of  Job,. 
Part  Second,  §  4  of  the  Introduction.  T.  J.  C. 

c  *  The  theories  of  Ewald  and  Ilengatenberg,  oi 
the  design  and  teachings  of  this  book,  t%ie  fully  c<h» 
sidered  in  the  wri  er's  work  on  the  I'.ook  of  Job,  Pm» 
First,  §  2  of  the  Introduction.  T.  J.  0. 


JOB 

Jiey  are  found  ;  showing  that  they  furnish  no 
evideuce  against  the  genuineness  of  these  dis- 
courses. 

Literature.  —  Boullier,  Observati.  miscel.  in  libr. 
Job,  1758.  Vogel,  Schultensii  com.  in  libr.  Jobi  in 
camp,  redact.,  1773.  Hufnagel,  IJiob  neu  iibers. 
mit  Anmerkunijen,  1781.  Henke,  Narratio  crit. 
de  interp.  loci  Job  xix.  25-27,  1783.  Greve,  Ult. 
capp.  libr.  Jobi  ad  Gr.  verss.  recens.,  1788.  Staud- 
liu,  Ueber  die  Philos.,  Zweck,  u.  Urspr.  d.  B. 
ffiob  {Beitrdge  zur  Philos.  Bd.  ii.  1797).  Kreys- 
«ig,  Observati.  phil.  crit.  in  Jobi  xxxix.  19-25, 
1802.  Stuhlmann,  Hiob,  ein  religioses  Gedicht, 
1804.  Gaab,  Das  Buck  Hiob,  1809.  Good,  The 
Book  of  Job,  lit.  tram,  from  the  Heb.,  with  Notes 
and  a  Diss.,  1812.  Bernstein,  Ueber  Alter,  In- 
halt,  Zioeck,  u.  yegenw,  Gestalt  d.  B.  Hiob  (Keil 
u.  Tzsch.  Anal.),  1813.  Kosegarten,  Com.  exeget. 
crit.  in  Jobi  xix.  25-27,  1815.  Middeldorpf,  Curoe 
Hexapl.  in  Joimm,  1817.  Bridel,  Le  livre  de  Job 
nouv.  trad.,  1818.  Scharer,  Bas  Buch  Hiob  metr. 
iibers.,  1818.  Melsheimer,  Das  Buch  Blob  metr. 
iibers.,  1823.  Blumenfeld,  Das  Buch  Hiob  mit 
deutsch.  Uebers.,  1826.  Kern,  Observatt.  ad  libr. 
Job,  1826.  Bockel,  Das  Buch  Hiob  iibers.  u.  fur 
gebild.  Leser  erkl.,  1830.  Lange,  Das  Buch  Hiob 
neu  iibers.,  1831.  Koster,  Das  Buch  Hiob,  nebst 
Abhandl.  iiber  den  Strophbau,  1831.  Umbreit, 
Das  Buch  Hiob,  2te  Aufl.  1832.  Stickel,  in  Jobi 
loc.  xix.  25-27  de  Goele  comment.,  1832.  Sachs, 
eur  Charakt.  u.  Erldut.  d.  B.  Hiob  ( Theol.  Stud. 
u.  Krit.  1834).  Knobel,  De  carm.  Jobi  arg.  fne, 
ac  disposit.,  1835.  Middeldorpf,  Codex  Syr.  Hex- 
apl. (in  Jobum,  etc.),  1835.  Fockens,  Comment. 
deJobeide,  1836.  Arnheim,  Das  Buch  Hiob  iibers. 
u.  voUst.  commentirt,  1836.  Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Lib.  de  Jobo  arg.  descr.  (Opusc.  Theol.,  1836). 
Lee,  T/ie  B(X}k  of  the  Patriarch  Job,  1837. 
Noyes,  G.  K.,  A  New  Trans,  of  the  Book  of  Job, 
with  Introd.  and  Notes,  3d  ed.,  Boston,  1867. 
Hirzel,  Hiob  erkldrt  {Exeget.  Handb.,  1839);  2'^ 
Aufl.  durchges.  von  J.  Olshausen,  1852.  Wemyss, 
Job  and  His  Times,  1839.  iiolscher,  Das  Buch 
Hiob,  1839.  Holzhausen,  Uebersetz.  d.  B.  Hiob, 
1839.  Laurens,  Job  et  les  Pseaumes,  trad,  nouv., 
1839.  Justi,  Hiob  neu  iibers.  u.  erkl.,  1840. 
Steudel,  Ueber  InhnU  u.  Zusnmmenh.  d.  B.  Hiob 
{Vorless.  iib.  Theol.  d.  A.  T.,  1840).  Vaihinger, 
Das  Buch  Hiob  metr.  iibers.  u.  erkl.,  1842;  Ueber 
die  ZeitaUer  d.  B.  Hiob  {Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
1846).  Stickel,  Hiob  rhythm,  geglied.  u.  iibers., 
1842.  Knobel,  Bemerkk.  iib.  Ste'Uen  d.  B.  Hiob 
(Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1842).  Gleiss,  Btitrage 
zur  krit.  d.  B.  Hiob,  1845.  Heiligstedt,  Com. 
gram.  hist.  crit.  in  Jobum,  1847.  Welte,  Das 
Buch  Hiob  iibers.  u.  erkl.,  1849.  Hahn,  Com.  iiber 
das  Buch  Hiob,  1850.  Sclilottraaim,  Das  Buch 
Hiob  verdeutscht  u.  erkldrt,  1851.  Hupfeld,  Q'«es/. 
in  Jobeidos  loc.  vexatos,  1853.  Kosegarten,  Ueber 
ias  Buck  Hiob  (Kieler  Monatschr.  fiir  Wiss.  u. 
At.  1853).  Weber,  Die  poet.  Biich.  d.  A.  T., 
1853.  Froude,  The  Book  of  Job,  Westminster 
Rev.  1853  {Short  Studies  on  Great  Subjects,  1868). 
Barnes  (Albert),  Notes  on  the  Book  of  Job.  with  a 
^ew  TransL,  2d  ed.,  New  York,  1854.  Ewald, 
Das  Buch  /job  iibers.  u.  erkl.,  2'e  Aufl.  1854. 
Hengstenberg,  art.  Job,  in  Kitto's  Cyclop. ;  Ueber 
dot  Buch  Hiob,  ein  Vortrag,  1856.  Conant,  T.  J., 
B(X)k  of  Job  ;  Part  First,  Trans,  with  CHt.  and 
^hil.  Notes ;  Part  Second,  Trans,  with  p^scpl. 
Notes ;  New  York,  1856.  Bauer  (Gustav),  Das 
Buck  Hiob  u.  Dante's  Gatil.  Komodie  { Theol.  Stud. 


JOCHEBED 


1415 


u.  Krit.  1856).  Krahmer,  Das  Buch  Hiob  u.  (les- 
sen neueste  Erkldrer  { Theol.  Literaturbi,  1856). 
Carey,  The  Book  of  Job  Trans,  and  ExpL,  1858. 
Renan,  Le  liwe  de  Job,  1859.  Crelier  (Abb(5),  Le 
liv7-e  de  Job  venge  des  interpr.  fausses  et  impies  de 
M.  Renan,  1860.  Davidson,  A.  B.,  Com.  on  the 
Book  of  Job,  with  a  Trans.,  1862.  Delitzsch, 
Das  Bu^h  Job,  1864 ;  art.  Hiob  in  Herzog's  Beal- 
Encykhp.,  1865.  Matthes,  J.  C,  Het  boek  Job 
vertaald  en  verklaard,  2d\n.,  Utrecht,  1866.  Da» 
Buch  Hiob  (in  Lange's  Bibelwerk,  in  press,  1868) 

T.  J.  C. 

JCBAB.  1.  (2rih*'  [howling,  and  then  place 
oi=  desert]  :  [in  Gen.,]  'Iwj8a)8;  [in  1  Chr.,  Rom. 
Vat.  omit,  Alex.  Cipajx'-,  Comp.  Aid.  'iwa'jS:]  Jo- 
bab.)  The  last  in  order  of  the  sons  of  Joktan 
(Gen.  X.  29;  1  Chr.  i.  23).  His  name  has  not 
been  discovered  among  the  Arab  names  of  places 
in  Southern  Arabia,  where  he  ought  to  be  found 
with  the  other  sons  of  Joktan.  But  Ptolemy  men- 
tions the  'IwjSaptTai  near  the  Sachalitae;  and  Bo- 
chart  {Phaleg,  ii.  21),  followed  by  Salmasius  and 
Gesenius,  suggests  the  reading  ^  Ico fia^irai,  by  the 
common  interchange  of  p  and  /3.  The  identifica- 
tion is  perhaps  correct,  but  it  bas  not  been  con- 
nected with  an  Arab  name  of  a  tribe  or  place ;  and 

Bochart's  conjecture  of  its  being  i.  q.  Arab.  »^_j1.aJ 

"a  desert,"  etc.,  from  v,„aJ,  though  regarded  as 
probable  by  Gesenius  and  !Michaelis,  seems  to  be 
unworthy  of  acceptance.  Kalisch  {Com.  on  Gen.) 
says  that  it  is,  "  according  to  the  etymology,  a  dis- 
trict in  Arabia  Deserta,'''  in  apparent  ignorance 
of  the  famous  desert  near  Hadramawt,  called  the 
Ahkaf,  of  proverbial  terror;  and  the  more  exten- 
sive waste  on  the  northeast  of  the  former,  called 
the  "deserted  quarter,"  Er-Kuba  el-Khalee,  which 
is  impassable  in  the  summer,  and  fitter  to  be  called 
desert  Arabia  than  the  country  named  deserta  by 
the  Greeks. 

2.  [Alex,  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  33,  !c«>)3a5;  Vat.  in  1 
Chr.,  Iaja/8a)3.]  One  of  the  "  kings  "  of  Edora 
(Gen.  xxxvi.  33,  34;  1  Chr.  i.  44,  45),  enumerated 
after  the  genealogy  of  Esau,  and  Seir,  and  before 
the  phylarchs  descended  from  Esau.  [Edom.] 
He  was  "  son  of  Zerah  of  Bozrah,"  and  successor 
of  Bela,  the  first  king  on  the  list.  It  is  this  .lobab 
whom  the  LXX.,  quoting  the  Syriac,  identify  with 
Job,  his  father  being  Zerah  son  of  Esau,  and  his 
mother,  Boa-dppa..  E.  S.  P. 

3.  ['loj^ajS.]  King  of  Madon;  one  of  the 
northern  chieftains  who  attempted  to  oppose 
Joshua's  conquest,  and  were  routed  by  him  at 
Meron  (Josh.  xi.  1,  only). 

4.  ('Io\ci)8;  [Vat.  Comp.  Aid.]  Alex.  'Ia>/8(£)3.) 
Head  of  a  Benjamite  house  (1  Chr.  viii.  9). 
[Jeuz.]  a.  C.  H. 

JOCH'EBED  (15P'V  {whose  glm-y  is  Jeho- 
vah]: 'Iwx"/3e5;  [Alex,  in  Num.,  \(axa.^^Q'-\ 
Jochabed),  the  wife  and  at  the  same  time  the  aunt 
of  Amram,  and  the  mother  of  Moses  and  Aaron 
(Ex.  vi.  20).  In  order  to  avoid  the  apparent  ille- 
gality of  the  marriage  between  Amram  and  hia 
aunt,  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.  render  the  word  dodah 
"  cousin  "  instead  of  "  aunt."  But  this  is  unne- 
cessary: the  example  of  Abraham  himself  (Gen. 
XX.  12)  proves  that  in  the  pre-Mosaic  age  a  gres»ter 
latitude  was  permitted  in  regard  to  marriage  than 
in  a  later  age.  Moreover  it  is  expressly  stated  else- 
where (Ex.  ii.  1;  Num.  xxvi.  59),  that  .'oc'nelted 


1416  JODA 

was  the  daughter  of  Levi,  and  consequently  sister 
of  Kohath,  Amram's  father.  W.  L.  B. 

JO'DA  Cla>5a;  [Vat.  lou5a:  Vulg.  omits] )  = 
Judah  the  Levite,  in  a  pa-ssage  which  is  difficult  to 
unravel  (1  Esdr.  v.  58:  see  Ezr.  iii.  9).  Some 
words  are  probably  on)itted.  The  name  elsewhere 
appears  in  the  A.  V.  in  the  forms  Hodaviah  (Ezr. 
ii.  40),  Hodevah  (Neh.  vii.  43),  Hodijah  (Neh.  x. 
10),  and  Sudias  (1  Esdr.  v.  26). 

JO'ED  ("T^V  [Jehovah  is  tvitness]:  'IwdS' 
Joed ),  a  Benjamite,  the  son  of  Pedaiah  (Neh.  xi. 
7).  Two  of  Kennicott's  MSS.  read  Hf^V,  i.  e. 
Joezer,  and  two  vSV,  i.  e.  Joel,  confounding  Joed 
with  Joel  the  son  of  Pedaiah,  the  Manassite.  The 
Syriac  must  have  had  ^"TV. 

JOTEL  PSV  [Jehovah  is  God;  or  whose  God 
is  Jehovah,  Ges.] :  'Iiw^a:  Joel,  and  Johel).  1. 
Eldest  son  of  Samuel  the  prophet  (1  Sam.  viii.  2; 
1  Chr.  vi.  33,  xv.  17),  and  father  of  Heman  the 
singer.  He  and  his  brother  Abiah  were  made 
judges  in  Beer-sheba  when  their  father  was  old, 
and  no  longer  able  to  go  his  accustomed  circuit. 
But  they  disgraced  both  their  office  and  their 
parentage  by  the  corrupt  way  in  which  they  took 
bribes  and  perverted  judgment.  Their  grievous 
misconduct  gave  occasion  to  the  change  of  the  con- 
stitution of  Israel  to  a  monarchy.  It  is  in  the  case 
of  Joel  that  the  singular  corruption  of  the  text  of 
1  Chr.  vi.  13  (28  A.  V.)  has  taken  place.  Joel's 
name  has  dropped  out;  and  Vashni,  which  means 
"and  the  second,"  and  is  descriptive  of  Abijah, 
has  been  taken  for  a  proper  name. 

2.  [Johel.']  In  1  Chr.  vi.  36,  A.  V.,  Joel  seems 
to  be  merely  a  corruption  of  Shaul  at  ver.  24. 

A.  C.  H. 
3..  One  of  the  twelve  minor  prophets ;  the  son 
of  Pethuel,  or,  according  to  the  LXX.,  Bethuel. 
Beyond  this  fact  all  is  conjecture  as  to  the  personal 
history  of  Joel      Pseudo-Epiphanius  (ii.  245)  re- 
cords a  tradition  that  he  was  of  the  tribe  of  Reuben, 
bom  and  buried  at  Beth-horon,  between  Jerusalem 
and  Caesarea.     It  is  most  likely  that  he  lived  in 
Judaea,  for  his  commission  was  to  Judah,  as  that 
of  Hosea  had  been  to  the  ten  tribes  (St.  Jerome, 
Comraent.  in  Joel).     He  exliorts  the  priests,  and 
makes  freiiuent  mention  of  Judah  and  Jerus;ilem. 
It  has  been   made  a  question  whether  he  were  a 
priest  himself  (Winer,  Realw.),  but  there  do  not 
seem  to  l)e  sufficient  grounds  for  determining  it  in 
the  affirmative,  though  some  recent  writers  (e,  g. 
Maurice,  Prophets  and  Kinr/s,  p.  179)  have  taken 
this  view.     Many  different  opinions  have  been  ex- 
pressed about  the  date  of  Joel's  propliecy.    Credner 
has  placed  it  in  the  reign   of  Joash,  IBertholdt  of 
Hezekiah,   Kinichi,  Jahn,  etc.   of  Manasseh,  and 
Calmet  of  Josiah.      The    LXX.   place   Joel  after 
Amos  and  Micah.     But  there  seems  no  adequate 
reason  for  departing  from  the  Hebrew  order.     The 
majority  of  critics  and  commentators  (Abarbanel, 
Vitringa,  Hengstenberg,  Winer,  etc.)  fix  upon  the 
reign  of  Uzziali,  thus  inaking  Joel  nearly  contem- 
porary  with    Hosea    and    Amos.      The   principal 
^easons  for  this  conclusion,  besides  the  order  of  the 
tx>uks,  are  the  s|>eoial  and  exclusive  mention  of  the 
Egyptians  and    Edomites  as  enemies  of  Judah,  no 
illusion   being  made  to  the  Assyrians  or   Baby- 
lonians, mLj  arose  at  a  later  period.    Nothing,  says 
Hengstenberg,  luvs  yet  been  found  to  overthrow  this 


JOEL 

conclujion,  and  it  iB  confirmed  on  other  groimda 
especially  — 

The  nature,  style,  and  contents  of  the  prophecy 
—  We  find,  what  we  should  expect  on  the  supposi- 
tion of  Joel  being  the  first  prophet  to  Judah,  onlj 
a  grand  outline  of  the  whole  terrible  scene,  which 
was  to  be  depicted  more  and  more  in  detail  by  sub- 
sequent prophets  (Browne,  Ordo  Seed.  p.  691). 
The  scoi^e,  therefore,  is  not  any  particular  invasion, 
but  tlie  whole  day  of  the  Ix>rd.  "  This  book  of 
Joel  is  a  type  of  the  early  Jewish  prophetical  dis- 
course, and  may  explain  to  us  what  distant  eventa 
ill  the  history  of  the  land  would  expand  it,  and 
bring  fresli  discoveries  within  the  sphere  of  tb« 
inspired  man's  vision "  (Maurice,  Prophets  <ind 
King?,  p.  179). 

The  proximate  event  to  which  the  prophecy  re- 
lated was  a  public  calamity,  then  impending  on 
Judaea,  of  a  twofold  character:  want  of  water,  and 
a  plague  of  locusts,  continuing  for  several  years. 
The  prophet  exliorts  the  people  to  turn  to  God  with 
penitence,  fastijig,  and  prayer,  and  then  (he  says) 
the  plague  shall  cease,  and  the  rain  descend  in  its 
season,  and  the  land  yield  her  accustomed  fruit. 
Nay,  the  time  will  be  a  most  joyful  one;  for  God, 
by  the  outpouring  of  his  spirit,  wiU  impart  to  hia 
worshippers  increased  knowledge  of  Himself,  and 
after  the  excision  of  the  enemies  of  his  people,  will 
extend  througli  tliem  the  blessings  of  true  religion 
to  heatlien  lands.  This  is  the  simple  argument  of 
the  book;  only  that  it  is  beautified  and  enriched 
with  variety  of  ornament  and  pictorial  description. 
The  style  of  tlie  original  is  perspicuous  (except 
towards  the  end)  and  elegant,  surpassing  that  of 
all  otlier  prophets,  except  Isaiah  and  Habakkuk,  in 
sublimity. 

Browne  {Ordo  Seed.  p.  692)  regards  the  con- 
tents of  the  prophecy  as  embracing  two  visions,  but 
it  is  bette"  to  consider  it  as  one  connected  repre- 
sentation (Hengst.,  Winer).  For  its  interpretation 
we  must  observe  not  isolated  facts  of  history,  but 
the  idea.  The  swarm  of  locusts  was  the  medium 
through  which  this  idea,  "  the  ruin  upon  the 
apostate  church,"  was  represented  to  the  inward 
contemplation  of  the  prophet.  But,  in  one  un- 
broken connection,  the  idea  goes  on  to  penitence, 
return,  blessing,  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  judg- 
ments on  the  enemies  of  the  Church  (1  Pet.  iv.  17), 
final  establishment  of  God's  kingdom.  All  prior 
destructions,  judgments,  and  victories  are  like  the 
smaller  circles;  the  final  consummation  of  all  things, 
to  which  the  prophecy  reaches,  being  the  outmost 
one  of  all. 

The  locusts  of  ch.  ii.  were  regarded  by  many 
interpreters  of  the  last  century  (Lowth,  Shaw,  etc.) 
as  figurative,  and  introduced  by  way  of  comparison 
to  a  hostile  army  of  men  from  the  north  country. 
This  view  is  now  generally  abandoned.  Ix)custa 
are  spoken  of  in  Dent,  xxviii.  38  as  instrunients  of 
Divine  vengeance:  and  the  same  seems  implied  in 
.loel  ii.  11,  25.  Maurice  {Prophets  and  Kings,  p. 
180)  strongly  maintains  the  literal  interpretation. 
And  yet  the  plague  contained  a  parable  in  it,  which 
it  was  the  prophet's  mission  to  unfold.  The  four 
kinds  or  swarms  of  locusts  (i.  4)  have  been  sup- 
posed to  indicate  four  Assyrian  invasions  (Titcomb, 
Bible  Studies),  or  four  crises  to  the  chosen  people 
of  God,  the  Babylonian,  Syro-Macedonian,  Boman, 
and  Antichristian  (Browne).  In  accordance  witi 
the  literal  (and  certainly  the  primary)  interi)retatioa 

of  the  prophecy,  we  should  render  HTJlItr'  H^ 


JOEL 

19  in  our  A.  V.,  '  the  forme.-  rain,"  v/ith  Rosenm. 
iikI  the  lexicogi-aphers,  rather  than  "  a  (or  the) 
teacher  of  riuhteousness  "  with  niai-g.  of  A.  V., 
Ileugst.,  and  others.  The  allusion  to  the  Messiah, 
which  Hengst.  finds  in  this  word,  or  to  the  ideal 
teacher  (l)eut.  xviii.  18),  of  whom  Messiah  was  the 
chief,  scarcely  accords  with  the  immediate  context. 

The  ^S^'^nW  of  ch.  iii.  I  in  the  Hebrew, 
"  afterwards"  ch.  ii.  28  of  the  A.  V.,  raises  us  to 
a  higher  level  of  vision,  and  brings  into  view  Mes- 
sianic times  and  scenes.  Here,  says  Steudel,  we 
have  a  Messianic  prophecy  altogether.  If  this  pre- 
diction has  ever  yet  been  fulfilled,  we  must  certainly 
refer  the  event  to  Acts  ii.  The  best  commentators 
are  agreed  upon  this.  We  must  not,  however, 
interpret  it  thus  to  the  exclusion  of  all  reference  to 
preparatory  events  under  the  earlier  dispensation, 
and  still  less  to  the  exclusion  of  later  Messianic 
times.  Acts  ii.  virtually  contained  the  whole  sub- 
sequent development.  The  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  the  awapx'^,  ^hile  the 
full  accomplishment  and  the  final  reality  are  yet  to 
come.  But  here  both  are  blended  in  one,  and  the 
whole  passage  has  therefore  a  double  aspect.  The 
passage  is  well  quoted  by  St.  Peter  from  the  first 
prophet  to  the  Jewish  kingdom.  And  his  quoting 
it  shows  that  the  Messianic  reference  was  the  pre- 
vailing one  in  his  day;  though  Acts  ii.  39  proves 
that  he  extended  his  reference  to  the  end  of  the 
dispensation.  The  expression  "all  flesh"  (ii.  17) 
is  explained  by  the  following  c  auses,  by  which  no 
principle  of  distribution  is  meant,  but  only  that  all 
classes,  without  respect  of  persons,  will  be  the  sub- 
jects of  the  Spirit's  influences.  All  distinction  of 
races,  too,  will  be  done  away  (cf.  Joel  ii.  32,  with 
Rom.  x.  12,  13). 

Lastly,  the  accompanying  portents  and  judg- 
ments upon  the  enemies  of  God  find  their  various 
solutions,  according  to  the  interpreters,  in  the  re- 
peated deportations  of  the  Jews  by  neighboring 
merchants,  and  sale  to  the  Macedonians  (1  Mace, 
iii.  41,  and  Ez.  xxvii.  13),  followed  by  the  sweeping 
away  of  the  neighboring  nations  (Maurice) ;  in  the 
events  accompanying  the  crucifixion,  in  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  in  the  breaking  up  of  all  human  polities. 
But  here  again  the  idea  includes  all  manifestations 
of  judgment,  ending  with  the  last.  The  whole  is 
shadowed  forth  in  dim  outline;  and  while  some 
crises  are  past,  others  are  yet  to  come  (comp.  iii. 
13-21  with  St.  Matt,  xxiv.,  and  Rev.  xix.). 

Among  the  commentators  on  the  book  of  Joel, 
enumerated  by  Rosenmiiller,  Scholia  in  Vet.  Test.., 
part  7,  vol.  i.,  may  be  specially  mentioned  Leusden's 
Joel  Explicatus,  Ultraj.  1657;  Dr.  Edw.  Pocock's 
Commentary  on  the  Prophecy  of  Joel,  Oxford, 
1691;  and  A  Paraphrnse  and  Critical  Comment'iry 
fn  the  Prophecy  of  Joel.,  by  Samuel  Chandler, 
London,  1735.  See  also  Die  Propheten  des  alien 
Buntles  erkldrt,  von  Heinrich  Ewald,  Stuttgart, 
1^40  [Bd.  i.  2e  Ausg.  1867];  Praktischer  Com- 
vientar  iiber  die  Kltinen  Propketen,  von  Dr.  Um- 
breit,  Hamburg,  1844;  and  Book  of  the  Twelve 
Minoi'  Prophets,  by  Dr.  E.  Henderson,  Ix)ndon, 
1845  [Amer.  ed.  I860].  H.  B. 

*  The  principal  commentators  on  Joel  as  one 
f  the  minor  prophets  (not  mentioned  above),  are 


JOEL 


1417 


a  ♦  The  locusts,  says  the  eminent  naturalist,  Mr. 
titstrain,  "  always  come  with  the  wind  from  the  coua- 
ry  of  their  origin  ;  and  thi.",  as  all  observers  attest, 

'^th  a  south  or  southeast  wind  into  Palestine  with 


Hitzig,  Maurer,  Keil,  Noyes,  and  Cowlee.  For  tb« 
titles  of  their  works,  see  Habakkuk  (Amer.  ed.) 
To  the  other  separate  writers  on  this  book  may  be 
added  Fr.  A.  Holzhausen  (1829),  K.  A.  Crednei 
(1831),  E.  Meier  (1841),  and  E.  B.  Pusey  (1861; 
in  pts.  ii.  and  iii.  of  his  Minxyr  Prophets  (not  yet 
completed).  Credner's  Der  Prophet  Joel  ubersefzt, 
etc.,  (pp.  316)  is  "  a  rich  store-house  of  philological 
and  historical  illustration,"  but  is  deficient  in 
method  and  a  skillful  use  of  the  abundant  material.  ' 
The  natural  history  of  the  locusts  supplies  much  of 
the  imagery  of  the  book.  Dr.  Pusey,  by  his  singular 
industry  in  the  collection  of  illustrative  facts,  ad- 
vances our  knowledge  on  this  subject  far  beyond  all 
previous  interpreters,  b'or  useful  information  here, 
see  also  Thomson's  Land  aim  Book,  ii.  102-108. 
The  Introductions  to  the  O.  T.  (Hiivernick,  Scholz, 
De  Wette,  Welte-Herbst,  Keil,  Bleek,  Davidson) 
treat,  more  or  less  fully,  of  the  person  and  prophecies 
of  our  author.  Auberlen  has  written  on  "  Joel  "  in 
Herzog's  Real-Encyk.  vi.  719-721.  Stanley  de- 
scribes this  prophet  as  "  the  connecting  link  between 
the  older  prophets  who  are  known  to  us  only  through 
their  actions  and  sayings,  and  the  later  who  are 
known  chiefly  through  their  writings  .  .  .  "With  a 
glance  that  reached  forward  to  the  most  distant 
ages  ...  he  foretold  as  the  chiefest  of  blessings, 
that  the  day  was  at  hand  when  the  prophetic  spirit 
should  no  longer  be  confined  to  this  or  that  class, 
but  should  be  poured  out  on  all  humanity,  on  male 
and  female,  on  old  and  young,  even  on  the  slaves 
and  humblest  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  "  {Jemsh 
Church,  ii.  490). 

Dr.  Pusey  adopts  the  figurative  interpretation 
of  the  scourge  of  locusts.  Though  so  many  of  the 
recent  commentators,  as  remarked  above,  discard 
this  view,  it  must  be  confessed  that  some  of  the 
arguments  adduced  for  it  are  not  easily  set  aside. 
Among  these  is  the  fact  that  in  ii.  17  the  prophet 
says,  "  Give  not  thy  heritage  to  reproach  that  the 
heathen  should  rule  over  them."  The  connectioih 
here  is  obscure,  unless  we  suppose  that,  having: 
hitherto  employed  an  allegory,  the  writer  at  thia 
point  relinquishes  the  figure  and  passes  over  to  ita 
real  import,  namely,  the  devastation  of  the  country 
by  a  heathen  army.  Again,  in  ii.  20,  the  enemy 
who  is  to  inflict  the  threatened  calamity  is  called 
"  the  northern  "  or  northman  ("northern  army," 

A.  V.)  OD^S^n),  i.  e.  one  who  is  to  come  from^ 
the  north,  which  is  not  true  of  literal  locusts;  for 
they  are  not  accustomed  to  invade  Palestine  from 
that  quarter,"  nor  could  they  be  dispersed  by  any 
natural  process  in  precisely  opposite  directions  as 
there  represented.  A  finger-sign  appears  also  in 
i.  6 :  the  locusts  just  spoken  of  are  here  "  a  heathen 

people  "  ("^"^S),  who  have  come  upon  the  land  and 
inflicted  on  it  the  misery  of  which  the  prophet 
goes  on  to  portray  so  fearful  a  picture.  It  is  said 
that  the  preterites  (i.  6  ff".)  show  that  the  locusts 
as  literally  understood  have  accomplished  or  at  least 
begun  the  work  of  devastation,  and  therefore  can- 
not prefigure  another  and  future  calamity.  But  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  that  these  preterites 
so  called  may  be  rhetorical  merely,  not  historical: 
the  act  may  be  represented  as  past,  in  order  to  aflBrm 
with  greater  emphasis  the  certainty  of  the  occurrence 


a  west  wind  into  Persia,  and  with  an  east  wind  into 
Egypt.  Similarly  the  Assyriar  hordes  would  com* 
from  their  country  "  {Natural  History  of'  tfie  Bihlt 
Lond.  18«7\.  B. 


1418 


JOEL 


In  due  time.  It  agrees  with  this  view  that  in  i.  15 
"  the  day ''  of  Jehovah  is  spoken  of  as  not  yet  ar- 
rived ;  and  "  the  day  "  is  certainly  identical  with  the 
visitation  of  the  locusts  with  which  the  book  opens. 

The  last  five  verses  (28-32)  of  ch.  ii.  (A.  V.) 
form  a  distinct  chapter  in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  In 
this  division  the  A.  V.  follows  the  LXX.  It  may 
be  remarked  that  the  transition  at  this  point  arises 
from  the  relation  of  sulyects,  not  of  time.  The  pros- 
perity of  the  ancient  people  of  God  if  they  repented 
and  turned  to  Him,  leads  the  prophet  to  speak  of 
the  still  richer  blessings  which  then  awaited  those 
who  should  beheve  on  Christ  under  the  new  and 
last  economy  (Acts  ii.  16  ff.).  On  this  Messianic 
passage  see  especially  Hengstenberg's  Christology, 
Ui.  125-Ul  (Keith's  tr.,  1839). 

The  style  of  Joel  places  him,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  best  critics,  among  the  most  classical  of  the 
Hebrew  writers.  His  language  is  copious  and  pol- 
ished; his  parallelism  regular  and  well  balanced; 
liis  imagery  bold  and  picturesque.  His  description 
of  the  warlike  locusts  —  their  march,  onset  and 
victory,  as  they  spread  themselves  with  irresistible 
might  through  the  land — forms  by  universal  con- 
sent one  of  the  mooi,  graphic  sketches  of  this  nature 
to  be  found  in  the  poetry  of  any  language.  I'he 
calamity  was  to  come  "  like  morn  spread  upon  the 
mountains  "  (ii.  2),  ?'.  e.  suddenly  and  swiftly  as  tlie 
first  beams  of  the  sun  glance  from  one  mountain- 
top  to  another,  'i'he  brute  creation  suffers  as  well 
as  men.  The  Hebrew  (i.  20)  puts  before  us  a  more 
distinct  image  than  that  prese)ited  in  the  A.  V. 
The  heat  and  drought  penetrate  into  the  recesses 
of  the  desert.  Tlie  grass  is  withered ;  the  streams 
are  dried  up.  The  suffering  animals  turn  their 
eyes  towards  heaven,  and  by  their  silent  agony 
implore  relief  from  the  hunger  and  thirst  which 
they  endure.  For  the  battle-scene  in  Jehosh- 
APHAT  (iii.  2  ff.  or  Hebr.  iv.  2  ff.)  see  on  that 
word  (Amer.  ed.).  John's  Apocalypse  itself  has 
reproduced  more  from  Joel  (compared  with  his 
extent)  than  from  any  other  Hebrew  poet.  The 
closing  verses  (iii.  18  ff.)  show  us  how  natural  it 
was  to  foreshadow  the  triun)phs  of  Christianity 
under  the  symbols  of  Judaism  (comp.  Is.  ii.  2,  3; 
Mic.  iv.  1-3;  Ezek.  xl.-xlviii.).  H. 

4.  (vMV:'Ico^a:  Joel.)  The  head  of  one  of 
the  families  of  the  Simeonites  (1  Chr.  iv.  35).  He 
formed  part  of  the  expedition  against  the  Hamites 
of  Gedor  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 

5.  [Alex.  BaaA-]  A  descendant  of  Reuben. 
Junius  and  Tremellius  make  him  the  son  of  Hanoch, 
while  others  trace  his  descent  through  Carmi  (1 
Chr.  v.  4).  The  Syriac  for  Joel  substitutes  Carmi, 
but  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  genealogy  is 
that  of  the  eldest  son.  Burrington  (Geneal.  i.  53) 
maintains  that  the  .foel  mentioned  in  v.  8  was  a 
descendant,  not  of  Hanoch,  but  of  one  of  his 
brethren,  probably  Carmi,  as  Junius  and  Tremellius 
print  it  in  their  genealogical  table.  But  the  passage 
''n  which  he  relies  for  support  (ver.  7),  as  conclud- 
ing the  genealogy  of  Hanoch,  evidently  refers  to 
Beerah,  the  prince  of  the  Reubenites,  whom  the 
Assyrian  king  carried  captive.  There  is,  however, 
sufficient  similarity  between  Shemaiah  and  Shema, 
who  are  both  represented  as  sons  of  Joel,  to  render 
it  probable  that  the  latter  is  the  same  individual 
?n  both  instances.  Bertheau  conjectures  that  he 
•as  contemporary  with  David,  which  would  be  ap- 
proximately true  if  the  genealogy  were  traced  in 
»ch  case  from  father  to  son. 


JOGBEHAH 

6.  Chief  of  the  Gadites,  who  dwelt  in  (hj  land 
of  Bashan  (1  Chr.  v.  12). 

7.  ([Vat.  corrupt:]  ./o//e/.)  The  soi.  of  Izrahiah, 
of  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  and  a  chief  of  one  of  "  the 
troops  of  the  host  of  the  battle  "  who  numbered  in 
the  days  of  David  36,000  men  (1  Chr.  vii.  3).  Four 
of  Kennicott's  MSS.  omit  the  words  "  and  the  sons 
of  Izrahiah;  "  so  that  Joel  appears  as  one  of  the 
five  sons  of  Uzzi.  The  Syriac  retains  the  present 
text,  with  the  exception  of  reading  "  four "  for 
"  five." 

8.  The  brother  of  Nathan  of  Zokih  (1  Chr.  xi. 
38),  and  one  of  David's  guard.  He  is  called  Igal 
in  2  Sara,  xxiii.  36;  but  Kennicott  contends  that 
in  this  case  the  latter  passage  is  corrupt,  though  in 
other  woi'ds  it  preserved  the  true  reading. 

9.  The  chief  of  the  Gershomites  in  the  reign  of 
David,  who  sanctified  themselves  to  bring  up  the 
ark  from  the  house  of  Obededom  (1  Chr.  xv.  7, 
11). 

10.  A  Gershomite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  David, 
son  of  Jehiel,  a  descendant  of  Laadan,  and  probably 
the  same  as  the  preceding  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  8;  xxvi. 
22).  He  was  one  of  the  officers  appointed  to  take 
charge  of  the  treasures  of  the  Temple. 

11.  The  son  of  Pedaiah,  and  prince  or  chief  of 
the  half-tribe  of  Manasseh,  west  of  Jordan,  in  the 
reign  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  20). 

12.  A  Kohathite  Levite  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah. 
He  was  the  son  of  Azariah,  and  one  of  the  two 
representatives  of  his  branch  of  the  tribe  in  the 
solemn  purification  by  which  the  I^evites  prepared 
themselves  for  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  (2  Chr. 
xxix.  12). 

13.  One  of  the  sons  of  Nebo,  who  returned  with 
Ezra,  and  had  married  a  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  43). 
He  is  called  Juel  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  35. 

14.  The  son  of  Zichri,  a  Benjamite,  placed  in 
command  over  those  of  his  own  tribe  and  the  tribe 
of  Judah,  who  dwelt  at  Jerusalem  after  the  return 
from  Babylon  (Neh.  xi.  9).  W.  A.  W. 

JOE'LAH  (nbs^r  [perh.  whom  Jehovah 
helps]:  'leAia;  [Vat.  EAm;  Comp.  Aid.]  Alex. 
'IcoTjAa:  Joela),  son  of  Jeroham  of  Gedor,  who  with 
his  brother  joined  the  band  of  warriors  who  rallied 
round  David  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii.  7). 

JOE'ZER  Ol'^'y'  [ichose  help  is  Jehwoh] : 
'loj^apa;  Alex.  Ica^aap,  [Comp.  'loe^ep:]  Joezer\ 
a  Korhite,  one  of  David's  captains  who  fought  by 
his  side  while  living  in  exile  among  tlie  Philistines 
(1  Chr.  xii.  6). 

JOG'BEHAH  (nn55^  [devaied]:  in  Num. 

the  LXX.  have  translated  it,  as  if  from  PTiDS  — 
S^coa-av  avrds;  in  Judg.  'Uy€$d\;  Alex.  4^  4var- 
rias  ZejSee:  Jegbna),  one  of  the  cities  on  the  east 
of  Jordan  which  were  built  and  fortified  by  tl)e 
tribe  of  Gad  when  they  took  possession  of  their 
territory  (Num.  xxxii.  35).  It  is  there  associated 
with  Jaazer  and  EtTH-NiMRAii,  places  which 
there  is  reason  to  believe  were  not  far  from  the 
Jordan,  and  south  of  the  Jehel-Jilad.  It  is  men- 
tioned once  again,  this  time  in  connection  with 
Nobah,  in  the  account  of  Gideon's  pursuit  of  the 
Midianites  (Judg.  viii.  11).  They  were  at  Karkor, 
and  he  made  his  way  from  the  upi)er  part  of  the 
Jordan  valley  at  Succoth  and  Penuel,  and  "  went 
up"  —  ascended  from  the  Ghor  by  one  of  tlie  tor 
rent-beds  to  the  downs  of  the  higher  level  —  by  the 
way  of  ';he  dwellers  in  tents  —  the  pastoral  iicopk 


k 


JOGLI 

rho  a\x)ide(l  the  district  of  the  towns-  ~  to  the  east 
jf  Nobah  :uid  .foglxihah  —  miking  his  way  towards 
the  waste  country  in  the  southeast.  Here,  accord- 
ing to  the  scanty  information  we  possess,  Karkor 
would  seem  to  have  lieen  situated.  No  trace  of 
any  name  like  Jogbehah  has  yet  been  met  with  in 
the  above,  or  any  other  direction.  G. 

JOG'LI  (^S^;  [exiled]:  'Ey\i  [Vat.  -Kei]; 
Alex.  E/cAi ;  [Comp.  *loK\i:]  Jogli\  the  father 
of  Bukki,  a  chief  man  among  the  Danites  (Num. 
xxxiv.  22). 

JO'HA.  1.  (Sn'1'^  [perh.,  Jehovah  revives, 
brings  to  life]  :  'IwSa:  [Vat.  Icoaxav;]  Alex.  Icaaxa- 
Joha.)  One  of  the  sons  of  Beriah,  the  13eiijamite, 
who  was  a  chief  of  the  fathers  of  the  dwellers  in 
Aijalon,  and  had  put  to  flight  the  inhabitants  of 
Gath  (1  Chr.  viii.  16).  His  family  may  possibly 
have  founded  a  colony,  like  the  Danites,  within  the 
limits  of  another  trite,  where  they  were  exposed, 
as  the  men  of  Ephraim  had  been,  to  the  attacks  of 
the  Gittites.  Such  border-warfare  was  too  common 
to  render  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  narratives 
in  1  Chr.  vii.  21  and  viii.  13  refer  to  the  same 
encounter,  although  it  is  not  a  little  singular  that 
the  name  Beriah  occurs  in  each. 

2.  Claj^ae;  [Vat.  FA.]  Alex.  Iwa^ae;  [Comp. 
Iwxd.] )  The  Tizite,  one  of  David's  guard  [1  Chr. 
d.  45].  Kennicott  decides  that  he  was  the  son 
of  Shimri,  as  he  is  represented  in  the  A.  V.,  though 
in  the  margin  the  translators  have  put  "  Shimrite  " 
for  "  the  son  of  Shimri  "  to  the  name  of  his  brother 
Jedihel. 

JOHA'NANOjmV  'Iwa^i^;  [Vat.  I«ams, 
and  so  Alex.  ver.  10 :  Jo/ianan] ),  a  shortened  form 
of  Jeh<}hdinAn=  Jehovah's  gift.  It  is  the  same 
as  John.  [Jehohanan.]  1.  Son  of  Azariah 
[AzARiAH,  1],  and  grandson  of  Ahimaaz  the  son 
of  Zadok,  and  father  of  Azariah,  6  (1  Chr.  vi.  9, 
10,  A.  v.).  In  .Josephus  {A7it.  x.  8,  §  6)  the  name 
is  corrupted  to  Joramus,  and  in  the  Seder  Olam 
to  Joahaz.  The  latter  places  him  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat ;  but  merely  because  it  begins  by 
wrongly  placing  Zadok  in  the  reign  of  Solomon. 
Since  however  we  know  from  1  K.  iv.  2,  supported 
by  1  Chr.  vi.  10,  A.  V.,  that  Azariah  the  father  of 
Johaiian  was  high-priest  in  Solomon's  reign,  and 
Amariah  his  grandson  was  so  in  Jehoshaphat's 
reign,  we  may  conclude  without  much  doubt  that 
Johanan's  pontificate  fell  in  the  reign  of  Rehoboam. 
(See  Hervey's  Genealogies,  etc.,  ch.  x.) 

2.  [Alex.  laavoLfx-]  Son  of  Elioenai,  the  son 
3f  Neariah,  the  son  of  Shemaiah,  in  the  hne  of 
Zerubbabel's  heirs  [Smemaiah]  (1  Chr.  iii,  24). 

A.  C.  H. 

3.  ('Iqjj/c£  in  2  K.  [xxv.  2:i],  'Icadvav'm  Jer.; 
Alex.  Iwavav  in  2  K.,  and  Iwavvav  in  Jer.,  except 
xli.  11,  xlii.  8,  xliii.  2,  4,  5;  [Vat.  Iwvav  in  Jer. 
xl.  8;  FA.i  Avi/aj/ Jer.  xl.  15,  Iwoi/i/aj/ ver.  16:] 
Johanan.)  The  son  of  Kareah,  and  one  of  the 
captains  of  the  scattered  remnants  of  the  army  of 
Judah,  who  escaped  in  the  final  attack  upon  Jera- 
galem  by  the  Chaldaeans,  and,  after  the  capture  of 
the  king,  remained  in  the  open  country  of  Moab 
and  the  Ammonites,  watching  the  tide  of  events. 
He  was  one  of  the  first  to  repair  to  Mizpah,  after 
the  withdrawal  of  the  liostile  army,  and  tender  his 
allegiance  to  the  new  governor  appointed  by  the 
iing  of  Babylon.     From  his  acquaintance  with  the 

reacherous    designs    of    Ishraael,    against   which 
•daliah  was  unhappily  warned  in  vain,  it  is  not 


JOHN 


1419 


unreasonable  to  suppose  that  he  may  have  been  a 
companion  of  Ishmael  in  his  exile  at  the  court  of 
Baalis  king  of  the  Ammonites,  the  promoter  of  the 
plot  (Jer.  xl.  8-16).  After  the  murder  of  GedaUah, 
Johanan  was  one  of  the  foremost  in  the  pursuit  of 
his  assassin,  and  rescued  the  captives  he  had  carried 
off  from  Mizpah  (Jer.  xli.  11-16).  Fearing  the 
vengeance  of  the  Chaldaeans  for  the  treachery  of 
Ishmael,  the  captains,  with  Johanan  at  their  head, 
halted  by  the  Khan  of  Chiraham,  on  the  road  to 
Egypt,  with  the  intention  of  seeking  refuge  there; 
and,  notwithstanding  the  warnings  of  Jeremiah, 
settled  in  a  body  at  Tahpanhes.  They  were  aft^'- 
wards  scattered  throughout  the  country,  in  Migdcl, 
Noph,  and  Pathros,  and  from  this  time  we  lose 
sight  of  Johanan  and  his  fellow-captains. 

4.  Uluaviv,  [Aid.  'loixaviv-'])  The  firstbcra 
son  of  Josiah  king  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  iii.  15),  who 
either  died  before  his  father,  or  fell  with  him  at 
Megiddo.  Junius,  without  any  authority,  identifies 
him  with  Zaraces,  mentioned  1  F^dr.  i.  38. 

5.  A  valiant  Benjamite,  one  of  David's  captains, 
who  joined  him  at  Ziklag  (1  Chr.  xii.  4). 

6.  (Alex.  'l(aviv\  [Vat.]  FA.  iwav.)  The 
eighth  in  number  of  the  lion-faced  warriors  of  Gad, 
who  left  their  tribe  to  follow  the  fortunes  of  David, 
and  spread  the  terror  of  their  arms  beyond  Jordan 
in  the  month  of  its  overflow  (1  Chr.  xii.  12). 

7.  O^mn^  'lcoa;/^s;  [Alex.  Ift,a;,«y.])  The 
father  of  Azariah,  an  Ephraimite  in  the  time  of 
Ahaz  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  12). 

8.  The  son  of  Hakkatan,  and  chief  of  the  Bene- 
Azgad  [sons  of  A.]  who  returned  with  Ezra  (Ezr. 
viii.  12).  He  is  called  Johannes  in  1  Esdr.  viii. 
38. 

9.  O^nSn';:  [FA.3  in  Ezr.,  Ic^voLV.])  The 
son  of  Eliashib,  one  of  the  chief  Levites  (Neh.  xii. 
23)  to  whose  chamber  (or  <'  treasury,"  according 
to  the  LXX.)  Ezra  retired  to  mourn  over  the  foreign 
marriages  which  the  people  had  contracted  (Ezr. 
x.  6).  He  is  called  Joanan  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  1;  and 
some  have  supposed  him  to  be  the  same  with  Jon- 
athan, descendant  of  another  Eliashib,  who  was  after- 
wards high-priest  (Neh.  xii.  11 ).    [Jonathan,  10.] 

10.  (l^nirT]:  'looj/ofv;  Alex,  loovadav,  FA.i 
looavav, )  The  son  of  Tobiah  the  Ammonite,  who 
had  married  the  daughter  of  Meshullam  the  priest 
(Neh.  vi.  18).  W.  A.  W. 

JOHAN'NES  {'Icadpv-ns :  Joannes)  =  3eh.o- 
hanan  son  of  Bebai  (1  Esdr.  ix.  29;  comp.  Ezr.  i. 
28).     [Jehohanan,  4.] 

*  JOHAN'NES  {'I(a6.vv7\s  ;  Vat.  laavris  : 
Joannes),  son  of  Acatan  or  Hakkatan,  1  Esdr.  viii. 
38.     See  Johanan,  8.  A. 

JOHN  ClQ}(ii/V7i<:  [see  below]  :  [Joannes])^ 
names  in  the  Apocrypha.  1.  The  father  of  Mat- 
tathias,  and  grandfather  of  the  Maccabsean  family 
(1  Mace.  ii.  1). 

2.  The  (eldest)  son  of  Mattathias  Cloiauvdv; 
[Sin.  Alex.  Iwavvns],  surnamed  Caddis  (KaSSls, 
cf.  Grimm,  ad  1   Mace.  ii.  2),  who  was  slain  by 

the  children  of  Jambri"  [Jambri]  (1  Mace.  ii. 
2,  ix.  36-38).  In  2  Mace.  viii.  22  he  is  called 
T^seph,  by  a  common  confusion  of  name.     [Mai; 

CABEES.] 

3.  The  father  of  Eupolemus,  one  of  the  envojt 
whom  Judos  Maccabseus  sent  to  Rome  (1  Mace. 
viii.  17;  2  Mace.  iv.  11). 

4.  The  son  of  Simon,  the  brother  of  Judas  Mao' 


1420 


JoHA 


cabseus  (i  Maa  xiii.  53,  xvi.  1),  "a  valiant  mah  ' 
who,  under  the  title  of  Johannes  Hyrcanus,  nobly 
•upported  in  after  time  the  glory  of  his  house. 
[Maccabees.] 

5.  An  envoy  from  the  Jews  to  Lysias  (2  Mace, 
xi.  17).  B.  F.  W. 

JOHN  Clcodvu-ns  [from  )^TiV  —  whom  Jeho- 
vah has  graciously  given]:  Cod.  Bezae,  'luvadas'- 
Joannes).  1.  One  of  the  high-priest's  family,  who, 
with  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  sat  in  judgment  upon 
the  Apostles  Peter  and  John  for  their  cure  of  the 
lame  man  and  preaching  in  the  Temple  (Acts  iv.  6). 
Lightfoot  identifies  him  with  R.  Johanan  ben  Zac- 
cai,  who  lived  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of 
ths  Temple,  and  was  president  of  the  great  Syna- 
gogue after  its  removal  to  Jabne,  or  Jamnia  (Light- 
foot,  Cent.  Chor.  Matth.  prcef.  ch.  15;  see  also 
Selden,  De  Synednis,  ii.  ch.  15).  Grotius  merely 
says  he  was  known  to  rabbinical  writers  as  '« John 
the  priest"  {Comm.  in  Act.  iv.). 

2.  The  Hebrew  name  of  the  Evangelist  Mark, 
who  throughout  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  is  desig- 
nated by  the  name  by  which  he  was  known  among 
his  countrymen  (Acts  xii.  12,  25,  xiii.  5,  13,  xv.  37). 

JOHN,  THE  Apostle  {'la>ciuur}s  [see  above] ). 
It  will  be  convenient  to  divide  the  Ufe  which  is  the 
subject  of  the  present  article  into  periods  corre- 
sponding both  to  the  great  critical  epochs  which 
separate  one  part  of  it  from  anotiier,  and  to  marked 
differences  in  the  trustworthiness  of  the  sources 
from  which  our  materials  are  derived.  In  no  iji- 
gtaiice,  perhaps,  is  such  a  division  more  necessary 
than  in  this.  One  portion  of  the  Apostle's  life  and 
work  stands  out  before  us  as  in  the  clearness  of 
broad  daylight.  Over  those  which  precede  and 
follow  it  there  brood  the  shadows  of  darkness  and 
uncertainty.  In  the  former  we  discern  only  a  few 
isolated  facts,  and  are  left  to  inference  and  con- 
jecture to  bring  them  together  into  something  like 
a  whole.  In  the  latter  we  encounter,  it  is  true, 
images  more  distinct,  pictures  more  vivid ;  but  with 
these  there  is  the  doubt  whether  the  distinctness 
and  vividness  are  not  misleading  —  whether  half- 
traditional,  half-mythical  narrative  has  not  taken 
the  place  of  history. 

I.  Befoi^e  the  call  to  the  disciple  ship.  —  We  have 
no  data  for  settling  with  any  exactitude  the  time 
of  the  Apostle's  birth.  The  general  impression  left 
on  us  by  the  Gospel-narrative  is  that  he  was  younger 
than  the  brother  whose  name  commonly  precedes 
his  (Matt.  iv.  21,  x.  2,  xvii.  1,  &c.;  but  comp. 
Luke  ix.  28,  where  the  order  is  inverted  «),  younger 
than  his  friend  Peter,  possibly  also  than  his  Master. 
The  life  which  was  protracted  to  the  time  of  Trajan 
(Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  23.  following  Irenseus)  can  hardly 
lave  begun  before  the  year  b.  c.  4  of  the  Dionysian 
tra.  The  (iospels  give  us  the  name  of  his  father 
Zebedaeus  (Matt.  iv.  21)  and  his  mother  Salome 
(Matt,  xxvii.  56,  compared  with  Mark  xv.  40,  xvi. 
1 ).  Of  the  former  we  know  nothing  more.  The 
traditions  of  the  fourth  century  (Epiphan.  iii.  TIkv. 
78)  make  the  latter  the  daughter  of  Joseph  by  his 
first  wife,  and  consequently  half-sister  to  our  Lord. 
By  some  recent  critics  she  has  been  identified  with 


«  *  The  name  John  precedes  that  of  James  also  in 
Luke  viii.  51  and  Acts  i.  13  in  the  critical  editions  of 
Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tr^elles.  A. 

b  Ewald  (Gesch.  Israels,  v.  p.  171)  adopts  Wieseler's 
lOE^jecture,  and  connects  it  with  his  own  hypothesis 
tut  the  sons  of  Z^b^idee,  and  our  Lord,  as  well  as  the 


JOHN,    IHE  APOSTLE 

the  sister  of  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  in  Jehu  six 
25  (Wieseler,  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1840,  p.  648).*    Thej 
lived,  it  may  be  inferred  from  John  i.  44,  in  oi 
near  the  same  town  [Bethsaida]   as  those  whc 
were  afterwards^  the  companions  and  partners  of 
their  children.    There,  on  the  shores  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  the  Apostle  and  his  brother  grew  up.    The 
mention  of  the  "  hired  servants  "  (Mark  i.  20),  of 
his  mother's  "substance"  {airh  rav  virapx^yrccy, 
Luke  viii.  3),  of  "his  own  house"  (to  tdia,  John 
xix.  27),  implies  a  position   removed   by  at  least 
some  steps  from  absolute  poverty.     The  fact  that 
the  Apostle  was  known  to  the  high-priest  Caiaphas, 
as  that  knowledge  was  hardly  likely  to  have  begun 
after  he  had  avowed  himself  the  disciple  of  Jesixs 
of  Nazareth,  suggests  the  probability  of  some  early 
intimacy  between  the  two  men  or  their  families.'^ 
The  name  which  the  parents  gave  to  their  younger 
child  was  too  common  to  serve  as  the  ground  of 
any  special  inference;  but  it  deserves  notice  (1)  that 
the  name  appears  among  the  kindred  of  Caiaphas 
(Acts  iv.  6);  (2)  that   it   was   given    to  another 
priestly  child,  the  son  of  Zacharias  (Luke  i.  13),  as 
the  embodiment  and  symbol  of  Messianic  hopes. 
The  frequent  occurrence  of  the  name  at  this  period, 
unconnected  as  it  was  with  any  of  the  great  deeds 
of  the  old  heroic  days  of  Israel,  is  indeed  in  itself 
significant  as  a  sign  of  that  yearning  and  expecta- 
tion which  then  characterized,  not  only  the  more 
faithful  and  devout  (Luke  ii.  25,  28),  but  the  whole 
people.     The  prominence  given  to  it  by  the  wonders 
conjiected  with  the  birth  of  the  future  Baptist  may 
have  given  a  meaning  to  it  for  the  parents  of  the 
future  Evangelist  which    it  would   not  otherwise 
have  had.     Of  the  character  of  Zebedseus  we  have 
hardly  the  slightest  trace.    He  interposes  no  refusal 
when  his  sons  are  called  on  to  leave  him  (JIatt.  iv. 
21).    After  this  he  disappears  from  the  scene  of  the 
Gospel-history,  and  we  are  led  to  infer  that  he  had 
died  before  hi«  wife  followed  her  children  in  their 
work  of  ministration.     Her  character  meets  us  as 
presenting  the  same  marked  features  as  those  which 
were  conspicuous  in  her  son.     From  her,  who  fol- 
lowed Jesus  and  ministered  to  Him  of  her  sub- 
stance (Luke  viii.  3),  who  sought  for  her  two  sons 
that  they  might  sit,  one  on   his  right  hand,  the 
other  on  his  left,  in  his  kingdom   (Matt.  xx.  20), 
he   might   well   derive   his   strong   affections,   his 
capacity  for  giving  and  receiving  love,  his  eagerness 
for  the  speedy  manifestation  of  the  Mes.siah's  king- 
dom.    The  early  years  of  the  Apostle  we  may  be- 
lieve to  have  passed  under  this  influence.  He  would 
be   trained   in   all   that   constitutetl   the  ordinary 
education  of  Jewish  boyhood.     Though  not  taught 
in  the  schools  of  Jerusalem,  and  therefore,  in  later 
life,  liable  to  the  reproach  of  having  no  recognized 
position  as  a  teacher,  no  rabbinical  education  (Acta 
iv.  13),  he  would  yet  be  taught  to  read  the  Law 
and  observe  its  precepts,  to  feed  on  the  writings  of 
the  prophets  witli  the  feeling  that  their  accomplish- 
ment was  not  far  off.     For  him  too,  as  bound  by 
the  Law,  there  would  be,  at  the  age  of  thirteen,  the 
periodical   pilgrimages   to  Jerusalem.     He   would 
become  familiar  with  the  stately  worship  of  the 
Temple  with  the  sacrifice,  the  incense,  the  altar, 


Baptist,  were  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  On  the  other  hand, 
more  sober  critics,  like  Neander  {Pflanz.  u.  Lett,  p 
609,  4th  ed.),  and  Liicke  (Johannes,  I.  p.  9),  r^ect  bott 
the  tradition  and  the  conjecture. 

c  Ewald  (l.  c.)  presses  this  also  into  the  aerrio*  oi 
his  strange  hypothesis. 


JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE      1421 

OJice  only  or  twice.  In  either  case  they  gave  up 
the  employment  of  their  life  and  went  to  do  a  work 
like  it,  and  yet  unUke,  in  God's  spiritual  kingdom. 
From  this  time  they  take  their  place  among  the 
company  of  disciples.  Only  here  and  there  are 
there  traces  of  individual  character,  of  special  turn- 
ing-points in  their  lives.  Soon  they  find  themselves 
in  the  number  of  the  Twelve  who  are  chosen,  not 
as  disciples  only,  but  as  their  Ix)rd'8  delegates  — 
representatives  —  Apostles.  In  all  the  lists  of  the 
Twelve  those  four  names  of  the  sons  of  Jonah  and 
Zebedaeus  stand  foremost.  They  come  within  the 
innermost  circle  of  their  Lord's  Mends,  and  are  ai 
the  (KAeKTwu  iKkeKTSrepoi.  The  three,  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  are  with  him  when  none  else  are 
in  the  chamber  of  death  (Mark  v.  37),  in  the  glory 
of  the  transfiguration  (Matt.  xvii.  1),  when  he 
forewarns  them  of  the  destruction  of  the  Holy  City 
(Mark  xiii.  3,  Andrew,  in  this  instance,  with  them), 
in  the  agony  of  Gethseraane.  St.  Peter  is  through- 
out the  leader  of  that  band ;  to  John  belongs  the 
yet  more  memorable  distinction  of  being  the  dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved.  This  love  is  returned 
•with  a  more  single  undivided  heart  by  him  than 
by  any  other.  If  Peter  is  the  (pi\6xpt(rT0Sy  John 
is  the  (piAirjaous  (Grotius,  Frolegom.  in  Joann.). 
Some  striking  facts  indicate  why  this  was  so ;  what 
the  character  was  which  was  thus  worthy  of  the 
love  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  They  hardly  sustain 
the  popular  notion,  fostered  by  the  received  types 
of  Christian  art,  of  a  nature  gentle,  yielding,  fem- 
inine. The  name  Boanerges  (Mark  iii.  17)  implies 
a  vehemence,  zeal,  intensity,  which  gave  to  those 
who  had  it  the  might  of  Sons  of  Thunder."  That 
spirit  broke  out,  once  and  again,  when  they  joined 
their  mother  in  asking  for  the  highest  places  in  the 
kingdom  of  their  Master,  and  declared  that  they 
were  ready  to  face  the  dark  terrors  of  the  cup  that 
he  drank  and  the  baptism  that  he  was  baptized  with 
(Matt.  XX.  20-24;  Mark  x.  35-41)  — when  they 
rebuked  one  who  cast  out  devils  in  their  Lord's 
name  because  he  was  not  one  of  their  company 
(Luke  ix.  49)  —  wlien  they  sought  to  call  down  fire 
from  heaven  upon  a  village  of  the  Samaritans  (Luke 
ix.  64).  About  this  time  Salome,  as  if  her  hus- 
band had  died,  takes  her  place  among  the  women 
who  followed  Jesus  in  Galilee  (Luke  viii.  3),  minis- 
tering to  him  of  tlieir  substance,  and  went  up  with 
him  in  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem  (Luke  xxiii 
55).  Through  her,  we  may  well  believe,  St.  John 
first  came  to  know  that  Mary  Magdalene  whose 
character  he  depicts  with  such  a  life-like  touch,  and 
that  other  Mary  to  whom  he  was  afterwards  to 
stand  in  so  close  and  special  a  relation.  The  fullness 
of  his  narrative  of  what  the  other  Evangelists  omit 
(John  xi.)  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  he  was  united 
also  by  some  special  ties  of  intimacy  to  the  family 
of  Bethany.  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  at  length 
on  the  familiar  history  of  the  Last  Supper.  What 
j  is  characteristic  is  that  he  is  there,  as  ever,  the  dis- 
jciple  whom  Jesus  loved;  and,  as  the  chosen  and 
favored  friend,  reclines  at  table  with  his  head  upon 
his  Master's  breast  (John  xiii.  23).  To  him  the 
eager  Peter  —  they  had  been  sent  together  to  pre- 
pare the  supper  (Luke  xxii.  8)  —  makes  signs  of 
impatient  questioning  that  he  should  ask  what  was 
not  likely  to  be  answered  if  it  came  from  any  other 
(John  xiii.  24).     As  they  go  out  to  the  Mount  of 

«  The  conaensus  of  patrisHc  interpretation  sees  in   of  all  distinguishing  force.    (Comp.  Saioer,  IJusaurua^ 
.iiM  name  tue  prophecy  of  their  work  as  preachers  of    g,  y^  PpovTrt  '■>  and  Lampe,  i.  27.) 
iM  Qospel.     This,  however,  would  deprive  the  epithet 


JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE 

*nd  the  priestly  robes  May  we  not  conjecture  that 
then  the  impressions  were  first  made  which  never 
afterwards  wore  off"?  Assuming  that  there  is  some 
harmony  between  the  previous  training  of  a  prophet 
and  the  form  of  the  visions  presented  to  him,  may 
we  not  recognize  them  in  the  rich  liturgical  imagery 
of  the  Apocalypse  —  in  that  union  in  one  wonder- 
ful vision  of  all  that  was  most  wonderful  and  glorious 
in  the  predictions  of  the  older  prophets  ? 

Concurrently  with  this  there  would  be  also  the 
boy's  outward  life  as  sharing  in  his  father's  work. 
The  great  political  changes  which  agitated  the 
whole  of  Palestine  would  in  some  degree  make 
themselves  felt  «»ven  in  the  village-town  in  which 
he  grew  up.  'ilie  Galilean  fisherman  must  have 
heard,  possibly  with  some  sympathy,  of  the  efforts 
made  (when  he  was  too  young  to  join  in  them)  by 
Judas  of  (iamala,  as  the  great  asserter  of  the  free- 
dom of  Israel  against  their  Roman  rulers.  Like 
other  Jews  he  would  grow  up  with  strong  and 
bitter  feelings  against  the  neighboring  Samaritans. 
Lastly,  before  we  pass  into  a  period  of  greater  cer- 
tainty, we  must  not  forget  to  take  into  account 
that  to  this  period  of  his  life  belongs  the  com- 
mencement of  that  intimate  fellowship  with  Simon 
Bar-jonah  of  which  we  afterwards  find  so  many 
proofs.  That  friendship  may  even  then  have  been, 
in  countless  ways,  fruitful  for  good  upon  the  hearts 
of  both. 

II.  From  the  Call  to  the  Dhcipleship  to  the  De- 
parture from  Jerusalem.  —  The  ordinary  life  of  the 
fisherman  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  was  at  last  broken 
in  upon  by  the  news  that  a  prophet  had  once  more 
appeared.  The  voice  of  John  the  Baptist  was  heard 
in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea,  and  the  publicans, 
peasants,  soldiers,  and  fishermen  of  Galilee  gathered 
round  him.  Among  tiiese  were  the  two  sons  of 
Zebedaeus  and  their  friends.  With  them,  perhaps, 
was  One  whom  as  yet  they  knew  not.  They  heard, 
it  may  be,  of  his  protests  against  the  vices  of  their 
own  ruler  —  against  the  hypocrisy  of  Pharisees  and 
Scribes.  But  they  heard  also,  it  is  clear,  words 
which  spoke  to  them  of  tlieir  own  sins  —  of  their 
own  need  of  a  deliverer.  The  words  "  Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sins  "  imply 
that  those  who  heard  them  would  enter  into  the 
blessedness  of  which  they  spoke.  Assuming  that 
the  unnamed  disciple  of  John  i.  37-40  was  the 
Evangelist  himself,  we  are  led  to  think  of  that 
meeting,  of  the  lengthened  interview  that  followed 
it,  as  the  starting-point  of  the  entire  devotion  of 
heart  and  soul  which  lasted  through  his  whole  life. 
Then  Jesus  loved  him  as  He  loved  all  earnest  seekers 
after  righteousness  and  truth  (comp.  Mark  x.  21). 
The  words  of  that  evening,  though  unrecorded, 
were  mighty  in  their  effect.  The  disciples  (John 
apparently  among  them)  followed  their  new  teacher 
to  Galilee  (John  i.  44),  were  with  him,  as  such,  at 
(Jie  marriage-feast  of  Cana  (ii.  2),  journeyed  with 
him  to  Capernaum,  and  thence  to  Jerusalem  (ii. 
12,  23),  came  back  through  Samaria  (iv.  8),  and 
then,  for  some  uncertain  interval  of  time,  returned 
to  their  former  occupations.  The  uncertainty  which 
hangs  over  the  narratives  of  Matt.  iv.  18,  and  Luke 
V.  1-11  (comp.  the  arguments  for  and  against  their 
relating  to  the  same  events  in  Lampe,  Comment 
Md  Joann.  i.  20),  leaves  us  in  doubt  whether  they 
received  a  special  call  to  become  "  fishers  of  men  " 


1422      JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE 

Olives  the  chosen  tliree  are  nearest  to  their  Master, 
rhey  only  are  witliin  sight  or  hearing  of  the  con- 
flict in  Gethsemane  (Matt.  xxvi.  37).  When  the 
betrayal  is  accomplished,  Peter  and  John,  after  the 
first  moment  of  confusion,  follow  afar  off,  while  the 
athers  simply  seel<  safety  in  a  hasty  flight «  (John 
xviii.  15).  The  personal  acquaintance  which  ex- 
isted hetwecL  John  and  Caiaphas  enahled  him  to 
gain  access  both  for  himself  and  Peter,  but  the 
latter  remains  in  the  porch  with  the  officers  and 
servants,  while  John  himself  apparently  is  admitted 
to  the  council-chamber,  and  follows  Jesus  thence, 
even  to  the  praetorium  of  the  Roman  Procurator 
(John  xviii.  16,  19,  28).  Thence,  as  if  the  desire 
to  see  the  end,  and  the  love  which  was  stronger  than 
death,  sustained  him  through  all  the  terrors  and 
sorrows  of  that  daj,  he  followed  —  accompanied 
probably  by  his  own  mother,  Mary  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  and  Mary  Magdalene  —  to  the  place  of  cru- 
cifixion. The  Teacher  who  had  been  to  him  as  a 
brother  leaves  to  him  a  brother's  duty.  He  is  to 
be  as  a  son  to  the  mother  wbo  is  left  desolate  (John 
xix.  26-27).  The  Sabbath  that  followed  was  spent, 
it  would  appesir,  in  the  same  company.  He  receives 
Peter,  in  spite  of  his  denial,  on  the  old  terms  of 
friendship.  It  is  to  them  that  Mary  Magdalene 
first  runs  with  the  tidings  of  the  emptied  sepulchre 
(John  XX.  2);  they  are  the  first  to  go  together  to 
see  what  the  strange  words  meant.  Not  without 
some  bearing  on  their  respective  characters  is  the 
fact  that  John  is  the  more  impetuous,  running  on 
most  eagerly  to  the  rock-tomb ;  Peter,  the  least  re- 
strained by  awe,  the  first  to  enter  in  and  look  (John 
XX.  4-6).  I'or  at  least  eight  days  they  continued 
in  Jerusalem  (John  xx.  26).  Then,  in  the  interval 
between  the  resurrection  and  the  ascension,  we  find 
them  still  together  on  the  sea  of  Galilee  (John  xxi. 
1),  as  though  they  would  calm  the  eager  suspense 
of  that  period  of  expectation  by  a  return  to  their 
old  calling  and  their  old  familiar  haunts.  Here, 
too,  there  is  a  characteristic  difference.  John  is 
the  first  to  recognize  in  the  dim  form  seen  in  the 
morning  twilight  the  presence  of  his  risen  Lord; 
Peter  the  first  to  plunge  into  the  water  and  swim 
towards  the  shore  where  He  stood  calling  to  them 
(John  xxi.  7 ).  The  last  words  of  the  Gospel  reveal 
to  us  the  deep  affection  which  united  the  two  friends. 
It  is  not  enough  for  Peter  to  know  his  own  future. 
That  at  once  suggests  the  question  —  "  And  what 
shall  this  man  doV  "  (John  xxi.  21).  The  history 
of  the  Acts  shows  the  same  union.  They  are  of 
course  together  at  the  ascension  and  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  Together  they  enter  the  Temple  as 
worshippers  (Acts  iii.  1)  and  protest  against  the 
threats  of  the  Sanhedrim  (iv.  1.3).  They  are  fel- 
low-workers in  the  first  great  step  of  the  Church's 
expansion.  1'he  Apostle  whose  wrath  had  been 
roused  by  the  unbelief  of  the  Samaritans,  overcomes 
his  national  exclusiveness,  and  receives  them  as  his 
brethren  (viii.  14).  The  persecution  which  was 
pushed  on  by  Saul  of  Tarsus  did  not  drive  him  or 
any  of  the  Apostles  from  their  post  (viii.  1).     When 


«  A  somewhat  wild  conjecture  is  found  in  writers 
'f  the  Western  Church.  Ambrose,  Gregory  the  Great, 
hnd  Beds,  identify  the  Apostle  with  tlie  veavio-Kos  tis 
of  Mark  xiv.  51,  52  (I^mpe,  i.  38). 

6  The  hypothesis  of  Baronius  and  Tillemont,  that 
the  Virgin  accompanied  him  to  Ephesus,  has  not  even 
fch«  authority  of  tradition  (Lampe,  i.  61). 

c  Lampe  fixes  a.  d.  66,  when  Jerusalem  was  be- 
(ieged  by  the  Roman  forces  under  Cestius,  as  the  most 
probable  date. 


JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE 

the  persecutor  came  back  as  the  convert,  he,  it  u 
true,  did  not  see  him  (Gal.  i.  ID),  but  this  of  courw 
does  not  involve  the  inference  that  he  had  left  Je- 
rusiilem.  The  sharper  though  shorter  persecution 
which  followed  under  Herod  Agrippa  brought  a 
great  sorrow  to  him  in  the  martyrdom  of  his 
brother  (Acts  xii.  2).  His  friend  was  driven  to 
seek  safety  in  flight.  Fifteen  years  after  St.  Paul's 
first  visit  he  was  still  at  Jerusalem,  and  hel|>ed  to 
take  part  in  the  great  settlement  of  the  controversy 
between  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Christians 
(Acts  XV.  6).  His  position  and  reputation  there 
were  those  of  one  ranking  among  the  chief  "  pil- 
lars "  of  the  Church  (Gal.  ii.  9).  Of  the  work  of 
the  Apostle  during  this  period  we  have  hardly  the 
slightest  trace.  There  may  have  been  special  calls 
to  mission-work  like  that  which  drew  him  to  Sa- 
maria. There  may  have  been  the  work  of  teach- 
ing, organizing,  exhorting  the  churches  of  Judaea. 
His  fulfillment  of  the  solemn  charge  intrusted  to 
him  may  have  led  him  to  a  life  of  loving  and  rev- 
erent thought  rather  than  to  one  of  conspicuous 
activity.  We  may,  at  all  events,  feel  sure  that  it 
was  a  time  in  which  the  natural  elements  of  his 
character,  with  all  their  fiery  energy,  were  being 
purified  and  mellowed,  rising  step  by  step  to  that 
high  serenity  which  we  find  perfected  in  the  closing 
portion  of  his  life.  Here,  too,  we  may,  without 
nmch  hesitation,  accept  the  traditions  of  the  Church 
as  recording  a  historic  fact  when  they  ascribe  to 
him  a  hfe  of  celibacy  (TertuU.  de  Monoy.  c.  13). 
The  absence  of  his  name  from  1  Cor.  ix.  5  tends 
to  the  same  conclusion.  It  harmonizes  with  aU  we 
know  of  his  character  to  think  of  his  heart  as  so 
absorbed  in  the  higher  and  diviner  love  that  there 
was  no  room  left  for  tlie  lower  and  the  human. 

III.  From  his  Departure  from  Jerusalem  to  Ida 
Death.—  The  traiitions  of  a  later  age  come  in,  with 
more  or  less  show  of  likelihood,  to  fill  up  the  great 
gap  which  separates  the  Apostle  of  Jerusalem  from 
the  Bishop  of  Ephesus.  It  was  a  natural  conjecture 
to  suppose  that  lie  remained  in  Judaea  till  the 
death  of  the  Virgin  released  him  from  his  trust.* 
VV'hen  this  took  place  we  can  only  conjecture. 
There  are  no  signs  of  his  being  at  Jerusalem  at 
the  time  of  St.  Paul's  last  visit  (Acts  xxi.).  The 
pastoral  epistles  set  aside  the  notion  that  he  had 
come  to  Ephesus  before  the  work  of  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  was  brought  to  its  conclusion.  Out 
of  many  contradictory  statements,  fixing  his  de- 
parture under  Claudius,  or  Nero,  or  as  late  even  as 
Domitian,  we  have  hardly  any  data  for  doing  more 
than  rejecting  the  two  extremes.*'  Nor  is  it  certain 
that  his  work  as  an  Apostle  was  transferred  at  once 
from  Jerusalem  to  l^^phesus.  A  tradition  current 
in  the  time  of  Augustine  (Qucest.  Evnng.  ii.  19), 
and  embodied  in  some  MSS.  of  the  N.  T.,  repre- 
sented the  1st  Epistle  of  St.  John  as  addressed  to 
the  Parthians,  and  so  far  implied  that  his  Apos- 
tolic work  had  brought  him  into  contact  with  ^ 
them.  When  the  form  of  the  aged  disciple  meets 
us  again,  in  the  twilight  of  the  Apostolic  age,  we 


d  In  the  earlier  tradition  which  made  the  ApostlM 
formally  partition  out  the  world  known  to  them,  Tar- 
thia  falls  to  the  lot  of  Thomas,  while  John  receives 
the  Proconsular  Asia  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  1).  In  ou« 
of  the  legends  connected  with  the  Apostles'  Creed, 
Peter  contributes  the  first  article,  John  the  aeoonO, 
but  the  tradition  appears  with  great  variations  as  t« 
time  and  order  (comp.  Pseudo-August  Senn.  ccxl 
ccxll.). 


JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE 

we  still  left  in  great  doubt  as  to  the  extent  of  his 
work,  and  tlie  circinnstances  of  liis  outward  life. 
Assuming  the  authorship  of  the  Epistles  and  the 
Revelation  to  be  his,  the  facts  which  the  N.  T. 
writings  assert  or  imply  are —  (1)  that,  having  come 
to  Ephesus,  some  persecution,  local  or  general,  drove 
him  to  Patmoa  (Rev.  i.  9):«  (2)  that  the  seven 
churches,  of  which  Asia  was  the  centre,  were  spe- 
cial objects  of  his  solicitude  (Kev.  i.  11);  that  in 
his  work  ho  had  to  encounter  men  who  denied  the 
truth  on  which  his  faith  rested  (1  John  iv.  1;  2 
John  7),  and  others  who,  with  a  railing  and  malig- 
nant temper,  disputed  his  authority  (3  John  9,  10). 
If  to  this  we  add  that  he  must  have  outlived  all, 
or  nearly  all  of  those  who  had  been  the  friends  and 
companions  even  of  his  maturer  years  —  that  this 
lingering  age  gave  strength  to  an  old  imagination 
that  his  Lord  had  promised  him  immortality  (John 
xxi.  23)  —  that,  as  if  remembering  the  actual  words 
which  had  been  thus  perverted,  the  longing  of  his 
Boul  gathered  itself  up  in  the  cry,  "  Even  so,  come, 
Lord  Jesus  "  (Rev.  xxii.  20)  — that  from  some  who 
spoke  with  authority  he  received  a  solemn  attesta- 
tion of  the  confidence  they  reposed  in  him  (John 
xxi.  24)  —  we  have  stated  all  that  has  any  claim  to 
the  character  of  historical  truth.  The  picture 
which  tradition  fills  up  for  us  has  the  merit  of  be- 
ing full  and  vivid,  but  it  blends  together,  without 
much  regard  to  harmony,  things  probable  and  im- 
probable. He  is  shipwrecked  oflf  Ephesus  (Simeon 
Metaph.  in  vita  Juhan.  c.  2;  Lampe,  i.  47),  and 
arrives  there  in  time  to  check  the  progress  of  the 
heresies  which  sprang  up  after  St.  Paul's  departure. 
Then,  or  at  a  later  period,  he  numbers  among  his 
disciples  men  like  Polycarp,  Papias,  Ignatius 
(Hieron.  de  Vir.  Illust.  c.  17).  In  the  persecution 
under  Domltian  he  is  takc.i  to  Rome,  and  there, 
by  hig  boldness,  though  not  by  death,  gains  the 
crown  of  martyrdom.  The  boiling  oil  into  which 
he  is  thrown  has  no  power  to  hurt  him  (Tertull.  de 
PrcBscripL  c.  36.).''  He  is  then  sent  to  labor  in 
the  mines,  and  Patmos  is  the  place  of  his  exile 
(Victorinus,  in  Apoc.  ix.  ;  Lampe,  i.  66).  The 
accession  of  Nerva  frees  him  from  danger,  and  he 
returns  to  Ephesus.  There  he  settles  the  canon  of 
the  Gospel-history  by  formally  attesting  the  truth 
of  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  writing  his  own  to 
supply  what  they  left  wanting  (Euseb.  //.  K.  iii. 
24).  The  elders  of  the  Church  are  gathered  to- 
gether, and  he,  as  by  a  sudden  inspiration,  begins 
with  the  wonderful  opening,  "  In  the  beginning  was 


a  Here  again  the  hypotheses  of  commentators  range 
Irom  Claudius  to  Domitian,  the  consensus  of  patristic 
tradition  preponderating  ia  favor  of  the  latter.  [Comp. 
Revelation.] 

b  The  scene  of  the  supposed  miracle  was  outside  the 
Porta  Latina,  and  hence  the  Western  Church  com- 
memorates it  by  the  special  festival  of  "  St.  John  Port. 
Latin."  ou  May  6th. 

c  Eusebins  and  Ireuseus  malce  Cerinthus  the  heretic. 
In  Epiphanius  {Hter.  xxx.  c.  241  Ebion  is  the  hero  of 
the  story.  To  modern  feelings  the  anecdote  may  seem 
ftt  variance  with  the  character  of  the  Apostle  of  Love, 
but  it  is  hardly  more  than  the  development  in  act  of 
the  principle  of  2  John  10.  To  the  mind  of  Epiphanius 
'ij«>re  was  a  difficulty  of  another  kind.  Nothing  less 
than  a  8i»ecial  inspiration  could  account  for  such  a 
iei!?.rturti  from  an  ascetic  life  as  going  to  a  bath  at 

d  The  story  of  the  niraXov  is  perhaps  the  most 
perplexing  of  all  the  traditions  as  to  the  age  of  the 
ipostlea.  Whit  makes  it  still  stranger  is  the  appear- 
Uice  of  a  like  tradition  (Hegesippus  in  Euseb.  H.  E. 


JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE     1423 

the  word  "  (Hieron.  de  lir.  lUmt.  c.  29).  Heresiea 
continue  to  show  themselves,  but  he  meets  them 
with  the  strongest  possible  protest.  He  refuses  to 
pass  under  the  same  roof  (that  of  the  public  bathg 
of  Epliesus)  as  their  foremost  leader,  lest  the  house 
should  fall  down  on  them  and  crush  them  (Iren. 
iii.  3;  Euseb.  H.  E.  iii.  28,  iv.  14).c  Through  his 
agency  the  great  temple  of  Artemis  is  at  last  reft 
of  its  magnificence,  and  even  (!)  leveled  with 
the  ground  (Cyril.  Alex.  Orat.  de  Mar.  Virg.; 
Nicephor.  //.  £.  ii.  42;  Lampe,  i.  90).  He  intro- 
duces and  perpetuates  the  Jewish  mode  of  celebrat- 
ing the  Easter  feast  (Euseb.  //.  £.  iii.  3).  At 
Ephesus,  if  not  before,  as  one  who  was  a  true  priest 
of  the  Lord,  bearing  on  his  brow  the  plate  of  gold 
(TreVaAoj';  comp.  Suicer.  T/ies.  s.  v.),  with  tbfl 
sacred  name  engraved  on  it,  which  was  the  badge 
of  the  Jewish  pontiflF  (Polycrates,  in  Euseb.  ff.  E. 
iii.  31,  v.  24). «<  In  strange  contrast  with  this  ideal 
exaltation,  a  later  tradition  tells  how  the  old  man 
used  to  find  pleasure  in  the  playfulness  and  fond- 
ness of  a  favorite  bird,  and  defended  himself  against 
the  charge  of  unworthy  trifling  by  the  familiar 
apologue  of  the  bow  that  must  sometimes  be  unbent 
(Cassian.  CoUat.  xxiv.  c.  2).«  More  true  to  the 
N.  T.  character  of  the  Apostle  is  the  story,  told 
with  so  much  power  and  beauty  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  ( Quis  dives,  c.  42),  of  his  special  and 
loving  interest  in  the  younger  members  of  his  flock ; 
of  his  eagerness  and  courage  in  the  attempt  to 
rescue  one  of  them  who  had  fallen  into  evil  courses. 
The  scene  of  the  old  and  loving  man.  standing  face 
to  face  with  the  outlaw-chief  whom,  in  days  gone 
by,  he  had  baptized,  and  winning  him  to  repent- 
ance, is  one  which  we  could  gladly  look  on  as  be- 
longing to  his  actual  life  —  part  of  a  story  which 
is,  in  Clement's  words,  oit  /xvdos,  akka  \6yos. 
Not  less  beautiful  is  that  other  scene  which  comes 
before  us  as  the  last  act  of  his  life.  When  all 
capacity  to  work  and  teach  is  gone  —  when  there 
is  no  strength  even  to  stand  —  the  spirit  still  retains 
its  power  to  love,  and  the  lips  are  still  opened  to 
repeat,  without  change  and  variation,  the  command 
which  summed  up  all  his  Master's  will,  "  Little 
children,  love  one  another"  (Hieron.  in  Gal.  vi.). 
Other  stories,  more  ajwcryphal  and  Ipss  interesting, 
we  may  pass  over  rapidly.  That  he  put  forth  his 
power  to  raise  the  dead  to  life  (Euseb.  //.  E.  v.  18); 
that  he  drank  the  cup  of  hemlock  which  was  in- 
tended to  cause  his  death,  and  suffered  no  harm 
from  it/  (Pseudo-August.   Soliloq. ;  Isidor.  Hispal. 


ii.  23  ;  Epiph.  Hcsr.  78)  about  James  the  Just.  Meas- 
ured by  our  notions,  the  statement  seems  altogether 
improbable,  and  yet  how  can  we  account  for  its  ap- 
pearance at  so  early  a  date  ?  Is  it  possible  that  thil 
was  the  symbol  that  the  old  exclusive  priesthood  had 
passed  away  ?  Or  are  we  to  suppose  that  a  strong 
statement  as  to  the  new  priesthood  was  misinterpreted, 
and  that  rhetoric  passed  rapidly  into  legend  ?  (Comp, 
Neand.  Pflanz.  u.  Leit.  p.  613 ;  Stiinley,  Sermons  and 
Essays  on  Apostolic  Age,  p.  283.)  Ewald  {I.  c.)  flndi 
in  it  an  evidence  in  support  of  the  hypothesis  above 
referred  to. 

e  The  authority  of  Cassian  is  but  slender  in  such  a 
case  ;  but  the  story  is  hardly  to  be  rejected,  on  d  prion 
grounds,  as  incompatible  with  the  dignity  of  an  Apostle. 
Does  it  not  illustrate  the  truth  — 

"  He  prayeth  best  who  loveth  best 
All  things  both  great  and  small "  ? 

/  The  memory  of  this  deliverance  is  preserred  io 
the  symbohc  cup,  with  the  sertjent  Issuing  from  it 
which  appears  in  the  mediaeval  representations  of  the 


1424     JOHN,  THE  APOSTLE 

ie  Mm-te  Sand.  c.  73);  that  when  he  felt  his 
death  approaching  he  gave  orders  for  the  construc- 
tion of  his  own  sepulchre,  and  when  it  was  finished 
cahiily  laid  liimself  down  in  it  and  died  (Augustin. 
Tract,  in  Joann.  cxxiv.);  that  after  his  interment 
there  were  strange  movements  in  the  earth  that 
covered  Iiini  {ibUL);  that  when  the  tomb  was  sub- 
eequentl}'  oi)ened  it  was  found  empty  (Nieeph.  //. 
£.  ii.  42);  tliat  he  was  reserved  to  reappear  again 
in  conflict  with  the  personal  Antichrist  in  the  last 
days  (Suicer.  T/ies.  s.  v.  'laxiuurjs)-  these  tradi- 
tions, for  the  most  part,  indicate  little  else  than  the 
uncritical  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  they  passed 
current.  The  very  time  of  his  death  lies  within 
the  region  of  conjecture  rather  than  of  history,  and 
the  dates  that  have  been  assigned  for  it  range  from 
A.  D.  89  to  A.  D.  120  (Lampe,  i.  92). 

The  result  of  all  this  accumulation  of  apocryphal 
materials  is,  from  one  point  of  view,  disappointing 
enough.  We  strain  our  sight  in  vain  to  distin- 
guish between  the  false  and  the  true  —  between  the 
shadows  with  which  the  gloom  is  peopled,  and  the 
living  forms  of  which  we  are  in  search.  We  find 
it  better  and  more  satisfying  to  turn  again,  for  all 
our  conceptions  of  the  Apostfe's  mind  and  character, 
to  the  scanty  records  of  the  N.  T.,  and  the  writings 
which  he  himself  has  left.  The  truest  thought 
that  we  can  attain  to  is  still  that  he  was  "  the  dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved  "  —  6  ivurT-fidLos  —  return- 
ing that  love  with  a  deep,  absorbing,  unwavering 
devotion.  One  aspect  of  that  feeling  is  seen  in  the 
zeal  for  his  Master's  glory,  the  burning  indignation 
against  all  that  seemed  to  outrage  it,  which  runs, 
with  its  fiery  gleam,  through  his  whole  life,  and 
makes  him,  from  first  to  last,  one  of  the  Sons  of 
Thunder.  To  him,  more  than  to  any  other  dis- 
ciple, there  is  no  neutrality  between  Christ  and 
Antichrist,  llie  spirit  of  such  a  man  is  intolerant 
of  compromises  and  concessions.  The  same  strong 
personal  affection  shows  itself,  in  another  form,  in 
the  chief  characteristics  of  his  Gospel.  While  the 
other  Evangelists  record  principally  the  discourses 
and  parables  which  were  s]X)ken  to  the  multitude, 
he  treasures  up  every  word  and  accent  of  dialogues 
and  conversations,  which  must  have  seemed  to  most 
men  less  cons[)icuous.  In  the  absence  of  any 
recorded  narrative  of  his  work  as  a  preacher,  in  the 
silence  which  he  appears  to  have  kept  for  so  many 
years,  he  comes  before  us  as  one  who  lives  in  the 
unseen  eternal  world,  rather  than  in  that  of  secular, 
or  even  spiritual  activity.  If  tliere  is  less  apparent 
power  to  enter  into  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men 
of  different  temperament  and  etlucation,  less  ability 
to  become  all  things  to  all  men  than  there  is  in  St. 
Paul,  there  is  a  perfection  of  another  kind.  The 
image  mirrored  in  his  soul  is  that  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  who  is  also  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  the 
Apostle  of  Ijove,  not  because  he  starts  from  the 
easy  temper  of  a  general  benevolence,  nor  again  as 
being  of  a  character  soft,  yielding,  feminine,  but 
because  he  has  grown,  ever  n)t>re  and  more,  into 
the  likeness  of  Him  whom  he  loved  so  truly. 
Nowhere  is  the  vision  of  the  Eternal  Word,  the 
glory  as  of  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  so  un- 
clouded; nowhere  are  there  such  distinctive  per- 


Evangelist.  Is  it  possible  that  the  symbol  originated 
In  Maik  x.  39,  and  that  the  legend  grew  out  of  the 
symbol  ? 

a  The  older  interpretation  made  Mark  answer  to 
the  eagle,  John  to  the  lion  (Su^-jer,  Thes.  a.  v. 
tuayy€kt<rTri<;). 

J>  Ai  Other  Terse  of  this  hymn,  "  Volat  avis  sine 


JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

sonal  reminiscences  of  the  Christ,  Karh  a-dpKa,  in 
his  most  distinctively  human  characteristics.  It 
was  this  union  of  the  two  aspects  of  the  Truth 
which  made  hira  so  truly  the  "  Theologus  "  of  the 
whole  company  of  the  Apostles,  the  instinctive  op- 
ponent of  all  forms  of  a  mystical,  or  logical,  oi 
docetic  Gnosticism.  It  was  a  true  feeling  which 
led  the  later  interpreters  of  the  mysterious  forma 
of  the  four  hving  creatures  round  the  throne  (Rev. 
iv.  7)  —  departing  in  this  instance  from  the  earlier 
tradition  «  —  to  see  in  him  the  eagle  that  soars  into 
the  highest  heaven  and  looks  upon  the  unclouded 
sun.  It  will  be  well  to  end  with  the  noble  words 
from  the  hymn  of  Adam  of  St.  VictoSj  in  which 
that  feeling  is  embodied :  — 

"  Caelum  transit.  Ten  rotam 
Soils  vidit,  ib:  totam 

Mentis  figens  aciem  ; 
Speculator  spiritalis 
Quasi  seraphim  sub  alia, 

Dei  Tidit  faciem."& 

(Comp.  the  exhaustive  Prolegomena  to  Lampe'a 
Commentary;  Neander,  Pflanz.  u.  Leit.  pp.  609- 
652  [pp.  354-379,  comp.  pp.  608-531,  Robinson's 
ed.,  N.  Y.  1865] ;  Stanley,  Si'rmons  and  Essayi 
<m  the  Apostolic  Age,  Sermon  iv.,  and  Essay  on  the 
Traditions  respecting  St.  John ;  Maurice  On  the 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  Serra.  i. ;  and  an  interesting 
article  by  Ebrard,  s.  v.  Johannes,  in  Herzog's  lieal- 
Encykiopddie.)  E.  H.  P. 

*  See  also  Lardner,  Hist,  of  the  Apostles  and 
Evangelists,  ch.  ix.  (  Works,  vol.  v.  ed.  of  1829); 
Francis  Trench,  Life  and  Character  of  St.  John 
the  Evangelist,  I>ond.  1850;  and,  on  the  legends 
respecting  the  Apostle,  Mrs.  Jameson's  Sacred  and 
Legendary  Art,  i.  157-172,  5th  ed.  A. 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST  Clwcivvr?!  6  Bair- 
T/tTTTjs  [and  6  /SotttiX^v]  ),  a  saint  more  signally 
honored  of  God  than  any  other  whose  name  is 
recorded  in  either  the  0.  or  the  N.  T.  John  was 
of  the  priestly  race  by  both  parents,  for  his  father 
Zacharias  was  himself  a  priest  of  the  course  of  Abia, 
or  Abijah  (1  Chr.  xxiv.  10),  oflTering  incense  at  the 
very  time  when  a  son  was  promised  to  him;  and 
Elizabeth  was  of  the  daughters  of  Aaron  (Luke 
i.  5).  Both,  too,  were  devout  persons  —  walking  in 
the  commandments  of  God,  and  waiting  for  the 
fulfillment  of  his  promise  to  Israel.  The  divine 
mission  of  John  was  the  subject  of  prophecy  many 
centuries  before  his  birth,  for  St.  Matthew  (iii.  3) 
tells  us  that  it  was  John  who  was  prefigured  by 
Isaiah  as  "  the  Voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness. Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  uiaKC  his 
paths  straight"  (Is.  xl.  3),  while  by  the  prophet 
Malachi  the  spirit  announces  more  definitely,  "  Be- 
hold, I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  pre- 
pare the  way  before  Me"  (iii.  1).  His  birth  —  a 
birth  not  according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature, 
but  through  the  miraculous  interposition  of  Al- 
mighty power  —  was  foretold  by  an  angel  sent  from 
(Jod,  who  announced  it  as  an  occasion  of  joy  and 
gladness  to  many  —  and  at  the  same  time  assigned 
to  him  the  name  of  John  to  signify  either  that  he 
was  to  be  bom  of  God's  especial  favor,  or,  perhaps. 


meta,"  et  seq.,  is  femiliar  to  most  students  as  tb« 
motto  prefixed  by  Olshausen  to  his  commentary  on  8i 
John's  Gospel.  The  whole  hymn  is  to  be  found  \x 
Trench's  Sacred  Latin  Pottry,  p.  71 ;  [also  in  Daniel* 
Thesaurus  Hymnolagicus,  ii.  1^,  and  Moae'ft  LiUeim 
scJie  Hymnen  des  Mittelaliers,  iii.  118  J 


JOHN   THE  BAPTIST 

that  he  was  to  be  the  harbinger  of  grace.  The 
angel  (iabriel  moreover  proclaimed  the  character 
and  oihce  of  this  wonderful  child  even  before  his 
conception,  foretelling  that  he  would  be  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  first  Uioment  of  his  ex- 
istence, and  api^ar  as  the  great  reformer  of  his 
countrymen  —  another  I*21ijah  in  the  boldness  with 
which  he  would  spealt  truth  and  rebuke  vice  —  but, 
above  all,  as  the  chosen  forerunner  and  herald  of 
the  long-expected  Messiah. 

These  mar\elous  revelations  as  to  the  character 
and  career  of  the  son,  for  whom  he  had  so  long 
prayed  in  vain,  were  too  much  for  the  faith  of  the 
aged  Zacharias;  and  when  he  sought  some  assur- 
ance of  the  certainty  of  the  promised  blessing,  God 
gave  it  to  him  in  a  judgment  —  the  privation  of 
gpeech  —  until  the  event  foretold  should  happen  — 
a  judgment  intended  to  serve  at  once  as  a  token  of 
God's  truth,  and  a  rebuke  of  his  own  incredulity. 
And  now  the  Lord's  gracious  promise  tarried  not  — 
Elizabeth,  for  greater  privacy,  retired  into  the  hill- 
country,  whither  she  was  soon  afterwards  followed 
by  her  kinswoman  Mary,  who  was  herself  the  object 
and  channel  of  divine  grace  beyond  measure  greater 
and  more  mysterious.  The  two  cousins,  who  were 
thus  honored  above  all  the  mothers  of  Israel,  came 
together  in  a  remote  city  of  the  south  (by  some 
supposed  to  be  Hebron,  by  others  Jutta),  and  im- 
mediately God's  purpose  was  confirmed  to  them  by 
a  miraculous  sign ;  for  as  soon  as  Elizabeth  heard 
the  salutations  of  Mary,  the  babe  leaped  in  her 
womb,  thus  acknowledging,  as  it  were  even  before 
birth,  the  presence  of  his  Lord  (Luke  i.  43,  44). 
Three  months  after  this,  and  while  Mary  still  re- 
mained with  her,  Elizabeth  was  delivered  of  a  son. 
The  birth  of  John  preceded  by  six  months  that  of 
our  blessed  Lord.  [Respecting  this  date,  see  Jksus 
Christ,  p.  1381.]  On  the  eighth  day  the  child 
of  promise  was,  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  Moses 
(Lev.  xii.  3),  brought  to  the  priest  for  circumcision, 
and  as  the  performance  of  this  rite  was  the  accus- 
tvrmed  time  for  naming  a  child,  the  friends  of  the 
family  proposed  to  call  him  Zacharias  after  the 
name  of  his  father.  The  mother,  however,  required 
that  he  should  be  called  John  —  a  decision  which 
Zacharias,  still  speechless,  confirmed  by  writing  on 
a  tablet,  "  his  name  is  John."  The  judgment  on 
his  want  of  faith  was  then  at  once  withdrawn,  and 
the  first  use  which  he  made  of  his  recovered  speech 
was  to  praise  Jehovah  for  his  faithfulness  and  mercy 
(Luke  i.  64).  God's  wonderful  interposition  in  the 
birth  of  John  had  impressed  the  minds  of  many 
with  a  certain  solenm  awe  and  expectation  (Luke 
iii.  15).  God  was  surely  again  visiting  his  people. 
His  providence,  so  long  hidden,  seemed  once  more 
about  to  manifest  itself.  The  child  thus  super- 
riaturally  born  must  doubtless  be  commissioned  to 
perform  some  important  part  in  the  history  of  the 
chosen  people.  Could  it  be  the  Messiah  ?  Could 
it  be  Elijah  ?  Was  the  era  of  their  old  prophets 
about  to  be  restored  ?  With  such  grave  thoughts 
were  the  minds  of  the  people  occupied,  as  they 
.nused  on  the  events  which  had  been  passing  under 
their  eyes,  and  said  one  to  another,  "  What  manner 
of  child  shall  this  be?"  while  Zacharias  himself, 
"  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  broke  forth  in  tha. 
glorious  strain  of  praise  and  prophecy  so  familia. 
to  us  in  the  morning  service  of  our  church — a 
strain  in  which  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  father, 
before  speaking  of  his  own  child,  blesses  God  for 
remembering  his  covenant  and  promise  in  the 
redemption  and  salvation  of  his  petple  through 
91 


JOHN   THE  BAPTIST      1425 

Him,  of  whom  his  own  son  was  the  prophet  and 
forerunner.  A  single  verse  contains  all  that  we 
know  of  John's  history  for  a  space  of  thirty  years  — 
the  whole  period  which  elapsed  between  his  birth 
and  the  commencement  of  his  public  miniitry. 
"  The  child  grew  and  waxed  strong  in  the  spirit, 
and  was  in  the  deserts  till  the  day  of  his  showing 
unto  Israel "  (Luke  i.  80).  John,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, was  ordained  to  be  a  Nazarite  (see  Num.  vi. 
1-21)  from  his  birth,  for  the  words  of  the  angel 
were,  "He  shall  drink  neither  wine  nor  strong 
drink  "  (Luke  i.  15).  What  we  are  to  understand 
by  this  brief  announcement  is  probably  this :  The 
chosen  forerunner  of  the  INIessiah  and  herald  of  his 
kingdom  was  required  to  forego  the  ordinary  pleas- 
ures and  indulgences  of  the  world,  and  live  a  life 
of  the  strictest  self-denial  in  retirement  and  soli- 
tude. 

It  was  thus  that  the  holy  Nazarite,  dwelling  by 
himself  in  the  wild  and  thinly  peopled  region  west- 
ward of  the  Dead  Sea,  called  "  Desert  "  in  the  text, 
prepared  himself  by  self-discipline,  and  by  constant 
comnmnion  with  God,  for  the  wonderful  office  to 
which  he  had  been  divinely  called.  Here  year  after 
year  of  his  stern  probation  passed  by,  till  at  length 
the  time  for  the  fulfillment  of  his  mission  arrived. 
The  very  appearance  of  the  holy  Baptist  was  of 
itself  a  lesson  to  his  countrymen;  his  dress  was 
that  of  the  old  prophets  —  a  garment  woven  of 
camel's  hair  (2  K.  i.  8),  attached  to  the  body  by  a 
leathern  girdle.  His  food  was  such  as  the  desert 
afforded  —  locusts  (Lev.  xi.  22)  and  wild  honey 
(Ps.  Ixxxi.  16). 

And  now  the  long  secluded  hermit  came  forth  to 
the  discharge  of  his  office.  His  supernatural  birth 
—  his  hard  ascetic  life  —  his  reputation  for  extra- 
ordinary sanctity  —  and  the  generally  prevailing 
expectation  that  some  great  one  was  about  to  ap- 
pear —  these  causes,  without  the  aid  of  miracidous 
power,  for  "John  did  no  miracle"  (John  x.  41), 
were  sufficient  to  attract  to  him  a  great  multitude 
from  "  every  quarter ''  (Matt.  iii.  5).  Brief  and 
startling  was  his  first  exhortation  to  them  —  "  Re- 
pent ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 
Some  score  verses  contain  all  that  is  recorded  of 
John's  preaching,  and  the  sum  of  it  all  is  repent- 
ance; not  mere  legal  ablution  or  expiation,  but  a 
change  of  heart  and  life.  Herein  John,  though 
exhibiting  a  marked  contrast  to  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  of  his  own  time,  was  but  repeating  with 
the  stimulus  of  a  new  and  powerful  motive  the 
lessons  which  had  been  again  and  again  impressed 
upon  them  by  their  ancient  prophets  (cf.  Is.  i.  16 
17,  Iv.  7;  Jer.  vii.  3-7;  Ez.  xviii.  19-32,  xxxvi. 
25-27;  Joel  ii.  12,  13;  Mic.  vi.  8;  Zech.  i.  3,  4). 
But  while  such  was  his  solemn  admonition  to  the 
multitude  at  large,  he  adopted  towards  the  leading 
sects  of  the  Jews  a  severer  tone,  denouncing 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees  alike  as  "  a  generation 
of  vipers,"  and  warning  them  of  the  folly  cf  trust- 
ing to  external  privileges  as  descendants  of  Ab:*aham 
(Luke  iii.  8).  Now  at  last  he  warns  them  that 
"  the  axe  was  laid  to  the  root  of  the  tree  "  —  that 
formal  righteousness  would  be  tolerated  no  longer, 
and  that  none  would  be  acknowledged  for  children 
of  Abraham  but  such  as  did  the  works  of  Abraham 
(cf.  John  viii.  39).  Such  alarming  declarations  pro- 
duced their  effect,  and  many  of  every  class  pressed 
forward  to  confess  their  sins  and  to  be  baptized. 

What  then  was  the  baptism  which  John  admin- 
istered ■?  Not  altogether  a  new  rite,  for  it  was  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  to  baptize  proselytes  to  thoii 


1426      JOHN   THE  BAPTIST 

religion  —  not  an  ordinance  in  itself  conveying 
remission  of  sins,  but  rather  a  token  and  symbol 
of  that  repentance  which  was  an  indispensable  con- 
dition of  forgiveness  through  Him,  whom  John 
pointed  out  as  "  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world."  Still  less  did  the  baptism 
of  John  impart  the  grace  of  regeneration  —  of  a  new 
spiritual  life  (Acts  xix.  3,  4).  This  was  to  be  the 
mysterious  effect  of  baptism  "  with  the  Holy  Ghost," 
which  was  to  be  ordained  by  that  "  Mightier  One," 
whose  coming  he  proclaimed.  The  preparatory 
baptism  of  John  was  a  visible  sign  to  the  people, 
and  a  distinct  acknowledgment  by  them,  that  a 
hearty  renunciation  of  sin  and  a  real  amendment 
of  life  were  necessary  for  admission  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  which  the  Baptist  proclaimed  to  be 
at  hand.  But  the  fundamental  distinction  between 
John's  baptism  unto  repentance,  and  that  baptism 
accompanied  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
our  Lord  afterwards  ordained,  is  clearly  marked  by 
John  himself  (Matt.  iii.  11,  12). 

As  a  preacher,  John  was  eminently  practical  and 
discriminating.  Self-love  and  covetousness  were 
the  prevalent  sins  of  the  people  at  large:  on  them 
therefore  he  enjoined  charity,  and  consideration  for 
others.  The  publicans  he  cautioned  against  extor- 
tion, the  soldiers  against  violence  and  plunder.  His 
answers  to  them  are,  no  doubt,  to  be  regardetl  as 
instances  of  the  appropriate  warning  and  advice 
which  he  addressed  to  every  class. 

The  mission  of  the  Baptist  —  an  extraordinary 
one  for  an  extraordinary  purpose  —  was  not  limited 
to  those  who  had  openly  forsaken  the  covenant  of 
God,  and  so  forfeited  its  principles.  It  was  to  the 
whole  people  alike.  This  we  must  infer  from  the 
baptism  of  one  who  had  no  confession  to  make,  and 
no  sins  to  wash  away.  Jesus  Himself  came  from 
Galilee  to  Jordan  to  be  baptized  of  John,  on  the 
special  ground  that  it  became  Him  "  to  fulfill  all 
righteousness,"  and,  as  man,  to  submit  to  the  cus- 
toms and  ordinances  which  were  binding  upon  the 
rest  of  the  Jewish  peo[)le.  John,  however,  naturally 
at  first  shrank  from  offering  the  symbols  of  purity 
to  the  sinless  Son  of  God.  But  here  a  difficult 
question  arises  —  How  is  John's  acknowledgment 
of  Jesus  at  the  moment  of  his  presenting  Himself 
for  baptism  compatible  with  his  subsequent  assertion 
that  he  knew  Him  not,  save  by  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  Him,  which  took  place  after  his 
baptism '?  If  it  be  difficult  to  imagine  that  the  two 
cousins  were  not  personally  acquainted  with  each 
other,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  their  places  of 
residence  were  at  the  two  extremities  of  the  country, 
with  but  little  means  of  communication  between 
them.  Perhaps,  too,  John's  special  destination  and 
mode  of  life  may  have  kept  him  from  the  stated 
festivals  of  his  countrymen  at  Jerusalem.  It  is 
possible  therefore  that  the  Saviour  and  the  Baptist 
had  never  before  met.  It  was  certainly  of  the 
ttmost  importance  that  there  should  be  no  suspicion 
of  concert  or  collusion  bet«"»en  them.  John,  how- 
ever, must  assuredly  have  oeen  in  daily  expectation 
of  Christ's  manifestation  to  Israel,  and  so  a  word 
or  sign  would  have  sufficed  to  reveal  to  him  the 
person  and  presence  of  our  I^rd,  though  we  may 
well  suppose  such  a  fact  to  be  made  known  by  a 
direct  communication  from  God,  as  in  the  case  of 
Simeon  (Luke  ii.  26;  cf.  Jackson  ^^  an  the  Creed,'''' 
Works,  Ox.  ed.  vi.  404).  At  all  events  it  is  wholly 
iuconceivable  that  John  should  have  been  permitted 
to  baptize  the  Son  of  God  without  being  enabled 
lo  distinguish  Him  from  any  of  the  ordiuarj  inu  ti- 


JOHN   THE  BAPTIST 

tude.  Upon  the  whole,  the  true  mcianing  of  thg 
words  Kayii}  ovk  ^heiv  ahrSv  would  seem  lo  1  e  ai 
follows :  And  I,  even  I,  though  standing  in  so  near 
a  relation  to  Him,  both  personally  and  ministerially, 
had  no  assured  knowledge  of  Him  as  the  Messiah. 
I  did  not  know  Him,  and  I  had  not  authority  to 
proclaim  Him  as  such,  till  I  saw  the  predicted  sign 
in  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  Him.  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  John  had  no  means 
of  knowing  by  previous  announcement,  whether  thig 
wonderful  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  Son  would 
be  vouchsafed  to  his  forerunner  at  his  baptism,  of 
at  any  other  time  (see  Ur.  Mill's  Hist.  Character 
of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  and  the  authorities  quoted 
by  him). 

With  the  baptism  of  Jesus  John's  more  especial 
office  ceased.  The  king  had  come  to  his  kingdom. 
The  function  of  the  herald  was  discharged.  It  was 
this  that  John  had  with  singular  humihty  and  self- 
renunciation  announced  beforehand:  "  He  inust 
increase,  but  I  must  decrease." 

John,  however,  still  continued  to  present  himself 
to  his  countrymen  in  the  capacity  of  tdtvess  to 
Jesus.  Especially  did  he  bear  testimony  to  Him 
at  Bethany  beyond  Jordan  (for  Bethany,  not  Beth- 
abara,  is  the  reading  of  the  best  MSS.).  So  con- 
fidently indeed  did  he  point  out  the  Lamb  of  God, 
on  whom  he  had  seen  the  Spirit  alighting  like  a 
dove,  that  two  of  his  own  disciples,  Andrew,  and 
prol)ably  John,  being  convinced  by  his  testimony, 
followed  Jesus,  as  the  true  Messiah. 

From  incidental  notices  in  Scripture  we  learn 
that  John  and  his  disciples  contiimed  to  baptize 
some  time  after  our  Lord  entered  upon  his  ministry 
(see  John  iii.  23,  iv.  1;  Acts  xix.  3).  We  gather 
also  that  John  instructed  his  disciples  in  certain 
moral  and  religious  duties,  as  fasting  (Matt.  ix.  14; 
Luke  v.  33)  and  prayer  (Luke  xi.  1). 

But  shortly  after  he  had  given  his  testimony  to 
the  Messiah,  John's  public  ministry  was  brought 
to  a  close.  He  had  at  the  beginning  of  it  con- 
demned the  hypocrisy  and  worldliness  of  the  Phari- 
sees and  Sadducees,  and  he  now  had  occasion  to 
denounce  the  lust  of  a  king.  In  daring  disregard 
of  the  divine  laws,  Herod  Antipas  had  taken  to 
himself  the  wife  of  his  brother  I'liifip;  and  when 
John  reproved  him  for  this,  as  well  as  for  other  sins 
(Luke  iii.  19),  Herod  cast  him  into  prison.  The 
place  of  his  confinement  was  the  castle  of  Macheerus 
—  a  fortress  on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea. 
It  was  here  that  reports  reached  him  of  the  miracles 
which  our  Lord  was  working  in  Judwa  —  miracles 
which,  doubtless,  were  to  John's  mind  but  the  con- 
firmation of  what  he  expected  to  hear  as  to  the 
establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  But  if 
Christ's  kingdom  were  indeed  established,  it  was 
the  duty  of  John's  own  disciples  no  less  than  of  all 
others  to  acknowledge  it.  They,  however,  would 
naturally  cling  to  their  own  master,  and  be  slow  to 
transfer  their  allegiance  to  another.  With  a  view 
therefore  to  overcome  their  scruples,  John  sent  two 
of  them  to  Jesus  Himself  to  ask  the  question,  "  Art 
Thou  He  that  should  come?  "  They  were  answered 
not  by  words,  but  by  a  series  of  miracles  wrought 
before  their  eyes— the  very  miracles  which  prophecy 
had  specified  as  the  distinguishing  credentials  of 
the  Messiah  (Is.  xxxv.  5,  Ixi.  1);  and,  while  Jesus 
bade  the  two  messengers  carry  back  to  John  as  his 
only  answer  the  report  of  what  they  had  seen  and 
heard.  He  took  occasion  to  guard  the  multitude 
who  surrounded  Him  against  supposing  that  the 
Baptist  himself  was  shaken  in  mind,  by  a  direcl 


JOHN   THE  BAPTIST 

fipt^al  to  their  own  knowledge  of  his  life  and  char- 
icter.  Well  might  tliey  he  appealed  to  as  witnesses 
ihat  the  stern  prophet  of  the  wilderness  was  no 
waverer,  hending  to  every  breeze,  like  the  reeds  on 
the  banks  of  Jordan.  Proof  abundant  had  they 
that  John  was  no  worldling  with  a  heart  set  upon 
rich  clothir.^  and  dainty  fare  —  the  luxurie«i 'of  a 
king's  court  —  and  they  must  have  been  ready  to 
Bcknowledge  that  one  so  inured  to  a  life  of  hard- 
ness and  privation  was  not  likely  to  be  affected  by 
the  ordinary  terrors  of  a  prison.  But  our  Lord  not 
only  'i  indicates  his  forerunner  from  any  suspicion  of 
inconstancy,  He  goes  on  to  proclaim  him  a  prophet, 
and  more  than  a  prophet,  nay,  inferior  to  none  born 
of  woman,  though  in  respect  to  spiritual  privileges 
behind  the  least  of  those  who  were  to  be  born  of  tlie 
Spirit  and  admitted  into  the  fellowship  of  Christ's 
body  (Matt.  xi.  11).  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
expression  6  5e  fiiKpSrepos,  k.t.A.  is  understood 
by  Chrysostom,  Augustin,  Hilary,  and  some  modern 
commentators,  to  mean  Christ  Himself,  but  this 
interpretation  is  less  agreeable  to  the  spirit  and 
lone  of  our  Lord's  discourse. 

Jesus  further  proceeds  to  declare  that  John  was, 
according  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  prophecy,  the 
Elijah  of  the  new  covenant,  foretold  by  Malachi 
(iii.  4).  The  event  indeed  proved  that  John  was 
to  Herod  what  Elijah  had  been  to  Ahab,  and  a 
prison  was  deemed  too  light  a  punishment  for  his 
boldness  in  asserting  Gk)d's  law  before  the  face  of  a 
king  and  a  queen.  Nothing  but  the  death  of  the 
Baptist  would  satisfy  the  resentment  of  Herodias. 
Though  foiled  once,  she  continued  to  watch  her 
opportunity,  which  at  length  arrived.  A  court  fes- 
tival was  kept  at  Machaerus  [see  Tibekias]  in 
honor  of  the  king's  birthday.  After  supper  [or 
during  it,  Mark  vi.  21,  22J,  the  daughter  of  Herodias 
came  in  and  danced  before  the  company,  and  so 
charmed  was  the  king  by  her  grace  that  he  prom- 
ised with  an  oath  to  give  her  whatsoever  she  should 
ask. 

Salome,  prompted  by  her  abandoned  mother, 
demanded  the  head  of  John  the  Baptist.  The 
promise  had  been  given  in  the  hearing  of  his  dis- 
tinguished guests,  and  so  Herod,  though  loth  to  be 
made  the  instrument  of  so  bloody  a  work,  gave  in- 
structions to  an  officer  of  his  guard,  who  went  and 
executed  John  in  the  prison,  and  his  head  was 
brought  to  feast  the  eyes  of  the  adulteress  whose 
sins  he  had  denounced. 

Thus  was  John  added  to  that  glorious  army  of 
martyrs  who  have  suffered  for  righteousness'  sake. 
His  death  is  supposed  to  have  occurred  just  before 
the  third  Passover  in  the  course  of  the  i^ord's  min- 
istry. It  is  by  Josephus  {Ant.  xviii.  5,  §  2)  attrib- 
uted to  the  jealousy  with  which  Herod  regarded 
tis  growing  influence  with  the  people.  Herod  un- 
ioubtedly  looked  upon  him  as  some  extraordinary 
person,  for  no  sooner  did  he  hear  of  the  miracles 
>f  Jesua  than,  though  a  Sadducee  himself,  and  as 
Huch  a  disl)eliever  in  the  Resurrection,  he  ascribed 
them  to  John,  whom  he  supposed  to  be  risen  from 
tlie  dead.  Holy  Scripture  tells  us  that  the  body 
©f  tbe  Baptist  was  laid  in  the  tomb  by  his  disciples, 
•ind  acclesiastical  history  records  the  honors  which 
ouccessive  generations  paid  to  his  memory. 

The  brief  history  of  John's  Hfe  is  marked  through- 
out with  the  characteristic  graces  of  self-denial, 
humility,  and  ho'y  courage.  So  great  indeed  was 
his  abstinence  that  worldly  men  considered  him 
possessed.  "  John  came  neither  eating  nor  drink- 
Bg,  and  they  said  he  hath  a  devil."    His  humility 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF        1427 

was  such  that  he  had  again  an<l  again  to  disavow 
the  character,  and  decline  the  honors  which  ai 
admiring  multitude  almost  forced  upon  him.  To 
their  questions  he  answered  plainly,  he  was  not  tha 
Christ,  nor  the  Elijah  of  whom  they  were  thinking, 
nor  one  of  their  old  prophets.  He  was  no  one  — 
a  voice  merely  —  the  Voice  of  God  calling  his 
people  to  repentance  in  preparation  for  the  coming 
of  Him  whose  shoe  latchet  he  was  not  worthy  to , 
unloose. 

For  his  boldness  in  speakicg  truth,  he  went  a 
willing  victim  to  prison  and  to  death. 

The  student  may  consult  the  following  works, 
where  he  will  find  numerous  references  to  ancient 
and  motlem  comnientators :  Tillemont,  Hist.  Ec~ 
cles. ;  Witsius,  Miscell.  vol.  iv. ;  Thomas  Aquinas, 
Catena  Aurea,  Oxford,  1842;  Neander,  Life  of 
Clirist ;  Le  Bas,  Scripture  Biography ;  Taylor, 
Life  of  Christ;  Olshausen,  Com.  on  the  Gospels. 

E.  H  — s. 

JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF.  1.  Authwity.  —  No 
doubt  has  been  entertained  at  any  time  hi  the 
Church,  either  of  the  canonical  authority  of  this 
Gospel,  or  of  its  being  written  by  St.  John.  The 
text  2  Pet.  i.  14  is  not  indeed  sufficient  to  support 
the  inference  that  St.  Peter  and  his  readers  were 
acquainted  with  the  fourth  Gospel,  and  recognized 
its  authority.  But  still  no  other  book  of  the  N.  T. 
is  authenticated  by  testimony  of  so  early  a  date  as 
that  of  the  disciples  which  is  embodied  in  the  Gospel 
itself  fxxi.  24,  25).  Among  the  Apostolic  Fathers, 
Ignatius  appears  to  ha\'e  known  and  recogi.  zed 
this  Gospel.  His  declaration,  "  I  desire  the  1  ead 
of  God,  which  is  the  flesh  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son 
of  God  .  .  .  and  I  desire  the  drink  of  God,  his 
blood,  which  is  incorruptible  love"  (ad  Bom.  c.  7; 
Cureton,  Corpus  /(/natianum,  p.  231),  could  scarcely 
have  been  written  by  one  who  had  not  read  St.  John 
vi.  32,  (fee.  And  in  the  J£p.  ad  Philcidelphenos,  c.  7 
(which,  however,  is  not  contained  hi  Mr.  Cureton's 
Syriac  MSS.),  the  same  M'riter  says,  "  [The  Holy 
Spirit]  knoweth  whence  He  cometh  and  whither 
He  goeth,  and  reproveth  the  things  which  are  hid- 
den: "  this  is  surely  more  than  an  accidental  verbal 
coincidence  with  St.  John  iii.  8  and  xvi.  8.  The 
fact  that  this  Gospel  is  not  quoted  by  Clement  of 
Rome  (a.  d.  68  or  90)  serves,  as  Dean  Alford  sug- 
gests, merely  to  confirm  the  statement  that  it  is  a 
very  late  production  of  the  Apostolic  age.  Polycarp 
in  his  short  epistle,  Hermas,  and  Barnabas  do  not 
refer  to  it.  But  its  phraseology  may  be  clearly 
traced  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus  ("  Christiana 
dwell  in  the  world,  but  they  are  not  of  the  world;  " 
comp.  John  xvii.  11,  14,  16:  "He  sent  his  only- 
begotten  Son  ...  as  loving,  not  condemning;" 
comp.  John  iii.  16,  17),  and  in  Justin  Martyr, 
A.  D.  150  ("  Christ  said.  Except  ye  be  born  again 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  and 
it  is  manifest  to  all  that  it  is  impossible  for  those 
who  have  been  once  born  to  enter  into  the  wombs 
of  those  that  bare  them;  "  Apol.  c.  61;  comp.  John 
iii.  3,  5 :  and  again,  "  His  blood  having  been  pro- 
duced, not  of  human  seed,  but  of  the  will  of  God;  " 
Trypho,  c.  63;  comp.  John  i.  13,  &c.).  Tatiac, 
A.  D.  170,  wrote  a  harmony  of  the  four  Gosi^els; 
and  he  quotes  St.  John's  Gospel  in  his  only  extant 
work  so  '\o  his  contemporaries  ApoUinaris  of 
Hierapolis,  Athenagoras,  and  the  writer  of  the 
Epistle  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons.  Tha 
Valentinians  made  great  use  of  it;  and  one  of  their 
sect,  Heracleon,  wrote  a  commentary  on  it.  Yet 
its  authority  acioiag  orthodox  Christians  was  too 


1428        JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

firmly  established  to  be  shaken  thereby.  Theophilus 
jf  Antioch  (ad  Auiolycum,  ii.)  expressly  ascribes 
this  Gospel  to  St.  John ;  and  he  wrote,  according 
to  Jerorae  {Kp.  53,  ad  Algos.),  a  hai'monized  com- 
mentary on  tJie  four  Gospels.  And,  to  close  the 
list  of  writers  of  the  second  century,  the  numerous 
and  full  testimonies  of  Irenaeus  in  Gaul  and  Ter- 
tullian  at  Carthage,  with  the  obscure  but  weighty 
testimony  of  the  Roman  writer  of  the  Muratorian 
Fragment  on  the  Canon,  sufficiently  show  the  au- 
thority attributed  in  the  Western  Church  to  this 
Gospel.  The  third  century  introduces  equally  de- 
cisive testimony  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Alexandrian 
Church,  Clement  and  Origen,  which  it  is  unneces- 
sary here  to  quote  at  length. 

Cerdon,  Marcion,  the  Montanists,  and  other  an- 
cient heretics  (see  Lampe,  Commentarius,  i.  136), 
did  not  deny  that  St.  John  was  the  author  of  the 
Gospel,  but  they  held  that  the  Apostle  was  mis- 
taken, or  that  his  Gospel  had  been  interpolated  in 
those  passages  which  are  opposed  to  their  tenets. 
The  Alogi,  a  sect  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  were  singular  in  rejecting  the  writings  of 
St.  John.  Guerike  {liinleitung  in  N.  T.  p.  303) 
enumerates  later  opponents  of  the  Gospel,  beginning 
with  an  Englishman,  Edw.  Evanson,  On  the  Dis- 
sonance of  the  Four  Kvangetists,  Ipswich,  1792, 
and  closing  with  Bretschneider's  Probabilia  de 
Evangdio  Johannis,  etc.,  oi-i(jine,  Lips.  1820.  His 
arguments  are  characterized  by  Guerike  as  strong 
in  comparison  with  those  of  hia  predecessors.  They 
are  grounded  chiefly  on  the  strangeness  of  such 
language  and  thoughts  as  those  of  St.  John  coming 
from  a  Galilean  fisherman,  and  on  the  difference 
between  the  representations  of  our  Lord's  person 
and  of  his  manner  of  sjieech  given  by  St.  John  and 
the  other  Evangelists.  Guerike  answers  Bretsch- 
neider's  arguments  in  detail.  The  skepticism  of 
more  recent  times  has  found  its  fullest,  and,  accord- 
ing to  Hleek,  its  most  important,  expression  in  a 
treatise  by  Liitzelberger  on  the  tradition  respecting 
the  Apostle  John  and  his  writings  (1840).  His 
arguments  are  recapitulated  and  answered  by  Dr. 
Davidson  {Introduction  to  the  N.  7".,  1848,  vol.  i. 
p.  244,  &c.).  It  may  suffice  to  mention  one  speci- 
men. St.  Paul's  expression  (Gal.  ii.  6),  diroioi 
TTore  ^(Tau,  is  translated  by  Liitzelberger,  "  what- 
soever they  [Peter,  James,  and  John]  were  for- 
merly:" he  discovers  therein  an  implied  assertion 
that  all  three  were  not  living  when  the  Epistle  to 
he  Galatians  was  written,  and  infers  that  since 
Peter  and  James  were  undoubtedly  alive,  John 
must  have  been  dead,  and  therefore  the  tradition 
which  ascribes  to  him  the  residence  at  Ephesus, 
and  the  composition,  after  A.  d.  60,  of  various 
writings,  must  confound  him  with  another  John. 
Still  more  recently  the  objections  of  Baur  to  St. 
John's  Gospel  have  been  answered  by  Ebrard,  Das 
EvavAjelium  Johannis,  etc.,  Ziirich,  1845. 

2.  Place  and  Time  at  lohich  it  was  written.  — 
Ephesus  and  Patmos  are  the  two  places  mentioned 
by  early  writers ;  and  the  weight  of  evidence  seems 
to  preponderate  in  favor  of  Ephesus  Irena-us  (iii. 
1;  also  apud  Euseb.  //.  K.  v.  8)  states  that  John 
published  his  Gospel  whilst  he  dwelt  in  Ephesus 
of  Asia.  Jerome  {Prol.  in  Malth.)  states  that  John 
was  in  Asia  when  he  complied  with  the  request  of 
ths  bishops  of  Asia  and  otliers  to  write  more  pro- 
bundly  concerning  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  The- 
odore of  Mopsuestia  {Prol.  in  Joannem)  relates  that 
John  was  living  at  Ephesus  when  he  was  moved  by 
Ua  disciples  to  write  his  Gcspel. 


JOHN,  GOSPEL    OF 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  Patmos  comes  from  twc 
anonymous  writers.  The  author  of  the  Synopsis 
of  Scripture,  printed  in  the  works  of  Athanasius. 
states  that  the  Gospel  was  dictated  by  St.  John  in 
Patmos,  and  published  afterwards  in  Ephesus.  The 
author  of  the  work  De  XII.  Aposlolis,  printed  in 
the  Appendix  to  Fabricius's  Ifijypo/ytus  (p.  952,  ed. 
Migne),  states  that  John  was  banished  by  Domitian 
to  Patmos,  where  he  wrote  his  Gospel.  The  later 
date  of  these  unknown  writers,  and  the  seeming 
inconsistency  of  their  testimony  with  St.  John's 
declaration  (Rev.  i.  2)  in  Patmos,  that  he  had 
previously  borne  record  of  the  Word  of  God,  render 
their  testimony  of  little  weight. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  elicit  fircm  the  lip- 
guage  of  the  Gospel  itself  some  argument  which 
should  decide  the  question  whether  it  was  written 
before  or  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But 
considering  that  the  present  tense  "  is  "  is  used  in 
V.  2,  and  the  past  tense  *'  was  "  in  xi.  18,  xviii.  1, 
xix.  41,  it  would  seem  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
these  passages  throw  no  light  upon  the  question. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  {apud  Eu.<!eb.  H.  E.  \\ 
14)  speaks  of  St.  John  as  the  latest  of  the  Evan 
gelists.  The  Apostle's  sojourn  at  Ephesus  probably 
began  after  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was 
written,  i.  e.  after  A.  D.  62.  Eusebius  {H.  E.  iii. 
20)  specifies  the  fourteenth  year  of  Domitian,  i.  e. 
A.  D.  95  as  the  year  of  his  banishment  to  Patmos. 
Probably  the  date  of  the  Gospel  may  lie  about  mid- 
way between  these  two,  about  A.  D.  78.  The  ref- 
erences to  it  in  the  First  Epistle  and  the  Revelation 
lead  to  the  supposition  that  it  was  written  decidedly 
before  those  two  books;  and  the  tradition  of  ita 
supplementary  character  would  lead  us  to  place  it 
some  little  time  after  the  Apostle  had  fixed  his 
abode  at  Ephesus. 

3.  Occasion  and  Scope.  —  After  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  A.  D.  69,  Ephesus  probably  became 
the  centre  of  the  active  life  of  Eastern  Christendom. 
Even  Antioch,  the  original  source  of  missions  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  future  metropolis  of  the 
Christian  Patriarch,  appears,  for  a  time,  less  con- 
spicuous in  the  obscurity  of  early  church  history 
than  Elphesus,  to  which  St.  Paul  inscribed  his 
epistle,  and  in  which  St.  John  found  a  dwelling- 
place  and  a  tomb.  This  half-Greek,  half-Oriental 
city,  "  visited  by  ships  from  all  parts  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean, and  united  by  great  roads  with  the  markets 
of  the  interior,  was  the  common  meeting-place  of 
various  characters  and  classes  of  men  "  (Conybeare 
and  Howson's  St.  Paul,  ch.  xiv.).  It  contained  a 
large  church  of  faithful  Christians,  a  multitude  of 
zealous  Jews,  an  indigenous  population  devoted  to 
the  worship  of  a  strange  idol  whose  image  (Jerome, 
Prof,  in  F.2)hes.)  was  borrowed  from  the  East,  its 
name  from  the  West:  in  the  Xystus  of  Ephesus, 
free-thinking  philosophers  of  all  nations  disputed 
over  their  favorite  tenets  (Justin,  Trypho,  cc.  1,7). 
It  was  the  place  to  which  Cerinthus  chose  to  bring 
the  doctrines  which  he  devised  or  learned  at  Alex- 
andria (Neander,  Church  Histmy,  ii.  42,  ed.  Bohn). 
In  this  city,  and  among  the  lawless  heathens  in  its 
neighborhood  (Clem.  Alex.  Quis  dives  salv.  §  42), 
St.  John  was  engaged  in  extending  the  Christian 
Church,  when,  for  the  greater  edification  of,  that 
Church,  his  Gospel  was  written.  It  was  obviously 
addressed  primarily  to  Christians,  not  to  heathens ; 
and  the  Apostle  himself  tells  us  (xx.  31)  what  wm 
the  end  to  which  he  looked  forward  in  all  hii 
teaching. 

Modem  criticism  has  indulged  ir  much  nmoat 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF 

flK'ciilatioii  as  to  the  exclusive  or  the  principal 
u.utive  which  induced  the  Apostle  to  write.  His 
design,  according  to  some  critics,  was  to  supplement 
the  deficiencies  of  the  earlier  three  Gospels ;  accord- 
ing to  others,  to  confute  the  Nicolaitans  and  Cerin- 
thus ;  according  to  others,  to  state  the  true  doctrine 
Df  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  But  let  it  bo  borne  in 
mind  first  of  all  that  the  inspiring,  directing  im- 
pulse given  to  St.  John  was  that  by  which  all 
"  prophecy  came  in  old  time,"  when  "  holy  men 
of  God  spalve,"  "  not  by  the  will  of  man,"  "but 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  Vie  can- 
not feel  confident  of  our  own  capacity  to  analyze 
the  motives  and  circumscribe  the  views  of  a  mind 
under  the  influence  of  Divine  inspiration.  The 
Grospel  of  St.  John  is  a  boon  to  all  ages,  and  to 
men  in  an  infinite  variety  of  circumstances.  Some- 
.'hing  of  the  feelings  of  the  chronicler,  or  the  polemic, 
or  the  catechist  may  have  been  in  the  heart  of  the 
Apostle,  but  let  us  not  imagine  that  his  motives 
were  limited  to  any,  or  to  all  of  these. 

It  has  indeed  been  pronounced  by  high  critical 
authority  that  "  the  supplementary  theory  is  en- 
tirely untenable;"  and  so  it  becomes  if  put  forth 
in  its  most  rigid  form,  and  as  showing  the  whole 
design  of  St.  John.  But  even  Dr.  Davidson,  while 
oronouncing  it  unsupported  by  either  external  tra- 
dition or  internal  grounds,  acknowledges  that  some 
truth  lies  at  the  bottom  of  it.  Those  who  hold  the 
theory  in  its  extreme  and  exclusive  form  will  find 
it  hard  to  account  for  the  fact  that  St.  John  has 
many  things  in  common  with  his  predecessors;  and 
those  who  repudiate  the  theory  entirely  will  find  it 
hard  to  account  for  his  omission,  e.  g.  of  sucb  an 
event  as  the  Transfiguration,  which  he  was  admitted 
to  see,  and  which  would  have  been  within  the  scope 
(under  any  other  theory)  of  his  Gospel.  Luthardt 
concludes  most  judiciously  that,  though  St.  John 
may  not  have  written  with  direct  reference  to  the 
earlier  three  Evangelists,  he  did  not  write  without 
any  reference  to  them. 

And  in  like  manner,  though  so  able  a  critic  as 
Liicke  speaks  of  the  anti-Gnostic  reference  of  St. 
John  as  prevailing  throughout  his  Gospel,  while 
Luthardt  is  for  limiting  such  reference  to  his  first 
verses,  and  to  his  doctrine  of  the  Logos;  and, 
though  other  writers  have  shown  much  ingenuity 
in  discovering,  and  perhaps  exaggerating,  references 
to  Docetism,  Ebionitism,  and  Sabianism;  yet,  when 
controversial  references  are  set  forth  as  the  principal 
design  of  the  Apostle,  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind 
the  cautious  opinion  expressed  by  Dr.  Davidson: 
"  Designed  polemical  opposition  to  one  of  those 
srrors,  or  to  all  of  their,  does  not  lie  in  the  con- 
tents of  the  sacred  bouk  itself;  and  yet  it  is  true 
that  they  were  not  unnoticed  by  St.  John.  He 
intended  to  set  forth  the  faith  alone,  and  in  so 
doing  he  has  written  passages  that  do  confute  those 
erroneous  tendencies." 

There  is  no  intrinsic  improbability  in  the  early 
tradition  as  to  the  occasion  and  scope  of  this  Gospel, 
which  is  most  fully  related  in  the  commentary  of 
Theodore  of  IMopsuestia,  to  the  effect  that  while 
St.  John  lived  at  Ephesus,  and  visited  all  partij  of 
Asia,  the  ^vriting3  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  even 
Luke  2ame  into  the  hands  of  the  Christians,  and 
were  diligently  circulated  everywhere.  Then  it 
occurred  to  the  Christians  of  Asia  that  St.  John 
was  a  more  credible  witness  than  all  others,  foras- 
much as  from  the  beginning,  even  before  Matthew, 
fte  was  with  the  Lord,  and  enjoyed  more  abundant 
jrace  through  the  love  which  the  Ixtrd  bore  to  him. 


JOHN,   GOSl'EL   OF 


142S 


And  they  brought  him  the  books,  and  sought  to 
know  his  opinion  of  them.  'I'hen  he  praised  the 
writers  for  tiieir  veracity,  and  said  that  a  few  things 
had  been  omitted  by  them,  and  that  all  but  a  littl 
of  the  teaching  of  the  most  important  miracles  WM 
recorded.  And  he  added  that  they  who  discourse 
of  the  coming  of  Christ  in  the  flesh  ought  not  to 
omit  to  speak  of  his  Divinity,  lest  in  course  of  time 
men  who  are  used  to  such  discourses  might  suppose 
that  Christ  was  only  what  He  appeared  to  be. 
Thereupon  the  brethren  exhorted  him  to  write  at 
once  the  things  which  he  judged  the  most  important 
for  instruction,  and  which  he  saw  omitted  by  the 
others.  And  he  did  so.  And  therefore  from  the 
l:)eginning  he  discoursed  about  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  judging  this  to  be  the  necessary 
beginning  of  the  Gospel,  and  from  it  he  went  on  to 
the  incarnation.     [See  above,  p.  1423.] 

4.  Contents  and  Integrity.  —  Luthardt  says  that 
there  is  no  book  in  the  N.  T.  which  more  strongly 
than  the  fourth  Gospel  impresses  the  reader  with 
the  notion  of  its  unity  and  integrity.  And  yet  it 
does  not  appear  to  be  written  with  such  close  ad- 
herence to  a  preconceived  plan  as  a  western  writer 
would  show  in  developing  and  illustrating  some  one 
leading  idea.  The  preface,  the  break  at  the  end  of 
the  twelfth  chapter,  and  the  supplementary  chapter, 
are  divisions  which  will  occur  to  every  reader.  The 
ingenious  synopsis  of  liengel  and  the  thoughtful 
one  of  Luthardt  are  worthy  of  attention.  But  none 
is  so  elaborate  and  minute  as  that  of  Lampe,  of 
which  the  following  is  an  abridgment :  — 

A.  The  Prologue,  i.  1-18. 

B.  The  History,  i.  19-xx.  29. 

a.  Various  events  relating  to  our  I^ord's  ministry, 
narrated  in  connection  with  seven  journeys,  i.  19- 
xii.  50 :  — 

1.  First  journey  into  Judaea  and  beginning  of 
his  ministry,  i.  19-ii.  12. 

2.  Second  journey,  at  the  Passover  in  the  first 
year  of  his  ministry,  ii.  13-iv.  (The  manifestation 
of  his  glory  in  Jerusalem,  ii.  13-iii.  21,  and  in  the 
journey  back,  iii.  22-iv.) 

3.  Third  journey,  in  the  second  year  of  his  min- 
istry, about  the  Passover,  v. 

4.  Fourth  journey,  about  the  Passover,  in  the 
third  year  of  his  ministry,  beyond  Jordan,  vi.  (Hia 
glory  shown  by  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves,  and 
by  his  walking  on  the  sea,  and  by  the  discoursed 
with  the  Jews,  his  disciples  and  his  Apostles.) 

5.  Fifth  journey,  six  months  before  his  death, 
begun  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  vii.-x.  21.  (Cir- 
cumstances in  which  the  journey  was  undertaken, 
vii.  1-13 :  five  signs  of  his  glory  shown  at  Jerusalem, 
vii.  14-x.  21.) 

6.  Sixth  journey,  about  the  Feast  of  Dedication, 
X.  22-42.  (His  testimony  in  Solomon's  porch,  and 
his  departure  beyond  Jordan.) 

7.  Seventh  journey  in  Judsea  towards  Bethany, 
xi.  1-54.  (The  raising  of  Lazarus  and  its  conse- 
quences.) 

8.  Eighth  journey,  before  his  last  Passover,  xi. 
55-xii.  (Plots  of  the  Jews,  his  entry  hito  Jeru- 
salem, and  into  the  Temple,  and  the  manifestation 
of  his  glory  there. ) 

b.  History  of  the  Death  of  Christ,  xiii.-xx.  29. 

1.  Preparation  for  his  Passion,  xiii.-xvii.  (Last 
Supper,  discourse  to  hia  disciples,  his  commendatory 
prayei.) 

2.  The  circumstances  of  his  Passion  and  Death, 
xviii.,  xix.  (His  apprehension,  trial,  and  cruoL* 
fixion.) 


1430        JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

3.   His  Resurrection,  and  the  proofs  of  it,  xx. 
1-29. 
C.   TuK  CoNcr.usiox,  xx.  30-xxi.:  — 

1.  Scope  of  the  foregoing  history,  xx.  30,  31. 

2.  Confirmation  of  the  authority  of  the  Evan- 
gelist by  additional  historical  facts,  and  by  the 
testimony  of  the  elders  of  the  Church,  xxi.  1-24. 

3.  Keason  of  the  termination  of  the  history,  xxi. 
25. 

Some  portions  of  the  Gospel  have  been  regarded 
by  certain  critics  as  interpolations.  Luthardt  dis- 
cusses at  considerable  length  the  objections  of 
Paulus,  Weisae,  Schenkel,  and  Schweizer  to  ch.  xxi., 
nii.  1-11,  V.  3,  ii.  1-12,  iv.  44-54,  vi.  l-26.«  The 
discussion  of  these  passages  belongs  rather  to  a 
commentary  than  to  a  brief  introduction.  But  as 
the  question  as  to  ch.  xxi.  has  an  important  bearing 
on  the  history  of  the  Gospel,  a  brief  statement  re- 
specting it  may  not  be  out  of  place  here. 

Guerike  {Einkitung,  p.  310)  gives  the  following 
lists  of  (1)  those  who  have  doubted,  and  (2)  those 
who  have  advocated  its  genuineness:  (1)  Grotius, 
Le  Clerc,  Pfaff,  Semler,  Paulus,  Gurlitt,  Bertholdt, 
Seyffarth,  Liicke,  De  Wette,  Schott;  (2)  R.  Simon, 
Lamjie,  Wetstein,  Osiander,  Michaelis,  Beck,  Eich- 
hom,  Hug,  Wegscheider,  Handschke,  Weber,  Tho- 
luck,  Scheffer.  The  objections  against  the  first 
twenty-three  verses  of  this  chapter  are  founded 
entirely  on  internal  evidence.  The  principal  objec- 
tions  as  to  alleged  peculiarities  of   language  are 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF 

j  completely  answered  in  a  note  in  Guerike 's  Kifdei 
lung,  p.  310  [or  Neutest.  /sagogik,  3e  Aufl.  1868, 
p.  223  f.],  and  are  given  up  with  one  exception  bj 
De  Wette.  Other  objections,  though  urged  by 
Liicke,  are  exceedingly  trivial  and  arbitrary,  e.  y. 
that  the  reference  to  the  author  m  verse  20  is  un- 
like the  manner  of  St.  John ;  that  xx.  30,  31  would 
have  been  placed  at  the  end  of  xxi.  by  St.  John  if 
he  had  \mtten  both  chapters;  that  the  narrative 
descends  to  strangely  minute  circumstances,  etc. 

The  25th  verse  and  the  latter  half  of  the  24tb 
of  ch.  xxi.  are  generally  received  as  an  undisguised 
addition,  probably  by  the  elders  of  the  Ephe«ai 
Church,  where  the  Gospel  was  first  publishal. 

There  is  an  early  tradition  recorded  by  the  an 
thor  of  the  Synopsis  of  Scripture  in  Athanasius 
that  this  Gospel  was  WTitten  many  years  before  tho 
Ajwstle  permitted  its  general  circulation.  This 
fact  —  rather  improbable  in  itself —  is  rendered  less 
so  by  the  obviously  supplementary  character  of  the 
latter  part,  or  perhaps  the  whole  of  ch.  xxi.  Ewald 
{Gesch.  des  Vulkes  Jsrnel,  vii.  217),  less  skeptical 
herein  than  many  of  his  countrymen,  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  first  20  chapters  of  this  Gospel, 
having  been  written  by  the  Apostle,  al)out  A.  D. 
80,  at  the  request,  and  with  the  help  of  his  more 
advanced  Christian  friejids,  were  not  made  public 
till  a  short  time  before  his  death,  and  that  ch.  xxi. 
was  a  later  addition  by  his  own  hand.'' 

6.   Literature.  —  The  principal  Commentators 


«  •  A  distinction  should  be  made  between  these 
passages.  The  genuineness  of  John  v.  3  (or  rather  v. 
i,  with  the  last  clause  of  ver.  3)  and  viii.  1-11  (or  more 
accurately  vii.  53-viii.  11)  is  a  question  of  textual 
criticism,  these  verses  being  wanting  in  the  oldest  and 
most  important  manuscripts,  and  in  other  authorities. 
They  are  accordingly  regarded  as  interpolations  or  as 
of  very  doubtful  genuineness,  not  only  by  the  writers 
mentioned  above,  but  by  Qriesbach,  Knapp,  Schott, 
Tittmann,  Theile,  Lachmann  (John  vii.  63  — viii.  1-11 
only),  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Alford,  De  Wette,  Bruck- 
ner, Meyer,  Liicke,  Tlioluck,  Olshausen,  Neander, 
Luthardt,  Ewald,  Biiumlein,  Bleek,  Godet,  Norton, 
Porter,  Davidson,  Green,  Scrivener,  and  many  other 
critics,  except  that  some  of  these  receive  the  last  clause 
of  V.  3  as  genuine.  But  there  is  no  external  evidence 
Rgainst  the  genuineness  of  the  other  passages  referred 
to.  A. 

6  •  This  account  of  Kwald's  view  is  not  entirely 
correct.  He  regards  the  2l8t  chapter  as  indeed  pro- 
ceeding substjuitially  from  the  Apostle,  but  as  betray- 
ing here  and  there  (as  in  vv.  20,  24,  26),  even  more 
than  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel,  the  hand  of  friends 
who  aided  him  in  committing  his  recollections  to 
writing.  {Die  jolian.  Schrijten,  i.  53  fif.)  The  main 
object  of  the  addition  he  supposes  to  have  been  to 
correct  the  erroneous  report  referred  to  in  ver.  23  re- 
specting the  exemption  of  the  beloved  disciple  from 
death. 

That  the  two  last  verses  of  the  2l8t  chapter  (or 
rather  ver  25  and  the  last  clause  of  ver.  24)  have  the 
dir  of  an  editorial  note  is  obvious.  The  extravagant 
lyperbole  in  ver.  25,  and  the  use  of  several  words 
oara,  if  this  is  the  true  reading,  for  a,  KaO'  «f,  oljuiai) 
ire  also  foreign  from  the  style  of  John.  Perhaps  there 
Is  no  supposition  respecting  these  verses  more  probable 
than  that  of  Mr.  Norton,  who  observes :  "  According 
to  ancient  accounts,  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel  at 
Bphesuf  .  .  It  is  not  improbable  that,  before  his 
iealh,  its  circulation  had  been  confined  to  the  mem- 
bers of  that  church.  Thence  copies  of  it  would  be 
fcp^rwards  obtained  ;  and  the  copy  provided  for  tran- 
scription was,  we  may  suppose,  accompanied  by  the 
Itrong  attestation  which  we  now  find,  given  by  the 
)hur('b   or  tn«  elders  of  the  church,  to  their  fUll  faith 


in  the  accounts  which  it  contained,  and  by  the  con- 
cluding remark  made  by  the  writer  of  this  attestation 
in  his  own  person"  {Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2d 
ed.,  vol.  i.  Add.  Notes,  p.  xcvi.^ ;  for  a  fuller  discussion 
comp.  Godet,  Comm.  sur  PEvang.  de  St.  Jean,  ii, 
692  ff.). 

On  the  supposition  that  the  Gospel  is  genuine,  this 
view  of  the  last  two  verses  removes  all  objections  of 
any  real  weight  to  the  ascription  of  the  remainder  of 
the  chapter  to  the  Apostle  John.  The  weakness  of  most 
of  these  objections  is  fully  recognized  even  by  Baiu 
{Bit  kanon.  Evartgelicn,  p.  235  ff.) ;  and  Credner,  who 
contends  against  the  genuineness  of  the  chapter,  admits 
that  "  it  exhibits  almost  all  the  peculiarities  of  John's 
style  »  {Einl.  in  das  N.  T.  i.  232).  The  points  of  dif- 
ference which  have  been  urged  are  altogether  insig- 
nificant in  comparison  with  the  striking  agreement, 
not  merely  in  phraseology,  but  in  manner,  and  in  the 
structure  and  connection  of  sentences  :  note  esjiecially 
the  absence  of  conjunctions,  vv.  3  (ter),  5,  10,  11,  12 
(bis),  13,  16  (bis),  16  (ter),  17  (ter),  20,  22,  and  the 
frequent  use  of  ovv. 

On  the  supposition,  however,  that  the  Gospel  is  not 
genuine,  this  Appendix  presents  a  problem  which 
seems  to  admit  of  no  reasonable  solution.  AVhat  motive 
could  there  have  been  for  adding  such  a  supplement 
to  a  spurious  work  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  ?  Was  it  needful,  fifty  jears  or  more  after 
the  Apostle's  death,  to  correct  a  false  report  that  it 
was  promised  him  that  he  should  not  die  ?  Or  what 
dogmatic  purpose  could  this  addition  serve  ?  And  how 
is  its  minuteness  of  detail,  and  its  extraordinary  agree- 
ment in  style  with  the  rest  of  the  Gospel  to  be  ex- 
plained ?  It  may  be  said  that  it  was  designed  t(  give 
credit  to  the  forged  Gospel  by  a  pretended  attestarion. 
But  was  the  whole  chapter  needed  for  this  ?  And 
what  credit  could  a  fictitious  work  of  that  period  derive 
from  an  anonymous  testimony  ?  Had  such  b«'en  the 
object,  moreover,  how  strange  that  the  Apostle  John 
should  not  be  named  as  the  author  I 

The  only  plausible  explanation,  then,  of  vv.  24,  25, 
seems  to  be,  that  they  are  an  attesoition  of  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Qtspel  by  those  who  first  put  it  intc 
general  circulation  —  companions  and  friends  of  th« 
author,  and  well  known  to  those  to  whom  it  was  com 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

»n  St.  John  will  be  found  in  the  following  list: 

(I)  Origen,  in  Oin>.  ed.  1759,  iv.  1-460;  (2) 
Chrysostom,  in  0pp.  ed.  1728,  viii.  1-530;  (3) 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  others,  in  Covdei-il 
Catena  in  Joannein,  1630  ;  [for  Theodore,  see 
Migne's  Patrol.  Grceca,  torn.  Ixvi. ;  (3'^  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  0pp.  ed.  Aubert,  torn,  iv.,  or  Migne's 
Patrol,  toni.  Ixxiii.,  Ixxiv.;  the  poetical  paraphrase 
Df  Nonnus  may  also  be  noted,  Migne,  Patrol,  torn, 
jdiii.;]  (4)  Augusthie,  in  0pp.  ed.  1690,  iii.,  part 
2,  290-826;  (5)  Theophylact ;  (6/  Euthymius 
Zigabenus;  (7)  JVlaldonatus;  (8)  Luther;  (9)  Cal- 
vin; (10)  Grotius  and  others,  in  the  Critici  Sacri  ; 

(II)  Cornelius  a  Lapide;  (12)  Hammond;  (13) 
Lampe,  Commentarius  exegetico-analyticus  in 
Joannem  [3  vol.  Amst.  1721-26,  and  Bas.  1725- 
27];  (14)  Bengel;  (15)  Whitby;  (16)  Liicke,  Com- 
mentar  iib.  cits  Evang.  des  Johann.  1820  [-24, 
3e  Aufl.  2  vols.  1840-43]  ;  (17)  Olshausen,  9Ms- 
cher  Commentar,  1834 ;  (18)  Meyer,  Krittsch- 
exeget.  Commentar ;  (19)  De  Wette,  Exeget. 
Handbuch  z.  N.  T. ;  (20)  Tholuck,  Comm.  z. 
Evang.  Johan.  ;  (21)  C.  E.  Luthardt,  das  johan- 
neische  Evang elium  nach  seiner  Eigenthiimlichkeit, 
2  vols.,  1852-53. 

Until  very  lately  the  English  reader  had  no  better 
critical  helps  in  the  study  of  St.  John's  Gospel  than 
those  which  were  provided  for  him  by  Hammond. 
Lightfoot,  and  Whitby.  He  now  has  access  through 
the  learned  Commentaries  of  Canon  Wordsworth 
and  Uean  Alford  to  the  interpretations  and  explana- 
tions of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  several  English 
theologians,  and  to  those  of  all  the  eminent  German 
critics. 

The  Commentaries  of  Chrysostom  and  Augustine 
have  been  translated  into  English  in  the  Oxford 
Library  of  the  Fathers  [Chrysostom,  vol.  xxviii., 
xxxvi.,  Augustine,  vol.  xxix.]  (Parker,  1848).  Eng- 
lish translations  have  been  pu})lished  also  of  the 
Commentaries  of  Bengel  and  Olshausen.  And  the 
Rev.  V.  D.  Maurice  has  published  an  original  and 
devout  Commentary  under  the  title  of  Discourses 
on  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  1857.         W.  T.  B. 

*  Genuinknkss.  — Since  the  rise  of  the  Tiibingen 
critical  school,  the  question  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  has  been  much  discussed.  The 
oppoiicnts  of  the  .lohannean  authorship  are  far 
from  being  agreed  among  themselves  respecting 
the  date  wliioh  they  assign  to  the  book.  Baur 
placed  it  at  about  160,  Hilgenfeld  at  from  120  to 
140,  Schenkel  at  from  110  to  120,  and  Renan  in 
his  13th  ed.  (I'aris,  18(57)  before  100.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  Tubingen  school  on  this  question  is  a 
part  of  their  general  theory  concerning  the  rise  of 
Catholic  Christianity,  which  they  attribute  to  the 
gradual  pacifying  of  the  supposed  antagonism  of 
the  Jewish-Christian  or  Petrine,  and  Gentile-Chris- 
tian or  Pauline,  branches  of  the  Church.     As  the 


muDicated  ;  and  the  only  plausible  account  of  the  first 
23  verses  of  the  chapter  is,  that  they  are  a  supple- 
mentary addition,  which  proceeded  directly  from  the 
pen,  or  substantially  from  the  dictation,  of  the  author 
of  the  rest  of  the  Gospel. 

It  should  further  be  noted  that  Tischendorf,  in  the 
2d  edition  of  his  Synopsis  EvangeUca  (1864),  brackets 
ver.  25  as  spurious,  chiefly  on  the  ground  of  its  omis- 
rion  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  a  prima  manu.  (The 
part  of  Tischendorf  s  8th  critical  edition  of  the  N.  T. 
•-ontainiug  the  Gospel  of  John  has  not  yet  appeared.) 
Thr  verse  stands  at  present  in  the  Codex  Sinait'ius, 
Vut  Tischendorf  believes  that  the  color  of  the  ink  and 

alight  differ*'nce  in  the  handwriting  "(how  that  it  did 


JOHN,  GOSPEL   OF        1431 

book  of  Acts  was  an  earlier,  so  the  fourth  Gospe' 
was  a  Later  product  of  this  compromising  tendency. 
The  writer  of  it  assumed  the  name  of  John  in  or- 
der to  give  an  Apostolic  sanction  to  his  higher 
theological  platform,  on  which  love  takes  the  place 
of  faith,  and  the  Jewish  system  is  shown  to  be  ful- 
filled, and  so  abolished,  by  the  offering  of  Christ, 
who  is  represented  as  the  true  Paschal  lamb.  The 
history  is  artificiaUy  contrived  as  the  symbolical, 
vestment  of  ideas,  such  as  the  idea  of  unbelief  cul- 
minating in  the  crucifixion  of  the  self-manifested 
Christ,  and  the  idea  of  faith  as  not  real  and  gen- 
uine so  far  as  it  rests  on  miracles.  Renan  differs 
from  most  of  the  German  critics  in  receiving  as 
authentic  much  more  of  the  narrative  portion  of 
the  Gospel.  He  conceives  the  work  to  have  been 
composed  by  some  disciple  of  the  Evangelist  John, 
who  derived  from  the  latter  much  of  his  informa- 
tion. In  particular  Renan  accepts  as  historical 
the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  (which, 
however,  he  holds  to  have  been  a  counterfeit  miracle, 
the  result  of  collusion),  and  much  besides  which 
John  records  in  connection  with  the  closing  scenes 
of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

We  shall  now  review  the  principal  arguments 
which  bear  on  the  main  question.  That  John  spent 
the  latter  part  of  his  hfe,  and  died  at  an  advanced 
age,  in  Proconsular  Asia,  in  particular  at  Ephesus, 
is  a  well  attested  fact.  Polycrates,  bishop  at  Eph- 
esus near  the  close  of  the  second  century,  who  had 
become  a  Christian  as  early  as  131,  and  seven  of 
whose  kinsmen  had  been  bishops  or  presbyters,  says 
that  John  died  and  was  buried  in  that  place  (Euseb. 
//.  E.  v.  24;  cf.  iii.  31).  Irenseus,  who  was  bom 
in  Asia,  says  of  those  old  presbyters,  immediate 
disciples  of  the  Apostles,  whom  he  had  known, 
that  they  had  been  personally  conversant  with  John, 
and  that  he  had  remained  among  them  up  to  the 
times  of  Trajan,  whose  reign  was  from  98  to  117. 
(See  Iren.  adv.  Hcer.  ii.  22,  al.  39,  §  5.)  That 
his  informants  were  mistaken  on  such  a  point  as 
the  duration  of  the  Saviour's  ministry  does  not 
invalidate  their  testimony  in  regard  to  the  duration 
of  John's  life,  about  which  they  could  not  well  be 
mistaken.  His  Gospel,  according  to  Irenaeus, 
Clement,  and  others,  and  the  general  belief,  was 
the  last  written  of  the  four,  and  the  traditioi. 
placed  its  composition  near  the  end  of  his  life. 

In  support  of  this  proposition,  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  Jerome  and  Eusebius,  both  diligent 
inquirers,  and  knowing  how  to  discriminate  between 
books  universally  received  and  those  which  had  been 
questioned.  In  an  argument  which  depends  for  its 
force  partly  on  an  accumulation  of  particulars, 
their  suffrages  are  not  without  weight.  We  may 
begin,  however,  with  the  indisputable  fact  that  in 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  the  fourth 
Gospel  was  received  in  every  part  of  Christendom 

not  proceed  from  the  original  scribe,  but  was  added 
by  a  contemporary  reviser  of  the  manuscript.  On  this 
palaeographical  question,  however,  Tregelles  differa 
from  him.  (See  Tischendorf  s  N.  T,  Grcpxe  ex  Sinaitica 
Codice,  pp.  xxxxviii.,  Ixxvi.)  MS.  63  has  been  errone 
ously  cited  as  omitting  the  verse  (see  Scrivener's  Full 
Collation  of  the  Cod.  Sin.^  p.  lix.,  note).  The  scholia 
of  many  MSS.,  however,  speak  of  it  as  regarded  by 
some  as  an  audition  by  a  foreign  hand  ;  and  a  scholion 
to  this  effect,  ascribed  xn  one  manuscript  to  Theodora 
of  Mopsuestia,  is  given  in  Card.  Mai's  edition  of  th« 
Commentaries  of  this  fether  {Nova  Pair.  Bill.  vii.  407. 
or  Migne's  Patrol.  Ixvl.  788  flf.).  k. 


I43i 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 


as  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John.  The  prominent 
witnesses  are  Tertullian  in  North  Africa,  Clement 
in  Alexandria,  and  Irena^us  in  Gaul.  Tertullian 
in  his  treatise  against  Marcion,  written  in  207  or 
208,  appeals  in  behalf  of  the  exclusive  authority 
of  the  lour  canonical  Gos^jels,  to  tradition  coming 
down  from  the  Apostles  —  to  historical  evidence. 
(Adv.  Marcion.  iv.  2,  5.)  Clement,  an  erudite 
and  travelled  scholar,  not  only  ascribed  to  the  Four 
Gospels  exclusively  canonical  authority  {Strom,  iii. 
13),  but  also,  in  his  last  work,  the  "  Insstitutions," 
quoted  byEusebius  (vi.  14),  "gave  a  tradition  con- 
cerning the  order  of  the  Gospels  which  he  had  re- 
ceived from  presbyters  of  more  ancient  times;" 
that  is,  concerning  the  chronological  order  of  their 
composition.  He  became  the  head  of  the  Alexan- 
drian school  about  the  year  190.  But  the  testi- 
mony of  Irenteus  has  the  highest  importance,  and 
is,  in  truth,  when  it  is  properly  considered,  of  de- 
cisive weight  on  the  main  question.  He  was  a 
Greek,  born  in  Asia  jMinor  about  140.  He  after- 
wards went  to  Lyons  in  Gaul,  where  he  first  held 
the  office  of  presbyter,  and  then,  A.  d.  178,  that 
of  bishop;  and  was  therefore  acquainted  with  the 
Church  both  in  the  East  and  the  West.  He  had  in 
his  youth  known  Polycarp,  the  immediate  disciple 
of  John,  and  retained  a  vivid  recollection  of  his 
person  and  words.  Irenasus  not  only  testifies  to 
the  universal  acceptance  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  but 
he  argues  fancifully  that  there  must  be  four,  and 
only  four,  as  there  are  four  winds,  etc.  This  fan- 
ciful analogy,  so  far  from  impairing  the  force  of 
his  testimony,  only  serves  to  show  how  firmly 
settled  was  his  faith,  and  that  of  others,  in  the  ex- 
clusive authority  of  the  canonical  Gospels.  {Adv. 
Hcer.  iii.  1,  §  1,  and  iii.  11,  §  8.)  If  the  occa- 
sional use  of  fanciful  reasoning,  or  similar  viola- 
tions of  logic,  were  to  discredit  a  witness,  nearly 
all  of  the  I'athers  would  be  at  once  excluded  from 
court.  If  Irenaeus  had,  to  any  extent,  derived  hia 
belief  in  the  Gospels  from  his  reasoning,  the  objec- 
tion to  his  testimony  might  have  some  solidity; 
but  such  was  not  the  fact.  The  objection  of  Schol- 
ten  and  others  that  he  misdated  the  Apocalypse, 
attributing  it  to  the  time  of  Domitian,  does  not 
materially  affect  the  value  of  his  statement  on  the 
point  before  us.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
Irenaeus  could  express  himself  in  this  way,  in  case 
John's  Gospel  had  first  made  its  appearance  during 
his  lifetime,  or  shortly  before.  His  relation  to 
Polycarp  —  not  to  speak  of  other  Christians  likewise 
older  than  himself — forbids  the  supposition,  more- 
over, that  this  (Jospel  was  a  fictitious  product  of 
any  part  of  the  second  century.  Polycarp  visited 
Kome  and  conferred  with  Anicetus,  about  the  year 
160.  Several  years  probably  elapsed  after  this, 
before  he  was  put  to  death.  But  at  the  date  of 
that  visit  Irenajus  had  reached  the  age  of  20. 
That  John's  (lospel  was  universally  received  at 
that  time,  might  be  safely  inferred  from  what  Ire- 
naeus says  in  the  passages  referred  to  above,  even 
If  there  were  no  other  proof  in  the  case.  Polycarp 
must  have  been  among  the  number  of  those  who 
accepted  it  as  a  genuine  and  authoritative  Gospel. 
Irenaeus's  testimony,  considering  his  relation  to 
Polycarp  and  the  length  of  Polycarp's  life,  affords 
well-nigh  as  strong  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Johan- 
>ean  authorship  as  if  we  had  the  distinct  and  direct 
Visertion  of  the  fact  from  that  very  disciple  of 
John.  The  ample  learning  and  critical  spirit  of 
Ofigen,  though  his  theological  career  is  later  than 
that  of  the  Fathers  just  named,  give  to  his  testi- 


JOHN.  GOSPEL  OF 

mony  to  the  universal  reception  of  this  Gos}«. 
nmch  weight.  If  he  was  not  free  from  mistakes, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  an  error  on  a  topic 
of  engrossing  interest  and  capital  importance,  and 
lying  in  the  direct  hne  of  his  researches,  was  not 
likely  to  be  committed  by  him ;  so  that  his  judg- 
ment on  the  question  before  us  goes  beyond  the 
mere  fact  of  the  reception  of  the  Gospel  by  the 
generation  just  before  him.  In  the  same  category 
with  Clement,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian,  is  the  Canon 
of  Muratori  and  the  Peshito  version,  in  both  of 
which  the  Gospel  of  John  stands  in  its  proper  place. 
Polycrates,  too,  in  his  letter  to  Victor  (a.  d.  196), 
characterizes  the  Apostle  John  in  words  borrowed 
from  the  Gospel  (Euseb.  v.  24).  His  own  life,  as 
a  Christian,  began,  as  we  have  said,  in  131,  and 
with  that  of  his  kinsmen,  also  oflBcers  of  the  Church, 
covered  the  century.  His  home  was  at  Ephesus^ 
the  very  spot  where  John  died,  and  where  the  Gos- 
pel, if  he  was  the  author  of  it,  first  appeared. 

Looking  about  among  the  fragments  of  Christian 
literature  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  sec- 
ond half  of  the  second  century,  we  meet  with 
Tatian,  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Justin  Martyr, 
though  after  Justin's  death  he  swerved  from  his 
teaching.  It  is  conceded  by  Baur  and  Zeller  that 
in  the  Oratio  ad  Gi^^cos  he  quotes  repeatedly  from 
the  fourth  Gospel.  (See  cc.  13,  19,  5,  4.)  In 
this,  a.s  in  similar  instances,  it  is  said  by  Scholten 
and  others,  that  since  Tatian  does  not  mention 
the  name  of  the  author  of  the  Gospel,  we  cannot 
be  certain  that  he  referred  it  to  John.  But  he 
quotes  as  from  an  authoritative  Scripture,  and 
there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
differed  from  his  contemporaries  on  the  question, 
who  was  its  author.  This  work  was  written  not 
far  from  A.  d.  170.  He  also  composed  a  sort  of 
exegetical  harmony  on  the  basis  of  our  four  Gos- 
pels. Eusebius  says  {H.  E.  iv.  29),  that  "having 
formed  a  certain  body  or  collection  of  Gospels,  I 
know  not  how,  he  has  given  this  the  title  Diaiesse- 
ron,  that  is,  the  Gospel  by  the  Four,  or  the  Gospel 
formed  of  the  Four,  which  is  in  the  possession  of 
some  even  now."  From  his  manner  of  speaking,  it 
would  seem  that  Eusebius  had  not  seen  the  book. 
But,  at  the  begimiing  of  the  fifth  century,  Theod- 
oret  tells  us  that  he  had  found  two  hundred  copies 
of  Tatian's  work  in  circulation,  and  had  taken 
them  away,  substituting  for  them  the  four  Gospels. 
Theodoret  adds  that  the  genealogies  and  the  descent 
from  David  were  left  out  of  Tatian's  work.  {Hce- 
ret.  Fab.  i.  20.)  We  have,  then,  the  fact  from 
Eusebius,  that  Tatian  named  his  book  DiatesseroTij 
and  the  fact  from  Theodoret,  that  he  found  it  in 
use  among  Catholic  Christians,  in  the  room  of  the 
Gospels.  These  facts,  together  with  the  known 
use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  Tatian,  as  seen  in  his 
other  work,  would  justify  the  conclusion  that  this 
(iospel  was  one  of  the  four  at  the  basis  of  the  Dia- 
tesseron.  But  an  early  Syriac  translation  of  this 
work,  began,  according  to  Bar  Salibi,  with  the 
opening  words  of  the  Gospel  of  John :  '*  In  the  b^ 
giiming  was  the  Word."  If  the  Dintesseron  wa« 
occasionally  confounded  by  Syrians  with  the  Har- 
mony of  Amraonius,  this  was  not  done  by  Bar 
Salibi,  who  distinguishes  the  two  works.  The  ob 
jections  of  Scholten  {Die  dltesten  Zevgnisse,  etc 
p,  95  ff.),  which  are  partly  repeated  by  Davidson 
{Introduction  to  the  Neio  Tegtament  (1868),  p.  39« 
ff.),  are  suflBciently  met  by  the  remarks  of  Bleek 
and  by  the  observations  of  Riggenbach  {Die  Zeug- 
nisee  /tir  das  Ev.  Johann.  etc.,  p.  47  fF.).     Th» 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OP 

yphilus,  who  became  bishop  of  Antioch  iu  169,  in 
.^is  work  Ad  Autolt/cuiii  describes  John's  Gospel 
a8  a  part  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  John  himself 
iti  a  writer  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (ii.  22)  In 
addition  to  this,  Jerome  states  that  Theophilus 
composed  a  commentary  upon  the  Gospels,  in  which 
he  handled  their  contents  synoptically :  "  quatuor 
Evangelistorum  in  unum  opus  dicta  compingens." 
{De  viris  ill.  c.  25,  and  Kp.  151.  Cf.  Bleek,  J^inl.^ 
p.  230.)  A  contemporary  of  Theophilus  is  Athe- 
nagoras.  His  acquaintance  with  the  Prologue  of 
John's  Gospel  may  be  inferred  with  a  high  degree 
of  probability  from  his  frequent  designation  of 
Christ  as  the  Word.  »  Through  him,"  he  says, 
"  all  things  were  made,  the  Father  and  Son  being 
one;  and  the  Son  being  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son,"  — language  obviously  founded 
on  John  1.  3,  x.  30,  38,  xiv.  11.  {Suppl.  pro  C/iris- 
tinnis,  c.  10.)  Another  contemporary  of  Theoph- 
ilus, ApoUinaris.  bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia, 
in  a  fragment  found  iu  the  Paschal  Chronicle,  re- 
fers to  a  circumstance  which  is  mentioned  only  in 
John  xix.  34: ;  and  in  another  passage  clearly  im- 
plies the  existence  and  authority  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  {Chron.  Pasch.,  pp.  13,  11,  ed.  Dindorf, 
or  Routh,  Eellq.  Sncrce,  i.  160,  361,  2d  ed.  See, 
also,  Meyer,  Einl.  in  d.  Evang.  Joh.).  There  ap- 
pears to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  questioning  the 
genuineness  of  these  fragments,  as  is  done  by 
Lardner,  Works,  ii.  315,  and  Neander,  Ck.  Hist.  i. 
298,  n.  2,  Torrey's  transl.  (See,  on  this  point, 
Schneider,  Aechthdt  des  joliann.  Eoanff.,  1854.) 

The  fourth  Gospel  was  recognized  by  Justin 
Martyr  as  an  authoritative  Scripture.  He  was  born 
al)out  the  year  89,  and  the  date  of  his  death  was  not 
far  from  160.  He  refers,  in  different  places,  to  "  the 
Records  or  Memoirs  —  ra  aTro^j/rj^oi/eu/iaro  —  by 
the  Apostles  and  their  followers  "  or  companions, 
which,  as  he  observes,  "are  called  Gospels  "  (A])ol 
i.  67  ;  Diid.  c.  Tryph.  c.  103 ;  Apol.  \.  66). 
Twice  he  uses  rh  cvayyiKiou,  as  the  later  Fathers 
often  do,  to  denote  the  Gospels  collectively  {Dial. 
c.  Tryph.  10,  100).  These  Gospels  are  quoted  as 
authentic  and  recognized  sources  of  knowledge  in 
respect  to  the  Saviour's  life  and  teaching;  it  is  de- 
clared that  they  are  read  on  Sundays  in  the  Chris- 
tian assemblies  where  "  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in 
country  districts  "  meet  for  worship,  and  like  the 


o  *  For  example.  Jeremy  Taylor  quotes  the  passage 
Ihus :  "  Unless  a  man  be  bora  of  water  and  the  Hidy 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  ( Works, 
A.  240,  eJ.  Ileber,  Lond.  1828).  A. 

b  *  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Cohort,  ad  G^nt.  c.  9. 
C»pp.  p.  69,  ed.  Potter)  has  apparently  confused  the 
jassa^s  John  iii.  5  and  Matt,  xviii.  3  in  a  manner 
similar  to  that  of  Justin.  The  two  principal  devia- 
tions of  Justin  from  the  text  of  John  —  the  use  of 
kvayevvau)  for  yEvuaoi,  and  pa<TLkeia  twv  ovpaviav 
for  /Satr.  T.  Qeov  —  are  both  found  in  Irenaeus,  who 
quotes  the  passage  thus:  kav  fnj  tis  avayevvrj9jj  Sl 
u5aT09  (cat  TrvevfxaTOS,  ou  jotrj  eicreKevcreTai  ets  Tqi/  fiaalK- 
tuu^  Twi/  ovpavu>v  {Fra^m.  xxxv.  ed.  Stieren).  So  also 
la  Eusebius  :  eau  jurj  ti?  avayevvrjO^  e^  iiSaros  Koi  nvev- 
aaros,  ov  fir)  etcreA^rj  eU  rrji/  /3acr.  tcov  ovpavdv  {Comm. 
in  Is.  i.  16, 17,  0pp.  vi.  93c  ed.  Migne).  'Avayewdui 
la  ver.  5  is  also  the  reading  of  the  Old  Latin  and  Vul- 
gate versions  {renatiis  faerii),  and  occurs  in  Athanasius 
'De  Inrarn.  c.  14),  Ephrem  Syrus  {De  Pan.  0pp.  iii. 
183),  and  Chrysostom  {Horn,  in  1  Cor.  xv.  29).  The 
reading  ^atrt\eia  riau  ovpauoiv  is  not  only  found  in 
Irea.  and  Euseb.  as  above  (see  also  Euseb.  in  Is.  iii. 
I,  2)  but  also  in  Hippolytus  (quoting  froit  the  Docetas), 
iie  Aposbol  <loastitutioas,  Origea  (Lat.  iat.)    Ephrem 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF        1433 

writings  of  the  O.  T.  prophets  serve  as  the  founda- 
tion of  exhortations  to  the  people  {Apol.  i.  67). 
Nearly  all  of  Justin's  numerous  allusions  to  the 
sayings  of  Christ  and  events  of  his  lil'e  correspond 
to  passages  in  our  canonical  Gospels.  There  is  no 
citation  from  the  Memoirs,  which  is  not  found  in 
the  canonical  Gospels;  for  there  is  no  such  refer- 
ence either  in  c.  103  or  c.  88  of  the  Dial.  c.  Tryph. 
(See  Westcott,  Canon  of  the  N.  T.  2d  ed.,  p.  137 
f.)  Justin  may  have  been  acquainted  with  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews;  but  even  this  cannot  be 
established.  That  it  formed  one  of  the  authorita- 
tive memoirs  of  which  he  speaks,  is  extremely  im- 
probable. Having  attained  to  such  an  authority, 
how  could  it  be  thrown  out  and  discarded  without 
an  audible  word  of  opposition '?  How  could  this 
be  done,  when  Irenaeus  had  already  reached  his 
manhood  ?  —  for  he  had  attained  to  this  age  before 
Justin  died.  In  the  long  list  of  passages  collected 
by  Semisch  (Dcnkwiirdiffkeittn  des  Mdrtyvera 
Justinus)  and  by  other  writers,  there  are  some 
which  are  obviously  taken  from  the  fourth  Gospel. 
One  of  these  is  the  passage  relative  to  John  the 
Baptist  {Dial.  c.  Tryph.  c.  88),  which  is  from 
John  i.  20,  23.  Another  is  the  passage  on  regen- 
eration {Apol.  i.  61)  from  John  iii.  3-5.  The  oc- 
currence of  this  passage  respecting  regeneration  in 
the  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies  {Horn.  xi.  26), 
with  the  same  deviations  from  John  that  are  found 
in  Justin's  quotation,  has  been  made  an  argument 
to  prove  that  both  writers  must  have  taken  it  from 
some  other  Gospel  —  the  Gospel  of  the  Helu-ews. 
But  the  a^ldition  to  the  passage  in  the  Homilies, 
and  the  omission  of  the  part  concerning  the  im- 
possibility of  a  second  physical  birth,  —  points  of 
difference  between  Justin  and  the  Homilies,  —  are 
quite  as  marked  as  the  points  of  resemblance,  which 
may  be  an  accidental  coincidence.  The  deviations 
in  Justin's  citation  from  the  original  in  John  are 
chiefly  due  to  the  confusion  of  the  phraseology  of 
this  passage  with  that  of  Matt,  xviii.  3  —  than  which 
nothing  was  more  natural.  Similar  inaccuracies, 
and  from  a  similar  cause,  in  quoting  John  iii.  3  or 
5,  are  not  uncommon  now."  That  Justin  uses  the 
compound  word  avayiuvdoi,  is  because  he  had 
found  occasion  to  use  the  same  verb  just  before  in 
the  context,  and  because  this  had  become  the  cur- 
rent term  to  designate  regeneration.^ 

Syrus,  Chrysostom  (at  least  5  times),  Basil  of  Seleucia 
{Orat.  xxviii.  83),  Pseudo- Athanasius  {Qt/(zstio)ies  ad 
Antiochum,  c.  101),  and  Theodoret  ( Qucest.  in  Num.  35) ; 
in  Tertullian,  Jerome,  Philastrius,  Augustine,  and 
other  Latin  fathers  ;  and  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  with 
two  other  Greek  manuscripts,  and  is  even  adopted  as 
genuine  by  Tischendorf  in  the  2d  ed.  of  liis  S/mop-iis 
Ecanf^elica  (1864).  Chrysostom  in  his  Homilies  on 
Johu  iii.  quotes  the  verse  3  times  with  the  rea  ling 
^atr.  T.  6eov  {0pp.  viii.  143 ic,  148d,  ed.  Montf.),  and  3 
times  with  the  reading  pacr.  r.  ovp.  {Opp.  viii.  143de, 
144a,  see  also  Opp.  iv.  681cl,  xi.  250e).  These  facta 
show  how  natural  such  variations  were,  and  how  little 
ground  they  afiford  for  the  supposition  that  Justin  de- 
rived the  passage  in  question  from  some  other  source 
than  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  chaage  from  the  in- 
definite singular  to  the  definite  plural  is  made  in  John 
itself  in  the  inmiediate  context  (ver.  7):  "Marvel  not 
that  I  said  unto  thee,  ye  must  be  born  again." 

The  length  of  this  note  may  be  partly  excused  by 
the  fact  that  most  of  the  passages  of  the  fathers  here 
referred  to  in  illiy'^ration  of  the  variations  from  th« 
commoii  oext  in  Ju.stia'3  quotation  do  not  appear  tfl 
have  been  aoticed  iu  aE7  critical  edition  of  the  Greek 
Testament  A. 


1434       JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

Baur,  in  one  place,  adduces  John  iii.  4  as  an 
liistaiice  of  the  fictitious  ascription  to  the  Jews, 
an  the  part  of  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  of  incred- 
ible misunderstandings  of  the  words  of  Jesus.  If 
this  be  so,  surely  Justin  must  be  indebted  to  this 
Gospel  for  the  passage.  Anxious  to  avoid  this 
conclusion,  and  apparently  forgetting  what  he  had 
said  before,  Baur  in  another  passage  of  the  same 
work  affirms  that  this  same  expression  is  borrowed 
alike  by  the  author  of  John  and  by  Justin  from 
the  Gosi)el  of  the  Hebrews!  (See  Baur's  Kanon. 
Evany,  pp.  290,  300,  compared  with  pp.  352,  353.) 
There  were  two  or  three  other  citations,  however, 
iu  the  Homilies,  in  which  it  was  claimed  that  the 
same  deviations  are  found  as  in  corresponding 
citations  in  Justin.  But  if  this  circumstance  lent 
any  plausibility  to  the  pretense  that  these  passages 
in  Justin  were  drawn  from  some  other  document 
than  the  canonical  John,  this  plausibihty  vanished 
and  the  question  was  really  set  at  rest  by  the  pub- 
lication of  Dressel's  edition  of  the  Homilies.  This 
edition  gives  the  concluding  portion,  not  found  in 
Cotelerius,  and  we  are  thus  furnished  {I Join.  xix. 
22;  comp.  John  ix  2,  3)  with  an  undenied  and 
undenlal)le  quota'iicn  from  John.  This  makes  it 
evident  that  IJinn.  iii.  52  is  a  citation  from  John 
X.  9,  27,  and  also  removes  all  doubt  as  to  the  source 
whence  the  quotation  of  John  iii.  3-5  was  derived. 
The  similarity  of  the  Homilies  to  Justin,  hi  the 
few  quotations  referred  to  above,  is  probably  acci- 
dental. If  not,  it  simply  proves  that  Justin  was 
in  the  hands  of  their  author.  This  may  easily  be 
6upix)sed.  The  date  of  the  Homilies  is  in  the 
neighborhood  of  170.  (See,  on  these  pouits,  Meyer, 
Einl.  p.  10;  Bleek,  p.  228;  Semlsch,  p.  193  ff.) 
'I"he  objections  of  tlie  skeptical  critics,  drawn  from 
Justin's  habit  of  quoting  ad  sensum,  and  from  his 
not  naming  the  authors  of  the  Memoirs,  are  v\ith- 
out  force,  as  all  scholars  must  see.  His  manner 
of  citation  was  not  unusual,  and  he  was  writing  to 
heathen  who  knew  nothing  of  the  Evangelists. 
The  supixjsition  that  Justin  borrowed  the  passages, 
to  which  we  have  referred,  from  the  apocryphal 
Gospel  of  Peter,  which  Hilgenfeld  and  others  have 
advocated,  hardly  deserves  a  refutation.  It  is  sup- 
ported partly  by  the  misinterpreted  passage  in 
Tryph.  106  (see  Otto's  note,  aid  loc.\  and  partly 
by  conjectures  respecting  this  apocryphal  book,  for 
which  there  Is  no  historical  warrant. 

Justin's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  and  of  the  Incar- 
nation nnist  have  been  derived  from  some  author- 
itative source,  and  this  could  only  be  the  fourth 
Gospel.  In  one  passage  (Dud.  c.  Tryjyh.  105),  he 
directly  appeals  for  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation, 
'that  Christ  becanie  man  by  the  Virgin,"  to  the 
Memoirs.  Scholten  has  labored  to  pro\e  that  a 
great  diversity  exists  between  Justin's  conception 
of  the  Logos  and  that  which  is  found  in  the  Gos- 
pel ;  but  there  is  no  greater  difference  than  might 
■sisily  exist  between  an  author  and  a  somewhat  in- 
aact  theological  interpreter. 

That  Justin  used  our  four  Gospels  and  desig- 
aates  these  as  the  Memoirs,  Norton  has  cogently 
rgued  {Gen.  of  the  Gospels,  i.  237-239). 

Papiiis,  whom  Irenseus  calls  "  an  ancient  man  — 
v.pxa'ios  avrjp  (Euseb.  iii.  39) — had,  accordhig  to 
the  same  Father,  heard  the.  Apostle  John.  Euse- 
bius  supposes  that  Irenseus  is  mistaken  in  this,  and 
ihat  it  was  the  Presbyter  John  whom  Papias  per- 
sonally knew.  This,  however,  is  doubtful;  and  the 
lery  ccistence  of  such  a  personage  as  the  Presbyter 
John,  iu  distinction  from  the  Apostle  of  the  same 


JOHN,   GOSPEL  OP 

name,  is  an  open  question.  However  this  may  b« 
Eusebius  states  that  Papias  "made  use  of  testi- 
monies from  the  First  Epistle  of  John."  Whethoi 
he  quoted  from  the  Gospel  or  not,  Eusebius  doea 
not  state.  If  it  were  shown  that  he  did  not  do  so 
his  silence  could  not  be  turned  into  an  argument 
against  its  genuineness,  as  we  do  not  know  the  par- 
ticular end  hh  had  in  view  in  making  his  citations 
But  the  First  Epistle  was  written  by  the  author  of 
the  Gospel.  (See  De  Wette,  Eml.  in  das  N.  Tes- 
tament, §  177  a.)  So  that  the  testimony  of  Pa- 
pias to  the  First  Itlpistle  is  likewise  a  testimony  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel. 

Turning  to  the  ApostoUc  Fathers,  we  find  not  a 
few  expressions,  especially  ui  the  Ignatian  Epistles, 
which  remind  us  of  passages  peculiar  to  John.  In 
one  instance,  such  a  reference  can  scarcely  be 
avoided.  Polycarp,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
plans,  says :  Uas  yap  hs  fee  fir]  d/uoAcyf}  'Irjaouv 
XpiaThu  iu  aapKl  4\-r\Kv6evai  avrixpio'Tds  iari 
(c.  7).  It  is  much  more  probable  that  this  thought 
was  taken  from  1  John  iv.  3,  than  that  it  was  de- 
rived from  any  other  source.  Especially  is  this 
seen  to  be  the  case,  when  it  is  remembered  that 
Polycarp  was  a  disciple  of  John.  John  xxi.  24, 
coming  from  another  hand  than  that  of  the  author 
of  the  Gospel,  is  also  a  testimony  to  its  genuineness. 

The  Artemonltes,  the  party  of  Unitarians  at  Rome 
near  the  end  of  the  second  century,  did  not  think 
of  disputing  the  canonical  authority  of  the  fourth 
Gospel.  Marclon  was  acquainted  with  it,  but  re 
jected  it  for  the  reason  that  he  did  not  acknowl- 
edge any  Apostles  but  Paul  (Tertulllan,  Adv.  Marc. 
iv.  3,  2,  5.  De  Came  Christi,  3.  For  other  pas- 
sages to  the  same  effect  from  Irenaeus  and  Tertul- 
llan, see  De  Wette,  Einl.  in  d.  N.  T.  §  72  c, 
Anm.  d.)  The  Valentinian  Gnostics  admitted  the 
genuineness  of  this  Gospel,  and  used  it  much 
(Irenaeus,  Adv.  IIcbi:  iii.  11,  §  7).  Ptolemseus,  a 
follower  of  Valentine's  doctrine,  explicitly  acknowl- 
edges this  Gospel  {Epist.  ad  Flui-am,  c.  1,  ap. 
Eplph.  lice?',  xxxili.  3.  See  Grabe,  Spicilegium^ 
ii.  70,  2d  ed.,  or  Stieren's  Irenseus,  i.  924).  Herac- 
leon,  another  follower,  wrote  a  commentary  on  it, 
which  Origen  frequently  quotes  (Grabe,  S/ncUeyium, 
vol.  ii.,  and  Stieren's  ed.  of  Irenaeus,  i.  938-971) 
Scholten  has  attempted  to  show  that  Heracleon  was 
late  in  the  century.  One  of  his  arguntents.  that 
Irenaeus  does  not  mention  him,  is  met  by  Tischen- 
dorf,  who  produces  from  Irenaeus  a  passage  in  which 
he  is  named  in  connection  with  Ptolemseus.  The 
use  of  the  fourth  Gospel  by  leading  followers  of 
Yalentinus,  and  the  need  they  have  to  apply  a 
perverse  interpretation  to  the  statements  of  the 
Gos}iel,  render  it  probable  that  their  master  also 
acknowledged  the  Gospel  as  genuine.  This  is  im- 
plied by  Tertulllan  {De  PrvRscript.  IIcEret.  c.  38). 
"  If  Valentine,"  says  Tertulllan,  "  appears  (videtur) 
to  make  use  of  the  entire  instrumeiit  "  —  that  is, 
the  four  Gospels,  —  ''  he  has  done  violence  to  the 
truth,''  etc.  The  videtur  may  be  the  reluctant  con- 
cession of  an  adversary,  but  the  word  is  frequently 
used  by  Tertulllan  in  the  sense,  to  be  seen,  to  he 
fully  ajipareni  (comp.  Tert.  adv.  Prax.  c.  26,29; 
adv.  Marc,  iv.  2;  de  Orat.  c.  21;  A]wl.,  c.  19; 
Adv.  Jiul.  c.  5,  quoted  from  Isaiah  i.  12).  Such 
is  probably  its  meaning  here.  But  Hippolytus, 
explaining  the  tenets  of  Valentine,  writes  as  fol- 
lows: "All  the  prophets  and  the  law  spcke  from 
the  Demiurg,  a  foolish  god,  he  says  —  fools,  know- 
ing nothing.  On  this  account  it  is,  he  says,  thai 
the  SavijuT  says:  'All  that  came  before  me  an 


I 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

Jiioi  js  and  robbers '  (Hippol.  Refut.  omrium 
li.tres.  vi.  35;.  The  passage  is  obviously  from 
John  X.  8.  It  is  pretended  that  the  ^nari  —  he 
jays  —  refers  not  to  Valentine,  but  to  some  un- 
known author  among  his  disciples.  But  this,  though 
possible,  is  surely  much  less  probable  than  the  sup- 
position that  he  refers  to  a  work  of  Valentine  him- 
self. Hippolytus  distinguishes  the  various  branches 
of  the  Valentinian  sect  and  the  phases  of  opinion 
that  respectively  belong  to  them.  In  the  place 
referred  to,  he  is  speaking  of  the  founder  of  the 
sect  himself.  A  similar  remark  is  to  be  made  of 
Basilides  and  of  the  passages  of  Hippolytus  relating 
to  his  use  of  John  {Ref.  Hoer.  vii.  22,  27).  The 
early  date  of  Basilides  is  shown  by  various  proofs. 
(See  Ilofstede  de  Groot,  Basilides  als  erster  Zeuge, 
etc.,  Leipzig,  18G8.)  The  work  of  Basilides  "on 
the  Gospel''  (Euseb.  H.  E.  iv.  7)  was  not  improb- 
ably a  commentary  on  the  four  Gospels  (see  Norton, 
Gen.  of  the  Gospels,  iii.  2-38).  How  widely  ex- 
tended was  the  knowledge  and  use  of  the  fourth 
Grospel  among  the  heretics  of  the  second  century, 
ia  further  illustrated  by  the  numerous  quotations 
that  were  made  from  it  by  the  Ophites  or  Naasseni, 
and  the  Peratae,  which  are  preserved  by  Hippolytus 
(v.  7,  8,  9,  12,  16,  17).  The  opposition  of  the 
insignificant  party  of  the  Alogi  is  an  argument  for, 
rather  than  against,  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospel. 
(Iren.  iii.  11,  §  9).  We  assume,  what  is  most 
probable,  that  the  party  referred  to  by  Irenaeus  is 
the  same  which  Epiphanius  designates  by  this  name. 
Their  opposition  shows  the  general  acceptance  of 
the  Gospel  not  long  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Moreover,  they  attributed  the  Gospel  to 
Cerinthus,  a  contemporary  of  John,  —  a  testimony 
to  its  age.  They  rejected,  also,  the  Apocalypse, 
.vhich  even  the  Tiibingen  school  holds  to  be  the 
work  of  John.  (See,  on  the  character  of  the  Alogi, 
Schneider,  p.  38  f.)  Celsus  refers  to  circumstances 
in  the  Evangelical  history  which  are  recorded  only 
in  John's  Gospel.  (For  the  passages,  see  Lardner, 
Works,  vii.  220,  221,  239.) 

Tiie  great  doctrinal  battle  of  the  Church  in  the 
second  century  was  with  Gnosticism.  The  strug- 
gle began  early.  The  germs  of  it  are  discovered 
in  the  ApostoUc  age.  At  the  middle  of  the  second 
tentury,  the  conflict  with  these  elaborate  systems 
of  error  was  raging.  We  find  that  the  Valentinians, 
the  BasiUdians,  the  Marcionites  (followers  either 
of  Marcus  or  of  Marcion)  are  denounced  as  warmly 
by  Justin  Martyr  as  by  Irenaeus  and  his  contem- 
poraries. (Di'il  c.  Tryph.  c.  32).  By  both  of  the 
parties  in  this  wide-spread  conflict,  by  the  Gnostics 
and  by  the  Church  theologians,  the  fourth  Gospel 
is  accepted  as  the  work  of  John,  without  a  lisp  of 
opposition  or  of  doubt.  In  that  distracted  period, 
with  what  incredible  skill  must  an  anonymous  coun- 
terfeiter have  proceeded,  to  be  able  to  frame  a  sys- 
tem which  should  not  immediately  excite  hostility 
and  cause  his  false  pretensions  to  be  challenged ! 

The  particular  testimonies  to  the  recognition  of 
the  fourth  Gospel  in  the  second  century  simply 
afford  a  gUmpse  of  the  universal,  undisputed  tradi- 
tion on  which  that  acceptance  rested.  From  this 
point  of  view  their  significance  and  weight  must 
be  estimated.  The  Church  of  the  second  century 
iras  so  situated  that  it  could  not  be  deceived  on  a 
question  of  this  momentous  nature.  It  was  a  great 
jommunity,  all  of  whose  members  were  deeply  in- 
terested in  th<»  life  of  the  Lorci  for  whom  they  were 
Baking  so  great  sacrifices.,  and  wnich  comprised 
irithin  its  pale  men  of  literary  cultivation  and  crit- 1 
cal  iud£:ment. 


JOHN,   GOSPEL  OF 


1436 


In  considering  the  Internal  Evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  fourth  (jospel,  we  notice  the 
following  points:  — 

1.  The  Gospel  claims  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Apostle  John,  and  the  manner  of  this  claim  is  a 
testimony  to  its  truth.  The  author  declares  him- 
self an  eye-witness  of  the  transactions  recorded 
(i.  14,  cf.  1  John  i.  1-3,  iv.  14 ;  John  xix.  35 ;  com- 
pare also  xxi.  24).  He  is  distinguished  from  Peter- 
(xiii.  24,  XX.  2  ff.,  xxi.  7,  20  ff.).  He  omits  to 
attach  the  name  d  ^airTicTTiis  to  John  the  Baptist, 
though  he  attaches  some  explanation  in  the  case 
of  Peter  and  of  Judas.  This  would  be  natural  for 
John  the  Evanyelist,  himself  a  disciple  of  the  Bap- 
tist. It  is  held  by  Baur  that  the  design  of  the 
writer  is  to  lead  the  reader  to  the  inference  that 
John  is  the  author.  But  the  modest,  indirect  style 
in  which  the  authorship  is  made  known  ia  wholly 
unlike  the  manner  of  apocryphal  writings. 

2.  The  Johannean  authorship  is  confirmed  by 
the  graphic  character  of  the  narrative,  the  many 
touches  characteristic  of  an  eye-witness,  and  by 
other  indications  of  an  immediate  knowledge,  on 
the  part  of  the  writer,  of  the  things  he  relates.  (See 
John  i.  35,  xiii.  21,  xviii.  15,  xix.  26,  27,  34,  35 
and  the  whole  chapter,  xx.  3-9,  24-29,  xiii.  9,  etc.) 
There  are  many  passages  which  show  that  the 
author  wrote  from  an  interest  in  the  story  as  such. 
(See  Bruckner's  ed.  of  De  Wette's  Conim.  Einl.  p. 
XV.)  Among  these  are  the  allusions  to  Nicodemus 
(John  iii.  2;  vii.  50;  xix.  39);  also  the  particular 
dates  attached  to  occurrences,  as  in  ii.  13 ;  iv.  6, 
40,  43;  V.  1;  vi.  4,  22;  vii.  2,  14;  xii.  1,  12;  xviii. 
27  AT.;  xix.  14.  See  also  John  xviii.  10,  iii.  23; 
v.  2;  xii.  21;  iii.  24;  i.  45,  46;  vi.  42,  comp.  i. 
45;  vi.  67  ("the  twelve");  xi.  16,  xx.  24,  xxi.  2 
(where  Didymus  is  connected  with  the  name  of 
Thomas).  In  c.  xi.  2,  the  Evangelist  assumes  that 
an  occurrence  is  known,  which  he  does  not  himself 
record  until  later  (xii.  3). 

3.  The  general  structure  and  contents  of  the 
fourth  Gospel,  considered  as  a  biography  of  Christ, 
are  a  convincing  argument  for  its  historical  truth 
and  genuineness.  In  regard  to  the  plan  of  Christ's 
life,  this  Gospel,  while  it  is  not  contradicted  by  the 
Synoptists,  presents  a  very  different  conception  from 
that  which  they  themselves  would  suggest.  This 
is  true  of  the  duration  and  of  the  theatre  of  the 
Lord's  ministry.  But,  in  the  first  place,  this  vary- 
ing conception  is  one  which  a  falsaiius  would  not 
venture  upon;  and,  in  the  second  place,  it  is  one 
which  accords  with  probability,  and  is  even  cor- 
roborated incidentally  by  the  Synoptists  themselves. 
(1.)  It  is  probable  that  Christ  would  make  more 
journeys  to  Jerusalem  and  teach  more  there  than 
the  Synoptists  relate  of  him.  The  Synoptists  con- 
firm this  view  (Matt,  xxvii.  57  ff. ;  Luke  xxiii.  50 
ff. ;  Mark  xv.  42  flf. ;  also,  Luke  xiii.  34  AT.,  and 
Matt,  xxiii.  37  ff  —  the  Saviour's  lament  over  Jeru- 
salem, which  no  conjectures  of  Strauss  can  make 
to  imply  anything  less  than  repeated  and  continued 
labors  on  the  part  of  Christ  for  the  conversion  of 
the  inhabitants  of  that  city).  The  fourth  Gospel 
gives  the  clearest  and  most  natural  account  of  the 
growing  hostility  of  the  Jews,  and  of  the  way  in 
which  the  catastrophe  was  at  length  brought  on. 
So  strongly  is  Kenan  impressed  by  this  character- 
istic of  the  Gospel,  that  he  feels  obliged  to  assume 
a  pretended  miracle  in  the  case  of  l.azarus,  which 
imposed  upon  the  people  and  awakened  a  feeling 
whloh  the  .Jewish  Rulers  felt  obliged  to  meet  by  i 
8Ui»„nary  and  violent  measure.     (2.)  In  comparinjj 


1436 


JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 


the  fourth  Gospel,  as  to  its  contents,  with  the  other 
three,  we  have  to  notice  the  apparent  discrepancy 
upon  the  date  of  the  crucifixion,  and  also  the 
l^aschal  controversies  of  the  second  century,  in 
their  tearing  upon  this  point  of  chronology.  The 
Synoptists  appear  to  place  the  Ix)rd"s  Supper  on 
the  evening  when  the  Jews  ate  the  Passover-meal, 
the  14th  Nisan  (or,  according  to  the  Jewish  reck- 
oning, the  15th);  John,  on  the  evening  liefore. 
Dr.  E.  Robinson,  Tlioluck,  Norton,  Biiuralein, 
liiggenbach,  and  others  believe  themselves  able  to 
harmonize  the  statements  of  John  with  those  of  the 
other  three.  (See  the  question  very  fully  discussed 
in  Andrews's  Life  of  our  Lwd^  p.  425  ff.)  If  they 
are  successful  in  this,  there  is  no  discrepancy  to  be 
explained.  Assunung  here,  with  most  of  the  later 
critics,  that  there  is  a  real  difference,  Bleek  draws 
a  strong  arguiuent  in  favor  of  the  fourth  Gospel. 
No  sufficient  motive  can  be  assigned  why  2>,faharim 
should  deviate  from  the  accepted  view  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  probability  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is 
correct,  is  heightened  by  circumstances  incidentally 
brought  forward  by  the  Synoptists  tliemselves  (Matt. 
xxvi.  5,  xxvii.  59  ff. ;  Mark  xv.  42,  46 ;  Luke  xxiii. 
56).  See  Eliicott,  Lift  of  Christ  (Amer.  ed.),  p. 
292,  n.  3. 

The  so-called  Quartodecimans  of  Asia  Minor 
observed  a  festival  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  on  what- 
ever day  of  the  week  it  might  occur.  Koman  and 
other  Christians  kept  up,  on  the  contrary,  the  pre- 
paratory fast  until  Easter  Sunday.  Hence  the  dis- 
pute on  the  occasion  of  Polycarp's  visit  to  Anicetus, 
about  the  year  160;  then  ten  years  later,  in  which 
Claudius  A(X)llinaris,  bishop  of  HierapoUs,  and  Me- 
lito  of  Sardis  took  part;  and  especially  at  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  when  Victor  of  Kome  was 
rebuked  l)y  Irenaeus  for  his  intolerance.  The  Asia 
Minor  bishops,  in  these  controversies,  appealed  to 
the  authority  of  the  Apostle  John,  who  had  lived 
in  the  midst  of  them.  But  what  did  the  Quarto- 
decimans commemorate  on  the  14th  of  Nisan? 
The  Tiiltingen  critics  say,  the  I^st  Supj^r;  and 
infer  that  John  could  not  have  written  the  Gospel 
that  bears  his  name.  But,  to  say  the  least,  it  is 
equally  probable  that  the  Quartodecimans  com- 
memorated the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  the  true  pass- 
over-lamb  ;  or  that  the  theory  of  Bleek  is  correct, 
that  their  festival  was  originally  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over, which  Jewish  Christians  continued  to  observe, 
which  took  on  naturally  an  association  with  the 
Last  Supper,  and  with  which  John  did  not  inter- 
fere. VVe  should  add  that  not  improbably  Apol- 
linaris  was  himself  a  Quartodeciman,  and  was 
opposing  a  Judaizing  faction  of  the  party,  who  dis- 
sented from  their  connnon  view.  We  do  not  find 
that  Victor,  the  Roman  opponent  of  Polycrates, 
appealed  to  the  fourth  Gosjjel,  although  he  nuist 
have  been  familiar  with  it;  and  the  course  taken 
by  the  disputants  on  lx)th  sides  at  the  end  of  the 
lecond  century,  shows  that  if  it  was  written  with 
the  design  which  the  negative  critics  affirm,  it  failed 
of  its  end.  Had  the  Quartodecimans  been  called 
upon  to  receive  a  new  Gosj^el,  pur[)orting  to  be 
from  John,  of  which  they  had  not  before  heard, 
%vA  which  was  partly  designed  to  destroy  the  foun- 
dation of  their  favorite  observance,  would  tuey  not 
h&ve  promptly  rejected  such  a  document,  or,  at 
[east,  called  in  question  its  genuineness? 

4.  The  discourses  of  Christ  in  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel have  l)een  used  as  an  argument  against  its 
ipostolic  origin  But  the  contrast  between  them 
uiil  tbp  lea^hingi  of  Christ  recorded  by  the  Synop- 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF 

tists  may  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  each 
of  the  disciples  apprehended  Jesus  from  his  owr\ 
point  of  view,  according  to  the  measure  of  his  own 
individuahty.  Jesus  did  not  confine  himself  in 
his  teaching  to  gnomes  and  parables  (Matt.  xiii.  10 
ff.).  The  Synoptists  occasionally  report  sayinga 
which  are  strikingly  in  the  Johannean  style  (Matt, 
xi.  25,  comp.  Luke  xi.  21).  On  the  contrary,  the 
aphoristic  style  is  met  with  in  the  reports  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  (John  xii.  24,  26 :  xiii.  16,  20).  Es- 
sentially the  same  conception  of  Christ  is  found  in 
the  fourth  Gospel  as  in  the  other  three  (Matt.  xi. 
27;  also  Matt.  xxii.  41  ff.  compared  with  Mark  xii. 
35  ff.,  and  Luke  xx.  41  ff.).  See  particularly  on 
this  point.  Row's  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists^  I>ondon, 
1868,  p.  217  ff.  The  resemblance  between  the  style 
of  the  discourses  and  of  the  narrative  portion  of  the 
book  is  accounted  for,  if  we  suppose  that  the  teach- 
ings of  Jesus  were  fuUy  assimilated  and  freshly  re- 
produced by  the  Evangelist,  after  the  lapse  of  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time.  Here  and  there,  in  the 
discourses,  are  incidental  expressions  which  mark 
the  fidelity  of  the  Evangehst,  as  John  xiv.  31.  The 
interpretations  affixed  to  sayings  of  Christ  are  an 
argument  in  the  same  direction  (John  ii.  19 :  xii.  32). 
5.  The  Hellenic  culture  and  the  theological  point 
of  view  of  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  are 
made  an  objection  to  the  Johannean  authorship. 
The  author's  mode  of  speaking  of  the  Jews  (ii.  6, 
13;  iii.  1;  v.  1;  vi.  4;  vii.  2;  xi.  55)  is  accounted 
for  by  the  fact  that  the  Gospel  was  written  late  in 
the  apostolic  age,  and  by  a  writer  who  was  himself 
outside  of  Palestine,  among  Gentiles  and  Gentile 
Christians.  For  the  special  proofs  that  the  writer 
was  of  Jewish  and  Palestinian  extraction,  see  Bleek, 
EinL  p.  207  f.  The  probability  is  that "  Sychar ' '  was 
the  name  of  a  town  distinct  from  Sichem,  though 
near  it.  That  the  writer  did  not  misplace  Beth- 
any where  Lazarus  dwelt,  is  demonstrated  by  John 
xi.  18.  The  book  indicates  no  greater  acquaintance 
with  the  Greek  culture  than  John,  from  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  early  life  and  his  long  residence 
in  Asia,  may  well  be  supposed  to  have  gained. 
The  Christology  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  especially  the 
use  of  the  term  Logos,  constitutes  no  valid  objec- 
tion to  its  genuineness.  Even  if  this  term  was 
taken  up  by  John  from  the  current  speculations  of 
the  time,  he  simply  adopted  a  fit  vehicle  for  convey- 
ing his  conception  of  the  Son  in  his  relation  to  the 
Father.  After  the  first  few  verses,  which  define  the 
term,  we  hear  no  more  of  the  Logos.  No  allusion 
to  the  Logos  is  introduced  into  the  report  of  the 
discourses  of  Christ.  The  free  and  liberal  spirit 
of  the  fourth  (Jospel  towards  the  Gentiles  would  be 
natural  to  the  Apostle  at  the  time,  and  under  the 
circumstances,  in  which  his  work  was  composed. 
The  objection  of  the  Tubingen  school,  drawn  from 
this  characteristic  of  the  Gospel,  rests  also  u|X)n 
their  untenable  and  false  assumption  of  a  radical 
antagonism  between  the  original  Apostles  and  Paul. 
The  differences  between  the  Apocalypse  and  the 
Gospel,  in  regard  to  style  and  contents,  have  been 
much  urged  by  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  latter.  But  a  long  interval  elapsed  between 
the  composition  of  the  two  books.  The  state  of 
the  authcr's  mind  and  feeling  in  the  two  cases  wag 
widely  different.  And  Baur  himself  regards  the 
Gospel  as  so  far  resembling  the  Apocalypse  thai 
the  former  is  a  general  transmutation  or  spiritual 
ization  of  the  latter.  If  the  community  of  au- 
thorship between  the  two  works  were  dispro\ed 
the  weight  of  evidence  wouk    be  in  favor  of  tb» 


JOHN,   GOSPEL  OF 

gentuiieiiess  of  the  Gospel.  But  the  difficulty  of 
lupposing  a  common  author  has  been  greatly  mag- 
nified.    See  Gieseler,  K.  G.  bk.  i.  §  127,  n.  8. 

The  special  theory  of  the  Tiibingen  school  in 
reference  to  the  character  and  aim  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  is  only  sustained  by  an  artificial  and  inde- 
fensible exegesis  of  its  contents.  On  this  branch 
of  the  subject,  we  may  refer  to  the  acute  and  can- 
did criticisms  of  Briickner  in  his  edition  of  De 
Wette's  Commentary  on  the  Gospel. 

On  the  whole,  the  external  evidence  for  the  gen- 
uineness of  this  book  is  strong  and  unanswerable; 
and  the  proofs  derived  from  its  internal  character- 
istics, notwithstanding  minor  difficulties,  are  equally 
convincing.  They  who  consider  a  miracle  to  be 
something  impossible,  and  therefore  utterly  incred- 
ible, will  of  course  deny  that  the  book  had  an 
Apostle  for  its  author.  But  those  who  approach 
the  inquiry  with  minds  free  from  this  unphilosoph- 
ical  bias,  may  reasonably  rest  with  confidence  in 
the  opposite  conclusion.  G.  P.  F. 

*  Literature.  —  It  will  be  convenient  to  ar- 
range the  more  recent  literature  relating  to  the 
Gospel  of  John  under  several  heads. 

1.  Genuineness  and  Credibility.  —  In  addition 
to  the  works  referred  to  above,  and  under  the  art. 
Gospels,  p.  959  ff".,  the  following  may  be  noticed. 

Against  the  genuineness:  Bruno  Bauer,  Kritik 
d.  evang.  Gesch.  d.  Johannes,  Bremen,  1840 ;  Kritik 
d.  Evangelien,  Th.  i.,  Berl.  1850.  Schwegler,  Der 
Montanismtis,  Tiib.  1841,  pp.  183-215;  Das  nnch- 
apost.  Zeitalter,  Tub.  1846,  ii.  346-374.  F.  C. 
Baur,  i/ber  d.  Comp.  u.  d.  Charakter  d.  johan. 
Evangeliums,  three  articles  in  Zeller's  Tlteol.  Jahrb. 
for  1844,  republished,  substantially,  in  his  Krit. 
Untersuchungen  ub.  d.  kanon.  Evang elien,  Tiib. 
1847,  an  "  epoch-making  work,"  as  the  Germans 
Bay;  see  also  his  articles  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  1847, 
pp.  89-136  (against  Bleek) ;  1848,  pp.  264-286 
(Paschal  question);  1854,  pp.  196-287  (against 
Luthardt,  Delitzsch,  Briickner,  Hase);  1857,  pp. 
209-257  (against  Luthardt  and  Steitz);  Das  Chris- 
tcnthum  u.  s.  w.  der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte, 
Tub.  1853,  2e  Aufl.  1860,  pp.  146-172,  a  compre- 
hensive summary;  An  Herrn  Dr.  Karl  IJase, 
Beantwortung,  u.  s.  w.  Tiib.  1855,  pp.  5-70;  Die 
Tiifdnger  Schule,  Tiib.  1859,  2e  Aufl.  1860,  pp.  85- 
171  (against  Weisse,  Weizsiicker,  Ewald).  Zeller,  Die 
dusseren  Zeugnisse  Ub.  das  Dasein  «.  d.  Ursprung 
d.  vierten  Kv.,  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  1845,  pp.  579- 
656 ;  Einige  weitere  Bemerkungen,  ibid.  1847,  i^p. 
136-174;  and  on  the  Gnostic  quotations  in  Hip- 
polytus,  ibid.  1853,  pp.  144-161.  Kostlin,  Die 
pseudonyme  Litter  a  tur  d.  dltesten  Kir  die,  in  the 
Theol.  Jahrb.  1851,  pp.  149-221,  esp.  p.  183  fir. 
Hilgenfeld,  Das  Evang.  u.  die  Brief e  Johannis, 
Halle,  1849  (ascribes  to  it  a  Gnostic  character); 
Die  Eoangelien,  Leipz.  1854 ;  Das  Urchristenthum, 
Jena,  1856;  Der  Kanon  u.  die  Krit.  d.  N.  T., 
Halle,  1863,  p.  218  flf". ;  also  articles  in  the  Theol. 
Jahrb.  1857,  pp.  498-532,  Die  johan.  Evangelien- 
frage  ;  and  iji  his  Zeitschr.  f.  iviss.  Theol.  1859, 
pp.  281-348,  383-448,  Das  Johannes- Evang.  u. 
teine  gegenwdrtigen  Auffassungen ;  ibid.  1865,  pp. 
J6-102  (review  of  Aberle);  pp.  196-212  (review 
9f  WeizsJicker);  p.  329  ff.  (review  of  Tischendorf ) ; 
ybid.  1866,  p.  118  fF.  (against  Paul);  ibid.  1867,  p. 
)3ff.  (against  Tischendorf  again);  p  179  fT.  (against 
Kiggenbach);  ibid.  1868,  p.  213  ff.  (notice  of 
Hofstede  de  Groot,  Keim,  and  Scholt^n).  Vokmar, 
Religion  Jesu,  Leipz.  1857,  pp.  433-476 ;  Ursprung 
murer  EvangeUtn,  Ziirich,  1866,  p.  91  ff.  (agaiiwt 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF      1437 

Tischendcrf ) ;  also  arts,  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  1854,  p 
446  ff.,  and  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol.  1860,  p.  2Q'c 
ff.  (J.  T.  Tobler)  Die  Evangelienfrage  in  Allge- 
meinen  u.  d.  Johannisfrage  insbesomltre,  Zurich, 
1858,  ascribes  the  Gospel  to  Apollos !  comp.  Hil- 
genfeld, in  his  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  Theol.  1859,  p. 
407  ff.,  and  Tobler,  ibid.  1860,  pp.  169-203.  M. 
Schwalb,  Notes  sur  Vevang.  de  Jean,  in  the  Stras- 
bourg Rev.  de  Theol:  1863.  p.  113  ff.,  249  ff.  R.. 
W.  Mackay,  The  Tiibingen  School  and  its  Ante- 
cedents, Lond.  1863,  pp.  258-311.  Martineau,  art. 
on  Kenan's  Life  of  Jesus,  in  National  Rev.  for  Oct. 
1863.  Schenkel,  Das  Charakterbild  Jesu,  3e  Aufl. 
Wiesbaden,  1864,  pp.  17-26,  248-258.  Strauss, 
Leben  Jesu  f.  d.  deutsche  Volk,  Leipz.  1864,  §§ 
12,  13,  15-18,  22.  Michel  Nicolas,  Etudes  crii. 
sur  la  Bible— N.  T.,  Paris,  1864,  pp.  127-221, 
ascribes  the  Gospel  to  a  disciple  of  John,  perhaps 
John  the  presbyter,  towards  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  who  derived  the  substance  of  il  from  his 
master.  Weizsacker,  Untersuchungen  iib.  d.  evang. 
Gesckichte,  Gotha,  1864,  pp.  220-302,  takes  nearly 
the  same  view.  Comp.  Weiss's  review  in  the  Theol. 
Stud.  u.  Krit.  1866,  p.  137  ff.  J.  H.  Scholten, 
[Jet  Evangelie  naar  Johannes,  krit.  hist,  onderzoek, 
Leiden,  1865  (1864),  and  Suppl.  1866;  French 
trans,  by  A.  K^ville  in  the  Strasbourg  Revue  de 
Theol.  1864-66,  German  trans.  (Das  Ev.  nach 
Johannes,  krit.-hist.  Untersuchung),  Berl.  1867; 
comp.  his  Die  dltesten  Zeugnisse  betreffend  die 
Schriften  des  N.  T.  (from  the  Dutch),  Bremen, 
1867.  A.  Rdville,  La  question  des  Evangiles,  I., 
in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes  ler  mai,  1866. 
Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  13e  6d-  revue  et  augmentde, 
Paris,  1867,  p.  x.  ff.,  Iviii.  ff.,  and  appendix,  "  Do 
I'usage  qu'il  convient  de  faire  du  quatri^me  Evan- 
gile  en  dcrivant  la  vie  de  Jt^sus,"  pp.  477-541. 
Theodor  Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara, 
Ziirich,  1867,  i.  103-172  (assigns  the  date  A.  D. 
110-115).  J.  C.  Matthes,  De  ouderdom  van  het 
Johannesevangelie  volgens  de  uitwendige  geiuige- 
nissen,  Leiden,  1867  (against  Hofstede  de  Groot). 
J.  J.  Tayler,  Attempt  to  ascertain  the  Character 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  Lond.  1867.  S.  Davidson, 
Introd.  to  the  N.  T.,  Lond.  1868,  ii.  323-468. 
Was  John  the  Author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  f  By 
a  Layman.  Lond.  1868.  H.  Spaeth,  Nathanael, 
ein  Beitrag  zum  Verstdndniss  d.  Comp.  d.  Logos- 
Evang.,  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.  f.  wiss.  TheoL 
1858,  pp.  168-213,  309-343  (identifies  Nathanad 
with  John ! ). 

For  the  genuineness:  Frommann,  Ueber  die 
Echtheit  u.  Integritdt  des  Ev.  Johannis  (against 
Weisse),  in  the  Theol.  Stud.,  u.  Krit.  1840,  pp. 
853-930.  Grimm,  in  Ersch  u.  Gruber's  Allgem. 
Encykl.  2^  Sect.  Theil  xxii.  (1843)  p.  18  ff.  H. 
Merz,  Zur  johan.  Frage,  in  the  Stud.  d.  ev, 
Giistlichkeit  Wiirtembergs,  1844,  Heft  2  (againgt 
Baur).  Ebrard,  Das  Ev.  Johannis  u.  d.  neueste 
ffypothese  iib.  seine  Entitehung,  Ziirich,  1845; 
Wissenschaftliche  Kritik  d.  evang.  Geschichte^ 
2e  Aufl.  Erlangen,  1850,  pp.  828-952.  Bleek, 
Beitrdge  zur  Evangelien-Kritik,  Berl.  1846 ;  Einl. 
in  das  N.  T.,  Berl.  1862,  2e  Aufl.  1866,  pp.  149- 
237,  French  translation  of  this  part,  entitled  jl^tude 
crit.  sur  t^vang.  selon  saint  Jean,  Paris,  1864. 
Hauff,  Tiber  d.  Comp.  d.  johan.  Evang.,  in  the 
TheM.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1846,  pp.  550-629  (against 
Baur) ;  Bemerkungen  iib.  einige  Stellen  des  vierten 
Evang.,  ibid.  1849,  pp.  106-130.  A.  Vigui^,  AU' 
thenticite  de  PJ^vang.  de  saint  Jean,  Montaub. 
1348  (40  pp.).     Weitzel,  Da»  Selbstzeugn^u  da 


1438        JOHN,   GOSPEL   OF 

nerten  Evnngelisten  iib.  seine  Person,  in  Theol. 
Stud.  u.  Krit.  1849,  pp.  578-638.  Ewald,  arts. 
in  his  Jahrh.  d.  Bibl.  wissenschq/'t,  iii.  146  flF.,  v. 
178  fF.,  viii.  100  ff.,  186  ff.,  x.  83  ff.,  xii.  212  ff., 
and  (Jott.  Gele/trte  Anzeigen,  1866,  p.  913  ff. ;  also 
Diejuhnn.  Schriften  iibers.  u.  erhldrt,  2  Bde.  Gott. 
18(!l-62,  esp.  ii.'  400  ff.  A.  Niermeyer,  Verhan- 
deliny  over  de  echtheid  d.  Joh.  schriften,  's  Hage, 
1852  ( Verhand.  van  het  Haaysdt  genoohchtp, 
13e  dl.)  Da  Costa,  De  Apostel  Johannes  en  zijne 
BchriJ'ten,  Amst.  1853.  C.  P.  Tide,  Specimen 
theol.  cont'mens  Annotationem  in  locos  nmmullos 
Ev.  Joan.,  ad  vindic.  hujus  Ev.  Authentiam,  (inest 
Excursus  de  Cap.  xxi.),  Amst.  1853.  G.  K.  Mayer 
(Cath.),  Die  yEchtheit  d.  Ev.  nach  Johannes, 
Bchaffhausen,  1854.  K.  F.  T.  Schneider,  Die 
^chtheit  d.johan.  Ev.  nach  den  dusseren  Zeugnis- 
««,  Berl.  1854.  K.  Hase,  Die  Tubinger  Schule. 
Sendschreiben  an  Dr.  Baur,  Leipz.  1855.  L.  H. 
Sloteniaker,  Disquisitio,  qua,  comparatis  nonnullis 
Evang.  quarti  et  Synopt.  locis,  uirorumque  Fides 
xistorica  confirmatur,  Lngd.  Bat.  1856.  Art.  in 
National  Rev.  July,  1857,  pp.  82-127  {Baur  and 
others  on  the  Fourth  Gospel).  Aberle  (Cath.), 
Ueber  d.  Zweck  d.  Johannes-Ev.,  in  Theol.  Quar- 
talschift,  1861,  p.  37  ff.,  also  arts.  ibid.  1863,  p. 
437  ff.,  and  1864  (Papias),  p.  3  ff.  G.  P.  Fisher, 
The  Genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  in  Bibl. 
Sacra  for  April,  1864,  reprinted,  with  additions, 
in  his  Essays  on  the  Supernatural  Origin  of 
Chistianity,  New  York,  1866,  pp.  33-152.  Godet, 
Examen  des  princip.  questions  soulevees  de  nos 
jours  au  sujet  du  4^  evangile,  Paris,  1865  (separate 
issue  of  the  Appendix  to  his  Commentaire) ;  German 
trans.  {Priifung  d.  wichtigsten  krit.  Streitfragen, 
u.  8.  w.),  Zurich,  1866.  Otto  Thenius,  Das  Evan- 
gelium  der  Evtngelien,  I>eipz.  1865  (70  pp.). 
Tischendorf,  Wann  wurden  unsere  Evangtlien 
verfasstf  Leipz.  1865,  4th  ed.,  greatly  enlarged, 
1866,  trans,  by  W.  L.  Gage  with  the  title  Origin  of 
the  Four  Gospels,  Boston,  1868  (Amer.  Tract  Soc). 
C.  A.  Hase,  Ivn  Evang.  des  Johannes,  Leipz. 
1866  (pp.  vii.,  71).  Kiggenbach,  Die  Zeugnisse 
fur  das  Ev.  johannis  neu  untersucht,  Basel,  1866 
(with  special  reference  to  Volkmar),  presenting  the 
case  very  fairly  and  clearly.  Pressensd,  Jesus- 
Christ,  son  temps,  sa  vie,  etc.  3e  ^d.  Paris,  1866, 
pp.  214-251 ;  I'^ngl.  translation,  Ix)nd.  1866.  C  A. 
Row,  IIisto7-icid  Chitracter  of  the  Gospels  tested, 
etc.  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.  Oct.  1865  and 
July  1866,  valuable;  see  also  his  Jesus  of  the 
Evangelists,  Ix)nd.  1868,  pp.  223  ff.,  391  ff.  J.  L 
Mombert,  Origin  if  the  Gospels,  in  Bibl.  Sacra 
for  Oct.  186G  (against  Strauss).  J.  J.  van  Oosterzee, 
Das  Johannesevangelium,  vier  Vort7-age  (from  the 
Dutch),  Giitersloh,  1887  (against  Scholten).  H. 
Jonker,  //et  Evangelie  van  Johannes.  Bedenkingen 
\eyen  Scholtefi' s  krit.  hist,  onderzoek,  Amst.  1867. 
Hofstede  de  Groot,  Basilides  als  erster  Zeuge  .  .  . 
des  J ohanne Sevang eliums  in  Verbindung  mit  andem 
Zeugo.n  bis  zur  Mitte  des  zweiten  Jahrhunderts, 
Deutsche  vermehrte  Ausg.,  Leipz.  1868  (1867). 
. .  F.  Clarke,  The  Fimrth  Gospel  and  its  Author, 
\xi  the  Christian  Examiner  for  Jan.  1868.  J.  P. 
Deramey  (the  Abbd),  Defense  die  quatrieme  Evan- 
gile, l^aris,  1868.  See  also  the  commentaries  of 
Liicke,  Tholuck,  Meyer,  Luthardt,  Baumlein,  Asti^, 
Godet,  and  particularly  Briickner's  edition  of  De 
Wette.  For  a  general  view  of  the  whole  subject, 
And  an  historical  sketch  of  the  discussion,  see  Holtz- 
mann  in  Bunsen's  Bibel-werk,  vol.  viii.  (1866)  pp. 
$6-77 


JOHN,  (iOSPEL  OF 

The  history  of  the  Paschal  controversy  in  the 
second  century  has  been  the  subject  of  much  de- 
bate with  reference  to  its  supposed  bearing  upon 
the  genuineness  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  prin- 
cipal separate  works  are  by  Weitzel,  Die  chiisiL 
Passnfeier  d.  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderie,  Pforz. 
1848,  and  Hilgenfeld,  Der  Paschastreit  der  alten 
Kirche,  Halle,  1860.  See  also  Schwegler,  Movr- 
tanismus,  p.  191  ff. ;  Baur,  Die  kanon.  Evangelien, 
pp.  269,  334  ff..  353  ff.,  also  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  for 
184V,  1848,  1857,  Zeitschr.  f  wiss.  Theol.  1858, 
and  his  Chistenthum,  u.  s.  w.,  2e  Aufl.,  p.  156  ff. ; 
Hilgenfeld  in  Theol.  Jahrb.  for  1849  and  1857, 
and  Zeitschr.  f  wiss.  Theol.  1858,  1861;  Tayler 
and  Davidson,  as  referred  to  above.  On  the  other 
side,  see  Bleek,  Beitrdge,  p.  156  ff.,  Einl.  p.  189 
ff.  (2e  Aufl.);  Weitzel,  in  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kiit.  for 
1848;  Steitz,  ibid.  1856,  1867,  1859,  Jahrb.  f. 
deutsche  Theol.  1861,  and  Herzog's  ReaUEncyk. 
art.  Pascha.  See  also  W.  Milligan,  The  Easier 
Controversies  of  the  Second  Century  in  their  rela- 
tion to  the  Gospel  of  John,  in  the  Contemp.  Review 
for  Sept.  1867.  —  On  the  interpretation  of  the  pas- 
sages in  John  supposed  to  be  at  variance  with  the 
Synoptic  Gospels,  there  are  recent  articles  by  L. 
Paul,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kiit.  1866,  p.  362  ff., 
1867,  p.  524  ff.,  Graf,  ibid.  1867,  p.  741  ff.,  and  W. 
Milligan,  The  Last  Supper  of  our  Lord  as  rela- 
ted in  the  Three  Earlier  Evangelists  and  in  St. 
John,  in  the  Contemp.  Review  for  Aug.  1868,  to 
be  followed  by  another  article.     [Passover.] 

2.  Commentaries.  —  In  addition  to  those  already 
mentioned,  the  following  are  worthy  of  notice:  — 
C.  C.  Tittmann,  Meletemata  Sacra,  Lips.  1816, 
trans,  with  Notes  by  James  Young,  2  vols.  Edin. 
1837  (Bibl.  Cab.).  Adalb.  Maier  (Cath.),  Comm. 
iib.  d.  Ev.  des  Johannes,  2  Bde.  Carlsruhe,  1843- 
45.  There  are  other  Catholic  commentaries  by 
Klee  (1829),  Patritius  (1857),  Messmer  (1860), 
Klofutar  (1863),  and  Bisping  (1865).  Baumgar- 
ten-Crusius,  Theol.  Auslegung  d.  johan.  Schriften, 
2  Bde.  Jena,.  1844-45.  W.  F.  Besser,  Dus  Ev. 
St.  Joh.  in  Bibelstunden  OAisgelegt,  1851,  4e  Aufl. 
HaUe,  1860.  James  Ford,  The  Gospel  of  St.  John 
Illustrated  from  Ancient  and  Modem  Authors, 
IvOnd.  1852.  Tholuck,  Comm.  zum  Ev.  Johannis, 
7e  umgearb.  Aufl.,  Gotha,  1857,  trans,  by  C  P. 
Krauth  from  the  6th  Germ.  ed.  with  additions 
from  the  7th,  Philad.  1859.  Olshausen,  Bibl. 
Comm.  Bd.  ii.  Abth.  1,  Das  Ev.  d.  Joh.,  4e  Aufl. 
umgearb.  von  Ebrard,  1862,  and  Abth.  2,  Dit 
Leidensgeschichte  nach  den  4  Ew.,  revidirt  von 
Ebrard,  4e  Aufl.  1862  (the  Engl,  trans,  is  from 
the  previous  edition).  J.  P.  Lange,  Das  Ev.  nach 
Johannes,  theol.-homiletisch  bearbeitet,  Bielefeld, 
1860  (Theil  iv.  of  his  Bibelwerk),  English  trans, 
in  press,  New  York,  1868.  Ewald,  Die  johan. 
SchHften  iibersezt  u.  erkldrt,  Bd.  i.  Getting.  1861, 
comp.  National  Review  for  July,  1863.  Heng- 
stenberg,  Das  Ev.  d.  heil.  Johannes  erldutert,  3 
Bde.  Beri.  1861-63,  Engl,  trans.,  2  vols.,  Edin. 
1865,  2d  Germ.  ed.  of  vol.  i.  1867.  H.  A.  W. 
Meyer,  Krit.  exeg.  Handb.  iib.  d.  Ev.  d.  Johannes, 
4e  Aufl.  Getting.  1862  (Abth.  ii.  of  his  Kom^ 
mentar).  Holtzmann  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  Bd. 
iv.  Th.  i.  Leipz.  1862.  J.  F.  Asti^,  Explication 
de  f  J^vang.  selon  St.  Jean,  trad.  nouv.  avec  op- 
pendice,  3  Hvr.  Genfeve,  1862-64  (livr.  1,  2,  anon  J. 
W.  Baumlein,  Comm.  iib.  d.  En.  d.  Johannes, 
Stuttg.  1863.  De  Wette,  Kurze  Erkldrung  d ' 
Ev.  tt.  d.  Brief e  Johannes,  5^  Ausg.  von  B.  Briick 
ner  (much  enlarged  and  improved),  Leipz.   1861 


I 


JOHN,  GOSPEL  OF 

^Bd.  i.  Th.  iii.  of  his  Exeg.  Hand^.),  F.  Godet, 
Comm.  $ur  I'^cany.  de  St.  Jean,  2  torn.  Paris, 
1864-65.  f  Anon.  )  Erlduterunger.  d.  Ev.  St.  Jo- 
knnnis,  lierl.  1865  (popular).  C.  H.  A.  von  Bur- 
ger, Dtis  Ev.  iinch  Juh.  deutsch  erkldvt,  Nordl. 
1868  (1867).  For  the  popular  American  commen- 
taries of  Barnes,  Kipley,  Livermore,  Paige,  Jacobus, 
Hall,  Owen,  Whedon,  and  Warren,  and  for  other 
works,  see  the  literature  under  Gospels,  pp.  960, 
961. 

On  the  Proem  of  the  Gospel,  see  also  Prof.  Stu- 
art's Examination  of  John  i.  1-18,  in  the  Bihl. 
Sacra,  1850,  vii.  13-54,  281-327,  comp.  Norton's 
Statement  of  Reasons,  etc.,  3d  ed.,  pp.  307-331. 
Hoeiemann,  De  Evang.  Joannei  Introitu,  Lips. 
1855.  F.  A.  Philippi,  Der  Eingang  des  Johan- 
nesevangeliums  ausgelegt,  Stuttg.  1867.  On  John 
vi.  25-65,  see  E.  P.  Barrows  in  Bibl.  Sacra,  xi. 
673-729;  on  John  xi.  1-46,  Gumlich,  Die  Rathsel 
d.  Erweckung  Lazarus,  in  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
1862,  pp.  65-110,  248-336. 

3.  Doctrine.  —  Passing  by  earlier  and  less  im- 
portant works,  for  which  see  Reuss,  Gesch.  d.  heil. 
Schriften  N.  T.  §  217,  3e  Aufi.,  we  may  notice  the 
following:  F.  W.  Rettberg,  An  Joannes  in  exhi- 
benda  Jesu  Natura  reliq.  canon.  Scriptis  vere  re- 
pugnet  f  Gotting.  1826.  C.  L.  W.  Grimm,  De 
Joannece  Christobgice  Indole  Paulince  comparata, 
Lips.  1833.  L.  A.  Simson,  Summa  Theologim  Jo- 
annece, Reg.  1839.  Karl  Fromraann,  Der  johan- 
neische  Lehrbegriff,  Leipz.  1839.  Reuss,  Ideen 
zur  Einl.  in  d.  Ev.  d.  Johannes,  in  the  Denkschrift 
d.  theol.  Gesellschqft  zu  Strassburg,  1840,  pp.  7- 
60 ;  Die  johan.  Theologie,  in  the  Strassburg  Bei- 
trdge  zu  den  theol.  Wissenschnften,  1847,  i.  1-84, 
and  more  fully  in  his  Hist.  de.  la  theol.  chretienne, 
2e  ^d.  Strasb.  1860,  ii.  369-600.  C.  R.  Kostlin, 
Der  Lehrbegrijf  d.  Ev.  u.  d.  Briefe  Johannis, 
Oerl.  1843,  thorough ;  comp.  Zeller's  review  in  his 
Theol.  Jahrb.  1845,  iv.  75-100.  Lutterbeck 
(Cath.),  Die  neutest.  Lehrbegriffe,  Mainz,  1852, 
ii.  252-299.  Neander,  PJianzung  u.  Leitung,  4^ 
Aufi.  1847,  Engl,  tratis.  revised  by  Robinson,  N. 
Y.  1865,  pp.  508-531.  Hilgenfeld,  Dct$  Ev.  u.  die 
Briefe  Johannis,  nach  ihrem  Lehrbegriff  darge- 
ttellt,  Halle,  1849.  Messner,  Die  Lehre  der  Apos- 
tel,  Leipz.  1856,  pp.  316-360.  I^echler,  Das  aposL 
u.  d.  nachapost.  Zeittdter,  2^  Aufl.  Stuttg.  1857, 
pp.  195-232.  C.  F.  Schmid,  Bibl.  Theol.  des  N. 
T.,  2e  Aufl.  Stuttg.  1859,  pp.  588-617.  Weiz- 
Bficker,  Das  SeWstzengniss  d.  joh.  Christus,  in  the 
Jahrb.  f  deutsche  Thcol.  1857,  ii.  154-208,  and 
Ueitrdge  zur  Char.  d.  joh.  Ev.  ibid.  1859,  iv.  685- 
767;  comp.  Hilgenfeld's  review  in  his  Zeitschr.  f. 
xoiss.  Thiol.  18.59,  pp.  283-313,  and  1862,  p.  25  ff. 
Weiss,  Der  johan.  Lehrbegriff,  Berl.  1862,  comp. 
Hilgenfeld's  review  in  his  Zeitschrift  u.  s.  w.  1863, 
vi.  96-116,  214-228,  and  Weizsacker,  Die  johan. 
Logoslehre,  in  the  Jahrb.  f  deutsche  Theol.  1862, 
7ii.  619-708.  Baur,  Vorlesungen  iiber  neutest. 
Theol.,  Leipz.  1864,  pp.  351-407.  Beyschlag,  Die 
Cnristolof/ie  des  N.  T.,  Berl.  1866,  pp.  65-107, 
;omp.  Pfleiderer's  review  in  the  Zeitschr.  f  unss. 
Theol.  ix.  241-266.  Scholten,  Das  Ev.  nach  Jo- 
hannes, Berl.  1867,  pp.  77-171.  Groos,  tJber  den 
Begriff  der  Kpiais  bei  .Johannes,  in  Theol.  Stiid.  u. 
Krit.  1868,  pp.  244-273. 

On  John's  doctrine  of  the  Logos  one  may  alsc 
jee  E.  G.  Bengei,  Obss.  de  \6y(o  Joannis,  Part.  i. 
1824  (in  his  Opusc.  Acad.  1834,  pp.  407-426); 
Niedner,  De  Subsistentia  rqU  dflcp  \6ycp  apud 
°hiUmem  Jud.  ei  Joannem  Apost.  ti-ibula,  in  his 


JOHN,  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF  14BG 

Zeitschr.  f.  d.  hist.  Theol,  1849,  Hefl  3;  Job. 
Ochs  (Cath.),  Dtr  johan.  Logosbegiiff,  Hamb. 
1848:  Jordan  Bucher  (Cath.),  Des  Apostels  Johan- 
nes Lehre  vom  Logos,  Schaffhausen,  1856;  and 
Rohricht,  Zur  johan.  Logoslehre,  in  the  Theol. 
Stud.  u.  Krit.  1868,  pp.  299-315.  Liicke's  disser- 
tation on  the  Logos,  prefixed  to  his  commentary,  is 
translated  by  Dr.  Noyes  in  the  Oiristian  Exam- 
iner for  March  and  May,  1849.  Domer's  remarka 
on  the  same  subject,  ie/^re  von  der  Person  Christi, 
1845,  i.  15  ff.  (Engl,  trans,  i.  13  ff.)  are  translated 
by  Prof.  Stuart  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  Oct.  1850. 

4.  Style.  —  See  J.  D.  Schulze,  Der  schriflstel- 
lerische  Charakter  u.  Werth  des  Johannes,  I^ipz. 
1803.  T.  G.  Seyffarth,  Beifrag  zur  Speciakhar- 
akteristik  d.  johan.  Schriften,  Leipz.  1823.  Cred- 
ner,  Einl.  in  d.  N.  T.,  Halle,  1836,  i.  223  ff.,  re- 
produced in  Davidson's  Introd.  to  the  N.  T.  Lend. 
1848,  i.  341  ff.,  comp.  his  Introd.  1868,  ii.  462  ff. 
T.  P.  C.  Kaiser,  De  speciali  Joan.  Apost.  Gram- 
matica  Culpa  NegligenticB  liberanda,  2  Progr. 
Erlang.  1842.  Wilke,  Neutest.  Rhetoink,  1843, 
passim.  Luthardt,  Das  johan.  Evangelium,  1852, 
i.  21-69.  B.  F.  Westcott,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of 
the  Gospels,  Boston,  1862,  pp.  264-275.  A. 

JOHN,  THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  GEN- 
ERAL   OF.     Its   Authenticity.  —  The  external 

evidence  is  of  the  most  satisfactory  nature.  Eusebiua 
places  it  in  his  list  of  b^ioXoyovixeva  [see  above,  p. 
373],  and  we  have  ample  proof  that  it  was  acknowl- 
edged and  received  as  the  production  of  the  Apostk 
John  in  the  writings  of  Polycarp  {Ep.  ad  Philipp. 
c.  7);  Papias,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius  {ff.  E.  iii.  39); 
Irenaeua  (Adv.  Ilcer.  iii.  18);  Origen  {apud  Etts 
H.  E.  vi.  25);  Clement  of  Alexandria  {Strom,  lib. 
ii.);  Tertullian  {Adv.  Prax.  c.  15);  Cyprian  {Ep. 
xxviii.):  and  there  is  no  voice  in  antiquity  raised 
to  the  contrary. 

On  the  grounds  of  internal  evidence  it  has  been 
questioned  by  [S.  G.]  Lange  {Die  Schrift.  Johannis 
iibersetzt  und  erkldrt,  vol.  iii.);  Cludius  ( i7ra7»- 
sichten  des  Christenthums) :  Bretschneider  {Proba- 
bilia  de  Evang.  et  Epist.  Joan.  Ap.  indole  et  ongine) ; 
Zeller  {Theologische  Jahrbiicher  for  1845).  The 
objections  made  by  these  critics  are  too  slight  to 
be  worth  mentioning.  On  the  other  hand  the  in- 
ternal evidence  for  its  being  the  work  of  St.  John 
from  its  similarity  in  style,  language,  and  doctrine 
to  the  Gospel  is  overwhelming.  Macknight  {Preface 
to  First  Epistle  of  John)  has  drawn  out  a  list  of 
nineteen  passages  in  the  epistle  which  are  so  similar 
to  an  equal  number  of  passages  in  the  Gospel  that 
we  cannot  but  conclude  that  the  two  WTitings 
emanated  from  the  same  mind,  or  that  one  author 
was  a  strangely  successful  copyist  both  of  the  worda 
and  of  the  sentiments  of  the  other.  The  allusion 
again  of  the  writer  to  himself  is  such  as  would  suit 
St.  John  the  Apostle,  and  very  few  but  St.  John 
(1  Ep.  i.  1). 

Thus  W3  see  that  the  high  probability  of  the 
authorship  is  established  both  by  the  internal  evi- 
dence and  by  the  external  evidence  taken  apart. 
Unite  them,  and  this  probability  rises  to  a  moral 
certainty. 

With  regard  to  the  time  at  which  St.  John  wrote 
the  epistle  (for  an  epistle  it  essentially  is,  though 
not  commencing  or  concluding  in  the  epistolary 
form)  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion. 
Grotius,  Hammond,  Whitby,  Benson,  Macknight, 
fix  a  date  previous  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
understanding  (but  probably  not  correctly)  the  «»• 


1440 

pression  "It  is  the  last  time"  (ii.  18)  to  refer  to 
the  Jewish  Church  and  nation.  Lardner,  Whiston, 
Lampe,  Mill,  Le  Clerc,  Basnage,  lieausobre,  Dupin, 
Davidson,  assign  it  to  the  close  of  the  first  century. 
This  is  the  more  probable  date.  There  are  several 
indications  of  the  epistle  being  posterior  to  the 
Gospel. 

Like  the  Gospel  it  was  probably  written  from 
Ephesns.  Grotius  fixes  Patnios  as  the  place  at 
which  it  was  written  —  Macknight,  Judaea.  But  a 
late  date  would  involve  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
Ephesus.  The  per.^oris  addressed  are  certainly  rrot 
the  Parthians,  according  to  the  inscriptions  of  one 
Greek  and  several  Latin  MSS.  There  is  however 
a  somewhat  widely  spread  Latin  tradition  to  this 
effect  resting  on  the  authority  of  St.  Augustine, 
Cassiodorus,  and  Bede ;  and  it  is  defended  by  Estius. 
The  Greek  Church  knew  no  such  report.  Lardner 
is  clearly  right  when  he  says  that  it  was  primarily 
meant  for  the  Churches  of  Asia  under  St.  John's 
inspection,  to  whom  he  had  already  orally  delivered 
his  doctrine  (i.  3,  ii.  7). 

The  main  object  of  tne  epistle  does  not  appear 
to  be  that  of  opposing  tlie  errors  of  the  Docetse 
(Schmidt,  I3ertholdt,  Niemeyer),  or  of  the  Gnostics 
(Kleuker),  or  of  tlie  Nicolaitans  (Macknight),  or 
of  the  Cerinthians  (Miciiaelis),  or  of  all  of  them 
together  (Townsend),  or  of  the  Sabians  (Barkey, 
Storr,  Keil),  or  of  Judaizers  (Ix)effler,  Semler),  or 
of  apostates  to  Judaism  (Lange,  Eichhorn,  Han- 
lein):  the  leading  purpose  of  the  Apostle  appears 
to  be  rather  constructive  than  polemical.  St.  John 
is  remarkable  both  in  his  history  and  in  his  writings 
for  his  abhoiTence  of  false  doctrine,  but  he  does  not 
attack  error  as  a  controversialist.  He  states  the 
deep  truth  and  lays  down  the  deep  moral  teaching 
of  Christianity,  and  in  this  way  rather  than  directly 
condemns  heresy.  In  the  introduction  (i.  1-4)  the 
Apostle  states  the  purpose  of  his  epistle.  It  is  to 
declare  the  Word  of  life  to  those  whom  he  is  ad- 
dressing, in  order  that  he  and  they  might  be  united 
in  true  communion  with  each  other,  and  with  God 
the  Father,  and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ.  He  at  once 
begins  to  explain  the  nature  and  conditions  of  com- 
nunion  with  God,  and  being  led  on  trom  this  point 
into  other  topics,  he  twice  brings  himself  back  to 
the  same  sultject.  The  first  part  of  the  epistle 
may  be  considered  to  end  at  ii.  28.  The  Apostle 
begins  afresh  with  the  doctrine  of  sonship  or  com- 
nmnion  at  ii.  29,  and  returns  to  the  same  theme  at 
iv.  7.  His  lesson  throughout  is,  that  the  means 
of  union  with  God  are,  on  the  part  of  Christ,  his 
atoning  blood  (i.  7,  ii.  2,  iii.  5,  iv.  10,  14,  v.  6) 
and  advocacy  (ii.  1 )  —  on  the  part  of  man,  holiness 
(i.  6),  obedience  (ii.  3),  purity  (iii.  3),  faith  (iii.  23, 
iv.  3,  v.  5),  and  above  all  love  (ii.  10,  iii.  14,  iv.  7, 
V.  1).  St.  John  is  designated  the  Apostle  of  Ix)ve, 
and  rightly ;  but  it  should  be  ever  remembered  that 
his  "love"  does  not  exclude  or  ignore,  but  em- 
braces both  faith  and  obedience  as  constituent  parts 
of  itself.  Indeed,  St.  Paul's  "  faith  that  worketh 
by  love,"  and  St.  James's  '<  works  that  are  the 
fruit  of  faith,"  and  St.  John's  "  love  which  springs 
from  fiiith  and  produces  obedience,"  are  all  one 
and  the  same  state  of  mind  described  according  to 
the  first,  third,  or  second  stage  into  which  we  are 
•  hie  to  analyze  the  complex  whole. 

There  are  two  doubtful  passages  in  this  epistle, 
li.  23.  "  but  he  thai  acknowledgeth  the  Son  hath 
the  Father  also,"  and  v.  7,  "  For  there  are  three 
that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  F'ather,  the  Word, 
»Qd  the  Holy  Gliost,  and  these  three  are  one."  The 


JOHN,  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF 


question  of  their  authenticity  is  argued  at  IcrgtH 
by  Mill  (note  at  the  end  of  1  John  v.^,  and  Home 
{Introduction  to  H.  S.  iv.  p.  448,  Lond.  1834  [oi 
lOth  ed.,  1856,  pp.  355  ff.]).  It  would  appear 
without  doubt  that  they  are  not  genuine.  The 
latter  passage  is  contahied  in  four  only  of  the  15C 
[250]  MSS.  of  the  epistle,  the  Codex  Guelpherbyta- 
nus  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Codex  Ka^'ianus, 
a  forgery  subsequent  to  the  year  1514,  the  Codex 
Britannicus  or  Montfortii  of  the  fifteenth  or  six- 
teenth century,  and  the  Codex  Ottobonianus  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Syriac 
versions,  in  the  Coptic,  the  Sahidic,  the  Ethiopic, 
the  Armenian,  the  Arabic,  the  Slavonic,  nor  in  any 
ancient  version  except  the  Latin;  and  the  best 
editions  of  even  the  Latin  version  omit  it.  It  was 
not  quoted  by  one  Greek  Father  or  writer  previous 
to  the  14th  century.  It  was  not  inserted  in  Eras- 
mus's editions  of  the  Greek  Testament,  pubhshed 
in  1516  and  1519,  nor  in  that  of  Aldus,  1518;  nor 
in  that  of  GerbeUus,  1521 ;  nor  of  Cephalaeus,  1524; 
nor  of  Colinseus,  1534;  nor  in  Luther's  version  of 
1540.  Against  such  an  amount  of  external  testi- 
mony no  internal  evidence,  however  weighty,  could 
be  of  avail.  For  the  exposition  of  the  passage  as 
containing  the  words  in  question,  see  (as  quoted  by 
Home)  Bp.  Horsley's  Sermons  (i.  p.  193).  F^or 
the  same  passage  interpreted  without  the  disputed 
words,  see  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  Hist,  of  Two  Texts 
(Works,  v.  p.  528,  Lond.  1779).  See  also  Emlyn's 
Enquiry^  etc.,  I^nd.  1717.  See  further,  Travis 
{Letters  to  Gibbon,  Lond.  1785);  Porson  {Letters 
to  Travis,  Ix)nd.  1790);  Bishop  Marsh  {Letters  to 
Travis,  Lond.  1795);  Michaelis  {Intr.  to  New  Test. 
iv.  p.  412,  Lond.  1802);  Griesbach  {Diatribe  ap- 
pended to  vol.  ii.  of  Greek  Test.  Halse,  1806); 
Butler  {Horce  Bibliccs,  ii.  p.  245,  Lond.  1807); 
Clarke  {Succession,  etc.,  i.  p.  71,  Lond.  1807); 
Bishop  Burgess  (  Vindication  of  1  John  v.  7,  Lond. 
1822  and  1823;  Adnotationes  Millii,  etc.,  1822; 
Letter  to  the  Cle7-(/y  of  St.  DnvicFs,  1825;  Tivo 
Letters  to  Afrs.  Joanna  Baillie,  1831,  1835),  to 
which  may  be  added  a  dissertation  in  the  Life  of 
Bp.  Burgess,  p.  398,  Lond.  1840.  F.  M. 

*  It  is  far  from  correct  to  speak  of  the  last  clause 
of  1  John  ii.  23  as  "  doubtful,"  and  even,  as  is 
done  above,  to  include  it  in  the  same  category  with 
1  John  V.  7,  as  "  without  doubt  .  .  .  not  genuine." 
The  clause  in  question,  though  omitted  in  the  so- 
called  "  received  text,"  is  supported  by  decisive 
evidence,  and  is  regarded  as  genuine  by  all  critics 
of  any  note.  Its  omission  in  some  manuscripts 
was  ol)viously  occasioned  by  the  like  ending  (in  the 
original)  of  the  preceding  clause. 

1  o  prevent  a  mistake  which  has  often  been  made, 
it  may  be  well  to  say  explicitly  that  the  u'hole  of  1 
John  V.  7  is  not  spurious,  but  the  words  which 
follow  "  bear  record,"  together  with  the  first  clause 
of  ver.  8,  "  and  there  are  three  that  bear  witness 
in  earth."  The  genuine  text  of  w.  7,  8  readu 
simply,  •'  For  there  are  three  that  bear  record  [or 
rather,  '  bear  witness,'  as  the  same  verb  is  rendered 
in  ver.  6],  the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  biooa 
and  the  three  agree  in  one." 

For  a  full  account  of  the  controversy  on  this 
famous  passage,  one  may  consult  the  Rev.  William 
Orme's  Memoir  of  the  Controversy  respecting  tht 
Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  published  under  the 
name  of  "  Criticus,"  London,  1830 ;  new  edition,  with 
notes  and  an  Appendix,  bringing  the  history  of  the 
discussion  down  to  the  present  time,  by  E.  Abbot 
New  York,  1866.     To  the  list  of  publicatioM  ot 


JOHN,  THE   SECOND  AND  THIRD  EPISTLES  OF 


1441 


I 


the  controversy  given  above  the  following  deserves 
to  be  added  for  its  signal  ability,  and  the  valuable 
information  it  contains :  A  Vindication  of  the 
Literary  Character  of  Professor  Porson,  from  the 
Animadcersions  of  the  Jit.  Rev.  Thomas  Burgess, 
.  .  .  By  Crito  C<tntabri;jiensisy  Cambridge,  1827. 
The  author  was  Dr.  Tlionias  Turton,  afterwards 
Bishop  of  Ely;  and  to  him  are  probably  to  be 
ascribed  the  al)le  articles  which  had  previously  ap- 
peared on  tlie  subject  in  the  Cluarterly  Review  for 
March  1822,  and  Dec.  1825.  On  the  other  side 
may  be  mentioned  Cardinal  Wiseman's  Tioo  Letters 
on  some  Parts  of  the  Controversy  concerninff  the 
Genuineness  of  John  v.  7,  in  the  Cath.  Mag.  for 
1832  and  1833,  reprinted  in  vol.  i.  of  his  Essays, 
Lond.  18.53.  These  letters  relate  almost  wholly  to 
the  reading  of  the  passage  in  the  Old  Latin  version. 
For  an  answer,  see  Ur.  NVilliam  Wrigiit's  Appendix 
to  liis  translation  of  Seiler's  BiU.  Ilermeneutics 
(1835),  pp.  633  ff. ;  Tregelles  in  Home's  Jntrod., 
10th  ed.,  p.  303  f.;  and  the  Appendix  to  the 
American  edition  of  Orme's  Memoir,  pp.  180-191. 
Dr.  Tregelles,  in  the  Journ.  of  Sac.  Lit.  for  April, 
1858,  p.  107  ff. ,  has  exposed  the  extraordinary  mis- 
statements of  I)r.  Joseph  TurnbuU  in  relation  to 
this  passage.  The  New  Plea  for  the  Authenticity 
fthe  Text  of  the  Three  Heavenly  Witnesses,  by 
the  Rev.  Charles  Forster,  London,  1807,  deserves 
notice  only  as  a  literary  and  psychological  curiosity. 
Literature  relating  to  the  Lpistles  of  John  in 
general  and  the  First  Epistle  in  particular.  —  Be- 
Mes  the  older  general  conniientaries  on  the  New 
Testament  or  the  Epistles,  as  those  of  Calvin,  Beza, 
Grotius,  Bengel,  Whitby,  Doddridge,  Macknight, 
ind  general  works  on  the  Catholic  Epistles,  as  those 
of  Geo.  Benson  (2d  ed.  1756),  J.  B.  Carpzov  (1790), 
August!  (1801-08),  Grashof  (1830),  Jachmann 
(1838),  Abp.  Sumner  (Practical  Exposition,  Lond. 
1840),  Barnes  (Notes,  Expiin.  and  Practical,  New 
York,  1847),  Karl  Braune  (Die  sieben  kl.  Kathol. 
Brief e  zur  Erbiuung  ausgelegt,  3  Hefte,  Grimma, 
1847-48),  and  the  more  recent  editions  of  the  Greek 
Testament  by  Bloomfield,  Alford,  NVebster  and 
Wilkinson,  and  Wordsworth,  the  following  special 
works  may  be  noticed:  Whiston,  Comin.  on  the 
Three  Cath.  Epistles  of  John,  Lond.  1719.  Sender, 
Paraphr.  in  jjrimam  Joan.  Epist.  cum  Prolegg. 
ei  Animadvv.  Kigae,  1792.  JMorus,  Prcelectiones 
exeget.  in  tres  Joannis  Epistol  is,  Lips.  1790,  also 
1810.  Kich.  Shepherd,  Notes,  Critical  and  Disser- 
tatory,  on  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John,  Lond. 
1796,  also  1302,  new  ed.  1841.  T.  Hawkins,  Comm. 
on  the  First,  Second,  and  Third  Epistles  of  John, 
Halifax,  1808.  Karl  Kickli,  Johannis  erster  Brief 
erklart  u.  angewendel  in  Predigten,  mit  hist.  Vor- 
bericht  u.  exeget.  Anhange,  Luzern,  1828.  Paulus, 
Die  drey  Lchrbriefe  von  Johannes  iibe7-s.  u.  crkldrt^ 
Hsidelb.  1829.  Liirke,  Comm.  iib.  d.  Brief e  des 
Ev.  Johannes,  2c  Aufl.  Bonn,  1830,  Engl,  trans. 
by  T.  G.  Bepp,  Edin.  1837  (Bibl.  Cab.),  3d  German 
ed.  by  E.  Bertheau,  1850.  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  De 
Epistt.  Johnn.  Locis  difficilioribus  Comm.  L,  Turici, 
1837,  reprinted  in  Fritzschiorum  Opuscc.  Acad., 
[Lips.  18:->8,  pp.  270-308.  Kobt.  Shepherd,  Notes 
on  the  Gospel  and  Epistles  of  John,  '  ond.  1840. 
Neander,  Der  erste  Brief  Johannis,  praktisch 
erldutert,  Iterl.  1851,  F:ngi.  trai  s.  by  Mrs.  H.  C. 
Conant,  New  York,  1852.  I.  E.  F\  Sarder,  Comm. 
zu  d.  B:t.  Job.  Elberf.  1851,  not  important.  G. 
K.  Mayer  (Cath.),  Comm.  iib.  d.  Brr.  d.  Ap.  Joh., 
Wien,"l851.  W.  F.  liesser,  Die  Brief e  St.  Johan- 
nis in  Bibthtunilen  ausgelegt,  Halle,  iSSl,  3«  Aufl. 


91 


1802.  Diisterdieck,  Die  drei  johan.  Bnefe,  mit 
vollstdnd.  theol.  Commeniar,  2  lide.  Gott.  1852-56. 
D.  Erdmann,  Pi-imce  Joannis  Epist.  argumentum, 
etc.  Berol.  1855.  Y.  D.  Maurice,  The  Epistles  of 
St.  John.  A  Series  of  Lectures  on  Chnstian 
Ethics,  Camb.  1857,  new  ed.  1807.  Myrberg, 
Comm.  in  Epist.  Johannis  primnm,  Upsal.  1859 
(pp.  xiv.,  74).  Ebrard,  Die  Brief e  Johannis,  u.  s.  w. 
Kiinigsb.  1859  (Bd.  vi.  Abth.  iv.  of  Olshausen's 
Bibl.  Comm.),  I^nglish  transl.  Edin.  1800  (Clark's 
For.  Theol.  Libr.).  Karl  Braune,  Die  drei  Brief e 
d.  Apost.  Johannes,  theol.-homilet.  bearbeitet,  Biele- 
feld, 1805  (Theil  xv.  of  I^ange's  Bibelwerk),  I'Ingl. 
transl.,  with  additions,  by  J.  I.  Monibert,  New 
York,  1807  (part  of  vol.  ix.  of  Lange's  Comm.). 
R.  S.  Candlish,  The  First  Epistle  of  John  ex- 
pounded in  a  Series  of  Lectures,  VAm.  1866.  For 
the  commentaries  of  Baumgarten-Crusius  (1845), 
Ewald  (1861),  and  De  Wette,  5th  ed.  by  BrUckner 
(1803),  see  the  literature  under  John,  Gospel  of. 
Of  the  commentaries  named  above  the  most  valu- 
able are  those  of  Liicke,  Neander,  Dusterdieck 
(rather  prolix),  and  Huther.  '•  The  Epistles  of 
John,  with  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Dissertations, 
by  the  Rev.  B.  F.  Westcott,  B.  D."  is  announced 
as  in  preparation  (1808)  and  will  be  looked  for 
with  interest  by  Biblical  students.  An  excellent 
sketch  of  the  history  of  the  interpretation  of  the 
First  Epistle  is  given  in  Lucke's  Comm.  2^  Aufl. 
pp.  75-106. 

For  further  information  respecting  the  critical 
questions  relating  to  the  three  epistles  of  John, 
one  may  consult  the  Introductions  of  De  Wette, 
Reuss,  Bleek,  Guericke,  and  Davidson;  see  also 
Ewald's  Jahrb.  d.  Bibl.  wissensch.  iii.  174  ft'.,  x. 
83  ff.,  and  Die  johan.  Schriften,  ii.  391  ff.  Baur's 
view  is  set  forth  in  the  Theol.  Jahrb.  1848,  pp. 
293-337,  and  ibid.  18-57,  pp.  315-331;  Hilgenfeld's 
in  his  Das  Ev.  u.  die  Briefe  Johannis,  u.  s.  w. 
(1849),  and  Theol.  Jahrb.  1855,  p.  471  ft".  On  the 
Gospel  and  First  I'^pistle  of  John  as  works  of  the 
same  author,  and  on  the  First  Epistle  and  its  rela- 
tion to  the  fourtli  Gospel,  see  two  good  articles  by 
Wilibald  Grimm,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1847, 
p.  171  ft',  and  1849,  pp.  209-303. 

On  the  doctrine  of  the  epistle,  see  L.  Thomas, 
Etwies  dogm.  sur  la  premiere  ep'dre  de  Jean, 
Geneve,  1849,  and  the  works  referred  to  in  the 
addition  under  John,  Gosi'kl  of.  A. 

JOHN,  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD 
EPISTLES  OF.  Their  Authenticity.  — These 
two  epistles  are  placed  by  Eusebius  in  the  class  of 
avTiKeySfiepa,  and  he  appears  himself  to  be  doubt- 
ful whether  they  were  written  by  the  Evangelist,  or 
by  some  other  John  (//.  J'J.  iii.  25).  The  evidence 
of  antiquity  in  their  fovor  is  not  very  strong,  but 
yet  it  is  considerable.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
speaks  of  the  F'irst  Epistle  as  the  larger  (Strom,  lib. 
ii.  [c.  15,  p.  464,  ed.  Potter] ),  and  if  the  Adum- 
brationes  are  his,  he  bears  direct  testimony  to  the 
Second  Epistle  (Adumbr.  p.  1011,  ed.  Potter). 
Origen  appears  to  have  had  the  same  doubts  as 
Eusebius  (apvd  Euseb.  IL  E.  vi.  25).  Dionysius 
(apud  Euseb.  IL  E.  vii.  25)  and  Alexander  of 
Alexandria  (apud  Socr.  II.  E.  i.  6)  attribute  them 
to  St.  John.  So  does  Irena^us  (Adv.  Ilcer.  i.  16). 
[The  Muratorian  canon  mentions  two  epistles  of 
John.]  Aurelius  quoted  them  in  the  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.  D.  256,  as  St.  John's  writing  (Cyprian, 
0pp.  ii.  p.  120,  ed.  Oberthiir).  Ephrem  Synw 
speaks  of  them  in  the  same  way  in  the  fourth  cen- 


1442 


JOHN,  THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  EPISTLES  OF 


hiry  [thouj^h  they  are  wanting  in  the  Peshito]. 
In  the  fifth  century  they  are  almost  universally 
received.  A  homily,  wrongly  attributed  to  St. 
Chrysostoni,  declares  them  uncanonical. 

If  the  external  testimony  is  not  as  decisive  as  we 
might  wish,  the  internal  evidence  is  peculiarly 
strong.  Mill  has  pointed  out  that  of  the  13  verses 
which  compose  the  Second  Epistle,  8  are  to  he 
found  in  the  First  Epistle.  Either  then  the  Second 
Epistle  proceeded  from  the  same  author  as  the 
First,  or  from  a  conscious  fabricator  who  desired  to 
pass  off  something  of  his  own  as  the  production  of 
the  Apostle.  But  if  the  latter  alternative  had  been 
true,  the  fabricator  in  question  would  assuredly 
have  assumed  the  title  of  John  the  Apostle^  instead 
of  merely  designating  himself  as  John  the  eUkr, 
and  he  would  have  introduced  some  doctrine  which 
it  would  have  been  his  object  to  make  popular. 
'J'he  title  and  contents  of  the  epistle  are  strong 
arguments  against  a  fabricator,  whereas  they  would 
account  for  its  non-universal  reception  in  early 
times.  And  if  not  the  work  of  a  fabricator,  it  must 
from  style,  diction,  and  tone  of  thought,  be  the  work 
of  the  author  of  the  Eirst  Epistle,  and,  we  may  add, 
of  the  Gospel. 

The  reason  why  St.  John  designates  himself  as 
irp^afivrepos  rather  than  awSaTohos  (Ep.  ii.  1,  Ep. 
iii.  1),  is  no  doubt  the  same  as  that  which  made 
St.  Peter  designate  himself  by  the  same  title  (1  Pet. 
V.  1),  and  which  caused  St.  James  and  St.  Jude  to 
give  themselves  no  other  title  than  "  the  servant 
of  God  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Jam.  i.  1), 
"  the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ  and  brother  of  James  " 
(Jude  1).  St.  Paul  had  a  special  object  in  declar- 
ing himself  an  apostle.  Those  who  belonged  to 
the  original  Twelve  had  no  such  necessity  imposed 
upon  them.  With  them  it  was  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference whether  they  employed  the  name  of  apostle 
like  St.  Peter  (1  Pet.  i.  1,  2  Pet.  i.  1),  or  adopted 
%n  appellation  which  they  shared  with  others  hke 
i^t.  John  and  St.  James,  and  St.  Jude. 

The  Second  Epistle  is  addressed  e/fAewr^  Kvpla. 
This  expression  camiot  mean  the  Church  (Jerome), 
nor  a  particular  church  (Cassiodorus  [so  Davidson, 
Introd.  ed.  18G8]),  nor  the  elect  Church  which 
comes  together  on  Sundays  (Michaelis),  nor  the 
Church  of  Philadelphia  (Whiston),  nor  the  Church 
of  Jerusalem  (Whitby).  An  individual  woman  who 
had  children,  and  a  sister  and  nieces,  is  clearly  in- 
dicated. Whether  her  name  is  given,  and  if  so, 
what  it  is,  has  been  doubted.  According  to  one 
interpretation  she  is  "  the  Lady  Electa,"  to  another, 
"the  elect  Kyria,"  to  a  third,  "the  elect  Lady." 
Tlie  first  interpretation  is  that  of  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria (if  the  passage  above  referred  to  in  the 
Adumbratianes  be  his),  "Wotstein,  Grotius.  Middle- 
ton.  The  second  is  that  of  Benson,  Carpzov, 
Schleusner,  Heumann,  Bengel,  Kosenmiiller,  De 
Wette,  Liicke,  Neander,  Davidson  [Introd.  ed.  1851, 
otherwise  18G8].  The  third  is  the  rendering  of  the 
English  version,  Mill,  Wall,  Wolf,  Le  Clerc,  Lardner, 
Beza,  Eichhorn,  Newcome,  Wakefield,  Macknight. 
For  the  rendering  "the  Lady  Electa"  to  be  right, 
Ihe  word  Kvpia  must  have  preceded  (as  in  modern 
Greek)  the  word  iKXeKTjj,  not  followed  it;  and 
.rther,  the  lust  verse  of  the  epistle,  in  which  her 
sister  is  also  spoken  of  as  t/cAe/fT'i^,  is  fatal  to  the 
hypothesis.  The  rendering  "  the  elect  Kyria,"  is 
probably  wrong,  because  there  is  no  article  before 
^he  adjective  e/cAeKT^.  It  ren)ains  that  the  render- 
big  of  the  English  version  is  probably  right,  though 
bere  too  we  should  have  expected  the  artiv^le. 


The  Third  Epistle  is  addressed  to  G  aius  or  Caius. 
We  have  no  reason  for  identifying  him  with  Caiui 
of  Macedonia  (Acts  xix.  29),  or  with  Caius  of  Derbe 
(Acts  XX.  4),  or  with  Caius  of  Corinth  (Rom.  xvi. 
23;  1  Cor.  i.  14),  or  with  Caius  Bishop  of  Ephesus, 
or  with  Caius  Bishop  of  Thessalonica,  or  with 
Caius  Bishop  of  Pergamos.  He  was  probably  a 
convert  of  St.  John  (Ep.  iii.  4),  and  a  layman  of 
wealth  and  distinction  (Ep.  iii,  5)  in  some  city  near 
Ephesus. 

The  object  of  St.  John  ii  writing  the  Second 
Epistle  was  to  warn  the  lady  to  whom  he  wrclc 
against  abetting  the  teaching  kno\vn  as  that  of 
Basilides  and  his  followers,  by  perhaps  an  undm 
kindness  displayed  by  her  towards  the  preachers  of 
the  false  doctrine.  After  the  introductory  saluta- 
tion, the  Apostle  at  once  urges  on  his  correspondent 
the  great  principle  of  J^ove,  which  with  him  (as  we 
have  before  seen)  means  right  affection  springing 
from  right  faith  and  issuing  in  right  conduct.  The 
immediate  consequence  of  the  possession  of  this 
love  is  the  abhorrence  of  heretical  misVielief,  lie- 
cause  the  latter,  being  incompatible  with  light 
faith,  is  destructive  of  the  producing  cause  of  love, 
and  therefore  of  love  itself.  This  is  the  secret  of 
St.  John's  strong  denunciation  of  the  "deceiver" 
whom  he  designates  as  "anti-Christ."  Love  is 
with  him  the  essence  of  Christianity;  but  love  can 
spring  only  from  right  faith.  Wrong  beUef  there- 
fore destroys  love  and  with  it  Christianity.  There- 
fore says  he,  "  If  there  come  any  unto  you  and 
bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into  your 
house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed,  for  he  that  bid- 
deth  him  God  speed  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deedi  " 
(Ep.  ii.  10,  11). 

The  Third  Epistle  was  \\Titten  for  the  purpose 
of  commending  to  the  kindness  and  hospitaHty  of 
Caius  some  Christians  who  were  strangers  in  the 
place  where  he  lived.  It  is  probable  that  these 
Christians  carried  this  letter  with  them  to  Caius 
as  their  introduction.  It  would  appear  that  the 
object  of  the  travellers  was  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles  without  money  and  without  price 
(Ep.  iii.  7).  St.  John  had  already  written  to  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  of  the  place  {(ypa\l/a,  ver. 
9,  not  "  scripsissem,"  {Vulg.);  but  they,  at  the 
instigation  of  Diotrephes,  had  refused  to  receive  the 
missionary  brethren,  and  therefore  the  Apostle  now 
commends  them  to  the  care  of  a  layman.  It  is 
probable  that  Diotrephes  was  a  leading  presbyter 
who  held  Judaizing  views,  and  would  not  give  assist- 
ance to  men  who  were  going  about  with  the  purpose 
of  preaching  solely  to  the  Gentiles.  Whether  Deme- 
trius (ver.  12)  was  a  tolerant  presbyter  of  the  same 
community,  whose  example  St.  John  holds  up  as 
worthy  of  commendation  in  contradistinction  to  that 
of  Diotrephes,  or  whether  he  was  one  of  the  stran- 
gers who  bore  the  letter,  we  are  now  unable  to  deter- 
mine.   The  latter  supposition  is  the  more  probable. 

We  may  conjecture  that  the  two  epistles  were 
written  shortly  after  the  First  Epistle  from  Ephesus. 
They  both  apply  to  hidividual  cases  of  conduct  the 
principles  which  had  been  laid  do\vn  in  their  fullness 
in  the  First  Epistle. 

The  title  Catholic  does  not  prcperly  belong  to 
the  Second  and  Third  Epistles.  It  lecame  attached 
to  them,  although  addressed  to  individuals,  because 
they  were  of  too  httle  importance  to  be  classed  by 
themselves,  and  so  far  as  doctrine  went,  'were  re- 
garded as  appendices  to  the  First  Epistle. 

F.  M. 

*  On  the  Second  and  Third  Epistles  of  Jchi 


JOTADA 

0ie  works  most  worthy  of  notice  are  referred  to  in 
the  addition  to  tlie  article  on  the  First  Epistle. 
rhe  following  may  also  be  mentioned:  J.  B. 
Carpzov,  Comm.  in  Ep.  sec.  Joannisy  and  Brevis 
Enavvatio  in  Joan.  Apost.  Kpist.  tertium^  appended 
to  his  edition  of  F.  Rappolt's  Theologia  apkoristica 
Jonnnis,  Lips.  1G88,  also  in  his  Theologia  Exeget- 
ica,  Lips.  1751,  p.  101  ff. ;  praised  by  \V'alch.  G. 
J.  Sommelius,  Jsaff.  in  2  et  3  Joli.  EjnsL,  Lund. 
1798-99.  P.  L.  Gachon,  AuiJienticite  de  la  2e  et 
3e  ep.  de  Jean,  Montaub.  1851.  Sam.  Cox,  Tlte 
Private  Letters  of  St.  Paul  ami  John,  Ix)nd.  18G7. 
J.  J.  Kambonnet,  Spec.  acad.  de  sec.  Ep.  Joannea, 
Traj.  ad  llhen.  1819.  A.  W.  Knauer,  Ueber  die 
*EkA6/ct^  Ky/Jio,  an  welche  der  zioeite  Brief 
Johannis  yerichtet  ist,  in  Theol.  Sittd.  u.  Krit. 
1333,  pp.  452-458.  J.  C.  M.  Laurent,  Wer  toar 
die  Kvpia  im  2.  Brief e  Johannis  f  in  the  Zeitschr. 
f.  tuth.  Theol.  1865,  p.  219  ff.  (comp.  his  Neutest. 
Studien,  p.  137  f.)  takes  Kupia  to  represent  the 
I^tin  Curia,  not  Ct/ria ;  and  Guericke,  Neutest. 
Jsagoyik,  3e  Aufl.  (1868),  p.  477,  regards  this  as 
unquestionable.  On  the  Third  Epistle,  C.  A.  Heu- 
mann.  Diss,  exhibens  Comm.  in  Joan.  Epist.  ter- 
liam,  Getting.  1742,  reprinted  in  his  Nova  Sylloge 
Diss.,  etc.  (1752),  L  216  ff.  A. 

JOFADA  (^7^^**  [Jehovah  knows] :  'iwSae, 
'IwoSa;  [Vat.  Neh.  xii.  10,  11,  IcoSo ;]  Alex. 
[iwaSa,]  Iwiada  [and  so  FA.3  in  Neh.  xii.  22] : 
Joiada),  high-priest  after  his  father  Eliashib,  but 
whether  in  the  lifetime  of  Nehemiah  is  not  clear, 
as  it  is  doubtful  whether  the  title  in  Neh.  xiii.  28 
applies  to  him  or  his  father.  One  of  his  sons 
married  a  daughter  of  Sanballat  the  Horonite.  He 
was  succeeded  in  the  high-priesthood  by  his  son 
Jonathan,  or  Johanan  (Neh.  xii.  11,  22).  Josephus 
calls  this  Jehoiada,  Judas.  A.  C.  H. 

JOrAKIM  (D''r?;V  [Jehovah  establishes, 
raises  up]:  'Iwok^/x;  [V^at.  Alex.  FA.  luaKet/j.:] 
Joacim),  a  high- priest,  son  of  the  renowned  Jeshua 
who  was  joint  leader  with  Zenibbabel  of  the  first 
return  from  Babylon.  His  son  and  successor  was 
Eliashib  (Neh.  xii.  10).  In  Neh.  xii.  12-26  is 
preserved  a  catalogue  of  the  heads  of  the  various 
families  of  priests  and  Levites  during  the  high- 
priesthood  of  Joiakim. 

The  name  is  a  contracted  form  of  Jehoiakim. 

JOI'ARIB  (nn>T  ^  [whom  Jehovah  defends]  : 
'Icoapi/Xy  'IwapijS ;  Alex,  leoapeifi :  Joarib).  1. 
['Iwapt'/*;  Vat.  Ap€i$;  Alex.  Iwapei/x'-  Joiarib.] 
A.  layman  who  returned  from  Babylon  with  Ezra 
(Ezr*  viii.  16). 

2.  [Neh.  xi.  10,  lajopjjS;  Vat.  I«pej/8;  Alex. 
\<cpi^;  FA.  Icjpeiyu;  in  Neh.  xii.  G,  19,  Vat.  Alex. 
FA.i  omit,  and  so  Bom.  in  ver.  6 :  Joarib,  Joiarib.] 
The  founder  of  one  of  the  courses  of  priests,  else- 
where called  in  full  Jeiioiarib.  His  descendants 
after  the  Captivity  are  given,  Neh.  xii.  6,  19,  and 
also  in  xi.  10;  though  it  is  possible  that  in  this 
passage  another  person  is  intended. 

3.  [iwaptjS  ;  Vat.  loapeifi  ',  FA.  Icopeifx,  corr. 
I«p€j)8;  Alex.  Icoiapt^'  Joiarib.]  A  Shilonite  — 
»'.  e.  probably  a  descendant  of  Siielaii  the  son  of 
Judah  —  named  in  the  genealogy  of  Maaseiah,  the 
then  head  of  the  family  (Neh.  xi.  5). 

JOKODEAM  (^?"IPJ  [possessed  by  the 
people]'.  'ApiKdfx;  [Vat.  lopj/ta/t;]  Alex.  le/cSoa^u- 
Jacadaam),  a  city  of  Judah,  in  the  mountains 
JoBh.  XV.  56);  named  in  the  same  group  witl  Maon, 


JOKNEAM  1443 

Carmel,  and  Ziph,  and  therefore  apparently  to  b« 
looked  for  south  of  Hebron,  where  they  are  situated, 
ft  has  not,  however,  been  yet  met  with,  nor  was  i* 
known  to  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  G. 

JO'KIM  (Q^r?*1''  [Jehovah  establishes]  :  'I«a- 
Klfi'i  [Vat.]  Alex.  looaKcifx'  qtd  stare  fecit  solem), 
one  of  the  sons  of  Shelah  (the  third  according  to 
Burrington)  the  son  of  Judah  (I  Chr.  iv.  22),  of 
whom  nothing  further  is  known.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  say  what  gave  rise  to  the  rendering  of 
the  Vulgate  or  the  Targum  en  the  verse.  The 
latter  translates,  "  and  the  prophets  and  scribes 
who  came  forth  from  the  seed  of  Joshua."     The 

reading  which  they  had  was  evidently  D*'p'^,  which 
some  rabbinical  tradition  applied  to  Joshua,  and 
at  the  same  time  identified  Joash  and  Saraph, 
mentioned  in  the  same  verse,  with  Mahlon  and 
Chilion.  Jerome  quotes  a  Hebrew  legend  that 
Jokim  was  Elimelech  the  husband  of  Naomi,  in 
whose  days  the  sun  stood  still  on  account  of  the 
transgressors  of  the  law  (  Qucest.  Ileb.  in  Paral.). 

JOK'MEAM  (nypi?;  [assembled  by  the 
people]:  [in  1  K.,  Kom.' Vat.  AovKoifi;  Alex. 
UKfiaau,  but  united  with  preceding  word;  in  1 
Chr.,]  'UKfiadu;  [Vat.  iKaa/ui.:  Jecmaan,]  Jec- 
maam),  a  city  of  Ephraim,  given  with  its  suburbn 
to  the  Kohathite  Levites  (1  Chr.  vi.  68).  The 
catalogue  of  the  towns  of  Ephraim  in  the  book  of 
Joshua  is  unfortunately  very  imperfect  (see  xvi.), 
but  in  the  parallel  list  of  Levitical  cities  in  Josh, 
xxi.,  Kibzaim  occupies  the  place  of  Jokmeam  (ver. 
22).  The  situation  of  Jokmeam  is  to  a  certain 
extent  indicated  in  1  K.  iv.  12,  where  it  is  named 
with  places  which  we  know  to  have  been  in  the 
Jordan  Valley  at  the  extreme  east  boundary  of  the 
tribe.  (Here  the  A.  V.  has,  probably  by  a  printer's 
error,  Jokxeam.)  This  position  is  further  sup- 
ported by  that  of  the  other  Levitical  cities  of  this 
tribe  —  Shechem  in  the  north,  Beth-horon  in  the 
south,  and  Gezer  in  the  extreme  west,  leaving  Jok- 
meam to  take  the  opposite  place  in  the  east  (see, 
however,  the  contrary  opinion  of  Robinson,  iii.  116 
note).  With  regard  to  the  substitution  of  Kibzaim 
—  which  is  not  found  again  —  for  Jokmeam,  we 
would  oidy  draw  attention  to  the  fact  of  the  sim- 
ilarity in  appearance  of  the  two  names,  DVDp" 
and  D'^^Jnp.  G. 

JOK'NEAM  (Oy ?PJ  [possessed  by  the  peo- 
ple]: ['IeK(J/i,]  'UKfidu,  r)  Madv',  Alex.  UKova/iy 
leKva/x,  71  EKvafi'  Jachanan,  Jeconam,  Jecnam)^ 
a  city  of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun,  allotted  with  its 
suburbs  to  the  Merarite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  34),  but 
entirely  omitted  in  the  catalogue  of  1  Chr.  vi. 
(comp.  ver.  77).  It  is  doubtless  the  same  place  as 
that  which  is  incidentally  named  in  connection  with 
the  boundaries  of  the  tribe  —  "  the  torrent  which 
faces  Jokneam"  (xix.  11),  and  as  the  Canaanite 
town,  whose  king  was  killed  by  Joshua  —  » Jok- 
neam of  Carmel"  (xii.  22).  The  requirements  of 
these  passages  are  sufficiently  met  by  the  modem 
site  Tell  Kaimon,  an  eminence  which  stands  just 
below  the  eastern  termination  of  Carmel,  with  the 
Kishon  at  its  feet  about  a  mile  off.  Dr.  Robinson 
has  shown  (B.  R.  iii.  115,  note)  that  the  modem 
name  is  legitimately  descended  from  the  ancient: 
the  Cyamon  of  Jud.  \\i.  3  being  a  step  in  the 
pedigree.  (See  also  Van  de  Velde,  i.  331,  and 
Jhvmoirj  326.)     Jokneam  ia  found  in  the  A.  V 


1444  JOKSHAN 

»f  1  K.  i«r.  12,  but  this  is  unwarranted  by  either 
nebrew  text.  Alex.  LXX.  or  Vulgate  (both  of 
which  have  the  reading  Jokmeam,  the  Vat.  LXX. 
is  quite  corrupt),  and  also  by  the  requirements  of 
the  passage,  as  stated  under  Jokjieam.«         G. 

JOK'SHAN  (^t;p;  [prob.  fuwlei-]:  'u(du, 
*Je^dv',  [Alex.  **  le^au,  leKaaV-]  Jecsan),  a  son 
of  Abraham  and  Keturah  ((Jen.  xxv.  2,  3;  1  Chr. 
i.  32),  whose  sons  were  Sheba  and  Dedan.  While 
the  settlements  of  his  two  sons  are  presumptively 
placed  on  the  borders  of  Palestine,  those  of  Jokshan 
are  not  known.  The  Keturahites  certainly  stretched 
across  the  desert  from  the  head  of  the  Arabian, 
to  that  of  the  Persian,  gulf;  and  the  reasons  for 
supposing  this,  especially  in  the  case  of  Jokshan, 
are  mentioned  in  art.  Dedax.  If  those  reasons 
be  accepted,  we  must  suppose  that  Jokshan  re- 
turned westwards  to  the  trans-Jordanic  country, 
where  are  placed  the  settlements  of  his  sons,  or  at 
least  the  chief  of  their  settlements;  for  a  wide 
spread  of  these  tribes  seems  to  be  indicated  in  the 
passages  in  the  Bible  which  make  mention  of  them. 
Places  or  tribes  bearing  their  names,  and  conse- 
quently that  of  Jokshan,  may  be  looked  for  over 
the  whole  of  the  country  intervening  between  the 
heads  of  the  two  gulfs. 

The  writings  of  the  Arabs  are  rarely  of  use  in 
the  case  of  Keturahite  tribes,  whom  they  seem  to 
confound  with  Ishmaelites  in  one  common  appella- 
tion. They  mention  a  dialect  of  Jokshan  ("  Yu- 
kish,  who  is  Yokshan,"  as  having  been  formerly 
spoken  near  'Aden  and  El-Jened,  in  Southern 
Arabia,  Yakoot's  Moajnm,  cited  in  the  Ztitschrlft 
d.  Deutsch.  Morgenl.  GestUschnft,  viii.  GOO-1,  x. 
30-1):  but  that  Midianites  penetrated  so  far  into 
the  peninsula  we  hold  to  be  highly  improbable  [see 
AUAlilA].  E.  S.  P. 

JOK'TAN  0^1?;,  small,  Ges.  [or,  made 
imnll]:  'UKrdi/'  Jectan),  son  of  Eber  (Gen.  x. 
B5;  1  Chr.  i.  19);  and  the  father  of  the  Joktanite 
Arabs.  His  sons  were  Alniodad,  Sheleph,  Hazar- 
maveth,  Jerah,  Hadoram,  Uzal,  Diklah,  Obal,  Abi- 
mael,  Sheba,  Ophir,  llavilah,  and  Jobab;  progen- 
itors of  tribes  peopling  southern  Arabia,  many  of 
whom  are  clearly  identified  with  historical  tribes, 
and  the  rest  probably  identified  in  the  same  m.an- 
ner.  Tlie  first-named  identifications  are  too  well 
proved  to  admit  of  doubt;  and  accordingly  scholars 
are  agreed  in  placing  the  settlements  of  Joktan  in 
the  south  of  the  Peninsula.  'J'he  original  limits 
are  stated  in  the  Bible,  "  their  dwelling  was  from 
Mesha,  as  thou  goest  unto  Sephar,  a  mount  of  the 
East  "  (Gen.  x.  30).  The  position  of  Mesha,  which 
is  reasonably  supposed  to  be  the  western  boundary, 
is  still  uncertain  [INIesha]  ;  but  Sephar  is  well 
established  as  being  the  same  as  Zafari,  the  sea  port 
town  on  the  east  of  the  modern  Yemen,  and  for- 
merly one  of  the  chief  centres  of  the  great  Indian 
and  African  trade  [Sei'IIAK;  Akabia].  Besides 
the  genealogies  in  Gen.  x.,  we  have  no  record  of 
Joktan  himself  in  the  Bible;  but  there  are  men- 
tions of  the  peoples  spnmg  from  him,  which  nmst 
^uide  all  researches  into  the  history  of  the  race. 
The  subject  is  naturally  divided  into  the  history  of 
Joktan  hin.self,  and  that  of  his  sons  and  their 
descendants. 


a  *See  addition  to  Ctamox  (Amer.  ed.)  Nothing 
bat  the  name  {Tell  Kaimhn)  and  the  mound  "too 
resular  to  be  natural,"  remain  to  attest  the  ancient 
lite.    CTriatram,  Land  of  Israel,  p.  119,  2d  ed.).    U. 


JOKTAN 

The  native  traditions  respecting  Joktan  com- 
mence with  a  difficulty.  The  ancestor  of  the  great 
southern  peoples  were  called  KahtiUi,  who,  say  th« 
Arabs,  was  the  same  as  Joktan.  To  this  some 
European  critics  haxe  objected  that  there  is  no 
good  rea.son  to  account  for  the  change  of  name, 
and  that  the  identification  of  Kahtan  with  Joktan 
is  evidently  a  Jewish  tradition  adopted  by  Moham- 
med or  his  followers,  and  consequently  at  or  after 
the  promulgation  of  El-l.slam.  M.  Cauaiin  de  Per- 
ceval commences  his  essay  on  the  history  of  Yemen 
(Essai,  i.  39)  with  this  assertion,  and  adds,  "  Le 
nom  de  Cahtan,  disent-ils  [les  Aiabe*],  est  It  nom 
de  Yectan,  k'geremcnt  alt(frd  en  passant  d'une  hii- 
gue  ^trangcre  dans  la  langue  arabe."  In  reply  to 
these  objectors,  we  may  state :  — 

1.  The  Kabbins  hold  a  tradition  that  Joktan 
settled  in  India  (see  Joseph.  Ant.  i.  G,  §  4),  and 
the  supposition  of  a  Jewish  influence  in  the  Arab 
traditions  respecting  him  is  therefore  untenable.^ 
In  the  present  case,  even  were  this  not  so,  there  is 
an  absence  of  motive  for  Mohammad's  adopting 
traditions  which  alienate  from  the  race  of  Ishmael 
many  tribes  of  Arabia:  the  influence  here  suspected 
may  rather  be  found  in  the  contradictory  assertion, 
put  forward  by  a  few  of  the  Arabs,  and  rejected  by 
the  great  majority,  and  the  most  judicious,  of  their 
historians,  that  Kahtiln  was  descended  from  Ish- 
mael. 

2.  That  the  traditions  in  question  are  post- 
Mohammedan  cannot  be  proved;  the  same  may 
be  said  of  everything  which  Arab  writers  tell  ua 
dates  before  the  Prophet's  time ;  for  then  oral  tra- 
dition alone  existed,  if  we  except  the  rock-cut  in- 
scriptions of  the  Himyerites,  which  are  too  few,  and 
our  knowledge  of  them  is  too  slight,  to  admit  of 
much  weight  attaching  to  them. 

3.  A  passage  in  the  Mir-dt  ez-Zemdn,  hitherto 
unpubUshed,  throws  new  light  on  the  point.  It  is 
as  follows:  "  Ibn-El-Kelbee  says,  Yuktan  [whose 
name  is  also  written  Yuktan]  is  the  same  as  Kah- 
tan son  of  'A'bir,"  i.  e.  Eber,  and  so  say  the  gener- 
ality of  the  Arabs.  "  El-Beladhiree  sayi.  People 
differ  respecting  Kahtan;  some  say  he  is  ihe  same 
as  Yuktan,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch ; 
but  the  Arabs  arabicized  his  name,  and  said  Kah- 
t.'\n  the  son  of  Hood  [because  they  identified  their 
prophet  Hood  with  Eber,  whom  they  call  'A'bir] ; 
and  some  say,  son  of  Es-Semeyfa',"  or  as  is  said 
in  one  place  by  the  author  here  quoted,  "  El-He- 
meysa',  the  son  of  Nebt  [or  Nabit,  i.  e.  Nebaioth], 
the  son  of  Isma'eel,"  i.  e.  Ishmael.  He  then 
proceeds,  in  continuation  of  the  former  passage, 
"  Aboo-IIaneefeh  Ed-Deenawaree  says.  He  is  Kah- 
tan the  son  of  'A'bir;  and  was  named  Kahtaji  only 
because  of  his  sutTering  from  drought "  [which  is 
termed  in  Arabic  Kaht].  {Mir-dt  ez-Zemdn, 
account  of  the  sons  of  Shem.)  Of  similar  changes 
of  names  by  the  Arabs  there  are  numerous  in- 
stances.    Thus  it  is  evident  that   the   name  of 

"  Saul "   ( /^SK7)  was  changed  by  the  Arabs  to 

9     9         " 

"Talootu"   (cJ«jLb),  because  of  his  taUne$$, 

G    >  ^    - 

fivm  J«Jb  (tallness)  or  JLb  (he  was  tall);  al- 


b  It  is  remarkable  that  in  historical  questions,  th^ 
Rabbins  are  singularly  wide  of  the  truth,  displaying 
a  deficiency  of  the  critical  faculty  that  is  chanwte* 
istic  of  Shemitic  races. 


i 


JOKTAN 

thoufrh  the  Utter  name,  Ijeing  imperfectly  declina- 
ble, is  not  to  be  considered  as  Arabic  (which  sev- 
iral  Arabiaji  writers  assert  it  tc  be),  but  as  a 
variation  of  a  foreiipi  name.  CSee  the  remarks 
on  this  name,  as  occurrin<ij  iu  the  Kur-i'in,  ch.  ii. 
248,  in  tlie  Exposilions  of  l^z-Zamakhsheree  and 
El-15ejdi'vwee.)  We  thus  obtain  a  reason  for  the 
change  of  name  which  appears  to  be  satisfactory, 
whereas  tlie  tlieory  of  its  being  anibicized  is  not 
readily  to  be  explained  unless  we  suppose  the  term 
"  arabicizcd  "  to  be  loosely  employed  iu  this  in- 
stance. 

4.  If  (he  traditions  of  Kahtan  be  rejected  (and 
in  this  rejection  we  cannot  agree),  they  are,  it  must 
be  rememlnired,  immaterial  to  the  fact  that  the 
peoples  called  by  the  Arabs  descendants  of  Kahtan, 
are  c«irtainly  Joktanites.  His  sons'  colonization  of 
Southern  Arabia  is  proved  by  indisputable,  and 
undisputed,  identifications,  and  the  great  kingdom, 
which  there  existed  for  many  ages  before  our  era, 
and  in  its  later  days  was  renowned  in  the  world  of 
classical  antiquity,  was  as  surely  Joktanite. 

The  settlements  of  the  sons  of  Joktan  are  exam- 
ined in  the  separate  articles  l>earing  their  names, 
and  generally  in  Ahaiua.  They  colonized  the 
whole  of  the  south  of  tlie  peninsula,  the  old  "  Ara- 
bia Felix,"  or  the  Yemen  (for  this  appellation  liad 
a  very  wide  significance  in  early  times),  stretching, 
according  to  the  Arabs  (and  there  is  in  this  case 
no  ground  for  doubting  their  general  correctness), 
to  Alekkeh,  on  the  northwest,  and  along  nearly 
the  whole  of  the  southern  coast  eastwards,  and  far 
inland.  At  IMekkeh,  tradition  connects  the.  two 
great  races  of  Joktan  and  Ishmael,  by  the  marriage 
of  a  daughter  of  Jurhum  the  Joktanite  with  Ish- 
mael. It  is  necessary  in  mentioning  this  Jurhum, 
who  is  called  a  "  son  ''  of  Joktan  (Kahtan),  to  ol)- 
Ber\-e  that  "son*'  in  these  cases  must  be  regarded 
as  signifying  "descendant"  (cf.  CiinoxoLOGY)  in 
Hebrew  generations,  and  that  many  generations 
(though  how  many,  or  in  what  order,  is  not  known ) 
are  missing  from  the  existing  list  between  Kahtan 
(embracing  the  most  important  time  of  the  Jok- 
tanites), and  the  establishment  of  the  compara- 
tively modern  Himyerite  kingdom ;  from  this  latter 
date,  stated  by  Caussin,  Kssni^  i.  03,  at  n.  c.  cir. 
100,  the  succession  of  the  Tul»baas  is  apparently 
preserved  to  us.«  At  IMekkeh,  the  tribe  of  Jurhum 
long  held  the  office  of  guardians  of  the  Kaabeh,  or 
temple,  and  the  sacred  enclosure,  until  they  were 
expelled  by  the  [shmaelites  (Kutb-ed-Deen,  Hist,  of 
Mtkkeh,  ed.  Wiistenfeld,  pp.  35  and  39  ff.;  and 
Caussin,  Kssni.  i.  1\)\).  IJut  it  was  at  Seba,  the 
Biblical  Sheba,  that  the  kingdom  of  Joktan  at- 
tained its  greatness.  In  the  southwestern  angle 
of  the  peninsula,  San'a  (Uzal),  Seba  (Sheba),  and 
Hadramiivrt  (llaznrmaveth),  all  closely  neijrhboring, 
formed  together  the  principal  known  settlenients 
of  the  Joktanites.  Here  arose  the  kingdom  of 
Sheba,  followed  in  later  times  by  that  of  Himyer. 
The  dominant  tribe  from  remote  ages  seems  to  have 
been  tliat  of  Seba  (or  Sheba,  the  Sabm  of  the 
Greeks):  while  the  family  of  Himyer  {[fomentce) 
held  the  first  place  in  the  tril)e.  The  kingdom 
ealled  that  of   Himyer  we  believe  to  have  been 

«  It  is  curious  that  the  Greeks  first  mentioc  the 
aimyerites  in  the  expedition  of  ^Elius  Gallus,  towrards 
«he  close  of  the  1st  century  B.  c.  although  L"myer 
kiiui^elf  lived  long  before  ;  agreeing  with  our  belief 
aiat  his  family  was  important  before  the  establish- 
aieut  ol  the  so-called  kingdom.     See  Caussin,  I.  c. 


JOKTHEEL 


1445 


merely  a  late  phasis  of  the  old  Sheba,  dating,  botl 
in  its  rise  and  its  name,  only  shortly  before  oui 
era. 

In  Arabia  we  have  alluded  to  certain  curious 
indications  in  the  names  of  Himyer,  Oi'imt,  the 
Phoenicians,  and  the  Erythraean  Sea,  and  the  traces 
of  their  westward  spread,  which  would  well  repay 
a  careful  investigation ;  as  well  as  the  obscure  rela- 
tions of  a  connection  with  Chaldjea  and  Assyria, 
found  in  lierosus  and  other  ancient  writers,  and 
strengthened  by  presumptive  evidence  of  a  coruiec- 
tion  closer  than  that  of  commerce,  in  religion,  etc. 
between  those  countries  and  Arabia.  An  equally 
interesting  and  more  tangible  subject,  is  the  appa- 
rently proved  settlement  of  Cushite  races  along  the 
coast,  on  tlie  ground  also  occupied  by  Joktanites, 
involving  intermarriages  between  these  peoples,  and 
explaining  the  Cyclopean  masonry  of  the  so-calle«l 
Himyerite  ruins  which  bear  no  mark  of  a  Sheniite'a 
hand,  the  vigorous  character  of  the  Joktanites  and 
their  sea-faring  propensities  (both  qualities  not 
usually  found  in  Shemites),  and  the  Cushitic  ele- 
ments in  the  rock-cut  inscriptions  in  the  "  Him- 
yeritic  "  language. 

Next  in  importance  to  the  tribe  of  Seba  was  that 
of  Hadramiiwt,  which,  till  the  fall  of  the  Himyerite 
power,  maintained  a  position  of  independenrte  and 
a  direct  line  of  rulers  from  Kahtan  (Caussin,  i. 
135-0).  Joktanite  tribes  also  passed  northwards, 
to  Heereh,  in  El-'lrak,  and  to  GhassAn,  near  Da- 
mascus. The  emigration  of  these  and  other  tribes 
took  place  on  the  occasion  of  the  rupture  of  a  great 
dyke  (the  Dyke  of  El-'Arim),  above  the  metropolis 
of  Seba;  a  catastrophe  that  appears,  from  the  con- 
current testimony  of  Arab  writers,  to  have  devas- 
tated a  great  extent  of  country,  and  destroyed  the 
city  Ma-rib  or  Seba.  This  event  forms  the  com- 
mencement of  an  era.  the  dates  of  which  exist  in 
the  inscriptions  on  the  Dyke  and  elsewhere;  but 
when  we  should  place  that  commencement  is  still 
quite  an  open  question.  (See  the  extracts  from 
l'U-Mes"oodee  and  other  authorities,  edited  by 
Schultens;  Caussin,  i.  81  fF. ;  and  Auabia.) 

The  jwsition  which  the  Joktanites  hold  (in  na- 
tive traditions)  among  the  successive  races  who  are 
said  to  have  inhabited  the  peninsula  has  been  fully 
stated  in  art.  Arabia;  to  wliich  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred for  a  sketch  of  the  inhabitants  generally, 
their  descent,  history,  religion,  and  language. 
There  are  some  existing  places  named  after  Jok 
tan  and  Kaht;ln  (El-ldreesee,  ed.  Jaubert;  Niebuhr, 
Bescr.  238'');  but  there  seems  to  be  no  safe  ground 
for  attaching  to  them  any  special  importance,  or 
for  supposing  that  the  name  is  ancient,  when  we 
remember  that  the  whole  country  is  full  of  the  ti-a- 
ditions  of  Joktan.  E.  S.  P. 

JOK'THEEL  (bSHiPj  [subdued  or  made 
tributary  by  God] ).  1.  ('iaxaf  ctjA.  [Vat.  -/cap-] ; 
Alex.  lex^a''?^^*  Jeclhel.)  A  city  in  the  low  country 
of  Judah  (.Josh.  xv.  38),  named  next  to  Lachish  — 
probably  Um-Lakis,  on  the  road  between  Beit- 
(jibrin  and  Gaza.  The  name  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  yet  discovered. 

2.  CUdo-fi\;  [Vat.  Kado-nX;]  Alex.  UKdorj^' 
Jectehel.)     "God-subdued,"    the    title   given   by 

b  Niebuhr  also  (Descr.  249)  mentions  the  reputed 
tomb  of  Kahtan,  but  probably  refers  to  the  tomb  of 
the  prophet  Hood,  who,  as  we  have  mentioned,  is  hj 
some  thought  m>  oe  the  £ithcr  of  Kahtaa. 


1446 


JONA 


Amaziah  to  the  cliff  {V^^Tl,  A.  V.  Selah)  — the 
stronghold  of  the  Kdomites  —  after  he  had  captured 
it  from  them  (2  K.  xiv  7).  The  parallel  narrative 
of  2  Chr.  XXV.  11-13  supplies  fuller  details.  From 
it  we  learn  that,  having  beaten  the  Edomite  army 
with  a  great  slaughter  in  the  "  Valley  of  Salt "  — 
the  valley  south  of  the  Dead  Sea  —  Amaziah  took 
those  who  were  not  slain  to  the  cliff,  and  threw 
them  headlong  over  it.  This  cliff  is  asserted  by 
Eusebius  ( Onomnst.  irfrpa)  to  be  "  a  city  of  Edoni, 
olso  called  by  the  Assyrians  Rekeni,"  by  which  there 
is  no  doubt  that  he  intends  Petra  (see  Onoiuaslicon, 
'Pe/ceV,  and  the  quotations  in  Stanley's  S.  cf  P. 
94,  7ioie).  The  title  thus  bestowed  is  said  to  have 
continued  "unto  this  day."  This,  Keil  remarks, 
is  a  proof  that  the  history  was  nearly  contemporary 
with  the  event,  because  Araaziah's  conquest  was 
lost  again  by  Ahaz  less  than  a  century  afterwards 
(2  Chr.  xxviii.  J  7).  G. 

JO'NA  Cleaua'.  Jona  [see  below]),  the  father 
of  the  Apostle  Peter  (John  i.  42  [Gr.  43]),  who  is 
hence  addressed  as  Simon  Barjona  in  jNIatt.  xvi.  17. 
In  the  A.  V.  of  John  xxi.  15-17  he  is  called  Jonas, 
though  the  Greek  is  'IwovvTys,  and  the  Vulg. 
Johannes  throughout.  The  name  in  either  form 
would  be  the  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  Johanan. 

*  In  (ill  the  passages  in  John  the  receivetl  text 
reads  'Icoya,  for  which  Lachm.  and  Treg.  adopt  the 
reading  'Iwdvov,  Tisch.  ''ludyi^ov.  The  Clementine 
Vulg.  has  Jomi  in  John  i.  42,  but  the  Cod. 
Amiatinus  reads  Johanna,  and  the  Sixtine  edition 
Joanna.  The  reading  of  the  received  text  Mould 
have  been  properly  represented  in  our  translation 
by  Jonas  throughout.  A. 

JON'ADAB.  1.  (:::7?V,  and  once  ^73''^n;', 
t.  e.  Jehonadab  [iclom  Jehovah  impels]  :  'Iwi'oSa/S: 
Jonadah),  son  of  Shimeah  and  nephew  of  David. 
He  is  described  as  "  very  subtil  "  {(ro<phs  a<p68pa; 
the  word  is  that  usually  translated  "  wise,"  as  in 
the  case  of  Solomon,  2  Sam.  xiii.  3).  He  seems  to 
have  been  one  of  those  characters  who,  in  the  midst 
of  great  or  royal  families,  pride  themselves,  and  are 
renowned,  for  being  acquainted  M'ith  the  secrets  of 
the  whole  circle  in  which  they  move.  His  age 
naturally  made  him  the  friend  of  his  cousin  Aninon, 
heir  to  the  throne  (2  Sam.  xiii.  3).  He  perceived 
from  the  prince's  altered  appearance  that  there  was 
Bome  unknown  grief —  "  Why  art  ihou,  the  king's 
Bon,  so  lean  ?  "  —  and,  when  he  had  wormed  it  out, 
be  gave  him  the  fatal  advice,  for  ensnaring  his 
«ister  Tamar  (5,  6). 

Again,  when,  in  a  later  stage  of  the  same  tragedy, 
Amnon  was  murdered  by  Absalom,  and  the  exag- 
gerated report  reached  David  that  all  the  princes 
were  slaughtered,  Jonadab  was  already  aware  of 
the  i-eal  state  of  the  case.  He  was  with  the  king, 
and  was  able  at  once  to  reassure  him  (2  Sam.  xiii. 
32,  33). 

2.  Jer.  XXXV.  6,  8,  10,  14,  16,  18,  19,  in  which 
it  represents  sometimes  the  long,  sometimes  the 
ihf  rt  Heb.  form  of  the  name.     [Jkhoxadab.] 

A.  P.  S. 

JO'NAH  (njr  [dove]  :  'l«vas,  LXX.  and 
Matt.  xii.  39),  a  prophet,  son  of  Amittai  (whose 
Dame,  confounded  with  HX^S,  used  by  the  widow 
of  Zarepheth,  1  K.  xvii.  24,  has  given  rise  to  an 
old  tradition,  recorded  by  Jerome,  that  Jonah  was 
her  son,  and  that  Amittai  was  a  prophet  himself). 
We  fiirther  learn  from  2  K.  xiv.  25,  he  was  of 


JONAH 

I  Gath-hepher,  a  town  of  Lower  Gaiii<«,  in  Zebtiluix 
This  verse  enables  us  to  approximate  to  the  time 
at  which  Jonah  lived.  It  was  plainly  after  the  reign 
of  Jehu,  when  the  losses  of  Israel  (2  K.  x.  32)  be- 
gan ;  and  it  may  not  have  been  till  the  latter  part 
of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.  The  general  opinion  ia 
that  Jonah  was  the  first  of  the  prophets  (Kosenm., 
I3p.  IJoyd,  Davison,  Prowne,  Drake);  Hengstenberg 
would  place  him  after  Amos  and  Ilosea,  and  indeed 
adheres  to  the  order  of  the  books  in  the  canon  for 
the  chronology.  The  king  of  Nineveh  at  this  time 
is  supposed  (Ussher  and  others)  to  have  been  Pul, 
who  is  placed  by  Layard  {Ain.  and  Bab.  G24)  at 
B.  o.  750;  but  an  earlier  king,  Adranmelech  II., 
R.  c.  840,  is  regarded  more  probable  by  Drake. 
Our  English  Bible  gives  b.  c.  8G2. 

The  personal  history  of  Jonah  is  brief,  and  well 
known;  but  is  of  such  an  exceptional  and  extra- 
ordinary character,  as  to  have  been  set  down  by 
many  German  critics  to  fiction,  either  in  whole  or 
in  part.  The  book,  say  they,  was  composed,  or 
compounded,  some  time  after  the  death  of  the 
prophet,  perhaps  (Rosenm.)  at  the  latter  part  of  the 
Jewish  kingdom,  during  the  reign  of  Josiah  (S. 
Sharpe),  or  even  later.  The  supposed  improbabil- 
ities are  accounted  for  by  them  in  a  variety  of  ways; 
e.  ff.  as  merely  fabulous,  or  fanciful  ornaments  to  a 
true  history,  or  allegorical,  or  parabolical  and  moral, 
both  in  their  origin  and  design.  A  list  of  the 
critics  who  have  advanced  these  several  opinions 
may  be  seen  in  Davidson's  Jnirodticiioii,  p.  956. 
Posenmiiller  {Prole g.  in  Jonam)  refutes  them  in 
detail  ;  and  then  propounds  his  own,  which  is 
equally  baseless.  Like  them,  he  begins  with  pro- 
posing to  escape  the  difficulties  of  the  history,  but 
ends  in  a  mere  theory,  open  to  still  greater  difficul- 
ties. "  The  fixble  of  Hercules,"  he  says,  "devoured 
and  then  restored  by  a  sea-monster,  was  the  foun- 
dation on  which  the  Hebrew  prophet  built  up  the 
story.  Nothing  was  really  true  in  it."  We  feel 
ourselves  precluded  from  any  doubt  of  the  reality 
of  the  transactions  recorded  in  this  book,  by  the 
simplicity  of  the  language  itself;  by  the  historical 
allusions  in  Tob.  xiv.  4-6,  15,  and  Josejjh.  Ant.  ix. 
10,  §  2;  by  the  accordance  with  other  authorities 
of  the  historical  and  geographical  notices;  by  the 
thought  that  we  might  as  well  doubt  all  other 
miracles  in  Scripture  as  doid)t  these  ("  Quod  aut 
omnia  divina  miracula  credenda  non  sint,  aut  hoc 
cur  non  credetur  causa  nulla  sit,"  Aug.  J']),  cii. 
in  Quccst.  6  de  Jona,  ii.  284;  cf.  Cyril.  Alex.  Com- 
ment, in  Jonam,  iii.  367-389);  above  all,  by  the 
explicit  words  and  teaching  of  our  blessed  Lord 
Himself  (Matt.  xii.  39,  41,  xvi.  4;  Luke  xi.  29), 
and  by  the  correspondence  of  the  miracles  in  the 
histories  of  Jonah  and  of  the  Messiah. 

We  shall  derive  additional  arguments  for  the 
same  conclusion  from  the  history  and  meaning  of 
the  prophet's  mission.    Having  alreatly,  as  it  seema 

(from  *l  in  i.  1),  prophesied  to  Israel,  he  was  sent 
to  Nineveh.  The  time  was  one  of  political  revival 
in  Israel;  but  ere  long  the  Assyrians  were  to  be 
employed  by  God  as  a  scourge  upon  them.  The 
Israelites  consequently  viewed  them  with  repulsive- 
ness ;  and  the  prophet,  in  accordance  with  his  name 

(nil'',  a  dove),  out  of  timidity  and  love  for  hia 
country,  shrunk  from  a  commission  which  he  telt 
sure  would  result  (iv.  2)  in  the  sparing  of  a  hostiU 
city.  He  attempted  therefore  to  escape  to  Tarshish 
either    Tartessus    in    Spain    (Bochart,   Titcoml 


L 


JONAH 

Hengst.),  or  more  probably  (Drake)  Tarsus  in 
::ilicia,  a  port  of  comuierclal  intercourse.  The 
providence  of  God,  however,  watched  over  him,  first 
In  a  storm,  and  then  in  his  being  swallowed  by  a 
large  fish  (b'^lj  yi)  for  the  space  of  three  days 
and  three  nights.  We  need  not  multiply  miracles 
by  suppsing  a  great  fish  to  have  been  created  for 
the  occasion,  for  Bochart  (Ilieroz.  ii.  pp.  752-754) 
has  shown  that  tlicre  is  a  sort  of  shark  which  de- 
vours a  man  entire,  as  this  did  Jojiah  while  cast 
into  the  water  (August.  A'p.  49,  ii.  284). 

After  his  deliverance,  Jonah  executed  his  com- 
mission ;  and  the  king,  "  believing  him  to  be  a 
minister  from  the  supreme  deity  of  the  nation " 
(Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon),  and  having  heard 
of  his  miraculous  deliverance  (Dean  Jackson  On 
the  Creed,  bk.  ix.  c.  42),  ordered  a  general  fast, 
and  averted  the  threateiie<l  judgment.  But  the 
prophet,  not  from  personal  but  national  feelings, 
grudged  the  mercy  shown  to  a  heathen  nation.  He 
was  therefore  taught,  by  the  significant  lesson  of 
the  f  gourd,"  whose  growth  and  decay  (a  known 
fact  to  naturalists,  Layard's  Nineveh,  \.  123,  124) 
brought  the  truth  at  once  home  to  him,  that  he 
was  sent  to  testify  by  deed,  as  other  prophets  would 
afterwards  testify  by  word,  the  capacity  of  Gentiles 
for  salvation,  and  the  design  of  God  to  make  them 
partakers  of  it.  This  was  "  the  sign  of  the  prophet 
Jonas"  which  was  given  to  a  proud  and  perverse 
generation  of  Jews  after  the  ascension  of  Christ  by 
the  preaching  of  His  Apostles.  (Luke  xi.  29,  30, 
32;  Jackson's  Comm.  on  the  Creed,  ix.  c.  42.) 

But  the  resurrection  of  Christ  itself  was  also 
ihadowed  forth  in  the  history  of  the  prophets,  as 
Is  made  certain  to  us  by  the  words  of  our  Saviour. 
(See  Jackson,  as  above,  bk.  ix.  c.  40.)  Titcomb 
{Bible  Studies,  p.  237,  n.)  sees  a  correspondence 
between  Jon.  i.  17  and  Hosea  vi.  2.  Besides 
which,  the  fact  and  the  faith  of  Jonah's  prayer  in 
the  bell/ of  the  fish  betokened  to  the  nation  of 
Israel  the  intimation  of  a  resurrection  and  of  im- 
mortality. 

We  thus  see  distinct  purposes  which  the  mission 
of  Jonah  was  designed  to  serve  in  the  Divine  econ- 
omy; and  in  these  we  have  the  reason  of  the  his- 
tory's being  placed  in  the  prophetic  canon.  It  was 
highly  symbolical.  The  facts  contained  a  concealed 
prophecy.  Hence,  too,  only  so  nmch  of  the  prophet's 
personal  history  is  told  us  as  suffices  for  setting 
forth  the  symbols  divinely  intended,  which  accounts 
for  its  fragmentary  aspect.  Exclude  the  symbolical 
meaning,  and  you  have  no  adequate  reason  to  give 
of  this  history:  admit  it,  and  you  have  images  here 
of  the  highest  facts  and  doctrines  of  Christianity 
(Davison,  On  Prophecy,  p.  275.) 

For  the  extent  of   the  site  of   Nineveh,   se 

tflXEVEII. 

The  old  tradition  made  the  burial-place  of  Jonah 
to  be  Gatli-hepher;  the  modern  tradition  places  it 
at  Nebi-  Yunus,  opposite  INIosul.  See  the  account 
of  the  excavations  in  layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
pp.  596,  597.  And  consult  Drake's  Notes  on  Jonah 
(Macmillan  and  Co.,  1853). 

See  Leusden's  Jonas  Illustratus,  Trajecti  ad 
Uhen.  1692;  Kosenmiiller's  Scholia  in  Vet.  Test. ; 
Eaposition  vpon  the  Prophet  Jonah,  by  Abp.  Abbot 
(reprinted),  London,  1845;  Notes  on  the  Prophecies 
')/  Jonah  and  Ilosea,  by  Rev.  W.  Drake,  Cam- 
bridge, 1853;  Ewald;  Umbreit;  Henderson,  Minor 
Prophets.  H.  B. 

♦  The  passages  in  which  our  Lord  asserts  the 


JONAH  1447 

truth  of  the  story  of  Jonah,  and  the  Divine  author- 
ity of  his  book,  and  its  intimate  connection  with 
himself,  are  full  and  explicit.  See  especially  Matt, 
xii.  39-41,  xvi.  :  -4,  Luke  xi.  29-32.  It  was  one  great 
object  of  our  I^ord's  mission  to  interpret  and  con- 
firm the  Old  Testament  (Matt.  v.  17-19).  Much 
of  his  time  was  spent  in  explaining  the  0.  T.  to 
his  disciples.  We  read,  for  example,  that  "  Begin- 
ning at  Moses,  and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  • 
unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  concern- 
ing himself."     (See  Luke  xxiv.  27-32,  45.) 

His  authority  on  this  subject  is  just  as  good  aa 
it  is  on  any  other;  and  if  we  reject  his  sanctions 
and  interpretations  of  the  0.  T.,  we  reject  hia 
whole  mission.  No  one  can  say,  without  absurdity 
and  self-contradiction,  "  I  admit  that  Christ  brought 
life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the  Gospel; 
but  I  do  not  admit  that  he  understood  the  0.  T., 
or  was  an  accurate  and  safe  interpreter  of  it."  A 
miracle  is  always  a  direct  exertion  of  creative  power; 
and  so  far  as  the  physical  fact  is  concerned,  one 
miracle  is  just  as  easy,  and  just  as  probable,  and 
just  as  natural,  as  another.  There  is  no  question 
of  hard  or  easy,  natural  or  unnatural,  probable  or 
improbable,  in  regard  to  a  real  miracle.  The  ex- 
ertion of  creative  power  is  to  the  Creator  always 
natural,  whatever  the  product  of  the  creative  act 
may  be;  there  can,  in  such  a  problem,  be  no  ques- 
tion in  regard  to  the  actual  facts.  The  only  ques- 
tion must  be  a  moral  one,  whether  the  alleged  fact 
has  a  purpose  worthy  of  God,  and  is  appropriate 
to  the  object  intended ;  and  this  question  we  are 
authorized  and  required  by  God  himself  to  ask. 
(See  Deut.  xiii.  1-5.) 

The  country  which  was  the  scene  of  Jonah's 
activity  has  many  traditions  analogous  to  his  story, 
which  seem  to  rest  on  some  basis  of  actual  facta 
which  once  occurred  among  the  people  of  that 
region. 

Neptune  sent  a  monstrous  serpent  to  i-avage  the 
coast  in  the  neighborhood  of  Joppa  (whence  Jonah 
sailed),  and  there  was  no  remedy  but  to  expose 
Andromeda,  the  daughter  of  king  Cepheus,  to  be 
devoured.  As  she  stood  chained  to  the  rocks  await- 
ing her  fate,  Perseus,  who  was  returning  through 
the  air  from  his  expedition  against  the  Gorgons, 
captivated  by  her  beauty,  turned  the  monster  into 
a  rock  by  showing  him  Medusa's  head,  and  then 
Uberated  and  married  the  maiden.  Jerome  informs 
us  that  the  very  rock,  outside  the  port  of  Joppa, 
was  in  his  day  pointed  out  to  travellers. 

At  Troy,  more  northerly,  on  the  same  Mediter  ■ 
ranean  coast,  Neptune  in  anger  sent  out  a  devour- 
ing sea-monster,  which  with  every  returning  tide 
committed  fearful  ravages  on  the  people.  There 
was  no  help  till  king  Laomedon  gave  up  his  beau- 
tiful daughter  Hesione  to  be  devoured.  While  tho 
monster  with  extended  jaws  was  approaching  her 
chained  to  the  rocks,  Hercules,  sword  in  hand, 
leaped  into  his  throat,  and  for  three  days  and  three 
nights  maintained  a  tremendous  confiict  in  the 
monster's  bowels,  from  which  he  at  length  emerged 
victorious  and  unharmed,  except  with  the  loss  of 
his  hair,  which  the  heat  of  the  animal  had  loosened 
fron^  the  scalp.  For  this  exploit  Hercules  was  sur- 
named  Tpiecrrrepos  (Threenif/ht). 

Aia,  the  daughter  of  the  king  of  Beirilt,  a  city 
north  of  Joppa,  on  the  same  coast,  for  the  salvation 
of  her  country  was  about  to  be  devoured  by  a 
frightful  dragon.  St.  George,  in  full  armor,  as- 
saulted the  dragon,  and  after  an  obstinate  conflid 
of  several  days'  continuance,  slew  him  and  Q<iaveTed 


1448  JONAH 

the  princess.  He  is  the  patron  saint  of  Armenia 
wid  England,  of  the  Franconian  and  Swabian 
knights,  and  of  the  crusades  generally. 

According  to  IJabjionian  tradition,  a  fish^od  or 
fish-man,  named  Oannes,  was  divinely  sent  to  that 
country,  the  region  of  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris, 
to  teach  the  inhabitants  the  fear  of  God  and  good 
morals,  to  instruct  them  in  astronomy  and  agricul- 
ture, the  sciences  and  useful  arts,  legislation  and 
civil  polity.  He  came  from  the  sea  and  spake  with 
a  man's  voiie,  teaching  only  in  the  daytime,  and 
returning  again  every  night  to  the  sea.  Sculptures 
of  this  fish-god  are  frequently  found  among  the 
ruins  of  Nineveh.  The  head  and  face  of  a  dig- 
nified and  noble-looking  man  are  seen  just  below 
the  mouth  of  the  fish,  the  hands  and  arms  project 
from  the  pectoral  fins,  and  the  feet  and  ankles  from 
the  ventral ;  and  there  are  other  forms,  but  it  is 
always  a  man  in  a  fish. 

'Jlie  Assyrian  Ninevites  were  of  the  same  race 
as  the  Hebrews,  and  spoke  a  language  very  like  the 
Hebrew.  The  Greek  name  Oannes  may  be  derived 
from  the  oriental  Jonah,  just  as  Euphrates  is  de- 
rived from  the  oriental  Plivath.  For  a  fuller  dis- 
cussion of  these  oriental  traditions  illustrative  of 
the  book  of  Jonah,  the  reader  may  see  an  essay  l)y 
the  writer  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra  for  October,  1853. 
Consult  especially  Creuzer,  Symbolik  und  Myi/iul- 
ogie  der  Allen  Vvelker^  ii.  22,  74-81,  &c. 

Jonah  was  probaljly  born  about  850  n.  c,  and 
prophesied  during  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  from 
825  to  789  n.  C.  He  was  a  child  when  Homer  was 
an  old  blind  bard  singing  his  rhapsodies  on  the 
eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean ;  a  contemporary 
of  the  Spartan  lawgiver,  Lycurgus ;  by  a  century  the 
senior  of  Komulus,  and  four  centuries  more  ancient 
than  Herodotus.  He  is  the  oldest  of  the  prophets, 
any  cf  whose  writings  have  reached  our  times.  This 
hoary  antiquity,  the  rough  manners  of  the  time, 
and  the  simplicity  of  the  people  who  were  his  con- 
temporaries, must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  an 
estimate  of  the  book.  It  is  throughout  in  keeping, 
eminently  appropriate  to  the  times  and  circum- 
stances in  which  it  claims  to  have  originated.  God 
always  adapts  his  revelations  to  the  character  and 
circumstances  of  those  to  whom  he  makes  them, 
and  never  stands  on  dignity  as  men  do.  Human 
notions  of  dignity  are  a  small  matter  with  him; 
his  field  of  observation  is  so  large  that  he  is  not 
much  aflfected  by  trifles  of  this  sort. 

Jonah  was  evidently  a  man  of  hypochondriac 
temperament,  easily  discouraged  and  easily  elated ; 
timid  and  courageous  at  rapid  intervals;  in  his 
ideas  of  God  a  good  deal  under  the  influence  of 
the  heathenism  of  his  time;  yet  a  God-fearing 
man,  a  patriotic  lover  of  his  own  people,  and  an 
sarncst  hater  of  their  idolatrous  oppressors,  the 
Ninevite  Assyrians.  A  consideration  of  these  traits 
jxplains  the  oddities  of  his  history,  and  illustrates 
the  condescension  and  patience  of  his  God. 

The  Carckarias  of  the  Mediterranean  is  of  suf- 
ficient size  to  swallow  a  man,  and  God  was  under 
no  necessity  of  creating  a  fish  for  this  special  pur- 
pose.«  The  king  in  Nineveh  was  at  this  time  either 
Adrammelech  II.  or  Pul;  the  city  was  at  least  60 
miles  (three  days'  journey)  in  circumference,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  least  strange  or  inconsistent 
with  the  ideas  of  the  time,  that  the  Ninevites  and 

a  •IVr  proofs  of  this  statement,  see  Blbl.  Sacra,  x. 
KO ',  Bochart,  Jlieroz.  iii.  688 ;  and  Eichhorn'8  Einl. 
m4  A.T.  iT.  340,  341.  C.  £.  S. 


JONAH 

their  king  should  be  alarmed  by  a  threat  from  tlia 
God  of  the  Hebrews;  and  their  mode  of  fasting, 
and  repenting,  and  manifesting  son-ow,  is  just  what 
we  find  described  by  other  ancient  authors,  such  as 
Herodotus,  Plutarch,  Virgil,  etc.  (Herod,  ix.  27). 

The  plant  which  shaded  Jonah  is  treated  in  the 
story  as  miraculous-  Such  rapidly  growing  and 
suddenly  withering  plants,  however,  are  still  Ifound 
in  the  east,  and  have  been  well  described  by  our 
American  missionaries,  and  by  such  travellers  as 
Niebuhr  [Goukd].  The  castor-oil  bean,  cultiva- 
ted in  some  of  our  gardens,  will  gi\e  us  a  good  idea 
of  the  kind  of  plant  referred  to.'' 

The  Orientals  have  always  had  a  high  regard 
for  Jonah,  and  his  tomb  is  still  shown  with  vin- 
eration  near  the  ruins  of  Nineveh,  as  well  as  at 
Gath-hepher.  The  Kabbins,  who  make  two  Messiahs, 
one  the  son  of  David,  and  the  other  the  son  of 
Joseph,  atfirm  that  Jonah  was  the  ]\Ie.ssiah  the  son 
of  Joseph.c  The  respect  shown  to  him  by  the 
Mohammedans  is  also  remarkable.  In  the  Koran 
one  entire  chapter  is  inscribed  with  his  name. 

In  one  passage  he  is  called  D/m'lnun,  that  is, 
the  dwtller  in  the  Jish  ;  and  in  the  thirty-seventh 
chapter  the  following  narrative  is  given  of  him: 
"  Jonah  was  one  of  our  ambassadors.  When  he 
fled  in  the  fully  laden  ship,  the  sailors  cast  lots, 
and  by  that  he  was  condemned :  and  then  the  fish 
swallowed  him,  because  he  merited  punishment.  .  .  . 
We  cast  him  upon  the  naked  shore,  and  he  felt 
himself  sick;  and  therefore  we  caused  a  vine  to 
grow  over  him,  and  sent  him  to  a  hundred  thousand 
men,  or  more;  and  when  they  believed,  we  granted 
them  their  lives  for  a  definite  time."  In  the  twenty- 
first  chapter  it  is  said :  »« liemember  Dhu'lnun  (the 
dweller  in  thejish,  that  is,  Jonah),  how  he  departed 
from  us  in  wrath  and  believed  that  we  could  exer- 
cise no  power  over  him.  And  in  tlie  darkness  he 
prayed  to  us  in  these  words:  'There  is  no  God  but 
thee.  Honor  and  glory  be  to  thee.  Truly  1  have 
been  a  sinner,  but  thou  art  merciful  beyond  all  the 
power  of  language  to  express.'  And  we  heard  him, 
and  delivered  him  from  his  distress;  as  we  are 
always  accustomed  to  deliver  the  believers."  This 
brief  prayer,  which  the  Kcran  represents  Jonah  as 
uttering  in  the  belly  of  the  fish,  tlie  Mohammedans 
regard  as  one  of  the  holiest  and  most  efficacious 
of  all  prayers,  and  they  often  use  it  in  their  own 
devotions.  Certanily  it  is  simple,  expressive,  and 
beautiful,  and  reminds  us  of  the  prayer  of  the  pub- 
lican in  the  Gospel.  The  tenth  chapter  of  the  Koran 
says:  "It  is  oidy  the  people  of  Jonah,  whom  we, 
after  they  had  believed,  did  deliver  from  the  punish- 
ment of  shame  in  this  world,  and  granted  them 
the  enjoyment  of  their  goods  for  a  certain  time." 

The  Mohammedan  writers  say  that  the  ship  in 
which  Jonah  had  embarked  stood  still  in  the  sea 
and  would  not  be  moved.  The  seamen,  therefore, 
cast  lots,  and  the  lot  falling  upon  Jonali,  he  cried 
out,  /  am  the  fmjilire,  and  threw  him.self  into  the 
water.  The  fish  swallowed  him.  The  time  he 
remained  in  the  fish  is  difl'erently  stated  by  them 
as  three,  seven,  twenty,  or  forty  days;  but  when 
he  was  thrown  upon  the  land  he  M'as  in  a  state  of 
great  suflfering  and  distress,  his  body  having  l)e- 
come  like  that  of  a  new-born  infant,  ^^'hen  h« 
went  to  Nineveh,  the  inhabitants  at  first  treated 
him  harshly,  so  that  he  was  obliged  to  flee,  after 


h  Rosenmliller's  AUerthumskuTule,  iv.  123-  25. 
c  Eisemiienger,  Entdecktes  Jatlenihmn,  ii.  725> 


JONAH 

he  had  declared  that  the  city  should  be  destroyed 
vrithiii  three  days,  or,  as  some  say,  forty.  As  the 
time  approa/'.hed,  a  black  cloud,  shooting  forth  fire 
and  smoke,  rolled  itself  directly  over  the  city;  and 
put  the  inhabitants  into  dreadful  consternation,  so 
that  they  proclaimed  a  fast  and  repented,  and  God 
spared  them. 

From  all  the  oriental  traditions  on  the  subject,  it 
is  very  plain  that  the  men  of  the  old  East,  the  men 
of  the  country  where  Jonah  lived,  and  who  were 
acquainted  with  the  maimers  and  modes  of  thought 
there  prevalent,  never  felt  any  of  those  objections 
to  the  prophet's  narrative,  which  have  so  much 
stumbled  the  men  of  other  nations  and  other  times. 
God  deals  with  men  just  as  their  peculiar  circum- 
Btances  and  habits  of  thought  require;  and  the 
Bailors  and  fishermen  of  Palestine,  three  thousand 
years  ago,  are  not  to  be  judged  of  by  the  standard 
of  culture  at  the  present  day ;  and  a  mode  of  treat- 
ment might  have  been  very  suitable  for  them,  which 
would  be  quite  inappropriate  to  modern  fashionable 
society ;  and  they,  we  doubt  not,  in  the  sight  of 
God,  were  of  quite  as  much  importance  in  their 
time  as  we  are  in  ours.  Christ  himself  so  far  honors 
Jonah  as  to  make  his  history  a  type  of  His  own 
resurrection. 

The  place  of  the  book  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  in 
the  time  of  Christ,  and  in  all  previous  and  all  sub- 
sequent time,  is  unquestionable  and  unquestioned. 
See  the  apocryphal  book  of  Tobit,  xiv.  7,  8. 

A  consideration  of  the  real  state  of  both  the 
heathen  and  the  Jewish  mind,  at  that  time  and  in 
that  land,  will  show  the  utter  groundlessness  of  the 
objection  sometimes  made  to  the  credibility  of  the 
book  of  Jonah,  because  it  represents  a  Hebrew 
prophet  as  being  sent  to  a  heathen  city,  and  preach- 
ing there  with  great  acceptance  and  power.  Com- 
pare 1  K.  XX.  23-26 ;  2  K.  viii.  7-10,  xvi.  10-15 ; 
2  Chr.  xxi.  31;  Am.  ix.  7,  8. 

To  understand  the  feeUngs  of  the  prophet  in 
regard  to  Nineveh,  and  the  failure  of  his  prophecy, 
we  must  call  to  mind  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  lived.  He  was  a  native  of  Gath-hepher,  in  the 
northern  part  of  Israel,  where  the  people  had  been 
greatly  corrupted  by  constant  intercourse  with  idol- 
atry; and  they  were  continually  exposed  to  the 
cruelty  and  oppression  of  their  northern  and  eastern 
neighbors,  especially  from  the  powerful  empire  of 
Nineveh,  by  which  they  had  been  greatly  injured. 

Among  the  prophetic  utterances  of  Moses,  God 
had  declared  in  respect  to  his  people  (Deut.  xxxii. 
21):  "/  will  move  them  to  jealousy  loUh  those 
which  are  not  a  people ;  I  will  provoke  them  to 
'jnger  with  a  foolish  nation.''''  This  they  under- 
stood to  imply  that  the  time  would  come  when  the 
Israelites  would  be  rejected  for  their  sins,  and  some 
Pagan  nation  received  to  favor  instead  of  them; 
and  this  is  the  use  which  the  Apostle  Paul  makes 
of  the  text  in  Rom.  x.  19.  Jonah  had  seen  enough 
of  the  sins  of  the  Israelites  to  know  that  they  de- 

I served  rejection ;  and  the  favor  which  God  showed 
to  the  Ninevites,  on  their  repentance,  might  have 
led  him  to  fear  that  the  event  so  long  before  pre- 
dicted by  Moses  was  now  about  to  occur,  and  that 
too  by  his  instrumentality.  Israel  would  be  re- 
jected, and  the  proud,  oppressive,  hateful  Nineveh, 
otlious  to  the  Israelites  for  a  thousand  cruelties 
[2  K.  XV.  19,  20),  might  then  be  received,  on  their 
repentance  and  reformation,  as  the  people  of  God. 
t  was  to  him  a  thought  insupportably  painful,  and 
God  had  made  him  unwillingly  the  means  of  bring- 
bg  this  about.     He  thought  he  did  well  to  he 


JONAN 


1449 


angry  —  to  J)e  displeased,  grieved,  distressed  —  foi 
such  is  the  import  of  the  original  phrase  in  Jon. 
iv.  1,  9. 

Alone,  unprotected,  at  the  hazard  of  his  life,  and 
most  reluctantly,  he  had,  on  his  credit  as  a  prophet, 
made  a  solemn  declaration  of  the  Divine  purpose 
in  regard  to  that  city,  and  God  was  now  about  to 
falsify  it.  Why  should  he  not  be  distressed,  the 
poor  hypochondriac,  and  pray  to  die  rather  than 
live  ?  Everybody  is  against  him ;  everything  goes 
against  him;  God  himself  exposes  him  to  disgrace 
and  disregards  his  feelings.  So  he  feels;  so  every 
hypochondriac  would  feel  in  like  circumstances. 
He  cannot  bear  to  remain  an  hour  in  the  hated 
city;  he  retires  to  the  neighboring  field,  ex{K)sed  to 
the  dreadful  burning  of  the  sun,  which  is  so  in- 
tolerable that  the  inhabitants  of  the  cities  on  the 
Tigris  find  it  necessary,  at  the  present  day,  to  con- 
struct apartments  under  ground  to  protect  them- 
selves from  the  noon-day  heat.  CJod  causes  a  spa- 
cious, umbrageous  plant  to  spread  its  broad  leaves 
over  the  booth  and  afford  him  the  needed  shelter. 
He  rejoices  in  its  shade ;  but  before  the  second  day 
has  dawned,  the  shade  is  gone ;  the  sirocco  of  the 
desert  beats  upon  him  with  the  next  noon-day  sun, 
he  is  distracted  with  pains  •  in  his  head,  he  faints 
with  the  insupportable  heat,  and  alone,  disconsolate, 
unfriended,  thinking  that  evei-ybody  despises  him 
and  scorns  him  as  a  lying  prophet,  hypochondriac- 
like, he  again  wishes  himself  dead.  Prophetic  in- 
spiration changed  no  man's  natural  temperament 
or  character.  The  prophets,  just  like  other  men, 
had  to  struggle  with  their  natural  infirmities  and 
disabilities,  with  only  such  Divine  aid  as  is  within 
the  reach  of  all  religious  men.  The  whole  repre- 
sentation in  regard  to  Jonah  is  in  perfect  keeping; 
it  is  as  true  to  nature  as  any  scene  in  Shakespeare, 
and  represents  hypochondria  as  graphically  as 
Othello  represents  jealousy  or  Lear  madness. 

Jonah  is  not  peculiarly  wicked,  but  peculiarly 
uncomfortable,  and  to  none  so  much  so  as  to  him- 
self;  and  his  kind  and  forgiving  God  does  riot 
hastily  condemn  him,  but  pities  and  expostulates, 
and  by  the  most  sigm'ficant  of  illustrations  justifies 
his  forbearance  towards  the  repentant  Nineveh. 

The  prophets,  in  the  execution  of  their  arduous 
mission,  often  came  to  places  in  which  they  felt  as 
if  it  would  be  better  for  them  to  die  rather  than 
live.  For  example,  of  I^lijuh,  who  was  of  a  very 
different  temperament  from  Jonah,  for  more  cheer- 
ful and  self-relying,  we  have  a  similar  narrative  in 
1  K.  xix.  4-10. 

Dr.  Pusey  has  given  us  an  excellent  commentary 
on  Jonah.  There  is  a  more  ancient  one  of  great 
value  by  John  King,  D.  D.,  and  some  excellent 
suggestions  in  regard  to  the  book  may  be  found  in 
Davison  on  Prophecy,  disc.  vi.  pt.  2.  P.  Fried- 
richsen's  Kritische  Uebersicht  der  verschiedenen 
Ansichten  von  dtm  Buche  Jonas,  etc.  (Leipz.  1841) 
is  a  useful  work.  The  commentaries  on  the  book 
are  well-nigh  innumerable.  A  formidable  catabgue 
of  them  is  given  in  Rosenmiiller's  Scholia  in  Vet 
Test.  .For  the  later  writers  on  Jonah  as  one  of 
the  minor  prophets,  see  Habakkuk  (Araer.  ed.). 

C.  E.  8. 

JO'NAN  Clwvdu;  [Tisch.  Treg.  'Iw/'o'/t :] 
Jona),  son  of  Eliakim,  in  the  genealogy  of  Christ, 
in  the  7th  generation  after  David,  t.  e.  about  the 
time  of  king  Jehoram  (Luke  iii.  30).  The  name 
if  probably  only  another  form  of  Johanan,  which 
occurs  80  frequently  in  this  genealogy.  The  se- 
quence of  names,  Jonan,  Joseph,  Juda,  Sinteoi^ 


1450 


JONAS 


Levi,  Malihat,  is  singularly  like  that  in  w.  26,  27, 
Joanua,  Judah,  Joseph,  Semei  —  Mattathiaa. 

A.  C.  H. 

JCNAS.     1.   i'lavds;   [Vat.  luavas;]  Alex. 

ClovSas-  EUonas.)     This  name  occupies  the  same 

position  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  23  as  Eliezer  in  the  corre- 

Bpouding  list  in  Ezr.  x.  23.    Perhaps  the  corruption 

originated  in  reading  ''3137"^7M  for  ■^t^"^vS,  as 
appears  to  have  been  the  case  in  1  Esdr.  ix.  32 
(comp.  I^r.  X.  31).  The  former  would  have  caught 
the  compiler's  eye  from  Ezr.  x.  22,  and  the  original 
fonn  Elionas,  as  it  appears  in  the  Vulg.,  could 
easih  have  become  Jonas. 

2.  {'lavas'- J  t^ffs.)  The  prophet  Jonah  (2  Esdr. 
.  30;  Tob.  xiv.  4,  8;  Matt.  xii.  39,  30,  41,  xvi.  4). 

3.  ([Rec.  text,  'Icdi/Ss;  I>achm.  Treg.  'Ioxzj/tjs; 
Tiach.]   'Iwdvvris '  Johannes),  John   xxi.   15-17. 

[JOXA.] 

JON'ATHAN  (]n3in\  i.  e.  Jehonathan, 

and  IpS^"^;  the  two  forms  are  used  almost  alter- 
nately: 'IwvdBav,  Jos.  ^Icouddrfs-  Jonathan),  the 
eldest  son  of  king  Saul.  The  name  {the  yift  of 
Jehovah,  corresponding  to  Theodorus  in  Greek) 
seeras  to  have  been  common  at  that  period ;  possi- 
bly from  the  example  of  Saul's  son  (see  Jo:NATnAN, 
the  nephew  of  David,  Jonathan,  the  son  of 
Abiathar,  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Shage,  and 
Nathan  the  prophet). 

He  first  appears  some  time  after  his  father's  ac- 
cession (1  Sam.  xiii.  2).  If  his  younger  brother 
Ishbosheth  was  40  at  the  time  of  Saul's  death  (2 
Sam.  ii.  8),  Jonathan  must  have  been  at  least  30, 
when  he  is  first  mentioned.  Of  his  own  family  we 
know  nothing,  except  the  birth  of  one  son,  5  years 
before  his  death  (2  Sam.  iv.  4).  He  was  regarded 
in  his  father's  lifetime  as  heir  to  the  throne.  Like 
Saul,  he  was  a  man  of  great  strength  and  activity 
(2  Sam.  i.  23),  of  which  the  exploit  at  Michmash 
was  a  proof.  He  was  also  famous  for  the  peculiar 
martial  exercises  in  which  his  tribe  excelled  — 
archery  and  slinging  (1  Clir.  xii.  2).  His  bow  was 
to  him  what  the  spear  was  to  his  father:  "the  bow 
of  Jonathan  turned  not  back  "  (2  Sam.  i.  22).  It 
was  always  about  him  (1  Sam.  xviii.  4,  xx.  35). 
It  is  through  his  relation  with  David  that  he  is 
chiefly  known  to  us.  probably  as  related  by  his 
descendants  at  David's  court.  But  there  is  a  back- 
ground, not  so  clearly  given,  of  his  relation  with 
his  father.  From  the  time  that  he  first  appears 
he  is  Saul's  constant  companion.  He  was  always 
present  at  his  father's  meals.  As  Abner  and  David 
seem  to  have  occupied  the  places  afterwards  callal 
the  captaincies  of  "  the  host  "  and  "  of  the  guard ;  " 
BO  he  seems  to  have  been  (as  Hushai  afterwards) 
"the  friend  "  (comp.  1  Sam.  xx.  25:  2  Sam.  xv. 
37).  The  whole  story  implies,  without  expressing, 
the  deep  attachment  of  the  father  and  son.  Jon- 
athan can  only  go  on  his  dangerous  expedition 
(1  Sara.  xiv.  1)  by  concealing  it  from  Saul.  Saul's 
vow  is  confirmed,  and  its  tragic  effect  deepened,  by 
his  feeling  for  his  .son,  *'  though  it  be  Jonathan  my 
son"  {ib.  xiv.  39).  "Tell  me  what  thou  hast 
done"  {ib.  xiv.  43).  Jonathan  cannot  bear  to  be- 
lieve his  father's  enmity  to  David,  "  my  father  will 
do  nothing  great  or  small,  but  that  he  will  show  it 
to  rae:  and  why  should  my  father  hide  this  thing 
from  me?  it  is  not  so"  (1  Sam.  xx.  2).  To  him, 
tf  to  any  one,  the  wild  frenzy  of  the  king  was 
imenable  —  "  Saul  hearkened  unto  the  voice  of 
'onathan  "  (1  Sam.  xix.  6).  Theii"  mutual  affection 


JONAPHAN 

was  indeed  interrupted  by  the  growth  of  Sanl^a 
insanity.  Twice  the  father  would  have  sacrificed 
the  son:  once  in  consequence  of  his  vow  (1.  Sam. 
xiv.);  the  second  time,  more  deliberately,  on  the 
discovery  of  David's  flight:  and  on  this  last  occa- 
sion, a  momentary  glimpse  is  given  of  some  darkei 
history.  "Were  the  phrases  "  son  of  a  perverse 
rebellious  woman,"  —  "shame  on  thy  mother's 
nakedness  "  (1  Sam.  xx.  30,  31),  mere  frantic  in- 
vectives ?  or  was  there  something  in  the  story  of 
Ahinoam  or  Kizpah  which  we  do  not  know  ?  "  In 
fierce  anger  "  Jonathan  left  the  royal  presence  {ib. 
34).  But  he  cast  his  lot  with  his  fathers  decline, 
not  with  his  friend's  rise,  and  "  in  death  they  were 
not  divided"  (2  Sam.  i.  23;  1  Sam.  xxiii.  16). 

His  life  may  be  divided  into  two  main  parts. 

1.  The  war  with  the  Philistines;  commonly 
called,  from  its  locality,  "  the  war  of  Michmash," 
as  the  last  years  of  the  I'eloponnesian  War  were 
called  for  a  similar  reason  "  the  war  of  Decelea  " 
(1  Sam.  xiii.  22,  LXX.).  In  the  previous  war  with 
the  Ammonites  (1  Sam.  xi.  4-15)  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  him;  and  his  abrupt  appearance,  without 
explanation,  in  xiii.  2,  may  seem  to  imply  that 
some  part  of  the  narrative  has  been  lost. 

He  is  already  of  great  importance  in  the  state. 
Of  the  3,000  men  of  whom  Saul's  standing  army 
was  formed  (xiii.  2,  xxiv.  2,  xxvi.  1.  2),  1,000  were 
under  the  command  of  Jonathan  at  Gibeah.  The 
Philistines  were  still  in  the  general  command  of 
the  country;  an  officer  was  stationed  at  Geba, 
either  the  same  as  Jonathan's  position  or  close  to 
it.  In  a  sudden  act  of  youthful  daring,  as  whec 
Tell  rose  against  Gessler,  or  as  in  sacred  history 
Moses  rose  against  the  I'>gyptian,  Jonathan  slew 
this  officer,"  and  thus  gave  the  signal  for  a  general 
revolt.  Saul  took  advantage  of  it,  and  the  whole 
population  rose.  But  it  was  a  premature  attempt. 
The  Philistines  poured  in  from  the  plain,  and  the 
tyranny  became  more  deeply  rooted  than  ever. 
[Saul.]  Saul  and  Jonathan  (with  their  imme- 
diate attendants)  alone  had  arms,  amidst  the  gen- 
eral weakness  and  disarming  of  the  people  (1  Sam. 
xiii.  22).  They  were  encamped  at  Gibeah,  with  a 
small  body  of  600  men,  and  as  they  looked  down 
from  that  height  on  the  misfortunes  of  their  coim- 
try,  and  of  their  native  tribe  especially,  they  wept 
aloud  {(Khaiov,  LXX.;  1  Sam.  xiii.  16). 

From  this  oppression,  as  Jonathan  by  his  former 
act  had  been  the  first  to  provoke  it,  so  now  he  was 
the  first  to  deliver  his  people.  On  the  former  occa- 
sion Saul  had  );een  equally  with  himself  involved 
in  the  responsibility  of  the  deed.  Saul  "  blew  the 
trumpet;"  Saul  had  "smitten  the  officer  of  the 
Philistines"  (xiii.  3,  4).  But  now  it  would  seem 
that  Jonathan  was  resolved  to  undertake  the  whole 
risk  himself.  "  The  day,"  the  day  fixed  by  him 
{ylverai  h  Vl^fpa,  LXX.;  1  Sam.  xiv.  1)  ap- 
proached;  and  without  communicating  his  project 
to  any  one,  except  the  young  man,  whom,  like  all 
the  chiefs  of  that  age,  he  retained  as  his  armor- 
bearer,  he  sallied  fortli  from  Gibeah  to  attack  the 
garrison  of  the  Philistines  stationed  on  the  other 
side  of  the  steep  defile  of  Michmash  (xiv.  1).  His 
words  are  short,  but  they  breathe  exactly  the  an- 
cient and  peculiar  spirit  of  the  Israelite  warrior. 
"  Come,  and  let  us  go  over  unto  the  garrison  of 
these  uncircumcised ;  it  may  l)e  that  Jehovah  wil 
work  for  us:  for  there  is  no  lestraint  tc  Jeboval 


a  (A.  V.  "Garrison'')  rov  Nacri^,  1XX.\   1  Sam 
xiii.  8,  4.     See  Ewald.  u.  476. 


JONATHAN 

kO  save  by  many  or  by  few."  The  answer  is  no 
.ess  characteristic  of  the  close  f»-iendship  of  the  two 
young  men :  already  like  to  tnat  which  afterwards 
sprang  up  between  Jonathan  and  David.  "  Do  all 
that  is  in  thine  heart;  ....  behold,  /  am  with 
thee;  as  thy  heart  is  my  heart  (LXX.;  1  Sara. 
xiv.  7)."  Aiter  the  manner  of  the  time  (and  the 
more,  probably,  from  having  taken  no  counsel  of 
the  high-priest  or  any  propliet  before  his  depart- 
ure) Jonathan  proposed  to  draw  an  omen  for  their 
course  from  the  conduct  of  the  enemy.  If  the 
garrison,  on  seeing  them,  gave  intimations  of  de- 
scending upon  them,  they  would  remain  in  the 
ralley;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  they  raised  a  chal- 
lenge to  advance,  they  were  to  accept  it.  The  lat- 
ter turned  out  to  be  the  case.  The  first  appear- 
ance of  the  two  warriors  from  behind  the  rocks  was 
taken  by  the  Philistines  as  a  furtive  apparition  of 
'•  the  Hebrews  coming  forth  out  of  the  holes  where 
they  had  hid  themselves;  "  and  they  were  welcomed 
with  a  scoffing  invitation  (such  as  the  Jebusites 
afterwards  offered  to  David),  "  Come  up,  and  we 
will  show  you  a  thing"  (xiv.  4-12).  Jonathan 
immediately  took  them  at  their  word.  Strong  and 
active  as  he  was,  "  strong  as  a  lion,  and  swift  as  an 
eagle"  (2  Sam.  i.  23),  he  was  fully  equal  to  the 
adventure  of  climbing  on  his  hands  and  feet  up  the 
face  of  the  cliff.  When  he  came  directly  in  view 
of  them,  with  his  armor-bearer  behind  him,  they 
both,  after  the  manner  of  their  tribe  (1  Chr.  xii. 
2)  discharged  a  flight  of  arrows,  stones,  and  peb- 
bles," from  their  bows,  crossbows,  and  slings,  with 
such  effect  that  20  men  fell  at  the  first  onset 
[AuMS,  vol.  i.  p.  160  b.].  A  panic  seized  the  gar- 
rison, thence  spread  to  the  camp,  and  thence  to 
the  surrounding  hordes  of  marauders;  an  earth- 
quake combined  witit  the  terror  of  the  moment; 
the  confusion  increased;  the  Israelites  who  had 
been  taken  slaves  by  the  Philistines  during  the  last 
3  days  (LXX.)  rose  in  mutuiy:  the  Israchtes  who 
lay  hid  in  the  numerous  caverns  and  deep  holes  in 
which  the  rocks  of  the  neighborhood  abound,  sprang 
out  of  their  subterranean  dwelUngs.  Saul  and  his 
little  band  had  watched  in  astonishment  the  wild 
retreat  from  the  heights  of  Gibeah  —  he  now  joined 
in  the  pursuit,  which  led  him  headlong  after  the 
fugitives,  over  the  rugged  plateau  of  Bethel,  and 
down  ^  the  pass  of  Beth-horon  to  Ajalon  (xiv.  15- 
;!1).  [Gibeah,  p.  915.]  The  father  and  son  had 
uot  met  on  that  day :  Saul  only  conjectured  his 
son's  absence  from  not  finding  him  when  he  num- 
bered the  i^eople.  Jonathan  had  not  heard  of  the 
rash  curse  (xiv.  24)  which  Saul  invoked  on  any  one 
who  ate  before  the  evening.  In  the  dizziness  and 
darkness  (Hebrew,  1  Sam.  xiv.  27)  that  came  on 
after  his  desperate  exertions,  he  put  forth  the  staff 
which  apparently  had  (with  his  sling  and  bow)  been 
his  chief  weapon,  and  tasted  the  honey  which  lay 
on  the  ground  as  they  passed  throug.h  the  forest. 
The  pursuers  in  general  were  restrained  even  from 
this  slight  indulgence  by  fear  of  the  royal  curse; 
Vut  the  moment  that  the  day,  with  its  enforced 
last,  was  over,  they  flew,  like  Mushms  at  sunset 


JONATHAN 


1451 


I 


a  We  have  taken  the  LXX.  vorsiou  of  xiv.  13,  14  : 
inefi\e\l/ap  Kara,  npoa-oinou  'luivdOau,  koX  enaTa^ev  av- 
wvs  .  ,  .  .  iu  fiokicn  /cat  ev  TeTpoj36A.ois  koX  ev  Ko^Xa^i 
rov  ireSCov,  for  "  they  fell  before  Jonathan  .  . 
vithin  &»  it  were  a  half  acre  of  ground,  which  a  yoke 
jf  oxen  might  plough."  The  alteration  of  the  He- 
brew necessary  to  produce  this  reading  of  the  LXX., 
«  given  by  Kennicott  (Dissert,  on  1  Cfiron.  xi.  p.  453). 
flwald  (u.  480}  makes  this  last  to  be,  '^  Jonathan  and 


during  the  fast  of  Ramadan,  on  the  captured  cattle; 
and  devoured  them,  even  to  the  brutal  neglect 
of  the  law  which  forbade  the  dismemberment  of 
the  fresh  carcases  with  the  blood.  This  violation 
of  the  law  Saul  endeavored  to  prevent  and  to  expi- 
ate by  erecting  a  large  stone,  which  served  both  aa 
a  rude  table  and  as  an  altar;  the  first  altar  that 
was  raised  under  the  monarchy.  It  was  in  the 
dead  of  night  after  this  wild  revel  was  over  that  he ' 
proposed  that  the  pursuit  should  be  continued  till 
dawn ;  and  then,  when  the  silence  of  the  oracle  of 
the  high-priest  indicated  that  something  had  oc- 
curred to  intercept  the  Divine  favor,  the  lot  wag 
tried,  and  Jonathan  appeared  as  the  culprit.  Jeph- 
thah's  dreadful  sacrifice  would  have  been  re|teated , 
but  the  people  interposed  in  behalf  of  the  hero  of 
that  great  day ;  and  Jonathan  was  saved  ^  (xiv.  24-^ 
40). 

2.  This  is  the  only  great  exploit  of  Jonathan's 
life.  But  the  chief  interest  of  his  career  is  derived 
from  the  friendship  with  David,  which  began  on 
the  day  of  David's  return  from  the  victory  over  the 
champion  of  Gath,  and  contimied  till  his  death. 
It  is  the  first  Biblical  instance  of  a  romantic  friend- 
ship, such  as  was  common  afterwards  in  Greece, 
and  has  been  since  in  Christendom ;  and  is  remark- 
able both  as  giving  its  sanction  to  these,  and  as 
filled  with  a  pathos  of  its  own,  which  has  been 
imitated,  but  never  surpassed,  in  modern  works  of 
fiction.  "  The  soul  of  Jonathan  was  knit  with  the 
soul  of  David,  and  Jonathan  loved  him  as  his  own 
soul  "  —  "  Thy  love  to  me  was  wonderful,  passing 
the  love  of  women  "  (1  Sam.  xviii.  1 ;  2  Sam.  i. 
26).  Each  found  in  each  the  aftection  that  he 
found  not  in  his  own  family :  no  jealousy  of  rivalry 
between  the  two,  as  claimants  for  the  same  throne, 
ever  interposed:  "Thou  shalt  be  king  in  Israel, 
and  I  shall  be  next  unto  thee  "  \\  Sam.  xxiii.  17) 
The  friendship  was  confirmed,  after  the  manner  of 
the  time,  by  a  solemn  compact  often  repeated. 
The  first  was  immediately  on  their  first  acquaint- 
ance. Jonathan  gave  David  as  a  pledge  his  royal 
mantle,  his  sword,  his  girdle,  and  his  famous  bow 
(xviii.  4).  His  fidelity  was  soon  called  into  action 
by  the  insane  rage  of  his  father  against  David. 
He  interceded  for  his  life,  at  first  with  success  (1 
Sam.  xix.  1-7).  Then  the  madness  returned  and 
David  fled.  It  was  in  a  secret  interview  during 
this  flight,  by  the  stone  of  Ezel,  that  the  second 
covenant  was  made  between  the  two  friends,  of  a 
still  more  binding  kind,  extending  to  their  mutual 
posterity  —  Jonathan  laying  such  emphasis  on  this 
portion  of  the  compact,  as  almost  to  suggest  the 
belief  of  a  slight  misgiving  on  his  part  of  David's 
future  conduct  in  this  respect.  It  is  this  interview 
which  brings  out  the  character  of  Jonathan  in  the 
liveliest  colors  —  his  little  artifices  —  his  love  for 
both  his  father  and  his  friend  —  his  bitter  disaj)- 
pointment  at  his  father's  unmanageable  fury  —  his 
familiar  sport  of  archery.  With  passionate  em- 
bi-aces  and  tears  the  two  friends  parted,  to  meet 
only  once  more  (1  Sam.  xx.).  That  one  more 
meeting  was  far  away  in  the  forest  of  Ziph,  during 

his  friend  were  as  a  yoke  of  oxen  ploughing,  and  re- 
sisting the  sharp  ploughshares." 

b  la  xiv  23,  31,  the  LXX.  reads  « Bamoth  »  foi 
"  Beth-aveu,"  and  omits  "Ajalon." 

c  Josephvis  Ant.  (vi.  6,  §  5)  puts  into  Jonathan'! 
mouth  a  speech  of  patriotic  self-devotion,  after  the 
manner  of  <».  Greek  or  Roman.  Ewald  (ii.  483)  sup- 
poses that  It  substitute  was  killed  in  his  place.  Then 
is  no  trace  of  either  of  these  in  the  -jacred  njirra^iy©. 


1452  JONATHAN 

Baul's  pursuit  of  David.  Jonathan's  alarm  for  hia 
friend's  life  is  now  changed  into  a  confidence  that 
he  will  escape :  "  He  strengthened  his  hand  in 
God."  Finally,  and  for  the  third  time,  they  re- 
newed the  covenant,  and  then  parted  forever  (1 
Sam.  xxiii.  16-18). 

From  this  time  forth  we  hear  no  more  till  the 
battle  of  Gilboa.  In  that  battle  he  fell,  with  his 
two  brothers  and  his  father,  and  his  corpse  shared 
their  fate  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  2, 8).  [Saul.]  His  ashes 
were  buried  first  at  Jabesh-Gilead  {ibid.  13),  but 
afterwards  removed  with  those  of  his  father  to 
Zelah  in  Benjamin  (2  Sam.  xxi.  32).  The  news 
of  hia  death  occasioned  the  celebrated  elegy  of 
David,  in  which  he,  as  the  friend,  naturally  occu- 
pies the  chief  place  (2  Sam.  i.  22,  23,  25,  20),  and 
which  seems  to  have  been  sung  in  the  education  of 
the  archers  of  Judah,  in  commemoration  of  the  one 
great  archer,  Jonathan :  "  He  bade  them  teach  the 
children  of  Judali  the  use  of  the  bow  "  (2  Sam.  i. 
17,  18). 

He  left  one  son,  five  years  old  at  the  time  of 
hia  death  (2  Sam.  iv.  4),  to  whom  he  had  prob- 
ably given  his  original  name  of  Merib-baal,  after 
wards  changed  for  Mephibosheth  (comp.  1  Chr.  viii. 
3J,  ix.  40).  [Mephiboshktii.]  Through  him 
the  line  of  descendants  was  continued  down  to  the 
time  of  F>zra  (1  Chr.  ix.  40),  and  even  then  their 
great  ancestor's  archery  was  practiced  amongst 
them.     [Saul.] 

2.  (]n3'"in%)  Son  of  Shimea,  brother  of  Jon- 
adab,  and  nephew  of  David  (2  Sam.  xxi.  21;  1  Chr. 
XX.  7).  He  inherited  the  union  of  civil  and  military 
gifts,  so  conspicuous  in  his  uncle.  Like  David,  he 
engaged  in  a  single  combat  and  slew  a  gigantic 
Philistine  of  Gath,  who  was  remarkable  for  an 
additional  finger  and  toe  on  each  hand  and  foot 
'2  Sam.  xxi.  21).  If  we  may  identify  the  Jonathan 
i)f  1  Chr.  xxvii.  32  with  the  Jonathan  of  this  pas- 
sage, where  the  word  translated  <' uncle"  may  be 
*'  nephew,"  he  was  (like  his  brother  Jonadab) 
"wise" — and  as  such,  was  David's  counsellor  and 
secretary.  Jerome  (  Qmest.  Ihb.  on  1  Sam.  xvii.  12) 
conjectures  that  this  was  Nathan  the  prophet,  thus 
making  up  the  8th  son,  not  named  in  1  Chr.  ii. 
13-15.     But  this  is  not  probable 

3.  [Jonnthas.']  Tiie  son  of  Abiathar,  the  high- 
priest.  He  is  the  last  descendant  of  Hi,  of  whom 
we  hear  anything.  He  appears  on  two  occasions. 
1.  On  the  day  of  David's  flight  from  Absalom, 
having  first  accompanied  his  father  Abiathar  as  far 
as  Olivet  (2  Sam.  xv.  30),  he  returned  with  him 
to  Jerusalem,  and  was  there,  with  Ahimaaz  the 
son  of  Zadok,  employed  as  a  messenger  to  carry 
back  the  news  of  Hushai's  plans  to  David  (xvii. 
15-21).  2.  On  the  day  of  Solomon's  inauguration, 
lie  suddenly  broke  in  upon  the  banquet  of  Adonijah, 
Jo  announce  the  success  of  the  rival  prince  (1  K.  i. 
42,  43).  It  may  be  inferred  from  Adonijah's  ex- 
pression ("  Thou  art  a  valiant  man,  and  bringest 
good  tidings  "),  that  he  had  followed  the  policy  of 
his  father  Abiathar  in  Adonijah's  support. 

On  both  occasions,  it  may  be  remarked  that  he 
appears  as  the  swift  and  trusty  messenger. 

4.  The  SOD  of  Shage  the  Hararite  (1  Chr.  xi. 
34;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  32).  He  was  one  of  David's 
heroes  (gibborim).  The  LXX.  makes  his  father's 
name  Sola  {^w\d),  and  applies  the  epithet  "  Ara- 
rite"  {&  ^Apapi)  to  Jonathan  himself.  "Harar" 
3  not  mentioned  elsewhere  as  a  place ;  but  it  is  a 
poetical  word  for  "  Har  "  (mountain),  and,  as  such, 


JONATHAN 

may  possibly  signify  in  this  passage  •'  the  moan- 
taineer."  Another  oflBcer  (Ahiam;  is  mentioned 
with  Jonathan,  as  bearing  the  same  designation 
(1  Chr.  xi.  35).  A.  P.  S. 

5.  (]ri3'in%)  The  son,  or  descendant,  of 
Gershom  the  son  of  Moses,  whose  name  in  the 
Masoretic  copies  is  changed  to  INIanasseh,  in  order 
to  screen  the  memory  of  the  great  lawgiver  from 
the  disgrace  which  attached  to  the  apostasy  of  one 
so  closely  connected  with  him  (Judg.  xviii.  30). 
While  wandering  through  the  country  in  search 
of  a  home,  the  young  Levite  of  Bethlehew-Judah 
came  to  the  house  of  JNIicah,  the  rich  Ephraimite, 
and  was  by  him  appointed  to  be  a  kind  of  private 
chaplain,  and  to  minister  in  the  house  of  gods,  or 
sanctuary,  which  Micah  had  made  in  imitation  of 
that  at  Shiloh.  He  was  recognize*',  by  the  fne 
Danite  spies  appointed  by  their  tribe  to  search  the 
land  for  an  inheritance,  who  lodged  in  the  house 
of  Micah  on  their  way  northwards.  The  favorable 
answer  which  he  gave  when  consulted  with  regard 
to  the  i^ue  of  their  expedition  probably  induced 
them,  on  their  march  to  Laish  M'ith  the  warriors 
of  their  tribe,  to  turn  aside  again  to  the  house  of 
Micah,  and  carry  off  the  ephod  and  teraphim,  super- 
stitiously  hoping  thus  to  make  success  certain. 
Jonathan,  to  whose  ambition  they  appealed,  accom- 
panied them,  in  spite  of  the  remonstrances  of  his 
patron ;  he  was  present  at  the  massacre  of  the  de- 
fenseless inhabitants  of  Laish,  and  in  the  new  city, 
which  rose  from  its  ashes,  he  was  constituted  priest 
of  the  graven  image,  an  oflSce  which  became  hered- 
itary in  his  family  till  the  Captivity.  The  Targum 
of  R.  Joseph,  on  1  Chr.  xxiii.  16,  identifies  him 
with  Shebuel  the  son  of  Gei-shom,  who  is  there 

said  to  have  repented  (SlS^nin  "1?!?)  in  his  old 
age,  and  to  have  been  appointed  by  David  as  chief 
over  his  treasures.  All  this  arises  from  a  plaj 
upon  the  name  Shebuel,  from  which  this  meaning 
is  extracted  in  accordance  with  a  favorite  practice 
of  the  Targumist. 

6.  (]n3V.)  One  of  the  sons  of  Adin  (Ezr. 
viii.  6),  whose  representative  Ebed  returned  with 
Ezra  at  the  head  of  fifty  males,  a  number  whicli  is 
increased  to  two  hundred  and  fifty  in  1  Esdr.  viii. 
32,  where  Jonathan  is  written  ^luyddaS' 

7.  [In  1  Esdr.,  'luydSas'  Jonathas.]  A  priest, 
the  son  of  Asahel,  one  of  the  four  who  assisted  F.zra 
in  investigating  the  marriages  with  foreign  women, 
which  had  been  contracted  by  the  people  who 
returned  from  Babylon  (Ezra  x.  15;  1  Esdr.  ix. 
14). 

8.  f\^at.  Alex.  FA.i  omit.]  A  priest,  and  one 
of  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers  in  the  days  of  Joiakim, 
son  of  Jeshua.  He  was  the  representative  of  the 
family  of  Melicu  (Neh.  xii.  14). 

9.  One  of  the  sons  of  Kareah,  and  brother  of 
Johanan  (Jer.  xl.  8).  The  LXX.  in  this  passage 
omit  his  name  altogether,  and  in  this  they  are  sup- 
ported by  two  of  Kennicott's  MSS.,  and  the  paralle' 
passage  of  2  K.  xxv.  23.  In  three  others  of  Ken- 
nicott's it  was  erased,  and  was  originally  omitted 
in  three  of  De  Rossi's.  He  was  one  of  the  captains 
of  the  army  who  had  escaped  from  Jerusalem  m 
the  final  assault  by  the  Chaldreans,  and,  after  th« 
capture  of  Zedekiah  at  Jericho,  had  crossed  the 
Jordan,  and  remained  in  the  open  country  of  the 
Ammonites  till  the  victorious  army  had  retired  with 
their  spoils  and  captlres.  He  accompanied  hi» 
brother  Johanan  and  the  other  captains,  who  i»' 


JONATHAN 

lorted  to  Gedaliah  at  Mizpah,  and  fix)m  that  time 
we  hear  nothing  more  of  him.  Hitzig  decides 
igainst  the  LXX.  and  the  MSS.  which  omit  the 
name  {De?'  Proph.  Jeremius),  on  the  ground  that 
the  very  similarity  between  Jonathan  and  Johanan 
favors  the  belief  that  they  were  brothers. 

W.  A.  W. 

!  10.  Ov'?'^'*:  'IwudOav;  [FA.  oncelwaw^aj/.]) 
Son  of  Joiada,  and  his  successor  in  the  high-priest- 
hood. The  only  fact  connected  with  his  pontificate 
recorded  in  Scripture,  is  that  the  genealogical  rec- 
ords of  the  priests  and  Levites  were  kept  in  his 
day  (Neh.  xii.  11,  22),  and  that  the  chronicles  of 
the  state  were  continued  to  his  time  {ib.  23).  Jon- 
athan (or,  as  he  is  called  in  Neh.  xii.  22,  23,  John 
[Johanan] )  lived,  of  course,  long  after  the  death  of 
Nehemiah,  and  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon. 
Josephus,  who  also  calls  him  John,  as  do  Eusebius  « 
and  Nicephorus  likewise,  relates  that  he  murdered 
his  own  brother  Jesus  in  the  Temple,  because  Jesus 
was  endeavoring  to  get  the  high-priesthood  from 
him  through  the  influence  of  Bagoses  the  Persian 
general.  He  adds  that  John  by  this  misdeed 
brought  two  great  judgments  upon  the  Jews :  the 
one,  that  Bagoses  entered  into  the  Temple  and 
polluted  it ;  the  other,  that  he  imposed  a  heavy  tax 
of  50  shekels  upon  every  lamb  offered  in  sacrifice, 
to  punish  them  for  this  horrible  crime  (A.  J.  xi. 
7,  §  1).  Jonathan,  or  John,  was  high-priest  for 
32  years,  according  to  Eusebius  and  the  Alexandr. 
Chron.  (Seld.  de  Success,  in  P.  E.  cap.  vi.,  vii.). 
Milman  speaks  of  the  murder  of  Jesus  as  "  the  only 
memorable  transaction  in  the  annals  of  Judaea  from 
the  death  of  Nehemiah  to  the  time  of  Alexander 
the  Great"  {Hist,  of  Jews,  ii.  29). 

11.  [Vat.  FA.i  Iwavav.']  Father  of  Zechariah, 
a  priest  who  blew  the  trumpet  at  the  dedication  of 
the  wall  (Neh.  xii.  35).  He  seems  to  have  been 
of  the  course  of  Shemaiah.  The  words  "son  of" 
seem  to  be  improperly  inserted  before  the  following 
»ame,  Maitaniah,  as  appears  by  comparing  xi.  17. 

A.  C.  H. 

12.  CluvdOas.)    1  Esdr.  viii.  32.     [See  No.  C] 

13.  [Sin.i  1  Mace.  ii.  5,  lavaOvs;  Sin.ca  Alex. 
Icavada^;  so  Sin.  in  v.  17:  Jonalhos.]  A  son  of 
Mattathias,  and  leader  of  the  Jews  in  their  war  of 
independence  after  the  death  of  his  brother  Judas 
Maccabajus,  B.  c.  161  (1  Mace.  ix.  19  If.).  [Mac- 
cabees.] 

14.  [Alex,  in  xi.  70  Icovadov,  g^"-]  A  son  of 
Absalom  (1  Mace.  xiii.  11),  sent  by  Simon  with  a 
force  to  occupy  Joppa,  which  was  already  in  the 
hands  of  the  Jews  (1  Mace.  xii.  33),  though  prob- 
ably held  only  by  a  weak  garrison.  Jonathan  ex- 
pelled the  inhabitants  (roiis  uuras  iu  avrfj;  cf. 
Jos.  Ant.  xiii.  G,  §  3)  and  secured  the  city.  Jon- 
athan was  probably  a  brother  of  Mattathias  (2) 
(1  Mace.  xi.  70). 

15.  l^lwuddas ;  Alex,  in  viii.  22,  Icovadrjs '  Jona- 
lhos.] A  priest  who  is  said  to  have  oflTered  up  a 
Bolemn  prayer  on  the  occasion  of  the  sacrifice  made 
by  Nehemiah  after  the  recovery  of  the  sacred  fire 
(2  Mace.  i.  23  ff. :  cf.  Ewald,  Gesch.  d.  V.  Isr.  iv. 
184  f.).  The  narrative  is  interesting,  as  it  presents 
»  singular  example  of  the  combination  of  public 
prayer  with  sacrifice  (Grimm,  ad  2  Mace.  1.  c. ). 

P.  F.  W. 


JOPPA 


1453 


a  Ckron.  Can.  lib.  poster,   p.   340.    But  in  the 
Hkmonst.  Eoang.  lib.  viii.,  Jonathan. 


JON'ATHAS  ^Iccvdeav;  [Vat.  Alex.  laOav 
[Vulg.  omits;  Old  Lat.]  Jonaihus ;  alii,  Nathan) 
the  Latin  form  of  the  common  name  Jonathan, 
which  is  preserved  in  A.  V.  in  Tob.  v.  13. 

B.  F.  W. 

JO'NATH-EXEM-RECHO'KIM  {rW 

□"^l7*"in"J  D7M,  a  dumb  dove  of  (in)  distant 
places),  a  phrase  found  once  only  in  the  Bible,  as  a 
heading  to  the  5Gth  psalm.  Critics  ana  commen- 
tators are  very  far  from  being  agreed  on  its  mean- 
ing. Kashi  considers  that  David  employed  the 
phrase  to  describe  his  own  unhappy  condition  when, 
exiled  from  the  land  of  Israel,  he  was  living  witJi 
Achish,  and  was  an  object  of  suspicion  and  hatred 
to  the  countrymen  of  Goliath :  thus  was  he  amongst 

the  Philistines  as  a  mute  (iT'D  vM)  dove.  Kimchi 
supplies  the  following  commentary:  "  The  Philis- 
tines sought  to  seize  and  slay  David  (1  Sam.  xxix. 
4-11),  and  he,  in  his  terror,  and  pretending  to  have 
lost  his  reason,  called  himself  Jonath,  even  as  a 
dove  driven  from  her  cote."  Knapp's  explanation 
"  on  the  oppression  of  foreign  rulers  "  —  assigning 
to  Elem  the  same  meaning  which  it  has  in  Ex.  xv. 
15  —  is  in  harmony  with  the  contents  of  the  psalm, 
and  is  worthy  of  consideration.  De  Wette  trans- 
lates Jonath  Elem  Rechokbn  "  dove  of  the  distant 
terebinths,"  or  "  of  the  dove  of  dumbness  (Stumm- 
heit)  among  the  strangers  "  or  "  in  distant  places." 
According  to  the  Septuagint,  vircp  tov  \aou  rod 
atrh  Twv  ayicDU  fi^jxaKpvixfxevov,  "  on  the  people 
far   removed    from    the   holy   places "    (probably 

DbM=Db^S,  the  Temple-hall;  see  Onent.  Lit- 
eraiur-Blatt,  p.  579,  year  1841),  a  rendering  which 
very  nearly  accords  with  the  Chaldee  paraphrase: 
"  On  the  congregation  of  Israel,  compared  with  a 
mute  dove  while  exiled  from  their  cities,  but  who 
come  back  again  and  oflTer  praise  to  the  Lord  of  the 
Universe."  Aben  Slzra,  who  regards  Jonath  Elem 
RechoUm  as  merely  indicating  the  modulation  or 

the  rhythm  of  the  psalm  (comp.  the  title  H^'^N 

nnti^n,  Ps.  xxll.),  appears  to  come  the  nearest 
to  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in  his  explanation, 
"  after  the  melody  of  the  air  which  begins  Jonath- 
elem-Eechoklin.'"  In  the  Biour  to  Mendelssohn's 
version  of  the  Psalms  Jonath  Elem  Rechokim  is 
mentioned  as  a  musical  instrument  which  produced 
dull,  mournful  sounds.     "  Some  take  it  for  a  pipe 

called  in  Greek  'iXvfxos,  iHSV,  from  "Jl"^,  Greek^ 
which  would  make  the  inscription  read  *<  the  long 
Grecian  pipe,"  but  this  does  not  appear  to  ua  ad- 
missible" (Biourist's  Preface,  p.  26). 

D.  W.  M. 

JOP'PA  ('"^S;,  i.  e.  Ynfo,  beauty;  the  A.  V, 
follows  the  Greek  form,  except  once,  Japho  :  'ItJmrij, 
LXX.  N.  T.  and  Vulg.  [Joppel ;  'i Jirij,  Joseph. 
—  at  least  in  the  most  recent  editions  —  Strabo, 
and  others:  now  Yafa  or  JaflTa),  a  town  on  thp 
S.  W.  coast  of  Palestine,  the  port  of  Jerusalem  in 
the  days  of  Solomon,  as  it  has  been  ever  since.* 
Its  etymology  is  variously  explained ;  some  deriving 
it  from  "  Japhet,"  others  from  "  lopa,"  daughter 
of  ^oluis  and  wife  of  Cepheus,  Andromeda's  father, 
its  reputed  founder;  others  interpreting  it  "the 


&  *  The  Ordnance  Survey  (p.  21)  makes  Joppa  a  llttU 
over  39  miles  from  Jerusalem  (OliTet)  by  the  way  oJ 
Timzu  (Gimzo).  H 


k 


1454 


JOPPA 


watch-tower  of  joy,"  or  "beauty,"  and  so  forth 
(Reland,  Pakestim/.,  p.  864).  The  fact  is.  that  from 
its  being  a  sea-port,  it  had  a  profane,  aa  well  as  a 
gacred  history.  PUny  following  Mela  (De  situ  Orb. 
i.  12)  says,  that  it  was  of  ante-diluvian  antiquity 
(Nat.  Hist.  V.  14);  and  even  Sir  John  Maundeville, 
in  the  14th  century,  bears  witness  —  though  it 
must  be  confessed  a  clumsy  one  —  to  that  tradition 
{Early  Travels  in  P.  p.  142).  According  to 
Joscphus,  it  originally  belonged  to  the  Phoenicians 
(Ant.  xiii.  15,  §  4).  Here,  writes  Strabo,  some  say 
Andromeda  was  exposerl  to  the  whale  {Geof/roj)h. 
rvi.  p.  759;  comp.  Midler's  Hist.  Grcec.  Fragvi. 
vol.  iv.  p.  325,  and  his  Geograph.  Grcec.  Min.  vol. 
i.  p.  79),  and  he  appeals  to  its  elevated  position  in 
behalf  of  those  ^^ho  laid  the  scene  there;  though 
In  order  to  do  so  consistently,  he  had  already  shown 
that  it  M'ould  be  necessary  to  transport  ^Ethiopia 
into  Phoenicia  (Strab.  i.  p.  43).  However,  in  Pliny's 
age  —  and  Josephus  had  just  before  affirmed  the 
BAvne  (Bell.  Jud.  iii.  9,  §  3)  —  they  still  showed 
the  chains  by  which  Andromeda  was  bound ;  and 
not  only  so,  but  M.  Scaurus  the  younger,  the  same 
that  was  so  much  employed  in  Judaea  by  Pompey 
{Bell.  Jud.  i.  6,  §  2  ff.),  had  the  bones  of  the 
monster  transported  to  Rome  from  Joppa  —  where 
till  then  they  had  been  exhibited  (Mela,  ibid.)  — 
and  displayed  them  there  during  his  tedileship  to 
the  public  amongst  other  prodigies.  Nor  would 
they  have  been  uninteresting  to  the  modern  geol- 
ogist, if  his  report  be  correct.  For  they  measured 
40  feet  in  length ;  the  span  of  the  ribs  exceeding 
that  of  the  Indian  elephant;  and  the  thickness  of 
the  spine  or  vertebra  being  one  foot  and  a  half 
"  sesquipedalis,"'  i.  e.  in  circumference  —  when 
Solinus  says  "  semipedalis,"  he  means  in  diameter, 
see  Plin.  Nat.  Hist.  ix.  5  and  the  note,  Delphin 
ed.).  Reland  would  trace  the  adventures  of  Jonah 
in  this  legendary  guise  (see  above) ;  but  it  is  far 
more  probable  that  it  syuibolizes  the  first  inter- 
change of  commerce  between  the  Greeks,  personified 
in  their  errant  hero  Perseus,  and  the  Phoenicians, 
whose  lovely  —  but  till  then  unexplored  —  clime 
may  be  weU  shadowed  forth  in  the  fair  virgin 
Andromeda.  Perseus,  in  the  tale,  is  said  to  have 
plunged  his  dagger  into  the  right  shoulder  of  the 
monster.  Possibly  he  may  have  discovered  or  im- 
proved the  harbor,  the  roar  from  whose  foaming 
reefs  on  the  north,  could  scarcely  have  been  sur- 
passed by  the  barkings  of  Scylla  or  Charybdis. 
Even  the  chains  shown  there  may  have  been  those 
by  which  his  ship  was. attached  to  the  shore.  Rings 
used  by  the  Romans  for  mooring  their  vessels  are 
Btill  to  be  seen  near  Terracina  in  the  S.  angle  of 
the  ancient  port  (Murray's  Handbk.  for  S.  lUdy, 
p.  10,  2d  ed.). 

Returning  to  the  province  of  history,  we  find 
that  Japho  or  Joppa  was  situated  in  the  portion  of 
Dan  (Josh.  xix.  40)  on  the  coast  towards  the  south ; 
and  on  a  hill  so  high,  says  Strabo,  that  people 
aflSrmed  (but  incorrectly)  that  Jerusalem  was  visible 
firon:  its  summit.  Having  a  harbor  attached  to 
It  —  though  always,  as  still,  a  dangerous  one  —  it 
became  the  port  of  Jerusalem,  when  Jerusalem 
became  metropolis  of  the  kingdom  of  the  house  of 


a  *  The  statement  here  is  not  strictly  accurate. 
,*aul  starting  from  Antioch  on  his  2d  missionary 
journey  did  not  go  by  sea  (Acts  xv.  39)  but  travelled 
oy  land  through  Syria  and  Cilicia  (ver.  41).  Nor  was 
Tyre  his  "  landing  place  "  on  his  last  journey  to  Jeru- 
Aleiu  (Acts  xxi.  3),  for  though  the  vessel  touched 
there  the  voyage  termioated  (jov  irAoGf  Siayvvayrei)  at 


JOPPA 

David,  and  certainly  never  did  port  and  metropolii 
more  strikingly  resemble  each  other  in  diflScultj 
of  approach  both  by  sea  and  land.  Hence,  except 
in  journeys  to  and  from  Jerusalem,  it  was  not  much 
usetl.  In  St.  Paul's  travels,  for  instance,  the 
starting-points  by  water  are,  Antioch  (Acts  xv.  39, 
via  the  Orontes,  it  is  presumed  —  xviii.  22,  23,  wag 
probably  a  land-journey  throughout) :  Caesarea  (ix. 
30,  and  xxvii.  2),  and  once  Seleucia  (xiii.  4,  namely 
that  at  the  mouth  of  the  Orontes).  Also  once 
Antioch  (xiv.  2G)  and  once  Tyre,  as  a  landing 
place  (xxi.  3).«  And  the  same  preference  for  the 
more  northern  ports  is  observable  in  the  early 
pilgrims,  beginning  with  him  of  Bordeaux. 

But  Joppa  was  the  place  fixed  upon  for  the  cedar 
and  pine-wood,  from  Mount  Lebanon,  to  be  landed 
by  the  servants  of  Hiram  king  of  Tyre ;  thenc  e  to 
be  conveyed  to  Jerusalem  by  the  servants  of  Solo- 
mon —  for  the  erection  of  the  first  "  house  of  habi- 
tation "  ever  made  with  hands  for  the  invisible 
Jehovah.  It  was  by  way  of  Joppa,  similarly,  tliat 
like  materials  were  conveyed  from  the  same  locality, 
by  permission  of  Cyrus,  for  the  rebuilding  of  the 
2d  Temple  under  Zerubbabel  (1  K.  v.  9 ;  2  Chr. 
ii.  16 ;  Ezr.  iii.  7).  Here  Jonah,  M'henever  and 
wherever  he  may  have  lived  (2  K.  xiv.  25  certainly 
does  not  clear  up  the  first  of  these  points),  "  took 
ship  to  flee  from  the  presence  of  his  Maker,"  and 
accomplished  that  singular  history,  which  our  Lord 
has  appropriated  as  a  tyjie  of  one  of  the  principal 
scenes  in  the  great  drama  of  His  own  (Jon.  i.  3; 
]\Iatth.  xii.  40).  Here,  lastly,  on  the  house-top  of 
Simon  the  tanner,  "by  the  sea-side"  —  with  the 
view  therefore  circumscribed  on  the  E.  by  the  high 
ground  on  which  the  town  stood ;  but  conmianding 
a  boundless  prosj^ct  over  the  western  waters  —  St. 
Peter  had  his  "  vision  of  tolerance,"  as  it  has  been 
happily  designated,  and  went  forth  like  a  2d  Per- 
seus —  but  from  the  East— to  emancipate,  from  still 
worse  thraldom,  the  virgin  daughter  of  the  West. 
The  Christian  poet  Arator  has  not  failed  to  dis- 
cover a  mystical  connection  between  the  raising  to 
life  of  the  aged  Tabitha— the  occasion  of  St.  Peter's 
visit  to  Joppa  —  and  the  baptism  of  the  first  Gentile 
household  {De  Act.  AjMst.  I.  840,  ap.  Migne,  Patrol. 
Curs.  Compl.  Ixviii.  164). 

These  are  the  great  Biblical  events  of  which 
Joppa  has  been  the  scene.  In  the  interval  that 
elapsed  between  the  Old  and  New  Dispensations  it 
experienced  many  vicissitudes.  It  had  sided  with 
Apollonius,  and  was  attacked  and  captured  by  Jon- 
athan Maccabfleus  (1  Mace.  x.  76).  It  witnessed 
the  meeting  between  the  latter  and  Ptolemy  {ibid. 
xi.  6).  Simon  had  his  suspicions  of  its  inhabitants, 
and  set  a  gan'ison  there  {ibid.  xii.  34),  which  he 
afterwards  strengthened  considerably  {ibid.  xiii.  11). 
But  when  peace  was  restored,  he  reestablished  it 
once  more  as  a  ha\en  {ibid.  xiv.  5).  He  likewise 
rebuilt  the  fortifications  {ibid.  ver.  34).  Tliis  occu- 
pation of  Joppa  was  one  of  the  grounds  of  com- 
plaint urged  by  Antiochus,  son  of  Demetriui, 
against  Simon ;  but  the  latter  alleged  in  excuse  the 
mischief  which  had  been  done  by  its  inhabitants  to 
his  fellow-citizens  {ibid.  xv.  30  and  35).  It  would 
appear  that  Judas   Maccabaeus   had   burnt   their 


Ptolemais  (ver.  7).  Possibly  also  Paul  disembarked 
at  Seleucia,  not  Antioch  (Acts  xiv.  26),  for  in  sue. 
cases  it  was  very  common  to  speak  of  the  town  and  iti 
harbor  as  one  (comp.  Acts  xx.  6).  The  Orontes,  it  St 
true,  was  navigable  at  that  time  (though  it  ii  n« 
longer  so)  as  far  up  as  Antioch.  H 


JOPPA 

haven  some  time  back  for  a  gross  act  of  barbarity 
(2  Mace.  xii.  G).  Tribute  was  subsequently  exacted 
for  its  possession  from  Hyrcamis  by  Antiochus 
Sidetes.  By  Pompey  it  was  once  more  made  inde- 
pendent, and  comprehended  under  Syria  (Joseph. 
Ant.  xiv.  4,  §  4);  but  by  Caesar  it  was  not  only 
restored  to  the  Jews,  but  its  revenues  —  whether 
from  land  or  from  export-duties  —  were  bestowed 
upon  the  2d  Ilyrcanus,  and  his  heirs  (xiv.  10,  §  6). 
When  Herod  the  Great  commenced  operations,  it 
was  seized  by  him,  lest  he  should  leave  a  hostile 
stronghold  in  his  rear,  when  he  marched  upon 
.lerusalem  (xiv.  15,  §  1),  and  Augustus  confirmed 
him  in  its  possession  (xv.  7,  §  4).  It  was  after- 
wards assigned  to  Archelaus,  when  constituted 
ethnarch  (xvii.  11,  §  4),  and  passed  with  Syria 
under  Cyrenius,  when  Archelaus  had  been  deposed 
(xvii.  12,  §  5).  Under  Cestius  (i.  e.  Gessius  Florus) 
it  was  destroyed  amidst  great  slaughter  of  its  in- 
habitants {Bell.  Juil  ii.  18,  §  10;  and  such  a  nest 
of  pirates  had  it  become,  when  Vespasian  arrived 
in  those  parts,  that  it  underwent  a  second  and 
entire  destruction  —  together  with  the  adjacent  vil- 
lages—  at  his  hands  (iii.  9,  §  3).  Thus  it  appears 
that  this  port  had  already  begun  to  be  the  den  of 
robbers  and  outcasts  which  it  was  in  Strabo's  time 
{Geograph.  xvi.  p.  759);  while  the  district  around 
it  was  so  populous,  that  from  Jamnia,  a  neighbor- 
ing town,  and  its  vicinity,  40,000  armed  men  could 
be  collected  {ibid.).  There  was  a  vast  plain  around 
it,  as  we  learn  from  Josephus  {Ant.  xiii.  4,  §  4);  it 
lay  between  Jamnia  and  Caesarea  —  the  latter  of 
which  might  be  reached  "on  the  morrow"  from 
it  (Acts  X.  9  and  24)  —  not  far  from  Lydda  (Acts 
ix.  38),  and  distant  from  Antipatris  150  stadia 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  15,  §  1). 

When  Joppa  first  became  the  seat  of  a  Christian 
bishop  is  unknown;  but  the  subscriptions  of  its 
prelates  are  preserved  in  the  acts  of  various  synods 
of  the  5th  and  6th  centuries  (I^  Quien,  Oriens 
Chnstian.  iii.  629).  In  the  7th  century  Arculfus 
sailed  from  Joppa  to  Alexandria,  the  \ery  route 
usually  taken  now  by  those  who  visit  Jerusalem ; 
but  he  notices  nothing  at  the  former  place  {Knrly 
Travels  in  P.  by  Wright,  p.  10).  Saewulf,  the 
next  who  set  sail  from  Joppa,  A.  D.  1103,  is  not 
more  explicit  {ibid.  p.  47).  Meanwhile  Joppa  had 
been  taken  possession  of  by  the  forces  of  Godfrey 
de  Bouillon  previously  to  the  capture  of  Jerusalem. 
The  town  had  been  deserted  and  was  allowed  to 
fall  into  ruin:  the  Crusaders  contenting  themselves 
with  possession  of  the  citadel  (William  of  Tyre, 
Hist.  viii.  9);  and  it  was  in  part  assigned  subse- 
quently for  the  support  of  the  Church  of  the  Resur- 
rection {ibid.  ix.  16);  though  there  seem  to  have 
been  bishops  of  Joppa  (perhaps  only  titular  after 
all)  between  A.  D.  1253  and  1363  (I^  Quien,  1291; 
?omp.  p.  1241).  Saladin,  in  A.  r>.  1188,  destroyed 
its  fortifications  (Sanut.  Secret.  Fid.  Crucis,  lib. 
iii.  part  x.  c.  5);  but  Richard  of  England,  who 
was  confined  here  by  sickness,  rebuilt  them  {ibid., 
ind  Richard  of  Devizes  in  Bohn's  Ant.  Lib.  p  61). 
Its  last  occupation  by  Christians  was  that  of  St. 
Louis,  A.  D.  1253,  and  when  he  came,  it  was  still 
i  city  and  govei  ned  by  a  count.  "  Of  the  imn-iense 
lums,"  says  Joinville,  "  which  it  cost  the  king  to 
inolose  Jaffa,  it  does  not  become  me  to  speat ;  for 
they  were  countless.  He  inclosed  the  town  from 
one  side  of  the  sea  to  the  other;  and  there  were  24 
♦•owers,  including  small  and  great.  The  ditches 
irere  well  scoured,  and  kept  clean,  both  within  and 
irithout.     ITiere  were  3  gates"  .  .  .  {Chron.  of 


JORAH 


1455 


Crus.  p.  495,  Bohn).  So  restored  it  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Sultans  of  Egypt,  together  with  th« 
rest  of  Palestine,  by  whom  it  was  once  more  laid 
in  ruins.  So  much  so,  that  Bertrand  de  la  Broc- 
quiere  visiting  it  about  the  middle  of  the  15th  cen- 
tury, states  that  it  then  only  consisted  of  a  few 
tents  covered  with  reeds;  having  been  a  strong 
place  under  the  Christians.  Guides,  accredited  by 
the  Sultan,  here  met  the  pilgrims  and  received  the. 
customary  tribute  from  them ;  and  here  the  papal 
indulgences  offered  to  pilgrims  commenced  {Early 
Travels,  p.  286).  Finally,  Jaffa  fell  under  the 
Turks,  in  whose  hands  it  still  is,  exhibiting  the 
usual  decrepitude  of  the  cities  possessed  by  tlietn, 
and  depending  on  Christian  commerce  for  its  feeble 
existence.  During  the  period  of  their  rule  it  ha* 
been  three  times  sacked  —  by  the  Arabs  in  1722; 
by  the  Mamelukes  in  1775;  and  lastly,  by  Na- 
poleon I.  in  1799,  upon  the  glories  of  whose  early 
career  "  the  massacre  of  Jaffa"  leaves  a  stain  that 
can  never  be  washed  out  (v.  IMoroni,  Dizion.  Eccl 
s.  v.;  Porter,  Handbk.  pp.  238,  239). 

The  existing  town  contains  in  round  numbers 
about  4,000  inhabitants,  and  has  three  convents, 
Greek,  Latin,  and  Armenian;  and  as  many,  or 
more  mosques.  Its  bazaars  are  worth  a  visit ;  yet 
few  places  could  exhibit  a  harbor  or  landing  more 
miserable.  Its  chief  manufacture  is  soap.  The 
house  of  Simon  the  tanner  of  course  purports  to  be 
shown  still :  nor  is  its  locality  badly  chosen  (Stanley, 
S.  4'  p.  263,  274 ;  and  see  Seddon's  Memoir,  86, 
87,  185). 

The  oranges  of  Jaffa  are  the  finest  in  all  Pales- 
tine and  Syria :  its  promegranates  and  water-melons 
are  likewise  in  high  repute,  and  its  gardens  and 
orange  and  citron-groves  deliciously  fragrant  and 
fertile.  But  among  its  population  are  fugitives 
and  vagabonds  from  all  countries;  and  Europeans 
have  little  security,  whether  of  life  or  property,  to 
induce  a  permanent  abode  there.  E.  S.  Ff. 

JOP'PE  ('I^TTTTTjl  [Alex.  2  Mace.  iv.  21, 
iTPTrrjO  Joppe;  [in  2  Mace.  xii.  3,  7, 'loTrTrrrat: 
Joppifce] ),  1  Esdr.  v.  55 ;  1  Mace.  x.  75,  76,  xi.  6, 
xii.  33,  xiii.  11,  xiv.  5,  34,  xv.  28,  35 ;  2  Mace.  iv. 
21,  xii.  3,  7.     [Joppa.] 

JO'RAH  (nnV  [born  in  autumn,  Fiirst;  = 

rrn*^^,  early  rain,  Ges.] :  'Iw/jtf;  [Vat.  OypaO 
Jora),  the  ancestor  of  a  family  of  112  who  returned 
from  Babylon  with  Ezra  (Ezr.  ii.  18).  In  Neh. 
vii.  24  he  appears  under  the  name  IIariph,«  or  moro 
correctly  the  same  family  are  represented  as  the 
Bene-Hariph,  the  variation  of  name  originating 
probably  in  a  very  slight  confusion  of  the  letters 
which  compose  it.    In  Ezr.  two  of  De  Rossi's  MSS., 

and  originally  one  of  Kennicotts,  had  HTV,  i.  e 
Jodah,  which  is  the  reading  of  the  Syr.  and  Arab, 
versions.    One  of  Kennicott's  MSS.  had  the  original 

reading  in  Ezr.  altered  to  D^T,  i.  e.  Joram ;  and 

two  in  Neh.  read  D'^in,  i.  e.  Harim,  which  cor- 
responds with  ^Apet/j.  of  the  Alex.  jMS.,  and  Hurom 
of  the  Syriac.  In  any  case  the  change  or  confusion 
of  letters  which  mignt  have  caused  the  variation 
of  the  name  is  so  slight,  that  it  is  difficult  to  pro- 
nounce which  is  the  true  form,  the  corruption  of 
Jorah  into  Hariph  oeing  as  easily  conceivable  aa 
the  reverse.     Burrington  {Geneal.  ii.  75)  decide* 


o  *  Possibly  Jorah  and  Hariph  are  interchanged 
as  equivalent  in  sense  (see  note  a,  ii.  1003).  H 


1456 


JORAI 


'J^  favor  of  the  latter,  but  from  a  comparison  of  both 
passages  with  Ezr.  x.  31  we  should  be  inclined  to 

regard  Harim  (D*"in)  as  the  true  reading  in  all 
cases.  But  on  any  supposition  it  is  difficult  to 
account  for  the  form  Azephurith,  or  more  properly 
Ap(n<f>ovpi6,  in  1  Esdr.  v.  16,  which  Burrington 
considers  as  having  originated  in  a  corruption  of 
the  two  readings  in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  the  second 
syllable  arising  from  an  eri'or  of  the  transcriber  in 
mistaking  the  uncial  E  for  2.  "\V.  A.  W. 

JCBAI  [2  syl.]  OnV  Itaught  by  Jefiovah, 
Ges.]:  'Iwpec;  Alex.  Icopes;  [Comp.  'Iwpe?;  Aid. 
*l(i}pti-]  J  oral).  One  of  the  Gadites  dwelling  in 
Gilead  in  Bashan,  whose  genealogies  were  recorded 
In  the  reign  of  Jotham  king  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  v. 
13).     Four  of  Kennicott's  MSS.,  and  the  printed 

copy  used  by  Luther,  read  "^1V,  i.  e.  Jodai. 

JO'RAM  (D7"'^^^  and  D^V,  apparently  in- 
lliscriminately : 'lojpdJ/t:  Joram)-  1.  SonofAhab; 
ting  of  Israel  (2  K.  viii.  16,  25,  28,  29;  ix.  14,  17, 
21-23,  29).     [.Jehoram,  1.] 

2.  Son  of  Jehoshaphat;  king  of  Judah  (2  K. 
riii.  21,  23,  24:  1  Chr.  iii.  11;  2  Chr.  xxii.  5,  7. 
Matt.  i.  8).     [Jetioram,  2.] 

3.  [Vat.  Iwpai/:  Joi'nn.']  A  priest  [Jeitoram 
in  A.  v.]  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  one  of  those 
employed  by  him  to  teach  the  law  of  Moses  through 
the  cities  of  Judah  (2  Chr.  xvii.  8). 

4.  (D"^^.)  A  Levite,  ancestor  of  Shdomith  in 
the  time  of  David  (1  Chr.  xxvi.  25). 

5.  ('Ie55oyp({/i;  [Vat.]  Alex.  leSSoupai/.)  Son 
of  Toi,  king  of  Hamath,  sent  by  his  father  to  con- 
gratulate David  on  his  victories  over  Hadadezer 
(2  Sam.  viii.  10).      [IlAnORAM.] 

6.  1  Esdr.  i.  9.  [Vulg.  CVnAa?]  [Jozabad, 
3.]  A.  C.  H. 

JOROJAN  {\TT.,  ».  c.  Yarden,  always  with 

the  definite  article  ]'^l!irT,  except  Ps.  xlii.  G  and 

Job  xl.  23,  from  "T"!?^?  Jnrad,  "to  descend:" 
'lopddpTjs  '  Jordanes :  now  called  by  the  Arabs 
esh-Sherinh,  or  "  the  watering-place,"  with  the 
addition  of  el-Kebi>\  "  the  great,"  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  S/ieriat  el-Mandhur,  the  Hieromax),  a 
river  that  has  never  been  navigable  (see  below), 
flowing  into  a  sea  that  has  never  known  a  port  — 
has  never  been  a  high  road  to  more  hospitable 
coasts  —  has  never  possessed  a  fishery  —  a  river 
that  has  never  boasted  of  a  single  town  of  eniinence 
ui)on  its  banks.  It  winds  through  scenery  remark- 
able rather  for  sameness  and  tameness  than  for 
bold  outline.  Its  course  is  not  much  above  200 
miles  from  first  to  last,  less  than  l-15th  of  that  of 
the  Nile  —  from  the  roots  of  Anti-Lebanon,  where 
it  bursts  forth  from  its  various  sources  in  all  its 
ptirity,  to  the  head  of  the  Dead  Sea,  where  it  loses 
itself  and  its  tributaries  in  the  unfathomable  brine. 
Such  is  the  river  of  the  "  great  plain  "  of  Palestine 
—  the  "  Descender  "  —  if  not  "  the  river  of  God  " 
\n  the  book  of  Psalms,  at  least  that  of  His  chosen 
^ple  throughout  their  history. 

As  Joppa  could  never  be  made  easy  of  access  or 
commodious  for  traffic  as  a  commercial  city,  so 
neither  could  Jordan  ever  vie  with  the  Thames  or 
the  Tiber  as  a  river  of  the  world,  nor  with  the 
rivers  of  Naaman's  preference,  the  Pharpar  and 
Abana,  for  the  natural  beauty  of  its  banks.  These 
iMt  could  boast  of  the  same  superiority,  in  re8p«>ct 


JORDAN 

of  the  picturesque,  over  the  Jordan,  that  Gerizin. 
and  Samaria  could  over  Zion  and  Jerusalem. 

We  propose  to  inquire,  (i.)  what  is  said  about 
the  Jordan  in  Holy  Scripture;  (ii.)  the  account* 
given  of  it  by  Jos€phu.<>  and  others  of  the  same  date* 
(iii.)  the  statements  respecting  it  by  later  writen 
and  travellei-s. 

1.  There  is  no  regular  description  of  the  Jordan 
to  be  met  with  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  it  is  only 
by  putting  scattered  notices  of  it  together  that  we 
can  give  the  general  idea  which  runs  through  the 
Bible  respecting  it. 

And  1,  the  earliest  allusion  is  not  so  much  to 
the  river  itself  as  to  the  plain  or  plains  which  it 
traversed :  "  Lot  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  beheld  aJ 
the  plain  of  Jordan,  that  it  was  well  watered  every- 
where .  .  .  even  as  the  garden  of  the  Lord,  like 
the  land  of  Egj'pt "  (Gen.  xiii.  10).  Abram  had 
just  left  Egypt  (xii.  10-20),  and  therefore  the  com- 
parison between  the  fertilizing  properties  of  the 
Jordan  and  of  the  Nile  is  very  apposite,  though  it 
has  since  been  pushed  much  too  far,  as  we  shall  see. 
We  may  suppose  Lot  to  have  had  his  view  from 
one  of  the  summits  of  those  hills  that  run  north 
in  the  direction  of  Scythopolis  {B.  J.  iv.  7,  §  2), 
bounding  the  plains  of  Jordan  on  the  W. ;  for  Lot 
and  Abram  were  now  sojourning  between  Bethel 
and  Ai  (Gen.  xiii.  3).  How  far  the  plain  extended 
in  length  or  breadth  is  not  said:  other  passages 
si)eak  of  "Jordan  and  his  border"  (Josh.  xiii.  27), 
"the  borders  of  Jordan"  (xxii.  11),  and  "the 
plains  of  Jericho"  (iv.  13;  comp.  2  K.  xxv.  5); 
all  evidently  subdivisions  of  the  same  idea,  com- 
prehending the  cast  bank  equally  with  the  west 
(Josh.  xiii.  27). 

2.  AVe  must  anticipate  events  slightly  to  be  able 
to  speak  of  the  fords  or  passages  of  the  Jordan. 
Jordan  is  inexhaustible  in  the  book  of  Job  (xl.  23), 
and  deep  enough  to  prove  a  formidable  passage  for 
belligerents  (1  Mace.  ix.  48);  yet,  as  in  all  rivers 
of  the  same  magnitude,  there  were  shallows  where 
it  could  be  forded  on  foot.  There  were  fords  over 
against  Jericho,  to  which  point  the  men  of  Jericho 
pursued  the  spies  (Josh.  ii.  7),  the  same  probably 
that  are  said  to  be  "  toward  Moab  "  in  the  book  of 
Judges,  where  the  Moabites  were  slaughtered  (iii. 
28).  Higher  up,  perhaps  over  against  Succoth, 
some  way  above  where  the  little  river  Jabbok 
(Zerka)  enters  the  Jordan,  were  the  fords  or  pas- 
sages of  Bethbarah  (probably  the  Bethabara,  "  house 
of  passage,"  of  the  Gospel,  though  most  modems 
would  read  "  Bethany,"  fee  Stanley,  <S.  cf  P.  p. 
308,  note,  2d  ed.),  where  Gideon  lay  in  wait  for  the 
Midianites  (Judg.  vii.  24),  and  where  the  men  of 
Gilead  slew  the  Ephraimites  (xii.  6).  Not  far  oflT, 
in  "the  clay  ground  between  Succoth  and  Zar- 
than,"  were  the  brass  foundries  of  king  Solomon 
(1  K.  vii.  46).  These  fords  imdoubtedly  witnessed 
the  first  recorded  passage  of  the  Jordan  in  the  O. 
T. :  we  say  recorded,  because  there  can  be  little 
dispute  but  that  Abraham  must  have  crossed  it 
likewise.  But  only  the  passage  of  Jacob  is  men- 
tioned, and  that  in  remarkable  language:  "With 
my  staff  I  passed  over  this  Jordan,  and  now  I  am 
l>ecome  two  bands  "  (Gen.  xxxii.  10,  and  Jabliok 
in  connection  with  it,  ver.  22).  And  Jordan  waa 
next  crossed  —  over  against  Jericho  —  by  Joshua 
the  son  of  Nun,  at  the  head  of  the  descendants  of 
the  twelve  sons  of  him  who  signalized  the  first  pas- 
sage. The  magnitude  of  their  operations  may  U 
inferred  from  the  fact,  that— of  the  children  of  Keu- 
ben  and  of  Gad,  and  half  the  tribe  of  Manasseb 


i 


I 


JORDAN 

only  —  "  about  40,000  prepared  for  war  passed  over 
before  the  Lord  unto  battle."  .  .  .  (Josh.  iv.  12 
wid  13.) 

The  ceremonial  of  this  second  crossing  is  too 
well  known  to  need  recapitulation.  It  may  be  ob- 
•erved,  however,  that,  unlike  the  passage  of  the 
Red  Sea,  where  the  intermediate  agency  of  a  strong 
east  wind  is  freely  aJmitted  (Ex.  xiv.  21),  it  is 
here  said,  in  terms  equally  explicit,  not  only  that 
the  river  was  then  unusually  full  of  water,  but  that 
''  the  waters  which  came  down  from  above  stood 
and  rose  up  upon  an  heap  .  .  .  while  those  that 
«}ame  down  toward  the  sea  of  the  plain  .  .  .  failed 
and  were  cut  off,"  as  soon  as  ever  "  the  feet  of  the 
priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dipped  in  the  brim 
of  the  water"  (Josh.  iii.  15,  16).  That  it  hap- 
pened in  harvest-time  is  seen  also  from  ch.  v.  10- 
12.  Finally,  with  regard  to  the  memorial  of  the 
twelve  stones,  such  had  been  the  altar  erected  by 
Moses  "under  the  hill"  (Ex.  xxiv.  4);  such,  prob- 
ably, the  altar  erected  by  Joshua  upon  Mount  Ebal, 
thongh  the  number  of  stones  is  not  defined  (Josh, 
viii.  31) ;  and  such,  long  afterwards,  the  altar  erected 
by  Elijah  (1  K.  xviii.  31).  Whether  these  twelve 
stones  were  deposited  in,  or  on  the  banks  of.  tlie 
Jordan,  or  whether  there  were  two  sets,  one  for  each 
locaUty,  has  been  disputed.  Josephus  only  recog- 
nizes a  single  construction  —  that  of  an  altar  —  in 
either  case;  and  this  was  built,  according  to  him, 
n  the  present  instance,  50  stadia  from  tlie  river, 
and  10  stadia  from  Jericho,  where  the  people  en- 
camped, with  the  stones  which  the  heads  of  their 
tribes  had  brought  from  out  of  the  bed  of  the  Jor- 
dan. It  may  be  added  that  Josephus  seems  loth 
to  admit  a  miracle,  both  in  the  passage  of  the  Jor- 
dan and  that  of  the  Red  Sea  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  4,  ii. 
16,  §  5).  From  their  vicinity  to  Jerusalem  these 
lower  fords  were  much  used ;  David,  it  is  probable, 
passed  over  them  in  one  instance  to  fight  the  Syr- 
ians (2  Sam.  X.  17);  and  subsequently,  when  a 
fugitive  himself,  in  his  way  to  Mahanaim  (xvii.  22), 
on  the  east  bank.  Hither  Judah  came  to  recon- 
duct the  king  home  (2  Sam.  xix.  15),  and  on  this 
one  occasion  a  ferry-boat  —  if  the  Hebrew  word 
has  been  rightly  rendered  —  is  said  to  have  been 
employed  (ver.  18).  Somewhere  in  these  parts 
Elijah  muct  have  smitten  the  waters  with  his  man- 
tle, "so  that  they  divided  hither  and  thither"  (2 
K.  ii.  8),  for  he  had  just  left  Jericho  (ver.  4),  and 
by  the  same  route  that  he  went  did  Elisha  proba- 
bly return  (ver.  14).  Naaman,  on  the  other  hand, 
may  be  supposed  to  have  performed  his  ablutions 
in  the  upper  fords,  for  Elisha  was  then  in  Samaria 
(v.  3),  and  it  was  by  these  fords  doubtless  that  the 
Syrians  fled  when  miraculously  discomfited  through 
his  instrumentality  (vii.  15).  Finally,  it  was  prob- 
ablv  by  these  upper  fords  that  Judas  and  his  fol- 
lowers went  over  into  the  great  plain  before  Beth- 
sun  —  not  that  they  crossed  over  against  Bethsan 
(.Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  8,  §  5),  when  they  were  retracing 
their  steps  from  the  land  of  Galaad  to  Jerusalem 
(1  Mace.  v.  52). 

Thus  there  were  two  customary  places,  at  which 
the  Jordan  was  fordable,  though  there  may  have 
been  more,  particularly  during  the  summer,  which 
are  not  mentioned.  And  It  must  have  been  at  one 
»f  these,  if  not  at  both,  tliat  Itaptism  was  after- 
wards administered  by  St.  Juliu  and  by  the  disci- 
ples of  our  Lord.  The  plain  inference  from  the 
Gospels  would  appear  to  be  that  these  baptisms 
were  administered  in  more  places  than  one.  There 
vas  one  place  where  St.  John  baptized  in  the  first 
92 


JORDAN 


1457 


instance  (rh  irpwroy,  John  x.  40),  though  it  is  not 
named.  There  was  Bethabara  —  probably  the  up- 
per fords  —  where  the  Baptist,  having  previously 
baptized  our  Lord  —  whether  there  or  elsewhere  — 
bears  record  to  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
Him  which  ensued  (i.  29-34).  There  was  Mnon, 
near  to  Salim,  to  the  north,  where  St.  John  was 
baptizing  upon  another  occasion,  "because  there 
was  much  water  there  "  (iii.  23).  [^Enon.]  This 
was  during  the  summer  evidently  (comp.  ii.  13-23), 
that  is,  long  after  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  and  the 
river  had  become  low,  so  that  it  was  necessary  to 
resort  to  some  place  where  the  water  was  deeper 
than  at  the  ordinary  fords.  There  was  some  place 
"  in  the  land  of  Judona  "  where  our  Lord,  or  raUicr 
his  disciples,  baptized  about  the  same  time  (iii.  22). 
And  lastly,  there  was  the  place  —  most  probably 
the  lower  ford  near  Jericho  —  where  all  "  Jerusalem 
and  Judoea"  went  out  to  be  baptized  of  John  in 
the  Jordan  (Matt.  ill.  5;  Mark  i.  5). 

Where  our  Lord  was  baptized  is  not  stated  ex- 
pressly. What  is  stated  is,  (1)  that  as  St.  John 
was  a  native  of  some  "  city  in  the  hill-country  of 
Judaea"  (Luke  i.  39),  so  his  preaching,  commen- 
cing "in  the  wilderness  of  Judoea"  (Matt.  iii.  1), 
embraced  "  all  the  country  about  Jordan  "  (Luke 
iii.  3),  and  drew  persons  from  Galilee,  as  far  off  as 
Nazareth  (Mark  i.  9)  and  Bethsaida  (John  i.  35, 
40,  44),  as  well  as  from  Jerusalem;  (2)  that  the 
baptism  of  the  multitude  from  Jerusalem  and  Ju- 
daea preceded  that  of  our  Lord  (Matt.  ill.  6,  13; 
Mark  i.  5,  9);  (3)  that  our  Lord's  baptism  was 
also  distinct  from  that  of  the  said  multitude  (Luke 
iii.  21);  and  (4)  that  He  came  from  Nazareth  in 
Galilee,  and  not  from  Jerusalem  or  Judaea,  to  be 
baptized.  The  inference  from  all  which  would 
seem  to  be,  (1)  that  the  first  (rb  Trpwrov)  baptisms 
of  St.  John  took  place  at  the  lower  ford  near  Jeri- 
cho, to  which  not  only  he  himself,  a  native  of  Ju- 
daea, but  all  Jerusalem  and  Judaja  likewise,  would 
naturally  resort  as  being  the  nearest;  where  simi- 
larly our  Lord  would  naturally  take  refuge  when 
driven  out  from  Jerusalem,  and  from  whence  He 
would  be  within  reach  of  tidings  from  Bethany, 
the  scene  of  his  next  miracle  (John  x.  39,  40,  xi. 
1);  (2)  that  his  second  baptisms  were  at  the  upper 
ford,  or  Bethabara,  whither  he  had  arrived  in  the 
course  of  his  preachings,  and  were  designed  for  the 
inhabitants  of  the  more  northern  parts  of  the  Holy 
Land,  among  whom  were  Jesus  and  Andrew,  both 
from  Galilee;  (3)  that  Iiis  third  .and  last  baptisms 
were  in  the  neighborhood  of  JEnon  and  Salim, 
still  further  to  the  north,  where  there  was  not  gen- 
erally so  much  of  a  ford,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
where  the  water  was  still  sufficiently  deep,  notwith- 
standing the  advanced  season.  Thus  St.  John 
would  seem  to  have  moved  upwards  gradually  to- 
wards GaUlee,  the  seat  of  Herod's  jurisdiction,  by 
whom  he  M'as  destined  to  be  apprehended  and  exe- 
cuted: while  our  Lord,  coming  from  GaUlee,  prob- 
ably by  way  of  Samaria,  as  in  the  converse  case 
(John  iv.  3,  4),  would  seem  to  have  met  him  half 
way,  and  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  ford  nearest 
to  that  locality  —  a  ford  which  had  been  the  scene 
of  the  first  recorded  crossing.  The  tradition  which 
asserts  Christ  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  ford 
near  Jericho,  has  been  obliged  to  invent  a  Betha- 
bara near  that  spot,  of  which  no  trace  exists  in 
history,  to  appear  consistent  with  Scriptiu-e  (Origen, 
q-toted  by  Alford  on  John  i.  28). 

3.  These  fords  —  and  more  light  will  be  thrown 
upr>a  their  exact  site  presently  —  were  rendered  so 


1468 


JORDAN 


much  the  more  precious  in  those  days  from  two 
circumstances.  First,  it  does  not  appear  that  there 
wen  then  any  bridges  tlirown  over,  or  boats  regu- 
larly establislied  an,  the  Jordan,  for  the  purpose  of 
transporting  either  pedestrians  or  merchandise 
from  one  bank  to  the  other.  One  case,  perhaps, 
of  eitlier  bridge  or  boat  is  upon  record;  but  it 
would  seem  to  lia\e  been  got  up  expressly  for  the 
occasion  (2  Sam.  xix.  18).«  Neither  the  LXX. 
nor  Vulg.  contain  a  word  about  a  "boat,"  and 
Josephus  says  expressly  that  it  was  a  "  bridge  " 
that  was  then  extemporized  (Ant.  vii.  2  [11],  §  2). 
And  secondly,  because,  in  the  language  of  the  au- 
thor of  the  book  of  Joshua  (iii.  15),  "Jordan 
overflowed  all  his  banks  all  the  time  of  harvest:  " 
a  "swelling"  which,  according  to  the  1st  book  of 
Chronicles  (xii.  15),  commenced  "in  the  first 
month  "  (i.  e.  about  the  latter  end  of  our  March), 
drove  the  lion  from  his  lair  in  the  days  of  Jere- 
miah (xii.  5,  xlix.  19,  1.  44),  and  had  become  a 
proverb  for  abundance  in  the  days  of  Jesus  the  son 
of  Sirach  (Ecclus.  xxiv.  2G).  The  context  of  the 
first  of  these  passages  may  suflnce  to  determine  the 
extent  of  this  exuberance.  The  meaning  is  clearly 
that  the  channel  or  bed  of  the  river  became  brim- 
full,  so  that  the  level  of  the  water  and  of  the  banks 
was  then  the  same.  Dr.  Robinson  seems  therefore 
to  have  good  reason  for  saying  that  the  ancient  rise 
of  the  river  has  been  greatly  exaggerated  (i.  540, 
2d  ed.),  so  much  so  as  to  have  been  compared  to 
that  of  the  Nile  (Keland,  PnlcesL  xl.  111).  Evi- 
dently too  there  is  nothing  extraordinary  whatever 
in  this  occurrence.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be 
more  extraordinary  were  it  otherwise.  All  rivers 
that  are  fed  by  melting  snows  are  fuller  between 
March  and  September  than  between  Septenrber 
and  March ;  but  the  exact  time  of  their  increase 
varies  with  the  time  when  the  snows  melt.  The 
Po  and  Adige  are  equally  full  during  their  harvest- 
time  with  the  Jordan ;  but  the  sriuws  on  Lebanon 
melt  earlier  than  on  the  Alps,  and  harvest  begins 
later  in  Italy  than  in  the  Holy  Land.  "  The 
heavy  rains  of  November  and  December,"  as  Dr. 
Kobinson  justly  remarks,  "  find  the  earth  in  a 
parched  and  thirsty  state,  and  are  consequently 
absorbed  into  the  soil  as  they  fall.  The  melting 
of  the  snows,  on  the  other  hand,  on  the  mountains 
can  only  affect  the  rivers.  Possibly  '  the  basins  of 
Hilleh  and  Tiberias  '  may  so  far  act  as  '  regulators  ' 
upon  the  Jordan  as  to  delay  its  swelling  till  they 
have  been  replenished.  On  the  other  hand,  the  snows 
on  Lebanon  are  certainly  melting  fast  in  April. 

4.  The  last  feature  which  remains  to  be  noticed 
in  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  Jordan  is  its  fre- 
quent mention  as  a  boundary:  "over  Jordan," 
"  this,"  and  "  the  other  side,"  or  "  beyond  Jordan," 
were  expressions  as  familiar  to  the  Israelites  as 
"  across  th«  water,"  "  this,"  and  "  the  other  side 
of  the  Channel,"  are  to  English  ears.  In  one  sense 
indeed,  that  is,  in  so  far  as  it  was  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  it  was  the  eastern 
boundary  of  the  promised  land  (Num.  xxxiv.  12). 
In  reality,  it  was  the  long  serpentine  vine,  trailing 
over  the  ground  from  N.  to  S.,  round  which  the 


a  *  The  A.  V.  has  in  that  passage  "  ferry-boat '' ; 
with  the  article  in  Ilebrew,  probably  denoting  the  one 
provided  for  David,  and  not   the  one  in  use  at  that 

station.  This  is  the  proper  sense  of  rTH^l?,  and 
§>«&erally  accejted.  (See  Thenius,  Biicker  Samiids,  p. 
816.)  Tristram  says  there  is  but  one  single  ferry-boat 
■wn  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee  at  the  present  time  (.Land 


JORDAN 

whole  family  of  the  twelve  tribew  Wtjre  clustered 
Four  fifths  of  their  number  —  nine  tribes  and  a 
half — dwelt  on  the  W.  of  it,  and  one  fifth,  or  twc 
tribes  and  a  half,  on  the  E.  of  it,  with  the  Levite* 
in  their  cities  equally  distributed  amongst  both, 
and  it  was  theirs  from  its  then  reputed  fountain- 
head  to  its  exit  into  the  Dead  Sea.  Those  who 
Uved  on  the  E.  of  it  had  been  allowed  to  do  so  on 
condition  of  assisting  their  brethren  in  their  con- 
quests on  the  \V.  (Num.  xxxii.  20-33);  and  those 
who  hved  on  the  W.  "  went  out  with  one  consent " 
when  their  countrymen  on  the  E.  were  threatened 
(1  Sam.  xi.  6-11).  The  great  altar  built  by  the 
children  of  Keuben,  of  Gad,  and  the  half-tribe  of 
Manasseh,.  on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  was  designed 
as  a  witness  of  this  intercommunion  and  mutual 
interest  (Josh.  xxii.  10-29).  In  fact,  unequal  as 
the  two  sections  were,  they  were  nevertheless  re- 
garded as  integral  parts  of  the  whole  land;  and 
thus  there  were  three  cities  of  refuge  for  the  man- 
slayer  appointed  on  the  E.  of  the  Jordan ;  and  there 
were  three  cities,  and  no  more,  on  the  W.  —  in  both 
cases  moreover  equi-distant  one  from  the  other 
(Num.  XXXV.  9-15;  Josh.  xx.  7-9;  Lewis,  Heb. 
Republ.  ii.  13).  When  these  territorial  divisions 
had  been  broken  up  in  the  captivities  of  Israel  and 
Judah,  some  of  the  "  coasts  beyond  Jordan  "  seem 
to  have  been  retained  under  Judaea.     [Jud^a.] 

II.  As  the  passage  which  is  supposed  to  speak 
of  "the  fountain  of  Daphne"  (Num.  xxxiv.  11, 
and  Patrick  ad  I.,  see  below)  is  by  no  means  clear, 
we  cannot  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture  for  any  infor- 
mation respecting  the  sources  of  the  Jordan.  What 
Josephus  and  otliers  say  about  the  Jordan  may  be 
briefly  told.  Panium,  says  Josephus  {i.  e.  the 
sanctuary  of  Pan),  appears  to  be  the  source  of  the 
Jordan ;  whereas  it  has  a  secret  passage  hither  un- 
der ground  from  Phiala,  as  it  is  called,  about  120 
stadia  distant  from  Caesarea,  on  the  road  to  Tra- 
chonitis,  and  on  the  right  hand  side  of,  and  not  far 
from  the  road.  Being  a  wheel-shai)cd  pool,  it  is 
rightly  called  Phiala  from  its  rotundity  (rrepi^e- 
peias)]  yet  the  water  always  remains  there  up  to 
the  brim,  neither  subsiding  nor  overflowing.  That 
this  is  the  true  source  of  the  Jordan  was  first  dis- 
covered by  Philip,  tetrarch  of  Trachonitis  —  for  by 
his  orders  chaff  was  cast  into  the  water  at  Phiala, 
and  it  was  taken  up  at  Panium.  Panium  was 
always  a  lovely  spot;  but  the  embellishments  of 
Agrippa,  which  were  sumptuous,  added  greatly  to 
its  natural  charms  (from  Bell.  Jud.  i.  21,  §  3;  and 
Ant.  XV.  10,  §  3,  it  appears  that  the  temple  there 
was  due  to  Herod  the  (Jreat).  It  is  from  this  cave 
at  all  events  that  the  Jordan  commences  his  osten- 
sible course  above  ground ;  traversing  the  marshes 
and  fens  of  Semechonitis  (L.  Merom  or  Iluleh),  and 
then,  after  a  course  of  120  stadia,  passing  by  the 
town  Julias,  and  intersecting  the  Lake  of  Gennesa- 
ret,  winds  its  way  through  a  considerable  wilder- 
ness, till  it  finds  its  exit  in  the  I^ke  Asphaltites  {B. 
J.  iii.  10,  §  7).  Elsewhere  he  somewliat  modifies 
his  assertion  respecting  the  nature  of  the  great  plain 
[Jericho]  ;  while  on  the  physical  beauties  of 
Gennesaret,  the  palms  and  figs,  olives  and  grapes, 


of  Israel,  p.  30,  2d  ed.)-  Some  explorers,  as  Costigan, 
Molyneaux,  and  Lynch,  have  launched  boats  on  the 
Jordan,  and  with  difficulty  have  made  their  way  to  th« 
Dead  Sea  ;  but  for  ordinary  uses  boating  was  and  stiL 
is  impracticable  on  account  of  the  many  violent  rapidf 
in  the  river,  and  to  fome  extent  unnecessary  OD  •» 
count  of  the  fords.  U» 


JORDAN 

bat  flourished  round  it,  and  the  fish  for  which 
is  waters  were  far-famed,  he  is  still  more  elo- 
quent {B.  J.  iii.  10,  §  8).  In  the  first  chapter 
3f  the  next  book  (iv.  1,  §  1)  he  notices  more  foun- 
taiRS  at  a  place  called  Daplme  (still  Difneh,  see 
Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  vol.  iii.  p.  393,  note),  immediately 
under  the  temple  of  the  golden  calf,  which  he  calls 
the  sources  of  the  little,  and  its  communication 
with  the  great,  Jordan  (comp.  Ant.  i.  10,  §  1,  v. 
3,  §  1,  and  viii.  8,  §  4).  While  Josephus  dilates 
upon  its  sources,  Pausanias,  who  had  visited  the 
Jordan,  dilates  upon  its  extraordinary  disappear- 
ance. He  cannot  get  over  its  losing  itself  in  the 
Dead  Sea,  and  compares  it  to  the  submarine  course 
of  the  Alpheus  from  Greece  to  Sicily  (lib.  v.  7,  4, 
ed.  Dindorf. ).  Pliny  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  the 
Jordan  instinctively  shrinks  from  entering  that 
dread  lake  by  which  it  is  swallowed  up.  On  the 
other  hand  Pliny  attributes  its  rise  to  the  fountain 
of  Paneas,  fi'om  which,  he  adds,  Coesarea  was  sur- 
named  {TI.  N.  v.  15).  Lastly,  Strabo  speaks  of 
the  aromatic  reeds  and  rushes,  and  even  balsam, 
that  grew  on  the  shores  and  marshes  round  Gennes- 
aret ;  but  can  he  be  believed  when  he  asserts  that 
the  Aradians  and  others  were  in  the  habit  of  sail- 
ting  up  Jordan  with  car  go  ^  (xvi.  2,  IG.)  It  will 
be  remembered  that  he  wrote  during  the  first  days 
of  the  empire,  when  there  were  boats  in  abundance 
upon  Gennesaret  (John  vi.  22-24). 

III.  Among  the  latest  travellers  who  have  ex- 
plored and  afterwards  written  upon  the  course  or 
sources  of  the  Jordan,  are  Messrs.  Irby  and  Mangles 
{Journal  of  Trav.),  Dr.  Robinson,  Lieut.  Lynch 
and  party  {Narrat.  and  Off'.  Rep. ),  Capt.  Newbold 
{Journal  of  R.  Asiat.  S.,  vol.  xvi.  p.  8  fF.),  Rev. 
W.  Thomson  (Bibl.  Sac,  vol.  iii.  p.  184  fF.),  and 
Professor  Stanley.  While  making  our  best  ac- 
knowledgments to  these  writers  for  what  is  con- 
tained in  the  following  summary,  we  shall  take  the 
liberty  of  oflTering  one  or  two  criticisms  where  per- 
sonal inspection  constrains  our  denmrring  to  their 
conclusions.  According  to  the  older  commentators 
"  Dan  "  was  a  stream  that  rose  in  a  fountain  called 
Phiala,  in  the  district  called  Panium,  and  among 
the  roots  of  Lebanon ;  then  after  a  subterraneous 
course,  reappeared  near  the  town  called  Paneas, 
Dan,  or  Caesarea  Philippi,  where  it  was  joined  by  a 
small  stream  called  "  Jor;  "  and  henceforth  united 
both  names  in  one  —  Jordan  {Coi'u.  a  Lap.  in 
Deut.  xxxiii.  22).     But  it  has  been  well  observed 

that  the  Hebrew  word  "J^"l^,  Jarden,  has  no  rela- 
tion whatever  to  the  name  Dan ;  and  also  that  the 
river  had  borne  that  name  from  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham, and  from  the  days  of  Job,  at  least  five  cen- 
turies before  the  name  of  Dan  was  given  to  the 
city  at  its  source  (Robinson,  iii.  412).  It  should 
be  added  that  the  number  of  streams  meeting  at  or 
about  Banias  very  far  exceeds  two. 

This  is  one  of  the  points  on  which  we  are  com- 
[lelled  to  dissent  from  one  and  all  of  the  foregoing 
travellers  —  not  one  of  them  dwells  upon  the  phe- 
nomenon that  from  the  village  of  Ilashbeiya  on  the 
N".  W.  to  the  village  of  s'hib'a  on  the  N.  E.  of 
Bdnids,  the  entire  slope  of  Anti-  Lebanon  is  alive 
with  bursting  fountains  and  gushing  streams, 
every  one  of  which,  great  or  small,  finds  its  way 
sooner  or  later  into  the  swamp  between  Banias  and 
lake  Iluleh,  and  eventually  becomes  part  of  the 
Jordan.  lacidentally  this  of  course  comes  out;  but 
lurely  this,  and  not  those  three  prime  sources  ex- 
'luaively,  tt  which  Captain  Newbold  has  most  justly 


JORDAN 


1459 


added  a  fourth,  passed  over  without  a  word  by  the 
rest  —  should  be  made  the  promhient  feature  ot 
that  charmed  locality.  The  fact  is,  that  with  the 
exception  of  Messrs.  Irby  and  Mangles,  he  is  the 
only  traveller  of  them  all  who  has  in  any  degree 
explored  the  S.  E.  side  of  the  slope ;  the  route  of 
the  others  being  from  Banias  to  Ilashbeiya  on  the 
western  side.  Then  again  all  have  travelled  in  the 
months  of  April,  May,  or  June  —  that  is,  before 
the  melting  of  the  snows  had  ceased  to  have  influ- 
ence—  except  INIessrs.  Irby  and  Mangles,  whose 
scanty  notices  were  made  in  February,  or  just  after 
the  heavy  rains.  Whereas  in  order  to  be  able  to 
decide  to  which  of  those  sources  Jordan  is  most 
indebted,  the  latter  end  of  October,  the  end  of  the 
dry  season,  and  just  before  the  rains  set  in  —  when 
none  but  streams  possessed  of  inherent  vitality  are 
in  existence  —  should  have  been  chosen.  Far  be 
it  from  us  to  depreciate  those  time-honored  parent 
springs — the  noble  fountain  (of  Daphne)  under 
the  Tell,  or  hill  of  Dan  {Tell  el-Kddy),  which 
"  gushes  out  all  at  once  a  beautiful  river  of  delicious 
water  "  in  the  midst  of  verdure  and  welcome  shade; 
still  less,  that  magnificent  "  burst  of  water  out  of 
the  low  slope"  in  front  of  the  picturesque  cave 
of  Banias,  inscriptions  in  the  niches  of  which  still 
testify  to  the  deity  that  was  once  worshipped  there, 
and  to  the  royal  munificence  that  adorned  his  shrine. 
Travellers,  nevertheless,  who  have  seen  Clltumnus 
(and  to  read  of  it  in  Phny,  Lp.  lib.  viii.  8,  is  almost 
to  see),  Vaucluse,  or  even  Holywell  in  N.  Wales, 
will  have  seen  something  of  the  kind.  But  what 
shall  we  say  to  "  the  bold  perpendicular  rock  "  near 
Hashbeiya,  "  from  beneath  which,"  we  are  told, 
"  the  river  gushes  copious,  translucent,  and  cool, 
in  two  rectangular  streams,  one  to  the  N.  E.,  and 
the  other  to  the  N".  W.  ?  "  for  if  this  source,  being 
the  most  distant  of  all,  may  "  claim  in  a  strictly 
scientific  sense  to  be  the  parent  stream  of  the 
whole  valley,"  then  let  us  be  prepared  on  the  same 
principle  to  trace  the  Mississippi  back  to  the  Mis- 
souri. Besides,  Captain  Newbold  —  and  we  can 
here  vouch  for  his  statement  —  has  detected  3  4th 
source,  which  according  to  the  Arabs,  is  never  dry, 
in  what  Mr.  Thomson  hastily  dismisses  as  the 
mountain-torrent  Wady  el-Kid,  and  IVIessrs.  Irby 
and  Mangles  as  a  "  rivulet;  "  but  which  the  Captain 
appears  to  have  followed  to  tue  springs  called  Jish- 
Sha7',  though  we  must  add,  that  its  sources,  ac- 
cording to  our  impression,  lie  consideralJy  more  to 
the  N.  It  runs  past  the  ruined  walls  and  forts  of 
Banias  on  the  S.  E.  Nobody  that  has  seen  its 
dizzy  cataracts  in  the  month  of  April,  or  its  deep- 
rock-hewn  bed  at  all  other  seasons,  can  speak 
lightly  of  it ;  though  it  is  naturally  lost  upon  all 
those  who  quit  Banias  for  the  N.  W. 

Again,  we  make  bold  to  say,  that  the  Phiala  of 
Josephus  has  not  yet  been  identified.  Any  laka 
would  have  been  called  Phiala  by  the  Greeks  that 
bore  that  shape  (Reland,  Palcest.  41;  comp.  Hof- 
mann's  Lex.  Univ.  s.  v. ;  if  we  mistake  not,  the  Lake 
of  Delos  is  a  further  instance).  But  Birket  er-Ram^ 
or  the  alleged  Phiala,  lying  to  the  S.  E.  of,  and  at 
some  distance  from,  the  cave  of  Banias,  we  are  not 
surprised  that  the  story  of  Josephus  should  be  voted 
absurd ;  for  he  is  thus  made  to  say  seriously,  what 
even  to  a  tragic  poet  was  the  climax  of  impossibil- 
ities (Eur.  M^d.  410),  that  "  the  fountains  of  sacred 
streams  flow  backwards,"  or  up-hill.  The  Arabs 
doubtless  heard  ^f  the  story  of  the  chaff  through 
some  dragoman,  "vho  heard  it  from  his  masters; 
but  the  directior.  of  Shib'a  —  »  six  ho!irs  higher 


1460 


JORDAN 


op  the  southeni  declivity  of  Mount  Hennon,"  and 
therefore  to  the  N.  E.  of  Bdnids  —  is  beyond  doubt 
the  true  one,  as  long  since  pointed  out  by  Keland 
(ibid.^  and  see  his  Map)  for  the  site  of  the  lake. 
According  to  Lynch,  "  a  very  large  fountain  issuing 
from  the  base  of  a  high  rock  "  exists  there  ( OJ'. 
Rep.  112).  Lastly,  the  actual  description  given  by 
Captain  Newbold  of  the  lake  Mei-j  el-Man^  "  3  hrs. 
E.  10°  N.  from  Bdnids,"'  pi^oves,  at  all  events,  that 
there  is  one  circular  lake,  besides  Birket  er-Itam, 
in  those  regions,  and  in  the  very  direction  indi- 
cated by  the  historian.  We  cannot  help,  therefore, 
entertaining  a  suspicion  that  Me7J  el- Man  will 
turn  out  to  be  the  true  Phiala. 

Once  more,  Mr.  Thomson  had  stated  that  "  the 
Hashbeiya,  when  it  reaches  the  L.  Huleh,  has  been 
immensely  enlarged  by  the  waters  from  the  great 
fountains  of  Bdnids,  Tell  el-Kddy,  el-Mellaliah, 
Derakilov  Beldf"  (both  on  the  western  side  of 
the  plain),  "  and  innumerable  other  springs."  Cap- 
tain Newbold,  on  the  other  hand,  found  it  impos- 
sible to  ascertain  whether  such  a  junction  took 
place,  or  not,  before  they  enter  the  lake  (p.  15). 
His  Arabs  strongly  maintained  the  negative.  It 
was  reserved  for  Dr.  Kobinson  in  1852  to  settle  the 
question  of  their  previous  junction,  which  according 
to  him  may  be  witnessed  one  third  of  a  mile  N.  of 
Tell  Sheikh  Yusuf:  so  that  they  enter  Uuleh,  as 
they  depart  from  it,  in  one  united  stream  (vol.  iii. 
395).  Its  passage  through  and  from  Gennesaret 
is  that  of  uninterrupted  unity.  But  that  the  watera 
of  the  Jordan  do  not  condescend  to  mingle  in  any 
sense  with  those  of  the  lake,  is  as  true  as  that  the 
Rhone  and  the  Lake  of  Geneva  never  embrace.  Any 
comparison  between  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  as  a 
fertilizer,  or  as  a  beverage,  with  those  of  the  Nile, 
would  be  no  less  unreal ;  while  from  the  immense 
amount  of  vegetable  matter  which  they  contain, 
the  former  decompose  with  a  rapidity  perfectly 
man'elous  when  kept.  Travellers,  therefore,  who 
are  desirous  of  preserving  them,  will  do  well  to  go 
to  the  fountain-heads  for  their  supply.  There  alone 
they  sparkle  and  look  inviting. 

"  The  Jordan  enters  Gennesaret  about  two  miles 
below  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  city  Julias,  or  the 
Bethsaida  of  Gaulonitis,  which  lay  upon  its  eastern 
bank.  At  its  mouth  it  is  about  70  feet  wide,  a 
lazy,  turbid  stream,  blowing  between  low  alluvial 
banks.  There  are  several  bars  not  far  from  its 
mouth,  where  it  can  be  forded.  .  .  .  From  the  site 
of  Bethsaida  to  Jisr  Bendl  Ya'kob  is  about  six 
miles.  Tlie  Jordan  here  rushes  along,  a  foaming 
torrent  (much  of  course  depending  on  the  season 
when  it  is  visited),  through  a  narrow  winding 
ravine,  shut  in  by  high  precipitous  banks.  Above 
the  bridge  the  current  is  less  rapid  and  the  banks 
are  lower.  The  whole  distance  from  the  lake  el- 
Uuleh  to  the  Sea  of  Tiberias  is  nearly  nine  miles, 
.-.nd  the  fall  of  the  river  is  about  600  feet "  (Porter's 
Handbook,  part  ii.  pp.  420-27  ;  comp.  Stanley's 
5.  cf  P.  p.  304,  note  1,  2d  ed.). 

The  two  priricipal  features  in  the  course  of  the 
Jordan  are  its  descent  and  its  sinuosity.  From  its 
fountain-heads  to  the  point  where  it  is  lost  to 
nature,  it  rushes  down  one  continuous  inclined 
plane,  only  oroken  by  a  series  of  rapids  or  pre- 
cipitous falls.  Between  the  Lake  of  Tiberias  and 
the  Dead  Sea,  Lieutenant  Lynch  passed  down  27 
rapids  which  he  calls  threatening;  besides  a  great 
many  more  of  lesser  magnitude.  According  to  the 
computations  which  were  then  made,  the  descent 
»f  the  Jordan  in  each  mile  was  about  11.8  English 


JOllDAN 

feet ;  the  depression  of  the  Lake  of  Tiberias  \)ekm 
the  level  of  the  Mediterranean  653.3;  and  that  of 
the  Dead  Sea  1310.7  (Robinson,  i.  612,  note  xxx.). 
Thus  "  the  Descender  "  may  be  said  to  have  fairlv 
earned  his  name.  Its  sinuosity  is  not  so  remark- 
able in  the  upper  part  of  its  course.  Lieutenant 
Lynch  would  regard  the  two  phenomena  in  the 
light  of  cause  and  effect.  "  The  great  secret,"  he 
says,  "  of  the  depression  between  Lake  Tiberias  and 
the  Dead  Sea  is  solved  by  the  tortuous  course  of 
the  Jordan.  In  a  space  of  GO  miles  of  latitude  and 
4  or  5  miles  of  longitude,  the  Jordan  traverses  at 
least  200  miles"  {Off.  Letter,  p.  265  of  Nai-raU). 
During  the  whole  passage  of  8  J  days,  the  time 
which  it  took  his  boats  to  reach  the  Dead  Sea  from 
Gennesaret,  only  one  straight  reach  of  any  length, 
about  midway  between  them,  i.  e.  on  the  4th  day, 
is  noticed.  The  rate  of  stream  seems  to  have  varied 
with  its  relative  width  and  depth.  The  greatest 
width  mentioned  was  180  yards,  the  point  where 
it  enters  the  Dead  Sea.  Here  it  was  only  3  feet 
deep.  On  the  6th  day  the  width  in  one  place  was 
80  yards,  and  the  depth  only  2  feet ;  while  the  cur- 
rent on  the  whole  varied  from  2  to  8  knots.  On 
the  5th  day  the  width  was  70  yards,  with  a  current 
of  2  knots,  or  30  yards  with  a  current  of  6  knots. 

The  only  living  tributaries  to  the  Jordan  noticed 
particularly  below  Gennesaret  were  the  Yaj-muk 
(Hieromax)  and  the  Zerkn  (Jabbok).  The  mouth 
of  the  former  of  these  was  passed  on  the  3d  day, 
40  yards  wide,  with  moderate  current;  while  the 
latter,  whose  course  became  visible  on  the  7th  day, 
was,  on  the  8th  day,  discovered  to  have  two  dis- 
tinct outlets  into  the  main  stream,  one  of  which 
was  then  dry.  Older  writers  had  distinguished  two 
beds  and  banks  of  the  Jordan ;  the  first,  that  oc- 
cupied by  the  river  in  its  normal  state ;  the  second, 
comprising  the  space  which  it  occupied  during  its 
swelling  or  overflow  (Martiniere,  iJici.  Geoyraph. 
s.  v.).  Similarly  Lieutenant  Lynch  has  remarked, 
"  There  are  evidently  two  terraces  to  the  Jordan, 
and  through  the  lowest  one  the  river  runs  its  ser- 
pentine course.  From  the  stream,  above  the  im- 
mediate banks,  there  is,  on  each  side,  a  singular 
terrace  of  Ioav  hills,  like  truncated  cones,  which  is 
the  bluff  terminus  of  an  extended  table-land,  reach- 
ing quite  to  the  mountains  of  Hauran  on  the  E., 
and  the  high  hills  on  the  western  side  "  (Narrat., 
April  13,  and  comp.  what  Capt.  Newbold  says,  p. 
22).  There  are  no  bridges  over  Jordan  to  which 
an  earlier  date  has  been  assigned  than  that  of  the 
Koman  occupation ;  and  there  are  vestiges  of  Koman 
roads  in  different  parts  of  the  country  —  between 
Ndbidus  and  Beisan  for  instance  —  that  may  well 
have  crossed  by  these  bridges.  The  Saracens  after- 
wards added  to  their  number,  or  restored  those 
which  they  found  in  ruins.  Thus  the  bridge  called 
el-GhvJan  over  the  Hashbeiya,  has  two  pointed 
arches  and  one  round  (Newbold,  p.  13),  while  the 
entire  architecture  of  the  Jisr  Bendt  Ya'kob  (of  the 
daughters  of  .Jacob),  2J  miles  to  the  S.  of  L.  Huleh, 
as  well  as  of  the  khan  adjacent  to  it  on  the  eastern 
side,  is  pronounced  to  be  Saracenic  (ibid.,  p.  20). 
A  Roman  bridge  of  ten  arches,  Jisr  Semakh,  spans 
the  Jordan  near  the  village  bearing  that  name,  and 
was  doubtless  on  the  route  from  Tiberias  and  Tari- 
chea  to  Gadara  and  Decapolis  {ibid.,  p.  21,  Irby, 
p.  90).  Lastly,  the  bridge  of  3fejdmieh  which 
crosses  the  Jordan  about  six  miles  from  the  Lak« 
of  Gennesaret,  was  Saracenic;  while  that  near  tin 
ford  Ddmieh  was  more  Roman  (Newbold,  p.  2C 
and  Lynch,  Narr.,  April  16). 


JORDAN 

TuMing  from  these  artificial  constructions  to  the 
old  bridges  of  nature  —  the  fords  —  we  find  a  re- 
markable yet  perfectly  independent  concurrence 
between  the  narrative  of  Lieutenant  Lynch  and 
what  has  been  asserted  previously  respecting  the 
fords  or  passages  of  the  Bible.  We  do  not  indeed 
affirm  that  the  locaUties  fit  into  each  other  like  tlie 
pieces  of  a  puzzle.  Yet  still  it  is  no  slight  coinci- 
dence that  no  more  than  three,  or  at  most  four 
regular  fords  should  have  been  set  down  by  the 
chroniclers  of  tlie  American  expedition.  The  two 
first  occur  on  the  same  day  within  a  few  hours  of 
each  other,  and  are  called  respectively  WacaLes  and 
Sukivii  {Off.  Ri'p.  pp.  25  and  2G).  Eighteen  miles 
l*«  by  N.  of  the  last  of  these  were  the  ruins  of 
Jera-sh  (which  our  authority  confounds  with  Pella), 
exactly  in  a  line  with  which  is  placed  the  site  of 
Succoth,  or  S(ckiitj  in  the  map  of  Dr.  Robinson; 
though  he  admits  that  arguments  are  not  wanting 
for  placing  it  some  way  to  the  S.  (vol.  iii.  p.  310). 
The  next  ford  is  passed  the  following,  or  the  7th 


JORDAN 


1461 


day,  the  ford  of  Ddmieh,  as  it  is  called,  opposite  to 
the  commencement  of  the  IVacly  Zerka,  some  milea 
above  the  junction  of  that  river  M'ith  the  Jordan, 
and  where  the  road  from  Nabulus  to  es-Salt  crossed. 
Could  we  ascertain  the  true  site  of  Succoth,  we 
might  be  better  able  to  decide  which  of  these  two 
fords  answered  best  to  the  lieth-barah  of  the  Old 
Test.,  or  Bethabara  of  the  New;  and  then  jEnon 
might  be  the  ford,  or  one  of  the  two  fords,  to  the 
N.  of  it.  It  is  perhaps  worthy  of  note  that  the 
neighborhood  of  the  ford  Suk-iva  is  represented 
as  the  dreariest  wild  imaginable  —  fearful  solitude 
and  monotony  (vVa/'r.,  April  15).  That  IMessrs. 
Irby  and  Mangles  forded  the  Jordan  near  Tarichea 
was  probably  due  to  the  ruins  of  the  old  Homan 
bridge;  on  the  contrary,  where  they  forded  it  on 
horseback,  li  hour  from  Beisdn,  Lynch  found  the 
water  between  5  and  0  feet  deep. 

The  ford  el-Maslira'a  over  against  Jericho  was 
the  last  ford  put  upon  record,  and  it  is  too  well 
known  to  need  any  lengthened  notice.     Here  tra- 


^5^i^?iSs^5.>'>i.-^--"='^  ^ 


The  Jordan  on  the  road  from  Nablus  to  es-Salt. 


I 


dition  has  chosen  to  combine  the  passage  of  the 
Israelites  under  Joshua  with  the  baptism  of  our 
lx)rd  —  a  more  distant  ford  would  have  been  found 
highly  inconvenient  for  the  Jerusalem  pilgrims; 
and  here  accordingly,  three  miles  below  the  ruined 
convent  of  St.  John  —  in  honor  of  these  events  — 
the  annual  bathing  of  tJie  Oriental  pilgrims  takes 
place;  of  which  Professor  Stanley  has  gi\en  a  lively 
picture  (S.  cf  P.  pp.  314-16;  comp.  Off.  Rep.  pp. 
29,  30). 

We  have  jbserved  that  not  a  «ingle  city  ever 
crowned  the  banks  of  the  Jordan.  Still  Bethshan 
and  Jericho  to  the  W.,  Gerasa,  Pella,  and  Gadara 
to  the  E.  of  it,  were  important  cities,  and  caused  a 
?ood  deal  of  traffic  between  the  two  opposite  banks. 
Under  the  sway  of  the  Egyptian  sultans,  the  bridge 
A  the  Daughtrirs  of  Jacob  seems  to  have  been  one 


of  the  high-roads  to  Damascus.  Another  road  to 
Damascus  was  from  Nabulus  through  BeisdUy  and 
was  brought  over  by  the  bridge  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Yarniuk.  The  sites  of  these  cities,  with  their 
history,  are  discussed  under  their  reajjective  names; 
and  for  the  same  reason  we  abstain  from  going 
deeply  into  the  physical  features  of  the  Jordan  or 
of  the  Ghor,  for  these  will  be  treated  of  more  at 
large  under  the  general  head  of  Palestine.  We 
shall  confine  ourselves  therefore  to  the  most  cursory 
notice.  As  there  were  slime-pits,  or  pits  of  bitu- 
men, and  salt-pits  (Gen.  xi.  3;  Zeph.  ii.  9)  hi  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  on  the  extreme  south,  so  Mr. 
Thomson  speaks  of  bitumen  wells  20  minutes 
from  the  bridge  over  the  flrislibeiyi  on  tlie  extreme 
north;  while  Ain  el-Mellahah  above  L.  JJiUeh  is 
emphatically  "the  fountain  of  the  salt  works" 


1462 


JORDAN 


(Ljnch's  Narrat,  p.  470).  Thermal  springs  are 
frequent  about  the  Lake  of  Tiberias ;  the  most  cele- 
brated, below  the  town  bearing  that  name  (Kobin- 
Bon,  ii.  384,  385);  some  near  Emmaus  (Lynch,  p. 
4G7 ),  some  near  Magdala,  and  some  not  far  from 
Gadara  (Irby,  pp.  90,  Ul).  The  hill  of  Dan  is  said 
to  be  an  extinct  crater,  and  masses  of  volcanic  rock 
and  tufa  are  noticed  by  Lynch  not  far  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Yarmu/c  {Narrat.,  April  12).  Dark 
basalt  is  the  chamcteristic  of  the  rocks  in  the  upper 
Btage;  trap,  limestone,  sandstone,  and  conglomerate 
in  the  lower.  On  the  2d  day  of  the  passage  a 
bank  of  fuller's-earth  was  observed. 

How  far  the  Jordan  in  olden  time  was  ever  a 
zone  of  cultivation  like  the  Nile  is  uncertain. 
Now,  with  the  exception  of  the  eastern  shores  of 
the  L.  JIuleli,  the  hand  of  man  may  be  said  to 
have  disappeared  from  its  banks.  The  genuine 
Arab  is  a  nomad  by  nature,  and  contemns  agricul- 
ture. There,  however.  Dr.  Robinson,  in  the  month 
of  May,  found  the  land  tilled  almost  down  to  the 
lake;  and  large  crops  of  wheat,  barley,  maize, 
sesame,  and  rice  rewardal  the  husbandman. 
Horses,  cattle,  and  sheep  —  all  belonging  to  the 
G hawdrineh  tnhe  —  fattened  on  the  rich  pasture; 
and  large  herds  of  black  buffaloes  luxuriated  in  the 
streams  and  in  the  deep  mire  of  the  marshes  (vol. 
iii.  p.  39G).  These  are  doubtless  lineal  descendants 
of  the  "fat  bulls  of  Bashan,"  as  the  "oaks  of  lia- 
shan  "  are  still  the  magnificent  staple  tree  of  those 
regions.  Cultivation  degenerates  as  we  advance 
southwards.  Corn-lields  wave  round  Genuesaret 
on  the  \V.,  and  the  palm  and  vine,  fig  and  pome- 
granate, lire  still  to  be  seen  here  and  there.  ^Melons 
grown  on  its  shores  are  of  great  size  and  much 
esteemed.  Pink  oleanders,  and  a  rose-colored  spe- 
cies of  hollyhock,  in  great  profusion,  wait  uix)n 
every  approach  to  a  rill  or  spring.  These  gems  of 
nature  reappear  in  the  lower  course  of  the  Jordan. 
There  the  purple  thistle,  the  bright  yellow  marigold 
and  scarlet  anemone  saluted  the  adventurers  of  the 
New  World :  the  laurestinus  and  oleander,  cedar 
and  arbutus,  willow  and  tamarisk,  accouipanied 
them  on  their  route.  As  the  climate  became  more 
tropical  and  the  lower  Ghor  was  entered,  large 
ghurrah  trees,  like  the  aspen,  with  silvery  foliage, 
overhung  them ;  and  the  cane,  frequently  impene- 
trable and  now  in  blossom,  "  was  ever  at  the  water's 
edge."  Only  once  during  the  whole  voyage,  on  the 
4th  day,  were  patches  of  wheat  and  barley  visible, 
but  the  hand  that  had  sowed  them  lived  far  away. 
As  Jeremiali  in  the  O.  T.,  and  St.  Jerome  and 
Phocas  (see  Heland  as  above)  among  Christian  pil- 
grims, had  spoken  of  the  Jordan  as  the  resort  of 
lions,  so  tracks  of  tigers,  wild  boars,  and  the  like, 
presented  themselves  from  time  to  time  to  these 
explorers.  Flocks  of  wild  ducks,  of  cranes,  of 
pigeons,  and  of  swallows,  were  scared  by  their  ap- 
proach; and  a  specimen  of  the  bulbul,  or  Syrian 
nightingale,  fell  into  their  hands.  The  scenery 
throughout  was  not  inspiring  —  it  w^as  of  a  sub- 
dued character  when  they  started;  profoundly 
gloomy  and  dreary  near  ford  Sukwa;  and  then 
utterly  sterile  just  before  they  reached  Jericho. 
With  the  exception  of  a  few  Arab  tribes  —  so  sav- 
iige  as  scarce  to  be  considered  exceptions  —  hu- 
loanit}  had  l;ecome  extinct  on  its  banks. 

We  cannot  take  leave  of  our  subject  without 


«  *  l*'or  general  sketches  of  the  Jordan  Valley  the 
teadei'  may  see,  also,  Uobinson,  Phys.  Geogr.  of  Pal- 
ttins^  p.  82  f.,  pp.  144-164  ;  Rawlinson,  Ancient  Mo7t- 


JOSEPH 

expressing  our  warmest  thanks  to  our  Transatlantic 
brethren.  It  was  not  enough  that  Dr.  l^binsoii 
should  have  eclipsed  all  other  writers  who  had  pre- 
ceded him  in  his  noble  work  ufwn  Palestine,  but 
that  a  nation  from  the  extreme  W.  —  from  a  con- 
tinent utterly  unknown  to  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment —  should  have  been  the  first  to  accomplish 
the  navigation  of  that  sacred  river,  which  has  been 
before  the  world  so  prominently  for  nearly  4000 
years ;  this  is  a  fact  which  surely  ought  not  to  be 
passed  over  by  any  writer  on  the  Jordan  in  silence, 
or  uncommemorated.«  E.  S.  Ff. 

JOR'IBAS  CiciptjSos:  Jori^s )  =  Jarib  (1 
Esdr.  viii.  44;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  16). 

JOR'IBUS  Cldptfios:  Joribtis)  =  3 Amu  (1 
Esdr.  ix.  19;  comp.  Ezr.  x.  18). 

JO'RIM  i'lcapei/jL'-  [Jorirn]),  son  of  Matthat, 
in  the  genealogy  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  29),  in  the 
13th  generation  from  David  inclusive;  about  con- 
temporary, therefore,  with  Ahaz.  The  form  of  the 
name  is  anomalous,  and  should  probably  be  either 
Joram  or  Joiarim.  A.  C.  H. 

JOR'KOAM  (Cyr?"i;  [<Uffmlo7i  of  the  peo- 
ple, Fiirst]:  'UKXdv;  [Vat.  laKhav]]  Alex.  lep- 
Kaav''  Jercaam),  either  a  descendant  of  Caleb  the 
son  of  Hezron,  through  Hebron,  or,  as  Jarchi  says, 
the  name  of  a  place  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  of  which 
Raham  was  prince  (1  Chr.  ii.  44).  It  was  proba- 
bly in  the  neighborhood  of  Hebron.  Jerome  givea 
it  in  the  form  Jerchaam  (  Qucest.  Jlebr.  in  Paral.). 

JOS'ABAD.  1.  (^^^^^  [Jehcwah  is  </iver] : 
'iwaCafidd  [Vat.  -jSajS] ;  Alex.  luCa^aB;  FA. 
Iw^ajSajS:  Jezabad.)  Properly  Jozauad,  the 
Gederathite,  one  of  the  hardy  warriors  of  Benjamin 
who  left  Saul  to  follow  the  fortunes  of  David  duriug 
his  residence  among  the  I'hilistines  at  Ziklag  (I 
Chr.  xii.  4). 

2.  ('I«o-aj8S(Js;  [Vat.  luxra^ecs',  Aid.  'laxrd.^ 
a^os''^  Josr/(/Ms)  =  Jozabad,  son  of  Jeshua  the 
Levite  (1  Esdr.  viii.  63:  comp.  Yjx.  viii.  33;. 

3.  ([Rom.  'l&j^a)35os;  Vat.  Za)85os;  Aid.  'i«- 
o-ci^oSos;]  Alex.  ClCafioBos-  Zabdias),  one  of  the 
sons  of  Bebai  (1  Esdr.  ix.  29).     [Zaijuai.] 

JOS'APHAT  Clw(ro<^c{T:  Josnphat)  =  Jj!>- 
HOSUAPHAT,  king  of  Judah  (Matt.  i.  8). 

JOSAPHI'AS  Clcoo-ac^tas:  Jos(tphins)-=Jo- 
siiMiiAH  (1  Esdr.  viii.  36;  comp.  Ezr.  viii.  10). 

*  JO'SE,  A.  v.,  Luke  iii.  29  incorrectly  for 
JosES,  which  see.  A. 

JOS'EDEC  Clwo-eSew:  Josedec,  Josedech), 
1  I^dr.  V.  5,  48,  56,  vi.  2,  ix.  19;  ICcclus.  xlix.  12, 
=  Jehozadak  or  Jozadak,  the  father  of  Jeshua, 
whose  name  also  appears  as  Josedecii  (Hag.  i.  1). 

JO'SEPH  (nP'^'*  [see  infray.  'lu<T-i](p:  Jo- 
seph). 1.  The  elder  of  the  two  sons  of  Jacob  by 
Rachel.  Like  his  brethren,  he  received  his  name 
on  account  of  the  circumstances  of  his  birth.  We 
read  that  Rachel  was  long  ImiTen,  but  that  at  length 
she  "bare  a  son;  and  said,  God  hath  taken  away 

(?)pS)  my  reproach :  and  she  called  his  name  Joseph 

(P]pV);  saying,  the  Lord  will  add  ('Ip'^)  to  me 
another  son"  (Gen.  xxx.  23,  24);  a  hope  fulfilled 
in  the  birth  of  Benjamin  (comp.  xtxv.  17).     Thi« 


archies,  iv.  256,  277  ;  Tristram,  Natural  History  oft. 
Bible,  pp.  5, 10, 22  ;  and,  especially,  Gage's  translation  ( 
Bitter's  Geov.  nf  Palestine,  U.  14, 60-^3, 161,  &o.   H. 


JOSEPH 

passage  seems  to  indicate  a  double  etymology  (from 
PjPS  and  ^O'^).  There  is  nothing  improbable  in 
this  explanation,  because  of  the  relation  of  the  tak- 
ing away  the  reproach  to  the  expectation  of  another 
son.  Such  double  etymologies  are  probably  more 
common  in  Hebrew  names  than  is  generally  sup- 
posed. 

The  date  of  Joseph's  birth  relatively  to  that  of 
the  coming  of  Jacob  into  Egypt  is  fixed  by  the 
mention  that  he  was  thirty  years  old  when  he  be- 
came governor  of  I'^gypt  (xli.  46),  which  agrees 
with  the  statement  that  he  was  "  seventeen  years 
old"  (xxxvii.  2)  about  the  time  that  his  brethren 
gold  him.  He  was  therefore  born  about  39  years 
before  Jacob  came  into  Egypt,  and,  according  to  the 
chronology  which  we  hold  to  be  the  most  probable, 
B.  c.  cir.  1900. 

After  Joseph's  birth  he  is  first  mentioned  when 
a  youth,  seventeen  years  old.  As  the  child  of 
Rachel,  and  "son  of  his  old  age"  (xxxvii.  3),  and 
doubtless  also  for  his  excellence  of  character,  he 
was  beloved  by  his  father  above  all  his  brethren. 
Probably  at  this  time  Rachel  was  already  dead  and 
Benjamin  but  an  infant,  Benjamin,  that  other 
"child  of  his  old  age"  (xliv.  20),  whom  Jacob 
afterwards  loved  as  all  that  remained  of  Rachel 
when  he  supposed  Joseph  dead  —  "  his  bi'other  is 
dead,  and  he  alone  is  left  of  his  mother,  and  his 
father  loveth  him"  {I.  c.).<^  Jacob  at  this  time 
had  two  small  pieces  of  land  in  Canaan,  Abraham's 
buryhig-place  at  Hebron  in  the  south,  and  the 
"  parcel  of  a  field,  where  he  [Jacob]  had  spread 
his  tent"  (Gen.  sxxiii.  19),  at  Shechem  in  the 
north,  the  latter  being  probably,  from  its  price,  the 
lesser  of  the  two.  He  seems  then  to  have  stayed 
at  Hebron  with  the  aged  Isaac  while  his  sons  kept 
his  flocks.  Joseph,  we  read,  brought  the  evil  re- 
port of  his  brethren  to  his  father,  and  they  hated 
him  because  his  father  loved  him  more  than  them, 
and  had  shown  his  preference  by  making  him  a  dress 
(Q^jpQ  n^nS),  which  appears  to  have   been  a 


JOSEPU 


146S 


a  According  to  the  order  of  the  narrative,  Rachel's 
death  preceded  the  selling  of  Joseph ;  it  is  unlikely 
that  17  years  should  have  elapsed  between  the  birth 
of  Joseph  and  that  of  Benjamin ;  and  as  Benjamin 
had  ten  sons  at  the  coming  into  Egypt  (xlvi.  21),  it  is 
scarcely  probable  that  he  was  born  no  more  than  22 
years  before.  There  is  moreover  no  mention  of  Rachel 
beside;  the  allusion  in  the  speech  of  Judah  to  Joseph, 
quotol  above  (xliv.  20),  in  the  whole  subsequent  nar- 
rative, until  dying  Jacob,  when  he  blesses  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh,  returns  to  the  thought  of  his  beloved 
wife,  and  says,  "  And  as  for  me,  when  I  came  from 
Padan,  Rachel  died  by  me  in  the  land  of  Canaan  in 
the  way,  when  yet  [there  was]  but  a  little  way  to  come 
onto  Ephrath  :  and  I  buried  her  there  in  the  way  of 
Ephrath  ;  the  same  [is]  Beth-lehem  "  (xlviii.  7).  Jo- 
»eph's  anxiety  in  Egypt  to  see  Benjamin  seems  to  favor 
the  idea  that  he  had  known  him  as  a  child.  When 
Joseph  was  sold,  Benjamin  can,  however,  have  only 
been  very  young. 

ft  The  name  of  this  dress  seems  to  signify  "  a  tunic 
reaching  to  the  extremities."  It  was  worn  by  David's 
daughter  Tamar,  being  the  dress  of  "  the  king's  daugh- 
ters [that  were]  virgins"  (2  Sam.  xiii  18,  see  19). 
f  hore  seems  no  reason  for  the  LXX.  rendering  xitoji/ 
roiKiA.o;,  or  the  Vulg.  polymita^  except  that  it  is  very 
likely  that  such  a  tunic  would  be  ornamented  witli 
colored  stripes,  or  embroidered.  The  richer  classes 
imong  the  ancient  Egyptians  wore  long  dresses  of 
white  linen.  The  people  of  Palestine  and  Syria,  rep- 
(Mente<l  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  as  enemies  or 


long  tunic  with  sleeves,  worn  by  youths  and  mud- 
ens  of  the  richer  class.*  The  hatred  of  Joseph 'e 
brethren  was  increased  by  his  telling  of  a  dream* 
foreshowing  that  they  would  bow  down  to  him, 
which  was  followed  by  another  of  the  same  import.*' 
It  is  remarkable  that  thus  early  prophetic  dreams 
appear  in  Joseph's  life.  This  part  of  the  history 
(xxxvii.  3-11)  may  perhaps  be  regarded  as  a  retro- 
spective introduction  to  the  narrative  of  the  great 
crime  of  the  envious  brethren.  They  had  gone  to 
Shechem  to  feed  the  flock,  and  Joseph  was  sent 
thither  from  the  vale  of  Hebron  by  his  father  !•) 
bring  him  word  of  their  welfare  and  that  of  tha 
flock.  They  were  not  at  Shechem,  but  were  gone 
to  Dothan,  which  appears  to  have  been  not  very  far 
distant,  pasturing  their  flock  like  the  Arabs  of  the 
present  day,  wherever  the  wild  country  (ver.  22) 
was  unowned.  On  Joseph's  approach,  his  brethi"en, 
except  Reuben,  resolved  to  kill  him;  but  Reul)eii 
saved  him,  persuading  them  to  cast  him  into  a  dry 
pit  with  the  intent  that  he  might  restore  him  to 
his  father.  Accordingly  when  Joseph  was  come, 
they  stripped  him  of  his  tunic  and  cast  him  into 
the  pit,  "  and  they  sat  down  to  eat  bread :  and 
they  lifted  up  their  eyes  and  looked,  and  behold,  a 
company  of  Ishmaelites  came  from  Gilead,  with  their 
camels  bearing  spicery  [?]  and  b;dm  and  gum 
ladanum  [?],  going  to  carry  [it]  down  to  Egypt  " 
(ver.  25).  —  In  passing  we  must  call  attention  to 
the  interest  of  this  early  notice  of  the  trade  be- 
tween Palestine  and  Egypt.  —  The  Ishmaelites  are 
also  called  IMidianites  in  the  narrative:  that  the 
two  names  are  used  interchangeably  is  evident  from 
ver.  28 ;  it  must  therefore  be  supposed  that  one  of 
them  is  generic;  the  caravan  "came  from  Gilead  " 
and  brought  balm ;  'i  so  that  it  is  reasonable  to 
infer  the  merchjyits  to  have  been  IMidianites,  and 
that  they  are  also  called  Ishmaelites  by  a  kind  of 
generic  use  of  that  name.  Judah  suggested  to  hia 
brethren  to  sell  Joseph  to  the  Ishmaelites,  appeal- 
ing at  once  to  their  covetousness  and,  in  proposing 
a  less  cruel  course  than  that  on  which  they  were 


tributaries,  wore  similar  dresses,  partly  colored,  gen- 
erally with  a  stripe  round  the  skirts  and  the  border* 
of  the  sleeves. 

c  I'rom  Joseph's  second  dream,  and  his  father's 
rebuke,  it  might  be  inferred  that  Rachel  was  living 
at  the  time  that  he  dreamt  it.  It  is  indeed  possible 
tliat  it  may  have  occurred  some  time  before  the  sell- 
ing of  Joseph,  and  been  interpreted  by  Jacob  of  Ra- 
chel, who  certainly  was  not  alive  at  its  fulfillment,  so 
that  it  could  not  apply  to  her.  Yet,  if  Leah  only 
survived,  Jacob  might  have  spoken  of  her  as  Joseph's 
mother.  The  dream,  moreover,  indicates  eleven  breth- 
ren besides  the  father  and  mother  of  Joseph  ;  if  there- 
fore Benjamin  were  already  born,  Riichel  must  havw 
been  dead  :  the  reference  is  therefore  more  probably 
to  Leah,  who  may  have  been  living  when  Jacob  went 
into  Egypt. 

<i  The  three  articles  of  commerce  carried  by  the 
caravan  we  have  rendered  spicery,  balm,  and  gum 

ladanum.  The  meaning  of  inS33  is  extremelj 
doubtful :  there  is  nothing  to  guide  us  but  the  ren- 
derings of  the  LXX  OvixCana  and  the  Vulg.  aromata, 
and  the  congruity  of  their  meaning  with  that  of  the 


can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  a  kind  of  balm,  although 
its  exact  kind  is  difficult  to  determine.     The  meaning 

of  tD  7  is  not  certain :   perhaps   gum  ladanum  ii 
a  not  improbable  coi^ecture. 


1404 


JOSEPH 


probably  a  till  resolved,  to  what  remnant  of  broth- 
erly feeling  they  may  still  have  had.  Accordingly 
they  took  Joseph  out  of  the  pit  and  sold  him  "  for 
twenty  [shekels]  of  silver"  (ver.  28),  which  we 
find  to  have  been,  under  the  Law,  the  value  of  a 
male  from  five  to  twenty  years  old  (I^v.  xxvii.  5).« 
Probably  there  was  a  constant  traffic  in  white  slaves, 
and  the  price,  according  to  the  unchangeableness 
of  eastern  customs,  long  remained  the  same.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  tliat  we  here  already  find  the 
descendants  of  Abraham's  concubines  oppressing 
the  lawful  heirs.  Keuben  was  absent,  and  on  his 
return  to  the  pit  was  greatly  distressed  at  not  find- 
ing Joseph.  His  brethren  pretended  to  Jacob  that 
Joseph  had  been  killed  by  some  wild  beast,  taking 
to  him  the  tunic  stained  with  a  kid's  Ijlood,  while 
even  Reuben  forbore  to  tell  him  the  truth,  all  speak- 
ing constantly  of  the  lost  brother  as  though  they 
knew  not  what  had  befallen  him,  and  even  as  dead. 
"  And  Jacob  rent  his  clothes,  and  put  sackcloth 
upon  his  loins,  and  mourned  for  his  son  many  days. 
And  all  his  sons  and  all  his  daughters  rose  up  to 
comfort  him ;  but  lie  refused  to  be  comforted ;  and 
he  said.  For  I  will  go  down  unto  my  son  mourning 
into  the  grave.  Thus  his  father  wept  for  him  " 
(Gen.  xxxvii.  34,  35).''  Jacob's  lamentation  shows 
that  he  knew  of  a  future  state,  for  what  comfort 
would  he  have  in  going  into  his  own  grave  when 
he  thought  that  his  lost  son  had  been  torn  by  wild 
beasts?  This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  we 
should  certainly  understand  "  Hades  "  by  "  the 
grave,"  and  may  translate,  "  For  I  will  go  down 
unto  my  son  mourning  to  Hades."  '^ 

The  Midianites  sold  Joseph  in  Egypt  to  Potiphar, 
"  an  officer  of  Pharaoh,  captain  of  the  execution- 
ers, an  Egyptian  "  (xxxix.  1;  comp.  xxxvii.  3G).'' 
We  have  probably  no  right  to  infer,  as  Gesenius 

has  done  {Thes.  s.  v.  H^*^),  that  by  the  execu- 
tioners we  are  to  understand  the  same  as  the  king's 
guard  or  body-guard.«  This  may  be  the  case  when 
the  Chaldseans  are  spoken  of,  for  the  innnediate  in- 
fliction of  punishment  under  the  ver}* eye  of  the 
sovereign  was  always  usual  both  with  Sliemites  and 
Tartars,  as  a  part  of  their  system  of  investing  the 
regal  power  with  terror;  but  the  more  refined 
Egyptians  and  their  responsible  kings  do  not  seem 
to  have  practiced  a  custom  which  nothing  but  ne- 
cessity could  render  tolerable.  That  in  this  case 
the  title  is  to  be  taken  literally,  is  evident  from  the 
control  exercised  by  I'otipiiar  over  the  king's  prison 
(xxxix.  20),  and  from  the  fact  that  this  prison  is 
afterwards  shown  to  have  been  in  the  house  of  the 
captain  of  the  executioners,  that  officer  then  being 
doubtless  a  successor  of  Potiphar  (xl.  3,  4).  The 
name  Potiphar  is  written  in  hieroglyphics  Pet- 
PA-RA  or  PET-p-iiA,  and  signifies  "  belonging  to 

a  Kalisch  remarks  {ad  loc.)  that  twenty  shekels 
was  "a  price  less  than  that  ordinarily  paid  for  a 
Hebrew  slave  (Ex.  xxi.  32 ;  Lev.  xxvil.  5)."  The 
former  reference  is  to  the  fine  to  be  paid,  thirty  shek- 
els of  silver,  to  the  owner  of  a  slave,  male  or  female, 
fored  to  death  by  an  ox :  the  latter  disproves  his 
Msertion.  The  payment  must  have  been  by  weight, 
since  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  coined  money 
Kas  known  at  this  remote  period.     [Money.] 

">  The  daughters  here  mentioned  were  probably  the 
^ves  of  Jacob's  sons  :  he  seems  to  have  had  but  one 
laughter  ;  and  if  he  had  many  grand-daughters,  few 
irould  have  been  born  thu.«  early. 

c  For  this  interesting  inference  we  are  indebted  to 
Dr.  Mark)!.     On  the  knowledge  ot  the  future  state 


JOSEPH 

Ra"  (the  sun).  It  occurs  again,  with  a  slightly 
different  orthography,  I*oti-pherah,  as  the  name  of 
Joseph's  father-in-law,  priest  or  prince  of  On.  It 
may  be  remarked  that  as  Ha  was  the  chief  divinity 
of  On,  or  Heliopolis,  it  is  an  interesting  undesigned 
coincidence  that  the  Litter  should  bear  a  name  in- 
dicating devotion  to  Ra.     [Potiphar.] 

It  is  important  to  observe  that  a  careful  com- 
parison of  evidence  has  led  us  to  the  conclusion 
that,  at  the  time  that  Joseph  was  sold  into  Egypt, 
the  country  was  not  united  under  the  rule  of  ;i 
single  native  line,  but  governed  by  several  dynaii- 
ties,  of  which  the  Fifteenth  Dynasty,  of  Shepherd 
Kings,  was  the  predominant  line,  the  rest  being 
tributary  to  it.  The  absolute  dominions  of  this 
dynasty  lay  in  Lower  Egypt,  and  it  would  there- 
fore always  be  most  connected  with  Palestine. 
The  manners  described  are  Egyptian,  although 
there  is  apparently  an  occasional  slight  tinge  of 
Shemitism.  The  date  of  Joseph's  arrival  we  should 
consider  u.  c.  cir.  ISUO.    [Egypt;  Chronology.] 

Li  Egypt,  the  second  period  of  Joseph's  life 
begins.  As  a  child  he  had  been  a  true  son,  and 
withstood  the  evil  example  of  his  brethren.  He 
is  now  to  serve  a  strange  master  in  the  hard  state 
of  slavery,  and  his  virtue  will  be  put  to  a  severer 
proof  than  it  had  yet  sustained.  .Joseph  prospered 
in  the  house  of  the  Egyptian,  who,  seeing  that  God 
blessed  him,  and  pleased  with  his  good  service, 
"  set  him  over  his  house,  and  all  [that]  he  had  he 
gave  into  his  hand"  (xxxix.  4,  comp.  5).  He  was 
placed  over  all  his  master's  property  with  perfect 
trust,  and  "  the  Lord  blessed  the  Egyptian's  house 
for  Joseph's  sake  "  (ver.  5).  The  sculptures  and 
paintings  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  tombs  bring 
vividly  before  us  the  daily  life  and  duties  of  Joseph. 
The  property  of  great  men  is  shown  to  have  been 
managed  by  scril)es,  who  exercised  a  most  method- 
ical and  minute  supervision  over  all  the  oi)erations 
of  agriculture,  gardening,  the  keeping  of  live  stock, 
and  fishing.  Every  product  was  carefully  regis- 
tered to  check  the  dishonesty  of  the  laborers,  who 
in  Egypt  have  always  been  famous  in  this  respect. 
Probably  in  no  country  was  farming  ever  more  sys- 
tematic. Joseph's  previous  knowledge  of  tending 
flocks,  and  perhaps  of  husbandry,  and  his  truthful 
character,  exactly  fitted  him  for  the  post  of  over- 
seer. How  long  he  filled  it  we  are  not  told. 
"  Joseph  was  fair  of  form  and  fair  in  appearance  "^ 
(xxxix.  6).  His  master's  wife,  with  the  well-known 
profligacy  of  the  Egyptian  women,  tempted  him, 
and  failing,  charged  him  with  the  crime  she  would 
have  made  him  commit.  Potiphar,  incensed  against 
Joseph,  cast  him  into  prison.  It  must  not  be  sup- 
posed, from  the  lowness  of  the  morals  of  the  Egyp- 
tians in  practice,  that  the  sin  of  unfaithfulness  in 


among  the  Israelit*'-  during  and  after  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt,  see  art.  Eovpt. 

d  The  word  D*^nD,  which  we  have  rendered 
"officer,"  with  the  A.  V.,  properly  means  "eunuch," 
as  explained  in  the  margin,  although  it  is  also  used 
in  the  Bible  in  the  former  sense  (Gesen.  Thes.  s.  y.). 
Potiphar's  office  would  scarcely  have  been  given  to  a 
eunuch,  and  there  is,  we  believe,  no  evidence  that 
there  were  such  in  the  Egyptian  courts  in  ancient 
times.  This  very  word  first  occurs  in  hieroglyphics, 
written  sars,  as  a  title  of  Persian  functionaries,  is 
inscriptions  of  the  time  of  the  Persian  dominion. 

e  DTlSt^n  '^W  mus*  mean  "  captain  of  th# 
executioners,"  from  Potiphar's  connection  with  tb* 
prison,  although  the  LXX.  renders  it  dp;  tjuiayeipoc. 


JOSEPH 

t  wife  was  not  ranked  among  the  heaviest  vices. 
The  punishment  of  adulterers  was  severe,  and  a 
moral  tale  recently  interpreted,  "  The  Two  Broth- 
ers,'^ is  founded  upon  a  case  nearly  resembling 
that  of  Joseph.  It  has,  indeed,  been  imagined 
that  this  story  was  based  upon  the  trial  of  Joseph, 
and  as  it  was  written  for  the  heir  to  the  throne  of 
I'^ypt  at  a  later  period,  there  is  some  reason  in  the 
idea  that  the  virtue  of  one  who  had  held  so  high 
a  position  as  Joseph  might  have  been  in  the  mind 
Df  the  writer,  were  this  part  of  his  history  well 
known  to  the  priests,  which,  however,  is  not  Ukely. 
This  incident,  moreover,  is  not  so  remarkable  as  to 
justify  great  stress  being  laid  upon  the  similarity 
to  it  of  the  main  event  of  a  moral  tale.«  The 
story  of  Bellerophon  might  as  reasonably  be  traced 
to  it,  were  it  I'^gyptian  and  not  Greek.  The  Mus- 
lims have  founded  upon  the  history  of  Joseph  and 
Potiphar's  wife,  whom  they  call  Yoosuf  and  Ze- 
leekha,  a  famous  religious  allegory.  This  is  much 
to  be  wondered  at,  as  the  Kur-an  relates  the  tempt- 
ing of  Joseph  with  no  material  variation  in  the 
main  particulars  from  the  authentic  narrative.  The 
commentators  say,  that  after  the  death  of  I'otipliar 
(Kitfeer)  Joseph  mairied  Zeleekha  (Sale,  ch.  xii.). 
This  mistake  was  probably  caused  by  the  circum- 
stance that  Joseph's  father-in-law  bore  the  same 
name  as  his  master. 

Potiphar,  although  convinced  of  Joseph's  guilt, 
does  not  appear  to  have  brought  him  before  a  tri- 
bunal, where  the  enormity  of  his  alleged  crime, 
especially  after  the  trust  i)laced  in  him,  and  the 
fact  of  his  being  a  foreigner,  which  was  made  much 
of  by  his  master's  wife  (xxxix.  14,  17),  would  prob- 
ably have  insured  a  punishment  of  the  severest 
kind.  He  seems  to  have  only  cast  him  into  the 
prison,  which  appears  to  have  been  in  his  house, 
or,  at  least,  under  his  control,  since  afterwards 
prisoners  are  related  to  have  been  put  "  in  ward 
[in]  the  house  of  the  captain  of  the  executioners, 
into  the  prison  "  (xl.  3),  and  simply,  "  in  ward  [in] 
the  captain  of  the  executioners'  house"  (xli.  10, 
;;omp.  xl.  7).  The  prison  is  described  as  "a  place 
where  the  king's  prisoners  [were]  bound"  (xxxix. 
20).  Here  the  hardest  time  of  Joseph's  period  of 
probation  began.  He  was  cast  into  prison  on  a 
false  accusation,  to  remain  there  for  at  least  two 
years,  and  perhaps  for  a  much  longer  time.  At 
first  he  was  treated  with  severity;  this  we  learn 
from  Ps.  cv.,  "  He  sent  a  man  belbre  them,  Joseph 
[who] :  was  sold  for  a  slave :  whose  feet  they  af- 

a  *  This  remarkable  "  Tale  of  the  Two  Brothers  "  is 
found  in  a  papyrus  in  the  British  Museum,  dating 
from  the  19th  Dynasty  Some  of  the  points  of  resem- 
blance between  this  Egyptian  romance  and  the  story 
of  Joseph  are,  —  a  similar  temptJition  overcome,  the 
ipurned  woman's  hatred,  prolonged  disappointment, 
tnd  a  finil  succession  to  the  throne.  For  a  transla- 
•ion  of  the  tale  see  the  Cambridge  Essays  for  1858. 

J.  P.  T. 

h  Jof^eph's  complaint  to  the  chief  of  the  cupbearers, 
"  And  here  also  have  I  done  nothing  that  they  should 

put  me  into  the  dungeon  "  (TISS,  xl.  15),  does  not 

ttirow  light  upon  this  matter  ;  for  aJthougli  the  word 
ised  seems  properly  to  mean  the  wor«t  kind  of  prison, 
t»r  the  worst  part  of  a  prison,  here  it  must  be  mer?l" 

»quivalent,  as  in  xli.  14,  to  inbn"n'*2l  (xxxix. 

©,  &c.),  whith  seems  properly  a  milder  term. 

c  It  has  been  imagined,  from  the  account  of  the 
jcwxa.  of  the  chief  of  the  cupbearers,  that  the  win« 
iMD  drunk  by  the  Itinjs  of  Egypt  may  have  been  the 


JOSEPH  1465 

flicted  with  the  fetter:  the  iron  entered  into  his 
soul "  (ver.  17,  18).  There  is  probably  here  a 
connection  between  "fetter"  and  "iron"  (comp 
cxhx.  8),  in  which  case  the  signification  of  the  last 
clause  would  be  "the  iron  entered  into  him," 
meaning  that  the  fetters  cut  his  feet  or  legs.  Thia 
is  not  inconsistent  with  the  statement  in  Genesia 
that  the  keeper  of  the  prison  treated  Joseph  well 
(xxxix.  21),  for  we  are  not  justified  in  thence  in- 
fen-ing  that  he  was  kind  from  the  first.** 

In  the  prison,  as  in  Potiphar's  house,  Joseph  waa 
found  worthy  of  complete  trust,  and  the  keeper  of 
the  prison  placed  everything  under  his  control, 
God's  especial  blessing  attending  his  honest  service 
After  a  while,  Pharaoh  was  incensed  against  two 
of  his  officers,  "the   chief  of  the  cup-beai'ers " 

(Q"^|7tp^n  -ltt7),  and  "  the  chief  of  the  bakers" 
(D'^DISn  "lit'),  and  cast  them  into  the  prison 
where  Joseph  was.  Here  the  chief  of  the  execu- 
tioners, doubtless  a  successor  of  Potiphar  (for,  had 
the  latter  been  convinced  of  Joseph's  innocence,  he 
would  not  have  left  him  in  the  prison,  and  if  not 
so  convinced,  he  would  not  have  trusted  him), 
charged  Joseph  to  serve  these  prisoners.  Like 
Potiphar,  they  were  "officers"  of  Pharaoh  (xl.  2), 
and  though  it  may  be  a  mistake  to  call  them  gran- 
dees, their  easy  access  to  the  king  would  give  them 
an  importance  that  explains  the  care  taken  of  them 
by  the  chief  of  the  executioners.  ICach  dreamed  a 
prophetic  dream,  which  Joseph  interpreted,  dis- 
claiming human  skill  and  acknowledging  that  in- 
terpretations were  of  God.  It  is  not  necessary  here 
to  discuss  in  detail  the  particulars  of  this  part  of 
Joseph's  history,  since  they  do  not  materially  affect 
the  leading  events  of  his  life;  they  are  however  very 
interesting  from  their  perfect  agreement  with  the 
manners  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  as  represented 
on  their  monuments.*'  Joseph,  when  he  told  the 
chief  of  the  cup-bearers  of  his  coming  restoration 
to  fa\or,  prayed  him  to  speak  to  Pharaoh  for  him ; 
but  he  did  not  remember  him. 

"  After  two  years,"  f'  Joseph's  deliverance  came. 
Pharaoh   dreamed   two   prophetic   dreams.     "  He 

stood  by  the  river  "  ["1S%  the  Nile].c  And,  be- 
hold, coming  up  out  of  the  river  seven  kine  [oi 
'heifers'],  beautiful  in  appearance  and  fat-fleshed ^ 

and  they  fed  in  the  marsh -grass  [^HS]./  And, 
behold,  seven  other  kine  coming  up  after  them  out 

fresh  unfermented  juice  of  the  grape  ;  but  the  nature 
of  the  dre^m,  which  embraces  a  long  period,  and 
merely  indicates  the  various  stages  of  the  growth  of 
the  tree  and  fruit  as  though  immediately  following 
one  another,  would  allow  the  omission  of  the  process 
of  preparing  the  wine.  The  evidence  of  the  monu- 
ments makes  it  very  improbable  that  unfermented 
wine  was  drunk  by  the  ancient  inhabitants,  so  that  it 
seems  impossible  that  it  should  ever  have  taken  the 
place  of  fermented  or  true  wine,  which  was  the  national 
beverage  of  the  higher  classes  at  least. 

d  Lit.  at  the  end  of  two  years  of  days  ;  "  but  we 
may  read  after  "  for  "  at  the  end  ;  "  and  the  word 
"  days  "  appears  merely  to  indicate  that  the  year  waa 
a  period  of  time,  or  possibly  is  used  to  distinguish  the 
ordinary  year  from  a  greater  period,  the  year  of  days 
trom  the  year  of  years. 

e  This  word  is  probably  of  Egyptian  origin.  [Egypt  ; 
Nm.] 

/  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  an  Egyptian 
I  word.  The  LXX.  does  not  translate  it  (Gen.  xli.  2, 
1 18 ;  Is.  xix.  7) ;  and  Jesus  the  son   of  Sirach.  aa 


1466 


JOSEPH 


of  the  river,  evil  in  appearance,  and  lean-fleshed" 
(xli.  1-3).  These,  afterwards  described  still  more 
Btrongly,  ate  up  the  first  seven,  and  yet,  as  is  said 
in  the  second  account,  wlien  they  had  eaten  them 
remained  as  lean  as  before  (xli.  1-4,  17-21).  Then 
Pharaoh  had  a  second  dream  — "  Behold,  seven 
ears  of  com  coming  up  on  one  stalk,  fat  [or  '  full,' 
ver.  22]  and  good.  And,  behold,  seven  ears,  thin 
and  blasted  with  the  east  wind,«  sprouting  forth 
after  them  "  (ver.  5,  6).  1'hese,  also  described  more 
Btrongly  in  the  second  account,  devoured  the  first 
Beven   ears   (ver.  5-7,  22-21).     In   the   morning 

Pharaoh  sent  for  the  "  scribes,"  (D'^^^nH),  and 
the  "'vise  men,"  and  they  were  unable  to  give  him 
an  interpretation.  Then  the  chief  of  the  cupbearers 
remembered  Joseph,  and  told  Pharaoh  how  a  young 
Hebrew,  "  servant  to  the  captain  of  the  execution- 
em,"  had  interpreted  his  and  his  fellow-prisoner's 
dreams.  "  Then  Pharaoh  sent  and  called  Joseph, 
and  they  made  him  hasten  out  of  the  prison :  and 
he  shaved  [himself],  and  changed  his  raiment,  and 
came  unto  Pharaoh "  (ver.  11).  The  king  then 
related  his  dreams,  and  Joseph,  when  he  had  dis- 
claimed human  wisdom,  declared  to  him  that  they 
were  sent  of  God  to  forewarn  Pharaoh.  There  was 
essentially  but  one  dream.  Both  kine  and  ears 
symbolized  yeai-s.  There  were  to  be  seven  years 
of  great  plenty  in  Egypt,  and  after  them  seven  years 
of  consuming  and  "  very  heavy  famine."'  The 
doubling  of  the  dream  denoted  that  the  events  it 
foreshadowed  were  certain  and  imminent.  On  the 
interpretation  it  may  be  remarked,  that  it  seems 
evident  that  the  kine  represented  the  animal  prod- 
ucts, and  the  ears  of  corn  the  vegetable  products, 
the  most  important  object  in  each  class  representing 
the  whole  class.  Any  reference  to  l''.gyptian  super- 
Btitions,  such  as  some  commentators  have  imagined, 
is  both  derogatory  to  revelation  and,  on  pmely  crit- 
ical grounds,  imreasonable.  The  perfectly  I'^gyptian 
color  of  the  whole  narrative  is  very  noticeable,  and 
nowhere  more  so  than  in  the  particulars  of  the  first 
dream.  The  cattle  coming  up  from  the  river  and 
feeding  on  the  bank  may  be  seen  even  now,  though 
among  them  the  lean  kine  predominate;  and  the 
use  of  one  Egyptian  word,  if  not  of  two,  in  the 
nan-ative,  probably  shows  that  the  writer  knew  the 
Egyptian  language.  The  corn  with  many  ears  on 
one  stalk  must  be  wheat,  one  kind  of  which  now 


Egyptian  Jew,  uses  it  untranslated  (Ecclus.  xl.  16) :  it 
is  written  in  these  places  axi,  axfi.  Jerome  remarks 
that  when  he  asked  the  learned  Egyptians  what  this 
word  meant,  they  said  that  in  their  language  this 
name  was  given  to  every  kind  of  marsh-plant  ("  07nne 
quod  ill  palude  virens  nascitur,^^  Com.  in  Is.  I.  c). 

The  change  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  vowel  ee  to  "1  is 
luite  consistent  with  the  laws  of  permutation  which 
we  discover  by  a  comparison  of  Egyptian  and  Hebrew 
Ene.  Brit.  8th  ed.  "Hieroglyphics").  This  word  oc- 
curs with  SXSil  i°  Jo^  '^"i-  11'  The  latter  we  have 
•upposed  to  be  there  used  generically,  as  "  the  reed  " 
I^Egvpt]  ;  but  from  the  occurrence  of  an  Egyptian  word 
with  it,  it  may  be  inferred  to  have  its  special  significa- 
tion, "  the  papyrus."  The  former  word,  however 
teems  to  be  always  generic.     [FL.\a,  Amer.  el.] 

a  Bunsen  remarks  upon  this  word  :  "  Der  Ostwind, 
ier  wegen  seiner  fdnfisigtiigigen  Dauer  jetzt  in  .ffigypten 
Chamsin  hei?st,  ist  sehr  trocken  uud  hat  Verwandschaft 
"lit  dem  Samura  (d.  h.  der  Giftige),  dem  erstickenden 
Bturaisvind  dcs  wdsten  Arabien,  der  im  April  und  Mai 
herrecht"  {Bibelwerk,  ad  loc.).  But  it  shovJd  be  ob^ 
wrrtd :  1.  The  east  wind  does  not  blow  fiuring  the 


JOSEPH 

grown  in  Egypt  has  this  peculiarity.  Anolhei 
point  to  be  remarked  is,  that  Joseph  shaved  before 
he  went  into  Pharaoh's  presence,  and  we  find  from 
the  monuments  that  the  Egyptians,  except  when 
engaged  in  war,  shaved  both  the  head  and  face,  the 
small  beard  that  was  worn  on  the  chin  l)eing  prob- 
ably artificial.  Having  interjireted  the  dream,  Jo- 
seph counselled  Pharaoh  to  choo.se  a  wise  man  and 
set  him  over  the  country,  in  oider  that  ho  should 
take  the  fifth  part  of  the  produce  of  the  seven  years 
of  plenty  against  the  years  of  famine.  To  this  high 
post  the  king  appointed  Joseph.  Thus,  when  he 
was  thirty  years  of  age,  was  he  at  last  released  from 
his  state  of  suffering,  and  placed  in  a  i>osition  of 
the  greatest  honor.  About  thirteen  years'  proba- 
tion had  prepared  him  for  this  trust ;  some  part 
passed  as  Potiphar's  slave,  some  part,  [)robably  the 
greater,^'  in  the  prison.  If  our  views  of  Hebrew 
and  Egyptian  clironology  be  correct,  the  Pharaoh 
here  mentioned  was  Assa,  INIanetho's  Assis  or  Ass**, 
whose  reign  we  suppose  to  have  about  occupied  the 
first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  n.  c. 

Pharaoh,  seeing  the  wisdom  of  giving  Jo8q>bf 
whom  he  perceived  to  be  under  God's  guidance, 
greater  powers  than  he  had  advised  should  be  given 
to  the  officer  set  over  the  country,  made  him  not 
only  governor  of  Eg^pt,  but  second  only  to  the 
sovereign.  "We  read :  "  And  Pharaoh  took  off  his 
signet  c  from  his  hand,  and  put  it  upon  Joseph's 
hand,  and  arrayed  him  in  vestures  of  fine  linen 
(tL'tr,  byssus),  and  put  a  collar  of  gold  about  his 

neck;  and  he  made  him  to  ride  in  the  second 
chariot  which  he  had ;  and  they  cried  before  him, 

Abrech  ("Tj^SS),  even  to  set  him  over  all  the  land 

of  Egypt"  (xU.  42,  43).  The  monuments  show 
that  on  the  investiture  of  a  high  official  in  Egypt, 
one  of  the  chief  ceremonies  was  the  putting  on  Lira 
a  collar  of  gold  (.see  A7icitnt  L'f/i/ptians,  pi.  80); 
the  other  particulars,  the  vestures  of  fine  linen  and 
the  riding  in  the  second  chariot,  are  equally  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  manners  of  the  country.  The 
meaning  of  what  was  cried  liefore  him  luis  not  been 
satisfactorily  determined.**  We  are  told  that  Pharaoh 

named  Joseph  Zapbnath-paaneah  (xli.  45)  (iH^C"?^ 
HD^Q,  'Vov6oiJ.<pavfix^i  ^^*®  signification  of  which 


Khama.seen.  2.  The  spring  hot  winds  are  southerly, 
3.  They  do  not  last  fifty  days.  4.  They  are  not  called 
Chamsin  (Khamseen)  or  Khamaseen.  5.  They  prevail, 
usually  for  three  days  at  a  time,  during  the  seven 
weeks  (49  days)  tbllowing  Easter,  vulgsirly  called  in 
Egypt  Khamaseen,  which  is  a  plural  of  Khamseen,  a 
term  applied  in  the  singular  to  neither  winds  nor 
period,  though  they  are  not  strictly  confined  to  this 
fluctuating  period.  6  They  have  no  relation  to  the 
Samoom,  which  occurs  in  any  hot  weather,  and  seldom 
lasts  more  than  a  quarter  of  an  hoiur.  7.  The  Samoom 
is  not  peculiar  to  Arabia. 

b  We  only  know  that  Joseph  was  two  years  in  prison 
after  the  liberation  of  the  chief  of  the  cupbearers.  The 
preponderance  of  evidence,  however,  seems  in  favor  of 
supposing  that  he  was  long«?r  in  prison  than  in  Poti- 
phar's  house. 

c  The  signet  was  of  so  much  importance  with  the 
ancient  Egyptian  kings  that  their  names  (except 
perhaps  in  the  earliest  period)  were  always  inclosed 
in  an  oval  which  represented  an  elongateil  signet. 

d  We  do  not  here  except  Bunsen's  etymology  (Bibel- 
wer/c,  ad  loc.),  for  we  doubt  that  the  ro')t  bears  tb« 
signification  he  gives  it,  and  think  t  je  cou8tru<;ti<5« 
inadmissible. 


JOSEPH 

is  doubtful.  [See  ZAriiNATii-pAANFAii.]  He 
also  "  gave  him  to  wife  Asenatli  daughter  of  Poti- 

pherah,  priest  [or  'prince,'  ]n!D]  of  On"  (ver. 

45).  Whether  Joseph's  father-in-law  were  priest  or 
prince  cannot,  we  think,  he  determined,"  although 
the  former  seems  more  likely,  since  On  was  a  very 
priestly  city,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  to  think 
that  a  priest  would  have  heen  more  exclusive  than 
any  other  Egyptian  functionary.  His  name,  im- 
plying devotion  to  Ka,  the  principal  object  of 
worship  at  On,  though,  as  already  noticed,  appro- 
priate to  any  citizen  of  that  place,  would  be  espe- 
cially so  to  a  priest.  [Potipiiau.]  It  is  worthy 
of  remark  that  On  appears  to  have  been  the  capital, 
and  seems  to  have  been  certainly  the  religious 
capital,  as  containing  the  great  temple,  of  Apepee, 
a  shepherd-king,  probably  of  the  same  line  as 
Joseph's  Pharaoh.  {Select  Papyri;  Brugsch, 
Zeiiachrlft  d.  Deufsch.  Aforgenland.  GeselUchaft.) 
The  name  of  Joseph's  wife  we  are  disposed  to  con- 
sider to  be  Hebrew.^     [Asknatii.] 

Joseph's  history,  as  governor  of  Egypt,  shows 
him  in  two  relations,  which  may  be  here  separately 
considered.  We  shall  first  speak  of  his  adminis- 
tration of  the  country,  anJ  then  of  his  conduct  to 
his  brethren.  In  one  respect,  as  bearing  upon 
Joseph's  moral  character,  the  two  subjects  are 
closely  connected,  but  their  details  may  be  best 
treated  apart,  if  we  keep  this  important  aspect  con- 
stantly in  view. 

Joseph's  first  act  was  to  go  "  throughout  all  the 
land  of  Egypt"  (ver.  4G).  During  "the  seven 
plenteous  years  "  there  was  a  very  abundant  produce, 
and  he  gathered  the  fifth  part,  as  he  had  advised 
Pharaoh,  and  laid  it  up.  The  narrative,  according 
to  Semitic  usage,  speaks  as  though  he  had  taken 
the  whole  produce  of  the  country,  or  the  whole 
surplus  produce  (ver.  48) ;  but  a  comparison  with 
a  parallel  passage  shows  that  our  explanation  must 
be  con-ect  (ver.  34,  35).  The  abundance  of  this 
store  is  evident  from  the  statement  that  "  Jose|Ji 
gathered  corn  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  very  much, 
until  he  left  numbering ;  for  [it  was]  without  num- 
ber" (ver.  49).  The  representations  of  the  monu- 
ments, which  show  that  the  contents  of  the  gran- 
aries were  accurately  noted  by  the  scribes  when 
i,hey  were  filled,  well  illustrate  this  passage. 

Before  the  years  of  famine  Asenath  bare  Joseph 
two  sons,  of  whom  we  read  that  he  named  "  the 
firstborn  Manasseh  [a  forgetter] :  For  God  [said 
he]  hath  made  me  forget  all  my  toil,  and  all  my 
father's  house.  And  the  name  of  the  second  called 
he  Ephraim  [fruitful  ?] ; "  For  God  hath  caused 
me  to  be  fruitful  in  the  land  of  my  affliction  "  (50- 
52).  Though,  aa  was  natural,  the  birth  of  a  son 
made  Joseph  feel  that  he  had  at  last  found  a  home, 
that  his  father's  house  was  no  longer  his  home,  yet 
it  was  not  in  utter  forgetfalness  of  his  country  that 
he  gave  this  and  the  other,  both  born  of  his  Egyptian 


JOSEPH 


1461 


a  The  Vv»ry  old  opinion  that  ^HS  means  prince 
as  well  as  priest  has  been  contradicted  by  QeseniuB, 
but  not  disproved. 

b  It  may  be  remarked,  aa  indicating  thai  Joseph's 
fomily  did  not  maintain  an  Egyptian  mode  of  life,  that 
Wanasseh  took  an  Aramitess  as  a  concubine  (1  Chr. 
rii.  14).  This  happened  in  his  father's  lifetime :  for 
Toseph  lived  to  see  the  children  of  Machir  the  son  of 
his  concubine  (Gen.  1.  23). 

c  The  derivation  of  Ephraim  can  scarcely  be 
toubted   although  there  is  difficulty  in  determiainK 


wife,  Hebrew  names,  still  less,  narces  signifying  hit 
devotion  tc>  the  God  of  his  fathers. 

When  toe  seven  good  years  had  i>assed,  the  fam 
ine  began.  We  read  that  "  the  dearth  was  in  aB 
lands ;  but  in  all  the  land  of  Egypt  there  was  bread. 
And  when  all  the  land  of  Egypt  was  famished,  the 
people  cried  to  Pharaoh  for  bread:  and  Pharaoh 
said  unto  all  the  Egyptians,  Go  unto  Joseph,  what 
he  saith  to  you,  do.  And  the  famine  was  over  all 
the  face  of  the  earth.  And  Joseph  opened  all  the 
storehouses  [lit.  'all  wherein'  «?«s],  and  sold  unto 
the  Egyptians;  and  the  famine  waxed  sore  in  the  ■ 
land  of  I'^gypt.  And  all  countries  came  into  Egjrpt 
to  Joseph  for  to  buy  [corn] ;  because  that  the  fam- 
ine was  [so]  sore  in  all  lands  "  (ver.  54-57).  The 
expressions  here  used  do  not  require  us  to  suppose 
that  the  famine  extended  beyond  the  countries 
around  Egypt,  such  as  Palestine,  Syria,  and  Arabia, 
as  well  as  some  part  of  Africa,  although  of  course 
it  may  have  been  more  widely  experienced.  It  may 
be  obser\'ed,  that  although  famines  in  Egypt  depend 
immediately  upon  the  failure  of  the  inundation, 
and  in  other  countries  upon  the  failure  of  rain,  yet 
that,  as  the  rise  of  the  Kile  is  caused  by  heavy 
rains  in  Ethiopia,  an  extremely  dry  season  there 
and  in  Palestine  would  produce  the  result  described 
in  the  sacred  narrative.  It  must  also  be  recollected 
that  Egypt  was  anciently  the  granary  of  neighbor- 
ing countries,  and  that  a  famine  there  would  cause 
first  scarcity,  and  then  famine,  around.  Famines 
are  not  very  unfrequent  in  the  history  of  I'^gypt; 
but  the  famous  seven  years'  famine  in  the  reign  of 
the  Filtimee  Khaleefeh  El-Mustansir-b-illah  is  the 
only  known  parallel  to  that  of  Joseph :  of  this  an 
account  is  given  under  FaiMink.  Early  in  the 
time  of  famine,  Joseph's  brethren  came  to  buy 
corn,  a  part  of  the  history  which  we  mention  here 
only  as  indicating  the  liberal  policy  of  the  governor 
of  Egypt,  by  which  the  storehouses  were  opened  to 
all  buyers  of  whatever  nation  they  were. 

After  the  famine  had  lasted  for  a  time,  apparently 
two  years,  there  was  "  no  bread  in  all  the  land ; 
for  the  famine  [was]  very  sore,  so  that  the  land  of 
Egypt  and  [all]  the  laud  of  Canaan  fainted  by 
reason  of  the  famine.  And  Joseph  gathered  up 
all  the  money  that  was  found  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  the  corn  which  they 
bought:  and  Joseph  brought  the  money  hito  Pha- 
raoh's house  "'^  (xlvii.  13,  14).  When  all  the 
money  of  Egypt  and  Canaan  was  exhausted,  barter 
became  necessary.  Joseph  then  obtained  all  the 
cattle  of  Egypt,«  and  in  the  next  year,  all  the  land, 
except  that  of  the  priests,  and  apparently,  as  a  con- 
sequence, the  Egyptians  themselves.  lie  demanded, 
however,  only  a  filth  part  of  the  produce  as  Pha- 
raoh's right.  It  has  been  attempted  to  trace  this 
enactment  of  Joseph  in  the  fragments  of  I-^gyptian 
history  preserved  by  profane  writers,  but  the  result 
has  not  been  satisfactory.  Even  were  the  latter 
sources  trustworthy  as  to  the  early  period  of  Egyp- 

it.  This  difficulty  we  may  perhaps  partly  attribute  to 
the  pointing, 

d  It  appears  from  this  narrative  that  purchase  by 
money  was,  in  Joseph's  time,  the  general  practice  in 
Egypt.  The  representations  of  the  monuments  show 
that  in  early  times  money  was  abundant,  not  coined, 
but,  n  the  form  of  rings  of  gold  and  silver,  weighed 
out  wnen  purchases  were  made. 

c  It  does  not  appear  whether,  after  the  money  of 
Canaan  was  exhausted,  Joseph  made  conditions  with 
the  Canaanites  like  those  he  had  uiade  with  the  £ig}']h 


14G8 


JOSEPH 


tiaa  historj',  it  would  be  difficult  to  determine  the 
age  referred  to,  as  the  actions  of  at  least  two  kings 
axe  Jiscribed  by  the  Greeks  to  Sesostris,  the  king 
particularized.  Herodotus  says  that,  according  to 
the  Egyptians,  Sesostris  "  made  a  division  of  the 
Boil  of  I'Igypt  among  the  inhabitants,  assigning 
»quai'e  plots  of  ground  of  equal  size  to  all,  and  ob- 
taining his  chief  revenue  from  the  rent  which  the 
holders  were  required  to  pay  him  every  year"  (ii. 
109).  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  the  priests  as  hav- 
ing no  expenses,  being  supported  by  the  property 
of  the  temples  (37),  but  he  does  not  assign  to  Se- 
Bostris,  as  'las  been  rashly  supposed,  the  exemption 
from  taxation  that  we  nmy  reasonably  infer.  Dio- 
dorus  Siculus  ascribes  tbe  division  of  Egypt  into 
nonies  to  Sesostris,  whom  lie  calls  Sesoosis.  Tak- 
ing into  consideration  the  general  character  of  the 
information  given  by  Herodotus,  respecting  the 
history  of  ICgypt  at  periods  remote  from  his  own 
time,  we  are  not  justified  in  supposing  anything 
more  than  that  some  tradition  of  an  ancient  allot- 
ment of  the  soil  by  the  crown  among  the  popula- 
tion was  current  when  he  visited  the  country.  The 
testimony  of  Diodorus  is  of  far  less  weight. 

The  evidence  of  the  narrative  in  Genesis  seems 
favorable  to  the  theory  we  support  that  Joseph 
ruled  Egypt  under  a  shepherd-king.  It  appears  to 
have  been  his  policy  to  give  Pharaoh  absolute  power 
over  the  Egyptians,  and  the  expression  of  their 
gratitude  —  "  Thou  hast  saved  our  lives :  let  us  find 
grace  in  the  sight  of  my  lx)rd,  and  we  will  be 
Pharaoh's  servants"  (xlvii.  25)  —  seems  as  though 
they  had  been  heretofore  unwilling  subjects.  The 
removing  the  people  to  cities  probably  means  that 
in  that  time  of  sufiTering  the  scattered  population 
was  collected  into  the  cities  for  the  more  convenient 
distribution  of  the  corn. 

There  is  a  notice,  in  an  ancient  Eg3-ptian  inscrip- 
tion, of  a  famine  which  has  been  supjwsed  to  be 
that  of  Joseph.  The  inscription  is  in  a  tomb  at 
Benee-IIasan,  and  records  of  Amenee,  a  governor 
of  a  district  of  Upper  ICgypt,  that  when  there  were 
years  of  famine,  his  district  was  supplied  with  food. 
This  was  in  the  time  of  Sesertesen  1.,  of  the  Xllth 
Dynasty.  It  has  been  supiwsed  by  Baron  Bunsen 
{EfjiipCs  Place,  iii.  334)  that  this  must  be  Joseph's 
famine,  but  not  only  are  the  particulars  of  the 
record  inapplicable  to  that  instance,"  but  the  ca- 
lamity it  relates  was  never  unusual  in  Egypt,  as  its 
ancient  inscriptions  and  modern  history  equally 
testify.6 

Joseph's  policy  towards  the  subjects  of  Pharaoh 
is  important  in  reference  to  the  forming  an  esti- 
mate of  his  character.  It  displays  the  resolution 
and  breadth  of  view  that  mark  his  whole  career. 
He  perceived  a  great  advantage  to  be  gained,  and 
he  lost  no  part  of  it.  He  put  all  I'^gypt  under 
Pharaoh.     Eirst  the  money,  tben  the  cattle,  last 


a  Baron  Itunsen's  quotation,  "  When,  in  the  time 
cf  Sesortosis  I.,  the  greiit  famine  prevailed  in  all  the 
other  districts  of  Egypt,  there  was  corn  in  mine  " 
{Egypt's  Pace,  1.  c),  is  nowhere  in  the  original.  See 
Bircn  in  Transactions  R.  Soc.  Lit.  2d  Ser.  v.  Pt.  ii. 
-.432,  233 ;  Brugsch,  Uistoire  tftgnpte,  i.  56. 

b  Dr.  Brugsch  remarks  on  this  inscription:  "La 
Jemifere  partie  de  cctte  curieuse  inscription  ou  Amenj, 
«ti  reportaut  a  une  fiimine  qui  avait  lieu  pendant  les 
inn^es  de  son  gouvernement,  se  fait  un  pan^gyrique 
i'avoir  prt5venu  les  malheurs  de  la  disette  sans  se  par- 
iialiser,  a  attir»5  la  plus  grande  attention  de  ceux  qui 
T  roioiit,  et  nous  ajoutons  tres  a  propos,  un  pendant 
ie  I  hlstolre  de  Joseph  en  Egypte,  et  des  sept  ann(^^ 


JOSEPH 

of  all  the  land,  and  the  Egyptians  themselves  b» 
c.^me  the  property  of  the  sovereign,  and  that  toe 
by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  people,  without  anj 
pressure.  This  being  effected,  he  exercised  a  great 
act  of  generosity,  and  required  only  a  filth  of  the 
produce  as  a  recognition  of  the  rights  of  the  crown. 
Of  the  wisdom  of  this  policy  there  can  be  no  doubt 
Its  justice  can  hardly  be  questioned  when  it  ia 
borne  m  mind  tiiat  the  Egyptians  were  not  forcibly 
deprived  of  their  Uberties,  and  that  when  they  had 
been  given  up,  they  were  at  once  restored.  We 
do  not  know  all  the  circumstances,  but  if,  as  w* 
may  reasonably  supi>ose,  the  people  were  warned 
of  the  famine  and  yet  made  no  prepnration  during 
the  3'ears  of  overflowing  abundance,  the  govern- 
ment had  a  clear  claim  upon  its  subjects  for  having 
taken  precautions  they  had  neglected.  In  any  case 
it  may  have  been  desirable  to  make  a  new  allotment 
of  land,  and  to  reduce  an  unequal  system  of  taxa- 
tion to  a  simple  claim  to  a  fifth  of  the  produce. 
We  have  no  evidence  whether  Joseph  were  in  this 
matter  divinely  aided,  but  we  caimot  doubt  that,  if 
not,  he  acted  in  accord  with  a  judgment  of  great 
clearness  in  distinguishing  good  and  evil. 

We  have  now  to  consider  the  conduct  of  Joseph 
at  this  time  towards  his  brethren  and  his  father, 
luirly  in  the  time  of  famine,  which  prevailed  equally 
in  Canaan  and  I'^gypt,  Jacob  reproved  his  helpless 
sons  and  sent  them  to  Egypt,  where  he  knew  there 
was  corn  to  be  bought.  Benjamin  alone  he  kept 
with  him.  Joseph  wivs  now  governor,  an  Egyptian 
in  habits  and  sj^eech,  for  like  all  men  of  large  mhid 
he  had  suffered  no  scruples  of  prejudice  to  make 
him  a  stranger  to  the  j^eople  he  ruled.  In  his 
exalted  station  he  labored  with  the  zeal  that  he 
showed  in  all  his  various  charges,  presiding  himself 
at  the  sale  of  corn.  We  read:  "And  the  sons 
of  Israel  came  to  buy  [corn]  among  those  that 
came;  for  the  famine  was  in  the  land  of  Canaan 
And  Joseph,  the  governor  over  the  land,  he  [it  wasj 
that  sold  to  all  the  people  of  the  land ;  and  Joseph's 
brethren  came,  and  bowed  down  themselves  before 
him  [with]  their  flvces  to  the  earth  "  (xhi.  5,  6). 
His  brethren  did  not  know  Joseph,  grown  from  the 
boy  they  had  sold  into  a  man,  and  to  their  e^es  an 
I'lgyptian,  while  they  must  have  been  scarcely 
changed,  except  from  the  effect  of  time,  which 
would  have  been  at  their  ages  ."ar  less  marked. 
Joseph  remembered  his  dreams,  and  behaved  to 
them  as  a  stranger,  using,  as  we  afterwards  learn, 
an  interpreter,  and  spoke  hard  words  to  them,  and 
accused  them  of  being  spies.  In  defending  them- 
selves they  thus  spoke  of  their  household.  "  Thy 
servants  [are]  twelve  brethren,  the  sons  of  one  man 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and,  behold,  the  youngest 
[is]  this  day  with  our  liither,  and  one  [is]  not " 
(13).  Thus  to  Jn-;eph  himself  they  maintained 
the  old  deceit  of  his  disappearance.     He  at  once 


de  famine  de  ce  pays.  Ce pendant  il  ne  faut  pas  croire, 
que  le  roi  Ousertesen  I.,  sous  le  regne  duquel  une 
famine  eut  lieu  en  ^gypte,  soit  le  Pharaon  de  Joseph, 
ce  qui  n'est  guere  aduiissible,  par  suite  de  raisona 
chronologiqucs.  Du  reste  ce  n'est  pas  la  seule  inscrip- 
tion qui  fasse  mention  de  la  famine ;  il  en  existe  i'au* 
tres,  qui  datant  de  rois  tout-a-fait  dilTerents,  parlent 
du  meme  fleau  et  des  memes  precautions  prises  pom 
le  pr6venir."  —  Hisloire  tVilnirple,  i.  56.  >Ve  art 
glad  to  learn  from  this  new  work  that  Dr.  Erngsch 
though  differing  from  us  as  to  th«t  Exedus,  is  dispose* 
to  hold  Joseph  to  have  governed  Cg^pt  under  a  Sbef 
herd-Ung(pp  79,  S')). 


JOSEPH 

desires  to  see  his  brother,  first  refusing  that  they 
ihould  return  without  sending  for  and  bringing 
Benjamin,  then  putting  them  in  prison  three  days, 
but  at  last  releasing  them  that  they  might  take 
back  corn,  on  the  condition  that  one  should  be  left 
as  a  hostage.  They  were  then  stricken  with  re- 
morse, and  saw  that  the  punishment  of  their  great 
crime  was  come  upon  them.  •'  And  they  said  one 
to  another,  We  [are]  verily  guilty  concerning  our 
brother,  in  that  we  saw  the  anguish  of  his  soul, 
when  he  besought  us,  and  we  would  not  hear; 
therefore  is  this  distress  come  U|X)n  us.  And  Keu- 
ben  answered  tliem,  saying,  Spake  I  not  unto  you, 
saying,  Do  not  sin  against  the  child,  and  ye  would 
not  hear?  therefore,  behold,  also  his  blood  is  re- 
quired. And  they  knew  not  that  -Joseph  under- 
stood [them] ;  for  an  interpreter  [was]  between 
them.  And  he  turned  himself  about  from  them, 
and  wept;  and  returned  to  them  again,  and  com- 
muned v/ith  them,  and  took  from  them  Simeon, 
and  bound  him  before  their  eyes  "  (21-24).  Thus 
he  separated  one  of  them  from  the  rest,  as  they 
had  separated  liim  from  his  father.  Yet  he  restored 
their  money  in  their  sacks,  and  gave  them  provision 
for  the  v/ay,  besides  the  corn  they  had  purchased. 
The  discovery  of  the  money  terrified  them  and 
their  father,  who  refused  to  let  them  take  Benja- 
min. Yet  when  the  fomine  contiimed,  and  they 
had  eaten  the  supply,  Jacob  desired  his  sons  to  go 
again  to  Egypt,  liut  they  could  not  go  without 
Benjamin.  At  the  persuasion  of  Judah,  who  here 
appears  as  the  spokesman  of  his  brethren,  Jacob 
was  at  last  prevailed  on  to  let  them  take  him, 
Judah  oft'ering  to  be  surety.  It  may  be  remarked 
that  Iieul)en  had  made  the  same  offer,  apparently. 
at  once  after  the  return,  when  Jacob  had  withheld 
his  consent,  telling  his  father  that  he  might  slay 
his  two  sons  if  he  did  not  bring  back  Benjamin 
(37,  38).  Judah  seems  to  have  been  put  forward 
by  his  brethren  as  the  most  able,  and  certainly  his 
after-conduct  in  Egj'pt  would  have  justified  their 
choice,  and  his  father's  trusting  him  rather  than 
the  rest.  Jacob,  anxious  for  Benjamin,  and  not 
unmindful  of  Simeon,  touchingly  sent  to  tlie  gov- 
ernor out  of  his  scanty  stock  a  little  present  of  the 
best  products  of  Palestine,  as  well  as  double  money 
that  his  sons  might  repay  what  had  been  returned 
to  them. 

AVhen  they  had  come  into  Egypt,  Joseph's 
brethren,  as  before,  found  him  presiding  at  the 
sale  of  corn.  Now  that  Benjamin  was  with  them 
he  told  his  steward  to  slay  and  make  ready,  for 
they  should  dine  with  him  at  noon.  So  the  man 
brought  them  into  Joseph's  house.  They  feared, 
not  knowing,  as  it  seems,  why  they  were  taken  to 
the  hodse  (xliii.  25),  and  perhaps  thinking  they 
•alight  be  imprisoned  there.  Joseph  no  doubt  gave 
his  eonunand  in  Egyptian,  and  apparently  did  not 
cause  it  to  be  interpreted  to  them.  They  were, 
however,  encouraged  by  the  steward,  and  Simeon 
was  brought  out  to  them.  AVhen  Joseph  came 
vhey  brought  him  the  present,  again  fulfilling  his 
^ams,  as  twice  they  bowed  before  him.  At  the 
Bight  of  Benjamin  he  was  greatly  affected.  "  And 
he  Ufted  up  his  eyes  and  saw  his  brother  Benjamin, 
"lis  mother's  son,  and  said,  [Is]  this  your  younger 
brother,  of  whom  ye  spake  unto  me  ?  And  he  said, 
God  be  gracious  unto  thee,  m^  lion.  And  Jo^ieph 
made  haste,  for  his  bowels  did  ye.arn  apou  his 
brother,  and  he  sought  [where]  to  weep,  and  he 
entered  into  [his]  chamber,  and  wept  there.  And 
to  washed  his  face,  and  went  out,  and  refrained 


JOSEPH  1469 

himself"  (20-31).  The  description  of  Josejih'! 
dinner  b  in  accordance  with  the  representations  of 
the  monuments.  Tlie  governor  and  each  of  hLi 
guests  were  served  separately,  and  the  l;icthren 
were  placed  according  to  their  age.  But  tliougfa 
the  youngest  thus  had  the  lowest  place,  yet  when 
Joseph  sent  messes  from  before  him  to  his  brethren, 
he  showed  his  favor  to  Benjamin  by  a  mess  five 
times  as  large  as  that  of  any  of  them.  "  And  they 
drank,  and  were  merry  with  him  "  (.■}2-34).  It  ia 
mentioned  that  the  JCgyptians  and  Hebrews  sat 
apart  from  each  other,  as  to  eat  bread  with  the 
Hebrews  was  "  an  abomination  viJito  the  Egyp- 
tians "  (32).  The  scenes  of  the  Egyptian  tombs 
show  us  that  it  was  the  custom  for  each  person  to 
eat  singly,  particularly  among  the  great,  that  gueela 
were  placed  according  to  their  right  of  precedenrej 
and  tliat  it  was  usual  to  drink  freely,  men  and  eveu 
women  being  represented  as  over])owered  with  wine, 
probably  as  an  evidence  of  the  liberahty  of  the  en- 
tertainer. These  points  of  agreement  in  matters 
of  detail  are  well  worthy  of  attention.  Tliere  is  no 
evidence  as  to  the  entertaining  foreigners,  but  the 
general  exclusiveness  of  the  Egyptians  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  statement  that  they  did  not  eat 
with  the  Hebrews. 

The  next  morning,  when  it  was  light,  they  left 
the  city  (for  here  we  learn  that  Joseph's  house  wa.1 
in  a  city),  having  had  their  money  replaced  in  their 
sacks,  and  Josei)h's  silver  cup  put  in  Benjamin's 
sack.  His  steward  was  ordered  to  follow  them,  and 
say  (claiming  the  cup),  "  Wherefore  have  ye  re- 
warded evil  for  good  ?  [Is]  not  this  [it]  in  which 
my  lord  drinketh,  and  whereby  indeed  he  divineth? 
Ye  have  done  evil  in  so  doing  "  (xliv.  4,  5).  When 
they  were  thus  accused,  they  declared  that  the 
guilty  person  should  die,  and  that  tlie  rest  should 
be  bondmen.  So  the  steward  searched  the  sacks, 
and  the  cup  was  found  in  Benjamin's  sack;  where- 
upon they  rent  their  clothes,  and  returned  to  the 
city,  and  went  to  Joseph's  house,  and  "  fell  before 
him  on  the  ground.  And  Joseph  said  unto  them, 
What  deed  [is]  this  that  ye  have  done?  wot  ye 
not  that  such  a  man  as  I  can  certainly  divine?" 
Judah  then,  instead  of  protesting  innocence,  ad- 
mitted the  alleged  crime,  and  declared  that  he  and 
his  brethren  were  the  governor's  servants.  But 
Joseph  replied  that  he  would  alone  keep  him  in 
whose  hand  tlie  cup  was  found.  Judah,  not  un- 
mindful of  the  trust  he  held,  then  laid  the  whole 
matter  before  Joseph,  showing  him  that  he  could 
not  leave  Benjamin  without  causing  the  old  man's 
death,  and  as  surety  nobly  offered  himself  as  a 
bondman  in  his  brother's  stead.  Then,  at  the 
touching  relation  of  his  father's  love  and  anxiety, 
and,  perhaps,  moved  by  Judah's  generosity,  the 
strong  will  of  Joseph  gave  way  to  the  tenderness 
he  had  so  long  felt,  but  restrained,  and  he  made 
himself  known  to  his  brethren.  If  hitherto  he  had 
dealt  severely,  now  he  showed  his  generosity.  He 
sent  forth  every  one  but  his  brethren.  "  And 
he  wept  aloud.  .  •  .  And  Joseph  said  unto  his 
brethren,  I  [am]  Joseph;  doth  my  father  yet  live? 
And  his  brethren  could  not  answer  him ;  for  they 
were  troubled  at  his  presence.  And  Joseph  said 
unto  his  brethren,  Come  near  to  me,  I  pray  you. 
And  they  came  near.  And  he  said,  I  [am]  Joseph 
your  brother,  whom  ye  sold  into  Egypt.  Now  there- 
fore be  not  grieved,  nor  angry  with  yourselves,  that 
ye  sold  me  hither:  for  God  did  send  me  before  you 
to  presen'e  life.  For  these  two  years  [hath]  the 
famine  [been]  in  the  land :  and  yet  [there  are]  five 


1470 


JOSEPH 


years  in  the  which  [there  shall]  neither  [be]  earing 
nor  htir\est.  And  God  sent  me  before  you  to  pre- 
serve you  a  posterity  in  the  earth,  and  to  save  j-our 
lives  l3y  a  great  deliverance.  So  now  [it  was]  not 
you  [that]  sent  me  hither,  but  God  "  (xlv.  2-8). 
He  then  desired  them  to  bring  his  father,  that  he 
and  all  his  offspring  and  flocks  and  herds  might  be 
preserved  in  the  fiimine,  and  charged  them  to  tell 
his  father  of  his  greatness  and  glory.  <'  And  he 
fell  upon  his  brother  Benjamin's  neck,  and  wept; 
and  Benjamin  wept  upon  Jjis  neck.  Moreover  he 
kissed  all  his  brethren,  and  wept  upon  them  "  (14, 
15).  Pharaoh  and  his  servants  Mere  well  pleased 
that  Joseph's  brethren  were  come,  and  the  king 
commanded  him  to  send  for  his  father  according 
to  his  desire,  and  to  take  wagons  for  the  women 
and  children.  He  said,  "Also  let  not  your  eye 
■pare  your  stuff;  for  tlie  good  of  all  the  land  of 
Egypt  [is]  yours  "  (20).  From  all  this  we  see  how 
highly  Joseph  was  regarded  by  Pharaoh  and  his 
court.  Joseph  then  gave  presents  to  his  brethren, 
distinguishing  Benjamin  as  before,  and  sent  by 
them  a  present  and  provisions  to  his  father,  dis- 
missing them  with  tliis  charge,  "  See  that  ye  fall 
not  out  by  the  way  "  «  (24).  He  feared  that  even 
now  their  trials  had  taught  them  nothing. 

Joseph's  conduct  towards  his  brethren  and  his 
father,  at  this  period,  must  be  well  examined  before 
we  can  form  a  judgment  of  his  character.  We 
have  no  evidence  that  he  was  then  acting  under  the 
Divine  directions:  we  know  indeed  that  he  held 
that  his  being  brought  to  Egypt  was  providentially 
ordered  for  the  saving  of  his  father's  house :  from 
some  points  in  the  narrative,  especially  the  matter 
of  the  cup,  which  he  said  that  he  used  for  divina- 
tion, he  seems  to  have  acted  on  his  own  judgment. 
Supposing  that  this  inference  is  true,  we  have  to 
ask  whether  his  policy  towards  his  brethren  were 
founded  on  a  resolution  to  punish  them  from  resent- 
ment or  a  sense  of  justice,  as  well  as  his  desire  to 
secure  his  union  with  his  father,  or  again,  whether 
the  latter  were  his  sole  object.  Joseph  had  suffered 
the  most  grievous  wrong.  According  to  all  but  tlie 
highest  principles  of  self-denial  he  would  have  been 
justified  in  punishing  his  brethren  as  an  injured 
person :  according  to  these  principles  he  would  have 
l^en  bound  to  punish  them  for  the  sake  of  justice, 
if  only  he  could  put  aside  a  sense  of  personal  injury 
in  executing  judgment.  This  would  require  the 
strongest  self-command,  united  with  the  deepest 
feeling,  self-command  that  could  keep  feeling  under, 
tnd  feeling  that  could  subdue  resentment,  so  that 
'ustice  would  be  done  impartially.  These  are  the 
wo  qualities  that  shine  out  most  strongly  in  the 
noble  character  of  Joseph.  "We  believe  therefore 
that  he  punished  his  brethren,  but  did  so  simply 
B8  the  instnnnent  of  justice,  feeling  all  the  while  a 
brother's  tenderness.  It  must  be  remembered  what 
they  were.  Keuben  and  Judah,  both  at  his  selling 
and  in  the  journej'S  into  Egypt,  seem  better  than 
the  rest  of  the  elder  brethren.  But  Reuben  was 
guilty  of  a  crime  that  was  lightly  punished  by  the 
loss  of  his  birthright,  and  Judah  was  profligate  and 
cruel  Even  at  the  time  of  reconciliation  Joseph 
law,  or  thought,  as  his  paiting  charge  shows,  that 
they  were  either  not  less  wicked  or  not  wiser  than 
of  old.  After  his  father's  death,  with  the  sus- 
picion of  ungenerous  and  deceitful  men,  they  feared 
Joseph's  vengeance,  and  he  again  tenderly  assured 
ihera  of  his  love  for  them.     Joseph's  conduct  to 


a  This  is  tlie  most  probable  rendering. 


/JOSEPH 

Jacob  at  this  time  can,  we  think,  be  only  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  he  felt  it  was  his  duty  to 
treat  his  brethren  severely :  otherwise  his  delay  and 
his  causing  distress  to  his  father  are  inconsistent 
with  his  deep  affection.  The  sending  for  Benjamir 
seems  hard  to  understand,  except  we  stippose  that 
Joseph  felt  he  was  the  surest  link  with  his  father, 
and  perhaps  that  Jacob  would  more  readily  receive 
his  testimony  as  to  the  lost  son. 

There  is  no  need  here  to  speak  largely  of  the 
rest  of  Joseph's  history:  full  as  it  is  of  interest,  it 
throws  no  new  light  upon  his  character.  Jacob's 
spirit  revived  when  he  saw  the  wagons  Joseph  had 
sent.  Encouraged  on  the  way  by  a  Divine  vision, 
he  journeyed  into  Egypt  with  his  whole  house. 
"  And  Joseph  made  ready  his  chariot,  and  went  up 
to  meet  Israel  his  father,  to  Goshen,  and  presented 
himself  unto  him;  and  he  fell  on  his  neck,  and 
wept  on  his  neck  a  good  while.  And  Israel  said 
unto  Joseph,  Now  let  me  die,  since  I  have  seen  thy 
face,  because  thou  [art]  yet  alive"  (xlvi.  29,  30). 
Then  Jacob  and  his  house  abode  in  the  land  of 
Goshen,  Joseph  still  ruling  the  country.  Here 
Jacob,  when  near  his  end,  gave  Joseph  a  portion 
above  his  brethren,  doubtless  including  the  *'  parcel 
of  ground  "  at  Shechem,  his  future  burying-place 
(comp.  John  iv.  5).  Then  he  blessed  his  sons, 
Joseph  most  earnestly  of  all,  and  died  in  Egypt. 
"  And  Joseph  fell  upon  his  father's  face,  and  wept 
upon  him,  and  kissed  him"  (1.  1).  When  he  had 
caused  him  to  be  embalmed  by  *'  his  servants  the 
physicians"  he  carried  him  to  Canaan,  and  laid 
him  in  the  cave  of  Machpelah,  the  burying-place 
of  his  fiithers.  Then  it  was  that  his  brethren  feared 
that,  their  father  being  dead,  Joseph  would  punish 
them,  and  that  he  strove  to  remove  their  fears. 
From  his  being  able  to  make  the  journey  into 
Canaan  with  "  a  very  great  company  "  (9),  as  well 
as  from  his  living  apart  from  his  brethren  and  their 
fear  of  him,  Joseph  seems  to  have  been  still  gov- 
ernor of  Egypt.  We  know  no  more  than  that  he 
lived  "a  hundred  and  ten  years"  (22,  20),  having 
been  more  than  ninety  in  I^rypt;  that  he  "saw 
Ephraim's  children  of  the  third  "  [generation],  and 
that  "  the  children  also  of  INIachir  the  son  of  Manas- 
seh  were  borne  upon  Joseph's  knees"  (23);  and 
that  dying  he  took  an  oath  of  his  brethren  that 
they  should  carry  up  his  bones  to  the  land  of 
promise:  thus  showing  in  his  latest  action  the  faith 
(Heb.  xi.  22)  which  had  guided  his  whole  life. 
Like  his  father  he  was  embalmed,  "  and  he  was 
put  in  a  coffin  in  Egj-pt "  (1.  26).  His  trust  Moses 
kept,  and  laid  the  bones  of  Joseph  in  his  inherit- 
ance in  Shechem,  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim  his 
offspring. 

The  character  of  Joseph  is  wholly  composed  of 
great  materials,  and  therefore  needs  not  to  be  mi  ■ 
nutely  portrayed.  We  trace  in  it  veiy  little  of  that 
balance  of  good  and  evil,  of  strengtli  and  weakness, 
that  marks  most  things  human,  and  do  not  any- 
where distinctly  discover  the  results  of  the  conflict 
of  motives  that  generally  occasions  such  great  dif- 
ficulty in  judging  men's  actions.  We  have  as  full 
an  account  of  Joseph  as  of  Abraham  and  -lacob,  a 
fuller  one  than  of  Isaac ;  and  if  we  compare  their 
histories,  Joseph's  character  is  the  least  marked  by 
WTong  or  indecision.  His  first  quafity  seems  to 
have  been  the  greatest  resolution.  He  not  only 
believed  faithfully,  but  could  endure  patiently,  and 
could  command  equally  his  good  and  evil  passions 
Hence  his  strong  sense  of  duty,  his  zealous  work, 
bis  strict  justice,  his  clear  discriminatiuo  of  goo« 


JOSEPH 

ind  rnl.  Like  all  men  of  vigorous  character,  he 
loved  power,  but  when  he  had  gained  it  he  used  it 
with  the  greatest  generosity.  He  seems  to  have 
itriven  to  get  men  unconditionally  in  his  power 
that  he  might  confer  benefits  upon  them.  Gen- 
.jfosity  in  conferring  benefits,  as  well  as  in  forgiving 
injuries,  is  one  of  his  distinguishing  characteristics. 
With  this  strength  was  united  the  deepest  tender- 
ness. He  was  easily  moved  to  tears,  even  weeping 
at  the  first  siglit  of  his  brethren  after  they  had 
sold  him.  His  love  for  his  fixther  and  Benjamin 
was  not  enfeebled  by  years  of  separation,  nor  by  his 
great  station.  The  wise  man  was  still  the  same  as 
the  true  youth.  These  great  qualities  explain  his 
power  of  governing  and  administering,  and  his  ex- 
traordinary flexibility,  which  enabled  him  to  suit 
himself  to  each  new  position  in  hfe.  The  last 
characteristic  to  make  up  this  great  character  was 
modesty,  the  natural  result  of  the  others. 

In  the  history  of  the  chosen  race  Joseph  occupies 
a  vSry  high  place  as  an  instrument  of  Providence. 
He  was  "  sent  before  "  his  people,  as  he  himself 
knew,  to  preserve  them  in  the  temble  famine,  and 
to  settle  them  where  they  could  multiply  and  prosper 
in  the  interval  before  the  iniquity  of  the  Canaanites 
was  full.  In  the  latter  days  of  Joseph's  life,  he  is 
the  leading  character  among  the  Hebrews.  He 
makes  his  father  come  into  Egypt,  and  directs  the 
BCttlement.  He  protects  his  kinsmen.  Dying,  he 
reminds  them  of  the  promise,  charging  them  to 
take  his  bones  with  them.  Blessed  with  many 
revelations,  he  is  throughout  a  God-taught  leader 
of  his  people.  In  the  N.  T.  Joseph  is  only  men- 
tioned :  yet  the  striking  particulars  of  the  persecu- 
tion and  sale  by  his  brethren,  his  resisting  tempta- 
tion, his  great  degradation  and  yet  greater  exalta- 
tion, the  saving  of  his  people  by  his  hand,  and  the 
confounding  of  his  enemies,  seem  to  indicate  that 
he  was  a  type  of  our  Lord.  He  also  connects  the 
Patriarchal  with  the  Gospel  dispensation,  as  an 
instance  of  the  exercise  of  some  of  the  highest 
Christian  virtues  under  the  less  distinct  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Divine  will  granted  to  the  fathers. 

The  history  of  Joseph's  posterity  is  given  in  the 
articles  devoted  to  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh.  Sometimes  these  tribes  are  spoken 
of  under  the  name  of  Joseph,  which  is  even  given 
to  the  whole  Israelite  nation.  Ephraim  is,  how- 
ever, the  common  name  of  his  descendants,  for  the 
division  of  Manasseh  gave  almost  the  whole  political 
weight  to  the  brother-tribe.  That  great  people 
seems  to  have  inherited  all  Joseph's  ability  with 
none  of  his  goodness,  and  the  very  knowledge  of 
his  power  in  Egypt,  instead  of  stimulating  his  ofF- 
■pring  to  follow  in  his  steps,  appears  only  to  have 
constantly  drawn  them  into  a  hankering  after  that 
forbidden  land  which  began  when  Jeroboam  intro- 
duced the  calves,  and  ended  only  when  a  treasonable 
alliance  laid  Samaria  in  rums  and  sent  the  ten 
tribes  into  captivity.  R.  S.  P. 

*  "  Joseph's  conduct  towards  his  brethren  and 
his  father,"  prior  to  the  disclosure  in  Egypt,  is 
lusceptible  of  a  somewhat  diflferent  interpretation 
from  that  which  is  oflfered  in  a  preceding  paragraph. 
The  mental  distress  which  the  brothers  endured, 
vas  both  a  deserved  punishment  and  a  needful  dis- 
cipline, and  it  was  a  fitting  retribution  of  Divine 
Providence  that  the  injured  brother  should  be  the 
»gent  in  inflicting  it.  Its  evident  justice,  if  Lot 
ihe  motive  for  its  infliction,  may  have  well  recon- 
riled  him  to  it,  and  his  conviction  of  its  necessity 
nust  have  been  such  as  to  overcome  his  great 


JOSEPH  14  Tl 

reluctance  to  cause  his  honored  father  an  additional 
pang,  even  though  his  sorrow  would  soon  be  turned 
into  joy.  The  assumed  part  which  he  acted,  and 
the  harsh  tone  which  he  adopted,  were  foreign  to 
every  sentiment  of  his  heart,  and  it  cost  a  violent 
struggle  with  his  noble  nature,  to  bear  this  alien 
attitude  to  a  point  essential  to  the  end  which  he 
had  in  view.  And  what  was  this  end  ?  Was  it, 
as  suggested  abo\"e,  to  punish  his  brethren  ?  —  not 
indeed  to  gratify  an  unfraternal  vindictiveness,  but 
as  a  calm  instrument  of  God's  justice,  and  for  their 
good.  This  eflTect  was,  doubtless,  secured,  but  it 
seems  to  us  that  he  had  an  object,  apart  from  this, 
which  dictated  his  policy,  while  he  neither  sought, 
nor  desired,  their  punishment  —  willingly  leaving 
that  to  the  Being  who  had  been  his  Protector. 

Before  revealing  himself  to  them,  it  was  neces- 
sary for  him  to  know  whether  they  still  cherished 
the  feelings  which  had  prompted  their  wicked  treat- 
ment of  him.  Had  he  sought  their  punishment, 
or  a  mere  personal  triumph,  he  could  have  had  it 
at  an  earlier  period.  This  he  did  not  seek,  but 
waited  for  the  day,  which  he  must  have  anticipated 
from  the  time  of  his  elevation,  when  he  could  j)ut 
them  to  the  test,  and  ascertain  if  the  way  were 
open  for  the  resumption  of  the  lost  relation  —  which 
he  did  desire  with  the  longings  of  a  filial  and 
fraternal  soul,  intensified  by  the  experience  of  an 
exile  from  home.  The  hour  has  come,  and  he 
must  now  know  whether  they  have  repented  of 
their  wickedness  towards  him  —  whether  the  old 
rancor  has  been  changed  to  contrition  and  tender- 
ness. Their  relation  to  his  own  brother  Benjamhi, 
will  furnish  a  decisive  test.  The  partiality  which 
the  doting  father  had  felt  for  himself,  and  which 
had  cost  him  so  dearly,  would  have  inevitably 
passed  over  to  the  surviving  son  of  the  lamented 
Rachel,  the  son  of  his  old  age.  Joseph  cannot  be 
certain  that  Benjamin  is  alive,  or  if  living,  that  he 
is  not  persecuted  —  that,  having  the  same  pretext 
for  it,  their  treatment  of  him  has  not  been  aa 
treacherous  and  cruel  as  it  was  of  himself.  He 
must  see  them  together  and  judge  for  himself,  and 
learn  whether  their  dispositions  are  changed.  Their 
brief  imprisonment  and  the  detention  of  Simeon 
(the  eldest  next  to  Reuben,  who  was  comparatively 
guiltless)  were  severe,  but  necessary,  expedients  to 
induce  them  to  bring  Benjamin,  or  rather,  to  deter 
them  from  coming  without  him,  on  their  second 
visit,  which  would  be  equally  a  necessity  with  the 
first. 

The  plan  succeeds,  and  Benjamin  arrives  with  his 
brothers.  Joseph  bestows  special  attentions  upon 
him,  and  has  the  opportunity  of  observing  whethsr 
their  former  envy  survives.  He  finally  causes  him 
to  be  arrested  as  a  thief,  and  proposing  to  retain 
him  as  a  prisoner,  bids  the  others  return  in  peaca 
to  their  father.  Will  they  do  it !  They  not  merely 
abandoned  Joseph  —  they  sold  him  as  a  slave,  and 
only  not  murdered  him.  Will  they  now  simply 
desert  Benjamin,  and  leave  him  to  his  fate?  They 
did  not  scruple  to  shock  their  father  with  the 
tidings  of  Joseph's  death.  Are  they  still  so  callous 
as  to  consent  to  return  and  tell  him  that  Benjamin 
is  gone  also  ?  They  committed  an  enormous  crime 
to  rid  themselves  of  the  other  favorite.  Are  they 
willing  to  be  freed  from  this,  without  any  culpable 
agency  of  tneir  own  ?  The  result  shows  that  theii 
hearts  are  softened.  The  recollection  of  their  in- 
justice to  Joseph,  has  made  them  even  tender  of 
I3enjamin.  The  sight  of  the  suffering  which  thej 
have  brought  upon  their  father,  has  made  tbenr 


1472 


JOSEPH 


sarefiil  of  his  feelings  and  sympathetically  devoted 
to  his  happiness.  The  arrest  of  the  youngest  brings 
them  all,  with  rent  garments,  into  Joseph's  presence, 
when  Judah,  the  orator  of  the  company,  draws  near 
and  addresses  his  unknown  brother  in  a  strain 
which  stands  unequaled,  perhaps,  among  recorded 
speeches,  as  an  exliibition  of  pathetic  eloquence. 
With  entire  artlessness  he  tells  the  whole  story, 
and  with  the  generous  devotion  of  a  true  son  and 
brother,  asks  leave  to  abide  as  a  bondman  *'  instead 
of  the  lad,"  "  lest,  pcradveuture,  I  see  the  evil  that 
shall  come  on  my  father." 

Joseph,  under  Divine  guidance,  has  refrained  from 
a  premature  disclosure,  and  the  fit  time  has  fully 
come,  lie  has  no  disposition  to  injure  or  reproach 
his  brothers,  or  punish  them  in  any  way.  He  has 
put  them  to  the  test,  as  it  was  his  duty  to  do,  and 
satisfied  that  their  feelings  are  now  right,  the  strug- 
gling emotions  of  his  nature,  long  pent  up,  find  an 
irrepressible  vent.  Troubled  by  the  disclosure  and 
unable  to  speak,  he  calms  tlieir  agitation  and  seeks 
to  soothe  their  self-upbraiding,  thrice  reminding 
them  of  the  wisdom  of  God's  plan,  which  had  been 
broader  than  theirs.  This  is  followed  by  affectionate 
embraces,  and  the  charge  to  hasten  homeward  with 
a  reviving  message  to  their  aged  father  —  sitting 
in  his  loneliness,  day  after  day,  in  the  door  of  his 
tent  at  Hebron,  and  anxiously  waiting  for  tidings 
from  Kgypt.  And  years  after,  when  on  the  decease 
of  their  father  they  humbly  asked  the  forgiveness 
of  their  brother,  he  still  comforted  them  with  the 
reflection  that  God  had  overruletl  their  conduct  for 
good.  From  first  to  last,  the  narrative  appears  to 
us  to  countenance  the  view,  which  also  seems  to  us 
most  consonant  with  the  eminent  magnanimity  of 
tills  noble  Hebrew,  that  the  leading  design  of  his 
harsh  policy  was  to  subject  them  to  a  needful  test, 
which  the  Lord  used  as  a  means  of  deepening  their 
penitence,  and  that  he  gladly  desisted,  and  with  a 
brother's  sympathy  sought  to  assuage  their  bitter 
regrets,  as  soon  as  he  was  convinced  that  they  were 
no  longer  false  brothers,  but  true. 

We  would  further  suggest  that  the  charge  to 
them  to  "  fall  not  out  by  the  way  "  on  their  return, 
does  not  necessarily  indicate  that  he  thought  tliem 
"  not  less  wicked  or  not  wiser  than  of  old."  Now 
that  their  associated  guilt  had  been  brought  home 
to  them,  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that 
they  should  seek  to  throw  off  individual  responsi- 
bility. Reuben  had  already  put  in  his  exculpating 
plea,  and  the  design  of  the  chai'ge  was  to  turn 
them  from  unprofitable  mutual  criminations,  and 
lead  them  to  a  devout  recognition  of  the  divine 
sovereignty  and  goodness. 

It  is  intimated  aliove,  that  Joseph  was  not  wholly 
acting  under  Divine  direction.  The  divining  cup 
may  not  be  fully  explicable ;  it  plainly  reveals  an 
Egyptian  superstition,  but  does  not  necessarily  im- 
ply Joseph's  participation  in  it,  and  the  allusion 
must  be  construed  by  what  is  knowni  of  his  life.  If 
consunmiate  wisdom  in  plan  and  skill  in  execution, 
if  a  spirit  beautiful  in  every  relation,  if  the  fruits 
of  a  manly  and  lovely  piety,  if  a  character  as  nearly 
faultless  as  has  been  delineated  in  human  biography, 
be  marks  of  Divme  guidance,  we  must  accord  it  to 
»im,  whose  bow  abode  in  strength  and  whose  arms 
were  made  strong  by  the  hands  of  the  mighty  God 
of  Jacob. 

It  is  ob^'^ous  to  add,  that  the  wisdom  of  the 
providential  dealings,  as  related  to  the  family  in 
Hebron,  was  not  less  marked  as  relatetl  to  Joseph 
b  Egypt.    The  course  of  discipline  through  which 


JOSEPH 

he  passed  waa  an  indispensable  qualification  for  th* 
high  sen-ic6  in  reserve  for  him  —  enabling  him  te 
learn  the  most  difficult  lesson,  and  be  prepared  U 
bear  without  injury  one  extreme  of  foitune,  bj 
having  properly  endured  the  other.  S.  W. 

*  Ewald,  in  his  Gesddchte  ties  Volkes  Jsrael^ 
comments  upon  the  statesmanship  of  Joseph  in 
taking  advantage  of  the  pressure  of  famine  to  reduc* 
the  entire  population  to  a  tenantry  of  tlie  crown, 
thus  accomplishing  without  violence  a  great  social 
revolution ;  —  a  statesmanship  "  careful  at  once  of 
the  weal  of  populous  nations,  and  for  the  consolida- 
tion and  increase  of  the  royal  authority,  and  win- 
ning its  best  victories  through  the  combination  of 
these  seemingly  opposite  aims.  liy  providently 
storing  up  in  his  gamers  supplies  of  corn  sufficient 
for  many  yefirs  of  possible  scarcity,  Joseph  was 
enabled  not  only  to  secure  to  the  people  the  present 
means  of  existence  and  tlie  possibility  of  better 
times  in  future,  but  to  establish  a  more  solid  organ- 
ization of  government,  such  as  a  nation  is  very 
loath  to  accede  to  except  in  a  time  of  overmastering 
necessity."     (Martineau's  translation,  p.  4Vi.) 

The  present  state  of  Egyptian  chronology  will 
hardly  warrant  tlie  positive  conclusions  of  Mr. 
Poole  concerning  the  epoch  of  Joseph ;  and,  there- 
fore, while  his  views  are  retained  in  the  text,  the 
data  are  here  ajipended  for  a  more  comprehensive 
view  of  the  subject.  The  problem  concerning  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt  is  mixed  with  the  question  of 
the  Hyksos  whose  date  is  still  unsettled.  Bunsen 
makes  Joseph  the  Grand-vizir  of  Sesortosis,  second 
king  of  the  12th  Dynasty,  about  2180  n.  c,  and 
200  years  before  the  usurpation  of  the  Hyksos;  as 
the  Hyksos  were  Semitic  tribes,  the  Hebrews  were 
undisturbed  during  their  supremacy;  but  after  their 
expulsion,  the  Israelites  were  reduced  to  forced 
labor  as  a  means  of  consolidating  the  Pharaonic 
jwwer.  But  this  theory,  which  makes  the  sojourn 
in  Egypt  outlast  the  coming  and  going  of  the 
Hyksos,  prolongs  the  stay  of  the  Israelites  beyond 
the  utmost  stretch  of  our  Biblical  chronology. 
{Er/ypVs  Place,  vol.  v.  p.  08.)  Brugsch  regards 
the  Hyksos  as  Islimaelitish  Arabs,  who  invaded 
Egypt  about  2115  n.  c.  and  ruled  over  the  Delta 
for  511  years.  Taking  the  second  Meneptah  of  the 
mth  Dynasty,  1341-1321  n.  c.  for  the  Pharaoh 
of  the  Exodus,  and  computing  backward  4.j0  years, 
he  places  Joseph  in  oflSce  under  one  of  the  Shep- 
herd kings.  {Ffistoire  (CEfpjp/e,  i.  71).)  Mr.  Poole 
also  makes  the  Pharaoh  of  .Joseph  one  of  the 
Shepherd  kings  in  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  n.  c.  But  if  the  Hebrews  were  in  Egypt 
under  the  Hyksos  —  though  this  may  account  for 
the  favorable  reception  of  Jacob,  and  the  undis- 
turbed growth  of  his  posterity  in  Goshen  —  it  is 
not  easy  to  imagine  how  so  large  a  foreign  popula- 
tion, of  a  kindred  race  with  the  Hyksos,  was  suf- 
fered to  remain  in  the  Delta  when  the  Shepherds 
were  expelled  by  the  reviving  native  empire;  and 
the  notion  that  the  Exodus  of  the  Israelites  and 
the  expulsion  of  the  Hyksos  were  the  same  event, 
has  no  foundation  either  in  Egyptian  or  in  Hebrew 
history.  To  meet  this  difficulty,  Lepsins  places 
the  migration  of  Jacob  into  Egypt  after  tlie  expul- 
sion of  the  Hyksos,  with  an  interval  .sufficient  for 
the  fear  of  another  Arab  invasion  to  have  died  out 
though  the  prejudice  of  tiie  Egyptians  against  th« 
nomadic  "  shepherds  "  remained.  His  dates  are. 
for  the  expulsion  of  the  Hyksos  al)Out  1591  B.  c, 
the  arrival  of  Jacob  1414,  the  ICxodus  1314.  {KS- 
nif/sbudi.)     But  this  brings  the  Exodus  down  to  i 


JOSEPH 

«rery  late  period,  and  reduces  the  sojourn  in  Egypt 
U>  one  hundred  years.  Ewald,  with  his  usual  bold- 
ness in  inventing  an  hypothesis  to  solve  a  difficulty, 
coiyectures  that  at  the  first,  only  a  small  portion 
of  the  Israelitish  family  followed  Joseph  into  Egypt, 
—  then  under  the  rule  of  the  Hvksos:  that,  at  the 
expulsion  of  the  latter,  the  Israelites  took  sides 
with  the  Egyptians,  and  that  Joseph  then  "  sum- 
moned Israel  in  a  body  out  of  Canaan,  and  estab- 
lished them  in  Goshen  as  a  frontier-guard  of  the 
kingdom  against  any  new  attacks  of  the  Hyksos." 
In  the  date  of  the  Hyksos  invasion  and  the  dura- 
tion of  the  Shepherd  dynasties  in  Egypt,  all  these 
writers  are  substantially  agreed.  They  agree  also 
in  the  main  facts  concerning  Joseph  as  an  histoncal 
person,  and  the  residence  of  the  IsraeUtes  in  Egypt 
until  the  exodus  under  Moses.  Even  Ewald  con- 
cedes that  the  "Blessing  of  Jacob"  (Gen.  xlix. 
22-26),  from  the  complexion  of  the  language  and 
poetry,  must  be  referred  to  pre-Mosaic  times.  The 
order  of  the  historical  events  is  not  strictly  depend- 
ent upon  chronology.  J.  P.  T. 

2.  Father  of  Igal  who  represented  the  tribe  of 
Issachar  among  the  spies  (Num.  xiii.  7). 

3.  A  lay  Israelite  of  the  family  of  Bani,  who  was 
compelled  by  Ezra  to  put  away  his  foreign  wife 
(Ezr.  X.  42).     In  1  Esdr.  it  is  given  as  Josephus. 

4.  [Vat.  Alex.  FA.^  omit.]  Kepresentative  of 
the  priestly  family  of  Shebaniah,  in  the  next  gen- 
eration after  the  return  from  Captivity  (Neh.  xii. 
14). 

5.  Clwa-ncpos;  [in  ver.  56,  'laia-fi(j>;  m  ver.  18, 
Sin.  Itoo-TjTTos;  in  ver.  60,  Sin.  Iwarjtpccs  or  lwaT]<p 
vSt  Sincii.  iwffVTros'  Josephm]).  A  Jewish  officer 
deleated  by  Gorgias  c.  164  B.  c.  (1  Mace.  v.  18, 
56,  60). 

6.  [Alex.  laxTTjiros'  Josephus.']  In  2  Mace. 
viii.  22,  X.  19,  Joseph  is  named  among  the  breth- 
ren of  Judas  Maccabaeus  apparently  in  place  of 
John  (Ewald,  Gesch.  iv.  384,  note;  Grimm  ad  2 
Mace.  viii.  22).  The  confusion  of  'lwdi/vT}s,  'Ia»- 
iT'ff<p,  'IwctJs  is  well  seen  in  the  various  readings  in 
Matt.  xiii.  55. 

7.  [^la)a-fi(p'  Joseph.]  An  ancestor  of  Judith 
(Jud.  viii.  1).  B.  F.  W. 

8.  One  of  the  ancestors  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  30), 
son  of  Jonan,  and  the  eighth  generation  from  David 
inclusive,  about  contemporary  therefore  with  king 
Ahaziah. 

9.  ['Iw(r^(/);  but  Tisch.  Treg.  and  Lachm. 
marff.  'I&xttjx'  Joseph.]  Another  ancestor  of 
Christ,  son  of  Judah  or  Abiud,  and  grandson  of 
Joanna  or  Hananiah  the  son  of  Zerubbabel,  Luke 
iii.  26.  Alford  adopts  the  reading  Josek,  a  mis- 
take which  seems  to  originate  with  the  common 

eonfusion  in  Heb.  MSS.  between  ^  and  '7» 

10  Another,  [Luke  iii.  24,]  son  of  Mattathias, 
in  the  seventh  generation  before  Joseph  the  hus- 
band of  the  Virgin. 

11.  Son  of  Heli  [Luke  iii.  23],  and  reputed 
fother  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  recurrence  of  this 
name  in  the  three  above  instances,  once  before,  and 
twice  after  Zerubbabel,  whereas  it  does  not  occur 
once  in  St.  Matthew's  genealogy,  is  a  strong  evi- 
dence of  the  paternal  descent  of  Joseph  the  son  of 
Heli,  as  traced  by  St.  Luke  to  Nathan  the  son  of 
David. 

All  that  is  told  us  of  Joseph  in  the  N.  T.  may 
be  summed  up  in  a  few  words.  He  was  a  just 
man,  and  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David,  and 
was  known  as  such  by  h''«  contemporaries,  who 


JOSEPH  1473 

called  Jesus  the  son  of  David,  i^nd  were  disposed 
to  own  Him  as  Messiah,  as  being  Joseph's  son. 
The  public  registers  also  contained  his  name  under 
the  reckoning  of  the  house  of  David  (John  i.  45 ; 
Luke  iii.  23;  Matt.  i.  20;  Luke  ii.  4).  He  lived 
at  Nazareth  in  Galilee,  and  it  is  probable  that  his 
family  had  been  settled  there  for  at  least  two  pre- 
ceding generations,  possibly  from  the  time  of 
Matthat.  the  common  grandfather  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  since  Mary  Uved  there  too  (Luke  i.  26,  27). 
He  espoused  Mary,  the  daughter  and  heir  of  his 
uncle  Jacob,  and  before  he  took  her  home  as  his 
wife  received  the  angelic  communication  recorded 
in  Matt.  i.  20.  It  must  have  been  within  a  very 
short  time  of  his  taking  her  to  his  home,  that  the 
decree  went  forth  from  Augustus  Caesar  which 
obliged  him  to  leave  Nazareth  with  his  wife  and 
go  to  Bethlehem.  He  was  there  with  Mary  and 
his  first-born,  when  the  shepherds  came  to  see  the 
babe  in  the  manger,  and  he  went  with  them  to 
the  Temple  to  present  the  infant  according  to  the 
law,  and  there  heard  the  prophetic  words  of  Sim 
eon,  as  he  held  him  in  his  arms.  When  the  wise 
men  from  the  East  came  to  Bethlehem  to  worship 
Christ,  Joseph  was  there;  and  he  went  down  to 
Egypt  with  them  by  night,  when  warned  by  an 
angel  of  the  danger  which  threatened  them ;  and 
on  a  second  message  he  returned  with  them  to  the 
land  of  Israel,  intending  to  reside  at  Bethlehem  the 
city  of  David ;  but  being  afraid  of  Archelaus  he 
took  up  his  abode,  as  before  his  marriage,  at  Naz- 
areth, where  he  carried  on  his  trade  as  a  carpenter. 
When  Jesus  was  12  years  old,  Joseph  and  Mary 
took  him  with  them  to  keep  the  Passover  at  Jeru- 
salem, and  when  they  returned  to  Nazareth  he 
continued  to  act  as  a  father  to  the  child  Jesus,  and 
was  reputed  to  be  so  indeed.  But  here  our  knowl- 
edge of  Joseph  ends.  That  he  died  before  our 
Lord's  crucifixion  is  indeed  tolerably  certain  by 
what  is  related  John  xix.  27.  and  perhaps  Mark 
vi.  3  may  imply  that  he  was  then  dead.  But  where, 
when,  or  how  he  died,  we  know  not.  What  was 
his  age  when  he  married,  what  children  he  had, 
and  who  was  their  mother,  are  questions  on  which 
tradition  has  been  very  busy,  and  very  contradic- 
tory, and  on  which  it  aflfords  no  available  informa- 
tion whatever.  In  fact  the  different  accounts  given 
are  not  traditions,  but  the  attempts  of  different 
ages  of  the  early  Church  to  reconcile  the  narrative 
of  the  Gospels  with  their  own  opinions,  and  to  give 
support,  as  they  thought,  to  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion. It  is  not  necessary  to  detail  or  examine  these 
accounts  here,  as  they  throw  light  rather  upon  the 
history  of  those  oj»inions  during  four  or  five  centu- 
ries, than  upon  the  history  of  Joseph.  But  it  may 
be  well  to  add  that  the  origin  of  all  the  earliest 
stories  and  assertions  of  the  fathers  concerning 
Joseph,  as  e.  g..,  his  extreme  old  age,  his  having 
sons  by  a  former  wife,  his  having  the  custody  of 
Mary  given  to  him  by  lot,  and  so  on,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  of  which  the  earliest  is 
the  Protevangelium  of  St.  James,  apparently  the 
work  of  a  Christian  Jew  of  the  second  century, 
quoted  by  Origen,  and  referred  to  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Justin  Martyr  (Tischendorf,  Proieg. 
xiii.).  The  same  stories  are  repeated  in  the  other 
apocryphal  Gospels.  The  monophysite  Coptic 
Christians  are  said  to  have  first  assigned  a  festival 
to  St.  Joseph  in  the  Calendar,  namely,  on  the  20th 
July,  which  is  thus  inscribed  in  a  Coptic  almanac : 
"  Requies  sancti  senis  justi  Josephi  fabri  lignarii, 
Deiparae  Virginis  Mariae  sponsi,  qui  pater  Christf 


1474    JOSEPH   OF  ARIMATH^A 

vocarj  promeruit."  The  apocryphal  Ilistwia  Jo- 
teptii  fabri  lif/narit,  which  now  exists  in  Arabic, 
is  thought  by  'J'ischendorf  to  have  been  originally 
written  in  Coptic,  and  the  festival  of  Joseph  is 
supposed  to  have  been  transferred  to  the  V^estern 
Churches  from  the  East  as  late  as  the  year  1399. « 
The  above-named  history  is  acknowledged  to  be 
quite  fabulous,  though  it  belongs  probably  to  the 
4th  century.  It  professes  to  be  an  account  given 
by  our  Lord  himself  to  the  Afwstles  on  the  Mount 
of  Olives,  and  placed  by  them  in  the  library  of 
Jerusalem.  It  ascribes  111  years  to  Joseph's  life, 
and  makes  him  old  and  the  father  of  4  sons  and  2 
daughters  before  he  espoused  Mary.  It  is  headed 
with  this  sentence:  " Benedictiones  ejus  et  preces 
servent  nos  omnes,  0  fratres.  Amen."  The  reader 
who  wishes  to  know  the  opinion  of  the  ancients  on 
the  obscure  subject  of  Joseph's  marriage,  may  con- 
sult Jerome's  acrimonious  tract  Contra  Helvidium. 
He  will  see  that  Jerome  highly  disapproves  the 
common  opinion  (derived  from  the  apocryphal 
Gospels)  of  Joseph  being  twice  married,  and  that 
he  claims  the  authority  of  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Ire- 
nseus,  Justin  Martyr,  and  "  many  other  apostolical 
men,"  in  favor  of  his  own  view,  that  our  Lord's 
brethren  were  his  cousins  only,  or  at  all  events 
against  the  opinion  of  Helvidius,  which  had  been 
held  by  Ebion,  Theodotus  of  Byzantium,  and  Val- 
entine, that  they  were  the  children  of  Joseph  and 
Mary.  Those  who  held  this  opinion  were  called 
Antidicomarianitce^  as  enemies  of  the  Virgin. 
(Epiphanius,  Adv.  Ilceres.  1.  iii.  t.  ii.  Hver.  bcxviii., 
also  HcEv.  li.  See  also  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art. 
Virgin  Mar,y;  Mill,  on  the  Brethren  of  the  Loi^d; 
Calmet,  de  S.  Joseph.  S.  Mar.  Viry.  conjuge ; 
and  for  an  able  statement  of  the  opposite  view, 
Alford's  note  on  Matt.  xiii.  55;  Winer,  Reahob. 
B.  vv.  Jesus  and  Joseph.)  A.  C.  H. 

*  12.  Joseph  is  the  reading  of  the  oldest  MSS. 
(adopted  by  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  and  Tregelles, 
instead  of  Joses  of  the  received  text)  in  Matt.  xiii. 
65,  as  the  name  of  one  of  the  brethren  of  our 
Lord.     [Joses,  2.]  A. 

*  13.  Joseph  (instead  of  Joses)  is  the  proper 
name  of  Barnabas  (Acts  iv.  36)  according  to  the 
oldest  MSS.  and  the  best  critical  editions.  [Joses, 
3.]  A. 

JO'SEPH  OF  ARIMATH^'A  [A.  V. 
Ariniathe'a]  ('Icoo-^<|)  6  airh  'Api/jLadalas),  a  r'ct 
and  pious  Israelite  who  had  the  privilege  of  per- 
forming the  last  offices  of  duty  and  affection  to  the 
lx*dy  of  our  Lord.  He  is  distinguished  from  other 
persons  of  the  same  name  by  the  addition  of  his 
birth-place  Arimatha'a,  a  city  supposed  by  Robin- 
eon  to  be  situated  somewhere  between  Lydda  and 
Nobe,  now  Beit  Nuba,  a  mile  northeast  of  Yalo 
(Bibl.  Res.  ii.  239-41,  iii.  142). 

Joseph  is  denominated  by  St.  Mark  (xv.  43)  an 
honorable  councillor,  by  which  we  are  probably  to 
understand  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Great 
Council,  or  Sanhedrim.  He  is  further  character- 
ized as  "a  good  man  and  a  just"  (Luke  xxiii.  50), 
one  of  those  who,  bearing  in  their  hearts  the  words 
of  their  old  prophets,  was  waiting  for  the  kingdom 
of  God  (Mark  xv.  43;  Luke  ii.  25,  38,  xxiii.  51). 
We  are  exjjressly  told  that  he  did  not  "  consent  to 
the  counsel  and  deed  "  of  his  colleagues  in  conspir- 


«  Calmet,  however,  places  the  admission  of  Joseph 
Into  the  calendar  of  the  Western  Church  as  early  as 
befbm  tb«  year  9Qa.     See  Tischendorf,  ut  sup. 


JOSEPH,   CALLED   BARSADAS 

ing  to  bring  about  the  death  of  Jesus;  but  h» 
seems  to  have  lacked  the  courage  to  protest  agaiiat 
their  judgment.  At  all  events  we  know  that  he 
shrank,  through  fear  of  his  countrymen,  from  pro- 
fessing himself  openly  a  disciple  of  our  Lord. 

The  awful  event,  however,  which  crushed  the 
hopes  while  it  excited  the  fears  of  the  chosen  dis- 
ciples, had  the  effect  of  inspiring  him  with  a  bold- 
ness and  confidence  to  which  he  had  before  been  a 
stranger.  The  crucifixion  seems  to  have  wrought 
in  him  the  same  clear  conviction  that  it  wrought 
in  the  centurion  who  stood  by  the  cross;  for  on 
the  very  evening  of  that  dreadful  day,  when  the 
triumph  of  the  chief  priests  and  rulers  seemed 
complete,  Joseph  "  went  in  boldly  unto  Pilate  and 
craved  the  body  of  Jesus."  The  fact  is  mentioned 
by  all  four  Evangelists.  Pilat«,  having  assured 
himself  that  the  Divine  Sufferer  was  dead,  con- 
sented to  the  request  of  Joseph,  who  was  thus 
rewarded  for  his  faith  and  courage  by  the  blessed 
privilege  of  consigning  to  his  own  new  tomb  the 
body  of  his  crucified  Lord.  In  this  sacred  oflBce 
he  was  assisted  by  Nicodemus,  who,  like  himself, 
had  hitherto  been  afraid  to  make  open  profiession 
of  his  faith,  but  now  dismissing  his  fears  brought 
an  abundant  store  of  myrrh  and  aloes  for  the  em- 
balming of  the  body  of  his  Lord  according  to  the 
Jewish  custom. 

These  two  masters  in  Israel  then  having  enfolded 
the  sacred  body  in  the  linen  shroud  which  Joseph 
had  bought,  consigned  it  to  a  tomb  hewn  in  a  rock 
—  a  tomb  where  no  human  corpse  had  ever  yet 
been  laid. 

It  is  specially  recorded  that  the  tomb  was  in  a 
garden  belonging  to  Joseph,  and  close  to  the  place 
of  crucifixion. 

The  minuteness  of  the  narrative  seems  purposely 
designed  to  take  away  all  ground  or  pretext  for  any 
rumor  that  might  be  spread,  after  the  Kesurrection, 
that  it  was  some  other,  not  Jesus  himself,  that  had 
risen  from  the  grave,  liut  the  burial  of  Jesus  in 
the  new  private  sepulchre  of  the  rich  man  of  Ari- 
mathaea  must  also  be  regarded  as  the  fulfillment 
of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (liii.  9):  according  to  the 
literal  rendering  of  Bishop  Ix)wth,  "  with  the  rich 
man  was  his  tomb."  Nothing,  but  of  the  merest 
legendary  character,  is  recorded  of  Joseph,  beyond 
what  we  read  in  Scripture.  There  is  a  tradition, 
surely  a  very  improbable  one,  that  he  was  of  the 
number  of  the  seventy  disciples.  Another,  whether 
authentic  or  not,  deserves  to  be  mentioned  as  gen- 
erally current,  namely  —  that  Joseph,  being  sent 
to  Great  Britain  by  the  Apostle  St.  Philip,  about 
the  year  63,  settled  with  his  brother  disciples  at 
Glastonbury,  in  Somersetshire;  and  there  erecteil 
of  wicker-twigs  the  first  Christian  oratory  in  Eng- 
land, the  parent  of  the  mnjestic  abbey  wiiich  wat 
afterwards  founded  on  the  same  site.  The  local 
guides  to  this  day  show  the  miraculous  thorn  ^said 
to  bud  and  blossom  every  Christmas-day)  that 
sprung  from  the  staflf"  which  Joseph  stuck  in  the 
ground  as  he  stopped  to  rest  himself  on  the  hill- 
top. (See  Dugdale's  Monosticon,  i.  1 ;  and  Heanie, 
Bist.  and  Ant.  of  Glastonbury ;  Assemann,  Bibl. 
Orient,  iii.  319.)  Whier  refers  to  a  monograph 
on  Joseph  —  Broemel,  Diss,  de  Josepho  Arimath. 
Viteb.  1683,  4to.  E.  H.  .  .  .  s. 

JO'SEPH,  called  BAR'SABAS  [or  Bar- 
SAb'bas,  Lachm.  Tisch.  Treg.],  and  surnamed 
Justus;  one  of  the  two  persons  chosen  by  the  as- 
sembled church  (Acts  i.  23)  as  worthy  to  fill  th« 
place  in  the  Apostolic  company  from  "^  hich  J'idai 


JOSEPHUS 

had  fallen.  He,  therefore,  had  been  a  companion 
of  the  disciples  all  the  time  that  they  followed 
Jesus,  from  his  baptism  to  his  ascension. 

I'apias  (ap.  Euseb.  //.  E.  iii.  39)  calls  him  Jus- 
tus Barsabas,  and  relates  that  having  drunk  some 
deadly  poison  he,  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord, 
lustained  no  harm.  Eusebius  (//.  E.  i.  12)  states 
that  he  was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples.  ITe  is  to 
be  distinguished  from  Joses  Barnabas  (Acts  iv.  36) 
and  Iroin  Judas  Barsabas  (Acts  xv.  22).  The  sig- 
nitii,'ation  of  Barsabas  is  quite  uncei'tain.  Light - 
foot  (//or.  Hebr.  Acts  1.  23)  gives  five  possible 
interpriitatious  of  it,  namely,  the  son  of  conversion, 
of  quirft,  of  an  oath,  of  wisdom,  of  the  old  man. 
Hs  prefers  the  last  two ;  and  suggests  that  Joseph 
Barsabas  may  be  the  same  as  Joses  the  son  of  Al- 
phajus,  and  that  Judas  Barsabas  may  be  his  brother 
the  Apostle.a  W.  T.  B. 

JOSETHUS  Clc^o-Tjc^os;  [Vat.  ^oo-tjttos: 
Josej)/nts]},  1  Esdr.  ix.  34.     [Joseph,  3.] 

JO'SES  Clua-fis  [or  luafjs',  Lachm.  Tisch. 
Treg.]  Alford  'iTjtrous;'  'Iccar^  [or  'Icoffrj]  is  the 
genitive  case:  [Jesiis]).  1.  Son  of  Eliezer,  in  the 
genealogy  of  Christ  (Luke  iii.  29),  15th  generation 
from  David,  i.  e.  about  the  reign  of  Manasseh. 

*  The  A.  V.  gives  the  name  as  Jose,  which  is 
merely  the  form  of  the  genitive  case.  A. 

2.  [In  Matt.  xiii.  55,  Lachm.  Tisch.  Treg. 
'l<i}(Tr}(()  •  and  so  Sin.  in  Mark  vi.  3;  Tisch.  reads 
^lwar{)(p  also  in  Matt,  xxvii.  56:  Joseph.]  One 
of  the  Lord's  brethren  (Matt.  xiii.  55 ;  Mark  vi. 
3).  His  name  connects  him  with  the  preceding. 
For  the  inquiry  who  these  brethren  of  the  Lord 
were,  see  James.  All  that  appears  with  certainty 
from  Scripture  is  that  his  mother's  name  was  Mary, 
and  his  brother's  James  (Matt,  xxvii.  56 ;  [Mark 
XV.  40,  47] ). 

3.  [Lachm.  Tisch.  Treg.  'Icoa-fjcj)  :  Joseph.] 
Joses  [or  Joseph]  Bar'nabas  (Acts  iv.  36). 
[Barnabas.]  A.  C  PI. 

JO'SHAH  (nt27V  [perh.  Jehovah  lets  dwell, 

Ges.]  :  'loxria ;  [Vat.  lojo-eto;]  Alex,  laxrias- 
Josa),  a  prince  of  the  house  of  Simeon,  son  of 
Araaziah,  and  connected  with  the  more  prosperous 
branch  of  the  tribe,  who,  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah, 
headed  a  marauding  expedition  against  the  peace- 
able Hamite  shepherds  dwelling  in  Gedor,  exter- 
minated them,  and  occupied  their  pasturage  (1  Chr. 
iv.  34,  38-41). 

JOSH'APHAT  (r:55K?'"1^  [Jehovah  jmJffes]: 
^lutraiptxT;  FA.i  Icoaacpas'  Josaphat),  the  Mith- 
nite,  one  of  David's  guard,  apparently  selected  from 
among  the  warriors  from  the  east  of  Jordan  (1 
Chr.  xi.  43).  Buxtorf  {Lex.  Talm.  col.  1284) 
gives  Mathnan  as  the  Chaldee  equivalent  of  Ba- 
ghan  by  which  the  latter  is  always  represented  in 
the  Targ.  Onk. ;  and  if  this  were  the  place  which 
gave  .loshaphat  his  surname,  he  was  probably  a 
Gadite.  In  the  Syriac,  Joshaphat  and  Uzziah  (ver. 
44)  are  interchanged,  and  the  latter  appears  as 
'' Azi  of  Anathoth." 


JOSHUA 


1475 


JOSHAVFAH  (njltr")>  [Jeh(»-ah  makes  to 
dwelt,  Ges.]:  'loxr^a;  [Vat.  FA.  ]  loo-eta:  Jo- 
sa'iajy  the  son  of  Elnaam,  and  one  of  David's 
guards  (1  Chr.  xi.  46).      'J'he  LXX.  make  him  the 

son  of  Jeribai,  by  reading  1321  for  \32l.  The 
name  appears  in  eight,  and  probably  nine,  different 
forms  in  the  MSS.  collated  by  Kennicott. 

JOSHBEK'ASHAH  (Htpf^^t??; :  'Uafia- 
a-aKd;  [Vat.  Ui^aaaKa,  BaKara;]  Alex.  Sefia- 
Kairav,  [Ua-^aKarau-]  J esOacassa),  head  oi  the 
16th  course  of  musicians.  [Jeshakelah.]  He 
belonged  to  the  house  of  Heman  (1  Chr.  xxv.  4 
24).  [A.  C.  H.] 

JOSH'UA  (Vtt7*1^^  'iTjo-oCs:  Jesua  : 
i.  e.  tvhose  help  is  Jehovah,  Ges.,  or  rather  "G'od 
the  Saviour,"  Pearson,  On  the  Creed,  Art.  IL,  p. 
89,  ed.  1843 :  on  the  import  of  his  name,  and  the 
change  of  it  from  Oshea  or  Hoshea,  Num.  xiii. 
16  =  "  welfare  "  or  "  salvation,"  see  Pearson,  I.  c. : 
it  appears  in  the  various  forms  of  Hoshea,  Oshea, 
Jehoshua,  Jeshua,  and  Jesus).  1.  The  son  of 
Nun,  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (1  Chr,  vii.  27). 
The  future  captain  of  invading  hosts  grew  up  a 
slave  in  the  brick-fields  of  I'^gypt.  Born  about  the 
time  when  Moses  fled  into  Midian,  he  was  a  man  of 
nearly  forty  years  when  he  saw  the  ten  plagues,  and 
shared  in  the  hurried  triumph  of  the  Exodus. 
The  keen  eye  of  the  aged  Lawgiver  soon  discerned  in 
Hoshea  those  qualities  which  might  be  required  in 
a  colleague  or  successor  to  himself.  He  is  men- 
tioned first  in  connection  with  the  fight  against 
Amalek  at  Kephidim,  when  he  was  chosen  (Ex. 
xvii.  9)  by  Moses  to  lead  the  Israelites.  When 
Moses  ascended  Mount  Sinai  to  receive  for  the  first 
time  (compare  Ex.  xxiv.  13,  and  xxxiii.  11)  the  two 
Tables,  Joshua,  who  is  called  his  minister  or  ser- 
vant, accompanied  him  part  of  the  way,  and  was 
the  first  to  accost  him  in  his  descent  (Ex.  xxxii.  17). 
Soon  afterwards  he  was  one  of  the  twelve  chiefs 
who  were  sent  (Num.  xiii.  17)  to  explore  the  land 
of  Canaan,  and  one  of  the  two  (xiv.  6)  who  gave 
an  encouraging  report  of  their  journey.  The  40 
years  of  wandering  were  almost  passed,  and  Joshua 
was  one  of  the  few  survivors,  when  Moses,  shortly 
before  his  death,  was  directed  (Num.  xxvii.  18)  to 
invest  Joshua  solemnly  and  publicly  with  definite 
authority,  in  connection  with  Eleazar  the  priest,  over 
the  people.  And  after  this  was  done,  God  Himself 
gave  Joshua  a  charge  by  the  mouth  of  the  dyinor 
Lawgiver  (Deut.  xxxi.  14,  23). 

Under  the  direction  of  God  again  renewed  (Josh 
i.  1),  Joshua,  now  in  his  85th  year  (Joseph.  Ant.  v 
1,  §  29),  assumed  the  command  of  the  people  at 
Shittim,  sent  spies  into  Jericho,  crossed  the  Jordan, 
fortified  a  camp  at  Gilgal,  circumcised  the  people, 
kept  the  passover,  and  was  visited  by  the  Captain  '» 
of  the  Lord's  Host.  A  miracle  made  the  fall  of 
Jericho  more  terrible  to  the  Canaanites.  A  mirac- 
ulous repulse  in  the  first  assault  on  Ai  impressed 
upon  the  invaders  the  warning  that  they  were  the 
instruments  of  a  holy  and  jealous   Gk>d.     Ai  fell: 


a  *  Barsabas,  aays  Meyer,  is  a  patronymic  (son  of 
Saba),  and  .Justus  a  Romaa  surname  such  as  Jews 
«ften  adopted  at  that  time  (Apostetgesc'i   i.  23).     H. 

b  It  has  been   questioned  whether   the  Oaptain  of 
vie  Lords  Host  was  a  created  being  or  not.     Dr.   W  j  created  Angel,  the  Son  of  Qod 
B    Mill  discusses  this  point  at  full  length  and  with     I>/#".  Script.  Loc.  o,  173. 
inat  lBHralQ!4  and  decides  in  favor  of  the  former  al-  I 


terna*2ve  (On  the  Historical  Character  of  St.  Luke^s 
First  Chapter,  Camb.  1841,  p  92).  But  J.  O.  Abicht 
(De  Diice  Exfrcitus,  ^c,  ap.  Nov.  Thes.  T/i^ologieo- 
philolog.  i.  503)  is  of  opinion  that  He  was  the  un 
Compare  also  Pfeiftn 


1^6  JOSHUA 

Mid  the  law  was  inscribed  on  Mount  Ebal,  and  read 
bv  theii  leader  in  the  presence  of  all  Israel. 

The  treaty  which  the  fear-stricken  Gibeonites 
obtained  deceitfully  was  generously  respected  by 
Joshua.  It  stimulated  and  brought  to  a  point  the 
hostile  movements  of  the  five  confederate  chiefs  of 
the  Amorites.  Joshua,  aided  by  an  unprecedented 
hailstorm,  and  a  miraculous  prolongation  of  the 
day,  obtained  a  decisive  victory  over  them  at  Mak- 
kedah,  and  proceeded  at  once  to  subjugate  the 
south  country  as  far  as  Kadesh-barnea  and  Gaza. 
He  returned  to  the  camp  at  Gilgal,  master  of  half 
of  Palestine. 

In  another  campaign  he  marched  to  the  waters 
of  Meroni,  where  he  met  and  overthrew  a  confed- 
eracy of  the  Canaanitish  chiefs  in  the  north,  under 
Jabin  king  of  Hazor  ;  and  in  the  course  of  a  pro- 
tracted war  he  led  his  victorious  soldiers  to  the  gates 
of  Zidon  and  into  the  Valley  of  Lebanon  under  Her- 
mon.  In  six  years,  six  nations  with  thirty-one 
kings  swell  the  roll  of  his  conquests;  and  amongst 
others  the  Anakim  —  the  old  terror  of  Israel  —  are 
specially  recorded  as  destroyed  everywhere  except  in 
Phihstia.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ex- 
tensive conquests  of  Joshua  were  not  intended  to 
achieve  and  did  not  achieve  the  complete  extirpa- 
tion of  the  Canaanites,  many  of  whom  continued 
to  occupy  isolated  strongholds  throughout  the 
land. 

Joshua,  now  stricken  in  years,  proceeded  in  con- 
junction with  Eleazar  and  the  heads  of  the  tribes 
to  complete  the  division  of  the  conquered  land ;  and 
when  all  was  allotted,  Timnath-serah  in  Moimt 
Ephraim  was  assigned  by  the  people  as  Joshua's 
peculiar  inheritance.  The  Tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation was  established  at  Shiloh,  six  cities  of 
refuge  were  appcinted,  forty -eight  cities  assigned  to 
the  Levites,  and  the  warriors  of  the  tran8-.Jordanic 
tribes  dismissed  in  peace  to  their  homes. 

After  an  interval  of  rest,  Joshua  con^•oked  an  as- 
sembly from  all  Israel.  He  delivered  two  solemn 
addresses  reminding  them  of  the  marvelous  fulfill- 
ment of  God's  promises  to  their  fathers,  and  warn- 
ing them  of  the  conditions  on  which  their  prosperity 
depended;  and  lastly,  he  caused  them  to  renew 
their  covenant  with  God,  at  Shechem,  a  place  al- 
ready famous  in  connection  with  Jacob  (Gen.  xxxv. 
4),  and  Joseph  (Josh.  xxiv.  32). 

He  died  at  the  age  of  110  years,  and  was  buried 
in  his  own  city,  Timnath-serah. 

Joshua's  life  has  been  noted  as  one  of  the  very 
few  which  are  recorded  in  history  with  some  fullness 
of  detail,  yet  without  any  stain  upon  them.  In 
his  character  have  been  traced,  under  an  oriental 
garb,  such  features  as  chiefly  kindled  the  imagina- 
tion of  western  chroniclers  and  poets  in  the  Mid- 
dle Ages :  the  character  of  a  devout  warrior,  blame- 
less and  fearless,  who  has  been  tsiught  by  serving 
as  a  youth  how  to  command  as  a  man ;  who  earns 
by  manly  vigor  a  quiet  honored  old  age;  who 
combines  strength  with  gentleness,  ever  looking  up 
for  and  obeying  the  Divine  impulse  with  the  sim- 
plicity of  a  child,  while  he  wields  great  power  and 
directs  it  calmly,  and  without  swerving,  to  the 
accomplishment  of  a  high  unselfish  purpose. 

All  that  part  of  the  book  of  Joshua  which  re- 
lates his  personal  history  seems  to  be  written  with 
the  unconscious,  vivid  power  of  an  eye-witness. 
We  are  not  merely  taught  to  look  with  a  distant 
reverence  upon  the  first  man  who  bears  the  name 
irhich  is  above  every  name.  We  stand  by  the  side 
•4  one  who  is  admitted  to  hear  the  words  of  God, 


JOSHUA 

and  see  the  vision  of  the  Almighty.  The  image 
of  the  armed  warrior  is  before  us  as  when  in  the 
sight  of  two  armies  he  lifted  up  his  spear  over  un- 
guarded Ai.  We  see  the  majestic  presence  which 
inspired  all  Israel  (iv.  14)  with  awe;  the  mild 
father  who  remonstrated  with  Achan;  the  calm, 
dignified  judge  who  pronounced  his  sentence :  the 
devout  worshipper  prostrating  himself  before  the 
Captain  of  the  Lord's  host.  We  see  the  lonely 
man  in  the  height  of  his  power,  separate  from 
those  about  him,  the  last  survivor,  save  one,  of  a 
famous  generation;  the  honored  old  man  of  many 
deeds  and  many  suflerings,  gathering  his  dying 
energy  for  an  a'tempt  to  bind  his  people  more 
closely  to  tue  service  of  God  whom  he  had  so  long 
served  and  worshipped,  and  whom  he  was  ever 
learning  to  know  more  and  more. 

The  great  work  of  Joshua's  life  was  more  ex- 
citing but  less  hopeful  than  that  of  Moses.  He 
gathered  the  first  fruits  of  the  autumn  harvest 
where  his  predecessor  had  sown  the  seed  in  spring. 
It  was  a  high  and  hopeful  task  to  watch  beside  the 
cradle  of  a  mighty  nation,  and  to  train  its  early 
footsteps  in  laws  which  should  last  for  centuries. 
And  it  was  a  fit  end  to  a  life  of  expectation  to  gaze 
with  longing  eyes  from  Pisgah  upon  the  Land  of 
Promise.  But  no  such  brightness  gleamed  \i\K)n 
the  calm  close  of  Joshua's  life.  Solemn  words,  and 
dark  with  foreboding,  fell  from  him  as  he  sat  "  un- 
der the  oak  that  was  by  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord 
in  Shechem."  The  excitement  of  his  battles  was 
past  ;  and  there  had  grown  up  in  the  mind  of  the 
pious  leader  a  consciousness  that  it  is  the  tendency 
of  prosperity  and  success  to  make  a  people  wanton 
and  worldly-minded,  idolaters  in  spirit  if  not  in 
act,  and  to  alienate  them  from  God. 

Holy  Scripture  itself  suggests  (Heb.  iv.  8)  the 
consideration  of  Joshua  as  a  type  of  Christ.  Many 
of  the  Christian  Fathers  have  enlarged  upon  this 
view  ;  and  Bishop  Pearson,  who  has  collected  their 
opinions  (On  (he  Creed,  Art.  ii.  pp.  87-90,  and 
94-96,  ed.  1843),  points  out  the  following  and 
many  other  typical  resemblances:  (1)  the  name 
common  to  both;  (2)  Joshua  brings  the  people  of 
God  into  the  land  of  promise,  and  divides  the  land 
among  the  tribes ;  Jesus  brings  his  people  into  the 
presence  of  God,  and  assigns  to  them  their  man- 
sions; (3)  as  Joshua  succeeded  Moses  and  com- 
pleted his  work,  so  the  Gospel  of  Christ  succeeding 
the  Law,  announced  One  by  whom  all  that  believe 
are  justified  fi-om  all  things  from  which  we  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  Law  of  Moses  (Acts  xiii. 
39)  ;  (4)  as  Joshua  the  minister  of  Moses  renewed 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  so  Jesus  the  minister  of 
the  circumcision  brought  in  the  circumcision  of  the 
heart  (Pom.  xv.  8,  ii.  29). 

The  treatment  of  the  Canaanites  by  their  Jewish 
conquerors  is  fully  discussed  by  Dean  Graves  (On 
the  Pentateuch,  pt.  3,  lect.  i.).  He  concludes  that 
the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites  M'as  justified  by 
their  crimes,  and  that  the  employment  of  the  Jews 
in  such  extermination  was  quite  consistent  with 
God's  method  of  governing  the  world.  Prof.  Fair- 
bairn  ( Tyiyohgy  of  Saipture,  bk.  iii.  ch.  4,  §  1,  ed. 
1854)  argues  with  great  force  and  candor  in  favor 
of  the  complete  agreement  of  the  principles  on 
which  the  war  was  carried  on  by  Joshua  with  the 
principles  of  the  Christian  dispensation. 

Among  the  supernatural  occurrences  in  the  life 
of  Joshua,  none  has  led  to  so  much  disc  ission  as 
the  prolongation  of  the  day  of  the  battle  of  Mak- 
kedah  (x.  12-14).     No  great  difficulty  is  found,  ix 


JOSHUA 

Jeciding,  as  Pfeiffer  has  done  {Diff.  Script.  I.  c.  p. 
175 ),  bet  ween  the  lengths  of  this  day  and  that  of 
Hezekiah  (2  K.  xx.  11)  ;  and  iu  connecting  both 
days  with  the  Egyptian  tradition  mentioned  by  He- 
rodotus, ii.  142.  But  since  modern  science  re- 
vealed the  stupendous  character  of  this  miracle, 
modern  criticism  has  made  several  attempts  to  ex- 
plain it  away.  It  is  regarded  by  Le  Clerc,  Dathe, 
and  others,  as  no  miracle  but  an  optical  illusion  ; 
by  Rosenmiiller,  following  Ilgen,  as  a  mistake  of  the 
time  of  day  ;  by  Winer  and  many  recent  German 
critics^  with  whom  Dr.  Davidson  (Intvod.  to  0.  T. 
p.  6-A4)  seems  to  agree,  as  a  mistake  of  the  mean- 
iiig  or  the  authority  of  a  poetical  contributor  to  the 
b<K»k  of  Jasher.  So  Ewald  {Gesch.  Jsi-.  ii.  326) 
traces  in  the  latter  part  of  verse  13  an  interpolation 
by  the  hand  of  that  anonymous  Jew  whom  he  sup- 
poses to  have  written  the  book  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  here  to  have  misunderstood  the  vivid  concep- 
tion of  an  old  poet  :  and  he  cites  numerous  similar 
conceptions  from  the  old  poetry  of  Greece,  Home, 
Arabia,  and  Peru.  But  the  literal  and  natural 
uiterpretation  of  the  text  as  intended  to  describe  a 
miracle  is  sufficiently  vindicated  by  Deyling,  Ob- 
serv.  Sacr.  i.  §  19,  p.  100;  and  J.  G.  Abicht,  Be 
stdtume  SoUs  ap.  Nov.  Tlies.  Theol.-PhUol.  i. 
510;  and  is  forcibly  stated  by  Bishop  Watson  in 
the  4th  letter  in  his  Apology  for  the  Bible. — [For 
the  view  of  Hengstenberg  on  the  "  Standing  still  of 
the  Sun  and  Moon,"  see  Evang.  Kirchenzeitung, 
1832,  No.  88 :  and  the  same  translated  in  the  Bibl. 
Repository,  iii.  721-739.— H.] 

Procopius,  who  flourished  in  the  6th  century, 
relates  (  Vmulal.  ii.  10)  that  an  inscription  existed 
at  Tingis  in  Mauritania,  set  up  by  Phoenician  refu- 
gees from  Canaan,  and  declaring  in  the  Phoenician 
language,  "  We  are  they  who  fled  from  the  face  of 
Joshua  the  robber  the  son  of  Nun."  Ewald 
{Gesch.  Isr.  ii.  297,  298)  gives  sound  reasons  for 
forbearing  to  use  this  story  as  authentic  history. 
It  is,  however,  accepted  by  Rawlinsou  {Bampton 
Lectures,  for  1859,  iii.  91). 

Lightfoot  {llor.  Heb.  in  Matt.  i.  5,  -axxAChorogr. 
Lucce  prceinis.  iv.  §  3)  quotes  Jewish  traditions 
to  the  effect  that  Rahab  became  a  proselyte,  and 
the  wife  of  Joshua,  and  the  ancestress  of  nine 
prophets  and  priests;  also  that  the  sepulchre  of 
Joshua  was  adorned  with  an  image  of  the  Sun  in 
memory  of  the  miracle  of  Ajalon.  The  LXX.  and 
the  Arab.  Ver.  add  to  Josh.  xxiv.  30  the  state- 
ment that  in  his  sepulchre  were  deposited  the  flint- 
knives  which  were  used  for  the  circumcision  at  Gil- 
gal  (Josh.  v.  2). 

The  principal  occurrences  in  the  life  of  Joshua 
are  reviewed  by  Bishop  Hall  in  his  Contemplations 
m  the  0.  T.  bks.  7,  8,  and  9.  W.  T.  B. 

*  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun,  is  meant,  Heb.  iv.  8, 
where  the  A.  V.  employs  Jesus  for'lTjcroGs,  though 
the  translators  add  in  the  margin  "  that  is, 
Joshua."  The  object  may  have  been  to  represent 
the  Greek  name  in  a  uniform  manner  in  the  N.  T. 
Most  of  the  preceding  English  versions  avoid  this 
eonfusion.  See  Trench,  Authorized  Version,  p.  75  f. 
(2d  ed.  1859).     [Jksus,  3.]  H. 

2.  ['no-Tje;  Alex,  irjarovs'  Josue''  An  inhabi- 
lant  of  Beth-shemesh,  in  whose  land  was  the  stone 
at  which  the  milch-kine  stopped,  when  tney  drew 
the  ark  of  God  with  the  offerings  of  the  Philistines 
tx)m  Ekron  to  lV>th-shemesh  (1  Sam.  vi   14,  18). 

3.  ['ItjctoGs:  Josue.]  A  governor  of  the  city 
»*xo  gave  his  name  to  a  gate  of  Jerusalem  (2  K. 
y^.  8). 


JOSHUA,  BOOK  OF        1477 

4.  ['ItjcoCs:  JesJiS.]  Called  Jeshua  in  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah ;  a  high  priest,  who  returned  frore 
the  Captivity  with  Zerubbabel.  [See  Hag.  i.  1,  12, 
14,  ii.  2,  4;  Zech.  ui.  1,  3,  6,  8,  9,  vi.  11.  ]  Foi 
details,  see  Joshua,  No.  4.  W.  T.  B. 

JOSH'UA,  BOOK  OF.  1.  Authority.  - 
The  claim  of  the  book  of  Joshua  to  a  place  in  the 
Canon  of  the  0.  T.  has  never  been  disputed.  [See 
Canon.]  (Bp.  Cosin's  Scholastical  History  of  the 
Canon  ;  Dr.  Wordsworth's  Discourses  on  the  Can- 
on.) Its  authority  is  confirmed  by  the  references, 
in  other  books  of  Holy  Scripture,  to  the  events 
which  are  related  in  it;  as  Ps.  Ixxviii.  53-65;  Is. 
xxviii.  21;  Hab.  iii.  11-13;  Acts  vii.  45;  Heb.  iv. 
8,  xi.  30-32;  James  ii.  25.  The  miracles  which  it 
relates,  and  particularly  that  of  the  prolongation  of 
the  day  of  the  battle  of  Makkedah,  have  led  some 
critics  to  entertain  a  suspicion  of  the  credibihty  of 
the  book  as  a  history.  But  such  an  objection  does 
not  touch  the  book  of  Joshua  only.  It  must  stand 
or  fall  with  nearly  every  historical  book  of  the 
Bible.  Some  Christians  may  be  more  or  less  dis- 
posed by  excess  of  candor,  or  a  desire  to  conciUate 
opposition,  to  regard  as  the  effect  of  natural  and 
ordinary  causes,  occurrences  which  have  always 
been  and  still  are  commonly  regarded  as  miracu- 
lous ;  and  such  persons  cannot  be  blamed  so  long 
as  their  views  are  consistent  with  a  fair  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Bible.  But  it  cannot  be  allowed  that 
any  canonical  book  is  the  less  entitled  to  our  full 
belief  because  it  relates  miracles. 

The  treatment  of  the  Canaanites  which  is  sanc- 
tioned in  this  book  has  been  denounced  for  its 
severity  by  Eichhorn  and  earlier  writers.  But  there 
is  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  the  divine  at- 
tribute of  justice,  or  with  God's  ordinary  way  of 
governing  the  world.  Therefore  the  sanction  which 
is  given  to  it  does  not  impair  the  authority  of  this 
book.  Critical  ingenuity  has  searched  it  in  vain 
for  any  incident  or  sentiment  inconsistent  with  what 
we  know  of  the  character  of  the  age,  or  irrecon- 
cilable with  other  parts  of  canonical  Scripture. 
Some  discrepancies  are  alleged  by  De  Wette  and 
Hauff"  to  exist  within  the  book  itself,  and  have  been 
described  as  material  differences  and  contradictions. 
But  they  disappear  when  the  words  of  the  text  are 
accurately  stated  and  weighed,  and  they  do  not 
affect  the  general  credibility  of  the  book.  Thus,  it 
cannot  be  allowed  that  there  is  any  real  disagree- 
ment between  the  statement  xi.  16  and  xii.  7,  that 
Joshua  took  all  the  land  and  gave  it  to  Israel,  and 
the  subsequent  statement  xviii.  3  and  xvii.  1,  16, 
that  the  people  were  slack  to  possess  the  land  which 
was  given  to  them,  and  that  the  Canaanites  were 
not  entirely  extiqjated ;  of  course  it  was  intended 
(Ex.  xxiii.  28,  30)  that  the  people  should  occupy 
the  land  by  little  and  little.  It  cannot  be  allowed 
that  there  is  any  irreconcilable  contradiction  be- 
tween the  statement  xii.  10-12,  that  the  kings  of 
Jerusalem  and  Gezer  were  smitten  and  their  country 
divided,  and  the  statement,  xv.  63,  xvi.  10,  that 
their  people  were  not  extirpated  for  some  time 
afterward.  It  cannot  be  allowed  that  the  genenil 
statement,  xi.  23,  that  Joshua  gave  the  land  unto 
all  Israel  according  to  their  divisions  by  their  tribes, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  (xviii.  1,  xix.  51),  that 
many  subsequent  years  passed  before  the  process 
of  division  was  completed,  and  the  allotments  finally 
adjusted.  Other  discrepancies  have  been  alleged 
by  Dr.  Davidson,  with  the  view  not  of  disparaging 
the  credibility  of  the  book,  but  of  supporting  the 


1478        JOSHUA,  BOOK  OF 

theory  that  it  is  a  compilation  from  two  distinct 
documents.  The  boundaries  of  the  different  tribes, 
it  is  said,  are  stated  sometimes  with  greater,  some- 
times with  less  exactness.  Now,  this,  may  be  a 
fault  of  the  surveyors  employed  by  Joshua;  but  it 
is  scarcely  an  inconsistency  to  be  charged  on  the 
WTiter  of  the  book  who  transcribed  their  descrip- 
tions. Again,  the  Divine  promise  that  the  coast 
of  Israel  shall  extend  to  the  Euphrates  (i.  4)  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  the  country  which 
Joshua  was  commanded  to  divide  (xiii.  16)  does  not 
extend  so  far  Again,  the  statement  (xiii.  3)  that 
Ekron,  etc.,  remained  yet  to  be  possessed  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  subsequent  statement  (xv.  45) 
that  it  was  assigned  to  Judah.  Dr.  Davidson  gives 
no  proof  either  of  his  assertion  that  the  former  text 
is  in  fact  subsequent  to  the  latter,  or  of  his  sup- 
position that  Ekron  was  in  the  possession  of  Judah 
at  the  time  of  its  assignment.  Again,  it  would 
geem  that  Dr.  Davidson  pushes  a  theory  too  far 
when  he  assumes  (hitrod.  to  0.  T.  637,  638)  that  one 
and  the  same  writer  would  hardly  denote  a  "  tribe  " 
by  one  Hebrew  word  in  some  passages,  and  by  a 
synonymous  Hebrew  word  in  others;  or  that  he 
would  not  in  some  passages  designate  Moses  as  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,  and  in  others  mention  INIoses 
without  so  designating  him ;  or  that  he  would  not 
describe  the  same  class  of  persons  in  one  place  as 
"priests,"  and  in  another  as  "sons  of  Aaron." 
Such  alleged  discrepancies  are  not  sufficient  either 
to  impair  the  authority  of  the  book,  or  to  prove 
that  it  was  not  substantially  the  composition  of  one 
author. 

2.  Scope  and  cmittnts.  —  The  book  of  Joshua 
is  a  distinct  whole  in  itself.  Although  to  later 
generations  it  became  a  standing  witness  of  the 
fkithfuhiess  of  God  in  fulfiUing  his  promises  to 
Israel,  yet  the  inunediate  aim  of  the  inspired  writer 
was  probably  of  a  more  simple  character.  He 
records,  for  the  information  of  the  nation  to  which 
he  belonged,  the  acts  of  Joshua  so  far  as  they  pos- 
sessed a  national  interest.  The  book  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  a  mere  ascription  of  praise  to  God, 
nor  a  mere  biogi'aphy,  nor  a  mere  collection  of 
documents.  While  it  serves  as  a  link  between  that 
which  precedes,  and  that  which  follows  it,  it  has  a 
distinct  purpose,  which  it  fulfills  completely.  There 
is  not  sufficient  ground  for  treating  it  as  a  part  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  a  compilation  from  the  same 
documents  as  formed  the  groundwork  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch The  fact  that  its  first  sentence  begins 
with  a  conjunction  does 'not  show  any  closer  con- 
nection between  it  and  the  Pentateuch  than  exists 
between  Judges  and  it.  The  references  in  i.  8,  viii. 
31,  xxiii.  6,  xxiv.  26,  to  the  "book  of  the  law" 
rather  show  that  that  book  was  distinct  from 
Joshua.  Other  references  to  events  recorded  in  the 
Pentateuch  tend  in  the  same  direction.  No  quota- 
tion (in  the  strict  modern  sense  of  the  word)  from 
the  Pentateuch  can  be  found  in  Joshua.  The 
author  quotes  from  memory,  like  the  writers  of  the 
N.  T.,  if  he  quotes  at  all  (comp.  xiii.  7  with  Num. 
xxxiv.  13;  xiii.  17  with  Num.  xxxii.  37;  xiii.  21, 
22  with  Num.  xxxi.  8;  xiii.  14,  33,  and  xiv.  4  with 
Deut.  xviii.  1,  2;  and  Num.  xviii.  20,  xxi.  with 
Num.  XXXV.), 

Porhaps  no  part  of  Holy  Scripture  is  more  in- 
iured  than  the  first  half  of  this  book  by  being 
printed  in  chapters  and  verses.  The  first  twelve 
chapters  form  a  continuous  narrative,  which  seems 
never  to  halt  or  fiag.  And  the  description  is  fre- 
lueatly  so  minute  as  to  show  the  band  not  merely 


JOSHUA,   BOOK  OF 

of  a  contemporary,  but  of  an  eye-witness.  An 
awful  sense  of  the  Divine  Presence  reigns  through- 
out. We  are  called  out  from  the  din  and  tumult 
of  each  battle-field  to  listen  to  the  still,  small  Voice, 
The  progress  of  e\ents  is  clearly  foreshadowed  in 
the  first  chapter  (vv.  5,  6).  Step  by  step  we  are 
led  on  through  the  solemn  preparation,  the  arduous 
struggle,  the  crowning  triumph.  Moving  everything 
around,  yet  himself  moved  by  an  unseen  Power,  the 
Jewish  leader  rises  high  and  calm  amid  all. 

The  second  part  of  the  book  (ch.  xiii.-xxi.)  has 
been  aptly  compared  to  the  Domesday-book  of  the 
Norman  conquerors  of  England.  The  documents 
of  which  it  consists  were  doubtless  the  abstract  of 
such  reports  as  were  supplied  by  the  men  whom 
Joshua  sent  out  (xviii.  8)  to  describe  the  land.  In 
the  course  of  time  it  is  probable  that  changes  were 
introduced  into  their  reports  —  whether  kept  sep- 
arately among  the  national  archives,  or  embodied 
in  the  contents  of  a  book  —  by  transcribers  adapting 
them  to  the  actual  state  of  the  country  in  later 
times  when  political  divisions  were  modified,  new 
towns  sprung  up,  and  old  ones  disappeared  (comp. 
the  two  lists  of  Levitical  towns,  Josh.  xxi.  and  1 
Chr.  vi.  54,  &c.). 

The  book  may  be  regarded  as  consisting  of  three 
parts:  {a)  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  {b)  the  partition 
of  Canaan,  {c.)  Joshua's  farewell. 

a.  The  preparations  for  the  war,  and  the  passage 
of  the  Jordan,  ch.  1-5;  the  capture  of  Jericho,  6; 
the  conquest  of  the  south,  7-10;  the  conquest  of 
the  north,  11;  recapitulation,  12. 

b.  Territory  assigned  to  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half 
IManasseh,  13;  the  lot  of  Caleb  and  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  14,  15;  Ephraim  and  half  Manasseh,  16, 
17  ;  Benjamin,  18  ;  Simeon,  Zebulun,  Issachar, 
Asher,  Naphtali,  and  Dan,  19;  the  appointment  of 
six  cities  of  refuge,  20;  the  assignment  of  forty- 
eight  cities  to  Levi,  21;  the  departure  of  the  trans- 
Jordanic  tribes  to  their  homes,  22. 

c.  Joshua's  convocation  of  the  people  and  first 
address,  23;  his  second  address  at  Shechem,  and 
his  death,  24. 

I'he  events  related  in  this  book  extend  over  a 
period  of  about  25  years,  from  u.  c.  1451  to  1426. 
The  declaration  of  Caleb,  xiv.  10,  is  useful  in  de- 
termining the  chronology  of  the  book. 

3.  AuiJior.  —  Nothing  is  really  known  as  to  the 
authorship  of  the  book.  Joshua  himself  is  generally 
named  as  the  author  by  the  Jewish  writers  and  the 
Christian  Eathers;  and  a  great  number  of  critics 
acquiesce  more  or  less  entirely  in  that  belief.  Ihit 
no  contemporary  assertion  or  sufficient  historical 
proof  of  the  fact  exists,  and  it  cannot  be  maintained 
without  quahfication.  Other  authors  have  been 
conjectured,  as  Phinehas  by  Lightfoot;  Eleazar  by 
Calvin;  Samuel  by  Van  Til;  Jeremiah  by  Henry; 
one  of  the  elders  who  survived  Joshua,  by  KeiL 
Von  Lengerke  thinks  it  was  written  by  some  one 
in  the  time  of  Josiah;  Davidson  by  some  one  in 
the  time  of  Saul,  or  somewhat  later;  Masius,  Le 
Clerc,  Maurer,  and  others  by  some  one  who  lived 
after  the  Babylonish  Captivity.  The  late  date  is 
now  advocated  for  the  most  part  in  connection  with 
a  theory,  which  may  perhaps  h«lp  to  explain  the 
composition  of  the  Pentateuch:  l)ut  which,  when 
applied  to  a  book  so  uniform  in  its  style  as  Joshua- 
seems  to  introduce  more  difficulties  than  it  rcnuives. 
It  has  been  supposed  that  the  book  as  it  now  stands 
is  a  compilation  from  two  earlier  documents ;  one, 
the  original,  called  Elohistic,  the  other  supplemen- 
tary, called  Jehoviotic;  they  are  distinguished  b> 


JOSHUA,  BOOK  OP 

he  names  given  in  them  to  God,  and  by  some  other 
.characteristic  dig'erences  on  which  the  supporters 
of  the  hypothesis  are  not  perfectly  agreed.  Ewald's 
theory  is  that  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of 
Joshua  form  one  complete  work :  that  it  is  mainly 
compiled  from  contemporary  and  ancient  docu- 
ments, and  that  it  has  grown  hito  its  present  form 
under  the  hands  of  five  successive  writers  or  editors ; 
the  first  of  whom  composed  his  book  in  the  time 
of  the  judges,  and  the  last  (to  whom  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy  is  assigned)  in  the  time  of  Manasseh. 
His  account  of  these  authors  or  compilers  may  be 
seen  in  Gtsch.  Jsr.  i.  81-174,  and  his  method  of 
apportioning  various  parts  of  the  book  of  Joshua  to 
the  several  writers  in  Gesch.  Isr.  i.  8-i  and  ii.  299- 
305.  The  theory  of  this  able  critic,  so  conjectural, 
complicated,  and  arbitrary,  has  met  with  many 
opponents,  and  few,  if  any,  supporters  even  in  his 
own  country. 

Nu  one  would  deny  that  some  additions  to  the 
book  might  be  made  after  the  death  of  Joshua 
without  detracting  from  the  possible  fact  that  the 
book  was  substantially  his  composition.  The  last 
verses  (xxiv.  29-33)  were  obviously  added  by  some 
later  hand.  If,  as  is  possible,  though  not  certain, 
some  subordinate  events,  as  the  capture  of  Hebron, 
of  Debir  (Josh.  xv.  13-19,  and  Judg.  i.  10-15), 
and  of  Leshem  (.Josh.  xix.  47,  and  Judg.  xviii.  7), 
and  the  joint  occupation  of  Jerusalem  (Josh.  xv. 
63,  and  Judg.  i.  21)  did  not  occur  till  after  Joshua's 
death,  they  may  have  been  inserted  in  the  book  of 
Joshua  by  a  late  transcriber.  The  passages  xiii. 
2-6,  xvi.  10,  xvii.  11,  which  also  are  subsequently 
repeated  in  the  book  of  Judges,  may  doubtless 
describe  accurately  the  same  state  of  things  existing 
at  two  distinct  periods. 

The  arguments  which,  though  insufficient  to 
prove  that  Joshua  was  the  author,  yet  seem  to  give 
a  preponderance  in  favor  of  him  when  compared 
with  any  other  person  who  has  been  named,  may 
be  thus  briefly  stated;  {a)  It  is  evident  (xxiv.  26) 
that  Joshua  could  and  did  write  some  account  of 
at  least  one  transaction  which  is  related  in  this 
book;  (6)  the  numerous  accounts  of  Joshua's  inter- 
course with  God  (i.  1,  iii.  7,  iv.  2,  v.  2,  9,  vi.  2, 
vii.  10,  viii.  1,  x.  8,  xi.  6,  xiii.  1,  2,  xx.  1,  xxiv.  2), 
and  with  the  Captain  of  the  Lord's  Host  (v.  13), 
must  have  emanated  from  himself;  (c)  no  one  is 
more  likely  than  the  speaker  himself  to  have  com- 
mitted to  writing  the  two  addresses  which  were 
Joshua's  legacy  to  his  people  (xxiii.  and  xxiv.); 
(d)  no  one  was  so  well  qualified  by  his  position  to 
describe  the  events  related,  and  to  collect  the  docu- 
ments contained  in  the  book;  (e)  the  example  of 
his  predecessor  and  master,  Moses,  would  have  sug- 
gested to  him  such  a  record  of  his  acts;  {f)  one 
verse  (vi.  25)  must  have  been  WTitten  by  some 
person  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Joshua;  and  two 
other  verses,  v.  1  and  6  —  assuming  the  common 
reading  of  the  former  to  be  correct  —  are  most 
fairly  interpreted  as  written  by  actors  in  the  scene. 

Havernick's  assertion  that  some  grammatical 
forms  used  in  Joshua  are  less  ancient  than  the  cor- 
responding forms  in  Judges,  may  be  set  against 
Keil's  list  of  expressions  and  forms  which  are 
peculiar  to  this  book  and  the  "snrateuch  ;  and 
Havernick  is  not  supported  by  facts  when  ne  sup- 
poses that  no  expedition  of  any  separate  tribe  against 
ihe  Canaanites  could  have  occurred  in  the  lifetime 
♦f  Joshua,  and  that  the  book  was  therefore  written 
lome  time  afterwards.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
kpreBsion  "to  this  day,"  which  is  found  fourteen 


JOSHUA,  BOOK  OF       1479 

times  in  the  book,  presupposes  so  considerablfi  an 
interval  of  time  between  the  occurrence  of  the  event 
and  the  composition  of  the  history,  that  Joshua 
could  not  have  lived  long  enough  to  write  in  such 
language.  But  a  careful  examination  of  the  pas- 
sages will  scarcely  bear  out  that  observation.  For 
instance,  in  three  places  (xxii.  3,  xxiii.  8,  9)  the 
phrase  denotes  a  period  unquestionably  included 
within  the  twenty-five  years  which  Joshua  lived  in 
Canaan ;  in  xxii.  17  it  goes  but  a  little  farther  back ; 
in  iv.  9,  vii.  26,  viii.  29,  and  x.  27  it  describes 
certain  piles  of  stones  which  he  raised  as  stiU  re- 
maining—  a  remark  which  does  not  necessarily 
imply  that  more  than  twenty  years  had  elapsed 
since  they  were  raised ;  and  in  vi.  25  it  defines  a 
period  within  the  lifetime  of  a  contemporary  of 
Joshua,  and  therefore  probably  within  his  own.  In 
the  remaining  passages  (viii.  28,  xiii.  13,  xiv.  14, 
XV.  63,  xvi.  10)  there  is  nothing  which  would  make 
it  impossible  that  Joshua  should  have  used  tliia 
exp»"ession. 

4.  There  is  extant  a  Samaritan  book  of  Joshua 
in  the  Arabic  language.  It  was  printed  for  the 
first  time  at  Leyden  in  1848,  with  the  title  "  Liber 
Josuae;  Chronicon  Samaritanum,  edidit,  Latine 
vertit,  etc.,  T.  G.  J.  JuynboU."  Its  contents  were 
known  previously  from  the  accounts  given  of  it  by 
Hottinger  and  others.  It  was  written  in  the  13th 
century.  It  recounts  the  late  acts  of  jNIoses  ampli- 
fied from  the  book  of  Numbers,  a  history  of  Joshua 
interspersed  with  various  legends,  portions  of  the 
Jewish  law,  and  several  unconnected  historical  pas- 
sages more  or  less  falsified,  extending  down  to  the 
time  of  Hadrian. 

5.  Literature.  —  The  best  Commentary  which  is 
accessible  to  the  English  reader  is  the  translation 
of  Keil's  Commentary  on  Joshua  (Clark,  Edin- 
burgh, [1857.] )  A  complete  list  of  commentaries 
may  be  found  in  Rosenmiiller's  Scholia.  Among 
the  Fathers,  Ephrem  Syrus  has  written  an  expla- 
nation, and  Augustine  and  Theodoret  have  discussed 
questions  connected  with  the  book.  The  following 
commentaries  may  be  selected  as  most  useful :  — 
That  of  Jarchi  or  Rashi  (Solomon  ben  Isaac), 
translated  into  Latin  by  Breithaupt,  Gothae,  1710; 
the  commentary  of  Masius,  Antwerp,  1574,  inserted 
in  the  Critici  Sacri;  those  of  Le  Clerc,  Amster- 
dam, 1708;  Rosenmiiller,  Leipsic,  1833;  and  Keil, 
Erlangen,  1847.  W.  T.  B. 

*  Other  commentators  who  should  be  mentioned 
are  Maurer,  Comm.  in  Vet.  Test.  i.  97-126  (1835); 
Knobel,  Die  Biicher  NumeH,  Detiteron.  u.  Josua 
erklart,  Leipz.  1861  (Lief.  xiii.  of  the  Kurzgef. 
exeget.  Handb.  zu7n  A.  T.);  Keil  and  Delitzsch, 
Bihl.  Comm.  ub.  d.  A.  T. ,  Theil  ii.  Bd.  i.  {Josua, 
Richter  u.  Ruth,  von  Keil),  Leipz.  1863,  English 
transl.  Edin.  1865;  Chr.  Wordsworth,  Holy  Bible 
with  Notes,  etc.,  ii.  pt.  i.  1-74  (Lond.  1865);  and 
in  our  own  country,  George  Bush,  Notes  Critical 
and  Practical,  on  ihe  Books  of  Joshua  and  Judges, 
N.  Y.  1838.  See  also  Baumgarten's  art.  Josua, 
in  Herzog's  ReaUEncyk.  vii.  38-43 ;  J.  L.  Konigj 
Alttestamentliche  Studien,  Heft  1  (Meurs,  1836); 
Bertheau,  on  Joshua's  wars  and  conquest  of  Canaan 
Zur  Gesch.  der  Israeliten,  pp.  266-273  (Gotl. 
1842);  Kurtz,  Gesch.  des  A.  Bundes,  vol.  ii.,  Eng- 
lish transl.  by  Edersheim,  Edin.  1859;  Ewald, 
Gesch.  des  Volkes  Israel,  3*  Ausg.  ii.  322  ff.,  English 
transl.  by  Martineau,  Lond.  1868;  Bleek,  Einl.  in 
das  A.  Test.  pp.  311-332;  Keil's  Einl.  in  das  A. 
Test.  pp.  142-153:  Palfrey's  Lectures  on  the  Jew- 
ish Scriptures,  ii.  134-183;  Davidson's  Introd.  U 


1480 


JOSHUA,  BOOK  OF 


the  Old  Tes,  i.  409-448 ;  and  Rawlinson's  Hisimi- 
r.(U  Evidences^  etc.,  Lect.  iii.  See  also  the  litera- 
ture under  Pentateuch. 

We  have  some  words  from  Ritter  respecting  the 
geographical  and  historical  accuracy  of  the  book  of 
Joshua,  which  deserve  attention.  The  subject  of 
the  book  being  the  subjugation  and  conquest  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  its  predominant  character,  as  he 
remarks,  must  from  the  nature  of  the  case  be  geo- 
graphical. But  beyond  this  it  is  true  also  that  the 
entire  political  and  religious  life  of  the  Hebrews 
was  interwoven  in  the  closest  manner,  like  a  piece 
of  network,  with  the  geography  of  the  country ;  far 
more  so  than  is  true  of  modern  European  nations ; 
BO  that,  especially  at  this  time  when  we  know  so 
much  of  the  topography  of  Palestine,  we  are  able 
to  subject  the  history  to  a  rigorous  scrutiny.  The 
test  has  been  applied,  and  the  result  has  been  to  es- 
tablish the  accuracy  of  the  book  even  in  minute 
details,  and  comparatively  unimportant  and  trivial 
local  relations.  Its  notices,  not  only  of  distinct 
regions,  but  of  valleys,  fountains,  mountains,  vil- 
lages, have  been  confirmed,  often  with  surprising 
certainty  and  particularity.  The  great  geographer 
refers  as  an  example  of  this  to  the  account  of 
Joshua's  second  campaign  in  the  south  of  Palestine 
(Josh.  xi.  16  tf.  XV.  21,  ff.).  He  shows  that  the 
division  of  the  country  there  into  five  parts,  the 
scene  of  that  expedition,  rests  upon  a  basis  in  na- 
ture, upon  a  diversity  of  geographical  position 
which  none  but  an  eye-witness  could  have  remarked, 
and  which  modem  travellers  find  to  be  entirely 
characteristic  of  the  region  still.  He  shows,  in 
addition  to  this  general  accuracy  in  the  outline, 
that  the  specialities  are  equally  true;  that  many 
of  the  cities  and  towns  which  are  mentioned  have 
remained  under  their  ancient  names  to  the  present 
day,  and  also  occur  together  in  groups,  precisely 
in  the  manner  that  the  sacred  writers  represent 
them  as  having  been  arranged  of  old.  This  agree- 
ment between  the  Old  Testament  records  in  general 
and  the  geography  of  the  land  as  now  more  and  more 
fully  illustrated,  furnishes  an  important  evidence 
of  their  authenticity.  {Kin  Blick  auf  Palustina 
und  seine  Christliche  Bemlkerung,  Berlin,  1852.) 

On  no  side  perhaps  has  this  book  been  so  vio- 
lently assailed  as  that  of  its  moraUty  involved  in  the 
mission  of  Joshua  to  subdue  and  extirpate  the  abo- 
riginal Canaanites.  The  reader  will  find  some  very 
pertinent  remarks  on  this  subject,  in  Dean  Stanley's 
Jlistin-y  of  the  Jeitish  Churchy  i.  278  ff.  (Amer,  ed.). 
We  quotie,  after  his  example,  a  few  sentences  from 
one  of  Dr.  Arnold's  Sermons  on  the  Wars  of  the 
Israelites  (vi.  35  ff.):  "  It  is  better  that  the  wicked 
should  be  destroyed  a  hundred  times  over  than  that 
they  should  tempt  those  who  are  as  yet  innocent  to 
join  their  company.  Let  us  but  think  what  might 
have  been  our  fate,  and  the  fate  of  every  other  na- 
tion under  heaven  at  this  hour,  had  the  sword  of 
ihe  Israelites  done  its  work  more  sparingly.  Even 
as  it  was,  the  small  portions  of  the  Canaanites  who 
were  left,  and  the  nations  around  them,  so  tempted 
the  Israelites  by  their  idolatrous  practices,  that  we 
read  continually  of  the  whole  people  of  God  turn- 
ing away  from  his  service.  But  had  the  heathen 
ived  in  the  land  in  equal  numbers,  and,  still  more, 
aad  they  intermarried  largely  with  the  Israelites, 
ho'v  was  it  possible,  humanly  speaking,  that  any 
ipark-j  of  the  light  of  God's  truth  should  have 
■urvived  to  the  coming  of  Christ  ?    .  .  .  . 

"  They  seem  of  very  small  importance  to  us  now, 
*-  those  perpetual  contests  with  the  Canaanites  and 


JOSIAH 

the  Midianites  and  the  Ammonites  and  the  Philis- 
tines, with  which  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judge* 
and  Samuel  are  almost  filled.  We  may  haif  wondei 
that  Ciod  should  have  interfered  in  such  quarrels, 
or  have  changed  the  course  of  nature,  in  order  to 
give  one  of  the  nations  of  Palestine  the  victory  over 
another.  But  in  these  contests,  on  the  fate  of  one 
of  these  nations  of  Palestine,  the  happiness  of  the 
human  race  depended.  The  Israelites  fought  not  for 
themselves  only,  but  for  us.  ...  They  did  God's 
work;  they  preserved  unhurt  the  seed  of  eternal 
life,  and  were  the  ministers  of  blessing  to  aU  other 
nations,  even  though  they  themselves  failed  to  en- 
joy it."  H. 

JOSI'AH  (^n?rr'S'»  [Jehovah  heals  or 
saves  :'j  'lojfrms;  [Vat.  almost  everywhere  Icoo-eias; 
Sin. 1  In  Zeph.  i.  1,  lovaias']  Josias).  1.  'ITie  son 
of  Amon  and  Jedidah,  succeeded  his  father  b.  c. 
641,  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  age,  and  reigned  31 
years.  His  history  is  contained  in  2  K.  xxii.-xxiii. 
30;  2  Chr.  xxxiv.,  xxxv. ;  and  the  first  twelve 
chapters  of  Jeremiah  throw  much  light  upon  the 
general  character  of  the  Jews  in  his  days. 

He  began  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign  to  seek 
the  Lord ;  and  in  his  twelfth  year,  and  for  six  years 
afterwards,  in  a  personal  progress  throughout  all 
the  land  of  Judah  and  Israel,  he  destroyed  every- 
where high  places,  groves,  images,  and  all  outward 
signs  and  relics  of  idolatry.  Those  which  Solomon 
and  Ahaz  had  built,  and  even  Hezekiah  liad  spared, 
and  those  which  INIanasseh  had  set  up  li'.ore  re- 
cently, now  ceased  to  pollute  the  land  of  Judah; 
and  in  Israel  the  purification  began  with  Jeroboam's 
chapel  at  Bethel,  in  accordance  with  the  remarka- 
ble prediction  of  the  disobedient  prophet,  by  -whom 
Josiah  was  called  by  name  three  centuries  before 
his  birth  (1  K.  xiii.  2).  The  Temple  was  restored 
under  a  special  commission ;  and  in  the  course  of 
the  repairs  Hilkiah  the  priest  [Hilkiah]  found 
that  book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord  which  quickoned 
so  remarkably  the  ardent  zeal  of  the  king.  Tha 
question  as  to  the  contents  of  that  book  has  been 
discussed  elsewhere;  in  forming  an  opinion  on  it 
we  should  bear  in  mind  that  it  is  very  difficult  for 
us  in  this  age  and  country  to  estimate  the  scanti- 
ness of  the  opportunities  which  were  then  open  to 
laymen  of  acquiring  literary  knowledge  connected 
with  religion.  The  special  commission  sent  forth 
by  Jehoshaphat  (2  Chr.  xvii.  7)  is  a  proof  that  even 
under  such  kings  as  Asa  and  his  son,  tiie  Levites 
were  insufficient  for  the  rehgious  instruction  of  the 
people.  What  then  must  have  been  the  amount 
of  information  accessible  to  a  generation  which  had 
grown  up  in  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and  Anion  ? 
AVe  do  not  know  that  the  Law  was  read  as  a  stated 
part  of  any  ordinary  public  service  in  the  Temple 
of  Solomon  (unless  the  injunction,  Deut.  xxxi.  10, 
was  obeyed  once  in  seven  years),  though  God  was 
worshipped  there  with  daily  sacrifice,  psalmody, 
and  prayer.  The  son  of  Amon  began  only  when 
he  was  sixteen  years  old  to  seek  the  God  of  David, 
and  for  ten  years  he  devoted  all  his  active  energies 
to  destroying  the  gross  external  memorials  of  idola- 
try throughout  his  dominions,  and  to  strengthen- 
ing and  multiplying  the  visible  sijrns  of  true  religion. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  in  the  26th  year  of  his  age 
he  should  find  the  most  awful  words  in  which  God 
denounces  sin  come  home  to  his  heart  on  a  partic- 
ular occasion  with  a  new  and  strange  power,  and 
that  he  should  send  to  a  prophetess  to  inquire  in  ^ 
what  degree  of  closeness  those  words  were  to  bf      |B 


I 


JOSIAH 

jipplied  to  himself  and  hU  genemtion.  That  he 
bad  never  read  the  words  is  probable.  But  his 
sondiict  is  no  sufficient  proof  that  he  had  never 
heard  them  before,  or  that  he  was  not  aware  of  the 
sxistence  of  a  "  liook  of  tlie  law  of  the  Lord." 

The  great  day  of  Josiah's  life  was  that  on  which 
he  and  his  people,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign,  entered  into  a  special  covenant  to  keep  the 
law  of  the  i^ord,  and  celebrated  the  feast  of  the 
Passover  at  Jerusalem  with  more  munificent  offer- 
ings, better  arranged  services,  and  a  larger  con- 
course of  worshippers  than  had  been  seen  on  any 
previous  occasion. 

After  this,  his  endeavors  to  abolish  every  trace 
of  idolatry  and  superstition  were  still  carried  on. 
But  the  time  drew  near  which  had  been  indicated 
by  Huldah  (2  K.  xxii.  20).  When  Pharaoh- 
Necho  went  from  l^^gypt  to  Carchemish  to  carry  on 
his  war  against  Assyria  (corap.  Herodotus,  ii.  159), 
Josiah,  possil)ly  in  a  spirit  of  loyalty  to  the  Assyr- 
ian king,  to  whom  he  may  have  been  bound,"  op- 
posed his  march  along  the  sea-coast.  Necho  reluc- 
tantly paused  and  gave  him  battle  in  the  Valley  of 
Esdraelon ;  and  the  last  good  king  of  Judah  was 
carried  wounded  from  Hadadrimmon,  to  die  before 
he  could  arrive  at  -Jerusalem. 

He  was  buried  with  extraordinary  honors ;  and 
a  funeral  dirge,  in  part  composed  by  Jeremiah, 
which  the  affection  of  his  subjects  sought  to  per- 
petuate as  an  annual  solemnity,  was  chanted  prob- 
ably at  Hadadrimmon.  Compare  the  narrative  in 
2  Chr.  XXXV.  25  with  the  allusions  in  Jer.  xxii.  10, 
18, and  Zech.  xii.  11,  and  with  Jackson,  On  the 
Creed.,  bk.  viii.  ch.  2-3,  p.  878.  The  prediction  of 
Huldah,  that  he  should  "  be  gathered  into  the 
grave  in  peace,"  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance 
with  the  explanation  of  that  phrase  given  in  Jer. 
xxxiv.  5.  Some  excellent  remarks  on  it  may  be 
found  in  Jackson,  On  the  Creed,  bk.  xi.  ch.  36,  p. 
664.  Josiah's  reformation  and  his  death  are  com- 
mented on  by  Bishop  Hall,  Contempltdions  on  the 
0.  T.  bk.  XX. 

It  was  in  the  reign  of  Josiah  that  a  nomadic 
horde  of  Scythians  overran  Asia  (Herodotus,  i. 
104— 306).  A  detachment  of  them  went  towards 
Egypt  by  the  way  of  Philistia :  somewhere  south- 
ward of  Ascalon  they  were  met  by  messengers  from 
Psanmietichus  atid  induced  to  turn  back.  They 
are  not  mentioned  in  the  historical  accounts  of 
Josiah's  reign.  But  Ewald  (Die  Psnlmen,  165) 
conjectures  that  the  59th  Psalm  was  composed  by 
king  Josiah  during  a  siege  of  Jerusalem  by  these 
Scythians.  The  town  Beth-shan  is  said  to  derive 
its  Greek  name,  Scythopolis  (Keland,  P(d.  992; 
Lightfoot,  Chor.  Marc.  vii.  §  2),  from  these  inva- 
ders. The  facility  with  which  Josiah  appears  to 
have  extended  his  authority  in  the  land  of  Israel  is 
adduced  as  an  indication  that  the  Assyrian  con- 
querors of  that  land  were  themselves  at  this  time 
under  the  restraining  fear  of  some  enemy.  The 
prophecy  of  Zephaniah  is  considered  to  have  been 
written  amid  the  terror  caused  by  their  approach. 
The  same  people  are  described  at  a  later  period  by 

IP>.ekiel(xxviii.).     See  Ewald,  Gesch.  Isr.  iii.  689. 


JOTAPATA 


1481 


I 


«  Such  is  at  least  the  conjecture  of  Prideaux  ( Con- 
lexion,  anno  SlO),a,ndofM.ilmain  {History  of  the  Jews, 
.  313).  But  the  Bible  ascribes  no  such  chivalrous 
•active  to  Josiah :  and  it  does  not  occur  to  Josephus, 
who  attributes  {Ant.  x.  5,  §  1)  Josiah's  resistance 
merely  to  Fata  urging  him  to  destruction  ;  cor  to  the 
vuchor  of  1  Esdr.  i.  28,  who  descrmes  hla  as  acting 
riUfuliy  against  Jetsniiah's  advice  ;  nor  to  Jfiwald,  who 


Aharbanel  (ap.  Eisenmenger,  Ent.  Jud.  i.  858) 
records  an  oral  tradition  of  the  Jews  to  the  effect 
that  the  Ark  of  fhe  Covenant,  which  Solomon  de- 
posited in  the  Temple  (1  K.  vi.  19),  was  removed 
and  hidden  by  Josiah,  in  expectation  of  the  de- 
struction of  the  Temple ;  and  that  it  will  not  be 
brought  again  to  light  until  the  coming  of  Mes- 
siah. W.  T.  B. 

2.  The  son  of  Zephaniah,  at  whose  house  the 
prophet  Zechariah  was  commanded  to  assemble  the 
chief  men  of  the  Captivity,  to  witness  the  solemn 
and  symbolical  crowning  of  Joshua  the  high-priest 
(Zech.  vi.  9).  It  has  been  conjectured  that  Josiah 
was  either  a  goldsmith,  or  treasurer  of  the  Temple, 
or  one  of  the  keepers  of  the  Temple,  who  received 
the  money  offered  by  the  worshippers,  but  nothing 
is  known  of  him.  Possibly  he  was  a  descendant 
of  Zephaniah,  the  priest  mentioned  in  Jer.  xxi.  1, 
xxxvii.  3,  and  if  Hen  in  Zech.  vi.  14  be  a  proper 
name,  which  is  doubtful,  it  probably  refers  to  the 
same  person,  elsewhere  called  Josiah.    W.  A.  VV. 

JOSFAS.  1.  Claxrias;  [Vat.  laxretos;  so 
Sin.  in  Ecclus.  and  Matt.,  and  Lachm.  Tisch. 
Treg.  in  Matt.:]  Josias.)  Josiah,  king  of  Judah 
(1  Esdr.  i.  1,  7,  18,  21-23,  25,  28,  29,  32-34;  Ecclu.<» 
xlix.  1,  4;  Bar.  i.  8;  Matt.  i.  10,  11). 

2.  {'Ualas',  [Vat.  with  preceding  word  Ao/ieo"- 
tas;]  Alex.  Uacrias:  Maasias.)  Jeshaiah  the 
son  of  AthaUah  (1  Esdr.  viii.  33;  comp.  Ezr. 
viii.  7). 

JOSIBI'AH  (n^ntpV,  i.  e.  Joshibiah  [Je- 
hovah makes  to  dwell]:  ^Aora^ia;  [Vat.]  Alex. 
Icrafiia'-  Josabias),  the  father  of  Jehu,  a  Simeon- 
ite,  descended  from  that  branch  of  the  tribe  of 
which  Shimei  was  the  founder,  and  which  after- 
wards became  most  numerous  (1  Chr.  iv.  35). 

JOSIPHFAH  (^^Tv'^^  [tohom  Jehovah 
adds  =  Joseph}:  ^Icoa-ecpia  [Vat.  -cpeia]:  Josphias\ 
the  father  or  ancestor  of  Shelomith,  who  returned 
with  Ezra  (Ezr.  viii.  10).  A  word  is  evidently 
omitted  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse,  and  is  sup- 
plied both  by  the  LXX.  and  the  S^r.,  as  well  as  by 
the  compiler  of  1  Esdr.  viii.  36.    The  LXX.  supply 

Baavi,  «".  e.  "^321,  which,  from  its  resemblance  to 

the  preceding  word  ''32)  might  easily  have  been 
omitted  by  a  transcriber.  The  verse  would  then 
read,  "  of  the  sons  of  Bani,  Shelomith  the  son  of 
Josiphiah."  In  the  Syriac  Shelomith  is  repeated, 
but  this  is  not  likely  to  have  been  correct.  Josi- 
phiah is  called  in  Esdras  Josaphias. 

*  JOTAP'ATA  ClwTdirara),  a  famous  for- 
tress in  Galilee,  which  figured  largely  in  the  early 
post-Biblical  Jewish  history.  Josephus,  who  com- 
manded the  forces  in  it,  and  was  captured  there,  has 
given  a  fuU  description  of  the  place,  which  he  had 
fortified,  and  of  the  siege  by  Vespasian,  in  which 
40,000  persons  perished  before  it  was  reduced.  {B. 
J.  iii.  7  ff.)  The  site,  which  had  been  searched  for 
by  modem  travelers,  was  discovered  by  Schultz  in 
1847,  and  identified  with  the  modern  Jefdl  —  an 


(  Gesch.  Isr.  iii.  707)  conjectures  that  it  may  have  been 
the  constant  aim  of  Josiah  to  restore  not  only  the  rit- 
ual, but  also  the  kingdom  of  David  in  its  full  extent 
and  independence,  and  that  he  attacked  Necho  as  an  in- 
vader of  what  he  considered  as  his  northern  dominions. 
This  conjecture,  if  equally  probable  with  the  former, 
is  equally  without  adequate  support  in  the  Bible,  and 
is  somewhat  derogatory  to  the  character  of  Josiah. 


148: 


JOTBAH 


uninhabited  Tell,  about  fifteen  miles  southeast  from 
Akka.  The  spot  was  visited  and  described  by  Dr. 
Kobinson  in  1853  {Later  Bibl.  lies,  p.  105  ff".), 
who   also   identifies   it  with   the   Jiphthah-el    of 

Joshua.       [JlPHTHAH-EL.]  S.  W. 

JOT'BAH  (nn^^  [cjoodnesty.  'lere^Sa; 
{Tat.  leo-ejSaA.;]  Alex.  leroxoA;  Jos.  'lajSari?: 
Jeteba)^  the  native  plkceof  Meshullemeth,  the  queen 
of  Manasseh,  and  mother  of  Araon  king  of  Judah 
(2  K.  xxi.  ]9).  The  place  is  not  elsewhere  named 
as  a  town  of  Palestine,  and  is  generally  identified 
with  Jotbath,  or  Jotbathah,  mentioned  below.  This 
there  is  nothing  either  to  prove  or  disprove.   [G.] 

JOT'BATH  or  JOT'BATHAH  (nn^l?; 
[goodness, 2)has(tntness\:  'ETefiaea;  [Yat.  inDeiit. 
TaijSafla,  in  Num.  Vat.i  2eT€)8a0o;]  Alex. 
UT€^a0av,  \pT -da' Jetebatha],  Deut.  x.  7;  Num. 
xxxiii.  33),  a  desert  station  of  the  Israelites:  it  is 
described  as  "a  land  of  torrents  of  waters;  "  there 
are  several  confluences  of  wadies  on  the  W.  of  the 
Arabah,  any  one  of  which  might  in  the  rainy  sea- 
son answer  the  description,  and  would  agree  with 
the  general  locality.  H.  H. 

JO'THAM     (Dn''^"^    [Jehovah   is  upriylity. 

'iwddafi',  [Vat.  luaOav]  Alex,  in  ver.  5,  laOafi, 
rer.  21,  IwOafi--]  Joalham).  1.  The  youngest  son 
of  Gideon  (Judg.  ix.  5,  [7,  21,  57]),  who  escaped 
when  his  brethren,  to  the  number  of  69  persons, 
were  slain  at  Ophrah  by  their  half-brother  Abime- 
lech.  When  this  bloody  act  of  Abimelech  had 
secured  his  election  as  king,  .Jotham,  ascending 
Mount  Gerizim,  boldly  uttered,  in  the  hearing  of 
the  men  of  Shechem,  his  well  known  warning  para- 
ble of  the  reign  of  the  bramble.  Nothing  is  known 
of  him  afterwards,  except  that  he  dwelt  at  Beeii. 

2.  ['Icoa0a;u,  'luiiBaV,  Vat.  2  K.  xv.  5,  7,  32, 
laivaQav,  and  so  Alex.  2  K.  xv.  30,  1  Chr.  iii. 
12,  2  Chr.  xxvi.  23;  Alex.  1  Chr.  v.  17,  IwdaV. 
Joathan,  Joatham.]  The  son  of  king  Uzziah  or 
Azariah  and  Jerushah.  After  administering  the 
kingdom  for  some  years  during  his  father's  lep- 
rosy, he  succeeded  to  the  throne  B.  c.  758,  when 
he  was  25  years  old,  and  reigned  16  years  in  Je- 
rusalem. He  was  contemporai-y  with  Pekah  and 
with  the  prophet  Isaiah.  His  history  is  contained 
in  2  K.  XV.  and  2  Chr.  xxvii.  He  did  right  in  the 
Bight  of  the  Lord,  and  his  reign  was  prosperous, 
although  the  high-places  were  not  removed.  He 
built  the  high  gate  of  the  Temple,  made  some  ad- 
ditions to  the  wall  of  Jerusalem,  and  raised  forti- 
fications in  various  parts  of  Judah.  After  a  war 
with  the  Ammonites  he  compelled  them  to  pay  him 
the  tribute  they  ha/1  been  accustomed  to  pay  his 
father.  Towards  the  end  of  his  reign  Rezin  king 
of  Damascus,  and  Pekah,  began  to  assume  a 
threatening  attitude  towards  Judah.     W.  T.  B. 

3.  A  descendant  of  Judah,  son  of  Jahdai  (1  Chr. 
li.  47).      . 

♦JOURNEY,    Day's.      [Day's  Journey, 
Amer.  ed.] 

*  JOURNEY,  Sabbath-day's.  [Sabbath.] 

JOZ'ABAD.     1.    {lyn^  [ffift  of  Jehovah]: 

*la)Ca$<ie;  [Vat.  FA.  TwCafiaO;]  Alex.  laCafiaB: 
Jozabad.)  A  captain  of  the  thousands  of  Manas- 
leb,  who  deserted  to  David  before  the  battle  of 
Gilboa,  and  assisted  him  in  his  pursuit  of  the  ma- 
rauding band  of  Amalekites  (1  Chr.  xii.  20).    One 

tf  Kennicott's  MSS.  reads  "^Dn"^,  ».  «.  Jochabar. 


JOZACHAR 

2.  Clwaafiaie;  [FA.  Iw£ro)860;]  Aiex.  la^o- 
jSeS.)  A  hero  of  Manasseh,  like  the  preceding 
(1  Chr.  xii.  20). 

3.  {'luCa^dS;  [Vat.  E^aiSaS;]  Alex.  IwCaPad. 
in  2  Chr.  xxxi.  13.)  A  I.evite  in  the  reign  of 
Hezekiah,  who  was  one  of  the  overseers  of  offerings 
and  dedicated  things  in  the  Temjile,  under  Cononiah 
and  Shimei,  after  the  restoration  of  the  true 
worship. 

4.  (Jozobad.)  One  of  the  princes  of  the  Levites, 
who  held  the  same  office  as  the  preceding,  and  took 
part  in  the  great  Passover  kept  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
reign  of  Josiah  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  9). 

5.  [Jozabed.]  A  Levite,  son  of  Jeshua,  who 
assisted  Meremoth  and  lileazar  in  registering  the 
number  and  weight  of  the  vessels  of  gold  and  silver 
belonging  to  the  Temple,  which  they  brought  with 
them  from  Babylon  (Ezr.  viii.  33).  He  is  called 
Josabad  in  the  parallel  narrative  of  1  Esdr.  viii. 
63,  and  is  probably  identical  with  7. 

6.  Cloj^ajSaS  in  Ezra;  'n/C(i87jAos  in  1  Esdr. 
ix.  22 :  Jozabed. )  A  priest  of  the  sons  of  Pashur, 
who  had  married  a  foreigner  on  the  return  from 
the  Captivity  (Ezr.  x.  22).  He  appears  as  Ocidelus 
in  the  A.  V.  of  1  Esdr. 

7.  CluCa^ddos  [Vat.  Ia>^o)85os]  in  1  Esdr.  ix 
23:  Jozabed,  Ezr.  x.  22;  Jorabdus,  1  Esdr.  ix.  23.) 
A  Levite  among  those  who  returned  with  Ezra  and 
had  married  foreign  wives.  He  is  probably  iden- 
tical with  Jozabad  the  Levite,  who  assisted  when 
the  law  was  read  by  F^ra  (Neh.  viii.  7);  and  with 
Jozabad,  one  of  the  heads  of  the  Invites  who  pre- 
sided over  the  outer  work  of  the  Temple  (Neh.  xi. 
16).  W.  A.  W. 

JOZ'ACHAR  OJP**    [M'/iom  Jehmah  re- 

members']  :  ^U(tpxo-P  '  [Vat.  U^eixap  ;]  Alex. 
la)(axap'  Josnchar),  the  son  of  Shimeath  the 
Ammonitess,  and  one  of  the  murderers  of  Joash 
king  of  Judah  (2  K.  xii.  21).  The  writer  of  the 
Chronicles  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  26)  calls  him  Zabad, 
which  is  nothing  more  than  a  clerical  error  for 
Jozachar:  the  first  syllable  being  omitted  in  con- 
sequence of  the  final  letters  of  the  preceding  word 

Vbv.     In  18  MSS.  of  Kennicott's  collation  the 

name  in  the  Kings  is  *7!I2TV,  i.  e.  Jozabad,  and 
the  same  is  the  reading  of  32  MSS.  collated  by  De 
Kossi.     Another  MS.  in  De  Rossi's  possession  had 

IDTV,  i.  e.  Jozachad,  and  one  collated  by  Ken- 

nicott  "I^TV,  or  Jozabar,  which  is  the  reading  of 
the  Peshito-Syriac.  Burrington  concludes  that  the 
original  form  of  the  word  was  TISTT,  or  Jozabad ; 
but  for  this  there  does  not  seem  sufficient  reason, 
as  the  name  would  then  be  all  but  identical  with 
that  of  the  Moabite  Jehozal>ad,  who  was  the  ac- 
complice of  Jozachar  in  the  n)urder.  It  is  uncer- 
tain whether  their  conspiracy  was  prompted  by  a 
personal  feeling  of  revenge  for  the  death  of  Zecha- 
riah,  as  Josephus  intimates  (A7ii.  ix.  8,  §  4),  or 
whether  they  were  urged  to  it  by  the  family  of 
Jehoiada.  the  care  of  the  chronicler  to  show  that 
they  were  of  foreign  descent  seems  almost  intended 
to  disarm  a  suspicion  that  the  king's  assassination 
was  an  act  of  priestly  vengeance.  But  it  is  more 
likely  that  the  conspiracy  had  a  different  origin 
altogether,  and  that  the  king's  murder  was  regarded 
by  the  chronicler  as  an  uistance  of  Divine  retribu- 
tion. On  the  accession  of  Amaziah  the  conspiraton 
were  executed.  W,  A.  W. 


JOZADAK 

JOZ'ADAK  (P7?'^'^  [Jehovan  righteous]: 
■'IftxreSeK;  [Vat.  in  Neh.,  EjoxrcSe/c:]  Josedec), 
Ezr.  iii.  2,  8,  v.  2,  x.  18;  Neh.  xii.  26.  The  name 
is  a  contraction  of  Jehozadak. 

JU'BAL  (b^^**  lsou7id,  blast  of  trumpets] : 
'Iouj8a\:  Jiib(d),  a  son  of  Lamech  by  Adah,  and 
the  inventor  of  the  "  harp  and  organ  "  (Gen.  iv. 
21  ;  kinnor  vetiyab,  probably  general  terms  for 
stringed  and  wind  instruments).  His  name  appears 
to  be  connected  with  this  subject,  springing  from 
the  same  root  as  yobel,  "jubilee."  That  the  in- 
ventor of  musical  instruments  should  be  the  brother 
of  him  who  introduced  the  nomad  life,  is  strictly 
in  accordance  with  the  experience  of  the  world. 
The  connection  between  music  and  the  pastoral  life 
b  indicated  in  the  traditions  of  the  Greeks,  which 
ascribed  the  invention  of  the  pipe  to  Pan  and  of 
the  lyre  to  Apollo,  each  of  them  being  also  devoted 
\o  pastoral  pursuits.  W.  L.  B. 

JUBILEE,    THE    YEAR    OF    (H^^ 

^y^^'il.  and  simply  7!Il1^  :  ^tos  rrjs  a(j)€<r€cos, 
a(p€<reoos  (rrjindcria,  and  &<pe(ns'  annus  jubikei,  and 
j'ubikeus),  the  fiftieth  year  after  the  succession  of 
seven  sabbatical  years,  in  which  all  the  land  which 
bad  been  alienated  returned  to  the  families  of  those 
to  whom  it  had  been  allotted  in  the  original  dis- 
tribution, and  all  bondmen  of  Hebrew  blood  were 
liberated.     The  relation  in  which  it  stood  to  the 


1^ 


«  Ewald  observes  that  vv.  17-22  in  this  chapter 
should  be  read  immediately  after  ver.  7,  since  they 
carry  on  the  account  of  the  sabbatical  year,  and  have 
no  reference  to  the  year  of  Jubilee. 

b  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  rites  of  solemn 
humiliation  which  marked  the  great  fast  of  the  year 
were  disturbed.  The  joyful  sound  probably  burst 
forth  in  the  afternoon,  when  the  high-priest  had 
Drought  the  services  of  Atonement  to  a  conclusion. 
The  contrast  between  the  quiet  of  the  day  and  the 
loud  blast  of  the  trumpets  at  its  close,  must  have  ren- 
dered deeply  impressive  the  hallowing  of  the  year  of 
release  from  poverty  and  bondage.  But  Hupfeld  is  so 
offended  with  the  incongruity  of  this  arrangement, 
that  he  would  fain  repair  what  he  thinks  must  be  a 
defect  in  the  Hebrew  text,  in  order  that  he  may  put 
back  the  couunencement  of  the  year  of  Jubilee  from 
the  Day  of  Atonement,  on  the  10th,  to  the  Feast  of 
Trumpets,  on  the  1st  of  Tisri.  "  Hie  (i.  e.  in  ver.  9) 
vetus  mendum  latere  suspicor,  forte  in  diei  numero, 

T^ti7373i,  primitus  positum  (pro  THM^l)  cui  deinde 
glossa  accessit  'die  expiationis  '  "  (Comment,  de  rem 
fi-st.  rat,,  pt.  iii.  p  20).  In  the  same  vein  of  criticism, 
considering  that  the  rest  of  the  soil  is  alien  to  the  idea 
of  the  Jubilee,  he  would  expunge  ver.  11  as  an  inter- 
polation. He  is  disposed  to  deal  still  more  freely  with 
that  part  of  the  chapter  which  relates  to  the  sabbatical 
year. 

c  Tlie  trumpets  used  in  the  proclamation  of  the 
Jubilee  appear  to  have  l)een  curved  horns,  not  the 
long,  straight  trumpets  represented  on  the  arch  of 
litus,  and  which,  according  to  Hengstenberg  (Egypt 
and  the  Books  of  Moses,  p.  131,  Eng.  trans  ),  are  the 
only  ones   represented   in   Egyptian   sculptures   and 

■aintings.  The  straight  trump*^t  was  called  ni^'^H, 
the  other,  "l^^W  and  inf?.  The  Jubilee  horns 
ased  in  the  siege  of  JViicho  aie  ct^ed  iTnDItt? 
S'^b^'^.'^rT  (Josh.  vi.  4);  and,  collectively,  in  the 
bllow*ujr  verm^,  bllVH  ^^p.    (See  Keil  on  JOSh. 


JUBILEE,  THE  YEAR  OF     1483 

sabbatical  year  and  the  general  directions  for  its 
observance  are  given  Lev.  xxv.  8-16  and  23-55.« 
Its  bearing  on  lands  dedicated  to  Jehovah  is  stated 
Lev.  xxvii.  16-25.  There  is  no  mention  of  the 
Jubilee  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  only 
other  reference  to  it  in  the  Pentateuch  is  in  the 
appeal  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseb,  on  account  of  the 
daughters  of  Zelophehad  (Num.  xxxvi.  4:  see  be- 
low, §  VI.  note  d). 

II.  The  year  was  inaugurated  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement '^  with  the  blowing  of  trumpets  «  through- 
out the  land,  and  by  a  proclamation  of  universal 
liberty. 

1.  The  soil  was  kept  under  the  same  condition 
of  rest  as  had  existed  during  the  preceding  sab- 
batical year.  There  was  to  be  neither  ploughing, 
sowing,  nor  reaping;  but  the  chance  produce  was 
to  be  left  for  the  use  of  all  comers.  [Sabbatical 
Year.] 

2.  Every  Israelite  returned  to  "  his  possession 
and  to  his  family;  "  that  is,  he  recovered  his  right 
in  the  land  originally  allotted  to  the  family  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  if  he,  or  his  ancestor,  had  parted 
with  it. 

(a. )  A  strict  rule  to  prevent  fraud  and  injustice 
in  such  transactions  is  laid  down :  if  a  Hebrew, 
urged  by  poverty, "^  had  to  dispose  of  a  field,  the 
price  was  determined  according  to  the  time  of  the 
sale  in  reference  to  the  approach  of  the  next  Jubilee 
The  transfer  was  thus,  not  of  the  land  itself,  but 
of  the  usufruct  for  a  limited  time.     Deduction  was 


vi.  4.)  It  is  not  quite  certain  whether  they  were  the 
horns  of  oxen  or  formed  of  metal  (Kranold,  p.  50),  but 
the  latter  seems  by  far  more  probable.    Connected  with 

the  mistake  as  to  the  origin  of  the  word  ^Zl"^**  (which 
will  be  noticed  below),  was  the  notion  that  they  were 
rams'  horns.    R.  Jehuda,  in  the  Mishna,  says  that  the 

horns  of  rams  (D'^IDt)  were  used  at  the  Feast  of 

Trumpets,  and  those  of  wild  goats  (C^  vl?*^)  at  the 
Jubilee.  But  Maimonides  and  Bartenora  say  that 
rams'  horns  were  used  on  both  occasions  (Rash  Ha- 
s/iana,  p.  342,  edit.  Suren.).  Bochart  and  others  have 
justly  objected  that  the  horns  of  rams,  or  those  of 
wild  goats,  would  form  but  sorry  trumpets.    [Cornet.] 

It  is  probable  that  on  this,  as  on  other  occasions 
of  public  proclamation,  the  trumpets  were  blown  by 
the  priests,  in  accordance  with  Num.  x.  8.  (See 
Kranold,  Comment,  de  Juhilo'.o,  p.  50  ;  with  whom 
agree  Ewald,  Biihr,  and  most  modern  writers.)  Biihi 
supposes  that,  at  the  proclamation  of  the  Jubilee,  the 
trumpets  were  blown  in  all  the  priests'  cities  and 
wherever  a  priest  might  be  living  ;  while,  on  the  Feast 
of  Trumpets,  they  were  blown  only  in  the  Temple, 
Maimonides  says  that  every  Hebrew  at  the  Jubilee 
blew  nine  blasts,  so  as  to  make  the  trumpet  lit.erally 
"  sound  throughout  the  land  "  (Lev.  xxv.  9).  Such  a 
usage  may  have  existed,  as  a  mere  popular  expression 
of  rejoicing,  but  it  could  have  been  no  ess«!ntial  part 
of  the  ceremony. 

d  It  would  seem  that  the  Israelites  never  parted 
with  their  land  except  from  the  pressure  of  poverty. 
The  objection  of  Naboth  to  accept  the  offer  of  Ahab 
(1  K.  xxi.  1),  appears  to  exemplify  the  sturdy  feeling 
of  a  substantial  Hebrew,  who  would  have  felt  it  to  be 
a  shame  and  a  sin  to  give  up  any  part  of  his  patri- 
mony —  "  The  Lord  forbid  it  me  that  I  should  give 
the  inheritance  of  my  fathers  to  thee."  If  Michaelis 
had  felt  as  most  Englishmen  do  in  such  matters,  he 
would  have  had  more  respect  for  the  conduct  of  Na- 
both. (See  Comment,  on  the  Mosaic  Lata,  art.  73.) 
But  the  conduct  of  Naboth  has  been  questioned  on 
different  ground  in  a  dissertation  by  S.  Andveas,  in  tht 
Oitici  Sacri,  vol.  xiii.  p.  603. 


1484       JUBILEE,  THE  YEAR  OF 

lystematically  made  on  account  of  the  number  of 
sabbatical  years,  which  would  deprive  the  purchaser 
o(  certain  crops  within  that  period." 

{b. )  The  possession  of  the  field  could,  at  any  time, 
be  recovered  by  the  original  proprietor,  if  his  cir- 
cumstances improved,  or  by  his  next  of  kin  ^  (^^2, 
i.  e.  vne  who  redeems).  The  price  to  be  paid  for 
its  redemptian  was  to  be  fixed  according  to  the 
game  equitable  rule  as  the  price  at  which  it  had 
been  purchased  (ver.  16). 

(c. )  Houses  in  walled  cities  ^  were  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  Jubilee,  but  a  man  who  sold  his  house 
could  redeem  it  at  any  time  within  a  full  year  of 
the  time  of  its  sale.  After  that  year,  it  became  the 
absolute  property  of  the  purchaser. 

{(1.)  Houses  and  buildings  in  villages,  or  in  the 
country,  being  regarded  as  essentially  connected 
with  the  cultivation  of  the  land,  were  not  excepted, 
but  returned  in  the  Jubilee  with  the  land  on  which 
they  stood. 

(e. )  The  Levitical  cities  were  not,  in  respect  to 
this  law,  reckoned  with  walled  towns.  If  a  Levite 
gold  the  use  of  his  house,  it  reverted  to  him  in  the 
Jubilee,  and  he  might  re<leem  it  at  any  previous 
time.  The  lands  in  the  suburbs  of  the  Levites' 
cities  could  not  be  parted  with  under  any  c^^ndition, 
and  were  not  therefore  affected  by  the  law  of  Jubilee 
(ver.  34). 

{f.)  If  a  man  had  sanctified  a  field  of  his  patri- 
mony unto  the  Lord,  it  could  be  redeemed  at  any 
time  before  the  next  year  of  Jubilee,  on  his  paying 
one  fifth  in  addition  to  the  worth  of  the  crops, 
rated  at  a  stated  valuation  (Ixv.  xxvii.  19).  If  not 
so  redeemed,  it  became,  at  the  Jubilee,  devoted  for 
ever.  If  the  man  had  previously  sold  the  usufruct 
of  the  field  to  another,  he  lost  all  right  to  redeem 
it  (vv.  20,  21). 

{(].)  If  he  who  had  purchased  the  usufruct  of  a 
field  sanctified  it,  he  could  redeem  it  till  the  next 
Jubilee,  that  is,  as  long  as  his  claim  lasted ;  but  it 
then,  as  justice  required,  returned  to  the  original 
proprietor  (ver.  22-24). 

3.  All  Israelites  who  had  become  bondmen,  either 
to  their  countrjmen,  or  to  resident  foreigners,  were 
set  free  in  the  Jubilee  (Lev.  xxv.  40,  41),  when  it 
happened  to  occur  before  their  seventh  year  of  sen'i- 
tude,  in  which  they  became  free  by  the  operation 
of  another  law  (Ex.  xxi.  2).  Those  who  were  bound 
to  resident  foreigners  might  redeem  themselves,  if 
they  obtained  the  means,  at  any  time;  or  they 
might  be  redeemed  by  a  relation.  Even  the  bond- 
man who  had  submitted  to  the  ceremony  of  having 
his  ears  bored  (Ex.  xxi.  6)  had  his  freedom  at  the 
Jubilee.''^ 

Such  was  the  law  of  the  year  of  Jubilee,  as  it  is 
given  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  was,  of  course,  like 
the  law  of  the  sabbatical  year,  and  that  of  those 
rites  of  the  great  festivals  which  pertain  to  agricul- 

o  This  must  be  the  meaning  of  the  price  being  cal- 
culated on  "the  years  of  fruits,"  n'S-'inn"\aii7 
(Lev.  xxv.  15,  16),  the  years  of  tillage,  exclusive'  of  the 
years  of  rest. 

ft  Kranold  observes  (p.  54)  that  there  is  no  record 
of  the  goel  ever  exercising  his  right  till  after  the  death 
^f  him  who  had  sold  the  field.  But  the  inference 
that  the  goel  could  not  previously  exercise  his  power 
teems  to  be  hardly  warranted,  and  is  opposed  to  what 
is  perhaps  the  simplest  interpretation  of  Ruth  iv.  3,  4. 
See  note  6,  §  V. 

«  A  Jewish  tradition,  preserved  by  Maimonides  and 


JUBILEE,  THE  YEAR  OF 

ture,  delivered  proleptically.  The  same  formula  if 
used  —  "When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  which 
I  give  unto  you  "  —  both  in  Lev.  xxv.  2,  and  Lev 
xxiii.  10. 

III.  Josephus  {Ant.  'in.  32,  §  3)  states  that  all 
debts  were  remitted  in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  while 
the  Scripture  speaks  of  the  remission  of  debts  only 
ill  connection  with  the  sabbatical  year  (Deut.  xv. 
1,  2).  [Sabbatical  Year.]  He  also  describea 
the  terms  on  which  the  holder  of  a  piece  of  land 
resigned  it  in  the  Jubilee  to  the  original  proprietor. 
The  former  (he  says)  produced  a  statement  of  the 
value  of  the  crops,  and  of  the  money  which  he  had 
laid  out  in  tillage.  If  the  expenses  proved  to  be 
more  than  the  worth  of  the  produce,  the  balance 
was  paid  by  the  proprietor  before  the  field  was  re- 
stored. But  if  the  balance  was  on  the  other  side, 
the  proprietor  simply  took  back  the  field,  and  al- 
lowed him  who  had  h(ld  it  to  retain  the  profit. 

Philo  {De  Septenario,  cc.  13,  14,  vol.  v.  p.  37, 
edit.  Tauch.)  gives  an  account  of  the  Jubilee  agree- 
ing with  that  in  Leviticus,  and  says  nothing  of  the 
remission  of  debts. « 

IV.  There  are  several  very  difficult  questions 
connected  with  the  Jubilee,  of  which  we  now  pro- 
ceed to  give  a  brief  view :  — 

1.  Origin  of  the  woi-d  Jttbilee.  —  The  doubt  on 
this  point  appears  to  be  a  very  old  one.  The  He- 
brew word  is  treated  by  the  LXX.  in  different 
modes.  They  have  retained  it  untranslated  in  Josh, 
vi.  8,  13  (where  we  find  KcpaTivai  rov  'IwjS^A,  and 
adXiriy^  rod  'IcojS^A).  In  Lev.  xxv.  they  generally 
render  it  by  fi^etny,  or  atptaews  aiifidaia;  but 
where  the  context  suits  it,  by  (pwur)  (Ta.\inYYos. 
In  Ex.  xix.  13  they  have  cu  (pcoval  Ka\  al  caKiny' 
-yes.  The  Vulgate  retains  the  original  word  in 
I^v.  xxv.,  as  well  as  in  Josh.  vi.  ("  buccinae  quarum 
U8US  est  in  Jubilseo  "),  and  [renders  itj  by  buccina 
in  Ex.  xix.  13.  It  seems,  therefore,  beyond  doubt 
that  uncertainty  respecting  the  word  must  have 
been  felt  when  the  most  ancient  versions  of  tho 
().  T.  were  made. 

Nearly  all  of  the  many  conjectures  which  have 
been  hazarded  on  the  subject  are  directed  to  explain 
the  word  exclusively  in  its  bearing  on  the  year  of 
Jubilee.  This  course  has  been  taken  by  Josephua 
—  i\€v6fplav  5e  armaipei  roVvo/jLa',  and  by  St. 
Jerome  —  Jobel  est  demittens  out  mittens.  Many 
modern  writers  have  exercised  their  ingenuity  in 
the  same  track.  Now  in  all  such  attempts  at  ex- 
planation there  must  be  an  anachronism,  as  the 
word  is  used  in  Ex.  xix.  13,  before  the  institution 
of  the  Law,  where  it  can  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  year  of  Jubilee,  or  its  observances.  The  ex- 
pression there  used  is  v21*rT  TJtt^pS  •  similar 
to  that  in  Josh.  vi.  5,  b^Vn  "jnpa  "J]^*^?. 
The  question  seems  to  be,  can   vD'^"^  here  mean 


others,  states  that  no  cities  were  thus  reckoned,  as 
regards  the  Jubilee,  but  such  as  were  walled  in  the 
time  of  Joshua.  According  to  this,  Jerusalem  waa 
excluded. 

d  Maimonides  says  that  the  interval  between  the 
Feast  of  Trumpets  and  the  Day  of  Atonement,  in  the 
year  of  Jubilee,  was  a  time  of  riotous  rejoicing  to  all 
servants.  If  there  is  any  truth  in  the  tradition  that 
he  records  (which  is  in  itself  probable  enough),  the 
eight  days  must  have  been  a  sort  ot  Saturnalia. 

e  The  Mishna  contains  nothing  on  the  Jubilee  bxt 
unimportant  scattered  notices,  though  it  has  a  o<» 
Biderable  treatise  on  the  sabbatical  year  (f  i^fentA) 


JUBILEE,  THE  YEAR  OF 

khe  pejuliar  sound,  or  the  instrument  for  producing 
tha  sound?     Ewald  favors  the  latter  notion,  and 

80  does  (iosenius  {Thes.  sub  T[^*  ^),  following  the 

»Dld  versions  (with  which  our  own  agrees),  though 
under  V^"^  he  explains  /I?'^"^  ^  clangor.  De 
Wette  inclines  the  same  way,  rendering  the  words 
in  Ex.  xix.  13  — "  beim  Blasen  des  Jobelhorns." 
Luther  translates  the  same  words  —  "  wenn  es  wird 
aber  lange  tunen"  (though  he  is  not  consistent 
with  himself  in  rendering  Josh.  vi.  5); — Biihr  ren- 
ders them,  "  cum  trahetur  sonus,"  and  most  recent 
critics  agree  with  him.  It  would  follow  from  this 
view  that  what  is  meant  in  Joshua,  when  the 
trumpet  is  expressly  mentioned,  is,  "  When  the 
sound  called  Jubilee  (whatever  that  may  be)  is 
prolonged  on  the  horn."  « 

As  regards  the  derivation  of  the  word,  it  is  now 
very  generally  ascribed  to  the  root  ^?^,  "  undavit, 
copiose  et  cum  quodam  impetu  fluxit."     Hence 

Kranold  explains  ^5"^"^5  "  id  quod  magno  strepitu 
Quit  " ;  and  he  adds,  "  duplex  igitur  in  ea  radice  vis 
distinguitur,  fluendi  et  sonandi  altera  in   7^Sp 

(diluvium).  Gen.  vi.  17,  altera  in  ^^^"^  (artis 
musiciB  inventor),  Gen.  iv.  21,  conspicua."  The 
meaning  of  Jubilee  would  thus  seem  to  be,  a  rush- 
ing, penetrating  soundfi  But  in  the  uncertainty, 
which,  it  must  be  allowed,  exists,  our  translators 
have  taken  a  safer  course  by  retaining  the  original 
word  in  I^v.  xxv.  and  xxvii.,  than  that  which  was 
taken  by  Luther,  who  has  rendered  it  by  Halljahr. 
2.  Was  the  Jubilee  every  iQth  or  bOth  year  f  — 
If  the  plain  words  of  Lev.  xxv.  10  are  to  be  fol- 
lowed, this  question  need  not  be  asked.  The  state- 
ment that  the  Jubilee  was  the  50th  year,  after  the 
succession  of  seven  weeks  of  years,  and  that  it  was 
distinguished  from,  not  identical  with,  the  seventh 
sabbatical  year,  is  as  evident  as  language  can  make 
it.     But  the  difficulty  of  justifying  the  wisdom  of 


a  The  grounds  on  which  the  opposite  view  rests  are 
stated  elsewhere.     [See  Cornet  ] 

b  Carpzov  (App.  p.  449)  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  who  put  forth  this  view  of  the  origin  and  mean- 
ing of  the  word.  The  figure  of  the  pouring  along  of 
the  "  rich  stream  of  music  "  is  famihar  enough  in 
most  languages  to  recommend  it  as  probable.     But 

Gesenius  prefers  to  make  a  second  root,  /H*^,  jubilare, 
which  he  ascribes  to  onomatopoea,  like  the  Latin 
jubilare,  and  the  Greek  bkoXv^etv. 

The  fanciful  notion  that  v2"^^  signifies  a  ram  has 
some  interest,  from  its  being  held  by  the  Jews  so 
generally  and  by  the  Chaldee  Paraphrast  ;  and  from 
its  having  influenced  our  translators  in  Josh.  vi.  to 
call  the  horns  on  which  the  Jubilee  was  sounded, 
trumpets  of  rams^  horns.  It  appears  to  come  from  the 
strange  nonsense  which  some  of  the  Rabbis  in  early 
times  began  to  tiilk  respecting  the  ram  which  was 
sacrificed  in  the  place  of  Isaac.  They  said  (R.  Bechai 
In  Ex.  xix.  ap.  Kranold)  that  after  the  ram  was  burnt. 
God  miraculously  restored  the  body.  His  muscles 
were  deposited  in  the  golden  altar;  from  his  viscera 
were  made  the  strings  of  David's  harp ;  his  skin  be- 
»me  the  mantle  of  Elijah ;  his  left  Lorn  was  the 
trumpet  of  Sinai  ;  and  his  right  horn  was  to  sound 
when  Messiah  comes  (Is.  xxvii.  13).    R  Akiba,  to  con- 

ftect  this  with  the  Jubilee,  affirms  that  ^121*^  is  the 
Arabic  for  a  ram,  though  the  best  Arabic  scholars  say 
ILere  is  no  such  word  in  the  language. 


JUBILEE,  THE   YEAR  OF    1485 

allowing  the  land  to  have  two  years  of  rest  in  suc- 
cession has  been  felt  by  some,  and  deemed  sufficient 
to  prove  that  the  Jubilee  could  only  have  been  the 
•49th  year,  that  is,  one  with  the  seventh  Sabbatical 
year.  But  in  such  a  case,  a  mere  a  priori  argu- 
ment cannot  justly  be  deemed  sufficient  to  over- 
throw a  clear  unequivocal  statement,  involving  no 
inconsistency,  or  physical  impossibility.*^ 

Hug  has  suggested  that  the  sabbatical  year 
might  have  begun  in  Nisan  and  the  Jubilee  Year 
in  Tisri  (Winer,  sub  voce).  In  this  way  the  labors 
of  the  husbandmen  would  only  have  been  inter- 
mitted for  a  year  and  a  half.  But  it  is  surely  a 
very  harsh  supposition  to  imagine  that  Moses  would 
have  spoken  of  the  institution  of  the  two  years,  and 
of  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  each  other, 
without  noticing  such  a  distinction,  had  it  existed. 
It  is  most  probable  that  the  sabbatical  year  and 
the  year  of  Jubilee  both  began  in  Tisri,  as  is  stated 
in  the  Mishna  {Rosh  Hashana,  p.  300,  edit.  Suren.). 
[Sabbatical  Yeak.] 

The  simplest  view,  and  the  only  one  which  ac- 
cords with  the  sacred  text,  is,  that  the  year  which 
followed  the  seventh  sabbatical  year  was  the  Jubilee, 
which  was  intercalated  between  two  series  of  sab- 
batical years,  so  that  the  next  year  was  the  first  of 
a  new  half  century,  and  the  seventh  year  after  that 
was  the  first  sabbatical  year  of  the  other  series. 
Thus  the  Jubilee  was  strictly  a  Pentecost  year, 
holding  the  same  relation  to  the  preceding  seven 
sabbatical  years,  as  the  day  of  Pentecost  did  to 
the  seven  Sabbath  days.  Substantially  the  same 
formula,  in  reference  to  this  point,  is  used  in  each 
case''  (cf.  Lev.  xxiii.  15,  16,  xxv.  8-10). 

3.  Were  Debts  remitted  in  the  Jubilee'?  —  Not  a 
word  is  said  of  this  in  the  (J.  T.,  or  in  Philo.  The 
affirmative  rests  entirely  on  the  authority  of  Jose- 
phus.  IVIaimonides  says  expressly  that  the  remis- 
sion of  debts  «  was  a  point  of  distinction  between 
the  sabbatical  year  and  the  Jubilee.  The  Mishna 
is  to  the  same  effect  (Shebiith,  cap.  x.  p.  194,  edit. 
Suren.)./  It  seems  that  Josephus  must  either  have 


The  other  notions  respecting-  the  word  may  be  found 
in  Fuller  (Misc.  Sac.  p.  1026  f. ;  Critici  Sacri,  vol. 
ix.),  in  Carpzov  (p.  448  f.),  and,  most  completely  given, 
in  Kranold  (p.  11  f.). 

c  The  only  distinguished  Jewish  teacher  who  advo- 
cated the  claims  of  the  49th  year  was  R.  Jehuda.  He 
was  followed  by  the  Qaonim,  certain  doctors  who  took 
up  the  exposition  of  the  Talmud  after  the  work  was 
completed,  from  the  seventh  to  the  eleventh  century 
(Winer,  sub  voce).  The  principal  Christian  writers  on 
the  same  side  are,  Scaliger,  Petavius,  Ussher,  Cunaeus, 
and  Schroeder. 

d  Ewald  (Alterthumer,  p.  419)  and  others,  have  r» 
ferred  the  words  of  Is.  xxxvii.  30  to  the  Jubilee  year 
succeeding  the  sabbath  year.  But  Gesenius  adopts 
another  view  of  the  passage,  which  accords  better  witb 
the  context.  He  regards  it  as  merely  referring  to  th« 
continuance  of  the  desolation  occasioned  by  the  wai 
for  two  years. 

The  language  of  Josephiis  and  of  Philo,  and  of  every 
eminent  Jewish  and  Christian  writer,  except  those  that 
have  been  mentioned,  are  in  favor  of  the  fiftieth  year. 
Ideler  has  taken  up  the  matter  very  satisfactorily 
{Handb.  der  Chron.  i.  p.  505). 

e  AVhether  this  was  an  absolute  remission  of  debts, 
or  merely  a  justltium  for  the  year,  will  be  considered 
under  Sabbatical  Year. 

/  *  Ginsburg,  in  his  art.  on  the  year  of  Jubilee  in 
Kitto's  Cycl.  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  says  that  this  ref- 
erence to  the  Mishna  is  erroneous,  the  passage  ia 
I  question  not  speaking  of  the  JubiUe  at  all.  A. 


J  486    JUBILEE,  THE  YEAR  OF 

wholly  made  a  mistake,  or  that  he  has  drawn  too 
wide  an  inference  from  the  general  character  of  the 
year.  Of  course  to  those  who  were  in  bondage  for 
their  debts,  the  freedom  conferred  by  the  Jubilee 
must  have  amounted  to  a  remission;  as  did,  not 
less,  their  freedom  at  the  end  of  their  seven  years 
of  servitude. 

The  first  Jubilee  yaar  must  have  fallen  in  due 
course  after  the  first  seven  sabbatical  years.  For 
the  commencement  of  the  series  on  which  the 
succession  of  sabbatical  years  was  reckoned,  see 
Chronology,  vol.  i.  p.  437,  and  Sabbatical 
Vkar. 

V.  Maimonides,  and  the  Jewish  writers  in  gen- 
eral, consider  that  the  Jubilee  was  observed  till  the 
destruction  of  the  first  Temple.  But  there  is  no 
direct  historical  notice  of  its  observance  on  any  one 
occasion,  either  in  the  boolis  of  the  O.  T.,  or  in  any 
other  records.  The  only  passages  in  the  Prophets 
which  can  be  regarded  with  much  confidence,  as 
referring  to  the  Jubilee  in  any  way,  are  Is.  v.  7,  8, 
9,  10;  Is.  Ixi.  1,  2;  Ez.  vii.  12,  13;  Ez.  xlvi.  16, 
17, 18.  Regarding  Is.  xxxvii.  30,  see  note  (7,  p.  1485. 
Some  have  doubted  whether  the  law  of  Juliilee  ever 
came  into  actual  operation  (Michaehs,  L<tws  of 
Moses,  art.  Ixxvi.,  and  Winer,  stib  voce),  others 
have  confidently  denied  it  (Kranold,  p.  80;  Huj)- 
feld,  pt.  iii.  p.  20).  But  Ewald  contends  that  the 
institution  is  eminently  practical  in  the  character 
of  its  details,  and  that  the  accidental  circumstance 
of  no  particular  instance  of  its  observance  having 
been  recorded  in  the  Jewish  history  proves  nothing. 
Besides  the  passages  to  which  reference  has  been 
made,  he  applies  several  others  to  the  Jubilee.  He 
conceives  that  «  the  year  of  visitation  "  mentioned 
in  Jer.  xi.  23,  xxiii.  12,  xlviii.  44,  denotes  the  pun- 
ishment of  those  who,  in  the  Jubilee,  withheld  by 
tyranny  or  fraud  tlie  possessions  or  the  liberty  of 
the  poor.«  From  Jer.  xxxii.  6-12  he  infers  that 
the  Law  was  restored  to  operation  in  the  reign  of 
Josiah''  {Allerthumer,  p.  424,  note  1). 

VI.  The  Jubilee  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  outer 
circle  of  that  great  sabbatical  system  which  com- 
prises within  it  the  sabbatical  year,  the  sabbatical 
month,  and  the  Sabbath  day.  [Feasts.]  The  rest 
and  restoration  of  each  member  of  the  state,  in  his 
spiritual  relation,  belongs  to  the  weekly  Sabbath 
and  the  sal)batical  month,  while  the  land  had  its 
rest  and  relief  in  the  sabbatical  year.     But  the 


o  The  words  of  Isaiah  (v.  7-10)  may,  it  would  seem 
with  more  distinctness,  be  understood  to  the  same 
effect,  as  denouncing  woe  against  those  who  had  un- 
righteously hindered  the  Jubilee  from  effecting  its 
object. 

b  Is  there  not  a  difficulty  in  considering  this  pas- 
sage to  have  any  bearing  on  the  Jubilee,  from  its 
relating,  apparently,  to  a  priest's  field  ?  (See  §  II. 
2  (f ).)  At  all  events,  the  transaction  was  merely  the 
transfer  of  land  from  one  member  of  a  family  to 
another,  with  a  recognition  of  a  preference  allowed 
to  a  near  relation  to  purchase.  The  case  mentioned 
Ruth  iv.  3  f  appears  to  go  further  in  illustrating  the 
Jubilee  principle.  —  Naomi  is  about  to  sell  a  field  of 
Elimelech's  property.  Boaz  proposes  to  the  next  of 
kin  to  purchase  it  of  her,  in  order  to  prevent  it  from 
loing  out  of  the  family,  and,  on  his  refusal,  takes  it 
aimself,  as  having  the  next  right. 

c  The  foundation  of  the  law  of  Jubilee  appears  to 
be  so  essentially  connected  with  the  children  of  Israel, 
that  it  seems  strange  that  Michaelis  should  have  con- 
fidently affirmed  its  Egyptian  origin,  while  yet  he 
fccknowledges  that  he  can  produce  no  specific  evidence 


JUBILEE,   THE  YEAR  OF 

Jubilee  is  more  immediately  connected  with  th« 
body  politic ;  and  it  was  only  as  a  member  of  th« 
state  that  each  person  concerned  could  paiticipate 
in  its  provisions.  It  has  less  of  a  formally  religious 
aspect  than  either  of  the  other  sabbatical  institu- 
tions, and  its  details  were  of  a  more  immediately 
practical  character.  It  was  not  disthiguished  by 
any  prescribed  religious  observance  peculiar  to  itself, 
like  the  rites  of  the  Sabbath  day  and  of  the  sab- 
batical month ;  nor  even  by  anything  hke  the  read- 
ing of  the  Law  in  the  sabbatical  year.  But  in  the 
Hebrew  state,  polity  and  religion  were  never  sep- 
arated, nor  was  their  essential  connection  ever 
dropped  out  of  sight.  Hence  the  year  was  hal- 
lowed, in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  by  the  solemn 
blast  of  the  Jubilee  trumpets,  on  the  same  day  on 
which  the  sins  of  the  people  had  been  acknowledged 
in  the  general  fast,  and  in  which  they  had  been 
symbolically  expiated  by  the  entrance  of  the  high- 
priest  into  the  holy  of  hoUes  with  the  blood  of  the 
appointed  victims.  Hence  also  the  deeper  ground 
of  the  provisions  of  the  institution  is  stated  with 
marked  emphasis  in  the  Law  itself.  —  I'he  land  waa 
to  be  restored  to  the  families  to  which  it  had  been 
at  first  allotted  by  divine  direction  (Josh.  xiv.  2), 
because  it  was  the  Lord's.  *'  The  land  shall  not 
be  sold  for  ever:  for  the  land  is  mine;  for  ye  are 
strangers  and  sojourners  with  me  "  (Lev.  xxv.  23). 
"  I  am  the  Lord  your  God  which  brought  you  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  to  give  you  the  land  of 
Canaan,  and  to  be  your  God**'  (ver.  38).  —  The 
Hebrew  bondman  was  to  have  the  privilege  of 
claiming  his  liberty  as  a  right,  because  he  could 
never  become  the  property  of  any  one  but  Jehovah. 
"  For  they  are  my  servants  which  I  brought  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egjpt ;  they  shall  not  be  sold  aa 
bondmen  "  (ver.  42).  "  For  unto  me  the  children 
of  Israel  are  servants,  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt"  '-'  (ver.  55). 

If  regarded  from  an  ordinary  point  of  view,  the 
Jubilee  was  calculated  to  meet  and  remedy  those 
incidents  which  are  inevitable  in  the  course  of 
human  society;  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of 
inordinate  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few ;  and  to 
relieve  those  whom  misfortune  or  fault  had  reduced 
to  poverty.  As  far  as  legislation  could  go,  its  pro- 
visions tended  to  restore  that  equality  in  outward 
circumstances  which  was  instituted  in  the  first 
settlement  of  the  land  by  Joshua.'^'    But  if  we  look 


on  the  subject  {Mos.  Law,  art.  73).  The  only  well- 
proved  instance  of  anything  like  it  in  other  nations 
appears  to  be  that  of  the  Dalmatians,  mentioned  by 
Strabo,  lib.  vii.  (p.  315,  edit.  Casaub).  He  says  that 
they  redistributed  their  land  every  eight  years.  Ewald 
following  the  statement  of  Plutarch,  refers  to  the 
institution  of  Lycurgus  ;  but  Mr.  Grote  has  given 
another  view  of  the  matter  {Hist,  of  Greece,  vol.  ii. 
p.  530). 

d  A  collateral  result  of  the  working  of  the  Jubilee 
must  have  been  the  preservation  of  the  genealogical 
tables,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  distinction  of  th« 
tribes.  Ewald  and  Michaelis  suppose  that  the  tables 
were  systematically  corrected  and  filled  up  at  eacn 
Jubilee.  This  seems  reasonable  enough,  in  order  that 
the  fresh  names  might  be  filled  in,  that  irrogularitiei 
arising  from  the  dying  out  of  families  might  be  recti- 
fied,  and  that  disputed  claims  might  be,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, authoritatively  met. 

Its  effect  in  maintaining  the  distinction  of  the  tribet 
is  illustrated  in  the  appeal  made  by  the  tribe  of  Man- 
asseh  in  regard  to  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  (Num 
xxxvi.  4).     The  sense  of  the  passage  is,  however,  ok 


JUOAL 

■pon  it  in  its  more  special  character,  as  a  part  of 
the  divine  law  appointed  for  the  chosen  people,  iti 
practical  hearing  was  to  vindicate  the  right  of  each 
Israelite  to  his  part  in  the  covenant  which  Jehovah 
had  made  with  his  fathers  respecting  the  land  of 
promise.  The  loud  notes  of  the  Jubilee  horns 
symbolized  the  voice  of  the  Lord  proclaiming  the 
restoration  of  political  order,  as  (according  to  Jew- 
ish tradition)  the  blast  in  the  Feast  of  Trumpets 
had,  ten  days  before,  commemorated  the  creation 
of  the  world  and  the  completion  of  the  material 
kosnios. 

In  the  incurable  uncertainty  respecting  the  fact 
of  the  observance  of  the  Jubilee,  it  is  important 
that  we  should  keep  in  mind  that  the  record  of  the 
Law,  whether  it  was  obeyed  or  not,  was,  and  is,  a 
constant  witness  for  the  truth  of  those  great  social 
principles  on  which  the  theocracy  was  established." 
Moreover,  from  the  allusions  which  are  made  to  it 
by  the  prophets,  it  must  have  become  a  standing 
prophecy  in  the  hearts  of  the  devout  Hebrews. 
They  who  waited  in  faith  for  the  solvation  of  Israel 
were  kept  in  mind  of  that  spiritual  Jubilee  which 
was  to  come  (Luke  iv.  19),  in  which  every  one  of 
the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham  was  to  have,  in  the 
sight  of  God,  an  equality  which  no  accident  could 
ever  disturb ;  and  a  glorious  freedom,  in  that  lib- 
erty with  which  He  that  was  to  come  was  to  make 
him  free,  and  which  no  force  or  fraud  could  ever 
take  from  him. 

There  are  several  monographs  on  the  Jubilee,  of 
which  Kranold  has  given  a  catalogue.  There  is  a 
treatise  by  Maimonides,  de  An7io  Sabbatico  et  Jti- 
biloeo.  Of  more  recent  works,  the  most  important 
are  that  of  J.  G.  C  Kranold  himself,  Commentatio 
de  anno  Hebvceorum  Jublkeo,  Gottingen,  1837,  4to, 
and  that  of  Carpzov,  first  published  in  1730,  but 
afterwards  incorporated  in  the  Apparatus  Historico- 
Criticm,  p.  447  fF. ;  Ewald  (AUerthumer,  p.  415, 
ff.)  and  Bahr  {SymboUk,  vol.  ii.  p.  572  ff.),  but 
especially  the  latter,  have  treated  the  subject  in  a 
very  instructive  manner.  Hupfeld  {Commentatio 
de  Hebrceorum  Festis,  pt.  iii.  1852)  has  lately  dealt 
with  it  in  a  willful  and  reckless  style  of  criticism. 
Of  other  writers,  those  who  appear  to  have  done 
most  to  illustrate  the  Jubilee,  are  Cunseus  (de  Rep. 
Hebr.  c.  ii.  §  iv.,  in  the  Crifict  Sacri,  vol.  ix.  p. 
378  fF.),  and  Michaehs  {Commentaries  on  the  Laws 
of  Moses,  vol.  i.  p.  376  ff.,  English  translation). 
Vitringa  notices  the  prophetical  bearing  of  the 
Jubilee  in  lib.  iv.  c.  4  of  the  Obsei-vationes  Sacrm. 
Lightfoot  {Flarm.  Evang.  in  Luc.  iv.  19)  pursues 
the  subject  in  a  fanciful  manner,  and  makes  out 
that  Christ  suffered  in  a  Jubilee  year.  For  this  he 
is  well  rebuked  by  Carpzov  {App.  Hist.  Crit.  p. 
468).  Schubert  {Symbolik  des  Trauma)  has  fol- 
lowed in  nearly  the  same  track,  and  has  been 
answered  by  Biihr.  S.  C 

JU'CAL  (75^''  [prob.  Jehovah  is  mighty, 
Dietr.] ;  'Icoc^x"^  •  Jucf^<il)i  son  of  Shelemiah 
(Jer.  xxxviii.  1).     Elsewhere  called  Jkhucal. 

JU'DA  ClouSay,  i.  e.  Judas;  'louSa  being 
jnly  the  genitive  case). 


«iired  in  most  versions.     It  is,  "  And  even  when  the 
Jubilee   comes,  their  inheritance  will  be  in  another 

tribe."     The  rendering  the  particle  DM  by   etiamsi 
to  satisfactorily  vindicated  by  Kranold,  p.  33. 

As  regards  the  reason  of  the  exception  of  houses 
In  towns  from  the  law  of  Jubilee,  Bahr  has  observed 
4i»t.  aa  they  were  chiefly  inhabited  by  artificers  and 


JUD^A  1487 

1.  {jrvda."]  Son  of  Joseph  in  the  genealogy  of 
Christ  (Luke  iii.  30),  in  the  ninth  generation  from 
David,  about  the  time  of  King  Joash. 

2.  '[Jttda.]  Son  of  Joanna  [Joannas]  or  Hana- 
niah  [Hananiah,  8]  (Luke  iii.  26).  He  seema 
to  be  certainly  the  same  person  as  Abiud  in  Matt. 

i.  13.     His  name,  n'l^n'',  is  identical  with  that 

of  l^rr^ZlS,  only  that  3S  is  prefixed ;  and  when 
Rhesa  is  discarded  from  Luke's  line,  and  allowana 
is  made  for  St.  Matthew's  omission  of  generationi 
in  his  genealogy,  their  times  will  agree  perfectly. 
Both  may  be  the  same  as  Hodaiah  of  1  Chr.  iii 
24.     See  Hervey's  Genealogies,  p.  118  ff. 

3.  IJudas.]  One  of  the  Lord's  brethren,  enu- 
merated in  Mark  vi.  3.  [JosEs;  Joseph.]  On 
the  question  of  his  identity  with  Jude  the  brothel 
of  James,  one  of  the  twelve  Apostles  (Luke  vi.  16 ; 
Acts  i.  18),  and  with  the  author  of  the  general 
Epistle,  see  art.  Jude.  In  Matt.  xiii.  55  his  name 
is  given  in  the  A.  V.  as  Judas  [and  should  be  so 
given,  Mark  vi.  3]. 

4.  [Judas.]  The  patriarch  JuDAii  (Sus.  56; 
Luke  iii.  33;  Heb.  vii.  14;  Rev.  v.  5,  vii.  5)  [or 
in  the  last  three  passages,  the  name  of  the  tribe.] 

A.  C.  H. 

*  JUDA,  A  CITY  OF  (A.  v.),  for  w6\is  'loiSa 
in  Luke  i.  39,  where  Zacharias  and  Elizabeth  lived, 
and  where  probably  John  the  Baptist  was  born. 
But  whether  a  town  so  named  is  meant,  or  the  ter- 
ritory of  Juda(='loi;Safa)  is  disputed.  In  the 
latter  case  the  city  is  spoken  of  merely  as  one  "  in 
the  hill  country  {6peu/7)v,  Luke)  "  of  Judaea,  the 
name  of  which  may  have  been  unknown  to  Luke. 
Some  suppose  that  the  nameless  city  may  have  been 
Hebron,  as  that  was  both  among  the  hills  and  be- 
longed to  the  priests  (Josh.  xxvi.  11).  So  Lightfoot 
{[for.  Hebr.  ii.  493,  Rotterd.  1686),  Sepp  {Leben 
Christi,  ii.  8),  and  Andrews  {Life  of  our  Lord,  p. 
65).  The  Franciscans  have  a  Convent  of  St.  John 
at  '  J.m  Karim,  a  little  west  of  Jerusalem,  where 
they  place  the  house  of  Zacharias  and  the  nativity 
of  the  Forerunner  (Thomson's  Land  and  Book,  ii. 
536  fi").  Others  regard  this  Juda  as  the  name  of 
the  town  itself,  and  identical  with  the  modem 
JUtta,  found  in  the  neighborhood  of  Hebron.  Ur. 
Robinson,  after  Reland  {Pakestina,  p.  870),  adopts 
this  view  {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  206,  and  Greek  Ilarm.^ 
Notes,  §  4).  That  this  Jutta  and  Juttah  in  Josh, 
xxi.  16,  are  the  same,  no  one  can  doubt;  but  it 
does  not  follow  from  this  that  Jutta  and  Juda  are 
the  same.  Meyer  (on  Luke  i.  39)  calls  it  an  arbi- 
trary supposition.  Bleek  also  objects  {Synopt.  Er- 
kldrung,  i.  53)  that  if  Luke  had  been  acquainted  with 
the  name,  he  would  naturally  have  introduced  it  in 
ver.  23.  If  Juda  answers  to  Juttah  ( =  Yutta) 
it  can  be  only  as  a  very  mutilated  form ;  for  oth- 
erwise Juda  and  Juttah  (Ht^^^)  have  no  ety- 
mological relation  to  each  other.  H. 

JUD^'A  or  JUDE'A  ClouSam),  a  territo- 
rial division  which  succeeded  to  the  overthrow  of 
the  ancient  landmarks  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  and 


tradesmen,  whose  wealth  did  not  consist  in  lands,  it 
wa-o  reaiionable  that  they  should  retain  them  in  abso- 
lute possession.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  many 
of  these  tradesmen  were  foreign  proselytes,  who  could 
not  hold  property  in  the  land  which  was  subject  t4 
the  law  of  Jubilee. 

a  This  view  is  powerfully  set  forth  by  Bahr. 


1488 


JUD^A 


Judah  in  their  respective  captivities.  The  word 
first  occurs  Dan.  v.  13  (A.  V.  "Jewry"),  and  the 
first  mention  of  the  "  province  of  Judaea  "  is  in 
the  book  of  Ezra  (v,  8);  it  is  alluded  to  in  Neh.  xi. 
3  (Hebr.  and  A.  V.  "  Judah  "),  and  was  the  result 
of  the  division  of  the  Persian  empire  mentioned 
by  Herodotus  (iii.  89-97),  under  Darius  (comp. 
Esth.  viii.  9;  Dan.  vi.  1).  In  the  Apocryphal 
Books  the  word  "  province "  is  dropped,  and 
throughout  the  books  of  Esdras,  Tobit,  Judith, 
and  Maccabees,  the  expressions  are  the  "  land  of 
Judjea,"  "Judaea"  (A.  V.  frequently  "Jewry"), 
and  throughout  the  N.  T.  In  the  words  of  Jo- 
Bephug,  "  The  Jews  made  preparations  for  the  work 
(of  rebuilding  the  walls  under  Nehemiah)  —  a 
name  which  they  received  forthwith  on  their  re- 
turn from  Babylon,  from  the  tribe  of  Judah,  which 
being  the  first  to  arrive  in  those  parts,  gave  name 
both  to  the  inhabitants  and  the  territory"  (Ant. 
xi.  5,  §  7).  But  other  tribes  also  returned  from 
Babylon,  such  as  the  tribes  of  Benjamin  and  Levi 
(Ezr.  i.  5,  and  x.  5-9;  Neh.  xi.  4-36),  scattered 
remnants  of  the  "  children  of  Ephraim  and  Man- 
asseh  "  (1  Chr.  ix.  3),  or  "Israel,"  as  they  are 
elsewhei'e  called  (Ezr.  ii.  70,  iii.  1,  and  x.  5;  Neh. 
vii.  73),  and  others  whose  pedigree  was  not  ascer- 
tainable (PLzr.  ii.  59).  In  fact  so  many  returned 
that  in  the  case  of  the  sin-offering  the  number  of 
he-goats  offered  was  twelve,  according  to  the  origi- 
nal number  of  the  tribes  {ibid.  vi.  17,  see  also  viii. 
35).  There  had  indeed  been  more  or  less  of  an 
amalgamation  from  the  days  of  Hezekiah  (2  Chr. 
xxx.-xxxi.),  which  continued  ever  afterwards,  down 
to  the  very  days  of  our  Lord.  Anna,  wife  of 
Phanuel,  for  instance,  was  of  the  tribe  of  Asher 
(St.  Luke  ii.  36),  St.  Paul  of  the  tribe  of  Benja- 
min (Pom.  xi.  1),  St.  Barnabas,  a  Levite,  and  so 
forth  (Acts  iv.  36;  comp.  Acts  xxvi.  7;  and  Pri- 
deaux,  Con7itction,  vol.  i.  p.  128-130,  ed.  McCaul). 
On  the  other  hand  the  schismatical  temple  upon 
Mount  Gerizim  drew  many  of  the  disafTfcted  Jews 
from  their  own  proper  country  (Joseph.  Ant.  xi.  8); 
Nazareth,  a  city  of  Galilee,  was  the  residence  of 
our  Lord's  own  parents;  Bethsaida,  that  of  three 
of  his  Apostles;  the  borders  of  the  sea  of  Gahlee 
generally,  that  of  most  of  them.  The  scene  of 
his  preaching  —  intended  as  it  was,  during  his 
earthly  ministry,  for  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house 
of  Israel  —  was,  with  the  exception  of  the  last  part 
of  it,  confined  to  Galilee.  His  disciples  are  ad- 
dressed by  the  two  angels  subsequently  to  his 
Ascension,  as  "men  of  Galilee  "  (Acts  i.  11),  and 
it  was  asked  by  the  multitude  that  came  together 
jn  wonder  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  "  Are  not  all 
these  who  speak,  Galileans?  "  (Acts  ii.  7).  Thus, 
neither  did  all  who  were  Jews  inhabit  that  limited 
territory  called  Judaea;  nor  again  was  Judaea  in- 
habited solely  by  that  tribe  which  gave  name  to  it, 
or  even  in  sole  conjunction  with  Benjamin  and 
Levi. 

Once  more  as  regards  the  territory.  In  a  wide 
and  more  improper  sense,  the  term  Judaea  was 
sometimes  extended  to  the  whole  country  of  the 
Canaanites,  its  ancient  inhabitants  (Joseph.  Ant.  i. 
6,  §  2);  and  even  in  the  Gospels  we  seem  to  read 
of  the  coasts  of  Judaea  beyond  Joi'dan  (St.  Matt. 
tix.  1;  St.  Mark  x.  1),  a  phrase  perhaps  counte- 
aanced  by  Josephus  no  less  (Ant.  xii.  4,  §  11 ;  comp. 
Josh.  xix.  34),  if  the  usual  rendering  of  these  pas- 
Bages  is  to  be  followed  (see  Reland,  Poloestinn,  i. 
B).  "  He  stiiTeth  up  the  people,  teaching  through- 
"Ht  all  Jewry  (/fa©*  'd^rs  rrjs  'lovSaias)  beginning 


JUD^A.  WILDEllNESS  OF 

from  Galilee,  unto  this  place,"  said  the  chiel 
priests  of  our  Lord  (St.  Luke  xxiii.  5).  With 
Ptolemy,  moreover  (see  Reland,  ibid.),  and  with 
Dion  C'assius  (xxxviii.  16),  Judaea  is  synonymous 
with  Palestine-Syria;  the  latter  adding  that  the 
term  Palestine  had  given  place  to  it.  With  Strabc 
(xvi.  p.  760  fF.)  it  is  the  common  denomination  for 
the  whole  inland  country  between  Gaza  and  Anti- 
Libanus,  thus  including  Galilee  and  Samaria. 
Similarly,  the  Jews,  according  to  Tacitus  {Hist,  v 
6),  occupied  the  country  between  Arabia  on  the  E. 
Egypt  on  the  S.,  Phoenicia  and  the  sea  on  the  W. 
and  Syria  on  the  N. ;  and  by  the  same  writer  bcth 
Pompey  and  Titus  are  said  to  have  conqueied 
Judaea,  the  other  and  less  important  divisions  of 
course  included. 

Still,  notwithstanding  all  these  large  significa- 
tions which  have  been  affixed  to  it,  Judaea  was,  in 
strict  language,  the  name  of  the  third  district,  west 
of  the  Jordan,  and  south  of  Samaria.  Its  north- 
ern boundary,  according  to  Josephus  (B.  J.  iii.  3, 
§  5)  was  a  village  called  Anuath,  its  southern 
another  village  named  Jardas.  Its  general  breadth 
was  from  the  Jordan  to  Joppa,  though  its  coast 
did  not  end  there,  and  it  was  latterly  subdivided 
into  eleven  lots  or  portions,  with  Jerusalem  for 
their  centre  (Joseph,  ibid.).  In  a  word  it  embodied 
"  the  original  territories  of  the  tribes  of  Judah  and 
Benjamin,  together  with  Dan  and  Simeon;  being 
almost  the  same  with  the  old  kingdom  of  Judah, 
and  about  100  miles  in  length  and  60  in  breadth  " 
(Lewis,  Heb.  Eepubl.  i.  2). 

It  was  made  a  portion  of  the  Roman  province 
of  Syria  upon  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  the  eth- 
narch  of  Judaea  in  A.  D.  6,  and  was  governed  by  a 
procurator,  who  was  subject  to  the  governor  of 
Syria.  The  procurator  resided  at  Caesarea  on  the 
coast,  and  not  at  Jerusalem  (Joseph.  Ant.  xvii.  13, 
§  5;  xviii.  1,  §  1;  2,  §  1;  3,  §  1).  Its  history  as  a 
Roman  province  is  related  under  Jei{USALE.m  (p. 
1301  ff.  j,  and  the  physical  features  of  the  country  are 
described  in  the  article  Palestine.       E.  S.  Ff. 

*  JUD.^'A,  The  Lakd  of  (^  'lowSato  x<^P<^^ 
Mark  i.  5;  or  ^  'lovSaia  7^,  John  iii.  22),  the 
country  of  Judaea  as  distinguished  from  the  capital 
or  Jerusalem.  H. 

*  JUD^'A,  The  Wilderness  of  (^  eprjfios 
rrjs  'lovSaias'  dtsertum  Juckece),  designates  the  re- 
gion in  which  John  the  Baptist  made  his  first  appear- 
ance as  the  herald  of  the  Messiah  (Matt.  iii.  1). 
It  is  the  same,  no  doubt,  as  the  "  wilderness  of 

Judah "  (HTin^  ''^"fP)  in  Judg.  i.  16.  It 
lay  along  the  eastern  border  of  Judaa  towards 
the  Dead  Sea,  in  which  were  the  "  six  cities  with 
their  villages  "  mentioned  in  Josh.  xv.  61  f.  It 
was  the  scene  of  many  of  David's  perils  and  escape's 
during  the  days  of  his  persecution  by  Saul  [Adul- 
lam;  En-gedi;  Tekoa].  It  was  a  desert,  of 
course,  not  in  our  own,  but  the  oriental  sense;  i.  e., 
fit  for  cultivation  at  intervals,  thinly  inhabited,  and 
resorted  to  mainly  as  pasture-ground.  As  such 
terms  must  be  more  or  less  fluctuating,  it  may  have 
included  also  the  western  shore  of  the  Jordan  north 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  Josephus  also  designates 
as  (prjfios  (B.  J.  iii.  10,  §  7,  and  iv.  8,  §§  2,  3). 
(See  Bleek's  Synopt.  Erkldrunrj  der  drei  ersien 
Evangelien,  i.  141.) 

Mark  (i.  4)  and  Luke  (iii.  2)  refer  to  the  sain« 
desert  simply  as  Iprj^uoy.  Luke's  ^  irfpixotpoi 
Tov  'lopdduou  (iii.  3)  includes  the  wider  circuit 
of  John's  labors  at  a  later  period,  as  in  the  coum 


JTjDAH 

»f  his  rainistiy  he  preached  now  on  this  side  of 
the  Jordan  and  now  on  that.  It  is  unnecessary,  as 
well  as  incorrect,  to  suppose  that  any  part  of  this 
Judcean  desert  lay  on  the  east  of  the  river.  It 
3ert.iinly  is  not  just  to  regard  r]  epri/xos  t^s  'Iou- 
iaias  (Matt.  iii.  1),  as  equivalent  to  7)  ireplx^pos 
Tou  'lopSduov  (Matt.  iii.  5);  for  the  latter  (the 
Ghor,  or  Jordan  Valley)  denotes  the  general  region 
from  which,  and  not  that  to  which,  the  people  came 
for  baptism.  (See  also  Bibl.  Sacra,  xxiii.  520.) 
Hence,  if  the  desert  of  the  Saviour's  temptation 
(Matt.  iv.  1  ff.)  was  in  Peraea  (Stanley,  EUicott), 
it  was  a  different  one  from  that  in  Judaea.  To 
urge  no  other  reason,  the  proximity  of  Matt.  iii.  1 
to  iv.  1  is  adverse  to  that  opinion.  Probably  the 
Saviour  went  to  be  tempted  to  a  remoter  part  of 
the  desert  previously  mentioned ;  but  on  returning  to 
John  after  the  lapse  of  forty  days,  he  found  him  at 
Bethabara,  or  Bethany,  beyond  the  Jordan  (John 
i.  28).  The  actual  place  of  the  temptation  may 
have  been  Kuruntul  (a  corruption  of  quadraginta, 
40  days),  a  part  of  the  desert  back  of  Jericho  to- 
wards Jerusalem.  It  is  a  high  mountain  cut  off 
from  the  plain  by  a  wall  of  rock  1,200  or  1,500  feet 
high,  is  frightfully  desolate,  is  infested  with  wild 
beasts  and  reptiles,  and  thus  answers  fully  to  Mark's 
lignificant  intimation  (i.  13)  respecting  the  wilduess 
of  the  scene  (^era  ru)v  Q-qpiuiv)'  H. 

JU'DAH  (ni^n^  i.  e.  Yehuda  [jn-aise, 
hvnor] :  'louSav  in  Gen.  xxix.  35 ;  Alex.  lowSo ; 
elsewhere  ^lovSas  in  both  MSS.  and  in  N.  T. ;  and 
80  also  Josephus :  J uda),  the  fourth  son  of  Jacob 
and  the  fourth  of  Leah,  the  last  before  the  tempo- 
rary cessation  in  the  births  of  her  children.  His 
whole  brothers  were  IJeuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi, 
elder  than  himself —  issachar  and  Zebulun  younger 
(see  XXXV.  23).  The  name  is  explained  as  having 
originated  in  Leah's  exclamation  of  "  praise  "  at 
this  fresh  gift  of  Jehovah  —  "  She  said,  '  now  will 

I  praise  (n"TlS,  odeh)  Jehovah,'  and  she  called 
his  name  Yehudah  "  (Gen.  xxix.  35).  The  same 
play  is  preserved  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob  —  "  Ju- 
dah,  thou  whom  thy  brethren  shall  praise!  "  (xlix. 
8).  The  name  is  not  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
the  0.  T.  In  the  Apocrypha,  however,  it  appears 
in  the  great  hero  Judas  Maccabaeus ;  in  the  N.  T. 
in  Jude,  Judas  Iscariot,  and  others.  [Juda; 
Judas.] 

Of  the  individual  Judah  more  traits  are  pre- 
8er^•ed  than  of  any  other  of  the  patriarchs  with 
the  exception  of  Joseph.  In  the  matter  of  the  sale 
of  Joseph,  he  and  Reuben  stand  out  in  favorable 
contrast  to  the  rest  of  the  brothers.  But  for  their 
iKterference  he,  who  was  "  their  brother  and  their 
flesh,"  would  have  been  certainly  put  to  death. 
Though  not  the  firstborn,  he  "  prevailed  above  his 
brethren  "  (1  Chr.  v.  2),  and  we  find  him  subse- 
quently taking  a  decided  lead  in  all  the  affairs  of  the 
family.  When  a  second  visit  to  Egypt  for  corn 
had  become  inevitable,  it  was  Judah  who,  as  the 
mouthpiece  of  the  rest,  headed  the  remonstrance 
against  the  detention  of  Benjamin  by  Jacob,  and 
finally  undertook  to  be  responsible  for  the  safety  of 
the  lad  (xliii.  3-10).  And  when,  through  Joseph's 
artifice,  the  brothers  were  brought  back  to  the 
palace,  he  is  again  the  leader  and  spokesman  of 
the  band.  In  that  thoroughly  Oriental  scene  it  is 
Judah  viho  unhesitatingly  acknowledges  the  guilt 
which  had  never  been  committed,  throws  himself 
on  the  mercy  of  the  supposed  Egyotian  prince,  of- 
94 


JUDAH 


1489 


fers  himself  as  a  slave,  and  makes  that  wtnderful 
appeal  to  the  feelings  of  their  disguised  brother 
which  renders  it  impossible  for  Joseph  any  longer 
to  conceal  his  secret  (xliv.  14, 16-34).  So  too  it  ia 
Judah  who  is  sent  before  Jacob  to  smooth  the  way 
for  him  in  the  land  of  Goshen  (xlvi.  28).  This 
ascendency  over  his  brethren  is  reflected  in  the  last 
words  addressed  to  him  by  his  father  —  "  Thou 
whom  thy  brethren  shall  praise !  thy  father's  sons 
shall  bow  down  before  thee!  unto  him  shall  be 
the  gathering  of  the  people"  (Gen.  xHx.  8-10)." 
In  the  interesting  traditions  of  the  Koran  and 
the  Midrash  his  figure  stands  out  in  the  same 
prominence.  Before  Joseph  his  wrath  is  mightier 
and  his  recognition  heartier  than  the  rest.  It  is 
he  who  hastens  in  advance  to  bear  to  Jacob  the 
fragrant  robe  of  Joseph  (Weil's  Biblical  Legends, 
pp.  88-90). 

His  sons  were  five.  Of  these  three  were  by  his 
Canaanite  wife  Bath-shua;  they  are  all  insignificant, 
two  died  early,  and  the  third,  Shei^aii,  does  not 
come  prominently  forward,  either  in  his  person,  or 
his  family.     The  other  two,  Phakez  and  Zkkah 

—  twins  —  were  illegitimate  sons  by  the  widow  of 
Er,  the  eldest  of  the  former  family.  As  is  not  un- 
frequently  the  case,  the  illegitimate  sons  surpassed 
the  legitimate,  and  from  Pharez,  the  elder,  were 
descended  the  royal,  and  other  illustrious  families 
of  Judah.  These  sons  were  born  to  Judah  while 
he  was  living  in  the  same  district  of  Palestine, 
which,  centuries  after,  was  repossessed  by  his  de- 
scendants—  amongst  villages  which  retain  their 
names  unaltered  in  the  catalogues  of  the  time  of 
the  conquest.  The  three  sons  went  with  their 
father  into  Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  final  removal 
thither  (Gen.  xlvi.  12;  Ex.  i.  2). 

When  we  again  meet  with  the  families  of  Judah 
they  occupy  a  position  among  the  tribes  similar  to 
that  which  their  progenitor  had  taken  amongst  the 
patriarchs.  The  numbers  of  the  tribe  at  the  cen- 
sus at  Sinai  were  74,G00  (Num.  i.  26,  27),  consid- 
erably in  advance  of  any  of  the  others,  the  largest 
of  which  —  Dan  —  numbered  62,700.  On  the 
borders  of  the  Promised  Land  they  were  76,500 
(xxvi.  22),  Dan  being  still  the  nearest.  The  chief 
of  the  tribe  at  the  former  census  was  Naiishon, 
the  son  of  Amminadab  (Num.  i.  7,  ii.  3,  vii.  12,  x. 
14),  an  ancestor  of  David  (Ruth  iv.  20).  Its  rep- 
resentative amongst  the  spies,  and  also  among  those 
appointed  to  partition  the  land,  was  the  great  Ca- 
leb the  son  of  Jephunneh  (Num.  xiii.  6;  xxxiv.). 
During  the  march  through  the  desert  Judah's  place 
was  in  the  van  of  the  host,  on  the  east  side  of  the 
Tabernacle,  with  his  kinsmen  Issachar  and  Zebu- 
lun (ii.  3-9;  X.  14).  The  traditional  standard  of 
the  tribe  was  a  lion's  whelp,  with  the  words,  Rise 
up.  Lord,  and  let  thine  enemies  be  scattered !  (Targ. 
Pseudojon.  on  Num.  ii.  3). 

During  the  conquest  of  the  country  the  only  in- 
cidents specially  affecting  the  tribe  of  Judah  are 

—  (1)  the  misbehavior  of  Achan,  who  was  of  the 
great  house  of  Zerah  (Josh.  vii.  1, 16-18);  and  (2v 
the  conquest  of  the  mountain-district  of  Hebron 
by  Caleb,  and  of  the  strong  city  Debir,  in  the 
same  locality,  by  his  nephew  and  son-in-law  0th- 
niel  (Josh.  xiv.  6-15,  xv.  13-19).  It  is  the  only 
instance  given  of  a  portion  of  the  country  being 
expressly  reserved  for  the  person  or  persons  who 


a  The  obscure  and  much  disputed  passage  'n 
10  will  be  best  examined  under  the  head 


1490 


JUDAH 


conquered  it.  In  general  the  conquest  seems  to 
have  been  made  by  the  whole  community,  and  the 
territory  allotted  afterwards,  without  reference  to 
the  original  conquerors  of  each  locality.  In  this 
case  the  high  character  and  position  of  Caleb,  and 
perhaps  a  claim  established  by  him  at  the  time  of 
the  visit  of  the  spies  to  "  the  land  whereon  his  feet 
had  trodden"  (Josh.  xiv.  9;  comp.  Num.  xiv.  21), 
may  have  led  to  the  exception. 

The  boundaries  aiid  contents  of  the  territory 
allotted  to  Judah  are  narrated  at  great  length,  and 
with  greater  minuteness  tlian  the  others,  in  Josh. 
XV.  20-G3.  This  may  be  due  either  to  the  fact  that 
the  lists  were  reduced  to  their  present  form  at  a 
later  jjeriod,  when  the  monarchy  resided  with 
Judah,  and  wlien  more  care  would  naturally  be  be- 
stowed on  them  than  on  those  of  any  other  tribe; 
or  to  the  fact  that  the  territory  was  more  impor- 
tant and  more  thickly  covered  witli  towns  and  vil- 
lages than  any  other  part  of  Palestine.  The  greater 
prominence  given  to  the  genealogies  of  Judah  in 
1  Chr.  11.,  iii.,  iv.  no  doubt  arises  from  the  former 
reason.  However  this  may  be,  we  have  in  the 
records  of  Joshua  a  very  full  and  systematic  de- 
scription of  the  allotment  to  this  tribe.  The  north 
boundary  —  for  the  most  part  coincident  with  the 
south  boundary  of  Benjamin  —  began  at  the  em- 
bouchure of  the  Jordan,  entered  the  hills  apparently 
at  or  about  the  present  road  from  Jericho,  ran 
westward  to  En-shemesh  —  probably  the  present 
Ain-IInud,  below  Bethany  —  thence  over  the  Mount 
of  Olives  to  En-ro(jd,  in  the  valley  beneath  Jerusa- 
lem; went  along  the  ravine  of  Ilinnom,  under  the 
precipices  of  the  city,  climbed  the  hill  in  a  N.  W. 
direction  to  the  Water  of  Nephtoah  (probably 
Liftd),  and  thence  by  Kirjath-Jearim  (probably 
Kuriet  tl-Knab)^  lieth-shemesh  (Ain-Shems),  Tim- 
nath,  and  Ekron,to  Jabneel  on  the  sea-coast.  On 
the  east  the  Dead  Sea,  and  on  the  west  the 
Mediterranean  formed  the  boundaries.  The  south- 
ern line  is  hard  to  determine,  since  it  is  denoted 
by  places  many  of  which  have  not  been  identified. 
It  left  the  Dead  Sea  at  its  extreme  south  end,  and 
joined  the  Mediterranean  at  the  Wmfy  el~Arish  ; 
but  between  these  two  points  it  passed  through 
Maaleh  Acrabbim,  the  Wilderness  of  Zin,  Hezron, 
Adar,  Karkaa,  and  Azmon ;  the  Wilderness  of  Zin 
the  extreme  south  of  all  (Josh.  xv.  1-12).  This 
territory  —  in  average  length  about  45  miles,  and 
in  average  breadth  about  50  —  was  from  a  very 
early  date  divided  into  four  main  regions.  (1.) 
.The  South  —  the  undulating  pasture  country, 
which  intervened  between  the  hills,  the  proper 
possession  of  the  tribe,  and  the  deserts  which  en- 
compass the  lower  part  of  Palestine  (Josh.  xv.  21; 
Stanley,  S.  4"  P-)'  It  is  this  which  is  designated 
as  the  wilderness  {midbnr)  of  Judah  (Judg.  i.  16). 
It  contained  thirty-seven  cities,  with  their  dependent 
villages  (Josh.  xv.  20—32),  of  which  eighteen  of 
those  farthest  south  were  ceded  to  Simeon  (xix. 
1-9).  Amongst  these  southern  cities  the  most 
familiar  name  is  lieer-sheba. 

(2.)  The  Ix>\VLAND  (xv.  33 ;  A.  V.  "valley") 
—  or,  to  give  it  its  own  proper  and  constant  appella- 
tion, the  Shefelah  —  the  broad  belt  or  strip 
lying  between  the  central  highlands  — "  the  moun- 
tain " —  and  the  Mediterranean  Sea;  the  lower 
portion  of  that  maritime  plain,  which  extends 
through  the  whole  of  the  sear-board  of  Palestine, 
from  Sidon  in  the  north,  to  Rhinocolura  at  the 
louth.  This  tract  was  the  garden  and  the  granary 
•f  the  tribe.     In  it,  long  before  the  conquest  of  the 


JUDAH 

country  by  Israel,  the  Philistines  had  settled  tbi>m> 
selves,  never  to  be  completely  dislodged  (Neh.  xiii, 
23,  24).  There,  planted  at  equal  inter\als  along 
the  level  coast,  were  their  five  chief  cities,  each  with  «. 

its  circle  of  smaller  dependents,  overlooking,  from 
the  natural  undulations  of  the  ground,  the  "  stand- 
ing corn,"  "shocks,"  "vineyards  and  olives," 
which  excited  the  ingenuity  of  Samson,  and  are 
still  remarked  by  modern  travellers.  "  They  are 
all  remarkable  for  the  beauty  and  profusion  of  the 
gardens  which  surround  them  —  the  scarlet  bk)8- 
soms  of  the  pomegranates,  the  enonuous  oranges 
which  gild  the  green  foliage  of  their  famous  groves  " 
(Stanley,  S.  4-  P.  257).  From  the  edge  of  Die 
sandy  tract,  which  fringes  the  immediate  shore 
right  up  to  the  very  wall  of  the  hills  of  Judah, 
stretches  the  immense  plain  of  corn-fields.  In  those 
rich  harvests  lies  the  explanation  of  the  constant 
contests  between  Israel  and  the  Philistines  {S.  4  P. 
258).  From  them  were  gathered  the  enormous 
cai-goes  of  wheat,  which  were  transmitted  to  Phoe- 
nicia by  Solomon  in  exchange  for  the  arts  of  Hiram, 
and  which  in  the  time  of  the  Herods  still  "  nour- 
ished "  the  country  of  T;yTe  and  Sidon  (Acts  xii. 
20).  There  were  the  ohve-trees,  the  sycamore-trees, 
and  the  treasures  of  oil,  the  care  of  which  was 
suflScient  to  task  the  energies  of  two  of  David's 
special  officers  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  28).  The  nature  of 
tills  locahty  would  seem  to  be  reflected  in  the  names 
of  many  of  its  towns  if  interpreted  as  Hebrev^ 
words:  Dilean  =  cucumbers;  Gkderah,  Ged- 
EKOTir,  Gedekothaim,  sheepfolds;  Zoreah, 
wasps;  En-ganxim,  spring  of  gardens,  etc.,  etc. 
But  we  have  yet  to  learn  how  far  these  names  are 
Hebrew;  and  whether  at  best  they  are  but  mere 
Hebrew  accommodations  of  earlier  originals,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  depended  on  for  their  significa- 
tions. The  number  of  cities  in  this  district,  with- 
out counting  the  smaller  villages  connected  with 
them,  was  forty-two.  Of  these,  however,  many 
which  belonged  to  the  Philistines  can  only  have 
been  allotted  to  the  tribe,  and  if  taken  possession 
of  by  Judah  were  only  held  for  a  time. 

What  were  the  exact  boundaries  of  the  S/iefdah 
we  do  not  know.  W^e  are  at  present  ignorant  of 
the  principles  on  which  the  ancient  Jews  drew 
their  boundaries  between  one  territory  and  another. 
One  thing  only  is  almost  certain,  that  they  were  not 
determined  by  the  natural  features  of  the  ground,  or 
else  we  should  not  find  cities  enumerated  as  in  the 
lowland  plain,  whose  modem  representatives  are 
found  deep  in  the  mountains.  [Jakmuth;  Jiph- 
TAH,  etc.]  (The  latest  information  regarding  this 
district  is  contained  in  Tobler's  Bte  Wandcruny^ 
1859.) 

(3.)  The  third  region  of  the  tribe — the  Moun- 
tain, the  "  hill- country  ol  Judah" — though  not 
the  richest,  was  at  once  the  largest  and  the  most 
important  of  the  four.  Beginning  a  few  miles  be- 
low Hebron,  where  it  attains  its  highest  level,  it 
stretches  eastward  to  the  Dead  Sea  and  westward 
to  the  Sliefelah,  and  forms  an  elevated  district  or 
plateau,  which,  though  thrown  into  consideiable 
undulations,  yet  preserves  a  general  level  in  both 
directions.  It  is  the  southern  portion  of  that  ele- 
vated hilly  district  of  Palestine  which  stretches 
north  until  intersected  by  the  plain  of  Esdraelon, 
and  on  which  Hebron,  Jerusalem,  and  Shechcm  are 
the  chief  spots.  The  surface  of  this  region,  which 
is  of  limestone,  is  monotonous  enough  —  round 
swelling  hills  and  hollows,  of  somewhat  l>older  pro- 
portions than  those  immediately  north  of  Jerui* 


JUDAH 

ism,  which,  though  in  early  times  probably  covered 
irith  forests  [Haketii],  have  now,  where  iiotculti- 
rated,  no  growth  larger  than  a  brushwood  of  dwarf- 
oak,  arbutus,  and  other  bushes.  In  many  places 
there  is  a  good  soft  turf,  discoverable  even  in  the  au- 
tumn, and  in  spring  the  hills  are  covered  with  flowers. 
The  number  of  towns  enumerated  (Josh.  xv.  48- 
BO)  as  belonging  to  this  district  is  38;  l)ut,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  ruins  which  meet  the  eye  on  every 
side,  this  must  have  been  very  far  below  the  real 
number.  Hardly  a  hill  which  is  not  crowned  by 
some  fragments  of  stone  buildings,  more  or  less 
considerable, —  those  which  are  still  inhabited  sur- 
rounded by  groves  of  ohve-trees,  and  uiclosures  of 
stone  walls  protecting  the  vineyards  Streams 
there  are  none,  but  wells  and  springs  are  frequent 
—  in  the  neighborhood  of  "  Solomon's  Pools  "  at 
Urtas  most  abundant. 

(4.)  The  fourth  district  is  the  Wilderness 
{Midbar),  which  here  and  here  only  ap^xjars  to  be 
synonymous  with  Ardbah,  and  to  signify  the  sunk- 
en district  immediately  adjoining  the  Dead  Sea. 
It  contained  only  six  cities,  which  must  have  been 
either,  like  Engedi,  on  the  slopes  of  the  cliffs  over- 
hanging the  Sea,  or  else  on  the  lower  level  of  the 
shore.  The  "  city  of  Salt  "  may  have  been  on  the 
salt  plains,  between  tbe  sea  and  the  cliffs  which 
form  the  southern  termination  to  the  Glior.<* 

Nine  of  the  cities  of  Judah  were  allotted  to  the 
priests  (Josh.  xxi.  9-19).  The  Levites  had  no^ 
cities  in  the  tribe,  and  the  priests  had  none  out  of 
it. 

In  the  partition  of  the  territory  by  Joshua  and 
Eleazar  (Josh.  xix.  51),  Judah  had  the  first  allot- 
ment (xv.  1).  Joshua  had  on  his  first  entrance 
into  the  country  overrun  the  SheJ'elah,  destroyed 
some  of  the  principal  towns  and  killed  the  kings 
(x.  28-35),  and  had  even  penetrated  thence  into 
the  mountains  as  far  as  Hebron  and  Debir  (3G-39); 
but  the  task  of  really  subjugating  the  interior  was 
yet  to  be  done.  After  his  death  it  was  undertaken 
by  Judah  and  Simeon  (Judg.  i.  20).  In  the  arti- 
ficial contrivances  of  war  they  were  surpassed  by 
the  Canaanites,  and  in  some  places,  ^^  where  the 
gi-ound  admitted  of  tbeir  iron  chariots  being  em- 
ployed, the  latter  remained  masters  of  the  field. 
But  wherever  force  and  vigor  were  in  question, 
there  the  Israelites  succeeded,  and  they  obtained 
entire  possession  of  the  mountain  district  and  the 
great  corn-growing  tract  of  Philistia  (Judg.  i.  18, 
19 ).  The  latter  was  constantly  changing  hands  as 
one  or  the  other  side  got  stronger  (1  Sam.  iv.,  v.,  vii. 
1 4,  etc. ) ;  but  in  the  natural  fortresses  of  the  moun- 
tains Judah  dwelt  undisturbed  throughout  tbe 
troubled  period  of  the  Judges.  Otiiniel  was 
partly  a  member  of  the  tribe  (Judg.  iii.  9),  and 


JUDAH 


1491 


o  On  the  words  "Judah  on  Jordan,"  used  in  de- 
fcribing  the  eastern  tenuiaation  of  the  boundary  of 
Naphtali  (Josh.  xix.  34),  critics  have  strained  their  in- 
genuity to  prove  that  J  udah  had  some  possessions  in 
that  remote  locality  either  by  allotment  or  inheritance. 
Bee  the  elaborate  attempt  of  Von  Kaumer  (Pa/,  pp. 
405-410)  to  shosv  that  the  villages  of  Jair  are  intended. 
But  the  diificulty  —  maximus  atqiie  insolitbiUs  nofJus, 
lui  plurimos  interprHes  torsit  —  has  defied  every  at- 
tempt ;  and  the  suggestion  of  Ewald  ( Gesca.  ii.  380, 
aote)  is  the  most  feasible  —  that  the  passage  is  cor- 
rupt, and  that  Cinnerokh  or  some  other  wrrd  origi- 
»ally  occupied  the  place  of  "  at  Judah  "  [  to  «'  Judah," 
A.  V.]. 

*  Kail  adopt.'J  this  view  of  Raumer  (see  3ibl.  Comm. 
to  l'»c.).     The  district  of  the  60  villages  on  the  east  of 


the  Bethlehem  of  which  Ibzan  was  a  native  (xii 
8,  9)  may  have  been  Bethlehem-Judah.  But  even 
if  these  two  judges  belonged  to  Judah,  the  trib# 
itself  was  not  molested,  and  with  the  one  exception 
mentioned  in  Judg.  xx.  19,  when  they  were  called 
by  the  divine  oracle  to  make  the  attack  on  Gibeah, 
they  had  nothing  to  do  during  the  whole  of  that 
period  but  settle  themselves  in  their  home.  Nol 
only  did  they  take  no  part  against  Sisera,  but  they 
are  not  even  rebuked  for  it  by  Deborah. 

Nor  were  they  disturbed  by  the  incursions  of  the 
Philistines  during  the  rule  of  Sanuiel  and  of  Saul, 
which  were  made  through  the  territory  of  Dan  and 
of  Benjamin ;  or  if  we  place  the  Valley  of  Elah  at 
the  Wady  es-Sumf,  only  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
mountains  of  Judah.  On  the  last-named  occasion, 
however,  we  know  that  at  least  one  town  of  Judah 
—  Bethlehem  —  furnished  men  to  Saul's  host.  The 
incidents  of  David's  flight  from  Saul  will  be  found 
examined  under  the  heads  of  David,  Saul,  Maost, 
Hachilah,  etc. 

The  main  inference  deducible  from  these  consid- 
erations is  the  determined  manner  in  which  the 
tribe  keeps  aloof  from  the  re.st  —  neither  offering 
its  aid  nor  asking  that  of  others.  The  same  indo- 
l^endent  mode  of  action  characterizes  the  foundation 
of  the  monarchy  after  the  death  of  Saul.  There 
was  no  attempt  to  set  up  a  rival  power  to  Ish- 
bosheth.  Tbe  tribe  had  had  full  experience  of  the 
man  who  had  been  driven  from  the  court  to  take 
shelter  in  the  caves,  woods,  and  fastnes.ses  of  their 
wild  hills,  and  when  the  opportunity  offered,  "  the 
men  of  Judah  came  and  anointed  David  king  over 
the  house  of  Judah  in  Hebron  "  (2  Sam.  ii.  4,  11). 
The  further  step  by  which  David  was  invested  with 
the  sovereignty  of  the  whole  nation  was  taken  by 
the  other  tribes,  Judah  having  no  special  part 
therein;  and  though  willing  enough,  if  occasion 
rendered  it  necessary,  to  act  with  others,  their  cpn- 
duct  later,  when  brought  into  collision  witli  Ephraim 
on  the  matter  of  the  restoration  of  David,  shows 
that  the  men  of  Judah  had  preserved  their  inde- 
pendent mode  of  action.  The  king  was  near  of  kin 
to  them ;  and  therefore  they,  and  they  alone,  set 
about  bringing  him  back.  It  iiad  been  their  own 
affair,  to  be  accomplished  by  themselves  alone,  and 
they  had  gone  about  it  in  that  independent  manner, 
which  looked  like  "  despising"  those  who  believed 
their  share  in  David  to  be  a  far  larger  one  (2  Sam. 
xix.  41-43). 

The  same  independent  temper  will  be  found  to 
characterize  the  tribe  throughout  its  existence  aa 
a  kingdom,  which  is  considered  in  the  following 
article. 

2.  A  I^evite  whose  descendants,  Kadmiel  and 
his  sons,  were  very  active  in  the  work  of  rebuilding 


the  Jordan,  he  says,  is  counted  as  Judah's,  or  in  Ju- 
dah —  because  Jair,  to  whom  it  belonged,  was  de- 
scended on  the  father's  side  from  Judah  through 
Hezrou  (1  Chr.  ii.  5,  2"  f.),  while  in  Josh.  xili.  30  and 
Num.  xxxii.  41  he  is  mentioned  contra  nioreni,  i.  e. 
agiiinst  the  rule  (Num.  xxxvi.  7),  as  on  the  mother'i 
side  a  descendant  of  Manasseh.  See  Judah  upon  Joa* 
DAX  in  the  text  (Amer.  ed.;.  H. 

b  But  Bethlehem  appears  to  have  been  closely  con* 
nected  with  them  (J-^dg.  xvii.  7,  9  ;  xix.  1). 

c  The  word  here  v,Judg.  i,  19)  is  Etnek,  entirely  a 
different  word  from  SJiefela/i,  and  rightly  rendered 
<t  valley."  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  fix  upon  any 
«  valley  "  in  this  region  sufficiently  important  to  b« 
alluded  to.  Can  it  be  the  Valley  of  Elah..  where  ccm 
testa  with  the  Philistines  took  place  lattt  J 


1402    JUDAH,   KINGDOM  OF 

Ihe  Teixiple  after  the  return  from  Captivity  (Ezr. 
iii.  9).  Lx)rd  Hervey  has  shown  cause  for  believing 
(O'eneahgies,  etc.,  119)  that  the  name  is  the  same 
Rs  HoDAviAH  and  Hodevah.  In  1  Esdr.  v.  58, 
it  appears  to  be  given  as  .Tod A. 

3.  ([In  Ezr.,]  'lovdas,  [Vat.  loSoix,  FA.  Udofi; 
in  Neh.  xii.  8,]  'IwSae,  [Vat.  FA.=^  lovSa,  Alex. 
IwaSe?;  in  xii.  36,  Vat.  Alex.  FAi  omit:  Judo, 
Judas.] )  A  Levite  who  was  obUged  by  Ezra  to 
put  away  his  foreign  wife  (Ezr.  x.  2.3).  Probably 
the  same  j}erson  is  intended  in  Neh.  xii.  8,  36.  In 
1  Esdr.  his  name  is  given  as  Judas. 

4-  I'lovSa;  Vat.  Alex.  lowSay:  Judas.]  A  Ben- 
jamite,  son  of  Senuah  (Neh.  xi.  9).  It  is  worth 
notice,  in  connection  with  the  suggestion  of  Lord 
Hervey  mentioned  above,  that  in  the  lists  of  1  Chr. 
ix.,  in  many  points  so  curiously  parallel  to  those 
of  this  chapter,  a  Benjamite,  Hodaviah,  son  of  Has- 
senuah,  is  given  (ver.  7).  G. 

JUDAH,  KINGDOM  OF.  1.  When  the 
disruption  of  Solomon's  kingdom  took  place  at 
Shechem,  only  the  tribe  of  Judah  followed  the  house 
of  David.  But  almost  immediately  afterwards, 
when  Kehoboam  conceived  the  design  of  establish- 
ing his  authority  over  Israel  by  force  of  arms,  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  also  is  recorded  as  obeying  his 
summons,  and  contributing  its  warriors  to  make 
up  his  army.  Jerusalem,  situate  within  the  borders 
of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  28,  <fec.),  yet  won  from 
the  heathen  by  a  prince  of  Judah,  connected  the 
frontiers  of  the  two  trilies  by  an  indissoluble  polit- 
ical bond.  By  the  erection  of  the  city  of  David, 
Benjamin's  former  adherence  to  Israel  (2  Sam.  ii. 
9)  was  canceled;  though  at  least  two  Benjamite 
towns,  Bethel  and  Jericho,  were  included  in  the 
northern  kingdom.  A  part,  if  not  all,  of  the  ter- 
ritory of  Simeon  (1  Sam.  xxvii.  6;  1  K.  xix.  3;  cf. 
Josh.  xix.  1)  and  of  Dan  (2  Chr.  xi.  10;  cf.  Josh. 
xix.  41,  42)  was  recognized  as  belonging  to  Judah; 
and  in  the  reigns  of  Abijah  and  Asa,  the  southern 
kingdom  was  enlarged  by  some  additions  taken  out 
of  the  territory  of  Ephraim  (2  Chr.  xiii.  19,  xv.  8, 
xvii.  2).  After  the  conquest  and  deportation  of 
Israel  by  Assyria,  the  influence,  and  perhaps  the 
delegated  jurisdiction  of  the  king  of  Judah  some- 
times extended  over  the  territory  which  formerly 
belonged  to  Israel. 

2.  In  Edom  a  vassal-king  probably  retained  his 
fidelity  to  the  son  of  Solomon,  and  guarded  for 
Jewish  enterprise  the  road  to  the  maritime  trade 
with  Ophir.  Philistia  maintained  for  the  most 
part  a  quiet  independence.  Syria,  in  the  height 
of  her  brief  power,  pushed  her  conquests  along  the 
northern  and  eastern  frontiers  of  Judah  and  threat- 
ened Jerusalem ;  but  the  interposition  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Israel  generally  relieved  Judah  from  any 
immediate  contact  with  that  dangerous  neighbor. 
The  southern  border  of  Judah,  resting  on  the  un- 
inhabited Desert,  was  not  agitated  by  any  turbulent 
stream  of  commercial  activity  like  that  which  flowed 
by  the  rear  of  Israel,  from  Damascus  to  Tyre. 
And  though  some  of  the  Egyptian  kings  were 
umbitious,  that  ancient  kingdom  was  far  less  ag- 
gressive as  a  neighbor  to  Judah  than  Assyria  was 
to  Israel. 

3.  A  singular  gauge  of  the  growth  of  the  kiiig- 
lom  of  Judah  is  supplied  by  the  progressive  aug- 
mentation of  the  army  under  successive  kings.  In 
David's  time  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  9,  and  1  Chr.  xxi.  5) 
the  warriors  of  Judah  numbered  at  least  500,000. 
But  Behoboam  bir^ught  into  the  field  (1  K.  xii.  21) 


JUDAH,   KINGDOM  OF 

only  180,000  men :  Abijah,  eighteen  years  an«i 
wards,  400,000  (2  Chr.  xiii.  3):  Asa  (2  Chr.  xit 
8),  his  successor,  580,000,  exactly  equal  to  the  suw 
of  the  armies  of  his  two  predecessors :  Jehoshaphaf 
(2  Chr.  xvii.  14-19),  the  next  king,  numbered  bin 
warriors  in  five  armies,  the  aggregate  of  which  ia 
1,160,000,  exactly  double  the  army  of  his  father, 
and  exactly  equal  to  the  sum  of  the  armies  of  hia 
three  predecessors.  After  four  inglorious  reigns 
the  energetic  Amaziah  could  muster  only  300,000 
men  when  he  set  out  to  recover  Edom.  His  son 
Uzziah  had  a  standing  (2  Chr.  xxvi.  11)  force  of 
307,500  fighting  men.  It  would  be  out  of  place 
here  to  discuss  the  question  which  has  been  raised 
as  to  the  accuracy  of  these  numbers.  So  far  aa 
they  are  authentic,  it  may  be  safely  reckoned  tliat 
the  population  subject  to  each  king  was  about  four 
times  the  number  of  the  fighting  men  in  his 
dominions.     [Israkl.] 

4.  Unless  Judah  had  some  other  means  beside 
pasture  and  tillage,  of  acquiring  wealth;  as  by  mari- 
time commerce  from  the  Bed  Sea  ports,  or  (less 
probably)  from  Joppa,  or  by  keeping  up  the  old 
trade  (1  K.  x.  28)  with  Egypt— it  seems  diflRcult 
to  account  for  that  ability  to  accumulate  wealth, 
which  supplied  the  Temple  treasury  with  sufiicient 
store  to  invite  so  frequently  the  hand  of  the  spoiler. 
Egypt,  Damascus,  Samaria,  Nineveh,  and  Babylon, 
had  each  in  succession  a  share  of  the  pillage.  The 
treasury  was  emptied  by  Shishak  (1  K.  xiv.  26), 
again  by  Asa  (1  K.  xv.  18),  by  Jehoash  of  Judah 
(2  K.  xii.  18),  by  Jehoash  of  Israel  (2  K.  xiv.  14), 
by  Ahaz  (2  K.  xvi.  8),  by  Hezekiah  (2  K.  xviii. 
15),  and  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  K.  xxiv.  13). 

5.  The  kingdom  of  Judah  possessed  many  ad- 
vantages which  secured  for  it  a  loncer  contin  nance 
than  that  of  Israel.  A  frontier  less  exposed  to 
powerful  enemies,  a  soil  less  fertile,  a  population 
hardier  and  more  united,  a  fixed  and  venerated 
centre  of  administration  and  religion,  an  hereditary 
aristocracy  in  the  sacerdotal  caste,  an  army  always 
subordinate,  a  succession  of  kings  which  no  revolu- 
tion inteiTupted,  many  of  whom  were  wise  and 
good,  and  strove  sticcessfully  to  promote  the  moral 
and  spiritual  as  well  as  the  material  prosperity  of 
their  people;  still  more  than  these,  the  devotion 
of  the  people  to  the  One  True  God,  which,  if  not 
always  a  pure  and  elevated  sentiment,  was  yet  a 
contrast  to  such  devotion  as  could  be  inspired  by 
the  worship  of  the  calves  or  of  Baal;  and  lastly  the 
popular  reverence  for  and  obedience  to  the  Divine 
law  so  far  as  they  learned  it  from  their  teachers:  — 
to  these  and  other  secondary  causes  is  to  be  attrib- 
uted the  fact  that  Judah  suni\ed  her  more  jx)puloiig 
and  more  jwwerful  sister  kingdom  by  135  years; 
and  lasted  from  b.  c.  975  to  n.  c.  580. 

6.  The  chroiiolojrical  succession  of  the  kings  cf 
Judah  is  given  in  the  article  Ishakl.  A  few  diffi- 
culties of  no  great  impoitance  ha\e  been  disco\ered 
in  the  statements  of  the  ages  of  some  of  the  kings. 
They  are  explained  in  the  works  cited  in  that  article 
and  in  Keil's  Commentary  on  the  Boi>k  of  Kings. 
A  detailed  history  of  each  king  will  be  found  under 
his  name. 

Judah  acted  upon  three  diflTerent  lines  of  policy 
in  succession.  First,  animosity  against  Israel:  sec- 
ondly, resistance,  generally  in  alliance  with  Israel, 
to  Damascus :  thirdly,  deference,  prrhaps  vassalage 
to  the  Assyrian  king. 

{a.)  The  first  three  kings  of  Judah  seem  to  have 
cherished  the  hope  of  reestablishing  their  authority 
over  the  Ten  Tribes    for  sixty  years  there  was  wat 


JtJDAH,  KINGDOM  OF 

oetween  them  and  the  kings  of  Israel.  Neither  the 
disbanding  of  Kehoboam's  forces  by  the  authority 
of  Sheniaiah,  nor  the  pillage  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
Irresistible  Shishak,  served  to  put  an  end  to  the 
fraternal  hostility.  The  victory  achieved  by  the 
daring  Abijah  brought  to  Judah  a  temporary  acces- 
sion of  territory.  Asa  appears  to  have  enlarged 
it  still  further;  and  to  have  given  so  powerful  a 
Btimulus  to  the  migration  of  religious  Israehtea 
to  Jerusalem,  that  Baasha  was  induced  to  fortify 
liamah  with  the  view  of  checking  the  movement. 
Asa  pn^vided  for  the  safety  of  his  subjects  from 
invaders  by  building,  like  Kehoboam,  several  fenced 
cities;  he  repelled  an  alarming  irruption  of  an 
Ethiopian  horde;  he  hired  the  armed  intervention 
of  Benhadad  I.,  king  of  Damascus,  against  Baasha; 
and  he  discouraged  idolatry  and  enforced  the  worship 
of  the  true  God  by  severe  penal  laws. 

(6.)  Hanani's  remonstrance  (2  Chr.  xvi.  7)  pre- 
pares us  for  the  reversal  by  Jehoshaphat  of  the 
policy  which  Asa  pursued  towards  Israel  and  Da- 
mascus. A  close  alliance  sprang  up  with  strange 
rapidity  between  Judah  and  Israel.  For  eighty 
years,  till  the  time  of  Amaziah,  there  was  no  open 
war  between  them,  and  Damascus  appears  as  their 
chief  and  common  enemy;  though  it  rose  after- 
wards from  its  overthrow  to  become  under  Rezin 
the  ally  of  Pekah  against  Ahaz.  Jehoshaphat, 
active  and  prosperous,  repelled  nomad  invaders  from 
the  desert,  curbed  the  aggressive  spirit  of  his  nearer 
neighbors,  and  made  his  influence  felt  even  among 
the  Philistines  and  Arabians.  A  still  more  lasting 
benefit  was  conferred  on  his  kingdom  by  his  perse- 
vering efforts  for  the  religious  instruction  of  the 
people,  and  the  regular  administration  of  justice. 
The  reign  of  Jehoram,  the  husband  of  Athaliah,  a 
time  of  bloodshed,  idolatry,  and  disaster,  was  cut 
short  by  disease.  Ahaziah  was  slain  by  Jehu. 
Athaliah,  the  grand-daughter  of  a  Tyrian  king, 
usurped  the  blood-stained  throne  of  David,  till  the 
followers  of  the  ancient  religion  put  her  to  death, 
and  crowned  Jehoash  the  surviving  scion  of  the 
royal  house.  His  preserver,  the  high-priest,  ac- 
quired prominent  personal  influence  for  a  time;  but 
the  king  fell  into  idolatry,  and  failing  to  withstand 
the  power  of  Syria,  was  murdered  by  his  own 
officers.  The  vigorous  Amaziah,  flushed  with  the 
recovery  of  Edom,  provoked  a  war  with  his  more 
powerful  contemporary  Jehoash  the  conqueror  of 
the  Syrians;  and  -Jerusalem  was  entered  and  plun- 
dered by  the  Israelites.  But  their  energies  were 
Bufficiently  occupied  in  the  task  of  completing  the 
6uV)jugation  of  Damascus.  Under  Uzziah  and 
Jotham,  Judah  long  enjoyed  political  and  religious 
prosperity,  till  the  wanton  Ahaz,  surrounded  by 
united  enemies,  with  whom  he  was  unable  to  cope, 
became  in  an  evil  hour  the  tributary  and  vassal  of 
Tiglath-Pileser. 

(c. )  Already  in  the  fatal  grasp  of  Assyria,  Judah 
was  yet  spared  for  a  checkered  existence  of  almost 
another  century  and  a  half  after  the  termination 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  effect  of  the  repulse 
of  Sennacherib,  of  the  signal  religious  revival  under 
Hezekiah  and  under  Josiah,  and  of  the  extension 
of  their  salutary  irifluence  over  the  long-severed 
territory  of  Israel,  was  apparently  done  away  by  the 
ignominious  reign  of  the  impious  INIanasseh,  and 
the  lingering  decay  of  the  wiiole  people  under  the 
four  feeble  descendants  of  Josiah.  Provoked  oy 
heir  treacherj  and  imbecility,  their  Assyrian  master 
irained  in  successive  deportations  ah  the  strength 
U  the  kingdom      The  consummation  of  the  ruin 


^UDAH,  KINGDOM  OF      1493 

came  upon  them  in  the  destruction  of  the  Temple 
by  the  hand  of  Nebuzaradan,  amid  the  wailings  of 
prophets,  and  the  taunts  of  heathen  tribes  released 
at  length  from  the  yoke  of  David. 

7.  'ITie  national  life  of  the  Hebrews  seemed  now 
extinct;  but  there  was  still,  as  there  had  been  all 
along,  a  spiritual  hfe  hidden  within  the  body. 

It  was  a  time  of  hopeless  darkness  to  all  but 
those  Jews  who  had  strong  faith  in  God,  with  a 
clear  and  steady  insight  into  the  ways  of  Providence 
as  interpreted  by  prophecy.  The  time  of  the  divis- 
ion of  the  kingdoms  was  the  golden  age  of  proph- 
ecy. In  each  kingdom  the  prophetical  oflBce  waa 
subject  to  peculiar  modifications  which  were  re- 
quired in  Judah  by  the  circumstances  of  the  priest- 
hood, in  Israel  by  the  existence  of  the  House  of 
Baal  and  the  Altar  in  Bethel.  If,  under  the  shadow 
of  the  Temple,  there  was  a  depth  and  a  grasp  else- 
where unequaled,  in  the  views  of  Isaiah  and  the 
prophets  of  Judah,  if  their  writings  touched  and 
elevated  the  hearts  of  thinking  men  in  studious 
retirement  in  the  silent  night-watches ;  there  waa 
also,  in  the  few  burning  words  and  energetic  deeds 
of  the  prophets  of  Israel,  a  power  to  tame  a  law- 
less multitude  and  to  check  the  high-handed  ty- 
ranny and  idolatry  of  kings.  The  organization 
and  moral  influence  of  the  priesthood  were  matured 
in  the  time  of  David ;  from  about  that  time  to  the 
building  of  the  second  Temple  the  influence  of  the 
prophets  rose  and  became  predominant.  Some 
historians  have  suspected  that  after  the  reign  of 
Athaliah  the  priesthood  gradually  acquired  and 
retained  excessive  and  unconstitutional  power  in 
Judah.  The  recorded  facts  scarcely  sustain  the 
conjecture.  Had  it  been  so,  the  effect  of  such 
power  would  have  been  manifest  in  the  exorbitant 
wealth  and  luxury  of  the  priests,  and  in  the  constant 
and  cruel  enforcement  of  penal  laws,  like  those  of 
Asa,  against  irreligion.  But  the  peculiar  offences 
of  the  priesthood,  as  witnessed  in  the  prophetic 
writings,  were  of  another  kind.  Ignorance  of  God's 
Word,  neglect  of  the  instruction  of  the  laity,  un- 
truthfulness, and  partial  judgments,  are  the  offenses 
specially  imputed  to  them,  just  such  as  might  bo 
looked  for  where  the  priesthood  is  an  hereditary 
caste  and  irresponsible,  but  neither  ambitious  nor 
powerful.  When  the  priest  either,  as  was  the  case 
in  Israel,  abandoned  the  land,  or,  as  in  Judah, 
ceased  to  be  really  a  teacher,  ceased  from  spiritual 
communion  with  God,  ceased  from  living  sympathy 
with  man,  and  became  the  mere  image  of  an  in- 
tercessor, a  mechanical  performer  of  ceremonial 
duties  little  understood  or  heeded  by  himself,  then 
the  prophet  was  raised  up  to  supply  some  of  his 
deficiencies,  and  to  exercise  his  functions  so  far  as 
was  necessary.  Whilst  the  priests  sink  into  ob- 
scurity and  almost  disappear,  except  from  the 
genealogical  tables,  the  prophets  come  forward  ap- 
pealing everywhere  to  the  conscience  of  individuals, 
in  Israel  as  wonder-workers,  calUng  together  God's 
chosen  few  out  of  an  idolatrous  nation,  and  in 
•ludah  as  teachers  and  seers,  supporting  and  puri- 
fying all  that  remained  of  ancient  piety,  explaining 
each  mysterious  dispensation  of  God  as  it  was 
unfolded,  and  promulgating  his  gracious  spiritual 
promises  in  all  their  extent.  The  part  which 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  other  prophets  took  in  pie- 
parinc,  the  Jews  for  their  Captivity,  cannot  indet^l 
be  fully  appreciated  without  reviewuig  the  succeed- 
ing efforts  of  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  But  the  influ- 
ence which  they  exercised  on  the  national  miud 
was  too   important  to  be  overlooked  in  a  sketcb 


1494       JUDAH  UPON  JORDAN 

however  lirief,    of  the  history  of  the  kingdom   of 
Judah.  W.  T.  B. 

*  JUDAH  UPON  Jordan  (A.  V.),  a  border 
town  of  Naphtali  (Josh.  xix.  34).  See  note  a, 
p.  1491.  The  Hebrew  is  more  strictly  Judah- Jor- 
dan, without  a  preposition.  Though  the  tribe  of 
Judah  was  in  the  south  and  Naphtali  in  the 
north,  it  is  very  conceivable  that  there  may  have 
been  a  town  named  after  one  tribe  in  the  territory  of 
another.  Dr.  Thomson's  discovery  gives  support 
to  this  supposition.    He  found  a  place  near  Banins 

and  the  Wadi  er-Rahbeh   (^^^jf  (< Ol") 

or  Yalley  of  Reholx)th,  marked  by  ruins  and  a  tomb 
with  a  dome,  revered  as  the  tomb  of  a  prophet 

by  the  Arabs,  and  called  Sidi   Yehuda  (i^i\jUM 
My  Lord  Judah."  He  is  very  confi- 


^^r^^) 


dent  that  this  is  the  site  of  the  ancient  Judah 
with  its  name  perpetuated.  (See  Land  and  Book,  i. 
389  fF.)  A  conterminous  border  of  Judah  and 
Naphtali  at  any  point  is  of  course  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. H. 

*  JUDAISM  ('Ioi/Sai(r/x<^s:  Vu^.  Judais- 
mus),  only  in  Gal.  i.  13,  14  in  the  N.  T.  ( "  Jews' 
religion,"  A.  V.),  and  2  Mace.  ii.  21  (rendered  "Ju- 
daism ")  and  xiv.  38  twice  ("Judaism"  and  "re- 
ligion of  the  Jews").  It  denotes  the  system  of 
Jewish  faith  and  worship  in  its  perverted  form  as 
one  of  blind  attachment  to  rites  and  traditions,  and 
of  bigotry,  self-righteousness,  and  national  exclu- 
siveness.  To  what  extent  the  religion  of  the  Jews 
partook  of  this  character  in  the  time  of  our  Lord, 
appears  not  only  from  his  constant  exposure  of 
their  formalism  and  self-assumption,  but  especially 
in  the  fact,  that  iii  -John's  Gospel  "  the  Jews  "  {oi 
*lou5uioi)  occurs  more  frequently  than  otherwise  as 
synonymous  with  opposers  of  Christ  and  of  his  teach- 
ings. A  similar  usage  is  found  in  the  Acts.  Yet 
Paul  recognizes  the  idea  of  a  true  Judaism  as 
distinguished  from  its  counterfeit,  when  he  says: 
"He  is  a  Jew  wlio  is  one  inwartlly;  and  circum- 
cision is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in 
the  letter;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of 
God  (Rom.  ii.  29). 

Of  the  spirit  of  Judaism  the  Apostle  himself  be- 
fore his  coaversio'n  was  a  signal  example.  He  as- 
cribes to  himself  that  character  in  various  passages. 
He  declares  in  Gal.  i.  13,  14  that  his  persecution 
of  the  church  was  a  fruit  and  evidence  of  this  spirit, 
and  that  in  the  violence  of  his  zeal  he  outstripped 
{irpo^KOTTTov)  aW  his  associates  or  comrades  {<Tvu7f- 
\iKiQ}Tai)  as  a  zealot  (^rjAcoxi^y)  for  the  traxlitions 
of  the  fathers.  (See  also  Acts  ix.  1  fF. ;  xxvi.  9 ;  1 
Tim.  i.  13,  Ac.)  Such  Judaism  possessed  in  the 
eyes  of  a  .Jew  the  merit  of  both  patriotism  and 
piety,  and  hence  is  portrayed  as  such  in  the  heix)es 
of  the  -Jewish  apocryphal  books.  H. 

JU'DAS  ClovSas  [Judas]),  the  Greek  form  of 
the  Hebrew  name  J  UOAH,  occurring  in  the  LXX. 
and  N.  T.     [Judaii.] 

1.  [Vat.  Alex,  riuv^as-  Coluas.']  1  Esdr.  ix. 
23.     [.Judaii.] 

2.  The  third  son  of  Jlattathias,  "  called  Macca- 
18PUS"  (I  Mace.  ii.  4).     [Maccabees.] 

3.  The  son  of  Calphi  (Alphaeus),  a  Jewish  gen- 
ital under  Jonathan  (1  Mace.  xi.  70). 

4.  A  Jew  occupying  a  conspicuous  position  at 
Teruaalem  at  the  time  of  the  mission  to  Aristobu- 


JUDAS   SURNAMED  BARS  A 13  AS 

lus  [AiusTOBULUs]  and  the  Egyptian  Jews  (2 
Mace.  i.  10).  He  has  been  identified  with  an  E« 
sene,  conspicuous  for  his  prophetic  gifts  (Jos.  Anl 
xiii.  11,  §  2;  5.  J.  i.  3,  §  5) ;  and  witli  Judas  Macca- 
baeus  (Grimm  ad  loc).  Some  again  supjx)se  that 
he  is  a  person  otherwise  unknown. 

5.  A  son  of  Simon,  and  brother  of  Joannet 
Hyrcanus  (1  Mace.  xvi.  2),  murdered  by  Ptole- 
n)aeus  the  usurper,  either  at  the  same  time  (c.  135 
B.  c.)  with  his  father  (1  Mace.  xvi.  15  ft'.), or  shortly 
afterwards  (Jos.  Ant.  xiii.  8,  §  1:  cf.  Grimm,  ad 
Mace.  1.  c). 

6.  The  patriarch   Judah  (Matt.  i.  2,  3). 

B.  F.  W. 

7.  A  man  residing  at  Damascus,  in  "  the  street 
which  is  called  Straight,"  in  whose  house  Saul  of 
Tarsus  lodged  after  his  miraculous  conversion 
(Acts  ix.  11).  The  "Straight  Street"  maybe 
with  little  question  identified  with  the  "  Street  of 
Bazaars,"  a  long,  wide  thoroughfare,  penetrating 
from  the  southern  gate  into  the  heart  of  the  city, 
which,  as  in  all  the  S3ro-Greek  and  Syro -Roman 
towns,  it  intersects  in  a  straight  line.  The  so- 
called  "  House  of  Judas  "  is  still  shown  in  an  open 
space  called  "  the  Sheykh's  Place,"  a  few  steps  out 
of  the  "Street  of  Bazaars:  "  it  contains  a  square 
room  with  a  stone  floor,  partly  walled  oflT  for  a  tomb, 
shown  to  Maundrell  {E(trly  Trav.  Bohn,  p.  494) 
as  the  "tomb  of  Ananias."  The  house  is  an  object 
of  religious  respect  to  Mussulmans  as  well  as  Christ- 
ians (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  412;  Conyb.  and  Hows, 
i.  102 ;  Maundrell,  I.  c. ;  Pococke,  ii.  119).        E.   V. 

*  It  is  not  certain,  nor  probable,  that  this  Judaa 
(of  whom  nothing  further  is  known)  was  at  that 
time  a  Christian.  None  of  Saul's  company  were 
Christians,  nor  did  they  know  that  he  had  l)e- 
come  one.  Neither  they,  nor  he,  would  prol)ably 
know  of  a  Christian  family  to  which  they  could 
conduct  him,  nor  would  such  a  family  hav«- ' 
ceived  him.  He  was  probably  led  by  his  .■ 
ions  to  his  intended  stopping-place  —  possibly,  % 
public  house.  It  is  a  fair  inference  from  the  nar- 
rative, that  the  host  and  the  guest  were  both  per- 
•sonally  strangers  to  Ananias.  S.  W. 

JU'DAS,  suRNAMED  Bar'sabas  ('loySoy 
b  iviKaKovfievoi  Bapaafias  [Lachm.  Tisch. 
Treg.  Bapcra^0as]  '•  Judas  qui  cognominabatur 
Barsabas,  [Cod.  Amiat.  Barsabbas]),  a  leading 
member  of  the  Apostolic  church  at  Jerusalem 
{oLV^p  Tiyovfifvos  iv  TOis  a5(\(})o7s\  Acts  xv.  22, 
and  "  perhaps  a  member  of  tlie  Presbytery  "  (Ne- 
ander,  Fl.  ^  Tr.  i.  123),  endued  with  the  gift  of 
prophecy  (ver.  32),  chosen  with  Silas  to  accompany 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Baruakis  as  delegates  to  the 
church  at  Antioch,  to  make  known  the  decree  con- 
cerning the  terms  of  admission  of  the  (Jentile  con- 
verts, and  to  accredit  their  commission  and  charac- 
ter by  personal  communications  (ver.  27).  Aftei 
employing  their  proplietical  gifts  for  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  S3rian  Christians  in  the  faith,  Judaa 
went  back  to  .Jerusalem,  while  Silas  either  remained 
at  Antioch  (for  the  reading  Acts  xv.  34  is  uncer- 
tain; and  while  some  MSS..  followed  by  the  Vul- 
gate, add  fji6yos  'loi'Say  8e  inopivdri,  the  be«t 
omit  the  verse  altogether),  or  s|ieedily  returned 
thither.     Nothing  further  is  recorded  of  .Judas. 

The  form  of  the  name  Barsabas  [or  Barsabbaa, 
see  above]  =  Son  of  Sabas,  has  led  to  several  con 
jectures:  Wdf  and  Grotius,  probably  enough 
suppose  him  to  have  been  a  brother  of  Joseph  Bai«a 
bas  (Acts  i.  23);  while  Schott  {Isuffog.  §  103,  f 


JUDAS   OF  GALILEE 

131)  takes  Sabaa  or  Zabas  to  be  au  abbreviated 
form  of  Zebedee,  regards  Judas  as  an  elder  brother 
Df  James  and  John,  and  attributes  to  him  the 
"  Epistle  of  Jude."  Augusti,  on  the  other  hand 
(Die  KathoUsch.  Bne/e,  Lemgo,  1801-8,  ii.  86), 
ndvances  the  opinion,  though  with  considerable 
hesitation,  that  he  may  be  identical  with  the  Apos- 
tle 'lovdas  'laKcifiov.  E.  V. 

JU'DAS  OF  GAL'ILEE  ('Ioi55as  6  Ta\i- 
\aios-  Jiidas  Galikeus),  the  leader  of  a  popular 
revolt  "  in  the  days  of  the  taxing  "  (i,  e.  the  census, 
under  the  prefecture  of  P.  Sulp.  Quirinus,  A.  D.  6,  A. 
IT.  c.  759),  referred  to  by  Gamaliel  in  his  speech 
before  the  Sanhediim  (Acts  v.  37).  According 
to  .losephus  (Ant.  xviii.  1,  §  1),  Judas  was  a  Gaulon- 
ite  of  the  city  of  Gamala,  probably  taking  his  name 
of  tialiloean  from  his  insurrection  having  had  its 
rise  in  Galilee.  His  revolt  had  a  theocratic  charac- 
ter, the  watchword  of  which  was  "  We  have  no 
Lord  nor  master  but  God,"  and  he  boldly  de- 
nounced the  payment  of  tribute  to  Caesar,  and 
all  acknowledgment  of  any  foreign  authority,  as 
treason  against  the  principles  of  the  ISIosaic  con- 
stitution, and  signifying  nothing  short  of  downright 
slavery.  His  fiery  eloquence  and  the  popularity  of 
his  doctrines  drew  vast  numbers  to  his  standard, 
by  many  of  whom  he  was  regarded  as  the  Messiah 
(Orig.  Homil.  in  Luc.  xxv.),  and  the  country  was 
for  a  time  entirely  given  over  to  the  lawless  depre- 
dations of  the  fierce  and  licentious  throng  who  had 
joined  themselves  to  him ;  but  the  might  of  Rome 
proved  irresistible:  Judas  himself  perished,  and  his 
followers  were  "dispersed,"  though  not  entirely 
destroyed  till  the  final  overthrow  of  the  city  and 
nation. 

With  his  fellow  insurgent  Sadoc,  a  Pharisee, 
Judas  is  represented  by  Josephus  as  the  founder  of 
a  fourth  sect,  in  addition  to  the  Pharisees,  Sad- 
ducees,  and  Essenes  {Ant.  xviii.  1.  §  1,  6;  B.  J.  ii. 
8,  §  1).  The  only  point  which  appears  to  have 
distinguished  his  followers  from  the  Pharisees  was 
their  stubborn  love  of  freedom,  leading  them  to  de- 
spise toi-ments  or  death  for  themselves  or  their 
friends,  rather  than  call  any  man  master. 

The  Gaulonites,  as  his  followers  were  called,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  doctrinal  ancestors  of  the  Zealots 
and  Sicarii  of  later  days,  and  to  the  influence  of 
his  tenets  Josephus  attributes  all  subsequent  insur- 
rections of  the  Jews,  and  the  final  destruction  of 
the  City  and  Temple.  James  and  John,  the  sons 
of  Judas,  headed  an  unsuccessful  insurrection  in 
the  procuratorship  of  Tiberius  Alexander,  A.  D.  47, 
by  whom  they  were  taken  prisoners  and  crucified. 
Twenty  years  later,  A.  D.  66,  their  younger  brother 
Menahem,  following  his  father's  example,  took  the 
lead  of  a  band  of  desperadoes,  who,  after  pillaging 
t;h3  armory  of  Herod  in  the  fortress  of  Masada, 
near  the  "  gardens  of  Engaddi,"  marched  to  Je- 
rusalem, occupied  the  city,  and  after  a  desperate 
fiiege  took  the  palace,  where  he  immediately  as- 
sumed the  state  of  a  king,  and  committed  great 
encmiities.  As  he  was  going  up  to  the  Temple  to 
•roiship,  with  great  pomp,  Menahem  was  taken 
ty  the  partisans  of  Eleazar  the  high-priest,  by 
vvhom  he  was  tortured  to  death  Aug.  15,  A.  D.  66 
(Milman,  [list,  of  Jews,  ii.  152,  231;  Joseph.  l.c.\ 
Drig.  in  Matt.  T.  xvii.  §  25).  E.  V. 

^^  JU'DAS  ISCAR'IOT  Cloi55ac  *l(TKapid,Trjs 
'in  Mark  and  Luke,  Lachra.  Tisch.  Treg.  'la- 
topioSO] :  Judns  Iscnriotes).  He  is  sometimes 
tailed  "  the  son  of  Simon  "  (John  vi.  71,  xiii.  2, 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 


1195 


26),  but  more  commonly  (the  three  Synoptic  Gos- 
pels give  no  other  name),  Iscariotes  (Matt.  x.  4; 
Mark  iii.  19;  Luke  vi.  16,  tt  al.).  In  the  threu 
lists  of  the  Twelve  there  is  added  in  each  case  the 
fact  that  he  was  the  betrayer. 

The  name  Iscariot  has  received  many  interpreta- 
tions more  or  less  conjectural. 

(1.)  From  Keriotii  (Josh.  xv.  25),  in  the  tribe  of 

Judah,  the  Heb.  n"'T'"^ptt7'^S,  Isu  K'rioth,  pas- 
sing into  'laKapidnris  in  the  same  way  as  IT'^M 

IlltD  —  Ish  Tob,  a  man  of  Tob—  appears  in  Jose- 
phus {Ant.  vii.  6,  §  1)  as,  "Ictoj^os  (Winer,  Realwb. 
s.  v.).  In  connection  with  this  explanation  may  be 
noticed  the  reading  of  some  xMSS.  in  John  vi.  71, 
a-Kh  Kapi^TOVi  and  that  received  by  Lachmann  and 
Tischendorf,  which  makes  the  name  Iscariot  belong 
to  Simon,  and  not,  as  elsewhere,  to  Judas  only. 
On  this  hypothesis  his  position  among  the  Twelve, 
the  rest  of  whom  belonged  to  Galilee  (Acts  ii.  7), 
would  be  exceptional ;  and  this  has  led  to 

(2.)  From  Kartha  in  Gahlee  (Kartan,  A.  V., 
Josh.  xxi.  32;  Ewald,  Gesch.  Israels,  y.  321). 

(3.)  As  equivalent  to  'l(raxapidl>T7}i  (Grotiug  on 
Matt.  X.  4;  Heumann,  Miscell.  Groning.  iii.  598, 
in  Winer,  Realwb.). 

(4.)  From  the  date-trees  (/fapiwriSes)  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Jerusalem  or  Jericho  (Bartolocci, 
Bill.  Rabbin,  iii.  10,  in  Winer,  /.  c. ;  Gill,  Comm. 
on  Matt.  X.  4). 

(5.)  From  S''t:)'n'lpDW  (=scortea.  Gill,  I.  c), 
a  leathern  apron,  the  name  being  applied  to  him  aa 
the  bearer  of  the  bag,  and  =  Judas  with  the  apron 
(Lightfoot,  Ilor.  Htb.  in  Matt.  x.  4). 

(6.)  From  S~lDDW,  ascara  =  strangling  (an- 
gina), as  given  after  his  death,  and  commemora- 
ting it  (Lightfoot,  /.  c),  or  indicating  that  he  had 
been  subject  to  a  disease  tending  to  suflSbcation  pre- 
viously (Heinsius  in  Suicer.  Thes.  s.  v.  'louSas). 
This  is  mentioned  also  as  a  meaning  of  the  name 
by  Origen,  Tract,  in  Matt.  xxxv. 

Of  the  life  of  Judas,  before  the  appearance  of 
his  name  in  the  lists  of  the  Apostles,  we  know  ab- 
solutely nothing.  It  must  be  left  to  the  sad  vision 
of  a  poet  (Keble,  Lyra  Innocentium,  ii.  13),  or  the 
fantastic  fables  of  an  apocryphal  Gospel  (Thilo, 
Cod.  Apoc.  N.  T.  Evanrj.  Infant,  c  35)  to  por- 
tray the  infancy  and  youth  of  the  traitor.  What 
that  appearance  implies,  however,  is  that  he  had 
previously  declared  himself  a  disciple.  He  was 
drawn,  as  the  others  were,  by  the  preaching  of  the 
Baptist,  or  his  own  Messianic  hopes,  or  the  "  gra- 
cious words"  of  the  new  teacher,  to  leave  his 
former  life,  and  to  obey  the  call  of  the  Prophet  of 
Nazareth.  What  baser  and  more  selfish  motives 
may  have  mingled  even  then  with  his  faith  and 
zeal,  we  can  only  judge  by  reasoning  backward  from 
the  sequel.  Gifts  of  some  kind  there  must  have 
been,  rendering  the  choice  of  such  a  man  not 
strange  to  others,  not  unfit  in  itself,  and  the  func- 
tion which  he  exercised  afterwards  among  the 
Twelve  may  indicate  what  they  were.  The  posi- 
tion of  his  name,  uniformly  the  last  in  the  lists  of 
the  Apostles  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  is  due,  it 
may  be  imagined,  to  the  infamy  which  afterwardj 
rested  on  his  name,  but,  prior  to  that  guilt,  \i 
would  seem  that  he  took  his  place  in  the  group  of 
four  which  always  stand  last  in  order,  as  if  posses- 
sing neither  the  love,  nor  the  faith,  nor  thf  devo- 
tion which  marked  the  sons  of  Zebedee  and  JouaL 


1496 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 


The  choice  was  not  made,  we  must  remember, 
(pithout  a  prevision  of  its  issue.  "Jesus  knew 
from  the  beginning  ....  who  should  betray 
llim  "  (John  vi.  64);  and  the  distinctness  with 
which  tliat  Evangehst  records  the  successive  stages 
of  the  guilt  of  Judas,  and  his  Master's  discernment 
of  it  (John  xii.  4,  xiii.  2,  27),  leaves  with  us  the 
impression  that  he  too  shrank  instinctively  (Bengel 
describes  it  as  "singularis  antipathia,"  Gnomon 
N.  T.  on  John  vi.  04)  from  a  nature  so  opposite 
to  his  own.  We  can  hardly  expect  to  solve  the 
question  why  such  a  man  was  chosen  for  such  an 
office.  Either  we  must  assume  absolute  fore- 
knowledge, and  then  content  ourselves  with  saying 
with  Calvin  that  the  judgments  of  God  are  as  a 
great  deep,  and  with  Ullmann  {Siindlosiyk.  Jesu, 
p.  97)  that  he  was  chosen  that  the  Divine  purpose 
might  be  accomplished  through  him ;  or  else  with 
Neander  (Leben  Jesu^  §  77)  that  there  was  a  dis- 
cernment of  the  latent  germs  of  evil,  such  as  be- 
longed to  the  Son  of  Man,  in  his  insight  into  the 
hearts  of  men  (John  ii.  25 ;  Matt.  ix.  4 ;  Mark 
xii.  15),  yet  not  such  as  to  exclude  emotions  of 
sudden  sorrow  or  anger  (Mark  iii.  5),  or  astonish- 
ment (Mark  vi.  6;  Luke  vii.  9),  admitting  the 
thought  "  with  men  this  is  impossible,  but  not 
with  God."  Did  He  in  the  depth  of  that  insight, 
and  in  the  fullness  of  his  compassion,  seek  to  over- 
come the  evil  which,  if  not  conquered,  would  be 
80  fatal?  It  gives,  at  any  rate,  a  new  meaning 
and  force  to  many  parts  of  our  lord's  teaching,  to 
remember  that  they  must  ha\e  been  spoken  in  the 
hearing  of  Judas,  and  may  have  been  designed  to 
make  him  conscious  of  his  danger.  The  warnings 
as  to  the  impossibility  of  a  service  divided  between 
God  and  Mammon  (Matt.  vi.  19-34),  and  the  de- 
structive power  of  the  "cares  of  this  world,  and 
the  deceitfulness  of  riches "  (Matt.  xiii.  22,  23), 
the  pointed  words  that  spoke  of  the  guilt  of  un- 
faithfulness in  the  "  unrighteous  Mammon"  (Luke 
xvi.  11).  the  proverb  of  the  camel  passing  through 
the  needle's  eye  (Mark  x.  25),  must  have  fallen  on 
his  heart  as  meant  specially  for  him.  He  was 
among  those  who  asked  the  question,  Who  then 
can  be  saved  ?  (Mark  x.  2(5).  Of  him,  too,  we  may 
say,  that,  when  he  sinned,  he  was  "  kicking  against 
the  pricks,"'  letting  slip  his  "  calling  and  election," 
frustrating  the  purpose  of  his  Master  in  giving  him 
80  high  a  work,  and  educating  him  for  it  (comp. 
Chrysost.  Horn  on  Matt.  xxvi.  xxvii.,  John  vi.). 

The  germs  (see  Stier's  Woi-ds  ofJesiis,  infra) 
of  the  evil,  in  all  likelihood,  unfolded  themselves 
gradually.  The  rules  to  which  the  Twelve  were 
subject  in  their  first  journey  (Matt.  x.  9,  10)  shel- 
tered him  from  the  temptation  that  would  have 
been  most  dangerous  to  him.  The  new  form  of 
life,  of  which  we  find  the  first  traces  in  Luke  viii. 
3,  brought  that  temptation  with  it.  As  soon  as 
the  Twelve  were  recognized  as  a  body,  travelling 
hither  and  thither  with  their  Master,  receiving 
money  and  other  offerings,  and  redistributing  what 
they  received  to  the  poor,  it  became  necessary  that 
some  one  should  act  as  the  steward  and  almoner 
Df  the  small  society,  and  this  fell  to  Judas  (John 
xii.  6,  xiii.  29),  either  as  having  the  gifts  that 
qualified  him  for  it,  or,  as  we  may  conjecture,  from 
his  character,  because  he  sought  it,  or,  as  some 
nave  imagined,  in  rotation  from  time  to  time.  The 
Galilsean  or  Judsean  peasant  (we  have  no  reason 
for  thinking  that  his  station  differed  from  that  of 
*he  other  Apostles)  found  himself  entrusted  with 
areur  sunw  of  money  than  before  (the  three  hun- 


JUDAS  ISCABIOT 

dred  denarii  of  John  xii.  5,  are  spoken  of  as  a  sun 
which  he  might  reasonably  have  expected),  and 
with  this  there  came  covetousness,  unfaithfulness, 
embezzlement.  It  was  impossible  after  this  that 
he  could  feel  at  ease  with  One  who  asserted  m 
clearly  and  sharply  the  laws  of  faithfulness,  duty, 
unselfishness ;  and  the  words  of  Jesus,  "  Have  I 
not  chosen  you  Twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?  " 
(John  vi.  70),  indicate  that  even  then,a  though 
the  greed  of  immediate,  or  the  hope  of  larger  gain, 
kept  him  from  "going  back,"  as  others  did  (John 
vi.  66),  hatred  was  taking  the  place  of  love,  and 
leading  him  on  to  a  fiendish  malignity. 

In  what  way  that  evil  was  rebuked,  what  disci- 
pHne  was  applied  to  counteract  it,  has  been  hinted 
at  above.  The  scene  at  Bethany  (John  xii.  1-9; 
Matt.  xxvi.  6-13;  Mark  xiv.  3-9)  showed  how 
deeply  the  canker  had  eaten  into  his  soul.  The 
warm  outpouring  of  love  calls  forth  no  sympathy. 
He  utters  himself,  and  suggests  to  others,  the  com- 
plaint that  it  is  a  waste.  Under  the  plea  of  caring 
for  the  poor  he  covers  his  own  miserable  theft. 

The  narrative  of  Matt,  xxvi.,  Mark  xiv.  places 
this  history  in  close  connection  (apparently  in  order 
of  time)  with  the  fact  of  the  betrayal.  It  leaves 
the  motives  of  the  betrayer  to  conjecture  (comp. 
Neander,  Ltben  Jesu,  §  264).  The  mere  love  of 
money  may  have  been  strong  enough  to  make  him 
clutch  at  the  bribe  offered  him.  He  came,  it  may 
be,  expecting  more  (Matt.  xxvi.  15);  he  will  take 
that.  He  has  lost  the  chance  of  dealing  with  the 
three  hundred  denarii ;  it  will  be  something  to  get 
the  thirty  shekels  as  his  ovm.  It  may  have  been 
that  he  felt  that  his  INIaster  saw  through  his  hidden 
guilt,  and  that  he  hastened  on  a  crisis  to  avoid  the 
shame  of  open  detection.  Mingled  with  this  there 
may  have  l^een  some  feeling  of  vindictiveness,  a 
vague,  confused  desire  to  show  that  he  had  power 
to  stop  the  career  of  the  teacher  who  had  reproved 
him.  Had  the  words  that  spoke  of  "the  burial" 
of  Jesus,  and  the  lukewarmness  of  the  people,  and 
the  conspiracies  of  the  priests  led  him  at  last  to 
see  that  the  Messianic  kingdom  was  not  as  the 
kingdoms  of  this  world,  and  that  his  dream  of 
power  and  wealth  to  be  enjoyed  in  it  was  a  delu- 
sion? (Ewald,  GVscA. /srae/s,  v.  441-46.)  There 
may  have  been  the  thought  that,  after  all,  the  be- 
trayal could  do  no  harm,  that  his  Master  would 
prove  his  innocence,  or  by  some  supernatural  mani- 
festation effect  his  escape  (Lightfoot,  //a?-.  Heb. 
p.  886,  in  Winer,  and  Whitby  on  Matt.  xxA'ii.  4). 
Another  motive  has  been  suggested  (comp.  Nean- 
der, Leben  Jesu,  1.  c. ;  and  Whately,  Essayi,  on 
Dangers  to  Christian  Faith,  Discourse  iii.)  of  an 
entirely  different  kind,  altering  altogether  the  char- 
acter of  the  act.  Not  the  love  of  money,  nor 
revenge,  nor  fear,  nor  disappointment,  but  policy, 
a  subtle  plan  to  force  on  the  hour  of  the  triumph 
of  the  Messianic  kingdom,  the  belief  that  for  this 
service  he  would  receive  as  high  a  place  as  Peter, 
or  James,  or  John ;  this  it  was  that  made  him  the 
traitor.  If  he  could  place  his  Master  in  a  position, 
from  which  retreat  would  be  impossible,  where  he 
would  be  compelled  to  throw  himself  on  the  people, 
anr*  be  raised  by  them  to  the  throne  of  his  fathet 
David,  then  he  might  look  forward  to  being  fore- 
most and  highest  in  that  kingdom,  with  all  hii 
desires  for  wealth  and  power  gratified  to  the  full 
___^ s 

a  Awful  as  the  words  were,  however,  we  must  m 
member  that  like  words  were  spoken  of  and  to  Vttei 
(Matt.  ZTi.  23). 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 

Ingtinioiift  as  this  hypothesis  is,  it  fails  for  that 
,-ery  reason. «  It  attributes  to  the  Galilean  peasant 
a  subtlety  in  forecasting  political  combinations,  and 
planning  stratagems  accordingly,  which  is  hardly 
compatible  .vith  his  chai'act«r  and  learning,  hardly 
consistent  either  with  the  pettiness  of  the  faults 
into  which  he  had  hitherto  fallen.  Of  the  other 
motives  that  have  been  assigned  we  need  not  care 
to  fix  on  any  one,  as  that  which  singly  led  him  on. 
Crime  is  for  the  most  part  the  result  of  a  hundred 
motives  rushing  with  bewildering  fury  through  the 
mind  of  the  criminal. 

During  the  days  that  intervened  between  the 
supper  at  Bethany  and  the  Paschal  or  quasi-Pas- 
chal gathering,  he  appeared  to  have  concealed  his 
trejichery.  He  went  with  the  other  disciples  to 
and  fro  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem,  and  looked  on 
the  acted  parable  of  the  barren  and  condemned 
tree  (Mark  xi.  20-24),  and  shared  the  vigils  in 
Gethsemane  (John  xviii.  2).  At  the  Last  Supper 
he  is  present,  looking  forward  to  the  consummation 
of  his  guilt  as  drawing  nearer  every  hour.  All  is 
at  first  as  if  he  were  still  faithful.  He  is  admitted 
to  the  feast.  His  feet  are  washed,  and  for  him 
there  are  the  feai-ful  words,  "  Ye  are  clean,  but  not 
all."  He,  it  may  be,  receives  the  bread  and  the 
wine  which  were  the  pledges  of  the  new  covenant.* 
Then  come  the  sorrowful  words  which  showed  him 
that  his  design  was  known.  "  One  of  you  shall 
betray  me."  Others  ask,  in  their  sorrow  and  con- 
fusion, "Is  it  I?"  He  too  must  ask  the  same 
question,  lest  he  should  seem  guilty  (Matt.  xxvi. 
25).  He  alone  hears  the  answer.  John  only,  and 
through  him  Peter,  and  the  traitor  himself,  under- 
stand the  meaning  of  the  act  which  pointed  out 
that  he  was  the  guilty  one  (John  xiii.  26).'^  After 
this  there  comes  on  him  that  paroxysm  and  insanity 
of  guilt  as  of  one  whose  human  soul  was  possessed 
by  the  Spirit  of  Evil  —  "  Satan  entered  into  him  " 
(John  xiii.  27).  The  words,  "What  thou  doest, 
do  quickly,"  come  as  a  spur  to  drive  him  on.  The 
other  disciples  see  in  them  only  a  command  which 
they  interpret  as  connected  with  the  work  he  had 
hitherto  undertaken.  Then  he  completes  the  sin 
from  which  even  those  words  might  have  drawn 
him  back.  He  knows  that  garden  in  which  his 
Master  and  his  companions  had  so  often  rested 
after  the  weary  work  of  the  day.  He  comes,  ac- 
companied by  a  band  of  officers  and  servants  (John 
xviii.  3).  with  the  kiss  which  was  probably  the 
asual  salutation  of  the  disciples.     The  words  of 


o  Comp.  the  remarks  on  this  hypothesis,  in  which 
Whately  followed  (unconsciously  perhaps)  in  the 
footsteps  of  Paulas,  in  Ersch  u.  Gruber's  AUgem.  En- 
eyct.  art.  "  Judas." 

i  The  question  whether  Judas  was  a  partaker  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  encompassed  with  many  difflcul- 
des,  both  dogmatic  and  harmonistic.  The  general 
consensus  of  patristic  commentators  gives  an  affirm- 
ative, that  of  modern  critics  a  negative,  answer.  (Comp. 
Meyer,  Comm.  on  John  xiii.  36.) 

c  The  combination  of  the  narratives  of  the  four 
Gospels  is  not  without  grave  difficulties,  for  which 
harmonists  and  commentators  may  be  consulted.  We 
\iave  given  that  which  seems  the  most  probable  result. 

il  This  passage  has  often  been  appealed  to,  as  illus- 
trating the  difference  between  jotcTa/u,eA«  .'a  and  ixeravoCa. 
ft  is  questionable,  however,  how  far  the  N.  T.  writers 
•ecognize  that  distinction  (comp.  Grotius  in  loc). 
btill  more  questionable  is  the  notion  above  referred  to, 
'hat  St  Matthew  describes  his  disaopointment  at  a 
?BeaIt  so  dilferent  from  that  which  ne  had  reckonei. 


JUDAS  ISCAKIOT       1497 

Jesus,  calm  and  gentle  as  they  were,  showed  that 
this  was  what  embittered  the  treachery,  and  madti 
the  suffering  it  inflicted  more  acute  (Luke  xxii 
48). 

What  followed  in  the  confusion  of  that  night 
the  Gospels  do  not  record.  Not  many  student* 
of  the  N.  T.  will  follow  Heumann  and  Archbp. 
Whately  (Essays  on  Daiif/ers,  1.  c.)  in  tlie  hypoth- 
esis that  Judas  was  "the  other  disciple"  that 
was  known  to  the  high-priest,  and  brought  Peter 
in  (comp.  Meyer  on  John  xviii.  15).  It  is  proba- 
ble enough,  indeed,  that  he  who  had  gone  out  with 
the  high  priest's  officers  should  return  with  them 
to  wait  the  issue  of  the  trial.  Then,  when  it  was 
over,  came  the  reaction.  'J'he  fever  of  the  crime 
passed  away.  There  came  back  on  him  the  recol- 
lection of  the  sinless  righteousness  of  the  Master 
he  had  wronged  (Matt,  xxvii.  3).  He  repented, 
and  his  guilt  and  all  that  had  tempted  him  to  it 
became  hateful.'^  He  will  get  rid  of  the  accursed 
thing,  will  transfer  it  back  again  to  those  who  wi^a 
it  had  lured  him  on  to  destruction.  They  mock 
and  sneer  at  the  tool  whom  they  have  used,  and 
then  there  comes  over  him  the  horror  of  great 
darkness  that  precedes  self-murder.  He  has  owned 
his  sin  with  "an  exceeding  bitter  cry,"  but  ho 
dares  not  turn,  with  any  hope  of  pardon,  to  the 
Master  whom  he  has  betrayed.  He  hurls  the 
money,  which  the  priests  refused  to  take,  into  the 
sanctuary  (ua6s)  where  they  were  assembled.  For 
him  there  is  no  longer  sacrifice  or  propitiation. « 
He  is  "the  son  of  perdition"  (John  xvii.  12). 
"He  departed  and  went  and  hanged  himself" 
(Matt,  xxvii.  5).  He  went  "  unto  his  own  place  "/ 
(Acts  i.  25). 

We  have  in  Acts  i.  another  account  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  his  death,  which  it  is  not  easy  to 
harmonize  with  that  given  by  St.  Matthew.  There, 
in  words  which  may  have  been  spoken  by  St.  Peter 
(Meyer,  foUowingi  the  general  consensus  of  inter- 
preters), or  may  have  been  a  parenthetical  notice 
inserted  by  St.  Luke  (Calvin,  Olshausen,  and  oth- 
ers), it  is  stated  — 

(1.)  That,  instead  of  throwing  the  money  into 
the  Temple,  he  bought  {iKr^aaro)  a  field  with  it. 

(2.)  That,  instead  of  hanging  himself,  "  falling 
headlong,  he  burst  asunder  in  the  midst,  and  all 
his  bowels  gushed  out." 

(3.)  That  for  this  reason,  and  not  because  the 
priests  had  bought  it  with  the  price  of  blood,  the 
field  was  called  Aceldama. 


c  It  is  characteristic  of  the  wide,  far-reaching  sym 
pathy  of  Origen,  that  he  suggests  another  motive  for 
the  suicide  of  Judas.  Despairing  of  pardon  in  thia 
life,  he  would  rush  on  into  the  world  of  the  dead,  and 
there  iyvfivj)  rfi  xj/vxy)  meet  his  Lord,  and  confess  his 
guilt  and  ask  for  pardon  (Tract,  in  Matt.  xxxv. : 
comp.  also  Theophanes,  Horn,  xxvii.,  in  Suicer,  Thes. 
s.  V.  'Iou8as). 

/  The  words  Ifitos  tottos  in  St.  Peter's  speech  con- 
vey to  our  minds,  probably  were  meant  to  convey  to 
those  who  heard  them,  the  impression  of  some  darfr 
region  in  Gehenna.  Lightfoot  and  Gill  (in  loc.)  quote 
passages  from  rabbinical  writers  who  find  that  mean- 
ing in  the  phrase,  even  in  Gen.  xxxi.  55,  and  Num. 
xxiv.  25.  On  the  other  hand  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  many  interpreters  reject  that  explanation 
(comp.  Meyer,  in  loc.),a  and  that  one  great  Anglican 
di«ne  (Hammond,  Comment,  on  N.  T.  in  loc.)  euten 
a  distinct  protest  against  it. 

a  *  Meyer  mentions  some  who  reject  the  above  explanar 
tion  respecting  i[fito<;  tottos,  though  he  gives  his  own  sano 
tion  to  it.  H. 


1498         JUDAS   ISCARIOT 

It  is,  of  course,  easy  to  cut  the  knot,  as  Strauss 
»ud  De  Wette  have  done,  by  assuming  one  or  both 
accounts  to  be  spurious  and  legendary.  Receiving 
both  as  authentic,  we  are  yet  led  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  some  un- 
known series  of  facts,  of  which  we  have  but  two 
fragmentary  narratives.  The  solutions  that  have 
been  suggested  by  commentators  and  harmonists 
are  nothing  more  than  exercises  of  ingenuity  seeking 
to  dovetail  into  each  other  portions  of  a  dissected 
map  which,  for  want  of  missing  pieces,  do  not  fit. 
Such  as  they  are,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  state 
the  chief  of  them. 

As  to  (I)  it  has  been  said  that  there  is  a  kind 
of  irony  in  St.  Peter's  words,  "  This  was  all  he 
got."  That  which  was  bought  with  his  money  is 
spoken  of  as  bought  by  him  (jMeyer  in  loc). 

As  to  (2)  we  have  the  explanations  — 

(a.)  That  o.ir'fjy^aTo,  in  Matt,  xxvii.  5,  includes 
death  by  some  sudden  spasm  of  suffocation  (anr/ina 
pectorh  f ),  such  as  might  be  caused  by  the  over- 
powering misery  of  his  remorse,  and  that  then  came 
the  fall  described  in  the  Acts  (Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v. 
OLTvayx^ ;  Grotius,  Hammond,  Lightfoot,  and 
others).  By  some  this  has  even  been  connected 
with  the  name  Iscariot,  as  implying  a  constitutional 
tendency  to  this  disease  (Gill). 

{b. )  That  the  work  of  suicide  was  but  half  ac- 
complished, and  that,  the  halter  breaking,  he  fell 
(from  a  fig-tree,  in  one  tradition)  across  the  road, 
and  was  mangled  and  crushed  by  the  carts  and 
wagons  that  passed  over  him.  This  explanation 
appears,  with  strange  and  horrible  exaggerations, 
in  the  narrative  of  Papias,  quoted  by  Oicumenius 
on  Acts  i.,  and  in  Theophylact  on  Matt,  xxvii. 

As  to  (3)  we  have  to  choose  between  the  alterna- 
tives — 

(a.)  That  there  were  two  Aceldamas.  [Acel- 
dama.] 

{b.)  That  the  potter's  field  which  the  priests  had 
bought  was  the  same  as  that  in  which  the  traitor 
met  so  terrible  a  death. 

The  life  of  Judas  has  been  represented  here  in 
the  only  light  in  which  it  is  possible  for  us  to  look 
on  it,  as  a  human  life,  and  therefore  as  one  of 
temptation,  struggle,  freedom,  resix)nsibility.  If 
another  mode  of  speaking  of  it  appears  in  the  N.  T. ; 
if  words  are  used  which  imply  that  all  happened  as 
it  hod  been  decreed ;  that  the  guilt  and  the  misery 
wer*^  parts  of  a  Divine  plan  (John  vi.  64,  xiii.  18: 
Acti  i.  16),  we  must  yet  remember  that  this  is  no 
single,  exceptional  instance.  All  human  actions  are 
dealt  with  in  the  same  way.  They  appear  at  one 
iioment  separate,  free,  imcontrolled  ;  at  another 
:hey  ar'^  hnks  in  a  long  chain  of  causes  and  effects, 
the  beginning  and  the  end  of  which  are  in  the 
"  thick  darkness  where  God  is,"  or  determined  by 
an  inexorable  necessity.  No  adherence  to  a  philo- 
sophical system  frees  men  altogether  from  incon- 
gistency  in  their  language.  In  proportion  as  the'r 
minds  are  religious,  and  not  philosophical,  the 
transitions  from  one  to  the  other  will  be  frequent, 
abrupt,  and  startling. 

With  the  exception  of  the  stories  already  men- 
tioned, there  are  but  few  traditions  that  gather 
round  the  name  of  Judas.  It  appears,  however,  in 
a  strange,  hardly  intelligible  way  in  the  history  of 
the  wilder  heresies  of  the  second  century.  The 
sect  of  Cainites,  consistent  in  their  inversion  of  all 
that  Christians  in  general  believed,  was  reported  to 
have  honored  him  as  the  only  Apostle  that  was  in 
posaesuon  of  the  true  gnosis,  to  have  made  him 


JU1>AS   ISCARIOT 

the  object  of  their  worship,  and  to  have  had  * 
Gospel  beai-ing  his  name  (comp.  Neander,  Church 
History,  ii.  153,  Eng.  transl. ;  Iren.  adv.  Hour,  i 
35;  TertuU.  de,  Prmsc.  c.  47).«  For  the  generai 
literature  connected  with  this  subject,  especially  foi 
monographs  on  the  motive  of  Judas  and  the  manner 
of  his  death,  see  Winer,  Realwb.  For  a  full  treat- 
ment of  the  questions  of  the  relation  in  which  his 
guilt  stood  to  the  life  of  Christ,  comp.  Stier's  W<r>-dt 
of  the  Loi'd  Jesus,  on  the  passages  where  Judas  is 
mentioned,  and  in  particular  vol.  vii.  pp.  40-67, 
Eng.  trans.  E.  II.  P. 

*  Question  I.  What  was  the  character  of  J  uda* 
Iscariot  ? 

A.  What  was  his  intellectual  character? 

(a.)  There  are  more  signs  in  the  Gospels  that 
Judas  had  a  strong  and  sturdy  intellect  than  that 
some  of  the  other  disciples  had.  It  may  be  sur- 
mised from  John  xii.  4-8  as  compared  with  ISIat- 
thew  xxvi.  8-11  and  Mark  xiv.  4-7,  that  especially 
in  financial  afl^airs  he  had  a  marked  influence  upon 
his  fellow  apostles.  He  was  appointed  to  superin- 
tend the  funds,  and  disburse  the  charities  of  the 
retinue  which  accompanied  the  IMessiah.  At  one 
time  (Luke  viii.  1-3)  this  retinue  needed  a  careful, 
exact,  and  sharp-sighted  treasurer.  We  may  pre- 
sume that  Judas's  intellectual  fitness  for  this  office 
was  one  reason  for  his  apjwintment  to  it.  Some 
(as  Kodatz)  have  supposed  that  each  of  the  disci- 
ples in  his  turn  had  the  oversight  of  the  money 
belonging  to  the  retinue  of  (^"hrist.  But  this  mere 
conjecture  is  adverse  to  the  Biblical  impression. 

(6.)  Although  the  Gospels  give  us  more  intima- 
tions of  shrewdness  as  characteristic  of  Judas  than 
as  characteristic  of  the  other  disciples,  they  do  not 
imply  that  he  had  so  extensive  a  reach  of  mind  as 
some  German  theorists  ascribe  to  him.  According 
to  these  theorists  he  was  so  sharp-sighted  as  to 
reason  in  a  manner  like  the  following :  — 

"  It  may  be  inferred  from  cerlain  words  of  the 
Master  [Matthew  xix.  28]  that  he  will  assume  a 
temporal  throne,  and  exalt  his  twelve  apostles  to  be 
his  twelve  princes ;  it  may  be  inferred  from  certain 
exhibitions  of  jjopular  feeling  [John  xii.  12-19]  that 
the  masses  of  the  Jews  are  now  ready,  and  need 
only  an  impulse  and  occasion  to  enthrone  him ;  the 
betrayal  will  put  the  Messiah  into  such  a  position 
that  he  must  declare  himself;  the  Jewish  rulers 
will  at  once  resist  his  pretensions,  but  the  people 
will  at  once  stand  up  for  him,  and  under  his  leader- 
ship will  overcome  the  rulers ;  the  betrayal  will  thus 
be  the  means  of  introducing  a  new  administration 
highly  advantageous  to  the  state,  of  expediting  the 
royal  glory  of  the  Master,  and  the  princely  honors 
of  the  disciples ;  of  pleasing  by  exalting  the  king, 
rather  than  of  displeasing  by  degrading  him." 

We  do  not  know  enough  to  deny  outright  that 
such  a  plan,  or  at  least  some  parts  of  it,  may  have 
momentarily  occurred  to  Judas;  but  the  Gospels 
do  not  make  upon  us  the  impression  of  his  having 
that  kind  of  intellect  which  remains  steadfast  in 
such  a  comprehensive  plan. 

B.  What  was  the  moral  character  of  Judas  ? 
(ff.)    Some  WTiters  r^ard  him  as  possessing  a 

merely  cold  and  calculating  spirit  unsusceptible  to 
th((  influences  flowing  from  the  virtues  of  the  Mes- 
siah; as  having  full  confidence  in  the  superiority 


a  *  Mr.  Norton  gives  reasons  for  do  jbting  the  ex- 
istence of  sucii  a  sect  {Genuineness  of  i lie  Gcspels,  3i 
ed.,  iii.  231  ff.).  A. 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 

>f  Jesus  to  his  enemies  and  in  his  ability  to  extri- 
»te  himself  from  their  stratagems;  therefore  as 
devising  the  traitorous  scheme  without  malice  as 
well  as  without  love  toward  his  Master,  and  with 
a  frigid  plan  of  making  game  of  the  Jewish  rulers, 
getting  his  thirty  pieces  of  silver  by  tlie  trick  of  the 
betrayal  which  he  believed  would  be  harmless  to 
others  while  profitable  to  himself.  But  the  mtima- 
tions  of  the  Gospels  are  that  Judas  combined  a 
rude  strength  of  feeling  with  his  financial  sagacity. 
His  keenness  of  remorse,  his  bitter  regrets,  the 
powerful  emotions  terminating  in  his  fearful  death 
are  signs  that  he  was  impressible  to  the  motives  of 
goodness ;  that  he  alternated  suddenly  from  an  ex- 
citement of  avarice  to  an  excitement  of  a  sense  of 
shame  and  from  both  to  an  excitement  of  the  sense 
vf  right  and  the  fear  of  retribution. 

(6.)  Another  class  of  writers  represent  Iscariot  as 
A  man  of  benevolence  and  probity :  see  Question 
II.  a. 

(c.)  Still  another  class  (represented  by  Daub)  re- 
gard the  traitor  as  a  man  who  even  before  his 
entrance  upon  the  apostleship  '^  had  fallen  irrevo- 
cably a  prey  to  evil,"  had  become  "  a  hopelessly 
bad  man,"  "  a  devil  in  the  flesh,"  an  impersonation 
of  "the  evil  which  has  utterly  cast  off  all  humanity," 
etc.,  etc.  This  supposition  is  refuted  by  the  fact 
that  Jesus,  ever  mindful  of  the  fitnesses  of  things, 
entrusted  to  Iscariot  so  responsible  an  office  as  that 
of  the  bursar;  also  by  the  fact  that  Judas,  so  far 
from  being  regarded  by  his  fellow  disciples  as  a 
fiend,  was  for  a  long  time  not  suspected  of  any 
misdemeanor ;  that  the  Apostles  were  surprised  when 
his  future  treason  was  aimounced  at  the  Paschal 
Supper  (Matt.  xxvi.  21  ff.;  Mark  xiv.  38  fF.;  Luke 
xxii.  21  ff.;  John  xiii.  U,  18,  23  ff.),  and,  even  when 
he  was  expelled  from  their  company,  thought  that 
he  was  sent  forth  on  a  religious  or  benevolent 
errand  (John  xiii.  27—30),  to  gather  provisions  for 
the  feast-week,  or  to  distribute  charities  among  the 
poor,  perhaps  to  "provide  some  indigent  famihes  with 
money  sufficient  for  enabling  them  to  offer  the  fes- 
tival sacrifices. 

(c/. )  Another  class  of  writers  adopt  an  intermediate 
and  more  probable  theory,  that,  although  Judas  had 
a  strength,  tact,  and  carefukiess  of  spirit  which 
fitted  him  to  conduct  the  secular  affairs  of  the 
Lord's  retinue,  he  had  no  largeness  of  mind  nor 
voftiness  of  aim  which  fitted  him  for  great  exploits ; 
he  had  a  firmness  of  soul  which  qualified  him  to 
endure  persecution,  but  led  him  to  his  terrible 
suicide;  he  was  mean,  sordid,  miserly,  but  still  not 
insensible  to  the  attractions  of  the  opposite  charac- 
ter; although  engrossed  with  selfish  aims  which 
made  him  at  times  frigid  and  relentless,  he  had 
yet  a  passionate  nature  which  made  him  at  other 
times  violent  in  self-reproach;  he  had  enough  of 
moral  sentiment  to  know  the  right  and  put  on  the 
semblance  of  it ;  he  could  not  have  enjoyed  for  so 
long  a  time  the  confidence  of  the  disciples  unless 
be  had  counterfeited  their  virtues,  and  he  is  im- 
plicitly accused  by  John  (xii.  6)  of  hypocritical 
pretensions;  although  his  powers  and  sensibilities 
were  in  a  singular  degree  disproportioned  to  each 
other,  yet  they  did  not  place  him  beyond  the  reach 
of  hope  for  his  improvement,  nor  leave  him  (as  he 
'a  so  often  represented)  an  altogether  exceptional 
jase  of  humanity.  The  sins  of  Judas  were  tnose 
5f  deliberate  intent;  the  sins  of  Peter  were  those  of 
ludden  lapse.  Christ  says  to  Peter  (Matt.  xvi.  23): 
*  Get  thou  behind  me,  Satan  "  ;  he  says,  with  more 
Wiberate  emphasis,  of  Judas  (John  vi.  70)  ~  "  Have 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 


1499 


I  not  chosen  you  twelve,  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil?  " 
still  the  sins  of  both  Peter  and  Judas  were  human 
and  therefore  when  Peter  speaks  in  Acta  i.  lG-29 
of  the  traitor's  suicide  he  maintains  a  reticence 
which  indicates  that  the  author  of  the  denial  did 
not  think  it  seemly  to  hurl  any  violent  epithets 
against  the  author  of  the  betrayal.  I^lven  if  (as 
Meyer,  Alford)  we  suppose  that  the  18th  and  19th  . 
verses  of  Acts  i.  belong  to  the  speech  of  Peter,  they 
stand  in  significant  contrast  with  his  open  denun- 
ciations of  other  bad  men ;  as  for  instance  in  th« 
second  chapter  of  his  Second  Epistle.  But  the 
internal  evidence  is  (see  Dr.  Gill  on  Acts  i.  15-20) 
that  those  two  verses  were  intercalated  by  Luke, 
whose  medical  education  would  prompt  him  to  such 
a  statement,  and  who  with  a  mixture  of  severity 
and  derision  suggests  ideas  Uke  the  following: 
"  This  man  so  eager  in  his  pursuit  of  wealth  ended 
his  pursuit  in  acquiring  a  piece  of  land,  the  very 
name  of  which  is  infamous.  What  shaU  it  profit 
a  man  if  he  should  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose 
his  own  soul  V  This  man  gained  a  contemptible 
part  of  the  world,  and  amid  disgusting  bruises  of 
his  body,  lost  his  soul." 

Because  our  Lord  addressed  the  loyal  disciples  in 
a  strain  of  rebuke  similar  to  that  which  he  applied 
to  Judas  (compare  Matt.  xvi.  23  with  John  vi.  70; 
also  Matt.  xxvi.  10,  Mark  xiv.  6-9  with  John  xii. 
7,  8),  some  writers  have  inferred  tliat  Iscariot  was 
not  eminently  selfish.  Some  (as  Goldhorn)  have 
denied  that  the  Evangelists  accuse  him  of  cherishing 
an  avaricious  temper,  or  of  practicing  embezzlement 
for  his  own  personal  advantage.  He  has  been 
thought  to  be  a  kind  of  prototype  of  St.  Crispin, 
who  is  the  tutelary  saint  of  shoemakers,  and  who 
with  his  brother  Ciispianus  was  martyred  in  A.  i>. 
287,  after  having  his  hands  and  feet  plunged  into 
molten  lead.  This  saint,  like  Iscariot,  was  called  a 
"  thief."  for  in  his  benevolent  zeal  he  had  been  ia 
the  habit  of  purloining  leather  from  the  coujpara- 
tively  rich  in  order  that  he  might  make  shoes  of  it 
for  the  comparatively  poor.  But  the  supposition 
that  Judas  Iscariot  was  absorbed  in  sucli  a  Cris- 
pinade  is  as  idle  as  the  mediaeval  legend  that  the 
twenty  pieces  of  silver  for  which  Joseph  was  sdd 
by  his  brethren  found  their  way  at  last  into  the 
Jewish  Temple,  were  paid  to  Judas  for  his  treason, 
and  were  finally  returned  by  him  into  the  temple 
treasury. 

Question  II.  What  were  the  motives  inducing 
Judas  to  betray  his  Lord  ? 

In  his  Essay  on  Judas  Iscariot,  Mr.  De  Quincey 
says  :  "  Everything  connected  with  our  orduiary 
conceptions  of  this  man,  of  his  real  purposes,  and 
of  his  ultimate  fate,  apjjarently  is  erroneous."  "  It 
must  always  be  important  to  recall  within  the  fold 
of  Christian  forgiveness  any  one  who  has  long  been 
sequestered  from  human  charity,  and  has  tenanted 
a  Pariah  grave.  In  the  greatest  and  most  mem- 
orable of  earthly  tragedies  Judas  is  a  prominent 
figure.  So  long  as  the  earth  revolves,  he  cannot 
be  forgotten.  If,  therefore,  there  is  a  doubt  affect- 
ing his  case,  he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  that 
doubt."  We  are  indeed  apt  to  err  in  supposing 
that  the  entire  character  of  Judas,  and  especially 
his  signal  crimes,  were  essentially  different  from  the 
I  cnaracter  and  crimes  of  other  bad  men.  We  are 
I  also  apt  to  err  in  supposing  that  he  had  a  clear  and 
I  definite  view  of  the  exact  evils  which  would  befall 
I  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  did  not  endeavor,  like 


other  bad  men,  to  palliate  his  crime  by  iiaagining 
that  its  evil  results  would  in  some  way  oi  other  be 


1500 


JUDAS   ISCARIOT 


prevented.  (See  Neander's  Leben  Jcyj,  p.  C79  f. 
4c'  Aufl.)  We  are  further  apt  to  err  in  supposing 
that  Judas  must  have  had  a  single  solitary  motive, 
or  else  a  self-consistent  system  of  motives  for  his 
treason.  He  seems  to  have  had  a  spirit  which  was 
driven  hither  and  thither  by  a  tumult  of  emotions, 
some  of  which  were  at  variance  with  others;  to 
have  been  like  a  merchant  on  the  eve  of  bankruptcy 
distracted  with  conflicting  impulses;  to  have  been 
bewildered  by  the  words  and  acts  of  Jesus ;  not  to 
have  known  exactly  what  to  expect ;  to  have  been 
at  last  surprised  (Meyer  on  Matt.  xxvi.  14-16) 
that  Jesus  did  not  foil  his  adversaries  and  escape 
the  crucifixion. 

(a.)  It  has  been  supposed  that  Judas  was  animated, 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  by  Jewish  patriotism. 
He  has  been  called  by  some  "  Ein  braver  Mann  "  ; 
he  has  been  thought  by  others  to  have  combined 
certain  selfish  impulses  with  his  patriotism  and 
benevolence.  Jesus  could  not  have  made  a  mistake 
in  selecting  him  as  a  disciple  and  bursar ;  therefore 
Judas  must  have  been  worthy  of  the  selection.  Mr. 
De  Quincey,  who  thinks  that  Judas  as  the  purse- 
bearer  for  the  disciples  had  "  the  most  of  worldly 
wisdom,  and  was  best  acquainted  with  the  temper 
of  the  times,"  and  could  not  "  have  made  any 
gross  blunder  as  to  the  wishes  and  secret  designs 
of  the  populace  in  Jerusalem,"  (for  "his  official 
duty  must  have  brought  him  every  day  into  minute 
and  circumstantial  communication  with  an  im- 
portant order  of  men,  namely,  petty  shop-keepers," 
who  "  in  all  countries  alike  fulfill  a  great  political 
function,")  supposes  that  Iscariot  had  reason  to 
hope  not  only  for  the  rising  of  the  Jewish  populace 
in  behalf  of  the  Messiah,  but  also  perhaps  lor  the 
ultimate  aid  of  the  Komans  in  defending  him 
against  the  Jewish  rulers.  (See  Theol.  £ssays,  I. 
147-177;  see  also  above.  Quest.  I.  A.  (a.).)  But  a« 
the  intellect  of  Judas  fitted  him  for  small  though 
dexterous  manoeuvres  rather  than  for  adhering  stead- 
fastly to  any  great  political  scheme,  so  his  heart 
was  more  ready  to  grasp  some  petty  contracted 
stratagem  of  selfishness,  than  to  persevere  in  any 
large  plan  of  patriotism.  Besides,  if  he  had  en- 
gaged in  the  betrayal  under  the  influence  of  this 
wide-reaching  plan,  he  probably  would  not  at  last 
have  summed  up  the  history  of  it  bj'  the  words 
which  excluded  the  semblance  of  an  apology :  "  I 
have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent 
blood,"  Matt,  xxvii.  4;  nor  probably  would  the 
considerate  Jesus  have  uttered  against  the  "  lost" 
man,  "  the  son  of  perdition,"  those  significant 
words,  "  Good  were  it  for  that  man  if  he  had  never 
been  born,"  John  xvii.  11 ;  Matt.  xxvi.  24;  Mark 
xiv.  2 1 ;  nor  probably  would  Luke  ha\  e  character- 
ized the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  as  "  the  reward  of 
iniquity,"  Acts  i.  18,  like  Balaam's  "  wages  of  un- 
righteousness," 2  Peter  ii.  15;  nor  probably  would 
Peter  have  applied  to  Judas  those  fearful  predic- 
tions of  the  Psalms,  Acts  i.  16,  20,  as  Matthew 
applied  the  solemn  words  of  Zechariah,  Matt,  xxvii. 
9,  10 ;  nor  would  the  beloved  disciple  have  exhibited 
such  an  involuntary  outflow  of  indignation  against 
the  traitor  as  appears  in  his  Gospel  xii.  6,  xiii.  27- 
30,  xiv.  22  (see  Meyer),  vi.  70,  71;  nor  perhaps 
would  the  synoptists,  in  giving  their  catalogue  of 
the  Apostles,  have  uniformly  placed  at  the  foot  of  the 
Ust  the  name  of  "  Judas  Iscariot  who  also  betrayed 
him,"  Matt.  x.  4;  Mark  iii.  19;  Luke  vi.  16. 

(l>. )  It  is  a  more  plausible  theory  that  Iscariot  was 
nnpelle*.!  to  his  crime  by  a  desire  to  avoid  the  shame 
of  being  sc  frequently  and  pointedly  rebuked  by 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 

tlw  Messiah.  Although  he  was  willing  to  k11  hU 
kiss  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  yet  he  was  a  man, 
and  must  have  had  some  wish  to  avoid  the  repri- 
mands which  were  becoming  more  and  more  solemn 
and  pointed. 

(c. )  Connected  with  the  preceding  was  his  desiits 
to  avert  from  himself  the  persecutions  and  other 
evils  which  were  to  come  on  the  disciples.  Even 
if,  in  his  calculation  of  chances,  he  did  solace  him- 
self with  the  possibility  of  driving  the  Messiah  up 
to  the  temporal  throne,  still  he  must  have  had  a 
prevailing  fear  that  the  new  kingdom  was  not  tc 
be  speedily  established.  It  appears  far  more  prob- 
able that  he  was  influenced  by  an  aim  to  earn  the 
gratitude  of  the  Jews  by  deUvering  the  Saviour  to 
their  custody,  than  by  an  aim  to  earn  the  gratitude 
of  the  Saviour  and  the  disciples  by  hastening  their 
elevation  to  thrones.  Especially  does  it  appear  so, 
when  we  reflect  that  during  the  hours  of  the  day 
preceding  his  formation  of  the  traitorous  purpose, 
he  had  probably  heard,  or  heard  of,  those  fearful 
words  of  Christ  which  jwrtended  violent  changes 
in  the  Jewish  state,  and  the  troublous  times  of  the 
Apostles  (see  Matt.  xxiv.  and  xxv.;  Mark  xiii.; 
Luke  xxi. ;  see  also  (e.)  below). 

(d.)  One  of  the  motives  which  strengthened  all 
the  others  for  the  treason  was  probably  the  traitor's 
dissatisfaction  with  the  principles  of  the  new  king- 
dom (Neander's  Leben  Jesu,  p.  679  f ).  He  saw 
more  and  more  distinctly,  and  the  scene  recorded 
in  John  xii.  1-9  confirmed  him  in  the  belief,  that 
the  spiritual  kingdom  would  yield  him  but  a  meagre 
living.  It  was  to  require  a  habit  of  lowly  self-denial, 
and  was  to  be  characteriged  by  services  to  the  poor. 
For  these  services  he  had  no  taste. 

(e. )  Mingled  with  his  aversion  to  spiritual  duty, 
was  his  vindictive  spirit  impelling  him  to  work 
some  undefined  sort  of  injury  to  the  Messiah.  Ac- 
cording to  the  most  plausible  hyiwthesis,  he  had 
been  chagrined  by  the  fact  that,  although  the 
almoner  of  the  disciples,  he  yet  had  a  lower  place 
than  Peter,  James,  and  especially  John  in  the 
esteem  of  his  Master;  his  revenge,  having  been 
repeatedly  inflamed  by  slights  and  censures,  was 
set  all  on  fire  when  he  was  reprimanded,  and  the 
generous  woman  applauded,  at  the  feast  of  the 
unction  on  the  evening  after  Tuesday;  stung  by 
that  disgrace,  he  formed  his  plan  of  the  beti-a}al; 
he  may  not  have  determined  the  exact  time  of 
executing  that  plan,  but  having  been  still  further 
in'itated  at  the  Paschal  supi^er  on  the  evening  fol- 
lowing Thursday,  and  having  been  goaded  on  by 
the  mandate  "  what  thou  doest  do  quickly,"  he  did 
not  sleep  as  the  other  disciples  did  on  Thursday 
night,  but  then  precipitated  himself  into  his  crime 
(Meyer  and  others  suppose  that  he  then  formed  his 
purpose  of  the  crime).  On  Tuesday,  during  the 
Saviour's  last  visit  to  the  Temple,  the  Jewish  rulers 
had  lieen  violently  incensed  against  him  bv  tne 
speeches  recorded  in  Matt.  xxii.  and  xxiii.,  Mark 
xii.,  and  Luke  xx.  On  the  evening  after  that  day, 
when  Judas  was  irritated  by  the  reprimand  of  hig 
Master,  he  would  naturally  think  of  the  Jews  cut 
to  the  hejirt  by  the  same  reprover,  and  would  be 
tempted  tx)  conspire  witli  them  against  the  author 
of  these  reprimands.  This  was  the  critical  period 
for  him  to  turn  "  State's  Evidence,"  and  to  join 
hands  with  the  Sanhedrim  as  Pilate  joined  hands 
with  Herod. 

(/.)  Another  of  the  motives  working  in  the 
traitor's  mind  was  avarice.  Three  hundred  denarir 
had  been  kept  out  of  bis  purse  two  days  before  thf 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 

betrayal  (John  xi.  1-9),  and  this  needless  loss  inten- 
iified  his  miserly  as  well  as  retaliatory  spirit.  It  has 
been  objected  (even  by  Neander)  that  he  could  not 
have  been  influenced  by  so  small  a  reward  as 
eighteen  dollars.  It  is  true  that  the  words  "  eighteen 
dollars ' '  in  American  coinage  represent  the  value 
of  thirty  shekels  of  silver  at  the  time  of  Josephus ; 
but  it  must  be  remembered  that  eighteen  dollars 
according  to  the  American  standard  represent  a  far 
smaller  amount  of  purchasing  power  than  was  rep- 
resented by  the  thirty  silverlings  of  Josephus.  For 
obtaining  this  sum  Judas  did  not  regard  one  kiss 
as  a  very  great  work.  Besides,  an  avaricious  man 
is  often  more  affected  by  a  small  gain  than  a  large 
one.  A  little  in  the  hand  also  is  more  attractive 
to  liim  than  much  in  the  prospect.  Even  if  he 
had  endeavored  to  encourage  or  excuse  himself  by 
sudden  gleams  of  hope  that  he  would  acquire  wealth 
by  expediting  the  Messianic  reign,  these  fitful 
gleams  could  not  relieve  his  prevailing  expectation 
that  the  new  reign  would  leave  him  poor;  and 
thirty  shekels  of  silver  paid  down  were  a  surer  good 
than  the  spiritual  honors  of  the  uncertain  kingdom. 
That  in  the  tumultuous  rush  of  his  evil  thoughts 
the  traitor  was  under  the  special  power  of  avarice, 
revenge,  and  distaste  for  the  spiritualities  of  the 
Messiah's  kingdom  is  intimated  in  Scriptures  like 
the  following:  Luke  xxii.  3;  John  vi.  12  and  70, 
xii.  6,  xiii.  2,  10,  11,  27. 

Question  III.  Why  did  Christ  select  and  retain 
Judas  as  one  of  the  Apostles  ? 

We  may  consider  the  call  of  Judas  as  made  by 
man,  and  as  made  by  God. 

A.  Regarding  it  as  made  merely  by  the  man 
Jesus,  theologians  have  maintained,  with  more  or 
less  distinctness,  the  following  theories :  — 

{n.)  At  the  first  Christ  understood  the  financial 
abilities,  but  not  the  thievish  or  treacherous  ten- 
dencies of  Iscariot.  These  were  not  discovered 
until  they  were  developed  in  the  passion  week,  or 
at  least  not  until  it  was  too  late  to  eject  him  from 
the  Saviour's  family.  The  reasons  for  retaining 
were  different  from  those  for  originally  appointing 
him.  The  traitor  would  have  been  irritated  by  the 
expulsion,  and  would  have  precipitated  the  delivery 
of  Jesus  to  his  enemies  before  the  full  accomplish- 
ment of  the  Messianic  work.  "  That  Jesus  knew 
from  the  beginning  that  Judas  was  a  thoroughly 
bad  man,  and  yet  received  him  among  the  twelve 
ia  altogether  impossible."  Schenkel's  Character 
of  Jesus  portrayed,  vol.  ii.  p.  218;  see  also  UU- 
mann's  Siindlosigkeit  Jesu,  Sect.  3 ;  Winer's  Real- 
worterb.  art.  Judas. 

{b. )  From  the  first  Christ  was  perfectly  certain  of 
the  traitor's  miserly  and  dishonest  aims;  but  he 
knew  the  necessity  of  being  delivered  up  to  be  cruci- 
fied ;  he  must  have  some  instrument  for  being  given 
over  to  the  power  of  his  enemies;  he  singled  out 
Judas  as  that  instrument,  and  the  discipleship  as 
a  convenience  for  that  work. 

(c.)  A  more  plausible  account  than  either  of  the 
preceding  is  :  The  Messiah  perceived  Iscariot's 
business  talents,  economical  habits  and  other  to  us 
unknown  qualifications  for  the  discipleship ;  he  per- 
ceived also  the  disqualifications  which  were  less 
V)rominent  in  Iscariot's  earlier  than  in  his  latei  life, 
tor  tney  became  more  and  more  aggravated  as.  the 
Jisciple  hardened  his  heart  in  resisting  the  influence 
»f  the  Master;  when  the  appointment  was  inade 
the  other  Apostles  do  not  appear  to  have  disap- 
proved of  it  or  wondered  at  it,  many  to  us  unknown 
jircumstances  conspiring  to  justify  it;  while  the 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 


1501 


Saviour  knew  the  evil  tendencies  of  Judas  and  ex- 
pected that  these  germs  of  iniquity  would  unfold 
themselves  in  embezzlement  and  treason  (John  ii. 
25,  vi.  64,  70;  Matt.  ix.  4;  Mark  ii.  8),  still  ha 
encouraged  in  himself  a  hope  that  he  might  coun- 
teract those  wrong  proclivities,  and  that  the  sordid 
spirit  would  be  refined  and  elevated  by  the  apostol- 
ical office  —  by  the  honors  of  it  (Matt.  xix.  28 ; 
Luke  xxii.  30),  by  the  powers  belonging  to  it  (Luke 
xi.  19),  by  the  personal  instructions  given  to  the 
occupants  of  it  (especially  such  instructions  as  Matt, 
vi.  19-34,  xiii.  22,  23;  Mark  viii.  36,  x.  25;  Luke 
xvi.  11),  by  the  indefinable  endearments  of  being 
"  with  Jesus "  (Mark  iii.  14  compared  with  Acts 
i.  17;  Acts  iv.  13;  Phil.  i.  23;  Col.  iii.  3,  4;  1 
Thess.  iv.  17 ;  see  Dr.  N.  E.  Burt's  Hours  afr,ic^g 
the  Gospels,  xxviii.);  while  the  Saviour  could  n(t 
fully  believe  that  his  efforts  would  be  successful  in 
reforming  the  traitor,  still  he  could  not  doubt  that 
they  would  be  successful  in  improving  the  character 
of  other  men  —  that  the  patience,  forbearance,  forti- 
tude, caution,  gentleness,  persevering  love  mani- 
fested in  his  treatment  of  the  purse-bearer  (as  in 
washing  the  traitor's  feet,  and  in  giving  him  the 
sweetened  bread)  would  be  a  useful  example  to  th« 
church,  that  his  own  character  would  be  set  off 
with  more  distinctness  by  its  contrast  with  that  of 
Judas  —  good  contrasted  with  evil,  moral  strength 
amid  physical  weakness  illustrated  by  moral  weak- 
ness amid  physical  strength  —  and  that  such  a  con- 
fession as  "  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood  " 
would  retain  through  all  time  a  marked  historical 
importance,  and  would  be  a  symbol  of  the  triumph 
of  virtue  over  vice.  Could  the  Redeemer  have 
cherished  any  degree  of  anticipation  that  he  might 
win  Iscariot  to  a  life  of  virtue,  and  at  the  same 
time  have  believed  that  he  should  not  succeed? 
The  human  mind  often  cherishes  a  feeble  expecta- 
tion of  favorable  results,  and  at  the  same  time 
believes  on  the  whole  that  the  results  will  be  un- 
favorable; makes  imtiring  efforts  for  a  good,  and 
in  one  view  of  it  faintly  expects  to  succeed,  but  in 
another  view  of  it  fully  anticipates  a  failure.  Amid 
this  conflict  of  hopes  and  fears,  called  by  the  Latins 
spes  insperata,  one  man  "  against  hope  believed  in 
hope,"  Rom.  iv.  18,  and  other  men  "  against  hope  " 
have  disbelieved  and  labored  "in  hope." 

B.  Regarding  the  call  of  Judas  to  the  apostle- 
ship,  as  made  by  God,  theologians  have  used  it  for 
a  test  of  their  speculations  on  the  nature  of  moral 
government,  etc.  In  reality  there  is  no  other  kind 
of  objection  to  the  fact  that  the  Most  High  in  his 
providence  allowed  Judas  to  be  one  of  the  Jirst 
preachers  of  the  Gospel,  than  to  the  fact  that  he 
has  in  his  providence  allowed  other  unfit  men  to  be 
eminent  preachers  of  it,  or  that  he  has  allowed  un- 
worthy men  to  sit  on  the  bench  of  justice,  or  to 
reign  on  the  throne  which,  even  although  they  wei^ 
"ordained  of  God,"  they  have  tarnished.  The 
mystery  here  is  the  old  mystery  of  moral  evil :  sf« 
Olshausen  on  Matthew  xxvii.  3-10.  As  men  differ 
in  their  speculations  in  regard  to  the  general  sub- 
ject of  sin  and  moral  government,  they  differ,  of 
course,  in  regard  to  the  sin  of  Judas  as  related  to 
that  government. 

(a.)  Some  maintain  that  Iscariot  was  called  to  his 
oflfice  on  the  ground  of  his  constitutional  fitness 
and  without  any  prevision  of  his  treason,  sin  being 
"  altogether  arbitrary  and  inconsequential,"  and 
thus  incapable  of  being  foreknown  by  any  mind. 

(b.  >  Others  maintain,  that  his  treason  was  fore- 
known, but  was  not  included  in  the  divine  plan 


1502 


JUDAS   ISCARIOT 


just  as  all  other  sin  is  said  to  be  foreseen,  but  not 
predetermined ;  and  just  as  many  vile  men  are  prov- 
identially called  to  occupy  offices  which  it  is  fore- 
seen they  will  disgrace. 

(c.)  Others  maintain  that  his  treason  was  com- 
prehended in  the  divine  plan  (as  may  be  inferred 
from  John  xiii.  18-26,  Acts  i.  16-20,  Acts  iv.  28 ; 
see  Meyer  on  Matt.  xxvi.  14-27,  John  vi.  70);  but 
still  the  sin  was  included  in  this  plan  not  directly, 
but  incidentally ;  { he  plan  was  adopted  not  in  any 
degree  on  account  of  the  sin,  but  in  despite  of  it, 
and  Judas  himself  was  appointed  to  his  office  not 
because  the  appointment  was  directly  a  good  or  a 
means  of  good,  but  because  it  was  incidental  to 
those  means  of  good  which  were  directly  predeter- 
mined. 

ill.)  Others  maintain,  that  the  appointment  and 
conduct  of  Judas  were  parts  of  the  plan  of  God, 
just  as  directly  as  the  movements  of  matter  are 
parts  of  that  plan.  Of  these  divines,  one  class 
assign  various  uses  for  which  the  appointment  was 
designed,  and  these  are  all  the  uses  which  in  fact 
result  from  it;  another  class  regard  the  reasons  for 
the  appointment  as  shrouded  in  a  mystery  which 
does  not  admit  an  investigation. 

Question  IV.  —  How  can  we  reconcile  the  ap- 
parent discrepancies  in  the  Biblical  narratives  of 
Judas? 

A.  One  of  these  discrepancies  relates  to  the 
manner  of  the  betrayal.  According  to  Matthew 
xxvi.  48-50,  Mark  xiv.  44-46,  Luke  xxii.  47,  48, 
the  Saviour  was  pointed  out  to  his  captors  by  Judas 
tenderly  embracing  him.  According  to  John  xviii. 
4-8  the  Saviour  came  forward  and  voluntarily  made 
himself  known  to  the  captors  while  Judas  was 
standing  with  them.  One  of  the  various  methods 
in  which  the  two  accounts  may  be  harmonized,  is 
the  following:  Judas  had  stipulated  to  designate 
the  Messiah  by  a  kiss;  the  Messiah,  as  soon  as  he 
saw  his  captors  approaching,  advanced  to  meet 
them;  they,  noticing  his  approach,  halted  (per- 
haps in  amazement);  Judas  went  forward,  gave 
the  significant  embi-ace,  returned,  and  stood  with 
the  captors;  .lesus  continued  his  walk  toward  them, 
and  when  sufficiently  near,  addressed  them  in  the 
words  cited  by  John.  The  fact  of  the  kiss  had 
been  mentioned  by  the  Synoptists,  and  had  thus 
become  generally  known  before  John  WTOte;  there- 
fore he  did  not  allude  to  it.  The  fact  of  Christ's 
own  6ul)sequent  announcement  of  himself  may  not 
have  been  so  generally  known,  therefore  John  made 
it  prominent.  (See  Tholuck  and  Meyer  on  John 
xviii.  4-7.) 

A  less  probable  version  is,  that  Judas,  in  order 
to  fulHll  his  engagement,  gave  the  promised  sign 
after  .lesus  had  announced  himself.  Another  is, 
that  the  sign  was  given  twice ;  at  first  was  not  ob- 
served (for  it  was  night)  by  the  captors,  and  was 
therefore  gi\'en  the  second  time. 

li.  The  most  important  of  the  alleged  discrepan- 
cies relate  to  the  last  developments  of  Judas. 

It  is  said  in  Matthew  xxvii.  6,  7,  that  the  chief 
priests  bought  the  Potter's  Field:  but  it  is  said  in 
Act^  i.  18,  that  Judas  bought  it  with  the  thirty 
silverlings.  Among  the  various  allowable  methods 
of  reconciling  these  passages,  the  following  is 
adopted  by  the  majority  of  the  best  interpreters: 
the  word  iKT-f)<raTO  may  denote  not  only  "pur- 
chased," but  also  "  caused  to  be  purchased," 
''  gave  occasion  for  the  purchase,"  and  thus  we 
glean  from  the  two  accounts  the  connected  narra- 
&\B  that  in  consequence  of  Judas's  treachery  and 


JUDAS  ISOAKIOT 

the  eighteen  dollars  obtained  by  it,  the  chief  piiesta 
some  time  after  his  death  purchased  the  Field  of 
Blood.  This  field  is  sometimes  thought  to  be  tht 
identical  field  on  which  Judas  died.  But  we  are 
not  so  informed  by  the  Evangelists.  The  field  which 
was  purchased  may  have  been  on  the  Hill  of  Evil 
Council  over  the  Valley  of  Hinnoni,  and  it  may 
have  been  called  the  Held  of  Blood  for  two  reasons ; 
first,  it  was  purchased  with  "  the  price  of  blood ;  " 
secondly,  with  the  money  obtained  from  him 
"  whose  bloody  end  was  so  notorious"  (Hackett's 
Comm.  on  Acts  i.  19). 

It  is  said  in  INIatthew  xxvii.  5,  that  Judas  hanged 
himself:  and  in  Acts  i.  18  that  "falling  headlong 
he  burst  asunder  (cracked  ojjen)  in  the  midst,  and 
all  his  bowels  gushed  out."  Several  of  the  terrible 
legends  in  regard  to  Judas  have  been  suggested  by 
these  narratives:  see  Hotimann,  Leben  Jesu  nack 
den  Apokryjjhen,  §  77.  We  cannot  affirm  that 
there  is  a  contradiction  between  the  statements 
when  there  is  a  plausible  hypothesis  on  which  the 
two  can  be  reconciled.  There  are  se\eral  hypotheses 
on  which  these  two  statements  can  be  harmonized. 
One  of  these  hypotheses  which  is  in  striking  uni- 
formity with  an  old  tradition,  and  is  in  itself  so 
cretlible  that  some  of  the  most  decided  rationalists 
(as  Fritzsche)  have  adopted  it  in  the  main,  is  that 
Matthew  describes  the  beginning,  and  Luke  the 
end  of  the  death-scene;  that  the  traitor  suspended 
himself  on  a  lx)ugh  which  hung  over  a  precipice, 
and  the  rope  broke,  or  the  bough  broke,  or  some 
one,  unwilling  to  have  such  a  spectacle  exhibited 
during  the  holy  week,  cut  the  rope  or  the  bough, 
and  the  traitor  fell  with  such  physical  results  as 
Luke  describes.  Travellers  in  Palestine  exploring 
the  Valley  of  Hinnom  have  been  impressed  with 
the  probability  of  this  hypothesis;  see  especially 
Hackett's  Illustrations  of  Scripture,  pp.  264-268. 
No  jury  in  the  world  would  hesitate  to  adopt  an 
hypothesis  similar  to  the  preceding  for  the  recon- 
ciliation of  two  apparently  conflicting  testimonies 
given  in  court. 

Partly  on  account  of  these  imagined  discrepan- 
cies, it  has  been  supposed  (without  any  external 
evidence,  however),  not  only  by  such  critics  as 
Strauss  and  Renan,  but  also  by  more  conservative 
scholars,  that  either  Matthew  xxvii.  3-10,  or  else 
that  Acts  i.  18,  19,  must  be  spurious.  Prof.  Nor- 
ton (in  his  Gemdneness  of  the  Gospels,  abridged 
edition,  pp.  438-441)  gives  the  following  among 
other  reasons  for  rejecting  Matthew  xxvii.  3- 10. 

(1.)  "At  first  view  this  account  of  Judas  has 
the  aspect  of  an  interpolation.  It  is  inserted  so  as 
to  disjoin  a  narrative,  the  diflferent  parts  of  which, 
when  it  is  removed,  come  tocether  as  if  they  had 
been  originally  unitetl."  But  the  same  may  be 
said  of  numerous  passages  not  only  in  the  Gospels, 
but  also  in  the  Epistles,  and  in  the  Old  Testament. 

(2.)  "  Whether  it  l)e  or  be  not  an  inter]X)lation,  it 
is  clearly  not  in  a  proj^r  place."  "  As  the  account 
is  now  placed,  it  is  said  that  in  the  morning  Judas 
was  aflTected  with  bitter  remorse,  because  he  saw 
that  '  Jesus  was  condemned ;  '  but  no  condemna- 
tion had  yet  been  passed  upon  him  by  the  Roman 
governor,"  etc.  Some  commentators  (as  Fritzsche^ 
would  here  reply  that  the  "  condenuiation  "  spoken 
of  in  Matt,  xxvii.  3,  is  the  condenuiation  by  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  this  had  taken  place  l)efore  Jesus 
was  sent  to  Pilate,  and  before  Judas  repented;  but 
the  more  plausible  reply  is  that  Matthew's  narra- 
tive of  the  traitor's  death  is  out  of  the  histoj  icOk 
order,  and  instead  of  being  inserted  between  tlu 


JUDAS  ISCARIOT 

lid  and  the  llfli  verses,  should,  for  preserving  the 
lequence  of  time,  be  inserted  between  the  30th 
and  the  Slst  verses  of  his  xxviith  chapter;  as 
John's  narrative  of  the  supper  at  Bethany  is  out 
of  the  histoiical  order,  and  instead  of  being  in- 
serted between  the  2d  and  9th  verses,  should,  for 
preserving  the  sequence  of  time,  be  inserted  at  the 
end  of  his  12th  chapter.  Deviations  from  the  exact 
order  of  time  are  so  frequent  in  the  Biblical  narra- 
tives as  to  warrant  no  suspicion  that  a  paragraph 
thus  deviating  is  spurious.  Sometimes  they  are 
designed  not  for  "  trajections  "  but  for  historical 
explanations,  as  John's  narrative  of  the  unction 
(xii.  3-10)  may  have  been  designed  to  explain  the 
motive  of  Judas's  treason,  and  prepare  the  reader 
for  the  otherwise  unaccountable  assertion  in  John 
xiii.  12  (see  Question  II.  (e.)  above). 

(3. )  The  account  of  Matthew  "  represents  Judas 
08  having  had  an  interview  with  the  chief  priests 
and  the  elders  (that  is,  with  the  Sanhedrim)  in 
the  Temple,"  but  Matthew  "could  not  have  de- 
scribed the  Sanhedrim  as  holding  a  council  in  the 
house  of  Caiaphas,  and  proceeding  thence  to  the 
house  of  Pilate,  and  also  as  being  in  the  Temple, 
where  Judas  returned  them  their  money,"  etc.  To 
this  some  writers  would  reply,  that  the  Sanhedrim 
condemned  Jesus  in  the  Temple  which  "  was  the 
regular  place  for  holding  the  assemblies  of  the 
council";  and  they  condemned  him  early  in  the 
morning,  "  soon  after  five,  a  time  which  St.  John 
would  naturally  describe  by  irpwia,  because  earlier 
than  sunrise,  irpco'i,  though  much  later  than  the 
dawn  of  the  day,  and  therefore  coincident  with  the 
time  when  preparations  usually  began  for  the  morn- 
ing sacrifice,"  and  when  the  priests  must  neces- 
sarily be  at  the  Temple  (Greswell's  42d  Dissertation). 
But  the  more  plausible  reply  is  that  after  Jesus  had 
been  condemned  by  the  Koman  governor,  some, 
perhaps  many,  of  the  priests  returned  to  the  "  hmer 
court  "  or  "  holy  place  "  of  the  Temple;  and  Judas 
not  being  allowed  to  step  within  the  "  court  of  the 
priests,"  came  to  the  entrance  of  it,  and  threw  his 
silverlings  into  it,  perhaps  upon  the  floor. 

(4.)  "  In  the  conclusion  of  the  account  found  in 
Matthew's  Gospel  there  is  an  extraordinary  misuse 
of  a  passage  of  Zechariah,  which  the  writer  professes 
to  quote  from  Jeremiah,"  and  the  words  of  which 
are  altogether  inapplicable  to  the  purpose  for  which 
they  are  used  in  Matthew  xxvii.  9,  1 0. 

In  regard  to  the  word  Jeremiah  used  instead  of 
Zechariah,  some  critics  have  supposed  that  it  was 
an  error  not  of  Matthew  but  of  the  copyist.  There 
is  no  important  external  evidence  for  this  supposi- 
tion, and  it  may  appear  a  singular  attempt  to  save 
the  genuineness  of  an  entire  paragraph  by  giving 
up  the  genuineness  of  one  word  hi  it.  But  where 
a  mere  date  or  proper  name  is  obviously  wrong, 
there  is  more  reason  for  questioning  its  genuineness 
than  there  would  be  if  the  doubtful  word  were 
suggestive  of  a  moral  idea  or  religious  sentiment. 
An  accidental  error  is  the  more  easily  committed  and 
overlooked  where  the  copyist  is  not  guided  by  any 
impression  on  his  heart.  Dr.  Henderson  says: 
»  Augustine  mentions,  that  in  his  time  some  MSS. 
iimitted  the  name  of  'Upe/xiou'  It  is  also  omitted  in 
the  MSS.  33,  157 ;  in  the  Syriac,  which  is  the  most 
ancient  of  all  the  versions;  in  the  Polyglott  Persic, 
»nd  in  a  Persic  MS.  in  my  possession,  bearing  date 
•..  D.  1057 ;  in  the  modern  Greek ;  in  the  Verona 
and  Vercelli  Latin  MSS.,  and  in  a  Latin  MS.  of 
Luc.  Brug.  1'he  Greek  MS.  22  reads  Zaxaplov, 
u  also  do  thf  Philoxcnian  Syriac  in  the  margin, 


JUDE,  OR  JUDAS 


1503 


and  an  Arabic  MS.  quoted  by  Bengel.  Origen  anA 
Eusebius  were  in  favor  of  this  reading."  Prof. 
Henderson  mentions  the  conjecture  that  'Ipiou  was 
written  by  some  early  copyist  instead  of  Zpiov,  and 
thus  the  mistake  of  "  Jeremiah  "  for  "  Zechariah  " 
was  easily  transmitted.  See  Henderson's  Ccmu 
mentary  on  Zechariah,  xi.  12,  13;  also  Robinson'a 
Harmony,  p.  227. 

In  regard  to  the  propriety  of  the  citation  of 
Matthew  from  Zechariah  we  may  remark,  that  the 
entire  book  from  which  the  citation  was  made  ia 
one  of  the  obscurest  in  the  Bible,  and  our  difficulties 
in  determining  its  precise  import  should  make  vi% 
modest  in  asserting  that  the  Evangelist  has  made 
a  wrong  use  of  it.  It  is  not  true,  however,  thai 
we  can  discover  no  propriety  in  the  quotation. 
Among  the  various  methods  of  explaining  it,  one 
is  the  following:  The  prophet  is  speaking  (tf  him- 
self as  a  type  of  Christ,  and  of  his  opposers  as  types 
of  Christ's  opposers.  In  this  typical  style  he  pre- 
dicts the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  the  maUce 
of  Christ's  opposers.  As  the  chief  priests  and 
Judas  were  among  the  most  conspicuous  enemies 
of  Christ,  the  prophet  may  be  considered  as  typi- 
cally referring  in  the  most  conspicuous  manner  to 
them.  He  describes  himself  as  appraised  by  his 
foes  at  a  "splendid  "  (i.  e.  despicable)  price,  thirty 
pieces  of  silver  (the  sum  paid  for  a  common  slave, 
Exodus  xxi.  32),  and  this  money  was  given  to  the 
potter  for  his  field.  The  Evangelist,  fixing  his  eye 
upon  the  saUent  points  of  the  prophecy  and  quoting 
ad  sensum  rather  than  ad  liter-am,  says  that  Jesus 
was  appraised  at  the  same  contemptible  price,  and 
this  was  given  to  the  potter  for  his  field.  The 
events  described  by  Zechariah  are  thus  typical  and 
in  this  sense  prophetical  of  the  events  described  by 
Matthew.  There  is  no  more  reason  for  regarding 
Matthew's  quotation  as  spurious  than  for  regarding 
many  other  quotations  in  the  New  Testament  as 
such.  This  is  a  common  style  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers.  Even  De  Wette  in  his  old  age  con- 
ceded :  "  The  entire  Old  Testament  is  a  great 
prophecy,  a  great  type  of  Him  who  was  to  come, 
and  has  come." — "The  typological  comparison, 
also,  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  New  was  by 
no  means  a  mere  play  of  fancy;  nor  can  it  be 
regarded  as  altogether  the  result  of  accident,  that 
the  evangelical  history,  in  the  most  important 
particulars,  runs  parallel  with  the  Mosaic."  (See 
the  passage  cited  in  Fairbairn's  Typology,  i.  34. 
See  also  pp.  342,  334.) 

Another  and  kindred  explanation  of  the  passage 
is  this:  As  Psalms  Ixix.  25  and  cix.  8  contain 
prophecies  of  the  generic  or  ideal  righteous  man- 
of  whom  Christ  is  the  antitype,  so  they  contain 
prophecies  of  the  generic  or  ideal  unrighteous  man 
of  whom  according  to  Acts  i.  16-20  Judas  is  an 
antitype,  and  this  prophecy  of  Zechariah  may  be 
interpreted  as  thus  generic  or  ideal  in  its  reference 
to  the  Messiah  and  his  persecutors. 

E.  A.  P. 

JUDE,  or  JUT) AS,  LEBBE'US  and 
THADDE'US  ('louSos  'lo/fci/Sou:  Judas  Ja- 
cobi:  A.  V.  "  Judas  the  brother  of  James"),  one 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles ;  a  member,  together  with 
his  namesake  "  Iscariot,"  James  the  son  of  Al- 
phseus,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  of  the  last  of  the  three 
sections  of  the  apostohc  body.  The  name  Judas 
only,  without  any  distinguishing  mark,  occurs  in 
the  lists  given  by  St.  Luke  vi.  16 ;  Acts  i.  13 ;  and 
in  John  xiv.  22  (where  we  find  "  Judas  not  Iscariot" 


1504 


JUDE,  OR  JUDAS 


among  the  Apostles),  but  the  Apostle  has  been 
geneially  identified  with  "  Lebbeus  whose  surname 
was  'Ihaddeus  "  (AejSjSatoy  6  iTTLKKrjdels  QaSSaios), 
Matt.  X.  3;  Mark  iii.  18,  though  Schleiermacher 
(CVt<.  Essay  on  St.  Ltike,  p.  93)  treats  with  scorn 
any  such  attempt  to  reconcile  the  lists.  In  both 
the  last  quoted  places  there  is  considerable  variety 
of  reading;  some  MSS.  having  both  in  St.  Matt. 
and  St.  Mark  Ae^SySatos,  or  @aSda7os  alone;  others 
introducing  the  name  'louSo?  or  Judas  Zelotes  in 
St.  IMatt.,  where  the  Vulgate  reads  ThaddcBiis  alone, 
which  is  adopted  by  Lachmann  in  his  Berlin  edition 
of  1832.  This  confusion  is  still  further  increased 
by  the  tradition  preserved  by  Eusebius  (//.  E.  i. 
13)  that  the  true  name  of  Thomas  (the  twin)  was 
Judas  ClouSas  b  koX  Qw/nas),  and  that  Thaddeus 
was  one  of  the  "  Seventy,"  identified  by  Jerome  in 
Matt.  X.  with  "Judas  Jacobi "  [Thaddeus];  as 
well  as  by  the  theories  of  modern  scholars,  who 
regard  the  "  Levi "  (Aevls  6  rod  ^A\(paiov)  of 
Mark  ii.  14,  Luke  v.  27,  who  is  called  "  Lebes " 
(Ae)3r)s)  by  Origen  {Cont.  Ctls.  1.  i.  §  62),  as  the 
same  with  Lebbseus.  The  safest  way  out  of  these 
acknowledged  difficulties  is  to  hold  fast  to  the 
ordinarily  received  opinion  that  Jude,  I^bbseus,  and 
Thaddaeus,  were  three  names  for  the  same  Apostle, 
who  is  therefore  said  by  Jerome  {in  Mail.  x.  to 
have  been  "trionynms,"  rather  than  introduce  con- 
fusion into  the  apostolic  catalogues,  and  render 
them  erroneous  either  in  excess  or  defect. 

The  interpretation  of  the  names  Lebbaeus  and 
Thaddaeus  is  a  question  beset  with  almost  equal 
difficulty.     The  former  is  interpreted  by  Jerome 

"  hearty,"  corcidum,  as  from  3  V,  cor,  and  Thad- 
daeus has  been  erroneously  supposed  to  have  a  cog- 
nate signification,   homo  pectorostis,  as   from  the 

Syriac  "Ti?,  pectus  (Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.  p.  235, 

Beugel;  Matt.  x.  3),  the  true  signification  of  "TFI 
being  mamma  (Angl.  teat),  Buxtorf,  Lex.  Talm. 
2565.  Winer  (Realicb.  s.  v.)  would  combine  the 
two  and  interpret  them  as  meaning  Herzenskdnd. 
Another  interpretation  of  Lebbaeus  is  the  young  lion 

{leunculm)  as  from  ^"^^7,  leo  (Schleusner,  s.  v.), 
while  Lightfoot  and  Baumg.-Crusius  would  derive 
it  from  Ltbba,  a  maritime  town  of  Galilee  men- 
tioned by  Pliny  {Hist.  Nat.  v.  19),  where,  however, 
the  ordinary  reading  is  Jebba.  Thaddaeus  appears 
in  Syriac  under  the  form  Adai,  and  Michaelis  ad- 
mits the  idea  that  Adai,  Thaddaeus,  and  Judas, 
may  be  different  representations  of  the  same  word 
(iv.  370),  and  Wordsworth  {Gr.  Test,  in  Matt. 
X.  3)  identifies  Thaddaeus  with  Judas,  as  both  from 

n'l'in,  to  "  praise."  Chrysostom,  Be  Prod.  Jud. 
I.  i.  c  2,  says  that  there  was  a  "Judas  Zelotes" 
(imong  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  whom  he  identifies 
vith  the  Apostle.  In  the  midst  of  these  uncer- 
tainties no  decision  can  be  arrived  at,  and  all  must 
rest  on  conjecture. 

Much  difference  of  opinion  has  also  existed  from 
the  earliest  times  as  to  the  right  interpretation  of 
the  words  ^lovSas  'laKcifiou.  The  generally  re- 
ceived opinion  is  that  there  is  an  ellipse  of  the  word 
i8eA<^rfs,  and  that  the  A.  V.  is  right  in  translating 
"  Judas  the  brother  of  James."  This  is  defended 
by  Winer  {Reahob.  s.  v. ;  Gramm.  of  N.  T.  Diet., 
Clark's  edition,  i.  203),  Arnaud  {Recher.  Ciit.  sur 
^^p.  de  Jvde),  and  accepted  by  Burton,  Alford, 
Fregelles,  Michaelis,  etc.  This  view  ha.s  received 
itrength  from  the  belief  that  the  "  Epistle  of  Jude," 


JUDAS,  THE  LORD'S  BROTHER 

the  author  of  which  expressly  calls  himself  "  brother 
of  James,"  was  the  work  of  this  Apostle.  But  i^ 
as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  the  argument  s  in  favor 
of  a  non-apostolic  origin  for  this  epistle  are  such 
as  to  lead  us  to  assign  it  to  another  author,  the 
mode  of  supplying  the  ellipse  may  be  considered 
independently;  and  since  the  dependent  genitive 
almost  universally  implies  the  filial  relation,  and  is 
so  interpreted  in  every  other  case  in  the  apostolic 
catalogues,  we  may  bc>  allowed  to  follow  the  Peshito 
and  Arabic  versions,  the  Benedictine  editor  of 
Chrysostom,  Horn.  XXXIL,  in  Matt.  x.  2,  and 
the  translation  of  Luther,  as  well  as  nearly  all  the 
most  eminent  critical  authorities,  and  render  the 
words  "  Judas  the  son  of  James,"  that  is,  either 
"  James  the  son  of  Alphaeus,"  with  whom  he  is 
coupled,  Matt.  x.  3,  or  some  otherwise  unknown 
person. 

The  name  of  Jude  only  occurs  once  in  the  Gospel 
narrative  (John  xiv.  22),  where  we  find  him  taking 
part  in  the  last  conversation  with  our  Lord,  and 
sharing  the  low  temporal  views  of  their  Master's 
kingdom,  entertained  by  his  brother  Aix)stles. 

Nothing  is  certainly  known  of  the  later  history 
of  the  Apostle.  There  may  be  some  truth  in  the 
tradition  which  connects  him  with  the  foundation 
of  the  church  at  Exlessa ;  though  here  again  there 
is  much  confusion,  and  doubt  is  thrown  over  the 
account  by  its  connection  with  the  worthless  fiction 
of  "  Abgarus  king  of  Edessa"  (Euseb.  //.  E.  i. 
13;  Jerome,  Comment,  in  Matt,  x.)  [Thaddeus.] 
Nicephorus  {H.  E.  ii.  40)  makes  Jude  die  a  natural 
death  in  that  city  after  preaching  in  Palestine, 
Syria,  and  Arabia.  The  Syrian  tradition  speaks  of 
his  abode  at  Edessa,  but  adds  that  he  went  thence 
to  Assyria,  and  was  martyred  in  Phoenicia  on  his 
return;  while  that  of  the  west  makes  Persia  the 
field  of  his  labors  and  the  scene  of  his  martyrdom. 

The  tradition  preserved  by  Hegesippus,  which 
appears  in  Eusebius,  relative  to  the  descendants  of 
Jude,  has  reference,  in  our  opinion,  to  a  diflferent 
Jude.     See  next  article.  E.  V. 

JU^DAS,   THE    LORD'S    BROTHER. 

Among  the  brethren  of  our  Lord  mentioned  by  the 
people  of  Nazareth  (Matt.  xiii.  55;  Mark  vi.  3) 
occurs  a  "  Judas,"  who  has  been  sometimes  identi- 
fied with  the  Apostle  of  the  same  name ;  a  theory 
which  rests  on  the  double  assumption  that  'lovSos 
'luKwfiov  (Luke  vi.  16)  is  to  be  rendered  "Judas 
the  brother  of  James,"  and  that  "  the  sons  of 
Alphieus  "  were  "  the  brethren  of  our  Lord,"  and 
is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  statement  of  St.  John 
vii.  5,  that  *'  not  even  his  brethren  believed  on 
Him."  It  has  been  considered  with  more  prob- 
ability that  he  was  the  writer  of  the  epistle  which 
bears  the  name  of  "  Jude  the  brother  of  James," 
to  which  the  S}Tiac  version  incorporated  with  the 
later  editions  of  the  Peshito  adds  "  and  of  Joses  " 
(Origen  in  Matt.  xiii.  55;  Clem.  Alex.  Adumb.  6; 
Alford,  Gk.  Test,  Matt.  xiii.  55).  [Jude,  Epistlk 
of;  James.] 

Eusebius  gives  us  an  interesting  tradition  of 
Hegesippus  (//.  E.  iii.  20,  32)  that  two  grandsons 
of  Jude,  "  who  according  to  the  flesh  was  called  the 
Lord's  brother"  (cf.  1  Cor.  ix.  5),  were  seized  and 
carried  to  Kome  by  orders  of  Domitian,  whose  ap- 
prehensions had  been  excited  by  what  he  had  heard 
of  the  mighty  power  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
but  that  the  Emperor  having  discovered  by  their 
answers  to  his  inquiries,  and  the  appearance  of  theij 
hands,  that  they  were  poor  men,  supporting  thena- 


JUDE,   EPISTLE   OF 

selves  by  their  labor,  and  having  learnt  the  spiritual 
nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  dismissed  them  in  con- 
tei'i])!,  and  ceased  from  his  persecution  of  the 
church,  whereupon  they  returned  to  Palestine  and 
took  a  leading  place  in  the  churches,  "  as  being  at 
the  same  time  confessors  and  of  the  Lord's  family  " 
(c5>y  &»/  S'^  ixdprupas  d/jiov  Kai  airh  yeueos  opras 
Tov  Kvpiou),  and  lived  till  the  time  of  Trajan. 
Nicephorus  (i.  23)  tells  us  that  Jude's  wife  was 
named  Mary.  E.  V. 

JUDE,  EPISTLE  OF.  I.  Its  Autkorship.- 
The  writer  of  this  epistle  styles  himself,  ver.  1, 
"  Jude  the  brother  of  James  "  (a5eA</)^y  'laKii^ov), 
and  has  been  usually  identified  with  the  Apostle 
Judas  Lel)ba3us  or  Thaddaeus,  called  by  St.  Luke, 
vi.  IG,  'lovdas  'luKca^ov,  A.  V.  "  Judas  the  brother 
of  James."  It  has  been  seen  above  [Judas  Leb- 
B.KUs]  that  this  mode  of  supplying  the  ellipse, 
though  not  directly  contrary  to  the  usus  loquendi, 
is,  to  say  the  least,  questionable,  and  that  there  are 
strong  reasons  for  rendering  the  words  "  Judas  the 
$on  of  James:''  and  inasmuch  as  the  author  ap- 
pears, ver.  17,  to  distinguish  himself  from  the 
Apostles,  and  bases  his  warning  rather  on  their 
iuthority  than  on  his  own,  we  may  agree  with 
Mument  critics  in  attributing  the  epistle  to  another 
author.  Jerome,  Tertullian,  and  Origen,  among 
,he  ancients,  and  Calmet,  Calvin,  Hammond,  Hiin- 
lein,  Lange,  Vatablus,  Arnaud,  and  Tregelles,  among 
the  moderns,  agree  in  assigning  it  to  the  Apostle. 
Whether  it  were  the  work  of  an  Apostle  or  not,  it 
has  from  very  early  times  been  attributed  to  "  the 
lx>rd's  brother"  of  that  name  (Matt.  xiii.  55;  Mark 
vi.  3):  a  view  in  which  Origen,  Jerome,  and  (if 
indeed  the  Adumbratiunes  be  rightly  assigned  to 
him)  Clemens  Alexandrinus  agree;  which  is  im- 
plied in  the  words  of  Chrysostom  {Horn.  48  in 
Jocn.),  confirmed  by  the  epigraph  of  the  Syriac 
versions,  and  is  accepted  by  most  modern  com- 
mentators, Arnaud,  Bengel,  Burton,  Hug,  Jessien, 
Olshausen,  Tregelles,  etc.  The  objection  that  has 
been  felt  by  Neander  {PI.  and  Tr.  i.  3'J2),  and 
others,  that  if  he  had  been  "  the  Lord's  brother  " 
be  would  have  directly  styled  himself  so,  and  not 
merely  ''  the  brother  of  James,"  has  been  antici- 
pated by  the  author  of  the  "  Adumbrationes " 
(Bunsen,  Annlect.  Ante-Nicmn.  i.  330),  who  says, 
"  Jude,  who  wrote  tlie  Catholic  Epistle,  Ijrother  of 
the  sons  of  Joseph,  an  extremely  religious  man, 
though  he  was  aware  of  his  relationship  to  the 
Lord,  did  not  call  himself  His  brother;  but  what 
said  he'?  '  Jude  the  servant  of  Jesus  Christ '  as  his 
Ivjrd,  but  'brother  of  James.'  "  We  may  easily 
believe  that  it  was  through  humility,  and  a  true 
sense  of  the  altered  relations  between  them  aid 
Him  who  had  been  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  with  power  ....  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead  "  (cf.  2  Cor.  v.  16),  that  both  St.  Jude  and 
St.  James  forbore  to  call  themselves  the  brethren 
of  Jesus.  The  arguments  concerning  the  author- 
ship of  the  epistle  are  ably  summed  up  by  Jessien 
{dp  Authent.  Kp.  Jvd.  Lips.  1821),  and  Arnaud 
{Hecher.  Critiq.  sur  VEp.  de  Jude,  Strasb.  1851, 
translated  Brit,  and  For.  Ev.  Rev.  Jul.  1859); 
and  though  it  is  oy  no  means  clear  of  difficulty, 
the  most  probable  conclusion  is  that  the  author  was 
Jude,  one  of  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  and  brother  of 
James,  not  the  Apostle  the  son  of  AlpL«us,  but 
the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  of  whose  dignity  and  au- 
thority in  the  church  he  avails  himself  to  introduce 
his  epistle  to  his  readers. 
fid 


JUDE,  EPISTLE   OF      1505 

II.  Genuineness  and  Canonicity.  —  Although  th« 
Epistle  of  Jude  is  one  of  the  so-called  Anlileyo- 
iiiena,  and  its  canonicity  was  questioned  in  the 
earhest  ages  of  the  church,  there  never  was  any 
doul-t  of  its  genuineness  among  those  by  whom  i( 
was  known.  It  was  too  unimportant  to  be  a  for- 
gery ;  few  portions  of  Holy  Scripture  could,  with 
reverence  be  it  spoken,  have  been  more  easily 
spared ;  and  the  question  was  never  whether  it  was 
the  work  of  an  impostor,  but  whether  its  author 
was  of  sufficient  weight  to  warrant  its  admission 
into  the  Canon. 

This  question  was  gradually  decided  in  its  favor 
and  the  more  widely  it  was  known  the  more  gen 
erally  was  it  received  as  canonical,  until  it  took  it4 
place  without  further  dispute  as  a  portion  of  the 
volume  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  state  of  the  case  as  regards  its  reception  by 
the  church   is  briefly  as  follows :  — 

It  is  wanting  in  the  Peshito  (which  of  itself 
proves  that  the  supposed  Evangelist  of  Edessa  could 
not  have  been  its  author),  nor  is  there  any  trace  of 
its  use  by  the  Asiatic  churches  up  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  4th  century ;  but  it  is  quoted  as 
apostolic    by  Ephrem  Syrus  {0pp.  Syr.  i.  p.  136). 

The  earUest  notice  of  the  epistle  is  in  the  famoua 
Muratorian  Fragment  (circa  A.  d.  170)  where  we 
read  "  Epistola  sane  Judae  et  superscripti  Johannis 
duae  in  Catholica  "  {liunsen,  Antflect.  Ante-Nic. 
i.  152,  reads  "  Catholicis  ")  "  habentur.'' 

Clement  of  Alexandria  is  the  first  father  of  the 
church  by  whom  it  is  recognized  {Fceday.  1.  iii. 
c.  8,  p.  239,  ed.  Sylburg. ;  Stroviat.  1.  iii.  c.  2,  p. 
431,  Aduinbr.  I.  c).  Eusebius  also  informs  us 
(//.  A",  vi.  14)  that  it  was  among  the  books  of  Ca- 
nonical Scripture,  of  which  explanations  were  given 
in  the  Hypotyposes  of  Clement;  and  Cassiodorus 
(Bunsen,  Anuiect.  Ante-Nlc.  i.  330-333)  gives  some 
notes  on  this  epistle  drawn  from  the  same  source. 

Origen  refers  to  it  expressly  as  the  work  of  the 
Lord's  brother  ( Commend,  in  Matt.  xiii.  55,  56,  t. 
X.  §  17):  "  Jude  wrote  an  epistle  of  but  few  verses, 
yet  filled  with  vigorous  words  of  heavenly  grace." 
He  quotes  it  several  times  {flomil.  in  Gen.  xiii.  j. 
in  Jos.  vii. ;  in  Ezech.  iv. ;  Comment,  in  Matt.  t. 
xiii.  27,  XV.  27,  xvii.  30;  in  Joann.  t.  xiii.  §  37;  in 
Roin.  1.  iii.  §  6,  v.  §  1 ;  De  Princip.  1.  iii.  c.  2,  §  1), 
though  he  implies  in  one  place  the  existence  of 
doubts  as  to  its  canonicity,  "  if  indeed  the  Epistle 
of  Jude  be  received  "  {Comment,  in  Matt.  xxii.  23, 
t.  xvii.  §30). 

Eusebius  (//.  E.  iii.  25)  distinctly  classes  it  with 
the  Antilegomena,  which  were  nevertheless  recog- 
nized by  the  majority  of  Christians;  and  as- 
serts (ii.  23)  that,  in  common  with  the  Epistle  of) 
James,  it  was  "  deemed  spurious "  {vodeverai), 
though  together  with  the  other  Catholic  Epistles 
publicly  read  in  most  churches. 

Of  the  Latin  Fathers,  Tertullian  once  expressly 
cites  this  epistle  as  the  work  of  an  Apostle  {de  Hub. 
Mulieb.  i.  3),  as  does  Jerome.  "  from  whom  (Enoch) 
the  Apostle  Jude  in  his  epistle  has  given  a  quota- 
tion "  {in  Tit.  c.  i.  p.  708),  though  on  the  other  hand 
he  informs  us  that  in  consequence  of  the  quota- 
tion from  this  apocryphal  book  of  Enoch  it  is  re- 
jected by  most,  adding,  that  "  it  has  obtained  such 
authority  from  antiquity  and  use,  that  it  is  now 
reckoned  among  Holy  Scripture "  {Catfd.  Scrip- 
tor.  Eccles.).  He  refers  to  it  as  tlie  work  of  an 
Apostle  {Epist.  ad  Paulin.  iii.). 

The  epistle  is  also  quoted  by  Malchion,  a  pres- 
byter of  Antioch,  in  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of  Alai' 


1506        JUDE,   EPISTLE  OF 

ludria  and  Koine  (Euseb.   H.  E.  vii.  30),  and  by  i 
Talladius,  the  friend  of  Chrysostom  (Chrys.  0pp.  j 
t.  xiii.,  Dial.  cc.  18,  20),  and  is  contained  in  the  I 
Laodicene  (a.  d.  303),  Carthaginian   (397),  and  so- 
called  Apostolic  Catalogues,  as   well  as   in    those 
emanating  from  the  churches  of  the  East  and  West, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Synopsis  of  Chrysostom, 
and  those  of  (Jassiodorus  and  Ebed  Jesu. 

Various  reasons  might  be  assigned  for  delay  in 
receiving  this  ejjistle,  and  the  doubts  long  preva- 
lent respecting  it.  The  uncertainty  as  to  its  author, 
and  his  standing  in  the  church ,  the  unimportant 
nature  of  its  contents,  and  their  almost  absolute 
identity  with  2  Pet.  ii.,  and  the  supposed  quota- 
tion of  apocryphal  books,  would  all  tend  to  create 
a  prejudice  against  it,  which  could  be  only  over- 
come by  time,  and  the  gradual  recognition  by  the 
leading  churches  of  its  genuineness  and  canonicity. 

At  the  Reformation  the  doubts  on  the  canonical 
authority  of  this  epistle  were  revived,  and  have 
been  shared  in  by  modern  commentators.  They 
were  more  or  less  entertained  by  Grotius,  Luther. 
Calvin,  Berger,  Bolten,  Dahl,  Michaelis,  and  the 
Magdeburg  Centuriators.  It  has  been  ably  defended 
by  Jessien,  de  Aut/ientla  Kp.  Judae,  lips.  1821. 

III.  Time  (iiid  PLuce  of  Writing.  —  Here  all  is 
conjecture.  The  author  being  not  absolutely  cer- 
tain, there  are  no  external  grounds  for  deciding  the 
point;  and  the  internal  evidence  is  but  small.  The 
question  of  its  date  is  connected  with  that  of  its 
relation  to  2  I'eter  (see  below,  §  vi.),  and  an  earher 
or  later  period  has  been  assigned  to  it  according  as 
it  has  been  consideied  to  have  been  anterior  or  pos- 
terior to  that  epistle.  From  the  character  of  the 
errors  against  which  it  is  directed,  it  cannot  be 
placed  very  early:  though  there  is  no  sufficient 
ground  for  Schleiennacher's  opinion  that  "  in  the 
last  time"  (eV  eVxc^Ty  XP^^V^  ^'^''-  ^^'  ^^-  ^ 
John  ii.  18,  4ax<^Tr}  a>pa  iari)  forbids  our  pla- 
cing it  in  the  apostolic  age  at  all.  Lardner  places 
it  between  A.  i).  04  and  00,  Davidson  before  A.  D. 
70,  Credner  A.  d.  80,  Calmet,  Estius,  Witsius,  and 
Neander,  after  the  death  of  all  the  Apostles  but 
John,  and  perhaps  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem; 
although  considerable  weight  is  to  be  given  to  the 
argument  of  DeWette  {Kinldt.  in  N.  T.  p.  300), 
that  if  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  already 
taken  place,  some  warning  would  have  been  drawn 
from  so  signal  an  instance  of  God's  vengeance  on 
the  "  ungodly." 

There  are  no  data  from  which  to  determine  the 
place  of  writing.  Burton  however,  is  of  opin- 
ion that  inasmuch  as  the  descendants  of  "  Judas 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,"  if  we  identify  him  with 
the  author  of  the  epistle,  were  found  in  Palestine, 
he  probal)ly  "  did  not  absent  himself  long  from  his 
native  country,"  and  that  the  epistle  was  pubUshed 
there,  since  he  styles  himself  "the  brother  of 
James,"  "an  expression  most  likely  to  be  used  in 
a  country  where  James  was  well  known  "  {J'^cdes. 
Hist.  i.  334). 

IV.  For  ithai  Readers  designed. —  The  readers 
are  nowhere  expressly  defined.  The  address  (ver. 
1 )  is'  applicable  to  Christians  generally,  and  there 
•is  nothing  in  the  body  of  the  epistle  to  limit  its 
reference ;  and  though  it  is  not  improbable  that  the 
author  had  a  particular  portion  of  the  church  in 
view,  and  that  the  Christians  of  Palestine  were  the 
immediate  objects  of  his  warning,  the  dangers  de- 
■cribed  were  such  as  the  whole  Christian  world  was 
exposed  to,  and  the  adversaries  the  same  which  had 
werj'where  to  be  guarded  against. 


JUDE,    EPISTLE   OF 

V.  Jts  Object,  Omlents,  and  Style.—  The  objecl 
of  the  Epistle  is  plainly  enough  announced,  ver.  3; 
"  it  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you  and  ex- 
hort you  that  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the 
faith  that  was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints:"  the 
reason  for  this  exhortation  is  given  ver.  4,  m  the 
stealthy  introduction  of  certain  "  ungodly  men, 
turning  the  grace  of  our  God  into  lasciviousness, 
and  denying  the  only  Lord  God  and  our  Ix)rd 
Jesus  Christ."  The  remainder  of  the  epistle  ii 
almost  entirely  occupied  by  a  minute  depiction  of 
these  adversaries  of  the  faith  —  not  heretical  teach- 
ers (as  has  been  sometimes  supposed),  which  con- 
stitutes a  marked  distinction  between  this  epistle 
and  that  of  St.  Peter  —  whom  in  a  torrent  of  impas- 
sioned invective  he  describes  as  stained  with  unnat- 
ural lusts,  like  "  the  angels  that  kept  not  their  first 
estate  "  (whom  he  evidently  identifies  with  the 
sons  of  God,"  Gen.  vi.  2),  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  —  as  despisers  of  all  legiti- 
mate authority  (ver.  8)  —  murderers  like  Cain  — 
covetous  like  Balaam  —  rebellious  like  Korah  (ver. 
11)  —  destined  from  of  old  to  be  signal  monuments 
of  the  Divine  vengeance,  which  he  confirms  by 
reference  to  a  prophecy  cuiTent  among  the  Jews, 
and  traditionally  assigned  to  Enoch  (vv.    14,  15). 

The  epistle  closes  by  briefly  reminding  the  read- 
ers of  the  oft-repeated  prediction  of  the  Apostles 
—  among  whom  the  writer  seems  not  to  rank  him- 
self—  that  the  faith  would  be  assailed  by  such 
enemies  as  he  has  depicted  (vv.  17-19),  exhorting 
them  to  maintain  their  own  steadfastness  in  the 
faith  (vv.  20,  21),  while  they  earnestly  sought  to 
rescue  others  from  the  corrupt  example  of  those 
licentious  livers  (w.  22,  23),  and  commending 
them  to  the  power  of  God  in  language  which  forci- 
bly recalls  the  closing  benediction  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Komans  (vv.  24,  25;  cf.  Bom.  x\'i.  25,  27). 

This  epistle  presents  one  peculiarity,  which,  as 
we  learn  from  St.  Jerome,  caused  its  authority  to 
be  impugned  in  very  early  times  —  the  supposed 
citation  of  apocryphal  writings    (vv.  9,  14,  15). 

The  former  of  these  passages,  containing  the 
reference  to  the  contest  of  the  archangel  Michael 
and  the  Devil  "  about  the  body  of  Moses,"  was 
supposed  by  Origen  to  have  been  founded  on  a 
Jewish  work  called  the  "Assumption  of  Moses" 
{'hv6.\'i]y\iis  Mwafus),  quoted  al.so  by  Qi^cumenius 
(ii.  629).  Origen's  words  are  express,  "which 
little  work  the  Apostle  Jude  has  made  mention  of 
in  his  epistle"  {de  Princip.  iii.  2,  i.  p.  138);  and 
some  have   sought  to  identify  the  book  with  the 

nr?»  riri^^C,  »  riie  death  of  Moses;'  which 
is,  however,  proved  by  Michaelis  (iv.  382)  to  be  a 
modern  composition.  Attempts  have  also  l)eeu 
made  by  Lardner,  Macknight,  Vitringa,  and  others, 
to  interpret  the  passage  in  a  mystical  sense,  by 
reference  to  Zech.  iii.  1,  2;  but  the  similarity  is  too 
distant  to  aflf"ord  any  weight  to  the  idea.  There 
is,  on  the  whole,  little  question  that  the  writer  is 
here  making  use  of  a  Jewish  tradition,  based  on 
Deut.  xxxiv.  6,  just  as  facts  unrecorded  in  Scrip- 
ture are  referred  to  by  St.  Paul  (2  Tim.  iii.  8; 
Gal.  iii.  19);  by  the  WTiter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  (ii.  2.  xi.  24);  by  St.  James  (v.  17),  and 
St.  Stephen  (Acts  vii.  22,  23,  30). 

As  regards  the  supposed  quotation  from  the 
Book  of  Enoch,  the  question  is  not  so  clear  whether 
St.  Jude  is  making  a  citation  from  a  work  already 
in  the  hands  of  his  readers  —  which  is  the  opinioc 
of  Jerome  (J.,  c.)  and  Tertullian  (who  was  in  Qon» 


JUDE,   EPISTLE   OF 

juenee  inclined  to  receive  the  Book  of  Enoch  as 
tanoiiical  Scripture),  and  has  been  held  by  many 
laodern  critics  —  or  is  employing  a  traditionary 
prophecy  not  at  that  time  committed  to  writing  (a 
theory  which  the  words  used,  "  Enoch  prophesied 
sayiny  "  iirpo(p-f]rev<rev  •  •  '  'Euiox  Kiycov-,  seem 
rather  to  favor),  but  afterwards  embodied  in  the 
apocryphal  work  already  named  [Enoch,  the 
Book  of].  This  is  maintained  by  Tregelles 
{Home's  Inlrod.  10th  ed.,  iv.  621),  and  has  been 
held  by  Cave,  Hofmatm  {Schri/tbeiveis,  i.  420), 
Lightfoot  (ii.  117),  W'itsius,  and  (^alvin  (cf.  Jerom. 
Comment,  in  Eph.  c.  v.  p.  647,  648;  in  Tit.  c.  1, 
p.  708) 

Tlie  main  body  of  the  epistle  is  wqII  character- 
ized by  Alford  ( G^r.  Test.  iv.  147)  as  an  impassioned 
invective,  in  the  impetuous  whirlwind  of  which  the 
writer  is  hurried  along,  collecting  example  after  ex- 
ample of  Divine  vengeance  on  the  ungodly ;  heap- 
ing epithet  upon  epithet,  and  piling  image  upon 
Image,  and  as  it  were  laboring  for  words  and  images 
strong  enough  to  depict  the  polluted  character  of 
the  licentious  apostates  against  whom  he  is  warning 
the  church ;  returning  again  and  again  to  the  sub- 
ject, as  though  all  language  was  insufficient  to  give 
an  adequate  idea  of  their  profligacy,  and  to  express 
his  burning  hatred  of  their  perversion  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel. 

The  epistle  is  said  by  DeWette  {Einleit.  in  N.  T. 
p.  300)  to  be  tolerably  good  Greek,  though  there 
are  some  peculiarities  of  diction  which  have  led 
Schmidt  {Einleit.  i.  314)  and  Bertholdt  (vi.  3194) 
to  imagine  an  Aramaic  original. 

VI.  ReiUion  between  the  Epistles  of  Jvde  and 
2  Peter. —  It  is  familiar  to  all  that  the  larger  por- 
tion of  this  epistle  (ver.  3-16)  is  almost  identical 
in  language  and  subject  with  a  part  of  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Peter  (2  Pet.  ii.  1-19).  In  both,  the 
heretical  enemies  of  the  Gospel  are  described  in 
terms  so  similar  as  to  preclude  all  idea  of  entire 
independence.  *  This  question  is  examined  in  the 
article  Pkteu,  Second  Epistle  of. 

As  might  be  expected  from  the  comparatively 
unimportant  character  of  the  epistle,  critical  and 
exegetical  editions  of  it  have  not  been  numerous. 
We^  may  specify  Arnaud,  Recherches  Grit,  sur 
C  J^pitre  de  Jurle.,  Strasb.  and  Par.  1851;  Laur- 
mann,  Nut.  Grit,  et  Gommentar.  in  Ep.  Jud., 
Groningae,  1818;  Scharling,  Jacob,  et  Jud.  Ep. 
Cathol.  comment..,  Ilavniae,  1841;  Stier,  On  the 
Epistles  of  James  and  Jude ;  Herder,  Briefe 
zweener  Briider  Jesu,  Lemgo,  1775;  Augusti, 
Welcker,  Benson,  and  Macknight,  on  the  Catholic 
Epistles.  E.  V. 

*  It  is  impossible  in  a  limited  space  to  discuss 
the  relations  between  this  epistle  and  the  Second 
('f  St.  Peter;  but  it  may  be  assumed  that  an  at- 
tentive consideration  of  them  will  show  that  the 
two  epistles  could  not  have  been  written  independ- 
ently. I^ess  certain,  and  yet  probable,  is  the  con- 
clusion that  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  was  the  earlier 
of  the  two.  If  this  be  accepted,  then  the  date 
of  the  death  of  St.  Peter  in  A.  d.  68  becomes  a 
fixed  poiut  in  determining  the  date  of  the  Epistle 
»f  St.  .Jude,  and  the  question  of  date  is  thus 
brought  within  narrow  limits,  as  the  whole  contents 
3f  the  epistle  prove  it  to  have  been  comparatively 
ate. 

It  is  extremely  unlikely  that  two  epistles  so  sim- 
lar  and  so  nearly  of  the  same  date  should  have  been 
iddressed  primarily  to  the  same  readers.  It  may 
therefore  be  argued  negatively  that  the  Epistle  of 


JUDE,   EPISTLE   OF 


1507 


St.  Jude  was  not  first  sent  to  the  Christians  of  Asia 
Minor,  As  the  earliest  testimony  to  the  epistle 
comes  from  Alexandria,  it  has  been  suggested  that 
Egypt  may  have  been  the  original  destination  of 
the  '.ipistle. 

The  expression  in  the  first  paragraph  of  section 
v.,  in  the  preceding  article,  "  these  adversaries  of 
the  faith  —  not  heretical  teachers  (as  has  been 
sometimes  supposed)  which  constitutes  a  marked  dis- 
tinction between  this  epistle  and  that  of  St.  Peter  " 

—  is  not  easily  understood  in  connection  with  the 
statement  in  VI.,  "  In  both  the  heretical  enemies  of 
the  Gosjiel  are  described  in  terras  so  similar  as  to 
preclude  all  idea  of  entire  independence."  Certainly 
the  terms  in  both  epistles  are  quite  similar,  and  must 
refer  to  the  same  class  of  persons.  It  is  plain  enough 
that  they  were  persons  loithin  the  church ;  "  men 
crept  in  unawares  "  (Jude  4),  "  spots  in  your  feastg 
of  charity,  when  they  feast  with  you  "  (12).  St. 
Peter  expressly  calls  them  teachers  (ii.  1);  St.  Jude 
describes  their  teaching  and  its  eiFects. 

The  analysis  of  the  epistle  may  be  given  some- 
what more  fully,  since  notwithstanding  its  warmth 
and  glow,  it  is  most  thoroughly  planned  and  care- 
fully arranged.  After  the  salutation  (1,  2),  and  the 
reason  for  writing  (3,  4),  follows  an  argument  for 
the  certain  punishment  of  the  ungodly  from  a  series 
of  historical  examples  (5,  6,  7).  The  application 
of  this  is  made  in  the  following  verse,  and  then,  in 
contrast,  an  example  is  given  of  godly  conduct  (9) 
and  a  further  application  (10).  After  this  follows 
a  denunciation  of  the  ungodly  by  a  series  of  ex- 
amples (11),  and  by  five  comparisons  (12,  13). 
The  certain  punishment  of  the  ungodly  is  then 
further  shown  by  prophecy;  first,  the  prophecy  of 
Enoch,  as  the  most  ancient  possible,  and  its  appli- 
cation (14-16),  then  as  the  most  recent,  thus  show- 
ing perfect  accord  in  all  time,  the  prophecy  of  the 
Apostles,  with  its  application  (17-19).  This  con- 
cludes the  argumentative  part  of  the  epistle,  and 
then  follows  an  exhortation  to  the  faithful,  (a.)  in 
regard  to  their  own  spiritual  welfare  (20,  21),  and 
{b.)  in  regard  to  those  corrupted  by  the  ungodly 
(22,  23).  The  epistle  closes  with  a  benediction 
(24)  and  doxology  (25). 

There  is  nothing  in  the  epistle  to  indicate  that 
the  author  identified  "  the  angels  that  kept  not 
their  first  estate"  (6)  with  the  "sons  of  God"" 
mentioned  in  Gen.  vi.  2.  This  was  an  interpreta- 
tion current  in  the  church  of  the  second  century ; 
but  the  sin  of  the  angels  here  mentioned  must  have 
occurred  before  man  was  placed  upon  the  earth. 

In  regard  to  the  quotation  from  Enoch,  the  re>- 
mark  above  made,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  St. 
Jude  quoted  from  any  book,  is  very  just.  It  is 
certain  that  he  could  not  have  made  use  of  our 
present  "  book  of  Enoch,"  as  that  work  bears  de- 
cisive internal  evidence  of  not  having  been  written 
before  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  In  the 
article  Enoch,  the  book  of,  a  great  variety  of 
opinions  will  be  found  given  on  this  matter.  The 
only  ground  however,  on  which  it  seems  possible 
to  assign  an  earlier  date  to  this  volume  than  to  the 
writings  of  the  New  Testament,  is  that  of  its  having 
been  subsequently  largely  altered  and  interpolated 

—  a  supposition  which  makes  it  to  have  been  orig- 
inally a  different  book  from  that  which  we  now 
have.  Without  denying  the  possibility  of  there 
having  been  another  more  ancient  "  book  of  Enoch  " 
from  which  the  present  one  has  been  formed,  it  is 
sufficient  to  say  that  such  a  supposition  deprives  if 
of  all  interest  in  the  present  connection,  and  it 


I 


1508        JUDE,  EFISTLE  OF 

remains  that  St.  Jude  could  not  have  quoted  from 
the  book  as  we  now  have  it.  Such  suppositions 
however,  are  always  cumbrous,  useless,  and  unsatis- 
factory, in  the  absence  of  any  proof,  and  it  is  far 
more  agreeable  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  evidence  to 
consider  the  whole  book  as  a  forgery  of  the  second 
century  —  a  period  when  works  of  this  character 
abounded.  F.  G. 

*  Literature.  —  For  references  to  the  more  im- 
portant general  commentaries  which  include  the 
Epistle  of  Jude,  see  the  addition  to  John,  First 
Epistle  of.  The  following  special  works  may  also 
be  noted:  H.  Witsius,  Comm.  in  Epist.  Judce, 
Lugd.  Bat.  1703,  4to,  reprinted  in  his  Mehtemata 
Leidensia,  Basil.  1739.  C  F.  Schmid,  Observa- 
tiones  super  Ep.  cath.  S.  Juclce,  Lips.  1768.  Semler, 
Parajihrasis  in  Epist.  ii.  Petri,  et  Epist.  Judce, 
cum  Vet.  Lat.  Translaiionis  VaiHetate,  Notis,  etc. 
Halae,  1784.  H.  C.  A.  Hiinlein,  Ep.  Judce,  Greece, 
Comm.  critico  et  Annot.  perijet.  illustrata,  2d  ed. 
Erlang.  1799,  3d  ed.  1804.  Schneckenburger, 
Scholien,  u.  s.  w.  in  his  Beitrdge  zur  Einl.  ins 
N.  7'.,  Stuttg.  1832,  p.  214  fF.  De  Wette,  Kurze 
Erkldrung  d.  Brief  e  d.  Petrus  Judas  u.  Jakob  us, 
Leipz.  1847,  3e  Ausg.  bearb.  von  B.  Briickner, 
1865  (Bd.  iii.  Th.  i.  of  his  Kurzyef.  txeget.  Hnndb.). 
Huther,  Krit.  exeget.  IJandbuch  iib.  d.  1.  Brief  d. 
Petrus,  d.  Bi-iefd.  Judas  u.  d.  2.  Brief  d.  Petrus, 
Gott.  1852,  3e  Aufl.  1867  (Abth.  xii.  of  Meyer's 
Kommentar).  M.  F.  Kampf,  Der  Brief  Judts, 
hist.  hit.  exeget.  betrachtet,  Sulzb.  1854.  Fron- 
miiller.  Die  Brief e  Petri  u.  d.  Brief  Juda  theoL- 
homilet.  benrbeitet,  ]«elefeld,  1859,  2^  Aufl.  1862 
(Theil  xiv.  of  Lange's  Bibdwerk);  translated,  with 
additions,  by  J.  I.  Monibert,  New  York,  1867  (part 
of  vol.  ix.  of  Lange's  Comm.).  Wiesinger,  JJer 
zweite  Brief  des  Apost.  Petrus  u.  d.  Brief  d.  Judas 
erkldrt,  Konigsb.  1862  (Bd.  vi.  Abth.  iii.  of  Olshau- 
Ben's  Bibl.  Comm.).  Theod.  Schott,  Der  zweite 
Brief  Petri  u.  d.  BriefJudd  erkldrt,  Erlang.  1863. 
Holtzmann,  German  transl.  and  brief  notes,  in 
Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  vol.  iv.  (1864),  p.  630  ff.,  comp. 
vol.  viii.  p.  590.  In  Enghsh,  some  of  the  old  Puritan 
divines  expatiated  at  great  length  on  this  epistle, 
as  W.  Perkins  (66  sermons),  W.  Jenkyn,  and  T. 
Manton  (Lond.  1658).  Jenkyn's  Exposition,  2 
parts,  Lond.  1652-54,  4to,  has  been  several  times 
reprinted  (Lond.  1656;  Glasgow,  1783;  Lond.  1839; 
Edinb.  1863).  Practical  expositions  have  also  been 
given  by  W.  Muir  (1822),  E.  Bickersteth  (1846), 
and  W.  Macgillivray  (1846);  see  Darling's  Cyclop. 
BiUiographica,  (Subjects),  col.  1728.  In  our  own 
country  we  have  Barnes's  Notes  {Epistles  of  James, 
Peter,  John,  and  Jude,  New  York,  1847);  The 
Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the  Epistles  of  John  and 
Judas,  and  the  Revelation,  translated  from  the 
Greek,  with  notes  (by  the  Rev.  John  Lillie),  New 
York,  1854,  4to  (.\mer.  Bible  Union);  and  the 
Rev.  Frederic  Gardiner's  The  Last  of  the  Epistles ; 
a  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  Boston, 
1856,  with  Excursus,  and  an  Appendix  on  the 
similarity  between  this  epistle  and  the  Second  of 
St.  Peter  (abridged  from  his  art.  in  the  Bibl.  Sacra 
for  January,  1854). 

On  the  critical  questions  relating  to  the  epistle 
one  may  consult,  in  addition  to  the  Introductions 
to  the  New  Testament  by  De  Wette,  Keuss,  Bleek, 
Davidson,  and  others,  J.  C.  G.  Dahl,  De  avdevria 
Epistt.  PetmtOi  2>osterioiis  et  Judce,  Rost.  1807; 


a  The  expression  DMTI^!?  W"*???  (Num.xxv.14) 
■  nnuukable,  and  Momi  to  mean  '  the  patriarchal 


JUDGES 

L.  A.  Amaud,  Essai  crit.  sur  t authenticiie  (k 
I'epitre  de  Jude,  Strasb.  1835;  F.  Brun,  Mrod 
crit.  a  tepitre  de  Jude,  Strasb.  1842;  and  A 
Kitschl,  Ueber  die  im  Brief e  des  Judas  charak- 
terisirten  Antinomisten,  in  the  Theol.  Stud.  u.  Krit. 
1861,  pp.  103-113.  See  also,  especially  on  the 
relation  of  the  2d  Epistle  of  Peter  to  that  of  Jude, 
the  hterature  under  Peter,  Second  Epistle  of. 

A. 

*  JUDE'A.       [JUD.EA.] 

*  JU'DETH.     [Judith,  2.] 
JUDGES.   The  administration  of  justice  in  all 

early  eastern  nations,  as  amongst  the  Arabs  of  the 
desert  to  this  day,  rests  with  the  patriarchaj 
seniors ;«  the  judges  being  the  heads  of  tribes,  oi 
of  chief  houses  in  a  tribe.  Such  from  their  elevated 
position  would  have  the  requisite  leisure,  would  be 
able  to  make  their  decisions  respected,  and  through 
the  wider  intercourse  of  superior  station  woiild 
decide  with  fuller  experience  and  riper  reflection. 
Thus  in  the  book  of  Job  (xxix.  7,  8,  9)  the  patri- 
archal magnate  is  represented  as  going  forth  "  to 
the  gate  "  amidst  the  respectful  silence  of  elders, 
princes,  and  nobles  (comp.  xxxii.  9).  The  actual 
chiefs  of  individual  tribes  are  mentioned  on  various 
occasions,  one  as  late  as  the  time  of  David,  as  pre- 
serving importance  in  the  commonwealth  (Num. 
vii.  2,  10,  11,  xvii.  6,  or  17  in  Heb.  text;  xxxiv. 
18;  Josh.  xxii.  14,  so  perh.  Num.  xvi.  2,  xxi.  18). 
Whether  the  princes  of  the  trilies  mentioned  in  1 
Chr.  xxvii.  16,  xxviii.  1,  are  patriarchal  heads,  or 
merely  chief  men  appointed  by  the  king  to  govern, 
is  not  strictly  certain ;  but  it  would  be  foreign  to 
all  ancient  eastern  analogy  to  suppose  that  they 
forfeited  the  judicial  prerogative,  until  reduced  and 
overshadowed  by  the  monarchy,  which  in  David's 
time  is  contrary  to  the  tenor  of  history.  During 
the  oppression  of  Egypt  the  na.scent  people  would 
necessarily  have  few  questions  at  law  to  plead ;  and 
the  Egyptian  magistrate  would  tak»  cognizance  of 
theft,  violence,  and  other  matters  of  police.  Yet 
the  question  put  to  Moses  shows  that  "  a  prince  " 
and  "  a  judge"  were  connected  even  then  in  the 
popular  idea  (Ex.  ii.  14;  comp.  Num.  xvi.  13). 
When  they  emerged  from  this  oppression  into 
national  existence,  the  want  of  a  machinery  of  judi- 
cature began  to  press.  The  patriarchal  seniors  did 
not  instantly  assume  the  function,  having  probably 
been  depressed  by  bondage  till  rendered  unfit  for  it, 
not  having  become  experienced  in  such  matters, 
nor  having  secured  the  confidence  of  their  tribes- 
men. Perhaps  for  these  reasons  Moses  at  first  took 
the  whole  burden  of  judicature  upon  himself,  then 
at  the  suggestion  of  Jethro  (Ex.  xviii.  14-24)  in- 
stituted judges  over  numerically  graduated  sections 
of  the  people.  These  were  chosen  for  their  moral 
fitness,  but  from  Deut.  i.  15,  16,  we  may  infer  that 
they  were  taken  from  amongst  those  to  whom 
primogeniture  would  have  assigned  it.  Save  in 
oflfenses  of  public  magnitude,  criminal  cases  do  not 
appear  to  have  been  distinguished  from  ci\il.  The 
duty  of  teaching  the  people  the  knov  ledge  of  the 
law  which  pertained  to  the  Levites,  doubtless  in- 
cluded such  instruction  as  would  assist  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  were  thus  to  decide  according 
to  it.  The  Invites  were  thus  the  ultimate  sources 
of  ordinary  jurisprudence,  and  perhaps  the  "teach- 
ing "  aforesaid  may  merely  mean  the  expounding 
the  law  as  applicable  to  difficult  cases  arising  i» 

senior  of  a  subdiviaion  of  the  tribe  ;comp.  1  Chr.  It 
88,  Judg.  ▼.  8, 15). 


JUDGES 

nucticd.  Beyond  this,  it  is  not  possible  to  indicate 
»ny  division  of  the  provinces  of  deciding  on  points 
of  law  as  distinct  from  points  of  fact.  The  judges 
mentioned  as  standing  before  Joshua  in  the  great 
assemblies  of  the  people  must  be  understood  as  the 
successors  to  those  chosen  by  Moses,  and  had  doubt- 
less been  elected  with  Joshua's  sanction  from  among 
the  same  general  class  of  patriarchal  seniors  (Josh. 
iv.  2,  4,  xxii.  14,  xxiv.  1). 

The  judge  was  reckoned  a  sacred  person,  and 
Becured  even  from  verbal  injuries.  Seeking  a  de- 
cision at  law  is  called  "  enquiring  of  God  "  (Ex. 
xviii.  15).  The  term  "  gods  "  is  actually  applied 
to  judges  (Ex.  xxi.  6;  comp.  Ps.  Ixxxii.  1,  6).  The 
judge  was  told,  "  thou  shalt  not  be  afraid  of  the 
face  of  men,  for  the  judgment  is  God's;  "  and  thus, 
whilst  human  instrumentality  was  indispensable, 
the  source  of  justice  was  upheld  as  divine,  and  the 
purity  of  its  administration  only  sank  with  the 
decline  of  religious  feeling.  In  this  spirit  speaks 
Ps.  Ixxxii.,  —  a  lofty  charge  addressed  to  all  who 
judge;  comp.  the  qualities  regarded  as  essential  at 
the  institution  of  the  ofBce,  Ex.  xviii.  21 
strict  admonition  of  Deut.  xvi.  18-20.  But  besides 
the  sacred  dignity  thus  given  to  the  only  royal 
function,  which,  under  the  Theocracy,  lay  in  human 
hands,  it  was  made  popular  by  being  vested  in  those 
who  led  public  feeling,  and  its  importance  in  the 
public  eye  appears  from  such  passages  as  Ps.  Ixix. 
12  (comp.  cxix.  23),  Ixxxii.,  cxlviii.  11;  Prov.  viii. 
15,  xxxi.  4,  5,  2-3.  There  could  have  been  no  con- 
siderable need  for  the  legal  studies  and  expositions 
of  the  Levites  during  the  wanderings  in  the  wilder- 
ness while  Moses  was  alive  to  solve  all  questions, 
and  while  the  law  which  they  were  to  expound 
was  not  wholly  delivered.  The  Invites,  too,  had  a 
charge  of  cattle  to  look  after  in  that  wilderness  like 
the  rest,  and  seem  to  have  acted  also,  being  Moses' 
own  tribe,  as  supports  to  his  executive  authority. 
But  then  few  of  the  greater  entanglements  of  prop- 
erty could  arise  before  the  people  were  settled  in 
their  possession  of  Canaan.  Thus  they  were  dis- 
ciplined in  smaller  matters,  and  under  Moses'  own 
eye,  for  greater  ones.  When,  however,  the  com- 
mandment, "judges  and  officers  shalt  thou  make 
thee  in  all  thy  gates"  (Deut.  xvi.  18),  came  to  be 
fulfilled  in  Canaan,  there  were  the  following  sources 
from  which  those  officials  might  be  supplied :  1st, 
the  ex  officio  judges,  or  their  successors,  as  chosen 
by  Moses;  2dly,  any  surplus  left  of  patriarchal 
seniors  when  they  were  taken  out  (as  has  been 
shown  from  Deut.  i.  15,  16)  from  that  class;  and 
3dly,  the  Levites.  On  what  principle  the  non- 
Levitical  judges  were  chosen  after  Divine  superin- 


JUDGES 


1509 


tendence  was  interrupted  at  Joshua's  death  is  not 
clear.  A  simple  way  would  have  been  for  the 
existing  judges  in  every  X)wn,  etc.,  to  choose  their 
own  colleagues,  as  vacancies  fell,  from  among  the 
limited  number  of  persons  who,  being  heads  of 
famiUes,  were  competent.  Generally  speaking,  the 
reputation  for  superior  wealth,  as  some  guarantee 
against  facilities  of  corruption,  would  determine  the 
choice  of  a  judge,  and,  taken  in  connection  with 
personal  qualities,  would  tend  to  limit  the  choice 
to  probably  a  very  few  persons  in  pi-actice.  The 
supposition  that  judicature  will  always  be  provided 
for  is  carried  through  all  the  books  of  the  Law  (see 
Ex.  xxi.  6,  xxii.  pass. ;  Lev.  xix.  15;  Num.  xxxv. 
24;  Deut.  i.  16,  xvi.  18,  xxv.  1).  And  all  that 
we  know  of  the  facts  of  later  history  confirms  the 
supposition.  The  Hebrews  were  sensitive  as  regards 
the  administration  of  justice;  nor  is  the  free  spirit 
of  their  early  commonwealth  in  anything  more 
manifest  than  in  the  resentment  which  followed  the 
venal  or  partial  judge.  The  fact  that  justice  re- 
posed on  a  popular  basis  of  administration  largely 
and  the  j  contributed  to  keep  up  this  spirit  of  independence, 
which  is  the  ultimate  check  on  all  perversions  of 
the  tribunal.  The  popular  aristocracy  «  of  heads 
of  tribes,  sections  of  tribes,  or  families,  is  found  to 
fall  into  two  main  orders  of  varying  nomenclature, 
and  rose  from  the  capite  censi,  or  mere  citizens, 
upwards.  The  more  common  name  for  the  higher 
order  is  "princes,"  and  for  the  lower,  "elders" 
(Judg.  viii.  14;  Ex.  ii.  14;  Job  xxix.  7,  8,  9;  Ezr 
X.  8).  These  orders  were  the  popular  element  of 
judicature.  On  the  other  hand  the  Levitical  body 
was  imbued  with  a  keen  sense  of  allegiance  to  God 
as  the  Author  of  Law,  and  to  the  Covenant  as  his 
embodiment  of  it.  and  soon  gained  whatever  forensic 
experience  and  erudition  those  simple  times  could 
yield ;  hence  they  brought  to  the  judicial  task  the 
legal  acumen  and  sense  of  general  principles  which 
complemented  the  ruder  lay  element.  Thus  the 
Hebrews  really  enjoyed  much  of  the  virtue  of  a 
system  which  allots  separate  provinces  to  judge  and 
jury,  although  we  cannot  trace  any  such  line  of 
separation  in  their  functions,  save  in  so  far  as  has 
been  indicated  above.  To  return  to  the  first  or 
popular  branch,  there  is  reason  to  think,  from  the 
general  concurrence  of  phraseology  amidst  much 
diversity,  that  in  every  city  these  two  ranks  of 
"  princes  "  and  "  elders  "  ^  had  their  analogies,  and 
that  a  variable  number  of  heads  of  families  and 
groups  of  families,  in  two  ranks,  were  popularly 
recognized,  whether  with  or  without  any  form  of 
election,  as  charged  with  the  duty  of  administering 
justice.     Succoth  c  (Judg.  viii.  14)  may  be  taken 


I 


a  This  term  is  used  for  want  of  a  better  ;  but  as 
regards  privileges  of  rfice,  the  tribe  of  Levi  and  house 
of  Aaron  were  the  only  aristocracy,  and  these,  by  their 
privation  as  regards  holding  land,  were  an  aristocracy 
Very  unlike  what  has  usually  gone  by  that  name. 

b  A  number  of  words  — e.  g.  S^b3,   "1^7,   l*':?^, 

«nd  (especially  in  the  book  of  Job)  ^"^T^  —  are  some- 
tnnes  rendered  "  proce  "  in  the  A.  V.  :  ine  first  most 
yearly  uniformly  so,  which  seems  designaiive  of  the 
Dassive  eminence  of  high  birth  or  position  ;  the  next, 

*^W,  expresses  active  and  official  authority.     Yet  as 

the  S'^ti^^  was  most  likely,  nay,  in  the  earlie?  annals, 

•er^ain,  to  be  the  "^127,  we  must  be  careful  o.  ex- 
loding  from  the  person  called  by  the  one  title  the 


qualities  denoted  by  the  other.  Of  the  two  remaining 
terms,  IZI'^T'5,  expressing  princely  qualities,  approaches 
most  nearly  to  S"^ti?D,  and  "T^2l3,  expressing  prom- 
inence of  station,  to  1W. 

c  The  princes  and  elders  here  were  togethei  77. 
The  subordination  in  numbers,  of  which  Ten  is  the 
bas*  of  Ex.  xviii.  and  Deut.  i.  16,  strongly  suggests 
tha^  70  -}-  7  were  the  actual  components  ;  although 
they  are  spoken  of  rather  as  regards  functions  of  ruling 
generally  than  of  judging  specially,  yet  we  need  not 
separate  the  two,  as  is  clear  from  Deut.  i.  16.  Such 
division  of  labor  assuredly  found  little  place  in  primi 
tive  times.  No  doubt  these  men  presided  "  in  th« 
gate."  The  number  of  Jacob's  family  (with  which 
Succoth  was  traditionally  connected,  Gten.  xxxiii   17) 


1510  JUDGES 

W  an  example.  Evidently  the  ex  officio  judges  of 
Moses'  choice  would  have  left  their  successors  when 
the  tribe  of  Gad,  to  which  Succoth  pertained  (Josh. 
xiii.  27),  settled  Ln  its  territory  and  towns:  and 
what  would  be  more  simple  than  that  the  whole 
number  of  judges  in  that  tribe  should  be  allotted 
to  its  towns  in  proportion  to  their  size  ?  As  such 
judges  were  mostly  the  headmen  by  genealogy, 
they  would  fall  into  their  natural  places,  and  sym- 
metry would  be  preserved.  The  Levites  also  were 
apportioned  on  the  whole  equally  among  the  tribes ; 
and  if  they  preserved  their  limits,  there  were  prob- 
ably few  parts  of  Palestine  beyond  a  day's  journey 
from  a  Levitical  city. 

One  great  hold  which  the  priesthood  had,  in 
their  jurisdiction,  upon  men's  ordinary  life  was  the 
custody  in  the  Sanctuary  of  the  standard  weights 
and  measures,  to  which,  in  cases  of  dispute,  reference 
was  doubtless  made.  It  is,  however,  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  in  most  towns  sufficiently  exact  models 
of  them  for  all  ordinary  questions  would  be  kept, 
since  to  refer  to  the  Sanctuary  at  Shiloh,  Jerusalem, 
etc.,  ui  every  case  of  dispute  between  dealers  would 
be  nugatory  (Ex.  xxx.  13;  Num.  iii.  47;  Ez.  xlv. 
12).  Above  all  these,  the  high-priest  in  the  ante- 
regal  period  was  the  resort  in  difficult  cases  (Dent, 
xvii.  12),  as  the  chief  jurist  of  the  nation,  and  who 
would  in  case  of  need  be  perhaps  oracularly  directed ; 
yet  we  hear  of  none  acting  as  judge  save  EU:  «  nor 
is  any  judicial  act  recorded  of  him ;  though  perhaps 
his  not  restraining  his  sons  is  meant  to  be  noticed 
as  a  failure  in  his  judicial  duties.  Now  the  judicial 
authority  of  any  such  supreme  tribunal  must  have 
wholly  lapsed  at  the  time  of  the  events  recorded  in 
Judg.  xix.''  It  is  also  a  fact  of  some  weight, 
negatively,  that  none  of  the  special  deliverers  called 
judges  was  of  priestly  lineage,  or  even  became  as 
much  noted  as  Deborah,  a  woman.  This  seems  to 
Bhow  that  any  central  action  of  the  high-priest  on 
national  unity  was  nuU,  and  of  this  supremacy,  had 
it  existed  in  force,  the  judicial  prerogative  was  the 
main  element.  Difficult  cases  would  include  cases 
of  appeal,  and  we  may  presume  that,  save  so  far  as 
the  authority  of  those  special  deliverers  made  itself 
felt,  there  was  no  judge  in  the  last  resort  from 
Joshua  to  Samuel.  Indeed  the  current  plirase  of 
those  deliverers  that  they  "judged"  Israel  during 
their  term,  shows  which  branch  of  their  authority 
was  most  in  request,  and  the  demand  of  the  people 
for  a  king  was,  in  the  first  instance,  that  he  might 
''judge  them,"  rather  than  that  he  might  "  fight 
their  battles"  (1  Sam.  viii.  5,  20). 

These  judges  were  15  in  number:  1.  Othniel; 
2.  Ehud;  3.  Shamgar;  4.  Deborah  and  Barak; 
5.  Gideon  ;  6.  Abimelech  ;  7.  Tola ;  8.  Jair ;  9. 
Jephthah;  10.  Ibzan;  11.  Elon;  12.  Abdon;  13. 
Samson;  14.  Eli;  15.  Samuel.  Their  history  is 
related  under  their  separate  names,  and  some  re- 


JUDGES 

I  marks  upon  the  first  thirteen,  contained   in   th< 

j  book  of  Judges,  are  made  in  the  following  article. 
The  chronology  of  this  period  is  discussed  undei 
Chronology  (vol.  i.  p.  444). 

This  function  of  the  priesthood,  being,  it  may 
be  presumed,  in  abeyance  during  the  period  of  the 
judges,  seems  to  have  merged  in  the  monarchy. 
The  kingdom  of  Saul  suffered  too  severely  from 
external  foes  to  allow  civU  matters  nmch  promi' 
nence.  Hence  of  his  only  two  recorded  judici* 
acts,  the  one  (1  Sam.  xi.  13)  was  the  mere  remis- 
sion of  a  penalty  popularly  demanded ;  the  othel 
the  pronouncing  of  a  sentence  {ibid.  xiv.  44,  45] 
which,  if  it  was  sincerely  intended,  was  overruled 
in  turn  by  the  right  sense  of  the  people.  In  Da- 
vid's reign  it  was  evidently  the  rule  for  the  king 
to  hear  causes  in  person,  and  not  merely  be  pas- 
sively, or  even  by  deputy  (though  this  might  also 
be  included),^'  the  ''fountain  of  justice"  to  his 
people.  For  this  purpose,  perhaps,  it  was  prospec- 
tively ordained  that  the  king  should  "  write  him  a 
copy  of  the  Law,"  and  "  read  therein  all  the  days 
of  his  life  "  (Dent.  xvii.  18,  19).  The  same  class 
of  cases  which  were  reserved  for  Moses  Mould  prob- 
ably fall  to  his  lot;  and  the  high-priest  was  of 
course  ready  to  assist  the  monarch.  This  is  fur- 
ther presumable  from  the  fact  that  no  officer  anal- 
ogous to  a  chief  justice  ever  ai)pears  under  the 
kings.  It  has  been  supposed  that  the  subjection 
of  all  Israel  to  David's  sway  caused  an  influx  of 
such  cases,  and  that  advantage  was  artfully  taken 
of  this  by  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xv.  1-4);  but  the  rate 
at  which  cases  were  disposed  of  can  hardly  have 
been  slower  among  the  ten  tribes  after  David  had 
become  their  king,  than  it  was  during  the  previous 
anarchy.  It  is  more  probable  that  during  David's 
uniformly  successful  wars  wealth  and  population 
increased  rapidly,  and  civil  cases  multiplied  faster 
than  the  kii]g,  occupied  with  war,  could  attend  in 
them,  especially  when  the  summary  process  cus- 
tomary in  the  East  is  considered.  Perhaps  tha 
arrangements,  mentioned  in  1  Chr.  xxiii.  4,  xxvi. 
29  (comp.  v.  32,  "rulers"  probably  including 
judges),  of  the  6000  Levites  acting  as  "officers 
and  judges,"  and  amongst  them  specially  '•  Chena- 
niah  and  his  sons;  "  with  otheis,  for  the  trana- 
Jordanic  tribes,  may  have  been  made  to  meet  tha 
need  of  suitors.  In  Solomon's  character,  whose 
reign  of  peace  would  surely  be  fertile  in  civil  ques- 
tions, the  "  wisdom  to  judge"  was  the  fitting  first 
quality  (1  K.  iii.  9;  comp.  Ps.  Ixxii.  1-4).  As  a 
judge  Solomon  shines  "  in  all  his  glory  "  (1  K.  iii. 
16,  &c.).  No  criminal  was  too  powerful  for  his 
justice,  as  some  had  been  for  his  father's  (2  Sam. 
iii.  39;  IK.  ii.  5,  6,  33,  34).  The  examples  of 
direct  royal  exercise  of  judicial  authority  are  2  Sam. 
i.  15,  iv.  9-12,  where  sentence  is  summarily  exe- 
cuted,'' and  the  supposed  case  of  2  Sam.  xiv.  1-21. 


having  been  70  on  their  coming  down  into  Egypt  (Gen. 
xlvi.  2>7,  may  have  been  the  cause  of  this  number 
Deiug  that  of  the  "elders"  of  that  place,  besides  the 
lacred  character  of  the  factor  7.  See  also  Ex.  xxiv.  9. 
On  the  other  hand,  at  Ramah  about  30  persons  occu- 
pied a  similar  place  in  popular  esteem  (1  Sam.  ix.  22 : 
Bee  also  ver.  13,  and  vii.  17). 

a  The  remark  in  the  marjrin  of  the  A.  V.  on  1  Sam. 
.y.  18,  seems  improper.  It  is  as  follows  :  "  He  seems 
to  have  been  a  judge  to  do  justice  only,  and  that  in 
Bouthwest  Israel."  When  it  was  inserted,  the  func- 
tton  of  the  high-priest,  as  mentioned  above,  would 
»eem  to  have  been  overlooked.  That  function  was 
sercaicly  designed  to  be  general,  not  partial ;  though 


probably,  as  hinted  above,  its  execution  was  In- 
adequate. 

b  It  ought  not  to  be  forgotten  that  in  some  cases 
of  "  blood  "  the  "  congregation  "  thenL^elves  were  to 
"judge"  (Num.  xxxv.  24),  and  that  the  appeal  of 
Judg.  XX.  4-7  was  thus  iu  the  regular  course  of  con- 
stitutional law. 

e  See  2  Sam.  xv.  3,  where  the  text  gives  probably 
a  better  rendering  than  the  margin. 

d  The  cases  of  Amnon  and  Absalom,  in  which  no 
notice  was  taken  of  either  crime,  though  set  down  by 
Michaelis  {Laws  of  Moses,  bk.  i.  art.  x.)  as  in.sta,n«-e« 
of  justice  forborne  through  politic  consideration  of  th« 
criminal's  power,  seem  rather  to  be  examples  ot  mtin 


JUDGES 

fhe  denunciation  of  2  Sam.  xii.  5,  6,  is,  though 
not  formally  judicial,  yet  in  the  same  spirit.  Sol- 
3mon  similarly  proceeded  in  the  cases  of  Joab  and 
bhimei  (1  K.  ii.  34,  46;  comp.  2  Iv.  xiv.  5,  6). 
It  is  likely  that  royalty  in  Israel  was  ultimately 
unfavorable  to  the  local  independence  connected 
with  the  judicature  of  the  '•  princes  "  and  "  elders  " 
in  the  territory  and  cities  of  each  tribe.  The  ten- 
dency of  the  monarchy  was  doubtless  to  centralize, 
»nd  we  read  of  large  numbers  of  king's  officers  ap- 
pointed to  tills  and  cognate  duties  (1  Chr.  xxiii.  4, 
xxvi.  29-32).  If  the  general  machinery  of  justice 
had  been,  as  is  reasonable  to  think,  deranged  or 
retarded  during  a  period  of  anarchy,  the  Levites 
afforded  the  fittest  materials  for  its  reconstitution.« 
Being  to  some  extent  detached,  both  locally,  and 
by  special  duties,  exemptions,  etc.,  from  the  mass 
of  the  population,  they  were  more  easily  brought  to 
the  steady  routine  which  justice  requires,  and,  what 
ifi  no  less  important,  were,  in  case  of  neglect  of 
duty,  more  at  the  mercy  of  the  king  (as  shown  in 
the  case  of  the  priests  at  Nob,  1  Sam.  xxii.  17). 
Hence  it  is  probable  that  the  Invites  generally 
superseded  the  local  elders  in  the  administi-ation 
of  justice.  But  subsequently,  when  the  Levites 
withdrew  from  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  judi- 
cial elders  probably  again  filled  the  gap.  Thus 
they  conducted  the  mock  trial  of  Naboth  (1  K. 
xxi.  8-13).  There  is  in  2  Chr.  xix.  6,  &c.,  a  spe- 
cial notice  of  a  rea|)pointment  of  judges  by  .Jeliosli- 
aphat  and  of  a  distinct  court,  of  appeal  perhaps,  at 
Jerusalem,  composed  of  Levitical  and  of  lay  ele- 
ments. In  the  same  place  (as  also  in  a  previous 
one,  1  Chr.  xxvi.  32)  occurs  a  mention  of  "the 
king's  matters  "  as  a  branch  of  jurisprudence.  The 
rights  of  the  prerogative  having  a  constant  ten- 
dency to  encroach,  and  needing  continual  regulation, 
these  may  have  grown  probably  into  a  department, 
somewhat  like  our  exchequer. 

One  more  change  is  noticeable  in  the  pre-Baby- 
lonian  period.  The  "princes"  constantly  appear 
as  a  powerful  political  body,  increasing  in  influence 
and  privileges,  and  having  a  fixed  centre  of  action 
at  Jerusalem;  till,  in  the  reign  of  Zedekiah,  they 
seem  to  exercise  some  of  the  duties  of  a  privy 
council;  and  especially  a  collective  jurisdiction  (2 
Chr.  xxviii.  21  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  10,  16).  These 
•'  princes  "  are  probably  the  heads  of  great  houses* 
in  Judah  and  Benjamin,  whose  fathers  had  once 
been  the  pillars  of  local  jurisdiction;  but  who, 
through  the  attractions  of  a  court,  and  probably 
bJso  under  the  constant  alarm  of  hostile  invasion, 
became  gradually  residents  in  the  capital,  and 
formed  an  oligarchy,  which  drew  to  itself,  amidst 
the  growing  weakness  of  the  latter  monarchy,  what- 
ever vigor  was  left  in  the  state,  and  encroached  on 
the  sovereign  attribute  of  justice.  The  employ- 
ment in  offices  of  trust  and  emolument  would  tend 


weakness,  cither  of  government  or  of  personal  charac- 
ter, in  David.  His  own  criminality  with  Bathsheba 
It  is  superfluous  to  argue,  since  the  matter  was  by 
Divine  interference  removed  from  the  cognizance  of 
inman  law. 

a  From  Num.  iv.  3,  23,  30,  it  would  seem  that  after 
uO  years  of  age  the  Levites  were  excused  from  the 
service  of  the  tabernacle.  This  was  perhaps  a  pro- 
rision  meant  to  favor  their  usefulness  in  deciding  on 
^ints  of  law,  since  the  maturity  of  a  judge  has  hardly 
^gun  at  that  age,  and  before  it  they  would  have  been 
anior  to  their  lay  coadjutors. 

6  That  some  of  the  heads  of  such  hcases,  howev*»r, 
stained  their  proper  sphere,  seems  clear  from  Jer. 


JUDGES  1511 

also  in  the  same  way,  and  such  chief  families  would 
probably  monopolize  such  employment.  Hence 
the  constant  burden  of  the  proplietic  strain,  de- 
nouncing the  neglect,  the  perversion,  the  corrup- 
tion, of  judicial  functionaries  (Is.  i.  17,  21,  v.  7,  x. 
2,  xxviii.  7,  Ivi.  1,  lix.  4;  Jer.  ii.  8,  v.  1,  vii.  5, 
xxi.  12;  Ez.  xxii.  27,  xlv.  8,  9;  IIos.  v.  10,  vii.  5, 
7;  Amos  v.  7, 15,  24,  vi.  12;  Hab.  i.  4,  &c.}.  StiU, 
although  far  changed  from  its  broad  and  simple 
basis  in  the  earlier  period,  the  administration  of 
justice  had  little  resembling  the  set  and  rigid  sys- 
tem of  the  Sanhedrim  of  later  times.^  [See 
Sanheduim.]  This  last  change  arose  from  the 
fact  that  the  patriarchal  seniority,  degenerate  and 
corrupted  as  it  became  before  the  Captivity,  was  by 
that  event  broken  up,  and  a  new  basis  of  judica- 
ture had  to  be  sought  for. 

With  regard  to  the  forms  of  procedure  little 
more  is  known  than  may  be  gathered  from  the 
two  examples,  Ruth  iv.  2,  of  a  civil,  and  1  K.  xxi. 
8-14,  of  a  criminal  character;  «*  to  which,  as  a 
specimen  of  royal  summary  jurisdiction,  may  be 
added  the  well-known  "judgment"  of  Solomon. 
Boaz  apparently  empansis  as  it  were  the  first  ten 
"elders"  whom  he  meets  "in  the  gate,"  the  well- 
known  site  of  the  oriental  court,  and  cites  the 
other  party  by  "  Ho,  such  an  one;  "  and  the  people 
appear  to  be  invoked  as  attesting  the  legality  of 
the  pmceeding.  The  whole  affair  bears  an  extem- 
poraneous aspect,  which  may,  however,  be  merely 
the  result  of  the  terseness  of  the  narrative.  In 
Job  ix.  19,  we  have  a  wish  expressed  that  a  "  time 
to  plead  "  might  be  "set"  (comp.  the  phrise  of 
Koman  law,  diem  dlcere).  In  the  case  of  the  in- 
vohmtary  homicide  seeking  the  city  of  refuge,  he 
was  to  make  out  his  case  to  the  satisfaction  of  its 
elders  (Josh.  xx.  4),  and  this  failing,  or  the  con- 
gregation deciding  against  his  claim  to  sanctuary 
there  (though  how  its  sense  was  to  be  taken  does 
not  appear),  he  was  not  put  to  death  by  act  of 
public  justice,  but  left  to  the  "  avenger  of  blood  " 
(Deut.  xix.  12).  The  expressions  between  "blood 
and  blood,"  between  "plea  and  plea"  (Deut.  xvii. 
8),  indicate  a  presumption  of  legal  intricacy  arising, 
the  latter  expression  seeming  to  imi)ly  something 
like  what  we  call  a  "cross-suit.''  We  may  infer 
from  the  scantiness,  or  rather  almost  entire  absence 
of  direction  as  regards  forms  of  procedure,  that  the 
legislator  was  content  to  leave  them  to  be  provided 
for  as  the  necessity  for  them  arose,  it  being  impos- 
sible by  any  jurisprudential  devices  to  anticipate 
chicane.  It  is  an  interesting  question  how  far 
judges  were  allowed  to  receive  fees  of  suitors ;  Mi- 
chaelis  reasonably  presumes  that  none  were  allowed 
or  customary,  and  it  seems,  from  the  words  of  1 
Sam.  xii.  3,  that  such  transactions  would  have  been 
regarded  as  corrupt.  There  is  another  question 
how  far  advocates  were  usual.     There  is  no  reason 


xxvi.  17,  where  "elders  of  the  land"  address  an 
"  assembly  of  the  people."  Still,  the  occasion  is  not 
judicial. 

c  The  Sanhedrim  is,  by  a  school  of  Judaism  once 
more  prevalent  than  now,  attempted  to  be  based  on 
the  70  elders  of  Num.  xi.  16,  and  to  be  traced  through 
the  0.  T.  history.  Those  70  were  chosen  when  judi- 
cature had  been  already  provided  for  (Ex.  xviii.  25). 
and  their  office  was  to  assist  Moses  in  the  duty  of 
g"-rerning.  But  no  influence  of  any  such  body  ii 
tmceable  in  later  times  at  any  crisis  of  history.  They 
seem  in  tact  to  have  left  no  successors. 

d  The  example  of  Susannah  and  the  elderK  is  to 
Buspicious  an  authority  to  be  cited. 


1512       JUDGES,  BOOK  OF 

to  think  that  until  the  period  of  Greek  influence, 
when  we  meet  with  words  based  on  auvfiyopoi  and 
irapdKArjTos,  any  professed  class  of  pleaders  ex- 
isted. Yet  passages  abound  in  which  the  pleading 
of  the  cause  of  those  who  are  unable  to  plead  tlieir 
own,  is  spoken  of  as,  what  it  indeed  was,  a  noble 
act  of  charity ;  and  the  expression  has  even  (which 
shows  the  popularity  of  the  practice)  become  a 
basis  of  figurative  allusion  (Job  xvi.  21;  Prov. 
xxii.  23,  xxiii.  11,  xxxi.  9;  Is.  i.  17;  Jer.  xxx.  13, 
1.  34,  li.  3G).  The  blessedness  of  such  acts  is 
forcibly  dwelt  upon,  Job  xxix.  12,  13. 

There  is  no  mention  of  any  distinctive  dress  or 
badge  as  pertaining  to  the  judicial  officer.  A  staff 
or  sceptre  was  the  conmion  badge  of  a  ruler  or 
prince,  and  this  perhaps  they  bore  (Is.  xiv.  5; 
Am.  i.  5,  8).  They  would,  perhaps,  when  officia- 
ting, be  more  than  usually  careful  to  comply  with 
the  regulations  about  dress  laid  down  in  Num.  xv. 
38,  39 ;  Deut.  xxii.  12.  The  use  of  the  "  white 
asses"  (Judg.  v.  10),  by  those  who  "sit  in  judg- 
ment," was  perhaps  a  convenient  distinctive  mark 
for  them  when  journeying  where  they  would  not 
usually  be  personally  known. 

For  other  matters  relating  to  some  of  the  forms 
of  law,  see  Oaths,  Officeks,  Witnesses. 

H.  H. 

JUDGES,  BOOK  OF  (D*'t?5''lC7 :  Kpi- 
ral'  liber  JwHcum).  I.  Title.  —  The  period  of 
history  contained  in  this  book  reaches  from  Joshua 
to  Eli,  and  is  thus  more  extensive  than  the  time 
of  the  Judges.  A  large  jwrtion  of  it  also  makes 
no  mention  of  them,  though  belonging  to  their 
time.  But  hecau.se  the  history  of  the  Judges  oc- 
cupies by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  narrative,  and 
is  at  the  same  time  the  history  of  the  people,  the 
title  of  the  whole  book  is  derived  from  that  por- 
tion. The  book  of  Kuth  was  originally  a  part  of 
this  book.  But  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury after  Christ  it  was  placed  in  the  Hebrew  copies 
immediately  after  the  Song  of  Solomon.  In  the 
LXX.  it  has  preserved  its  original  position,  but  as 
a  separate  book. 

II.  Arr(tti(/emen(.  —  The  book  at  first  sight  may 
be  divided  into  two  parts  —  i.-xvi.,and  xvii.-xxi. 

A.  i.-xvi.  —  The  subdivisions  are:  (a.)  i.-ii.  5, 
which  may  be  considered  as  a  first  introduction, 
giving  a  summary  of  the  results  of  the  war  carried 
on  against  the  Canaanites  by  the  se\eral  tribes  on 
the  west  of  Jordan  after  Joshua's  death,  and  form- 
iug  a  continuatioii  of  -Josh.  xii.  It  is  placed  first, 
as  in  the  most  natural  position.  It  tells  us  that 
the  people  did  not  obey  the  command  to  expel  the 
people  of  the  land,  and  contains  the  reproof  of  them 
by  a  prophet,  {h.)  ii.  fi-iii.  6.  This  is  a  second 
uitro<luetion,  standing  in  nearer  relation  to  the  fol- 
lowing history.  It  infornjs  us  that  the  people  fell 
into  idolatry  after  the  death  of  Joshua  and  his 
generation,  and  that  they  were  punished  for  it  by 
being  unable  to  drive  out  the  remnant  of  the  in- 
habitants of  the  land,  and  by  falling  under  the 
hand  of  oppi-essors.  A  parenthesis  occurs  (ii.  16- 
19)  of  the  highest  imi)ortance  as  giving  a  key  to 
the  following  portion.  It  is  a  summary  view  of 
the  history :  the  people  fall  into  idolatry ;  they  are 
then  oppressed  by  a  foreign  power;  upon  their 
repentance  they  are  delivered  by  a  judge,  after 
irhose  death  they  relapse  into  idolatry,  (c.)  iii.  7- 
tvi.  I'he  words,  *'  and  the  children  of  Israel  did 
tvil  in  the  sight  of  the  I^rd,"  which  had  been 
Already  u«ied  in  ii.  11.  are  employed  to  introduce 


JUDGES,   BOOK   OF 

the  history  of  the  13  judges  comprised  in  tm. 
book.  An  account  of  six  of  these  13  is  given  at 
greater  or  less  length.  The  account  of  the  re- 
maining seven  is  very  short,  and  merely  atiacheo 
to  the  longer  narratives.  These  nanutives  are  ae 
follows:  (1.)  The  deliverance  of  Israel  by  0th- 
niel,  iii.  7-11.  (2.)  The  history  of  Ehud,  and  (in 
31)  that  of  Shamgar,  iii.  12-31.  (3.)  The  deliv- 
erance by  Deborah  and  Bai-ak,  iv.-v.  (4.)  The 
whole  passage  is  vi.-x.  5.  The  history  of  Gideon 
and  his  son  Abimelech  is  contained  in  vi.-ix.,  and 
followed  by  the  notice  of  Tola,  x.  1,  2,  and  Jair, 
X.  3-5.  This  is  the  only  ca.se  in  which  the  history 
of  a  judge  is  continued  by  that  of  his  children. 
But  the  exception  is  one  which  illustrates  the  les- 
son taught  by  the  whole  book.  Gideon's  sin  in 
making  the  ephod  is  punished  by  the  destruction 
of  his  family  by  Abimelech,  with  the  help  of  the 
men  of  Shechem,  wiio  in  their  turn  become  the 
instruments  of  each  other's  punishment.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  the  short  reign  of  Abimelech  would 
seem  to  be  recorded  as  being  an  unauthorized  an- 
ticipation of  the  kingly  government  of  later  times. 
(5.)  X.  6-  xii.  The  history  of  Jephthah,  x.  6-xii. 
7;  to  which  is  added  the  mention  of  Ibzan,  xii.  8- 
10;  Elon,  11,  12;  Abdon,  13-15.  (6.)  The  history 
of  Samson,  consisting  of  twelve  exploits,  and  form- 
ing three  grouj^s  connected  with  his  love  of  three 
Philistine  women,  xiii.-xvi.  We  may  observe  in 
general  on  this  portion  of  the  book,  that  it  is 
almost  entirely  a  history  of  the  wars  of  deliver- 
ance; there  are  no  sacerdotal  allusions  in  it;  the 
tribe  of  Judah  is  not  alluded  to  after  the  time  of 
Othniel;  and  the  greater  part  of  the  judges  belong 
to  the  northern  half  of  the  kingdom.      • 

B.  xvii.-xxi.  —  This  part  has  no  forniiil  connec- 
tion with  the  preceding,  and  is  often  called  an  ap- 
pendix. No  mention  of  the  judges  occurs  in  it. 
It  contains  allusions  to  "  the  house  of  God,"  the 
ark,  and  the  high-priest.  The  period  to  which  the 
narrative  relates  is  simply  niaiked  by  the  expression 
"when  thei-e  was  no  king  in  Israel"  (xix.  1;  of 
xviii.  1).  It  records  (a)  the  conquest  of  Laish  b} 
a  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Dan,  and  the  establish- 
ment there  of  the  idolatrous  worship  of  Jehovah 
already  instituted  by  Micah  in  Mount  Ephraim. 
The  date  of  this  occurrence  is  not  marked,  but  il 
has  been  thought  to  be  subsequent  to  the  time  of 
Deborah,  as  her  song  contains  no  allusion  to  any 
northern  settlements  of  the  trilie  of  Dan.  (b)  The 
almost  total  extinction  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  by 
the  whole  people  of  Israel,  in  consequence  of  their 
supporting  the  cause  of  the  wicked  men  of  Gibeah, 
and  the  means  afterwards  adopted  for  preventing  its 
becoming  coujplete.  The  date  is  in  some  degree 
marked  by  the  niention  of  Phinehas,  the  grandson 
of  Aaron  (xx.  28),  and  by  the  proof  of  the  unanim- 
ity still  prevailing  among  tlie  people. 

III.  Dcsi</n. —  We  have  already  seen  that  there 
is  an  unity  of  i)lan  in  i.-xvi.,  the  clew  to  which  is 
stated  in  ii.  16-19.  There  can  be  little  doubt  of 
the  design  to  enforce  the  view  there  expressed.  But 
the  words  of  that  passage  must  not  be  pressed  too 
closely.  It  is  a  general  view,  to  whifh  the  facts  of 
the  history  correspond  in  different  degrees.  Thuf 
the  people  is  contemplated  as  a  whole ;  the  judgeg 
are  spoken  of  with  the  reverence^  due  to  God'a 
instruments,  and  the  deliverances  appear  complete. 
But  it  would  seem  that  the  pec  pie  were  in  no  in- 
stance under  exactly  tiie  same  circumstiinees,  and 
the  judges  in  some  points  fall  short  of  the  ideal 
Thus  Gideon,  who  in  wome  respects  is  the  mo« 


JUDGES,   BOOK  OF 

jminent  of  them,  is  only  the  head  of  his  own  tribe, 
and  has  to  appease  the  men  of  Ii^phraim  by  concilia- 
tory languai^e  in  the  moment  of  his  victory  over 
the  Midianites;  and  he  hnuseif  is  the  means  of 
leading  away  the  people  from  the  pure  worship  of 
God.  In  Jephthah  we  find  the  chief  of  the  land 
of  Gilead  only,  affected  to  some  extent  by  personal 
reasons  (xi.  9);  his  war  against  the  Ammonites 
Lb  confined  to  the  east  side  of  Jordan,  though  its 
issue  probably  also  freed  the  western  side  from  their 
presence,  and  it  is  followed  by  a  bloody  conflict 
writh  Ephraim.  Again,  Samson's  task  was  simply 
"to  beyiii  to  deliver  Israel"  (xiii.  5);  and  the  oc- 
casions which  called  forth  his  hostility  to  the  ijhil- 
istines  are  of  a  kind  which  place  him  on  a  different 
level  from  Deborah  or  Gideon.  This  shows  that 
the  passage  in  question  is  a  general  review  of  the 
collective  history  of  Israel  during  the  time  of  the 
judges,  the  details  of  which,  in  their  varying  aspects, 
are  given  faithfully  as  the  narrative  proceeds. 

The  existence  of  this  design  may  lead  us  to  expect 
that  we  have  not  a  complete  history  of  the  times  — 
a  fact  which  is  clear  from  the  book  itself.  We  have 
only  accounts  of  parts  of  the  nation  at  any  one  time. 
We  may  easily  suppose  that  there  were  other  inci- 
dents of  a  similar  nature  to  those  recorded  in  xvii.- 
xxi.  And  in  the  history  itself  there  are  points 
which  are  obscure  from  want  of  fuller  information, 
e.  g.  the  reason  for  the  silence  about  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (see  also  viii.  18,  ix.  2G).  Some  suppose 
even  that  the  number  of  the  judges  is  not  complete ; 
but  there  is  no  reason  for  this  opinion.  Bednu  (I 
Sara.  xii.  11)  is  possibly  the  same  as  Abdon. 
Ewald  {Gesch.  ii.  477)  rejects  the  common  explan- 
ation that  the  word  is  a  contracted  form  of  Ben- 
Dan,  i.  e.  Samson.  And  J  (id  (v.  G)  need  not  be 
the  name  of  an  unknown  judge,  or  a  corruption  of 
Jair,  as  Ewald  thinks,  but  is  probably  the  wife  of 
Heber.  "The  days  of  Jael"  would  carry  the 
misery  of  Israel  up  to  the  time  of  the  victoi-y  over 
Sisera,  and  such  an  expression  could  hardly  be 
thought  too  great  an  honor  at  that  time  (see  v. 
24).     [Jael.] 

IV.  Materials. — The  author  must  have  found 
certain  parts  of  his  book  in  a  definite  shape ;  e.  g. 
the  words  of  the  prophet  (ii.  1-5),  the  song  of 
Deborah  (v.),  Jotham's  parable  (ix.  7-20;  see  also 
xiv.  14,  18,  XV.  7,  16).  How  for  these  and  the  rest 
of  his  materials  came  to  him  already  written  is  a 
matter  of  doubt.  Stiihelin  {Krit.  Untersuch.  p. 
106 )  thinks  that  iii.  7-xvi.  present  the  same  man- 
ner and  diction  throughout,  and  that  there  is  no 
need  to  suppose  written  sources.  So  Havernick 
{Einleitung,  i.  1,  pp.  68  fF.,  107)  only  recognizes 
the  use  of  documents  in  the  appendix.  Other 
critics,  however,  trace  them  throughout.  Bertheau 
{On  Jtidges,  pp.  xxviii.-xxxii.)  says  that  the  differ- 
ence of  the  diction  in  the  principal  narratives, 
coupled  with  the  fact  that  they  are  united  in  one 
plan,  points  to  the  incorporation  of  parts  of  previous 
histories.  Thus,  according  to  him,  the  author  found 
the  substance  of  iv.  2-24  already  accompanying  the 
song  of  Deborah ;  in  vi.-ix.  two  distinct  authorities 
are  used  —  a  life  of  Gideon,  and  a  history  of 
Shechem  and  its  usurper;  in  the  account  of  Jeph- 
thah a  history  of  the  tribes  on  the  east  of  Jordan 
is  employed,  which  meets  us  again  in  different  parts 
if  the  I'entateuch  and  Joshua ;  and  the  history  of 
tfamson  is  taken  from  a  longer  work  on  the  Philis- 
Hne  wars.  Ewald's  view  is  similar  (Gesch.  i.  184 
r.  u.  48GfF.). 

V.  Relation  to  other  Books. —  (A.)  To  Joshua.  — 


JUDGES,  BOOK  OF 


1513 


Josh,  xv.-xxi.  must  be  compared  with  Judg.  i.  in 
order  to  understand  fully  how  far  the  several  tribe» 
failed  in  expelling  the  people  of  Canaan.  Nothing 
is  said  in  ch.  i.  about  the  tribes  on  the  east  of  Jor- 
dan, which  had  been  already  mentioned  (Josh,  xiii 
13),  nor  about  Levi  (see  Josh.  xiii.  33,  xxi.  1-42). 
The  carrying  on  of  the  war  by  the  tribes  singly  is 
explained  by  Josh.  xxiv.  28.  The  book  begins  with 
a  reference  to  Joshua's  death,  and  ii.  6-9  resumes 
the  narrative,  suspended  by  i.-ii;  5,  with  the  same 
words  as  are  used  in  concluding  the  history  of 
Joshua  (xxiv.  28-31).  In  addition  to  this  the  fot 
lowing  passages  appear  to  be  common  to  the  tvro 
books:  compare  Judg.  i.  10-15,  20,  21,  27,  20, 
with  Josh.  XV.  14-19,  13,  G3,  xvii.  12,  xvi.  10.  A 
reference  to  the  conquest  of  Laish  (Judg.  xviii  ) 
occurs  in  Josh.  xix.  47. 

(B.)  To  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  —  We 
find  in  i.  28,  30,  33,  35,  a  number  of  towns  upon 
which,  "  when  Israel  was  strong,"  a  tribute  of  bond- 
service was  levied;  this  is  supposed  by  some  to 
refer  to  the  time  of  Solomon  (1  K.  ix.  13-22). 
The  conduct  of  Saul  towards  the  Kenites  (1  Sam. 
XV.  6),  and  that  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxx.  29),  is  ex- 
plained by  i.  16.  A  reference  to  the  continuance 
of  the  Philistine  wars  is  implied  in  xiii.  5.  The 
allusion  to  Abimelech  (2  Sam.  xi.  21)  is  explained 
by  ch.  ix.  Chapters  xvii.-xxi.  and  the  book  of  Kutb 
are  more  independent,  but  they  have  a  general 
reference  to  the  subsequent  history. 

The  question  now  arises  whether  this  book 
forms  one  link  in  an  historical  series,  or  whether  it 
has  a  closer  connection  either  with  those  that  pre- 
cede or  follow  it.  We  cannot  infer  anything  from 
the  agreement  of  its  view  and  spirit  with  those  of 
the  other  books.  But  its  form  would  lead  to  thd 
conclusion  that  it  was  not  an  independent  book 
originally.  The  history  ceases  with  Samson, 
excluding  Eli  and  Samu#l;  and  then  at  this  point 
two  historical  pieces  are  added  —  xvii.-xxi.  and  the 
book  of  Ruth,— independent  of  the  general  plan  and 
of  each  other.  This  is  sufficiently  explained  by. 
Ewald"s  supposition  that  the  books  from  Judges  to 
2  Kings  form  one  work.  In  this  case  the  historiea 
of  Eli  and  Samuel,  so  closely  united  between  them^ 
selves,  are  only  deferred  on  account  of  their  close 
connection  with  the  rise  of  the  monarchy.  And 
Judg.  xvii.-xxi.  is  inserted  both  as  an  illustration  of 
the  sin  of  Israel  during  the  time  of  the  Judges,  in 
which  respect  it  agrees  with  i.-xvi.,  and  as  presenti- 
ing  a  contrast  with  the  better  order  prevailing  in 
the  time  of  the  kings.  Ruth  follows  next,  aa 
touching  on  the  time  of  the  judges,  and  contain- 
ing information  about  David's  family  history  which 
does  not  occur  elsewhere.  The  connection  of  these 
books,  however,  is  denied  by  DeWette  {Einltit. 
§  186)  and  Thenius  {Kurzgef.  exeg.  fJandb.,  Sam. 
p.  XV. ;  Konige.  p.  i.).  Bertheau,  on  the  other  hand, 
thinks  that  one  editor  may  be  traced  from  Genesis 
to  2  Kings,  whom  he  believes  to  be  Ezra,  in  agree- 
ment with  Jewish  tradition. 

VI.  Date. —  The  only  guide  to  the  date  of  this 
book  which  we  find  in  ii.  6-xvi.  is  the  expression 
"  unto  this  day,"  the  last  occurrence  of  which  (xv. 
19)  implies  some  distance  from  the  time  of  Samson. 
But  i.  21,  according  to  the  most  natural  explana- 
tion, would  indicate  a  date,  for  this  chapter  at 
least,  previous  to  the  taking  of  Jebus  by  David  (2 
Sam.  V.  6-9).  Again,  we  should  at  first  sight  s"jp- 
pose  i.  28,  30,  33,  35,  to  belong  to  tlie  time  of 
the  judges ;  but  these  passages  are  takeji  by  most 
modern  critics  as  pointing  to  the  time  of  Solomon 


1514 


JUDGES.  BOOK  OF 


(cf.  1  K,  ix.  21).  i.-xvi.  may  therefore  have  been  I 
originally,  as  Ewald  thinks  {Gesch.  i.  202,  203),  the  | 
commencement  of  a  larger  work  reaching  down  to 
above  a  century  after  Solomon  (see  also  Davidson, 
Introduction^  G49,  650).  Again,  the  writer  of  the 
appendix  lived  when  Shiloh  was  no  longer  a  relig- 
ious centre  (xviii.  31);  he  was  acquainted  with  the 
regal  form  of  government  (xvii.  6,  xviii.  1).  There 
is  some  doubt  as  to  xviii.  30.  It  is  thought  by 
some  to  refer  to  the  Philistine  oppression.  But  it 
seems  more  probable  that  the  Assyrian  captivity  is 
intended,  in  which  case  the  writer  must  have  lived 
after  721  b.  c.  The  whole  book  therefore  must 
have  taken  its  present  shape  after  that  date.  And 
if  we  adopt  Ewald 's  view,  that  Judges  to  2  Kings 
form  one  book,  the  final  arrangement  of  the  whole 
must  have  been  after  the  thirty-seventh  year  of 
Jehoiachin's  captivity,  or  i$.  c.  562  (2  K.  xxv.  27). 
Bertheau's  suggestion  with  respect  to  Ezra  brings 
it  still  lower.  But  we  may  add,  with  reference  to 
the  subject  of  this  and  the  two  preceding  sections, 
that,  however  interesting  such  inquiries  may  be, 
they  are  only  of  secondary  im|X)rtance.  Few  per- 
sons are  fully  competent  to  conduct  them,  or  even 
to  pass  judgment  on  their  discordant  results.  And 
whatever  obscurity  may  rest  upon  the  whole  mat- 
ter, there  remains  the  one  important  fact  that  we 
have,  through  God's  providence,  a  continuous  his- 
tory of  the  Jewish  people,  united  throughout  by 
the  conviction  of  their  dependence  upon  God  and 
government  by  Him.  This  conviction  finds  its 
highest  expression  in  parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  the 
Psalms,  and  the  Propliets;  but  it  was  confirmed  by 
the  events  of  the  history  —  although,  at  times,  in 
a  manner  which  gave  room  to  Faith  to  use  its  {jower 
of  perception,  and  allowed  men  in  those  days,  as 
well  as  in  these,  to  refuse  to  recognize  it. 

VII.  Chronoloijy.  —  The  time  commonly  as- 
fiigned  to  the  period  con^iined  in  this  book  is  299 
years.  But  this  number  is  not  derived  directly 
from  it.  The  length  of  the  interval  l)etween  Josh- 
ua's death  and  the  invasion  of  Cusban-rishathaim, 
and  of  the  time  during  which  Shan.gar  was  judge, 
is  not  stated.  The  dates  which  are  given  amount 
to  410  years  when  reckoned  consecutively;  and 
Acts  xiii.  20  would  show  that  this  was  the  compu- 
tation commonly  adopted,  as  the  450  years  seem  to 
result  from  adding  40  years  for  Eli  to  the  410  of 
this  book."  But  a  diflBculty  is  created  by  xi.  26,  and 
in  a  still  greater  degree  by  1  K.  vi.  1,  where  the 
whole  period  from  the  Exodus  to  the  building  of 
the  Temple  is  stated  at  480  years  (440,  LXX.). 
One  solution  questions  the  genuineness  of  the  date 
in  1  Kings.  Kennicott  pronounces  against  it 
{Diss.  Gen.  80,  §  3),  because  it  is  omitted  by  Ori- 
gen  when  quoting  the  rest  of  the  verse.  And  it  is 
tirgod  that  Josephus  would  not  have  reckoned 
692  years  for  the  same  period,  if  the  present  read- 
ing had  existed  in  his  time.     But  it  is  defended 


JUDGES,   BOOK  OF 

by  Thenius  {ad  he),  and  is  generally  adopted 
partly  on  account  of  its  agreement  with  EgN'ptiau 
chronology.  Most  of  the  systems  therefore  shorten 
the  time  of  the  judges  by  reckoning  the  dates  a« 
inclusive  or  contemporary.  But  all  these  combina- 
tions are  arbitrary.  And  this  may  be  said  of  Keil's 
scheme,  which  is  one  of  those  least  open  to  objec- 
tion. He  reckons  the  dates  successively  as  far  ag 
Jair,  but  makes  Jephthah  and  the  three  following 
judges  contemporary  with  the  40  years  of  the  Phil- 
istine oppression  (cf.  x.  6-xiii.  1);  and  by  compress- 
ing the  period  between  the  division  of  the  land 
and  Cushan-rishathaim  into  10  years,  and  the 
Philistine  wars  to  the  death  of  Saul  into  39.  he 
arrives  ultimately  at  the  480  years.  Ewald  and 
Bertheau  have  proposed  ingenious  but  unsatisfactory 
explanations  —  differing  in  details,  but  both  built 
upon  the  supposition  that  the  whole  period  from 
the  Exodus  to  Solomon  was  divided  into  12  gen- 
erations of  40  years ;  and  that,  for  the  period  of  the 
judges,  this  system  has  become  blended  with  the 
dates  of  another  more  precise  reckoning.  On  the 
whole,  it  seems  safer  to  give  up  the  attempt  to  as- 
certain the  chronology  exactly.  The  successive 
narratives  give  us  the  history  of  only  parts  of  the 
country,  and  some  of  the  occurrences  may  have 
been  contemporary  (x.  7).  Eound  numbers  seem 
to  have  been  used  —  the  numl)er  40  occurs  four 
times;  and  two  of  the  periods  are  without  any 
date.  On  this  difficult  subject  see  also  (JHROXOly- 
OGY,  vol,  i.  p.  444  f. 

VIII.  Commentai-tes.  —  The  following  list  is 
taken  from  Bertheau  {Kurzyef.  exeg.  Hondb.  z.  A. 
T.  [Lief,  vi.],  Dos  Buck  der  Richier  u.  Rut  [Leipz. 
1845]),  to  whom  this  article  is  principally  indebted. 
(1.)  Kabbinical :  In  addition  to  the  well-known 
commentaries,  see  K.  Tanchumi  Hierosol.  ad  libros 
Vet.  Test,  commentar-ii  Arabici  specimen  una  cum 
annotationibus  ad  aliquot  loca  libn  Judd.,  ed.  Ch. 
Fr.  Schnuner,  Tubing.  1791,  4to;  R.  Tanchumi 
Hierosol.  Comment,  in  prophetas  Arab,  specimen 
(on  Judg.  xiii.-xxi.),  ed.  Th.  Haarbriicker,  Halis, 
1842,  8vo.  (2.)  Christian.  Victor.  Strigel,  Scholia 
in  libr.  Judd.,  i>ips.  1586;  Serrarius,  Comment,  in 
libiosJos.  Judd.,  etc.,  1609;  C^itici  Sacii,  torn.  ii. 
Lond.  1660;  Sebast.  Schmidt,  /n  libr.  Judd.,  Ar- 
gentor.  1706,  4to;  Clerici  V.  T.  libi-i  /listoi-ici, 
Amstelod.  1708,  fob;  J.  I).  Michaelis,  Deutsche 
Uebers.  des  A.  T.  Gi  ttingen,  1772:  Uathe,  Libi'i 
hist.  Lot.  vers.  1784:  I-.xeyet.  Handb.  d.  A.  T. 
[St.  2,  3]  ;  Maurer,  Comment,  m-nrnm.  cHl.  [vol.  i.] 
pp.  126-153;  Kosenmiilleri  Scholia  [pars  xi.],  vol. 
ii.  Lipsia?,  1835;  Gottl.  Ludw.  ^iuder,  Das  Buch 
der  Richter  grammat.  mid  Itistw.  erkldrt,  1835. 
There  are  many  separate  treatises  on  ch.  v.,  a  list 
of  which  is  found  in  Bertheau,  p.  80. 

E.  R.  O. 

*  Other  references.  —  Among  the  older  com- 
mentators (see  above)  are  also  J.  Drusius,  Ad  loca 


a  *  It  should  be  stated  that  the  order  of  the  Greek 
In  the  oldest  manuscripts  (ABC  and  the  Sinaitic  MS.) 
assigns  the  450  years  in  Acts  xiii.  19,  20  to  the  period 
of  the  qxiasi  possession  of  the  promised  land  before  the 
."ouquest,  and  not  to"  that  of  tlie  administration  of  the 
judges.  This  order  places  koX  ixeTa  ravra  after  wef- 
rriKovTa  and  before  eSto/ce,  The  translation  then  is  ; 
■i  He  gave  them  their  land  as  a  possession  about  four 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ;  and,  after  that,  he  gave  [to 
tlieuij  judges  until  Samuel  the  prophet."  Lachmann, 
tregelles,  Luthardt  (Reuter's  Repertorium,  1865,  p.  205), 
Sreen  {Course  of  Developed  Criticism,  p.  109),  Words- 
worth (m  loc.)  and  others  adopt  this  reading.     In  this 


case,  adding  together  the  years  from  the  birth  of 
Isaac  (regarded  as  the  pledge  of  the  possession  de  jure 
of  Canaan)  to  that  of  Jacob  (60),  the  age  of  Jacob  on 
going  into  Egypt  (130),  the  sojourn  in  Egjpt  (215.  as 
required  by  Gal  iii.  17),  and  the  time  of  the  wander- 
ing in  the  wilderness  (47),  we  have  as  the  result  462 
years  between  Isaac  and  the  judges  Meyer  Kiys  con- 
fidently that  this  form  of  the  text  is  corrupt  (A//oitel- 
gesr/i.  p.  231,  ed.  1864)  ;  but  it  is  singular  that  so  many 
of  the  best  authorities  agree  in  tnis  variation.  For 
fuller  details  on  this  question  see  the  writer's  Con: 
mentary  on  tht  Acts.  pp.  127  f  and  214  f.  H 


\ 


JUDGMENT,  DAY  OF 

UfficiUoi'd  JosnuB  Jml.  at  Sam.  Commentarmi^ 
Fraiiek.  1618;  J.  BonfrfTe,  Josun,  Judices  et  Ruth 
Cuminentrtrio  iliustrciti^  Par.  1631;  J.  A.  Osiander, 
Comm.  in  Judices^  Tubing.  1682.  For  a  fuller 
list,  see  Winer,  Hnnrlh.  d.  thed.  Lit.  i.  202  f.; 
Darling,  Cyclop.  Biblioyraphica  (Subjects^  col. 
280  f.  Later  writers :  T.  S.  Kordara,  Libri  Judicum 
et  Ruth  secundam  versionem  Syriaco-Hexnplarem, 
ex  Codice  Mtisei  Britnnnici  mine  primum  editi, 
etc.  2  fasc.  Havniae,  1859-61,  accompanied  by  a 
translation  and  notes.  O.  F.  Fritzsche,  Liber 
Judicum  secundum  LXX.  Interpretes  —  Triplicem. 
Textus  Conformaiionem  recensuit,  Lectionis  Vct" 
rietntes  enotnvit,  Interpret.  Vet  Lat.  Frngmenta 
ndiUdit,  Turici,  1867,  valuable  as  a  contribution  to 
the  textual  criticism  of  the  Septuagint  version. 
Wahl,  Ueber  den  Verfasser  des  Buches  der  Rich- 
ter,  Ellwangen,  1859.  Kamphausen,  Richier,  in 
Bunsen's  Bibelioerk,  vol.  ii.  (1859),  a  new  ver- 
sion with  brief  notes  ;  and  on  the  chronology 
(which  Bunsen  attempts,  to  very  little  purpose, 
to  illustrate  from  Egyptian  history),  Bibelwerk^  i, 
pp.  ccxxxiii.-ccliii.  (J.  F.  Keil,  Josun,  Richter  u. 
Ruth^  in  the  Bibl.  Comm.  of  Keil  and  Delitzsch, 
iii.  175-356  (1863),  transl.  by  J.  Martin  in  Clark's 
For.  Thed.  Libr.  (Edin.  1865),  Paulus  Cassel, 
Richter  u.  Ruth  (Theil  v.  of  Lange's  Bibelwerk, 
1865,  pp.  1-197).  He  enumerates  and  charac- 
terizes the  most  important  Jewish  expositors  of 
the  book.  Chr.  Wordsworth,  ffoly  Bible  with 
Notes,  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  pp.  75-157  (1865).  This 
author  adheres  very  strictly  to  the  typical  principle 
of  interpretation  as  applied  both  to  the  persons  and 
the  events  mentioned  in  Judges.  Joh.  Ba«hmann, 
Der  Buch  der  Richter,  mit  besonderer  Rucksichi 
auf  die  Gesch.  seiner  Auslegzmg  u.  s.  w.  (1868), 
i.  1-242.  This  volume  contains  only  the  first  three 
chapters.  It  promises  in  its  spirit,  comprehensive- 
ness, and  scholarship  to  be  a  work  of  the  first  order. 
Nagelsbach,  Richter,  Bach  der,  in  Herzog's  Real- 
Encyk.  xiii.  29-32,  a  valuable  article.  See  the 
Einleitungen  in  das  A.  T.  by  Bleek  (pp.  341-355) 
and  Keil  (pp.  153-163,  2«  Aufl.)for  outlines  of  the 
course  of  criticism  on  this  book,  and  for  their  own 
views  as  representatives  of  somewhat  different  Bibli- 
cal schools.  Hengstenberg,  Die  Zeit  der  Richter, 
in  his  Authentic  des  Pent.,  ii.  116-148.  J.  N,  Tiele, 
Chronol.  des  A.  T.  pp.  39-58  (1839).  Stiihelin, 
C/ntersuchungen  iib.  den  Pentateuch,  die  Biicher 

I  Josua,  Richter,  etc.  (ISiS).  Milman,  History  of 
the  Jews,  new  ed.,  i.  282-318  (N.  Y.  1864). 
Stanley,  Jeicish  Church,  i.  315-426  (Amer.  ed.). 
His  recapitulation  of  the  contents  of  the  book  is 
vividly  sketched  and  suggestive.  He  assigns  to  the 
period  of  the  judges  a  position  hi  Hebrew  history 
similar  to  that  of  the  Middle  Ages  in  Christian 
history  as  to  the  prevalent  moral  degeneracy  com- 
mon to  the  two  epochs,  though  relieved  in  both 
oases  by  raarny  single  examples  of  heroism  in  behalf 
of  religion  and  of  the  pubhc  welfare.  G.  Rawlinson, 
Histoiical  Evidences  (Bampton  Lectures  for  1859), 
pp.  81  f.,  295  f.  (Amer.  ed.).  Kitto,  Daily  Bible 
Illustrations,  Morning  Series,  vol.  ii.  (Porter's  ed.). 
The  principal  monographs  on  ch.  v.  (^he  Song  of 
Oeborah)  have  been  mentioned  under  Bakak 
(Amer.  ed.).  For  practical  and  homiletic  uses,  see 
sspecially  Bishop  Hall,  Contemijlations  ^m  the  Old 
Test.,  bks.  ix.,  x.,  xi.  H. 


JUDGMENT   HALL 


1515 


JUDGMENT,    DAY    OF.       [Resur- 

KECTION.] 

JUDGMENT-HALL.  The  word  Prastorium 


■[TlpaiT(ipioy)  is  so  translated  five  times  in  the  A.  V 
ot  the  N.  T. ;  and  in  those  five  pas.sages  it  denotes 
two  different  places. 

1.  In  John  xviil.  28,  33,  xix.  9,  it  is  the  residence 
which  Pilate  occupied  when  he  visited  Jerusalem 
to  which  the  Jews  brought  Jesus  from  the  house 
of  Caiaphas,  and  within  which  He  was  examined 
by  Pilate,  and  scourged  and  mocked  by  the  soldiers, 
while  the  Jews  were  waiting  without  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  judgment-seat  (erected  on  the  Pave- 
ment in  front  of  the  Praetorium),  on  which  Pilate 
sat  when  he  pronounced  the  final  sentence.  The 
Latin  word  proet07-ium  originally  signified  (see 
Smith's  Did.  of  Ant.)  the  general's  tent  in  a 
Roman  camp  (Liv.  xxviii.  27,  &c.);  and  afterwards 
it  had,  among  other  significations,  that  of  the  palace 
in  which  a  governor  of  a  province  lived  and  admin- 
istered justice  (Cic.  Verr.  ii.  4,  §  28,  &c.).  The 
site  of  Pilate's  praetorium  in  Jerusalem  has  given 
rise  to  much  dispute,  some  supposing  it  to  be  the 
palace  of  king  Herod,  others  the  tower  of  Antonia; 
but  it  has  been  shown  elsewhere  that  the  latter  was 
probably  the  Praetorium,  which  was  then  and  long 
afterwards  the  citadel  of  Jerusalem.  [.Ieiuisalem, 
p.  1326  «.]  This  is  supported  by  the  fact  that,  at 
the  time  of  the  trial  of  Christ,  Herod  was  in  Jeru- 
salem, doubtless  inhabiting  the  palace  of  his  father 
(Luke  xxiii.  7).  It  appears,  however,  from  a  pas- 
sage of  Josephus  (B.  J.  ii.  14,  §  8),  that  the  Roman 
governor  sometimes  resided  in  the  palace,  and  set 
up  his  judgment-seat  in  front  of  it.  Pilate  cer- 
tainly lived  there  at  one  time  (Philo,  Leg.  in 
Caium,  38,  39).  Winer  conjectures  that  the  pro- 
curator, when  in  Jerusalem,  resided  with  a  body- 
guard in  the  palace  of  Herod  (Josh.  B.  J.  ii.  15, 
§5),  while  the  Roman  garrison  occupied  Antonia. 
Just  in  like  manner,  a  former  palace  of  Hiero  be- 
came the  praetorium,  in  which  Verres  lived  in 
Syracuse  (Cic.  Veri:  ii.  5,  §  12). 

2.  In  Acts  xxiii.  35  Herod's  judgment-hall  or 
praetorium  in  Caesarea  was  doubtless  a  part  of  that 
magnificent  range  of  buildings,  the  erection  of 
which  by  king  Herod  is  described  in  Josephus  (AnL 
XV.  9,  §  6;  see  also  B.  J.  i.  21,  §§  5-8). 

3.  The  word  "  palace,"  or  "  Caesar's  court,"  in 
the  A.  V.  of  Phil.  i.  13,  is  a  translation  of  the 
same  woi-d  praetorium.  The  statement  in  a  later 
part  of  the  same  epistle  (iv.  22)  would  seem  to 
connect  this  praetorium  with  the  imperial  palace  at 
Rome ;  but  no  classical  authority  is  found  for  so 
designating  the  palace  itself.  The  praetorian  camp, 
outside  the  northern  wall  of  Rome,  was  far  from  the 
palace,  and  therefore  unlikely  to  be  the  praetorium 
here  mentioned.  An  opinion  well  deserving  con- 
sideration has  been  advocated  by  Wieseler,  and  by 
Conybeare  and  Howson  (Life  of  Si.  Paul,  ch.  26), 
to  the  effect  that  the  praetorium  here  mentioned 
was  the  quarter  of  that  detachment  of  the  Prae- 
torian Guards  which  was  in  immediate  attendance 
upon  the  emperor,  and  had  barracks  in  Mount 
Palatine.  It  will  be  remembered  that  St.  Paul,  on 
his  arrival  at  Rome  (Acts  xxviii.  16),  was  delivered 
by  the  centurion  into  the  custody  of  the  praetorian 
prefect.^ 

*  Prof.  Lightfoot  at  present  (Epistle  to  the  Phi- 
lippians,  pp.  86,  97  ff.,  Lond.  1868)  understands 
TTpaiTapicp  (Phil.  i.  13)  in  the  sense  of  "  prae- 
torians," and  not  "praetorian  camp"  as  formerly 
(Joum.  of  Class,   and  Sacr.   PhiloL  iv.   58  ff.). 


«  *  On  the  genuineness  of  that  passage,  see  Tol  I 
p.  885,  note  a  (Amer.  ed. ).  H. 


1616 


JUDGMENT-SEAT 


With  this  direct  personal  sense  we  might  expect 
the  dative  without  iy,  as  in  the  other  clause  (conip. 
also  Acts  iv.  16,  vii.  13;  1  Tim.  iv.  15).  But  with 
the  local  sense  as  the  direct  one  and  the  personal 
as  indirect  (as  in  Ewald's  "  im  ganzen  Prcetorium 
unter  den  kriegem,"  see  his  Sendschriben  des  Ap. 
Pnulus,'-p.  441),  the  variation  of  construction  is 
natural.  See  Meyer's  note  on  this  passage ;  also 
the  art.  Cesar's  Household  (Amer.  ed.). 

H. 
4.  The  word  prcetorium  occurs  also  in  Matt. 
Kvii.  27,  where  it  ia  translated  "  common  hall " 
[A.  V.  marg.  "governor's  house"],  and  in  Marie 
XV.  16.  In  both  places  it  denotes  Pilate's  residence 
in  Jerusalem.  W.  T.  B. 

*  JUDGMENT-SEAT,  the  translation  (A. 
V.)  in  various  passages  of  firj/j-a,  and  once  of 
KpiT-f^piou.  [Gabbatha  ;  Judgment -HALL  ; 
PryETokium.]  Some  critics  adopt  this  sense  of 
Kpir-fjpiov  in  1  Cor.  vi.  2,  4  (see  Meyer  in  loc,  and 
comp.  James  ii.  6,  A.  V.).  H. 

JU'DITH.  1.  (rT'Tin":  [seebelow]:  'IouSi'0; 
[Alex.  lovBiv :  Judith] ).  "  The  daughter  of  Beeri 
the  Hittite,"  and   wife  of  Esau   (Gen.  xxvi.  34). 

[AnOLIBAMAH.] 

2.  ['lovdie ;  Vat.  Sin.  Alex.  lovdeiB ;  Aid. 
'lovS-f)6,  'lov8eid-]  The  heroine  of  the  apocryphal 
book  which  bears  her  name,  who  appears  as  an 
ideal  type  of  piety  (Jud.  viii.  6),  beauty  (xi.  21), 
courage,  and  chastity  (xvi.  22  fF.).  Her  supposed 
descent  from  Simeon  (ix.  2)  and  the  manner  in 
which  she  refers  to  his  cniel  deed  ((Jen.  xxxiv.  25  ff.), 
mark  the  conception  of  the  character,  which  evi- 
dently belongs  to  a  period  of  stem  and  perilous 
conflict.  The  most  unscrupulous  daring  (xiii.)  is 
combined  with  zealous  ritualism  (xii.  1  fF.),  and 
faith  is  turned  to  action  rather  than  to  supplication 
(viii.  31  ff".).  Clement  of  Kome  ( Ajo.  i.  55)  assigns 
to  Judith  the  epithet  given  to  Jael  ClovSeld  rj 
fiaKapia) ;  and  Jerome  sees  in  her  exploit  the  image 
of  the  victory  of  the  (Church  over  the  power  of  evil 
(Ep.  Ixxix.  11,  p.  508;  "Judith  ...  in  typo  Ec- 
olesiae  diabolum  capite  truncavit;  "  cf.  Ep.  xxii.  21, 
p.  105). 

The  name  is   properly  the  feminine  form  of 

"^"T^n^  Judcem  (cf.  Jer.  xxxvi.  14,  21).  In  the 
passage  of  Genesis  it  is  generally  taken  as  the  cor- 
relative of  Jtidah,  i.  e.  ^'^prnised.'"         B.  F.  W. 

*  In  the  A.  V.  ed.  1611  and  other  early  editions 
the  name  of  the  heroine  of  this  book  is  uniformly 
spelt  Judeth,  as  in  the  Genevan  version.  This 
orthography  was  doubtless  derived  from  the  Aldine 
edition,  which  reads  'lovS-fjd  in  the  heading,  and 
often,  though  not  uniformly,  in  the  text  of  the 
book.  A. 

JU'DITH,  THE  BOOK  OF,  like  that  of 
Tobit,  belongs  to  the  earliest  specimens  of  historical 
fiction.  The  narrative  of  the  reign  of  "  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Nineveh'"  (i.  1),  of  the  campaign 
')f  Holofemes,  and  the  deliverance  of  Bethulia, 
through  the  stratagem  and  courage  of  the  Jewish 
heroine,  contains  too  many  and  too  serious  difficul- 
ties, both  historical  and  geographical,  to  allow  of 
the  supposition  that  it  is  either  literally  true,  or 
even  carefully  moulded  on  truth.     The  existence 


a  The  theory  of  Vcdkmar  (Das  vierte  Buck  Ezra,  p. 
i  Thed.  Jalirh.  1856,  1857)  that  the  book  of  Judith 
to  the  period  of  the  Parthian  war  of  Triyan^need 


JUDITH,   THE   BOOK  OF 

of  a  kingdom  of  Nineveh  and  the  reign  of  a  Nthn- 
chadnezzar  are  in  themselves  inconsistent  with  a 
date  after  the  return ;  and  an  earlier  date  is  ex- 
cluded equally  by  internal  evidence  and  by  the 
impossibility  of  placing  the  events  in  harmonious 
connection  with  the  course  of  Jewish  history.  I'he 
latter  fact  is  seen  most  clearly  in  the  extreme 
varieties  of  opinion  among  those  critics  who  have 
endeavored  to  maintain  the  veracity  of  the  story. 
Nebuchadnezzar  has  been  identified  with  Cambyses, 
Xerxes,  Esarhaddon,  Kiniladan,  Merodach  Baladan, 
etc.,  without  the  slightest  show  of  probability.  But 
apart  from  this,  the  text  evidently  alludes  to  the 
position  of  the  Jews  after  the  exile,  when  the  Temple 
was  rebuilt  (v.  18,  19,  iv.  o)  and  the  hierarchical 
government  established  in  place  of  the  kingdom 
(xv.  8,  ^  ycpovaia  rSav  viwv  Icrpa-fjA;  cf.  iv.  4, 
Samaria;  viii.  6,  -n-poad^fiaTov,  irpovixr^viov)'-,  and 
after  the  Return  the  course  of  authentic  history 
absolutely  excludes  the  possibility  of  the  occurrence 
of  such  events  as  the  book  relates.  This  funda- 
mental contradiction  of  facts,  which  underlies  the 
whole  narrative,  renders  it  superfluous  to  examine 
in  detail  the  other  objections  which  may  be  urged 
against  it  (e.  g.  iv.  6,  Joacim;  cf.  1  Chr.  vi. ; 
Joseph.  Ant.  x.  8,  §  6,  Joacim). 

2.  The  value  of  the  book  is  not,  however,  les- 
sened by  its  fictitious  character.  On  the  contrary 
it  becomes  even  more  valuable  as  exhibiting  an  ideal 
type  of  heroism,  which  was  outwardly  embodied  in 
the  wars  of  independence.  The  self-sacrificing  faith 
and  unscrupulous  bravery  of  Judith  were  the  qual- 
ities by  which  the  champions  of  Jewish  freedom 
were  then  enabled  to  overcome  the  power  of  Syria, 
which  seemed  at  the  time  scarcely  less  formidable 
th^n  the  imaginary  hosts  of  Holofemes.  The 
peculiar  character  of  the  book,  which  is  exhibited 
in  these  traits,  aflfords  the  best  indication  of  its 
date ;  for  it  cannot  be  MTong  to  refer  its  origin  to 
the  Maccabaan  period,  which  it  reflects  not  only 
in  its  general  spirit  but  even  in  smaller  traits.  The 
impious  design  of  Nebuchadnezzar  finds  a  parallel 
in  the  prophetic  description  of  Antiochus  (Dan.  xi. 
31  fF.),  and  the  triumphant  issue  of  Judith's  courage 
must  be  compared  not  with  the  immediate  results 
of  the  invasion  of  ApoUonins  (as  Bertholdt,  Kinl. 
2553  fl^.),  but  with  the  victory  which  the  author 
pictured  to  himself  as  the  reward  of  faith.  But 
while  it  seems  certain  that  the  book  is  to  be  referred 
to  the  second  centur}'  b.  c.  (175-100  b.  c),  the 
attempts  which  have  been  made  to  fix  its  date 
within  narrower  lin)its,  either  to  the  time  of  the 
war  of  Alexander  Jannaeus  (105-4  b.  c.  Movers) 
or  of  Demetrius  II.  (129  b.  c,  Ewald),  rest  on  very 
inaccurate  data.  It  might  seem  more  natural  (r\3 
a  mere  conjecture)  to  refer  it  to  an  earlier  time,  c. 
170  B.  c,  when  Antiochus  EpijAanes  made  h?» 
first  assault  upon  the  Temple." 

3.  In  accordance  with  the  view  which  has  been 
given  of  the  character  and  date  of  the  book,  it  is 
probable  that  the  several  parts  may  have  a  distinct 
symbolic  meaning.  Some  of  the  names  can  scarcely 
have  been  chosen  without  regard  to  tlieir  deriva- 
tion {e.g.  AehioT=  Brother  of  Light;  Judith  = 

Jewess;  Bethulia  =  n^vinD,  the  rh-gin  of  Je- 
hovah), and  the  historical  difficulties  of  the  person 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  disappear  when  he  is  regarded 


only  be  noticed  in  passing,  as  it  assumes  the  Bparioof 
ness  of  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement  (§  6). 


JUDITH,  THE  BOOK  OP 

u  the  Scriptural  type  of  worldly  -power.  But  it 
is,  jierhaps,  a  mere  play  of  fancy  to  allegorize  the 
whole  narrative,  as  Grotius  has  done  {Prol.  in 
Jud.),  who  interprets  Judith  of  the  Jewish  nation 

widowed  of  outward  help,  Bethulia  (71"^"  vSTl^^) 
of  the  Temple,  Nebuchadnezzar  of  the  Devil,  and 
Holofernes  (ti^PtD  "13711,  Uctur  serpenlis)  of  An- 
tiochus,  his  emissary ;  while  Joacim,  the  high- 
priest,  conveys,  as  he  thinks,  by  his  name  the 
assurance  that  "  God  will  rise  up  "  to  deliver  this 
people. 

4.  Two  conflicting  statements  have  been  pre- 
served as  to  the  original  language  of  the  book. 
Origen  speaks  of  it  together  with  Tobit  as  "  not 
existing  in  Hebrew  even  among  the  Apocrypha" 
in  the  Hebrew  collection  {Ep.  ad  Afric.  §  13, 
owSe  yhp  exovcriy  aura  \_oi  'E$paioi]  Kal  iv 
^AiroKpv((>ois  'Efipa'Ca-Ti,  ws  air'  avrwu  fiadSures 
iyvcvKa/xev),  bj  which  statement  he  seems  to  im- 
ply that  the  book  was  originally  WTitten  in  Greek. 
Jerome,  on  the  other  hand,  says  that  "  among  the 
Hebrews  the  book  of  Judith  is  read  among  the 
Hagiographa  [Apocrypha]  .  .  .  and  being  written 
in  the  Chaldee  language  is  reckoned  among  the 
histories  "  {Prce/'.  ad  Jud.).  The  words  of  Origen 
are,  however,  somewhat  ambiguous,  and  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  book  was  written  in  Pales- 
tine in  the  national  dialect  (Syro-Chaldaic),  though 
Jahn  {EM.  ii.  §  3)  and  Eichhorn  {Einl.  in  d. 
Apokr.  327 )  maintain  the  originality  of  the  present 
Greek  text,  on  the  authority  of  some  phrases  which 
may  be  assigned  very  naturally  to  the  translator  or 
reviser,  a 

5.  The  text  exists  at  present  in  two  distinct 
recensions,  the  Greek  (followed  by  the  Syriac)  and 
the  Latin.  The  former  evidently  is  the  truer  rep- 
resentative of  the  original,  and  it  seems  certain 
that  the  Latin  was  derived  in  the  main  from  the 
Greek  by  a  series  of  successive  alterations.  Jerome 
confesses  that  his  own  translation  was  free  ("  magis 
sensum  e  sensu  quam  verbum  e  verbo  transferens  " ) ; 
and  pecidiarities  of  the  language  (Fritzsche,  p.  122) 
prove  that  he  took  the  old  I^atin  as  the  basis  of  liis 
work,  though  he  compared  it  with  the  Chaldee 
text,  which  was  in  his  possession  ("  sola  ea  quae  in- 
telligentia  Integra  in  verbis  Chaldaeis  invenire  potui 
Latinis  expressi  ").  The  Latin  text  contains  many 
curious  errors,  which  seem  to  have  arisen  in  the 
first  instance  from  false  hearing  (Bertholdt,  EM. 
2574  f. ;  e.  g.  x.  5,  koX  &pTwv  KaOapa>i/,  Vulg.  et 
panes  et  caseum,  i.  e.  koI  rvpod;  xvi.  3,  on  eis 
iraps/x^okks  aurov,  Vulg.  qui  posuit  castra  sua, 
I.  e.  6  deis;  xvi.  17,  /cat  K\avaovTai  iv  aladrjaeiy 
Vulg.  ut  urnntur  et  seiitiant);  and  Jerome  remarks 
that  it  had  been  vai-iously  corrupted  and  interpolated 
before  his  time.  At  present  it  is  impossible  to 
determine  the  authentic  text.  In  many  instances 
the  Latin  is  more  full  than  the  Greek  (iv.  8-15,  v. 
11-20,  v.  22-24,  vi.  15  fF.,  ix.  6  ff.),  which  however 
contains  peculiar  passages  (i.  13-16,  vi.  1,  &c.). 
Even  where  the  two  texts  do  not  differ  in  the  details 
of  the  narrative,  as  is  often  the  case  (e.  g.  1,  3  ff., 
'U.  9,  v.  9,  vi.  13,  vii.  2  ff.,  x.  12  ff.,  xv.  11,  xvi. 
25),  they  yet  differ  in  language  (e.  g.  c.  xv.,  etc.). 
Mid  in  names  (e.  g.  viii.  1)  and  numbers  (e.  g.  i.  2); 


JUDITH,   THE  BOOK  OF        151"| 

and  these  variations  can  only  be  explained  by  goui§ 
back  to  some  still  more  remote  source  (cf.  Bertholdt, 
Einl.  2568  ff.),  which  was  probably  an  earlier  Greek 
copy.^ 

6.  The  existence  of  these  various  recensions  of 
the  book  is  a  proof  of  its  popularity  and  wide  cir- 
culation, but  the  external  evidence  of  its  use  ia 
very  scanty.  Josephus  was  not  acquainted  with  it, 
or  it  is  likely  that  he  would  have  made  some  use 
of  its  contents,  as  he  did  of  the  apocryphal  addi- 
tions to  Esther  (Jos.  Ant.  xi.  6,  §  1  ff.).  The  first 
reference  to  its  contents  occurs  in  Clem.  Kom.  {Ep 
i.  55),  and  it  is  quoted  with  marked  respect  by 
Origen  {Sel.  in  Jerem.  23:  cf.  Honi.  ix.  in  Jwl.  1), 
Hilary  {in  Psal.  cxxv.  6),  and  Lucifer  {De  mm 
pare.  p.  955).  Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  "reckoned 
among  the  Sacred  Scriptures  by  the  Synod  of  Nice," 
by  which  he  probably  means  that  it  was  quoted  in 
the  records  of  the  Council,  unless  the  text  be  cor- 
rupt. It  has  been  wrongly  inserted  in  the  cata- 
logue at  the  close  of  the  ApostoHc  Canons,  against 
the  best  authority  (cf.  Hody,  De  BibL  Text.  646  a), 
but  it  obtained  a  place  in  the  Latin  Canon  at  an 
early  time  (cf.  Hilar.  Prol.  in  Ps.  15),  which  it 
commonly  maintained  afterwards.     [Canon.] 

7.  The  Commentary  of  Fritzsche  {Kurzge/ass- 
tes  Exeg.  Handbuch,  Leipzig,  1853)  is  by  far  the 
best  which  has  appeared ;  within  a  narrow  compass 
it  contains  a  good  critical  apparatus  and  scholarlike 
notes.  B.  F.  W. 

*  Literature.  —  Besides  the  Introductions  and 
other  general  works  referred  to  under  the  art.  Apoc- 
rypha, the  following  essays  and  treatises  may  be 
noted  :  Reuss,  art.  Judith  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's 
Allgem.  Encykl.,  Sect.  ii.  Theil  xxviii.  pp.  98-103. 
Vaihinger,  in  Herzog's  Real-EncyM.  vii.  135-142. 
Ginsburg,  in  Kitto's  Cyd.  of  Bibl.  Lit.,  3d  ed.,  ii. 
692-696.  "  G.  B."  in  the  Journ.  of  Sacr.  Lit.  for 
July,  1856,  pp.  342-363,  and  B.  H.  Cowper,  The 
Book  of  .Tudith  and  its  Geography,  ibid.  Jan.  1861, 
pp.  421-440.  0.  Wolff  (Cath.),  Das  Buck  Judith 
als  geschichtliche  Urkunde  vertheidigt  u.  erkldrt, 
l.eipz.  1861,  of  little  or  no  value.  The  most  elabo- 
rate and  remarkable  among  the  recent  publications 
relating  to  the  book  is  that  of  Volkmar,  Handb.  d. 
Einl.  in  die  Apokryphen,  !«>'  Theil,  1^  Abih.  Judith, 
Tiib.  1860.  He  maintains  that  the  book  was  com- 
posed in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Hadrian,  near 
the  end  of  A.  d.  117  or  the  beginning  of  118,  and 
that  it  describes,  under  the  disguise  of  fictitioiih 
names,  the  war  of  Trajan  against  the  Parthians 
and  Jews,  and  the  triumph  of  the  latter  in  the 
death  of  Lusius  Quietus,  the  general  of  Trajan 
and  governor  of  Judaea.  Nebuchadnezzar  stands 
for  Trajan;  Nineveh  is  Antioch  "  the  great,"  as  the 
chief  city  under  the  Roman  sway  in  the  East ;  and 
Assyria  accordingly  stands  for  Syria  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  power  which  oppressed  the  Jews, 
the  region  where  that  power  was  concentrated. 
"  Arphaxad  the  king  of  the  Medes  "  represents  the 
Parthian  Arsacidae;  Ek;batana  ia  Nisibis,  Holo- 
fernes Lucius  Quietus,  and  the  beautiful  widow 
Judith  sjTnbolizes  Judaea  in  her  desolation,  but 
still  faithful  to  Jehovah,  and  destined  to  triumph 
over  her  enemies.  This  explanation  is  carried  out 
into  detail  with  great  learning  and  ingenuity.     It 


o  The.  present  Greek  text  offers  instance*   of  iris-    Herzog's  Encykl.  s.  v. ;  Fritzsche,  Einl.  §  2 ;  De  Wette. 
iranBlation  which  clearly  point  to  an  Aramaic  original :  j  Einl.  §  308,  c.). 
e-  iii.  2,  XV.  3,  i.  8  ;  cf.   v.  15,  18  (Vaihinger,  in        b  Of  modem  versions  the  English  follows  the  Greek 

I  and  that  of  Luther  the  Latin,  text. 


1513  JUEL 

was  first  proposed  by  Volkmar  in  Zeller's  Theol. 
Jahrb.  for  1856,  p.  362  fF.,  and  more  fully  set  forth 
in  an  article  in  the  same  periodical,  1857,  pp.  441- 
498;  corap.  his  articles  on  the  Parthian-Jewish  war 
of  Trajan,  in  the  liheinisches  Museum  f.  Philvl. 
and  the  Zeitschr.J".  Alterthumskwide  for  1858.  His 
view  has  been  accepted  by  Baur,  Hitzig  (Milgen- 
feld's  Ztitschi:  f.  wiss.  Theol.  1860,  pp.  240-250), 
and  Schenkel.  Strong  objections  to  it  have  been 
urged  by  Hilgenfeld,  Zeitschr.f.  wiss.  Theol.  1858, 
i.  270-281,  and  1861,  iv.  335-385;  R.  A,  Lipsius, 
ihicl  1859,  ii.  39-121,  and  in  the  Literarisches 
Centralblntt  J.  Deutschland,  1861,  coll.  605-610; 
Ewald,  Jahrb.  f.  Blbl.  wiss.  xi.  226-231,  and  Gott. 
Gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1861,  ii.  693-710;  and  L.  Dies- 
tel,  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theol.  18C2,  pp.  781-784. 
See  also  Ewald's  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  3^  Ausg. 
iv.  618-625  (541  ff.,  2e  Aufl.).  On  the  different 
forms  of  the  Judith-legend  in  Jewish  tradition,  see 
Jellinck's  Bet  ha-Midrasch,  vols,  i.,  ii.  (1853  f.), 
and  Lipsius,  JUdische  Quellen  zur  Jvdithsage,  in 
Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschr.f.  wiss.  Theol.  1867,  x.  337- 
366.  A. 

JUTEL  Clou^A;  [Vat.  \ovva,  but  joined  with 
the  following  word:]  Johel).  1.  1  Esdr.  ix.  34. 
[Uel.] 

2.  ([Vat.  Out/A,  but  joined  with  the  preceding 
word:]  Jessei.)  1  Esdr.  ix.  35.     [Joel,  13.] 

JU'LIA  Clov\ia:  [Jw/mw,  ace.]), a  Christian 
woman  at  Rome,  probably  the  v/ife,  or  perhaps  the 
sister  of  Philologus,  in  connection  with  whom  she 
is  saluted  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  xvi.  15).  Origen  sup- 
poses that  they  were  master  and  mistress  of  a 
Christian  household  which  included  the  other  per- 
sons mentioned  in  the  same  verse.  Some  modern  | 
critics  have  conjectured  that  the  name  may  be  that 
of  a  man,  Julias.  W.  T.  B 

JU'LIUS  ClovAios-  [Julius]),  tlie  courteous 
centurion  of  "  Augustus'  band,"  to  whose  charge 
St.  Paul  was  delivered  when  he  was  sent  prisoner 
firom  Caesarea  to  Rome  (Acts  xxvii.  1,  3).  [Cen- 
turion.] 

Augustus'  band  has  been  identified  by  some 
commentators  with  the  Italian  band  (Acts  x.  1 ) ; 
by  others,  less  probably,  with  the  body  of  cavalry 
denominated  Sebasteni  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xix.  9, 
§2,  (fee).  Conybeare  and  Howson  (Life  of  St. 
Paul,  ch.  2i )  adopt  in  the  main  Wieseler's  opinion, 
that  the  Augustan  cohort  was  a  detachment  of  the 
Praetorian  Guards  attached  to  the  person  of  the 
Roman  governor  at  Caesarea;  and  that  this  Julius 
may  be  the  same  as  Julius  Priscus  (Tacit.  Hist.  ii. 
92,  iv.  11),  sometime  centurion,  afterwards  prefect 
of  the  Praetorians.     [Italian  Band,  Amer.  ed.] 

W.  T.  B. 

JU^IA  Clovvias,  i-  e.  Junias:  [Juniam, 
ace.]), a  Christian  at  Rome,  mentioned  by  St.  Paul 
ns  one  of  his  kinsfolk  and  fellow-prisoners,  of  note 
among  the  Apostles,  and  in  Christ  before  St.  Paul 
(Rom.  xvi.  7).  Origen  conjectures  that  he  was 
possibly  one  of  the  seventy  disciples.  Hammond 
also  takes  the  name  to  be  that  of  a  man,  Junias, 
trhkh  would  be  a  contraction  (as  Winer  observes) 
of  Junilids  or  Junianus.  [Andronicus.]  Chrys- 
ostora,  holding  the  more  common,  but  perhaps  less 
probable,  hypothesis  that  the  name  is  that  of  a 
woman,  Junia,  remarks  on  it,  "  How  great  is  the 
devotion  of  this  woman,  that  she  should  be  counted 
worthy  cf  the   name  of  Apostle!"      Nothing 


JUPITER 

refers:  Origen" supposes  that  it  is  that  hmdagt 
from  which  Christ  makes  Christians  free. 

W.    T.  B. 

JUNIPER  (Cn*1,  from  D^^,  "bind," 
Gesen.  p.  1317:  padfxfv,  (pvrSv,  1  K.  xix.  4,  5* 
juniperus).  It  has  been  already  stated  [Cedar] 
that  the  oxycedrus  or  Phoenician  juniper  was  the 
tree  whose  wood,  called  "  cedar-wood,"  was  ordered 
by  the  law  to  be  used  in  ceremonial  purification 
(Lev.  xiv.  4;  Num.  xix.  6).  The  word,  however, 
which  is  rendered  in  A.  V.  juniper,  is  beyond 
doubt  a  sort  of  broom,  Genista  7noiio.y)ervia,  Ge- 
nista 7-cetam  of  Forskal,  answering  to  the  Arabic 
lie  them,  which  is  also  found  in  the  desert  of  Sinai 
in  the  neighborhood  of  the  true  juniper  (Robinson, 
ii.  124).  It  is  mentioned  as  affording  shade  to 
Elijah  in  his  flight  to  Horeb  (1  K.  xix.  4,  5),  and 
as  affording  material  for  fuel,  and  also,  in  extreme 
cases,  for  human  food  (Ps.  cxx.  4;  Job  xxx.  4).  It 
is  very  abundant  in  the  desert  of  Sinai,  and  affords 
shade  and  protection,  both  in  heat  and  storm,  to 
travellers  (Virg.  Georg.  ii.  434,  436).  Its  roots 
are  very  bitter,  and  would  thus  serve  as  food  only 
in  extreme  cases;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether 

^T?^  (Job  XXX.  4)  is  to  be  restricted  to  roots  only, 
or  to  be  taken  in  a  wider  sense  of  product,  and 
thus  include  the  fruit,  which  is  much  liked  by 
sheep,  and  may  thus  have  sometimes  served  for 
human  food  (Ges.  p.  1484).  The  roots  are  much 
valued  by  the  Arabs  for  charcoal  for  the  Cairo 
market.  Thus  the  tree  which  afforded  shade  to 
Elijah  may  have  furnished  also  the  "coals"  oi 
ashes  for  baking  the  cake  which  satisfied  his  hungei 
(1  K.  xix.  6;  see  also  Ps.  cxx.  4,  "coals  of  juni- 
I^er").  The  Both e7H  is  a  leguminous  plant,  and 
bears  a  white  flower.  It  is  found  also  in  Spain, 
Portugal,  and  Palestine.  Its  abundance  in  the 
Sinai  desert  gave  a  name  to  a  station  of  the  Israel- 
ites, Rithmah  (Num.  xxxiii.  18,19;  Burckhardt, 
Syria,  pp.  483,  537;  Robinson,  i.  203,  205;  Lord 
Lindsay,  Letters,  p.  183;  Pliny,  //.  N.  xxiv.  9,  65; 
Balfour,  Plants  of  the  Bible,  p.  50;  Stanley,  -S.  4 
P.  pp.  20,  79,  521 ;  [Thomson,  Land  and  Book, 
ii.  436  ff. ;  and  especially  Tristram,  Nat.  Eist.  of 
the  Bible,  p.  339  f.  (Loud.  18G7).  —  H.]). 

H.  W.  P. 

JUTITER  (Z6t5s,  LXX.  [and  N.  T.:  Jupi^ 
ter] ).  Among  the  chief  measures  which  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  took  for  the  entire  subversion  of  the 
Jewish  faith  was  that  of  dedicating  the  Temple  at 
Jerusalem  to  the  service  of  Zeus  Olympius  (2  Mace, 
vi.  2),  and  at  the  same  time  the  rival  Temple  on 
Gerizim  was  dedicated  to  Zeus  Xenius  {Jupiter 
IJospitalis,  Vulg.).  The  choice  of  the  first  epithet 
is  easily  intelligible.  The  Olympian  Zeus  was  the 
national  god  of  the  Hellenic  race  (Thucyd.  iii.  14), 
as  well  as  the  supreme  ruler  of  the  heathen  world, 
and  as  such  formed  tlie  true  opposite  to  Jehovah, 
who  had  revealed  Himself  as  the  God  of  Abraham. 
The  application  of  the  second  epithet,  "  the  God 
of  hospitality"  (cf.  Grimm,  on  2  Mace.  /.  c),  is 
more  obscure.  In  2  Mace.  vi.  2  it  is  explained  bj 
the  clause,  "as  was  the  character  of  thuse  who 
dwelt  in  the  place,"  which  may,  however,  be  an 
ironical  comment  of  the  writer  (cf.  Q.  Curt.  iv.  5 
8),  and  not  a  sincere  eulogy  of  the  hospitality  of 
the  Samaritans  (as  Ewald,  Gesch.  iv.  339  n.). 

Jupiter  or  Zeus  is  mentioned  in  one  i>assage  of 
the  N.  T.,  on  the  occasion  of  St.   Paul  s  visit  t< 


of  the  imprisonment  to  which   St.  Paul  I  Lystra  (Acts   xiv.    12,  13),  where  the  expres.«io<i 


JUSHAB-HESED 

>♦  Jupiter,  wLich  was  before  their  city,"  means  that 
his  temple  was  outside  the  city."  B.  F.  W. 

*  The  Lystriaiis  on  that  occasion  called  Bar- 
nabas Jupiter  (ver.  12),  because  Paul  being  "the 
chief  speaker  "  and  therefore  :Mercury,  the  god  of 
eloquence,  they  supposed  the  other  visitor  must  be 
J upiter,  whom  they  specially  worshipped.  They  had  a 
tradition  also  that  these  two  gods  had  once  travelled 
in  disguise  among  them  (see  Ovid,  Met.  viii.  611). 
It  has  been  suggested  too  that  Barnabas  may  have, 
been  the  older  man  of  the  two,  and  more  im- 
posing than  Paul  in  his  personal  appearance  (comp. 
2  Cor.  X.  1,10).  H. 

JU'SHAB-HE'SED  ("TDn  ^^7^1^  :  'Atro- 
/SeS;  [Vat.  Apo^acTOK',]  Alex.  A(roj8a€(r5 ;  [Comp. 
'IftxrajSeo-eS:]  Josdbhesed),  son  ^f  Zerubbabel  (1 
Chr.  lit.  20).  It  does  not  appear  why  the  five  chil- 
dren in  this  verse  are  separated  from  the  three  in 
ver.  19.  Bertheau  suggests  that  they  might  be  by 
a  difterent  mother,  or  possibly  born  in  Judaea  after 
the  return,  whereas  the  three  others  were  l)Orn  at 
Babylon.  The  name  of  Jushab-hesed,  i.  e.  "  Lov- 
ing-kindness is  returned,"  taken  in  conjunction 
with  that  of  his  father  and  brothers,  is  a  striking 
expression  of  the  feelings  of  pious  Jews  at  the  re 
turn  from  Captivity,  and  at  the  same  time  a  good 
illustration  of  the  nature  of  Jewish  names. 

A.  C.  II. 

JUS'TUS  CloDo-ros:  [./?/,s^«s,"just"]).  Sclioett- 
gen  {Hor.  Ihbr.  in  Act.  Ap.)  shows  by  quotations 
from  rabbinical  writers  that  this  name  was  not 
unusual  among  the  Jews.  1.  A  surname  of  Joseph 
called  Barsabiw  (Acts   i.  23).       [Joseph  Barsa- 

BAS.] 

2.  A  Christian  at  Corinth,  with  whom  St. 
Paul  lodged  (Acts  xviii.  7).  The  Syr.  and  Arab. 
have  Titus,  while  the  Vulg.  combines  both  names 
Titus  Justus. 

*  Paul  did  not  lodge  witli  Justus  at  this  time, 
but  having  left  the  synagogue  preached  at  the  house 
of  Justus,  which  being  near  the  synagogue  wjia  so 
much  the  more  convenient  for  that  purpose  (ver.  8). 
For  aught  that  appears,  he  abode  still  with  Aquila 
(ver.  3)  after  this  separation  from  the  Jews.  Nor  is 
Justus  spoken  of  as  a  Christian,  but  as  a  Jewish 
proselyte  {<refiofi4uov  rhu  Oeov),  though  evidently 
he  had  more  sympathy  with  Paul  than  with  the 
Jews,  and  no  doubt  soon  became  a  V)eliever.     H. 

3.  A  surname  of  Jesus,  a  friend  of  St.  Paul 
(Col.  iv.  11).     [Jesus,  p.  1347.] 

JUT'TAH       (nW,       i.    e.   Jutah;*   also 

ntS^"^  and  in  xxi.  16,  71"^^  [extended,  inclined] : 
'iTctJ',  Alex.  leTxa;  Tai/v,  Alex,  omits:  Jota,  Jeta), 
a  city  in  the  mountain  region  of  Judah,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Maon  and  Carmel  (.Josh.  xv.  55). 
It  was  allotted  to  the  priests  (xxi.  16),  but  in  the 
catalogue  of  1  Chr.  vi.  57-59,  the  name  has  es- 
caped. In  the  time  of  Eusebius  it  was  a  large 
village  {kw/jlt}  fieyia-TT}},  18  miles  southward  of 
•i^leutheropolis  {Oiiomadicon,  ^^ Jetton'').  A  vil- 
^e  called  Yutta  was  visited  by  Robinson,  close  tc 
Main  and  Kurmid  {Bibl.  Res.  ist  ed.  ii.  195,  628), 
which  doubtless  represents  the  ancient  town. 


KADESH,  KADESH  BARNEA    1519 

Reland  (Pa/,  p.  870)  conjectures  that  JuUa  is 
the  irdKis  'louSa  (A.  V.  "  a  city  of  Juda  • )  in  the 
hill  country,  in  which  Zacharias,  the  fatlier  vjf  John 
the  Baptist,  resided  (Luke  i.  39).  But  this,  though 
feasible,  is  not  at  present  confirmed  by  any  positive 
evidence.     [Juda,  City  of,  Amer.  ed.]         G. 


K. 


KAB'ZEEL  (bS^5i2  [see  below]  :  [a 
Josh.,]  Buto-eAe^A,  Alex.  *Kao-0e7jA,  [Comp.  Kafir 
o-^A,  Aid.  Ka)3<r677A;  in  2  Sam.,]  Ka/SetreifjA. 
[Vat.  KaraiSeo-erjA,  Comp.  Aid.  Ka^aaa^W  io  i 
Chr.,]  Ka^a(ra-f]\-  Cabseel),  oue  of  the  "cities'' 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah;  the  first  named  in  the  enu- 
meration of  those  next  Edom,  and  apparently  the 
farthest  south  (Josh.  xv.  21).  Taken  as  Hebrew, 
the  word  signifies  "  collected  by  God,"  and  may  be 
compared  with  Jokthkkl,  the  name  Ijestowed  by 
the  Jews  on  an  Edoraite  city.  Kabzeel  is  memo- 
rable as  the  native  place  of  the  great  hero  Benaiah- 
ben-Jehoiada,  in  connection  with  whom  it  is  twice 
mentioned  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  20;  1  Chr.  xi.  22).  After 
the  Captivity  it  was  reinhabited  by  the  Jews,  and 
appears  as  jEKABZEEr.. 

It  is  twice  mentioned  in  the  Onomasticon  —  as 
Ka3o-cT,A  and  Cajjueel ;  the  first  time  by  Eusebius 
oidy,  and  apparently  confounded  with  Carmel,  un- 
less the  conjecture  of  Le  Clerc  in  his  notes  on  the 
passage  be  accepted,  which  would  identify  it  with 
the  site  of  Elijah's  sleep  and  vision,  between  Beer- 
sheba  and  Horeb.  No  trace  of  it  appears  to  have 
been  discovered  in  modern  times.  G. 

*  KA'DES  (Ka577y:  Vulg.  omits),  Jud.  i.  9, 
perhaps  the  same  as  Kadesh  (see  below),  or 
Kedesii,  Josh.  XV.  23.  .  A. 

KA'DESH,  KA'DESH  BAR'NEA  illeb. 
Barne'a]  {'^l^,  ^?."??  ^"ll^  [see  in  the  art. 
and  notes] :  KoStj?  [Ez.  xlvii.  19,  Rom.  Vat.  Ka- 
Si^fj.],  KctSrjs  Bapwf},  KaSyjy  rod  Bapv-f}  [Num. 
xxxiv.  4;  Cades,  Cadesbarne']).  This  place,  the 
scene  of  Miriam's  death,  was  the  fartliest  point  to 
which  the  Israehtes  reached  in  their  direct  road  to 
Canaan;  it  was  also  that  whence  the  spies  were 
sent,  and  where,  on  their  return,  the  people  broke 
out  into  murmuring,  upon  which  their  strictly  jjenal 
term  of  wandering  began  (Num.  xiii.  3,  26,  xiv. 
29-33,  XX.  1 ;  Deut.  ii.  14).  It  is  probable  that 
the  term  "Kadesh,"  though  applied  to  signify  a 
"  citv,"  yet  had  also  a  wider  application  to  a  region, 
in  which  Kadesh-Meribah  certainly,  and  Kadesh- 
Barnea  probably,  indicates  a  precise  iL'pot.  Thus 
Kadesh  appears  as  a  limit  eastward  of  the  same 
tract  which  was  limited  westward  by  Shur  ((ieji. 
XX.  1).  Shur  is  possibly  the  same  as  Sihor,  "  which 
is  before  Egypt"  (xxv.  18;  Josh.  xiii.  3;  Jer.  ii. 
18),  and  was  the  first  ix)rtion  of  the  wilderness  on 
which  the  people  emerged  from  the  passage  of  the 
Red  Sea.  [Shur.]  "Between  Kadesh  and  Bered" 
is  another  indication  of  the  site  of  Kadesh  as  an 
eastern  limit  (Gen.  xvi.  14),  for  the  pohit  so  fixed 
is  "  the  fountain  on  the  way  to  Shur  "  (v.  7),  and 


•  a  The  name  Jupiter  also  occurs  in  tne  A.  V.  in 
icts  xix.  35,  where  "  the  image  [of  the  goddess  Arte- 
ma]  which  fell  down  from  Jupiter  "  is  the  translation 
9f  Tov  SiOTjeTOu?.  A. 

<•  This  ~  with  one  t  —  is  the  form  g\ven.  in  Hahn's 


text  of  XV.  55  ;  Michaelis  and  Walton  insert  a  dagesh, 
but  it  was  apparently  unknown  to  any  of  the  old 
translators,  in  whose  versions  (with  the  excefttion  of 
the  Alex.  LXX.),  whatever  shape  the  wordas-umes,  it 
retains  a  single  t. 


1520 


KADESH 


the  range  of  limits  is  narrowed  by  selecting  the 
west(!rn  one  not  so  far  to  the  west,  while  the  eastern 
one,  Kadesh,  is  unchanged.  Again,  we  have  Ka- 
desh  as  the  point  to  which  the  foray  of  Chedor- 
laomer  "  returned  ''  —  a  word  which  does  not  im- 
ply that  they  had  previously  visited  it,  but  that  it 
lay  in  the  direction,  as  viewed  from  Mount  Seir 
and  Paran  mentioned  next  l)efore  it,  which  was 
that  of  the  point  from  which  Chedorlaomer  had 
come,  namely,  the  North.  Chedorlaomer,  it  seems, 
coming  down  by  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
smote  the  Zuzims  (Amnion,  Gen.  xiv.  5 ;  Deut.  ii. 
20),  and  the  Itmims  (Moab,  Deut.  ii.  11),  and  the 
Horites  in  Mount  Seir,  to  the  south  of  that  sea, 
unto  "  El-Paran  that  is  by  the  wilderness."  He 
drove  these  Horites  over  the  Arabah  into  the  et- 
Tih  region.  Then  "  returned,"  i.  e.  went  north- 
ward to  Kadesh  and  Hazazon  Tamar,  or  Engedi 
(comp.  Gen.  xiv.  7;  2  Chr.  xx.  2).  In  Gen.  xiv.  7 
Kadesh  is  identified  with  En-Mishpat,  the  »  foun- 
tain of  judgment,"  and  is  connected  with  Tamar, 
or  Hazazon  Tamar,  just  as  we  find  these  two  in  the 
comparatively  late  book  of  Ezekiel,  as  designed  to 
mark  the  southern  border  of  Judah,  drawn  through 
them  and  terminating  seaward  at  the  "  Kiver  to 
(or  toward)  the  Great  Sea."  Precisely  thus  stands 
KadesIi-lWnea  in  the  books  of  Numliers  and  Joshua 
(comp.  Ez.  xlvii.  19,  xlviii.  28;  Num.  xxxiv.  4; 
Josh.  XV.  3).  Unless  then  we  are  prepared  to  make 
a  double  Kadesh  for  the  book  of  Genesis,  it  seems 
idle  with  Keland  (Palcestina,  p.  114-17)  to  distin- 
guish the  "  En-Mishpat,  which  is  Kadesh,"  from 
that  to  which  the  spies  returned.  For  there  is  an 
identity  about  all  the  connections  of  the  two,  which, 
if  not  conclusive,  will  compel  us  to  abandon  all 
possible  inquiries.  This  holds  especially  as  regards 
Paran  and  Tamar,  and  in  respect  of  its  1  eing  the 
eastern  limit  of  a  region,  and  also  of  being  the  first 
point  of  importance  found  by  Chedoilaomer  on 
passing  round  the  southern  extremity  of  the  Dead 
Sea.  In  a  strikingly  similar  manner  we  have  the 
limits  of  a  route,  ajiparently  a  well-known  one  at 
the  time,  indicated  by  three  points,  Horeb,  Mount 
Seir,  Kadesh-Barnea,  in  Deut.  i.  2,  the  distance 
between  the  extremes  being  fixed  at  "11  days' 
journey,"  or  about  165  miles.  alloM-ing  15  miles  to 
an  average  day's  journey.  This  is  one  element  for 
determining  the  site  of  Kadesh,  assuming  of  course 
the  position  of  Horeb  ascertained.  The  name  of 
the  place  to  which  the  spies  returned  is  "  Kadesh  " 
simply,  in  Num.  xiii.  20,  and  is  there  closely  con- 
nected with  the  '-wilderness  of  Paran;  "yet  the 
''  wilderness  of  Zin  "  stands  in  near  conjunction, 
as  the  point  whence  the  "  search  "  of  the  spies 
commenced  (ver.  21).  Again,  in  Num.  xxxii.  8, 
we  find  that  it  was  from  Kadesh-Barnea  that  the 
mission  of  the  spies  commenced,  and  in  the  re- 
hearsed narrative  of  the  same  event  in  Deut.  i.  19, 
and  ix.   23,  the  name  "  Barnea  "  is  also  added. 


o  Another  short  article  of  Jerome's,  apparently 
referred  to  by  Stanley  {S.  Sf  P.  03  note),  as  relating 
likewise  to  En-mishpat,  should  seem  to  mean  some- 
thing wholly  different,  namely,  the  well  of  Isaac  and 
Abimelech  in  Gerar :  (j)peap  Kpto-ews  eis  en  vvv  ecm 
«co/u.>j  BripSav  (pulev.s  judicis)  xaAov^eVrj  iv  rfi   Tepa- 

h  There  is  a  remarkable  interpolation  in  the  LXX., 
ftr  (as  seems  less  probable)  omission  in  the  present 
Heb.  text  of  Num.  xxxiii.  36,  where,  in  following  the 
rarions  sta^nvi  of  the  march,  we  find  respectively  as 
loUowB.— 


KADESH 

inus  far  there  seems  no  reasonable  doubt. of  th« 
identity  of  this  Kadesh  with  that  of  (ienesis.  Again, 
in  Num.  xx.,  we  find  the  people  encamped  in'^Ka- 
desh  alter  reaching  the  wilderness  of  /in.  For  the 
question  whether  this  was  a  second  visit  (supposing 
the  Kadesh  identical  with  that  of  the  spies),  or  a 
continued  occupancy,  see  ^^'lLI>Kl{^•Ess  of  Wan- 
RKKiNG.  The  mention  of  the  "  wilderness  of  Zin  '" 
is  in  favor  of  the  identity  of  tliis  place  with  that  of 
Num.  xiii.  The  reasons  which  seem  to  have  fostered 
a  contrary  opinion  are  the  absence  of  water  (ver.  2) 
and  the  positioJi  assigned  —  "  in  the  uttermost  of" 
the  "  border  "  of  F2dom.  Yet  the  '  murmuring 
seems  to  have  arisen,  or  to  have  been  more  intense 
on  account  of  their  having  encamped  there  in  the 
expectation  of  finding  water;  which  affords  again  a 
presumption  of  identity.  Further,  "  the  wilderness 
of  Zin  along  by  the  coast  of  Edom  "  (Num.  xxxiv. 
3;  Josh.  XV.)  destroys  any  presumption  to  the  con- 
trary arising  from  that  position.  Jerome  clearly 
knows  of  but  one  and  the  same  Kadesh  —  "  where 
Moses  smote  the  rock,"  where  "  Miriam's  monu- 
ment," he  says,  "  was  still  shown,  and  where  Chedor- 
laomer smote  the  rulers  of  Amalek."  It  is  true 
Jerome  gives  a  distinct  article  on  KcJSSrjs,  <Evea  r, 
irfiyri  rrjs  Kpiaecos,  i-  e-  En-mishpat,"  but  only 
perhaps  in  order  to  record  the  fountain  as  a  distinct 
local  fact.  The  apparent  ambiguity  of  the  position, 
first,  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  or  in  Paran ;  and 
secondly  in  that  of  Zin,  is  no  real  increa.se  to  the 
difficulty.  For  whether  tiiese  tracts  were  contigu- 
ous, and  Kadesh  on  their  common  border,  or  ran 
into  each  other,  and  embraced  a  common  territory, 
to  which  tlie  name  "  Kadesh,"  in  an  extended 
sense,  might  be  given,  is  co»nparatively  unimportant. 
It  may,  however,  be  observed,  that  the  wilderness 
of  Paran  commences,  Num.  x.  12,  where  that  of 
Sinai  ends,  and  that  it  extends  to  the  point,  whence 
in  ch.  xiii.  the  spies  set  out,  though  the  only  posi- 
tive identification  of  Kadesh  with  it  is  that  in  xiii. 
26,  when  on  their  return  to  rejoin  Moses  they  come 
"  to  the  Mnlderness  of  Paran,  to  Kadesh."  Pakan 
then  was  evidently  the  general  name  of  the  great 
tract  south  of  Palestine,  commencing  soon  after 
Sinai,  as  the  j)eople  advanced  northwards — that 
perhaps  now  known  as  the  desert  e^n//.  Hence, 
when  the  spies  are  returning  southwanfs  they  return 
to  Kadesh,  viewed  as  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran ; 
though,  in  the  same  chapter,  when  starting  north- 
wards on  their  journey,  they  commence  from  that 
of  Zin.  It  seems  almost  to  follow  that  the  wi)der- 
ness  of  Zin  must  have  overlapped  that  of  Paran  on 
the  north  side;  or  must,  if  they  were  parallel  and 
lay  respectively  east  and  west,  have  had  a  further 
extension  northwards  than  this  latter.  In  the 
designation  of  the  southern  border  of  the  Israelites 
also,  it  is  observable  that  the  wildemess  of  Zin  ia 
mentioned  as  a  limit,  but  nowhere  that  of  Paran  * 
(Num.  xxxiv.  3,  Josh.  xv.  1),  unless  the  dwelling 


Hebrew. 

anr?  win  1^ 

Greek. 
Kot  airfjpav  eK  TeariiiV  Fa/Sep  Ka\  napeye^tKAOv  ev  rft 
iprifKii  SiV,  KoX  aTrijpav  ck  tVJs  epij/nov  2tV,  Kai  napeve- 
^oAov  els  rifiv  Ipijfiov  ^dpaf  avn^  iaTi  Kdbiy;. 
The  LXX.  would  make  them  approach  the  wildemesi 
of  Sin  first,  aud  that  of  Paran  secondly,  thus  reveieiDf 
tlie  effect  of  the  above  observatious. 


KADESH 

of  IsL/nael  '<  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran "  (Gen. 
ixi.  21)  indicates  that,  on  the  western  portion  of 
the  southern  border,  which  the  story  of  Hagar  indi- 
3ates  as  his  dwelling-place,  the  Paran  nomenclature 
prevailed. 

If  it  be  allowed,  in  the  dearth  of  positive  testi- 
mony, to  follow  great  natural  boundaries  in  sug- 
eestine  an  answer  to  the  question  of  the  situation 
of  these  adjacent  or  perhaps  overlapping  wilder- 
nesses, it  will  be  seen,  on  reference  to  Kiepert's  map 
V in  Robinson,  vol.  i. ;  see  also  Russegger's  map  of 
the  same  region),  that  the  Arabah  itself  and  the 
plateau  westward  of  it  are,  when  we  leave  out  the 
commonly  so-called  Sinaitic  peninsula  (here  con- 
sidered as  corresponding  in  its  wider  or  northerly 
portion  to  "the  wilderness  of  Sinai"),  the  two 
parts  of  the  whole  region  most  strongly  partitioned 
off  from  and  contrasted  with  one  another.  On  this 
western  plateau  is  indeed  superimposed  another,  no 
less  clearly  marked  out,  to  judge  from  the  map,  as 
distinct  from  the  former  as  this  from  the  Arabah ; 
but  this  higher  ground,  it  will  be  further  seen, 
probably  corresponds  with  "  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites."  The  Arabah,  and  its  limiting  barrier 
of  high  ground  «  on  the  western  side,  differ  by  about 
400  or  500  feet  in  elevation  at  the  part  where  Rob- 
inson, advancing  from  Petra  towards  Hebron, 
ascended  that  barrier  by  the  pass  el-Khurdr.  At 
the  N.  VV.  angle  of  the  Arabah  the  regularity  of 
this  barrier  is  much  broken  by  the  great  wadies 
which  converge  thither;  but  from  its  edge  at  e/- 
Khurar  the  great  floor  stretches  westward,  with  no 
great  interruption  of  elevation,  if  we  omit  the  super- 
imposed plateau,  to  the  Egyptian  frontier,  and 
/lorthward  to  Rhinocolura  and  Gaza.  Speaking  of 
it  apparently  from  the  point  of  view  at  el-Khurdr, 
Robinson  (ii.  58G,  587)  says  it  is  "not  exactly  a  table- 
land, but  a  higher  tract  of  country,  forming  the 
first  of  the  several  steps  or  offsets  into  which  the 
ascent  of  the  mountains  in  this  part  is  divided." 
It  is  now  known  as  the  wilderness  et-  Tih.  A  general 
description  of  it  occurs  in  Robinson  (i.  261,  262), 
together  with  a  mention  of  the  several  travellers 
who  had  then  previously  visited  it:  its  configura- 
tion is  given,  ib.  294.  If  this  et-Tih  region  rep- 
resent the  wilderness  of  Paran,  then  the  Arabah 
itself,  including  all  the  low  ground  at  the  southern 
and  southwestern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea,  may 
stand  for  the  wilderness  of  Zin.  The  superimposed 
plateau  has  an  eastern  border  converging,  towards 
the  north,  with  that  of  the  general  elevated  tract 
on  which  it  stands,  i.  e.  with  the  western  barrier 
aforesaid  of  the  Arabah,  but  losing  towards  its 
higher  or  northern  extremity  its  elevation  and  pre- 
ciseness,  in  proportion  as  the  general  tract  on  which 
it  standi  appears  to  rise,  till,  near  the  S.  W.  curve 
of  the  Dead  Sea,  the  higlier  plateau  and  the  general 
tract  appear  to  blend.  The  convergency  in  question 
arises  from  the  general  tract  having,  on  its  eastern 
side,  t.  e.  where  it  is  to  the  Arabah  a  western  limit, 
a  barrier  running  more  nearly  N.  and  S.  than  that 
of  the  superimposed  plateau,  which  runs  about 
E.  N.  E.  and  VV.  S.  W.  This  highest  of  the  two 
steps  on  which  this  terrace  stands  is  described  by 
Williams  {Holy  City,  i.  463,  464),  who  approached  it 


«  Called,  at  least  throughout  a  portion  of  its  course, 
Jebel  el-Beyaneh. 

b  There  are  three  nearly  parallel  passes  leading  to 
the  same  level :  thi.<»  is  the  middle  one  of  the  three. 
Schubert  {Reise,  ii.  441-3)  appears  to  haye  *Aken  tu<s 
same  path  :  Bertou  that  on  the  W.  side,  el-  Yemen. 


KADESH  1521 

from  Hebron  —  the  opposite  direction  to  that  Id 
which  liobinson,  mounting  towards  Hebron  by  the 
higher  pass  es-Sufdh,^  came  upon  it  —  as  "a 
gigantic  natural  rampart  of  lofty  mountains,  which 
we  could  distinctly  trace  for  many  miles  *  E.  and 
W.  of  the  spot  on  which  we  stood,  whoso  precipitous 
promontories  of  naked  rock,  forming  as  it  were 
bastions  of  Cyclopean  architecture,  iutted  forth  in 
irregular  masses  from  the  mountain-barrier  into  the 
southern  wilderness,  a  confused  chaos  of  chalk."  <* 
Below  the  traveller  lay  the  Wculy  Murreh,  running 
into  that  called  el-Fikreh,  identifying  the  spot  with 
that  described  by  Robinson  (ii.  587)  as  "a  formid- 
able barrier  supporting  a  third  plateau  "  (reckoning 
apparently  the  Arabah  as  one),  rising  on  the  other, 
L  e.  northern  side  of  the  Wady  el-Fikrch.  But 
the  southern  face  of  this  highest  plateau  is  a  still 
more  strongly  defined  wall  of  mountains.  The 
Israelites  must  probably  have  faced  it,  or  wandered 
along  it,  at  some  period  of  their  advance  from  the 
wilderness  of  Sinai  to  the  more  northern  desert  of 
Paran.  There  is  no  such  boldly-marked  line  of 
cliffs  north  of  the  et-Tih  and  d-Odjmeh  ranges, 
except  perhaps  Mount  Seir,  the  eastern  limit  of  the 
Arabah.  There  is  a  strongly  marked  expression  in 
Deut.  i.  7, 19,  20,  "  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites," 
which,  besides  those  of  Seir  and  Hor,  is  the  only 
one  mentioned  by  name  after  Sinai,  and  which  is 
there  closely  connected  with  Kadesh  Barnea.  The 
wilderness  (that  of  Paran)  "great  and  terrible," 
which  they  passed  through  after  quitting  Horeb 
(vv.  6,  7,  19),  was  "  by  the  way  of"  this  "moun- 
tain of  the  Amorites."  "  We  came,"  says  Moses, 
"  to  Kadesh  Barnea;  and  I  said  unto  you,  ye  are 
come  unto  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites."  Also 
in  ver.  7,  the  adjacent  territories  of  this  mountain- 
region  seem  not  obscurely  intimated ;  we  have  the 
Shefelah  ("plain")  and  tlie  Arabah  ("vale"), 
with  the  "hills"  ("hill-country  of  Judah")  be- 
tween them;  and  "the  South"  is  added  as  that 
debatable  outlying  region,  in  which  the  wilderness 
strives  with  the  inroads  of  life  and  culture.  There 
is  no  natural  feature  to  correspond  so  well  to  this 
mountain  of  the  Amorites  as  this  smaller  higher 
plateau  superimposed  on  et-  Tih,  forming  the  water- 
shed of  the  two  great  systems  of  wadies,  those  north- 
westward towards  the  great  Wady  el-Arish,  and 
those  northeastward  towards  the  Wady  Jerdfeh 
and  the  great  Wady  el-Jeib.  Indeed,  in  these  con- 
verging wady- systems  on  either  side  of  the  "  moun- 
tain," we  have  a  desert-continuation  of  the  same 
configuration  of  country,  which  the  Shefelah  and 
Arabah  with  their  interposed  water-sliedding  high- 
lands present  further  north.  And  even  as  the  name 
Akabah  is  plainly  continued  from  the  Jordan 
Valley,  so  as  to  mean  the  great  arid  trough  between 
the  Dead  Sea  and  Elath;  so  perhaps  the  Shefelah 
("  vale  ")  might  naturally  be  viewed  as  continued 
to  the  "  river  of  Egypt."  And  thus  the  "  mountaii' 
of  the  Amorites  "  would  merely  continue  the  moun- 
tain-mass of  Judah  and  Ephraim,  as  forming  part 
of  the  land  "  which  the  Lord  our  God  doth  give 
unto  us."  The  southwestern  angle  of  this  higher 
plateau,  is  well  defined  by  the  bluff  peak  of  Jebel 
'Ardif  standing  in  about  30°  22'  N.,  by  34°  30' 


c  This  is  only  the  direction,  or  apparent  direction, 
of  the  range  at  the  spot,  its  general  one  being  as  above 
statec'      See  the  maps. 

d  So  Robinson,  before  ascending,  remarks  (ii.  685) 
that  the  hiUs  consisted  of  chalky  stone  and  cou- 
glomerate. 


i 


3522 


KADESH 


E.  Assuming  the  region  from  Wacly  Feiron  to 
the  Jebel  Muusa  as  a  general  basis  for  the  position 
of  Horcb,  nothing  farther  south  than  this  Jebel 
^Araif  appears  t  ^ive  the  necessary  distance  from 
it  for  Kiidftsh,  nor  would  any  ix>int  on  the  west 
Bide  of  the  western  face  of  this  mountain  region 
suit,  until  we  get  quite  high  up  towards  Beer-sheba. 
Nor,  if  any  site  in  this  direction  is  to  be  chosen,  is 
it  easy  to  account  for  "  the  way  of  Mount  Seir  " 
being  mentioned  as  it  is,  Deut.  i.  2,  apparently  as 
the  customary  route  "  from  Horeb  "  thither.  But 
if,  as  further  reasons  will  suggest,  Kadesh  lay  prob- 
ably near  the  S.  W.  curve  of  the  Dead  Sea,  then 
"Mount  Seir"  will  be  within  sight  on  the  E. 
during  all  the  latter  part  of  the  journey  "from 
Iloreb"  thither.  This  mountain  region  is  in 
Kiepert's  map  laid  down  as  the  territory  of  the 
Azdzimeh,  but  is  said  to  be  so  wild  and  rugged 
that  the  Bedouins  of  all  other  tribes  avoid  it,  nor 
has  any  road  ever  traversed  it  (Kobinson,  i.  18G). 
Across  this  then  there  was  no  pass ;  the  choice  of 
routes  lay  between  the  road  which,  leading  from 
Elath  to  Gaza  and  the  Sliejekth,  passes  to  the 
west  of  it,  and  that  which  ascends  from  the  northern 
extremity  of  the  Arabah  by  the  Ma'aleh  Akrabbim 
towards  Hebron,  'i'he  reasons  for  thinking  that 
the  Israelites  took  this  latter  course  are,  that  if  they 
had  taken  the  western,  Beer-sheba  would  seem  to 
have  been  the  most  natural  route  of  their  first  at- 
tempted attack  (Kobinson,  i.  187).  It  would  also 
have  brought  them  too  near  to  the  land  of  the 
Philistines,  which  it  seems  to  have  been  the  Divine 
purpose  that  they  should  avoid.  But  above  all,  the 
features  of  the  country,  scantily  as  they  are  noticed 
in  Num.,  are  in  favor  of  the  eastern  route  from  the 
Arabah  and  Dead  Sea. 

One  site  fixed  on  for  Kadesh  is  the  ^Ain  es-Shey- 
dbeh  on  the  south  side  of  this  "  mountain  of  the 
Amorites,"  and  therefore  too  near  Horeb  to  fulfill 
the  conditions  of  Deut.  i.  2.  Messrs.  Rowlands  and 
Williams  {Holy  City,  i.  463-68)  argue  strongly  in 
favor  of  a  site  for  Kadesh  on  the  west  side  of  this 
whole  mountain  region,  towards  Jebel  HeUil,  where 
they  found  '•  a  large  single  mass  or  small  hill  of 
Bolid  rock,  a  spur  of  the  mountain  to  the  north  of 
it,  immediately  rising  above  it,  the  only  visible 
naked  rock  in  the  whole  district."  They  found 
salient  water  rushing  from  this  rock  into  a  basin, 
but  soon  losing  itself  in  the  sand,  and  a  grand 
space  for  the  encampment  of  a  host  on  the  S.  W. 
gide  of  it.  In  favor  of  it  they  allege,  (1)  the  name 
Kdcli's  or  Kudes,  pronounced  in  English  Kddddse 
or  Kudddse,  as  being  exactly  the  form  of  the  He- 
orew  name  Kadesh;  (2)  the  position,  in  the  line  of 
:he  southern  boundary  of  Judah;  (3)  the  corre- 
spondence with  the  order  of  the  places  mentioned, 
especially  the  places  Adar  and  Aznion,  which  these 
travellers  recogniz*  in  Adeirat  and  Aseimeh,  other- 
wise (as  in  Kiepert's  map)  Kadeirai  and  Kagei- 
meh ;  (4)  its  position  with  regard  to  Jebel  el-Hci'- 
lal,  or  Jehel  Helel;  (5)  its  position  with  regard  to 
the  mountain  of  the  Amorites  (which  they  seem  to 
identify  with  the  ?«es/er»face  of  the  plateau);   (6) 


a  What  is  more  disputable  than  the  S.  boundary 
line  ?  Jebel  Hdal  derives  its  sole  significance  from  a 
passage  not  specified  in  Jeremiah.  The  "mountain  of 
the  Amorites,"  as  shown  above,  need  not  be  that  west- 
em  face.     Mt.  Hor  is  ae  accessible  from  elsewhere. 

h  Seetzen'fi  last  map  shows  a  Wady  Kidiese  corre- 
■ponding  in  position  nearly  mth  Jebel  el- Kudeise  given 
In  Kiepert's  on  the  authority  of  Abeken.  Zimmer- 
Uiann's   Atlas,  spct.  x.,  gives  el-CadessaJi  as  another 


KADESH 

its  situation  with  regard  to  the  grand  S.  \V.  route 
to  Palestine  by  Beer-lahai-roi  from  Egypt;  (7)  its 
distance  from  Sinai,  and  the  goodness  of  the  way 
thither;  (8)  the  accessibility  of  Mount  Hor  from 
this  region.  Of  these,  2,  4,  5,  and  8,  seem  of  no 
weight;  «  1  is  a  good  deal  weakened  by  the  fact 
that  some  such  name  seems  to  have  a  wide  range '' 
in  this  region ;  3  is  of  considerable  force,  but  seems 
overbalanced  by  the  fact  that  the  whole  position 
seems  too  far  west ;  arguments  6  and  7  rather  tend 
against  than  for  the  view  in  question,  any  western 
route  being  unlikely  (see  text  above),  and  the 
"goodness"  of  the  road  not  being  discoverable, 
but  rather  the  reverse,  from  the  Mosaic  record. 
But,  above  all,  how  would  this  accord  with  "  the 
way  of  Mount  Seir"  being  that  fi-ora  Sinai  to 
Kadesh  Barnea?  (Deut.  i.  2). 

In  the  map  to  Robinson's  last  edition,  a  Jebel 
el-Kudeis  is  given  on  the  authority  of  Abeken. 
But  this  spot  would  be  too  far  to  the  west  for  the 
fixed  point  intended  in  Deut.  i.  2  as  Kadesh  Bar- 
nea. Still,  taken  in  connection  with  the  region  en- 
dea\ored  to  be  identified  with  the  "  mountain  of 
the  Amorites,"  it  may  be  a  general  testimony  to 
the  prevalence  of  the  name  Kadesh  within  certain 
limits;  which  is  further  supported  by  the  names 
given  below.'' 

The  indications  of  locality  strongly  point  to  a 
site  near  where  the  mountain  of  the  Amorites  de- 
scends to  the  low  region  of  the  Arabah  and  Dead 
Sea.  Tell  Arad  is  perhaps  as  clear  a  local  nionu- 
ment  of  the  event  of  Num.  xxi.  1,  as  we  can  ex- 
pect to  find.  [Akad,]  "The  Canaanitish  king 
of  Arad  "  found  that  Israel  was  coming  "by  the 
way  of  the  spies,"  and  "  fought  against "  and 
"  took  some  of  them  prisoners."  The  subsequent 
defeat  of  this  king  is  clearly  connected  with  the 
pass  es-Sufa,  between  which  and  the  Tell  Arad  a 
line  drawn  pught  to  give  us  the  direction  of  route 
intended  by  "  by  the  way  of  the  spies;  "  accordingly, 
within  a  day's  jouniey  on  either  side  of  this  line 
produced  towards  the  Arabah,  Kadesh-Barnea 
should  be  sought  for.  [Hokmah.]  Nearly  the 
same  ground  appears  to  have  been  the  scene  of  the 
previous  discomfiture  of  the  Israelites  rebelliously 
attempting  to  force  their  way  by  this  pass  to  occupy 
the  "  mountain  "  where  "  the  Amalekites  and  Am- 
orites" were  "before  them  "  (Num.  xiv.  45;  Judg. 
i.  17):  further,  however,  this  defeat  is  said  to  have 
been  "in  Seir"  (Deut.  i.  44).  Now,  whether  we 
admit  or  not  with  Stanley  {S.  ^  P.  94  note)  that 
Edom  had  at  this  period  no  territory  west  of  the 
Arabah,  which  is  perhaps  doubtful,  jet  there  can 
be  no  room  for  doubt  that  "  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites  "  must  at  any  rate  be  taken  as  their 
western  limit.  Hence  the  overthrow  in  Seir  must 
be  east  of  that  mountain,  or,  at  furthest,  on  its 
eastern  edge.  The  "  Seir  "  alluded  to  may  be  the 
western  edge  of  the  Arabah  below  the  es-SuJ'n  pass. 
When  thus  driven  back,  they  "  abode  in  Kadesh 
many  days  "  (Deut.  i.  46).  The  city,  whether  we 
prefer  Kadesh  simply,  or  Kadesh-Barnea,  as  its 
designation,  cannot  have  belonged  to  the  Amorites, 


for  the  well-known  hill  Madurah,  or  Moderah, 
lying  within  view  of  the  point  described  above,  from 
Williams's  Holy  City,  i.  463,  464.  This  is  towards  the 
east,  a  good  deal  nearer  the  Dead  Sea,  and  so  &a 
more  suitable.  Further,  Robert? on's  map  in  Stewar^'i 
The  Tent  and  the  Khan  places  an  ^Ain  Khades  near 
the  junction  of  the  Wady  Ahyad  with  the  Wady  el 
Arish  ;  but  in  this  map  are  tokens  of  some  confusiof 
in  the  drawing. 


I 


KADESH 

br  fliese  after  their  victory  would  probably  h;i\e 
i.sputed  possession  of  it;  nor  could  it  if  plainly 
Anioritish,  have  been  "  in  the  uttermost  of  the 
border  "  of  Edom.  It  may  be  conjectured  that  it 
lay  in  the  debatable  ground  between  the  Amorites 
and  Edom,  which  the  Israelites  in  a  message  of 
courtesy  to  Edom  might  naturally  assign  to  the 
latter,  and  that  it  was  possibly  then  occupied  in  fact 
by  neither,  but  by  a  remnant  of  those  Horites 
whom  Edom  (Deut.  ii.  12)  dislodged  from  the 
"mount"  Seir,  but  who  remained  as  refugees  in 
that  arid  and  unenviable  region,  which  perhaps  was 
tiie  sole  remnant  of  their  previous  possessions,  and 
which  they  still  called  by  the  name  of  "  Seir,"  their 
patriarch.  This  would  not  be  inconsistent  with  "  the 
edge  of  the  land  of  Edom"  still  being  at  Mount 
Hor  (Num.  xxxiii.  37),  nor  with  the  Israelites  re- 
garding this  debatable  ground,  after  dispossessing 
the  Amorites  from  "  their  mountain,"  as  pertain- 
ing to  their  own  "  south  quarter."  If  this  view  be 
admissible,  we  might  regard  "  Barnea  "  as  a  He- 
braized remnant  of  the  Horite  language,  or  of 
some  Horite  name.'* 

The  nearest  approximation,  then,  which  can  be 
given  to  a  site  for  the  city  of  Kadesh,  may  be  prob- 
ably attained  by  drawing  a  circle,  from  the  pass  es- 
Sufa,  at  the  radius  of  about  a  day's  journey ;  its 
southwestern  quadrant  will  intersect  the  "  wilder- 
ness of  Paran,"  or  et-Tih,  which  is  there  overhung 
by  the  superimposed  plateau  of  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites;  while  its  southeastern  one  will  cross 
what  has  been  designated  as  the  "  wilderness  of 
Zin."  This  seems  to  satisfy  all  the  conditions  of  the 
passages  of  Genesis,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy, 
which  refer  to  it.  The  nearest  site  in  harmony 
with  this  view,  which  has  yet  been  suggested  (Rob- 
inson, ii.  175),  is  undoubtedly  the  Mm  el-Weibeh. 
To  this,  however,  is  opposed  the  remark  of  a  trav- 
eller (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  p.  96)  who  went  probably  with 
a  deliljerate  intention  of  testing  the  local  features 
in  reference  to  this  suggestion,  that  it  does  not 
afford  among  its  "  stony  shelves  of  three  or   four 

feet  high  "  any  proper  "cliff"  (l^^D),  such  as 
is  the  word  specially  describing  that  "  rock  "  (A. 
V.)  from  which  the  water  gushed.  It  is  however 
nearly  opposite  the  Wndy  Ghuweir,  the  great 
opening  into  the  steep  eastern  wall  of  the  Arabah, 
and  therefore  the  most  probable  "  highway "  by 
which  to  "  pass  through  the  border "  of  Edom. 
But  until  further  examination  of  local  features  has 
been  made,  which  owing  to  the  frightfully  desolate 
character  of  the  region  seems  very  difficult,  it 
would  be  unwise  to  push  identification  further. 
Notice  is  due  to  the  attempt  to  discover  Kadesh 


KADESH 


1523 


a  Fiirst  has  suggested   J^-ID'^S,    son  of  wander- 

tng,  =  Bedouin  ;  but  "121  does  not  occur  as  "  son  " 
Iq  the  writings  of  Moses.  The  reading  of  the  LXX. 
In  Num.  xxxiv.  4,  KaSrjs  tov  Bapi'rj,  seems  to  favor 
the  notion  that  i''.  was  regarded  by  them  as  a  man's 
lame.  The  nam«j  "  Meribah "  is  accounted  for  in 
Num.  XX.   13.      [Meribah.]      [Simonis    as    cited   by 

Gtesenius  regards   573*7?  *8  from  "121,  open  country, 

ind   Viy  wandering,  r.   V^"!.  —  J..] 

f>  It  may  be  perhaps  a  Horite  word,  corrupted  so  as 
to  bear  a  signification  in  the  Hebrew  and  Arabic  ;  but, 
»88uming  it  to  be  from  the  root  meaning  "  holiness," 
irhlch  exists  in  various  forms  in  the  Heb.  and  Arab., 
turn  may  be  some  connection  between  that  name, 


In  Petra,  the  metropolis  of  the  Nabatlutans  (Stan- 
ley, 8.  (^  P.  p.  94),  embedded  in  the  mountains  to 
which  the  name  of  Mount  Seir  is  admitted  by  aQ 
authorities  to  apply,  and  almost  overhung  by  Mount 
Hor.  No  doubt  the  word  Sda,  "  cliff,"  is  u.sed  as 
a  proper  name  occasionally,  and  may  probably  in  2 
K.  xiv.  7 ;  Is.  xvi.  1,  be  identified  with  a  city  or 
spot  of  territory  belonging  to  Edom.  But  the  two 
sites  of  Petra  and  Mount  Hor  are  surely  far  too 
close  for  each  to  be  a  distinct  camping  station,  as 
in  Num.  xxxiii.  36.  37.  The  camp  of  Israel  would 
have  probably  covered  the  site  of  the  city,  the 
mountain,  and  several  adjacent  valleys.  But,  further, 
the  site  of  Petra  must  have  been  as  thoroughly 
Edomitish  territory  as  was  that  of  Bozkah,  the 
then  capital,  and  could  not  be  described  as  being 
'•  in  the  uttermost  "  of  their  border.  "  Mount  Seir  " 
was  "given  to  Esau  for  a  possession,"  in  which  he 
was  to  be  unmolested,  and  not  a  "  foot's  breadth  " 
of  his  land  was  to  be  taken.  This  seems  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  quiet  encampment  of  the  whole  of 
Israel  and  permanency  there  for  "  many  days,"  as 
also  with  their  subsequent  territorial  possession  of 
it,  for  Kadesh  is  always  reckoned  as  a  town  in  the 
southern  border  belonging  to  Israel.  Neither  does 
a  friendly  request  to  be  allowed  to  pass  through  the 
land  of  Edom  come  suitably  from  an  invader  who 
had  seized,  and  was  occupying  one  of  its  most  dif- 
ficult passes;  nor,  again,  is  the  evident  temper  of 
the  Edomites  and  their  precautions,  if  they  con- 
templated, as  they  certainly  did,  armed  resistance 
to  the  violation  of  their  ten-itory,  consistent  with 
that  invader  being  allowed  to  settle  himself  by 
anticipation  in  such  a  position  without  a  stand 
being  made  against  him.  But,  lastly,  the  conjunc- 
tion of  the  city  Kadesh  with  "  the  mountain  of  the 
Amorites,"  and  its  connection  with  the  assault 
repulsed  by  the  Amalekites  and  Canaanites  (Deut. 
i.  44;  Num.  xiv.  43),  points  to  a  site  wholly  away 
from  Mount  Seir. 

A  paper  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature, 
April,  1860,  entitled  A  Critical  inquiry  into  the 
Route  of  the  Exodus,  discards  all  the  received  sites 
for  Sinai,  even  that  of  Mount  Hor,  and  fixes  on 
Elusa  (el-Kalesah)  as  that  of  Kadesh.  The  argu- 
ments of  this  writer  will  be  considered,  as  a  whole, 
under  Wilderness  of  Wandehing. 

Kadesh  appears  to  have  maintained  itself,  at 
least  as  a  name,  to  the  days  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
(/.  c.)  and  those  of  the  writer  of  the  apocryphal 
book  of  Judith  (i.  9  [A.  V.  Kades]).  The  "  wildeiv 
ness  of  Kadesh  "  occurs  only  in  Ps.  xxix.  8,  and  ia 
probably  undistinguishable  from  that  of  Zin.  As 
regards  the  name  "  Kadesh,"  there  seems  some 
doubt  whether  it  be  originally  Hebrew.** 


supposed  to  indicate  a  shrine,  and  the  En-Mishpat  = 
Fountain  of  Judgment.  The  connection  of  the  priestly 
and  judicial  function,  having  for  its  root  the  regarding 
as  sacred  whatever  is  authoritative,  or  the  deducing 
all  subordinate  authority  from  the  Highest,  would  sup- 
port this  view.  Compare  also  the  double  functions 
united  in  Sheikh  and  Cadi.  Further,  on  this  suppo- 
sition, a  more  forcible  sense  accrues  to  the  name  Kadesh 
Mtribah  =  "  strife  "  or  "  contention,"  being  as  it  were 
a  perversion  of  Mi s/ipat  =  judgment — a  taking  it  m 
partem  deteriorem.    For  the  Heb.  and  Arab,  derivatives 

from  this  same  root  see  Ges.  Lex.  s.  v.  Wlpy  vary- 
ing it-  senses  of  to  be  holy,  or  (piel)  to  sanctify,  as  a 
priest,  or  to  keep  holy,  as  the  Sabbath,  and  (pual)  its 
passive;  also  Golii  Lex.  Arab.  Lat.  lugd.  Bat.  1653, 

5-  I'-  1  iM  Jo.      The  derived  sense,   tt71Tp,  a  maW 


1524 


KADMIEL 


Almost  any  probable  situation  for  Kadesh  on  the 
grounds  of  the  Scriptural  narrative  is  equally  op- 
posed to  the  impression  derived  from  the  aspect  of 
the  region  thereabouts.  No  spot  perhaps,  in  the 
locality  above  indicated,  could  now  be  an  eligible 
site  for  the  host  of  the  Israelites  "  for  many  days." 
Jerome  speaks  of  it  as  a  <'  desert"  in  his  day,  and 
makes  no  allusion  to  any  city  there,  although  the 
tomb  of  Miriam,  of  which  no  modern  traveller  has 
found  any  vestige,  had  there  its  traditional  site. 
It  is  possible  that  the  great  volume  of  water  which 
in  the  rainy  season  sweeps  by  the  great  eUJeib  and 
other  wadies  into  the  S.  W.  corner  of  the  Ghor, 
might,  if  duly  husbanded,  have  once  created  an 
artificial  oasis,  of  which,  with  the  neglect  of  such 
industry,  every  trace  has  since  been  lost.  But,  as 
no  attempt  is  made  here  to  fix  on  a  definite  site 
for  Kadesh  as  a  city,  it  is  enough  to  observe  that 
the  objection  applies  in  nearly  equal  force  to  nearly 
all  solutions  of  the  question  of  which  the  Scriptural 
narrative  admits.  H.  H. 

KAD'MIEL  (bW'^plf?  \who  stands  hefm-e 
God,  i.  e.  his  servant] :  Kahfiii)\ ;  [in  Neh.  vii.  43, 
Vat.  Ka/8Sirj\:]  Cedmihel),  one  of  the  Levites  who 
with  his  family  returned  from  Cabylon  with  Zerub- 
babel,  and  apparently  a  representative  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Hodaviah,  or,  as  he  is  elsewhere  called, 
Hodevah  or  Judah  (Ezr.  ii.  40;  Neh.  vii.  43).  In 
the  first  attempt  which  was  made  to  rebuild  the 
Temple,  Kadmiel  and  Jeshua,  probably  an  elder 
member  of  the  same  house,  were,  together  with 
their  families,  appointed  by  Zerubbabel  to  superin- 
tend the  workmen,  and  oflSciated  in  the  thanks- 
giving-service by  which  the  laying  of  the  foundation 
was  solemnized  (Ezr.  iii.  9).  His  house  took  a 
prominent  part  in  the  confession  of  the  people  on 
the  day  of  humiliation  (Neh.  ix.  4,  5),  and  with 
the  other  Levites  joined  the  princes  and  priests  in 
a  solemn  compact  to  separate  themselves  to  walk 
in  God's  law  (Neh.  x.  9).  In  the  parallel  lists  of 
1  Esdr.  he  is  called  Cadmiel. 

KAD'MONITES,  THE  C^^b-jj^n,  t.  e. 
"  the  Kadmonite "  [dweller  in  the  east]  :  rovs 
KeSjuccvaiovs;  Alex,  omits:  Cedmonceos),  h,  people 
named  in  Gen.  xv.  19  only;  one  of  the  nations  who 
it  that  time  occupied  the  land  promised  to  the 
descendants  of  Abram.  The  name  is  from  a  root 
A'ef/era,  signifying  " eastern,"  and  also  "ancient" 
(Ges.  Thes.  p.  1195). 

Bochart  {C/ian.  i.  19;  Phal.  iv.  36)  derives  the 
Kadmoiiites  from  Cadmus,  and  further  identifies 
them  with  the  Ilivites  (whose  place  they  fill  in  the 
above  list  of  nations),  on  the  ground  that  the 
Hivites  occupied  Mount  Hermon,  "  the  most  east- 
erly part  of  Canaan."  But  Hermon  cannot  be  said 
to  be  on  the  east  of  Canaan,  nor,  if  it  were,  did  the 
Hivites  live  there  so  exclusively  as  to  entitle  them 
to  an  appellation  derived  from  that  circumstance 
(see  vol.  ii.  p.  1082).  It  is  more  probable  that  the 
name  Kadmonite  in  its  one  occurrence  is  a  synonym 
for  the  Bene-Kedem  —  the  "children  [sons]  of 
the  East,"  the  general  name  which  in  the  Bible 
4ppeiirs  to  be  given  to  the  tribes  which  roved  in  the 


prostitute,  fem.  nC7^|7,  «•  harlot,  does  not  appear 
to  occur  in  the  Arab.  :  it  is  to  be  referred  to  the  notion 
ol  prostitution  in  honor  of  an  idol,  as  the  Syrians  in 
that  of  Astarte,  the  Babylonians  in  that  of  Mylitta 
iHerod.  i.  199),  and  is  conveyed  in  the  Greek  iepoSovAos. 
'iBOLATUY,  vol  ii    p.  1128  a.]     This  repulsive  custom 


KAN  AH 

great  waste  tracts  on  the  east  and  southeast  of 
Palestine.  G. 

*  The  Kadmonites  even  at  Hermon  might  b« 
said  to  be  on  the  east  as  compared  e.  g.  with  the 
Zidonians  on  the  west.  "  This  name,"  says  Thom- 
son, "  is  still  preserved  among  the  Nusairiyeh  north 
of  Tripoli,  and  they  have  a  tradition  that  theit 
ancestors  were  expelled  from  Palestine  by  Joshua. 
It  is  curious  also  that  a  fragment  of  this  strange 
people  still  cling  to  their  original  home  at  ^Ain- 
Fit,  Zaara,  and  Ghujnr,  near  the  foot  of  Hermon. 
I  have  repeatedly  travelled  among  them  in  their 
own  mountains,  and  many  things  in  their  physi- 
ognomy and  manners  gave  me  the  idea  that  they 
were  a  remnant  of  the  most  ancient  inhabitants  of 
this  country  "  {Land  ^  Book,  i.  242).  H. 

KALXAI  [2  syl.]  0\^  [perh.  smft  me  of 
God,  his  messenger,  Ges.] :  KaWat;  [Vat.  Alex. 
FA.iomit;  FA.^  SaAAoi":]  Cc/nri"),  a  priest  in  the 
days  of  Joiakim  the  son  of  Jeshua.  He  was  one 
of  the  chiefs  of  the  fathers,  and  represented  the 
family  of  Sallai  (Neh.  xii.  20). 

KA'NAH  (n3|^  [reed  or  place  of  reeds]: 
KavOdv;  Alex.  Kava'-  Cana),  one  of  the  places 
which  formed  the  landmarks  of  the  boundary  of 
Asher;  apparently  next  to  Zidon-rabbah,  or  "  great 
Zidon  "  (Josh.  xix.  28  only).  If  this  inference  is 
correct,  then  Kanah  can  hardly  be  identified  in  the 
modern  village  Kdna,  six  miles  inland,  not  from 
Zidon,  but  from  Tyre,  nearly  20  miles  south  thereof. 
The  identification,  first  proposed  by  Robinson  {Bibl. 
Res.  ii.  456),  has  been  generally  accepted  by  travel- 
lers (Wilson,  Lands,  ii.  230;  Porter,  Handbook, 
395;  Schwarz,  192;  Van  de  Velde,  i.  180).  Van 
de  Velde  (i.  209)  also  treats  it  as  the  native  place 
of  the  "  woman  of  Canaan  "  (ywi]  Xat/at/a7a)  who 
cried  after  our  Lord.  But  the  former  identification, 
not  to  speak  of  the  latter  —  in  which  a  connection 
is  assumed  between  two  words  radically  distinct  — 
seems  untenable.  An  'Ain-Kana  is  marked  in  the 
map  of  Van  de  Velde,  about  8  miles  S.  E.  of  Saida 
(Zidon),  close  to  the  conspicuous  village  Jurjua,  at 
which  latter  place  Zidon  lies  full  in  view  (Van  de 
Velde,  ii.  437).  This  at  least  answers  more  nearly 
the  requirements  of  the  text.  But  it  is  put  forward 
as  a  mere  conjecture,  and  must  abide  further  in- 
vestigation. G. 

*  That  the  village  of  oLi'  mentioned  by  Rob- 
inson {Bibl.  Res.  ii.  456)  and  generally  accepted  by 
travellers,  is  the  one  referred  to  in  Josh.  xix.  28 
seems  probable  for  various  reasons.  Assuming 
Beten  (which  see)  to  have  been,  as  Eusebius 
claims,  eight  miles  east  of  Ptolemais,  we  must  take 
our  point  of  departure  in  giving  the  boundaries  of 
Asher  (Josh.  xix.  25)  a  little  south  of  Achzib,  or 
Ecdippa,  the  situation  of  which  may  be  laid  down 
with  certainty.  Passing  by  Helkath  and  Hali,  the 
site  of  which  is  lost,  we  come  to  Beten  on  the  road 
southward  toward  Carmel.  That  Beten  lay  inland 
might  be  imagined,  inasmuch  as  the  Asherites  did 
not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  sea-coast  from 
Achzib  to  Accho  {Akka).    The  border  then  passed 


seems  more  suited  to  those  populous  and  luxurioua 
regions  than  to  the  hard,  bare  life  of  the  desert.  As  an 
example  of  eastern  nomenclature  travelling  far  west 
at  an  early  period,  Cadiz  may  perhaps  be  suggested  »^ 
based  upon  Kadesh,  and  carried  to  Spain  by  tlM 
PhoeniciiUfl. 


KANAH,   THE   RIVER 

southward  to  Achshaph,  which  is  probably  Ilhal/n, 
Laa^,  of  the  present  day  (see  Achshaph).  Pass- 
ing by  Alammalek  (cf.  Wady  el-Melik  north  of 
Carmcl)  and  Amad  and  Misheal,  two  unknown 
Bites,  we  come  to  Carmel.  This  fixes  the  direction 
of  the  route  by  which  the  border  is  designated. 
From  this  point  the  border  turns  eastward,  and  at 
its  junction  with  the  lot  of  Zebulun  its  direction 
plainly  turns  northward,  and  passing  places  identi- 
fied with  a  degree  of  probability,  it  reaches  Kana, 
and  the  border  of  the  great  Zidon.  Now  it  is 
objected  that  Tyre  is  much  nearer  this  Kana  than 
Zidon.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  at  this 
early  period  Zidon  was  probably  greater  than  Tyre, 
and  that  the  inhabitants  of  Tyre  are  themselves 
called  Zidonians.  It  may  have  been,  that  at  that 
(period  the  territory  of  Zidon  extended  nearer  to 
Kanah  than  it  did  in  later  times  when  Tyrian 
power  had  interposed  between  it  and  Zidon.  In 
any  case,  the  eastern  border  is  simply  said  to  have 
extended  from  Kanah  even  unto  great  Zidon. 

This  does  not  make  it  necessary  that  the  city 
walls  should  be  understood,  which  supposition 
would  be  forbidden  by  the  historical  fact  that  the 
territory  of  Zidon  remained  unconquered  ;  and 
whether  we  suppose  that  the  territory  of  Asher 
stretched  to  the  northward  of  the  parallel  of  Tyre, 
toward  Zidon,  or  not,  in  either  case  it  is  inadmis- 
sible to  extend  it  to  the  city  gates,  just  as  it  is 
inadmissible  to  extend  it  (ver.  29)  to  the  gates  of 
Tyre  itself.  The  existence  of  the  name  Kanah, 
unchanged  by  centuries,  in  a  spot  having  so  many 
claims  for  recognition  as  the  one  intended  (Josh. 
xix.  28),  must  fix  the  identification  with  a  reason- 
able degree  of  certainty,  and  forestall  the  attempt 
to  establish  the  site  at  the  obscure  Mm  Kana  near 
Jerfm,  S.  E.  of  Saida. 

Van  de  Velde's  attempt  (i.  209)  to  establish  this 
site  as  the  place  of  birth  of  the  "  woman  of  Canaan  " 
is  to  be  rejected  on  philological  grounds.  Xauauala 
is  derivable  from  Xavadu.,  not  from  Kava-  Further- 
more, for  Xavava7a  (Matt.  xv.  22),  Mark  (vii.  26) 
has  '2vpo<poiui(r(ra,  designating  race  and  nation- 
ality, not  place  of  birth  or  residence.  It  would 
have  been  possible  for  a  Jewess  to  have  resided  in 
Kana  or  be  born  there,  but  the  Evangelist  wishes 
to  designate  this  woman  as  not  a  Jewess,  but  a 
foreigner,  a  Canaanitess.  G.  E.  P. 

KA'NAH,  THE  RIVER  (H^rj  bm^the 
torrent  or  wady  K.:  XcKKavd,  (pdpay^  Kapavd; 
Alex.  ^€tiJ.ap^os  Kaua  and  (papay^  Kavai-  Vallis 
arundineii),  a  stream  falling  into  the  Mediterranean, 
which  formed  the  division  between  the  territories 
of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  the  former  on  the  south, 
the  latter  on  the  north  (Josh.  xvi.  8,  xvii.  9).  No 
light  appears  to  be  thrown  on  its  situation  by  the 
Ancient  Versions  or  the  Onomasticon.  Dr.  Robin- 
son (iii.  135)  identifies  it  "  without  doubt  "  with  a 
n^ady,  which  taking  its  rise  in  the  central  moun- 
fciins  of  Ephraim,  near  Akrabeh,  some  7  miles  S.  E. 
of  Nnblus,  crosses  the  country  and  enters  th«.  oea 
just  above  Jaffa  as  Nohr  eUAujeh  ;  bearing  during 
part  of  its  course  the  name  of  Wady  Kanah.  But 
this,  though  perhaps  sufficiently  important  to  serve 
»s  a  boundary  between  two  tribes,  and  though  ihe 

etention  of  the  name  is  in  its  favor,  is  surely  too 
tar  south  to  have  been  the  boundary  between 
Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  The  conjecture  of  Schwarz 
(51)  is  more  plausible  —  that  it  is  a  wady  which 
commences  west  of  and  close  to  Nabltis,  at  ^Ain  eU 


KARKOR 


1525 


Khassab,  and  falls  into  the  sea  as  A'a/M-  Falaik, 
and  which  bears  also  the  name  of  Wady  al-Khassab 
—  the  reedy  stream.  This  has  its  more  northerly 
position  in  its  favor,  and  also  the  agreement  in 
signification  of  the  names  (Kanah  meaning  also 
reedy).  But  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the 
name  Khassab  is  borne  by  a  large  tract  of  the 
maritime  plain  at  this  part  (Stanley,  S.  cf  P.  2G0) 
Porter  pronounces  for  N.  Akhdai^  close  below 
Csesarea.  G. 

*  KAPER  OR  CAPER  (from  Kdinrapn  and 
in  Lat.  cappaiis).    Many  suppose  this  fruit  or  plant 

to  be  meant  in  Eccles.  xii.  5  by  H^'I'^DSn,  »  the 
caper,"  instead  of  "desire"  (A.  V.).  The  word 
occurs  only  in  that  passage.  The  meaning  then  is 
that,  as  one  of  the  signs  and  effects  of  old  age,  the 
caper  (accustomed  to  be  eaten  for  its  stimulating 
properties)  shall  at  length  lose  its  power  to  excite 
the  appetite  of  the  aged  or  restore  to  them  their 
lost  vigor.     The  article  in  the  Hebrew  (as  above) 

and  the  verb's  semi-figurative  sense  ("^5^1,  "  shall 
break"  sc.  its  compact  or  promise)  favor  this  ex- 
planation. Celsius  (Flierob.  i.  209  ff.)  mentions 
some  of  the  authoiities  in  support  of  this  view. 
Prof,  Stuart  adopts  it  ( Commentary  on  Hcdesiastes, 
p.  327  f.);  also  Hitzig,  Ilandb.  zum  A.  T.  vii.  p. 
213.  It  is  the  translation  of  the  Sept.,  Syr.,  and 
Vulg.  See  Winer,  Realm,  i.  650.  The  caper 
(written  also  kapper)  is  very  abundant  in  Palestine. 
It  "  is  always  pendant  or  trailing  on  the  ground. 
The  stems  have  short  recurved  spines  below  the 
junction  of  each  leaf.  The  leaves  are  oval,  of  a 
glossy  green,  and  in  the  warmer  situations  are  ever- 
green. The  blossom  is  very  open,  loose,  and  white, 
with  many  long  hlac  anthers.  The  fruit  is  a  large 
pod,  about  the  size  and  shape  of  a  walnut.  It  is 
the  bud  of  the  flower  that  is  pickled  and  exported 
as  a  sauce."  (Tristram,  Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible, 
p.  458.)  H. 

KARE'AH  (nn|7  [bald-head]  :  Kdpve : 
Caree),  the  father  of  Johanan  and  Jonathan,  who 
supported  Gedaliah's  authority  and  avenged  his 
murder  (Jer.  xl.  8,  13,  15,  16,  xli.  11,  13,  14,  16, 
xlii.  1,  8,  xliii.  2,  4,  5).  He  is  elsewhere  called 
Careah. 

KARKA'A  (with  the  def.  article,  3?i2'^|9n 
[bottom,  foundation]  :  KdSrjs,  in  both  MSS.  ; 
Symm.  translating,  eda<pos-  Carcaa),  one  of  the 
landmarks  on  the  south  boundary  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (Josh.  xv.  3),  and  therefore  of  the  Holy 
Land  itself.  It  lay  between  Addar  and  Azmon, 
Aznion  being  the  next  point  to  the  Mediterranean 
(  Wady  eUArish).  Karkaa,  however,  is  not  found 
in  the  specification  of  the  boundary  in  Num.  xxxiv., 
and  it  is  worth  notice  that  while  ih  Joshua  the  line 

is  said  to  make  a  detour  (^^D)  ^  Karkaa,  in 
Numbers  it  runs  to  Azmon.  Nor  does  the  name 
occur  in  the  subsequent  lists  of  the  southern  cities 
in  Josh.  XV.  21-32,  or  xix.  2-8,  or  in  Neh.  xi.  25, 
&c.  Eusebius  {Onomasticon,  ^hnapKd)  perhaps 
speaks  of  it  as  then  existing  {Kdifx-y)  iffriv),  but  at 
any  rate  no  subsequent  traveller  or  geographer  ap- 
pears to  have  mentioned  it.  G. 

KAR'KOR  (with  the  def.  article,  "Ip'^f^n 
[foundation,,  Ges. ;  or  perh.  flat  and  soft  ground, 
Dieb^.j:  Kapxdp]  Alex.  KapKa:  Vulg.  translating, 
requiescebant),  the  place  in  which  the  remnant  of 
the  host  of  Zebah  and  Zalmuuna  which  had  escaped 


1526 


KABTAH 


the  rout  of  tbe  Jordan  Valley  were  encamped,  when 
Gideon  burst  upon  and  again  dispersed  them  (Judg. 
viii.  10).  It  must  have  been  on  the  east  of  the 
•ordan,  beyond  the  district  of  the  towns,  in  the 
open  wastes  inhabited  by  the  nomad  tribes  — 
'*  them  that  dwelt  in  tents  on  the  east  of  Nobah 
and  Jogbehah"  (ver.  11).  But  it  is  difficult  to 
believe  that  it  can  have  been  bo  far  to  the  south  as 
it  is  placed  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome  {Onomast. 
KapKd  and  "  Carcar"),  namely  one  day's  journey 
(about  15  miles)  north  of  Petra,  where  in  their 
time  stood  the  fortress  of  Carcaria,  as  in  ours  the 
castle  of  Kerek  eUShobak  (Burckliardt,  19  Aug. 
1812).  The  name  is  somewhat  similar  to  that  of 
•  "".HARACA,  or  Charax,  a  place  on  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  mentioned  once  in  the  Maccabean  history; 
but  there  is  nothing  to  be  said  either  for  or  against 
the  identification  of  the  two. 

If  Kunawat  be  Kexath,  on  which  Nobah  be- 
stowed his  own  name  (with  the  usual  fate  of  such 
innovations  in  Palestine),  then  we  should  look  for 
Karkor  in  the  desert  to  the  east  of  that  place; 
which  is  quite  far  enough  from  the  Jordan  Valley, 
the  scene  of  the  first  encounter,  to  justify  both 
Josephus's  expression,  irippoi  toXv  {Ant.  vii.  6, 
§  5),  and  the  careless  "  security  "  of  the  Midianites. 
But  no  traces  of  such  a  name  have  yet  been  dis- 
covered in  that  direction,  or  any  other  than  that 
above  mentioned.  G. 

KAR'TAH  (nri"])2  [city]:  ^  KciSijs;  Alex. 
Kapda'  Cmiha),  a  town  of  Zebulun,  which  with 
its  "suburbs  "  was  allotted  to  the  Merarite  I.evites 
(Josh.  xxi.  34).  It  is  not  mentioned  either  in  ths 
general  list  of  the  towns  of  this  tribe  (xix.  10-16), 
or  in  the  parallel  catalogue  of  Levitical  cities  in 
1  Chr.  vi.,  nor  does  it  appear  to  have  been  recog- 
nized since.  G. 

*  Van  de  Velde  inserts  a  Tell  Kurdany  on  his 
Map  of  Palestine,  in  the  plain  a  little  inland  from 
Khaifa.  He  speaks  of  this  as  probably  the  Kartah 
of  Josh.  xxi.  34.  "  An  ancient  mill  and  numerous 
old  building  stones  "  mark  the  site.  {Syr.  cf  Pal. 
i.  289.)  H. 

BLARTAN  {)Pr\p_  [double  city] :  @ffjifxJ,v- 
Alex.  'NoefjLfiwv;  [Comp.  Aid.  KapOdp:]  Car(han), 
a  city  of  NaphtaU,  allotted  with  its  "  suburbs  "  to 
the  Gershonite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  32).  In  the 
parallel  list  of  1  Chr.  vi.  the  name  appears  in  the 
more  expanded  form  of  Kikjathaim  (ver.  76),  of 
which  Kartan  may  be  either  a  provinciahsm  or  a 
contraction.  A  similar  change  is  observable  in 
Dothan  and  Dothaim.  The  LXX.  evidently  had  a 
diflferent  Hebrew  text  from  the  present.  G. 

KAT'TATH  (n'^*J7  [small  or  young]:  Ko- 
ravdO;  Alex.  KarraB'-  Catheth),  one  of  the  cities 
of  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Josh.  xix.  15).  It  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  Onomasticon.  Schwarz  (172) 
reports  that  'n  the  Jerusalem  Megillah^  Kattath 
"  is  said  to  be  the  modern  Katunith,"  which  he 
seeks  to  identify  with  Kana  el-Jelil,  —  most  probably 
the  Cana  of  Galilek  of  the  N.  T.,  —  5  miles 
north  of  Seffuriefi,  partly  on  the  ground  that  Cana 
is  given  in  the  Syriac  as  Kntna,  and  partly  for 
other  but  not  very  palpable  reasons.  G. 

BLE'DAR  ("l^l^.'  *^"^*  **^"»  black- skinned 
man,  Ges.:  K-qHp'-    Cedar),  the  second  in  order 

«  D'^l^n.    Comp.  usage   of   Arabic,     JOwi*, 
Kmryek 


KEDAR 

of  the  sons  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  13;  1  Chr.  i 
29),  and  the  name  of  a  great  tribe  of  the  Arabs, 
settled  on  the  northwest  of  the  peninsula  and  th« 
confines  of  Palestine.  This  tribe  seems  to  have 
been,  with  Tenia,  the  chief  representative  of  Ish- 
mael's  sons  in  the  western  portion  of  the  land  they 
originally  peopled.  The  "glory  of  Kedar  "  is  ra 
corded  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  (xxi.  13-17)  in  the 
burden  upon  Arabia;  and  its  importance  may  also 
be  inferred  from  the  "  princes  of  Kedar,"  mentioned 
by  Ez.  (xxvii.  21 ),  as  well  as  the  pastoral  character 
of  the  tribe :  "  Arabia,  and  all  the  princes  of  Kedar, 
they  occupied  with  thee  in  lambs,  and  rams,  and 
goats;  in  these  [were  they]  thy  merchants."  But 
this  characteristic  is  maintained  in  several  other 
remarkable  passages.  In  Cant.  i.  5,  the  black  tents 
of  Kedar,  black  like  the  goat's  or  camel's-hair  tents 
of  the  modern  Bedawee,  are  forcibly  mentioned, 
"  I  [am]  black,  but  comely,  O  ye  daughters  of  Jeru- 
salem, as  the  tents  of  Kedar,  as  the  curtains  of  Solo- 
mon." In  Is.  Ix.  7,  we  find  the  "  flocks  of  Kedar,'' 
together  with  the  rams  of  Nebaioth ;  and  in  Jer.  xlix. 
28,  "  concerning  Kedar,  and  concerning  the  king- 
doms of  Hazok,"  it  is  written,  "  Arise  ye,  go  up  to 
Kedar,  and  spoil  the  men  of  the  Fast  [the  Bene-Kk- 
dem].  Their  tents  and  their  flocks  shall  they  take 
away;  they  shall  take  to  themselves  their  tent-cur- 
tains, and  all  their  vessels,  and  their  camels"  (28,  29). 
They  appear  also  to  have  been,  like  the  wandering 
tribes  of  the  present  day,  "  archers  "  and  "  mighty 
men  "  (Is.  xxi.  17;  comp.  Ps.  cxx.  5).  That  they 
also  settled  in  villages  or  towns,  we  find  from  that 
magnificent  passage  of  Isaiah  (xlii.  11),  "  Let  the 
wilderness  and  the  cities  thereof  lift  up  [their  voice], 
the  villages  [that]  Kedar  doth  inhabit;  let  the 
inhabitants  of  the  rock  sing,  let  them  shout  from 
the  top  of  the  mountains;  " — unless  encampments 
are  here  intended."  But  dweUing  in  more  perma- 
nent habitations  than  tents  is  just  what  we  should 
expect  from  a  far-stretching  tribe  such  as  Kedar 
certainly  was,  covering  in  their  pasture-lands  and 
watering  places  the  western  desert,  settling  on  the 
borders  of  Palestine,  and  penetrating  into  the 
Arabian  peninsula,  where  they  were  to  be  the  fath- 
ers of  a  great  nation.  The  archers  and  warriora 
of  this  tribe  were  probably  engaged  in  many  of  the 
wars  which  the  "  men  of  the  East "  (of  whom 
Kedar  most  likely  formed  a  part)  waged,  in  alli- 
ance with  Midianites  and  others  of  the  Bene-Ke- 
dem,  with  Israel  (see  M.  Caussin  de  Perceval's 
£ssai,  i.  180,  181,  on  the  war  of  Gideon,  etc.).  The 
tribe  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  most  conspic- 
uous of  all  the  Ishmaelite  tribes,  and  hence  the 
Rabbins  call  the  Arabians  universally  by  this  name. '' 

In  Is.  xxi.  17,  the  descendants  of  Kedar  are 
called  the  Bene- Kedar. 

As  a  link  between  Bible  history  and  Moham- 
madan  traditions,  the  tribe  of  Kedar  is  probably 
found  in  the  people  called  the  Cedrei  by  Pliny,  on 
the  confines  of  Arabia  Petra?a  to  the  south  {N.  //. 
V.  11);  but  they  have,  since  classical  times,  become 
merged  into  the  Arab  nation,  of  which  so  great  a 
part  must  have  sprung  from  them.  In  the  Mo- 
hammadan  traditions,  Kedar  ^  is  the  ancestx)r  of 
Mohammad ;  and  through  him,  although  the  gen- 
ealogy is  broken  for  many  generations,  the  ances- 


b  Hence  "ITp  )*\W\,  Rabbin,  use  of  the  Arab! 
language  (Ges.  Lex.  ed.  Tregelles). 

c  Keydar,       Jjuc/. 


KEPEMAH 

try  of  the  latter  from  Ishmael  is  carried.  (See 
Caussin,  Kssai,  \.  175  ff.)  The  descent  of  the 
oulk  of  the  Arabs  from  Ishmael  we  have  elsewhere 
ghown  to  rest  on  indisputable  grounds.  [Ish- 
mael.] E.  S.  P. 

KED'EMAH  (Httlp,,  i.  e.  eastward:  KeS- 
fid  [Alex-  in  1  Chr.  KeSo/x]  :  Cedma),  the  youngest 
of  the  sons  of  Ishmael  (Gen.  xxv.  15;  1  Chr.  i.  31). 

KED'EMOTH  (in  Deut.  and  Chron.  n'lD'li7  : 

in  Josh.  nX2'lf?  [beginnings,  origin']  :  KeSa/ndiO, 
BaKeBiJi.(i>6,  rj  AfKfxdov,  7)  KaSju-cid;  [Vat.  in  Josh, 
xiii.  BaKedvcae,  in  1  Chr.  KaSa/xm'-,]  Alex.  KeS- 
HcoO,  KeSi7,uw0,  TeSffcau,  Ka/x-nSuO:  Cademoth, 
Cedimoth  [Jethson] ),  one  of  the  towns  in  the  dis- 
trict east  of  the  Dead  Sea  allotted  to  the  tribe  of 
Reuben  (Josh.  xiii.  18);  given  with  its  "suburbs" 
to  the  Merarite  Levites  (Josh.  xxi.  37 ;  1  Chr.  vi. 
79;  in  the  former  of  these  passages  the  name,  with 
the  rest  of  the  verses  3k}  and  37,  is  omitted  from 
the  Rec.  Hebrew  Text,  and  from  the  Vulg.).  It 
possibly  conferred  its  name  on  the  "  wilderness, 
or  urcultivated  pasture  land  (Midbar),  of  Kede- 
moth,  '  in  which  Israel  was  encamped  when  Moses 
asked  permission  of  Sihon  to  pass  through  the 
country  of  the  Amorites;  although,  if  Kedemoth 
be  treated  as  a  Hebrew  word,  and  translated  "  East 
em,"  the  same  circumstance  may  have  given  its 
name  both  to  the  city  and  the  district.  And  this 
is  more  probably  the  case,  since  "  Aroer  on  the 
brink  of  the  torrent  Arnon  "  is  mentioned  as  the 
extreme  (south)  limit  of  Sihon's  kingdom  and  of 
the  territory  of  Reuben,  and  the  north  limit  of 
Moab,  Kedemoth,  Jahazah,  Heshbon,  and  other 
towns,  being  apparently  north  of  it  (Josh.  xiii.  16, 
&c.),  while  the  wilderness  of  Kedemoth  was  cer- 
tainly outside  the  territory  of  Sihon  (Deut.  ii.  26, 
27,  (fee),  and  therefore  south  of  the  Arnon.  This 
is  supported  by  the  terms  of  Num.  xxi.  23,  from 
which  it  would  appear  as  if  Sihon  had  come  out  of 
his  territory  into  the  wilderness ;  although  on  the 
other  hand,  from  the  fact  of  Jahez  (or  Jahazah) 
being  said  to  be  "  in  the  wilderness  "  (Num.  xxi. 
23),  it  seems  doubtful  whether  the  towns  named  in 
Josh.  xiii.  16-21  were  all  north  of  Arnon.  As  in 
other  cases  we  must  await  further  investigation  on 
the  east  of  the  Dead  Sea.  The  place  is  but  cas- 
ually mentioned  in  the  Onomasticon  ("  Cade- 
moth"),  but  yet  so  as  to  imply  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  town  and  the  wilderness.  No  other 
traveller  appears  to  have  noticed  it.  (See  Ewald, 
CescA.  ii.  271.)  [Jahaz.] 

KETDESH  {W:\0:  the  name  borne  by  three 
cities  in  Palestine. 

1.  (Ka57/s;    Alex.    KeSey:   Cades)   in  the   ex- 

a  Some  of  the  variations  in  the  LXX.  are  remark- 
able. In  Judg.  iv.  9.  10,  Vat.  has  KdSijs,  and  Alex. 
Kei'Ses  ;  but  in  ver.  ll,'[and  1  Chr.  vi.  76,]  they  both 
have  KeSes.  In  2  K.  xv.  29  both  have  Kevef.  In 
Judg.  iv.  and  elsewhere,  the  Peshito  Version  has  Recem- 
Naphtali  for  Kedesh,  Recem  being  the  name  which  in 
the  Targvims  is  commonly  used  for  the  Southern  Ka- 
desh,  K.  Barnea.     (See  Stanley,  S.  ^  P.  94  noU  ' 

^  IIpos  Btjpw0]7  TToXet  tt^s  raAiAai'as  ti^s  avta,  KeSe- 
TTjs ov  TToppo).  J.  D.  Michaelis  {Orient,  und  Ezeget. 
Bibliotheicy  1773,  No.  84)  argues  strenuously  for  the 
j*ntity  of  Beroth  and  Kedes  in  this  passage  with 
Berytus  {Beirilt)H.nd  Kedesh,  near  Emessa  (see  above) ; 
)at  iateresting  and  ingenious  as  is  the  attempt,  the 


KEDESH 


1527 


treme  south  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  23).  Whether 
this  is  identical  with  Kadesh-Bamea,  which  was 
actually  one  of  the  points  on  the  south  boundary  of 
the  tribe  (xv.  3;  Num.  xxxiv.  4),  it  is  impossible  to 
say.  Against  the  identification  is  the  difference  of 
the  name,  —  hardly  likely  to  be  altered  if  the 
famous  Kadesh  was  intended,  and  the  occurrence 
of  the  name  elsewhere  showing  that  it  was  of  com- 
mon use. 

2.  (KeSes;  Alex.  KeSee:  Cedes),  a  city  of  Issa^ 
char,  which  according  to  the  catalogue  of  1  Chr. 
vi.  was  allotted  to  the  Gcrshonite  I>e»ites  (ver.  72). 
In  the  parallel  list  (Josh.  xxi.  28)  the  name  is 
KiSHON,  one  of  the  variations  met  with  in  these 
lists,  for  which  it  is  impossible  satisfactorily  to  ac- 
count. The  Kedesh  mentioned  among  the  cities 
whose  kings  were  slain  by  Joshua  (Josh.  xii.  22), 
in  company  with  Megiddo  and  Jokneam  of  Carmel, 
would  seem  to  have  been  this  city  of  Issachar,  and 
not,  as  is  commonly  accepted,  the  northern  place 
of  the  same  name  in  Naphtali,  the  position  of 
which  in  the  catalogue  would  naturally  have  been 
with  Hazor  and  Shimron-Meron.  But  this,  though 
probable,  is  not  conclusive. 

3.  Kedesh  (KaSes,  RdS-qs,  KeSes,«  KevfC', 
Alex,  also  KeiSes-  Cedes):  also  Kedesh  in  Gali- 
lee (Vbss'p.,  i.  e.^'K.  intheGalil:"  7/ KoSrjs, 
[etc.]  eV  T^  ra\i\ala  [Vat.  -\ci-] :  Cedes  in  -Gal- 
ilcea):  and* once,  Judg.  iv.  6,  Kedesh-Naphtali 

(••bnpD'p. :  KaSTjs  NecpdaXl  [Vat.  -Aet/x,  Alex 
-Aei] :  Cedes  Nephthali).  One  of  the  fortified 
cities  of  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  named  between  Ha- 
zar  and  Edrei  (Josh.  xix.  37);  appointed  as  a  city 
of  refuge,  and  allotted  with  its  "  suburbs  "  to  the 
Gershonite  Levites  (xx.  7,  xxi.  32;  1  Chr.  vi.  76). 
In  Josephus's  account  of  the  northern  wars  of 
Joshua  {Ant.  v.  1,  §  18),  he  apparently  refers  to  it 
as  marking  the  site  of  the  battle  of  Merom,  if 
Merom  be  intended  under  the  form  Beroth.*  It 
was  the  residence  of  Barak  (Judg.  iv.  6),  and  there 
he  and  Deborah  assembled  the  tribes  of  Zebulun 
and  Naphtali  before  the  conflict  (9,  10).  Near  it 
was  the  tree  of  Zaanannim,  where  was  pitched  the 
tent  of  the  Kenites  Heber  and  Jael,  in  which  Sis- 
era  met  his  death  (ver.  11).  It  was  probably,  as 
its  name  implies,  a  "holyc  place"  of  great  an- 
tiquity, which  would  explain  its  selection  as  one  of 
the  cities  of  refuge,  and  its  I  ei-ig  chosen  by  the 
prophetess  as  the  spot  at  which  to  meet  the  war- 
riors of  the  tribes  l>efore  the  commencement  of  the 
struggle  "for  Jehovah  against  the  mighty."  It 
was  one  of  the  places  taken  by  Tiglath-Pileser  in 
the  reign  of  Pekah  (Jos.  Ant.  ix.  11,  §  1,  KvBtaa' 
2  K.  XV.  29);  and  here  again  it  is  mentioned  in 
immediate  connection  with  Hazor.     Its  next  and 


conclusion  cannot  be  tenable.     (See  also  a  subsequent 
paper  in  1774,  No.  116.) 

c  From  the  root  tl3in,  common  to  the  Semitic 
-'t' 
languages  (Glesenius,  Thes.  1195,  8).  Wliether  there 
was  any  difference  of  signification  between  Kadesh 
and  Kedesh,  does  not  seem  at  all  clear.  Qeseniua 
places  the  former  in  connection  with  a  similar  word 
which  woul/?  w^em  to  mean  a  person  or  thing  devoted 
to  the  inf&mous  rites  of  ancient  heathen  worship  — 
"  Scortum  sacrum,  idque  masculum ;  "  "  but  he  does 
not  absolutely  say  that  the  had  force  resided  in  the 
name  of  the  place  Kadesh."  To  Kedesh  he  gives  a 
favorable  interpretation —  "Sacrarium."  The  oldei 
incerpreters,  as  Hiller  and  Simonis  do  not  recognise 
the  dlBuaction. 


1528 


KEDESH 


[ast  appearance  in  the  Bible  is  as  the  scene  of  a 
battle  between  Jonathan  Maccabseus  and  the  forces 
of  Demetrius  (1  Mace.  xi.  63,  73,  A.  V.  Cades; 
Jos.  Ant.  xiii.  5,  §  6,  7).  After  this  time  it  is 
spoken  of  by  Josephus  (£.  J.  ii.  18,  §  1 ;  iv.  2, 
§  3,  irphs  Kvdvaaois)  as  in  the  possession  of  the 
Tyrians  —  "a  strong  inland  «  village,"  well  forti- 
fied, and  with  a  great  number  of  inhabitants:  and 
he  mentions  that,  during  the  siege  of  Giscala, 
Titus  removed  his  camp  thither  —  a  distance  of 
about  7  miles,  if  the  two  places  are  correctly  iden- 
tified —  a  movement  which  allowed  John  to  make 
his  escape. 

By  Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onomast.  "  Cedes  ") 
it  is  described  as  lying  near  Paneas,  and  20  miles 
(Eusebius  says  8  —  -^  —  but  this  must  be  wrong) 
from  Tyre,  and  as  called  Kudossos  or  Cidissus. 
Brocardus  {Descr.  ch.  iv.)  describes  it,  evidently 
from  personal  knowledge,  as  4  leagues  north  of 
Sa/et,  and  as  abounding  in  ruins.  It  was  visited  by 
the  Jewish  travellers,  Benjamin  of  Tudela  (a.  d. 
1170)  and  ha-Parchi  (a.  d.  1315).  The  former 
places  it  one  day's,  and  the  latter  half-a-day's, 
journey  from  Banias  (Benj.  of  Tudela  by  Asher,  i. 
82,  ii.  109,  420).  Making  allowances  for  imper- 
fect knowledge  and  errors  in  transcription,  there  is 
a  tolerable  agreement  between  the  above  accounts, 
recognizable  now  that  Dr.  Robinson  has  with 
great  probability  identified  the  spot.  This  he  has 
done  at  Kades,  a  village  situated  on  the  western 
edge  of  the  basin  of  the  Ard  el-Huleh,  the  great 
depressed  basin  or  tract  through  which  the  Jordan 
makes  its  way  into  the  Sea  of  Merom.  Kades 
lies  10  English  miles  N.  of  Safed,  4  to  the  N.  W 
of  the  upper  part  of  the  Sea  of  Merom,  and  12  or  13 
S.  of  Banias.  The  village  itself  "  is  situated  on 
%  rather  high  ridge,  jutting  out  from  the  western 
hills,  and  overlooking  a  small  green  vale  or  basin. 
.  .  .  Its  site  is  a  splendid  one,  well  watered 
and  surrounded  by  fertile  plains."  There  are 
numerous  sarcophagi,  and  other  ancient  remains 
(Rob.  iii.  366-68;  see  also  Van  de  Velde,  ii.  417; 
Stanley,  365,  390).'' 

In  the  Greek  (KvStws)  and  Syriac  (Kedesh  de 
Napldali)  texts  of  Tob.  i.  2,  —  though  not  in  the 
Vulgate  or  A.  V.,  —  Kedesh  is  introduced  as  the 
birthplace  of  Tobias.  The  text  is  exceedingly  cor- 
rupt, but  some  little  support  is  lent  to  this  reading 
by  the  Vulgate,  which,  although  omitting  Kede-sh, 
mentions  Safed  —  "  post  viam  quae  ducit  ad  Occi- 
dentem,  in  sinistro  habens  civitatem  Saphet." 

The  name  Kedesh  exists  much  farther  north  than 
the  possessions  of  Naphtali  would  appear  to  have 
extended,  attached  to  a  lake  of  considerable  size  on 
the  Orontes,  a  few  miles  south  of  Hums,  the  ancient 
Emessa  (Rob.  iii.  549;  Thomson,  in  Ritter,  Damas- 
cus, 1002,  1004).  The  lake  was  well  known  under 
that  name  to  the  Arabic  geographers  (see,  besides 


«  Thomson  {Land  and  Book,  ch.  xix.)  has  some 
Btrange  comments  on  this  passage.  He  has  taken 
Whiston's  translation  of  |u.e<rdy€ios  —  "  Mediterran- 
ean "  —  as  referring  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea  I  and  has 
drawn  his  inferences  accordingly. 

h  *  We  have  an  interesting  description  of  the  site 
and  ruins  of  this  Kadesh  in  Porter's  G-iant  Clues,  etc. 
p.  270  ff.  He  regards  the  sculptures  on  the  sarcophagi 
as  Grecian  or  Roman  ;  whereas  Tristram  (Lanrf  of  Is- 
rael, 2(1  ed.,  p.  682)  thinks  they  were  probably  Jewish. 
They  "  were  covered  with  wreaths,"  says  the  latter, 
*  but  we  could  not  make  out  any  figures."  H. 

<•  The  name  may  possibly  be  derived  tnm.  Jl^ilD, 


KEILAH 

the  authorities  quoted  by  Robinson,  Abulfeda  it 
Schultens'  Index  Geogr.,  '*  Fluvius  Orontes  "  and 
"Kudsum"),  and  they  connect  it  in  part  with 
Alexander  the  Great.  But  this  and  the  origin  of 
the  name  are  alike  uncertain.  At  the  lower  end 
of  the  lake  is  an  island  which,  as  already  remarked, 
is  possibly  the  site  of  Ketesh,  the  capture  of  which 
by  Sethee  I.  is  preserved  in  the  records  of  that 
Egyptian  king.  [Jerusalem,  vol.  ii.  p.  1281, 
note  c]  G. 

KEHE'LATHAH  (nnbnp  [assembly,  or 
congregation]:  MaKeWde ;  [Alex.  Ma/ceAad:] 
Ceelatha),  a  desert  encampment  of  the  Israelites 
(Num.  xxxiii.  22,  23),  of  which  nothing  is  known.c 

H.  H. 

KEFLAH  [3  syl]  (nb^^p,  but  in  1  Sam. 
xxiii.  5,  nvl?|7  [citadel,  fortress,  Sim.  Ges.] : 
KeiAd/x,  7)  KetAct;  [Vat.]  Alex.  KeejAa  [Vat.  once 
KeejAa/i] ;  Joseph.  KtAAo,  and  the  people  o'l  Ki\- 
Kavoi  and  ol  KiXXlrai'  Ceila :  Luth.  Kegila),  a 
city  of  the  Shefelak  or  lowland  district  of  Judah, 
named,  in  company  with  Nezib  and  Makesiiah, 
in  the  next  group  ix)  the  Philistine  cities  (Josh.  xv. 
44).  Its  main  interest  consists  in  its  connection 
with  David.  He  rescued  it  from  an  attack  of  the 
Philistines,  who  had  fallen  upon  the  town  at  the 
beginning  of  the  harvest  (Josh.  Ant.  vi.  13,  §  1), 
plundered  the  corn  from  its  threshing-floor,  and 
driven  off  the  cattle  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  1).  The  prey 
was  recovered  Ijy  David  (2-5),  who  then  remained  in 
the  city  till  the  completion  of  the  in-gathering.  It 
was  then  a  fortified  place,«'  with  walls,  gates,  and 
bars  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  7,  and  Joseph.).  I)uring  this 
time  the  massacre  of  Nob  was  perpetrated,  and 
Keilah  became  the  repository  of  the  sacred  Ephod, 
which  Abiathar  the  priest,  the  sole  survivor,  had 
carried  off  with  him  (ver.  6).  But  it  was  not 
destined  long  to  enjoy  the  presence  of  these  brave 
and  hallowed  inmates,  nor  indeed  was  it  worthy  of 
such  good  fortune,  for  the  inhabitants  soon  plotted 
David's  betrayal  to  Saul,  then  on  his  road  to  besiege 
the  place.  Of  this  intention  David  was  warned  by 
Divine  intimation.  He  therefore  left  (1  Sam.  xxiii. 
7-13). 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  word  Baali  is  used 
by  David  to  denote  the  inhabitants  of  Keilah,  in 
this  passf^e  (vv.  11,  12;  A.  V.  "  men  ");  possibly 
pointing  to  the  existence  of  Canaanites  in  the  place 
[Baal,  vol.  i.  p.  207  b]. 

We  catch  only  one  more  glimpse  of  the  town,  in 
the  times  after  the  Captivity,  when  Hashabiah,  the 
ruler  of  one  half  the  district  of  Keilah  (or  whatever 
the  word  Pelec,  A.  V.,  ''part,"  may  mean),  and 
Bavai  ben-Henadad,  ruler  of  the  other  half,  assisted 
Nehemiah  in  the  repair  of  the  wall  of  Jerusalem 
(Neh.  iii.  17,  18).     Keilah  api)ears  to  have  been 


a  congregation,  with  the  local  sufRx  H,  which  many 
of  these  names  carry.  Compare  the  name  of  another 
place  of  encampment,  ii  vnpD,  which  appears  tc 
be  from  the  same  root. 

d  This  is  said  by  Gesenius  and  others  to  be  the  sig- 
nification of  the  name  "  Keilah."  If  this  be  so,  theri 
would  almost  appear  to  be  a  rrference  to  this  and  th« 
contemporary  circumstances  of  David's  life,  in  Ps 
xxxi.  ;  not  only  in  the  expression  (ver.  21),  "marvel 

ous  kindness  in  a  strong  city  "  ("T1^J2  "^"^V),  bn 
also  in  ver.  8,  and  In  the  general  tenor  of  the  Psalm. 


KELAIAH 

blown  to  Eiisebius  and  Jerome.  They  describe  it 
in  tlie  Onvmasticon  as  existing  under  tlie  name 
Kn^c^»  or  Ccila,  on  the  road  from  Eleutheropolis  to 
Hebron,  at  8«  miles  distance  frou-  the  former.  In 
the  map  of  Lieut.  Van  de  Velde  vl858),  the  name 
Kila  occurs  attaclied  to  a  site  with  rums,  on  the 
lower  road  from  Beit  Jibrin  to  Hebron,  at  very 
nearly  the  right  distance  from  B.  Jibrin  (almost 
certainly  Eleutheropolis),  and  in  the  neighborhood 

Iof  Beit  Nusib  (Nezib)  and  Maresa  (Mareshah). 
The  name  was  only  reported  to  Lieut.  V.  (see  his 
Meimir^  p.  328),  but  it  has  been  since  visited  by 
the  indefatigable  Tobler,  who  completely  confirms 
the  identification,  merely  remarking  that  Kilft  is 
placed  a  httle  too  far  south  on  the  map.  Thus 
■mother  is  added  to  the  list  of  places  which,  though 
specified  as  in  the  "  lowland,"  are  yet  actually  found 
in  the  mountains:  a  puzzUng  fact  in  our  present 
Ignorance  of  the  principles  of  the  ancient  boundaries. 
[Jiphtah;  Judah,  p.  1490  6.] 

In  the  4th  century  a  tradition  existed  that  the 
prophet  Habbakuk  was  buried  at  Keilah  ( Onomas- 
iticun,  "Ceila;"  Nicephorus,  ff.  E.  xii.  48;  Cas- 
Biodorus,  in  Sozomen,  H.  E.  vii.  29);  but  another 
tradition  gives  that  honor  to  Hukkok, 

In  1  Chr.  iv.  19,  "  Keilah  the  Garmite"  is 
Taentioned,  apparently  —  though  it  is  impossible  to 
gay  with  certainty  —  as  a  descendant  of  the  great 
Caleb  (ver.  15).  But  the  passage  is  extremely 
obscure,  and  there  is  no  apparent  connection  with 
the  town  Keilah.  G. 

KELA'IAH  [3  syl.]  (n;b;7  \dwarf]  : 
KftjAia;  Alex.  KcoA.aa;  [Vat.]  FA.  KwAeta:  Cela'ia) 
=  Keuta  (Ezr.  X.  23).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1 
E^dr.  his  name  appears  as  CoLius. 

KELFTA  (S^^^bp  \_du)arf^  :  KwAiVas, 
,'Vat.  FA.l  KcaXiev,  EA.*^  KwAtra;]  KaXiTdu  in 
Neh.  X.  10  [Vat.  FA.i  omit]:  Cetita ;  Calita  in 
Elzr.  X.  23),  one  of  the  Levites  who  returned  from 
the  Captivity  with  Ezra,  and  had  intermarried  with 
the  people  of  the  land  (Ezr.  x.  23).  In  company 
with  the  other  I>evites  he  assisted  Ezra  in  expound- 
ing the  law  (Neh.  viii.  7),  and  entered  into  a  solemn 
league  and  covenant  to  follow  the  law  of  God,  and 
separate  from  admixture  with  foreign  nations  (Neh. 
X.  10).  He  is  also  called  Kelaiah,  and  in  the 
parallel  list  of  1  Esdr.  his  name  appears  as 
Calitas. 

KEMU'EL  (bS^^r?  [assembly  of  God\  : 
KafMou-qK-  Camuel).  1.  The  son  of  Nahor  by 
Milcah,  and  father  of  Aram,  whom  Ewald  {Gesch. 
i.  414,  note)  identifies  with  Ram  of  Job  xxxii.  2,  to 
whose  family  Elihu  belonged  (Gen.  xxii.  21). 

2.  The  son  of  Shiphtan,  and  prince  of  the  tribe 
of  Ephraim ;  one  of  the  twelve  men  appointed  by 
Moses  to  divide  the  land  of  Canaan  among  the 
tribes  (Num.  xxxiv.  24). 

3.  [Vat.  SajuouTjA-]  A  Levite,  father  of  Hash- 
abiah,  prince  of  the  tribe  in  the  reign  of  David 
(1  Chr.  xxvii.  17). 

KE'NAN  ("i^.'^l?.  [possession]:  Ka'iuav : 
Cainan)  =  Cainan  the  son  of  Enos  (1  Chr.  i.  2), 
whose  name  is  also  correctly  given  in  this  form  in 
the  margin  of  Gen.  v.  9. 


KENEZITE 


1529 


KE'NATII  (njp  [possession]:  ij  Kadd,Alex. 
ri  KaavaQ;  in  Chron!  both  MSS.  [rather,  Rom 
Alex.]  Kaude,  [V&t.  fHavaaO:]  Channlh,  Canuth). 
one  of  the  cities  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  with  itp 
"daughter-towns"  (A.  V.  "villages")  taken  {xw- 
session  of  by  a  certain  Nob  ah,  who  then  called  it 
by  his  own  name  (Num.  xxxii.  42).  At  a  later 
period  these  towns,  with  those  of  Jair,  were  recap- 
tured by  Geshur  and  Aram  (1  Chr.  ii.  23*).  In 
the  days  of  Eusebius  {Onom.  "Canath")  it  was 
still  called  Kanatha,  and  he  speaks  of  it  as  "  a 
village  of  Arabia  ....  near  Bozra."  Its  site  has 
been  recovered  with  tolerable  certainty  in  our  owu 
times  at  Kenawdt,  a  ruined  town  at  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  Lej'ah,  about  20  miles  N.  of 
Biisrah,  which  was  first  visited  by  Burckhardt  in 
1810  (Syria,  83-86),  and  more  recently  by  Porter 
(Damascus,  ii.  87-115;  Handbk.  512-14),  the  latter 
of  whom  gives  a  lengthened  description  and  identi- 
fication of  the  place.  The  suggestion  that  Kenawdt 
was  Kenath  seems,  however,  to  have  been  first  made 
by  Gesenius  in  his  notes  to  Burckhardt  (a.  d.  1823, 
p.  505).  Another  Kenawat  is  marked  on  Van  de 
Velde' s  map,  about  10  miles  farther  to  the  west. 

The  name  furnishes  an  interesting  example  of 
the  permanence  of  an  original  appellation.  Nobah. 
though  conferred  by  the  conqueror,  and  apparently 
at  one  time  the  received  name  of  the  spot  (Judg. 
viii.  11),  has  long  since  given  way  to  the  older 
title.     Compare  Accho,  Kirjath-arba,  etc. 

G. 

KB'NAZ  (T5r?  [chase,  hunting']  :  Ke^eX;  [Alex, 
in  Judg.  i.  13,  Kevex?  i»  1  Chr.  i.  36,  Ke^e^O 
Cenez).  1.  Son  of  Eliphaz,  the  son  of  Esau.  He 
was  one  of  the  dukes  of  Edom,  according  to  both 
lists,  that  in  Gen.  xxxvi.  15,  42,  and  that  in  1  Chr. 
i.  53,  and  the  founder  of  a  tribe  or  family,  who 
were  called  from  him  Kenezites  (Josh.  xiv.  14,  &c.). 
Caleb,  the  son  of  Jephunneh,  and  Othniel,  were 
the  two  most  remarkable  of  his  descendants. 
[Caleb.] 

2.  [Kej/e^i  (Vat.  X^u^C^i),  Kej/e'C-]  One  of  the 
same  family,  a  grandson  of  Caleb,  according  to  1 
Chr.  iv.  [13,]  15,  where,  however,  the  Hebrew  text 
is  corrupt.  Another  name  has  possibly  fallen  out 
before  Kenaz.  A.  C.  H. 

KEN^EZITE  (written  KBN'IZZITE,  A.  V 
Gen.  XV.  19:  "^'tPIl  •  Kcvc^aios'i  [Alex,  in  Josh, 
xiv.  14,  KeveCeos:]*  Cenezceus),  an  Edomitish  tribe 
(Num.  xxxii.  12;  Josh.  xiv.  6,  14).  [Kenaz.] 
It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  Kenezites  existing 
as  a  tribe  so  early  as  before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  as 
they  appear  to  have  done  from  Gen.  xv.  19.  If 
this  tribe  really  existed  then,  and  the  enumeration 
of  tribes  in  ver.  19-21  formed  a  part  of  what  the 
Lord  said  to  Abram,  it  can  only  be  said,  with 
Bochart  (Phaleg,  iv.  36),  that  these  Kenezites  are 
mentioned  here  only,  that  they  had  ceased  to 
exist  in  the  time  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  and  that 
nothing  whatever  is  known  of  their  origin  or  place 
of  abode.  But  it  is  worth  consideration  wliether 
the  enumeration  may  not  be  a  later  explanatory 
addition  by  Moses  or  some  later  editor,  and  so  these 
Kenezites  be  descendants  of  Kenaz,  whose  adoption 


a  This  is  Jerome's  correction  of  Eusebius,  who  gives  1 1^  sb^uld  be,  "  And  Geshur  and  Aram  took  the  Hav* 
Vt  — manifestly  wrong,  as  the  whola  distance  between  [ ''oth-Jair,  with  Kenath  and  her  daughters,  sixty  cities.' 
Hebron  and  Beit-Jibrin  is  not  more  than  15  Roman  j  See  Bertheau,  Ohronik ;  Zunz's  version  ;  Targum  of 
mUes.  Joseph,  etc.,  etc. 

b  liila  passage  is  erroneously  translated  in  the  A.  Y.  I 


1530 


KENITE.  THE 


Into  Israel  took  place  in  the  time  of  Caleb,  which 
was  the  reason  of  their  insertion  in  this  place. 

A.  C.  H. 
KE'NITE,  THE,  and^E'NITES,  THE 
C'3'^ly'rT  and  "^3|in,  i.  e.  "  the  Kenite;  "  in  Chron. 
C3^^^ ;  but  in  Num.  xxiv.  22,  and  in  Judg.  iv. 

11  ^  V.\l^  Kain:  ol  KevaToi,  [<5  KeuaTos,]  6 
Kiva7os,  01  Ktva7oi  [Vat.  Ket-,  and  so  commonly 
Alex.] ;  [1  Sam.  xxvii.  10,  xxx.  29,  6  Keve(i,  Vat. 
-^et;  Alex.  0  Krjvei,  o  Keii/aios'  Ceni,  elsewhere] 
CiruBus),'"  a  tribe  or  nation  whose  history  is 
strangely  interwoven  with  that  of  the  chosen  people. 
In  the  genealogical  table  of  Gen.  x.  they  do  not 
aj-pear.  The  first  mention  of  them  is  in  company 
with  tiie  Kenizzites  and  Kadmonites,  in  the  Ust  of 
the  nations  who  then  occupied  the  Promised  Land 
(Gen.  XV.  19).  Their  origin,  therefore,  like  that 
of  the  two  tribes  just  named,  and  of  the  Avvim 
(AviTEs),  is  hidden  from  us.  But  we  may  fairly 
infer  that  they  were  a  branch  of  the  larger  nation 
of  MiDiAN  —  from  the  fact  that  Jethro,  the  father 
of  Moses's  wife,  who  in  the  records  of  Exodus  (see 
ii.  15,  16,  iv.  19,  &c.)  is  represented  as  dwelling  in 
the  land  of  INIidian,  ajid  as  priest  or  prince  of  that 
nation,  is  in  the  narrative  of  Judges  (i.  16,  iv.  11'') 
as  distinctly  said  to  have  been  a  Kenite.  As 
Midianites  they  were  therefore  descended  imme- 
diately from  Abraham  by  his  wife  Keturah,  and  in 
this  relationship  and  their  connection  with  Moses 
we  find  the  key  to  their  continued  alliance  with 
Israel.  The  important  services  rendered  by  the 
sheikh  of  the  Kenites  to  Moses  during  a  time  of 
great  pressure  and  difficulty  were  rewarded  by  the 
latter  with  a  promise  of  firm  friendship  between  the 
two  peoples  —  "  what  goodness  Jehovah  shall  do 
unto  us,  the  same  will  we  do  to  thee."  And  this 
promise  was  gratefully  remembered  long  after  to 
the  advantage  of  the  Kenites  (1  Sam.  xv.  6).  The 
connection  then  commenced  lasted  as  firmly  as  a 
connection  could  last  between  a  settled  people  like 
Israel  and  one  whose  tendencies  were  so  ineradicably 
nomadic  as  the  Kenites.  They  seem  to  have  ac- 
companied the  Hebrews  during  their  wanderings. 
At  any  rate  they  were  with  them  at  the  time  of 
their  entrance  on  the  Promised  Land.  Their  en- 
campment —  separate  and  distinct  from  the  rest 
of  the  people  —  was  within  Balaam's  view  when  he 
delivered  his  prophecy  ^  (Num.  xxiv.  21,  22),  and 
we  may  infer  that  they  assisted  in  the  capture  of 
Jericho,<^  the  "  city  of  palm-trees  "  (Judg.  i.  16 ; 
comp.  2  Chr.  xxviii.  15).  But  the  wanderings  of 
Israel  over,  they  forsook  the  neighborhood  of  the 


a  Josephus  gives  the  name  Kcferifies  (Ant.  v.  5,  § 
4) ;  but  in  his  notice  of  Saul's  expedition  (vi.  7,  §  3) 
he  has  TO  rajf  Sik/^itwi/  e^vo?  —  the  form  in  which 
ho  elsewhere  gives  that  of  the  Shechemites.  No  ex- 
planation of  this  presents  itself  to  the  writer.  The 
Targums  of  Onkelos,  Jonathan,  and  Pseudojon.  uni- 
formly render  the  Kenite  by  nSt3ytt7  =  Salmaite, 
possibly  because  in  the  genealogy  of  Judah  (1  Chr.  ii. 
B5)  a  branch  of  the  Kenites  come  under  Salma,  son 
of  Caleb.  The  same  name  is  introduced  in  the  Samarit. 
Vers,  before  "  the  Kenite  "  in  Gen.  xv.  19  only. 

b  This  passage  is  iucorrectly  rendered  in  the  A.  V. 
It  should  be,  "  And  Heber  the  Kenite  had  severed 
himself  from  Kain  of  the  children  of  Hobab,  the  father- 
in-law  of  Mosee,  and  pitched,"  etc. 

c  If  it  be  necessary  to  look  for  a  literal  «  fulfill- 
aient "  of  this  sentence  of  Balaam's,  we  shall  best  find 
tt  In  <be  accounts  of  the  latter  days  of  Jerusalem  under 


KERCHIEFS 

towns,  and  betook  themselves  to  freer  air  —  to  "  thi 
wilderness  of  Judah,  which  is  to  the  south  of  Arad  ' ' 
(Judg.  i.  16 ),  where  "  they  dwelt  among  the  people  " 
of  the  district  e  —  the  Amalekites  wlio  wandered 
in  that  dry  region,  and  among  whom  they  were 
living  centuries  later  when  Saul  made  his  expe- 
dition  there  (1  Sam.  xv.  6).  Their  alliance  with 
Israel  at  this  later  date  is  shown  no  less  by  Saul's 
friendly  warning  than  by  David's  feigned  attack 
(xxvii.  10,  and  see  xxx.  29). 

But  one  of  the  sheikhs  of  the  tribe,  Heber  by 
name,  had  wandered  north  instead  of  south,  and  at 
the  time  of  the  great  struggle  between  the  north- 
ern tribes  and  Jabin  king  of  Hazor,  his  tents  were 
pitched  under  the  tree  of  Zaanaim,  neai*  Kedesh 
(Judg.  iv.  11).  Heber  was  in  alliance  with  both 
the  contending  parties,  but  in  the  hour  of  extrem- 
ity the  ties  of  blood-relationship  and  ancient 
companionship  proved  strongest,  and  Sisera  fell  a 
victim  to  the  hammer  and  the  nail  of  Jael. 

The  most  remarkable  development  of  this  peo- 
ple, exemplifying  most  completely  their  character- 
istics —  their  Bedouin  hatred  of  the  restraints  of 
civilization,  their  fierce  determination,  their  attach- 
ment to  Israel,  together  with  a  peculiar  semi-mo- 
nastic austerity  not  observable  in  their  earlier  pro- 
ceedings—  is  to  be  found  in  the  sect  or  fomily  of  the 
Kechabites,  founded  by  Kechab,  or  Jonadab  his 
son,  who  come  prominently  forward  on  more  than 
one  occasion  in  the  later  history.  [Jehonadab, 
Kechabites.] 

The  founder  of  the  family  appears  to  have  been 
a  certain  Hammath  (A.  V.  Hemath),  and  a  sin- 
gular testimony  is  furnished  to  the  coimection 
which  existed  between  this  tribe  of  Midianite  wan- 
derers and  the  nation  of  Israel,  by  the  fact  that 
their  name  and  descent  are  actually  included  in  the 
genealogies  of  the  great  house  of  Judah  (1  Chr 
ii.  55). 

No  further  notices  would  seem  to  be  extant  of 
this  interesting  people.  The  name  of  Ba-Kain 
(abbreviated  from  Bene  el-K<un),  is  mentioned  by 
Ewald  (Gesch.  i.  337,  nofe),  as  borne  hi  compara- 
tively modern  days  by  one  of  the  tribes  of  the  des- 
ert ;  but  little  or  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from 
such  similarity  in  names.  G. 

KEN'IZZITE  [KeveCalos:  Cenezcem],  Gen. 
XV.  19.     [Keneztte.] 

*  KERCHIEFS,  F^ek.  xiii.  18, 21  (n'ln^DD : 
Trfpifi6Kaia:  cemca/irt)  =  coverings  for  the  head, 
from  the  French  couvrechef.  The  word  appears 
in  Chaucer  as  keverchef  (Eastwood  and  Wright's 
BMeWord-Book,i^.2%i).  [IIead-Dkess.]    H. 


Jehoiakim,  when  the  Kenite  Kechabites  were  so  far 
wasted  "  by  the  invading  army  of  Assyria  as  to  be 
driven  to  take  refuge  within  the  walls  of  the  city,  a 
step  to  which  we  may  be  sure  nothing  short  of  actual 
extremity  could  have  forced  these  Children  of  the 
Desert.  Whether  "  Asshur  carried  them  away  captive  " 
with  the  other  inhabitants  we  are  not  told,  but  it  is 
at  least  probable. 

d  It  has  been  pointed  out  under  Hobab  that  one  of 
the  wadies  opposite  Jericho,  the  same  by  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  local  tradition,  the  Bene-Israel  descended 
to  the  Jordan,  retains  the  name  of  Sho^eib,  the  Mussuli.  j 
man  version  of  Hobab. 

e  A  place  named  Kinah,  possibly  derived  from  tbij 
same  root  as  the  Kenites,  is  mentioned  in  the  lists 
the  cities  of  "the  south"  of  Judah.     But  there 
nothing  to  imply  any  connection  bet  «reeu  the  twt 

[KINAH.] 


KEREN-HAPPUOH 

KB'REN-HAP'PUCH  C?I=^3n-"jni?.  [the 
oaini-horn] :  ^A/xaXdalas  [Vat.  -6ei-,  Sin.  C  -6i-, 
Alex.  MaA0casJ  Kepas-  Coi-nuslibii),  the  young- 
est of  the  daughters  of  Job,  bom  to  hita  during 
the  period  of  his  reviving  prosperity  (Job  xlii. 
i-i),  and  so  called  probably  from  her  great  beauty. 
The  Vulgate  has  correctly  rendered  her  name  "  horn 
of  antimony,"  the  pigment  used  by  eastern  ladies 
to  color  their  eyelashes;  but  the  LXX.,  unless 
they  had  a  different  reading,  adopted  a  current  ex- 
pression of  their  own  age,  without  regard  to  strict 
accuracy,  in  representing  Keren-happuch  by  "  the 
liora  of  Amalthaea,"  or  "horn  of  plenty." 

KE'RIOTH  (ni^^pj  i  e.  Keriyoth  [cities]). 
1.  (alTT6\eis;  Alex.  ttoKls:  Cariolh.)  A  name 
which  occurs  among  the  lists  of  the  towns  in  the 
southern  district  of  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  25).  Ac- 
cording to  the  A.  V.  ("  Kerioth,«  and  Hezron  "), 
it  denotes  a  distinct  place  from  the  name  which 
follows  it;  but  this  separation  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  accentuation  of  the  Kec.  Hebrew  text,  and 
is  now  generally  abandoned  (see  Keil,  Josua,  ad 
loc,  and  Reland,  Palcestina,  pp.  700,  708,  the  ver- 
sions of  Zunz,  Cahen,  etc.),  and  the  name  talien  as 
"  Keriyoth-Hezron,  which  is  Hazor,"  i.  e.  its  name 
before  the  conquest  was  Hazor,  for  which  was  aftei- 
wards  substituted  Keriyoth-Hezron  —  the  "  cities 
of  H." 

Dr.  Robinson  (5i6/.  Ees.  ii.  101),  and  Lieut.  Van 
de  Velde  (ii.  82)  propose  to  identify  it  with  Kur- 
yetein  ("the  two  cities"),  a  ruined  site  which 
stands  about  10  miles  S.  from  Hebron,  and  3  from 
Main  (Maon).^ 

Kerioth  furnishes  one,  and  that  perhaps  the 
oldest  and  most  usual,  of  the  explanations  pro- 
posed for  the  title  "  Iscariot,"  and  which  are 
enumerated  under  Judas  Iscariot,  vol.  ii.  p. 
1495.  But  if  Kerioth  is  to  be  read  in  conjunc- 
tion with  Hezron,  as  stated  above,  another  difficulty 
is  thrown  in  the  way  of  this  explanation. 

2.  {Kapidod'-  Carioth.)  A  city  of  Moab,  named 
in  the  denunciations  of  Jeremiah  —  and  there  only 
—  in  company  with  Dibon,  Beth-diblathaim,  Beth- 
meon,  Bozrah,  and  other  places  "far  and  nea»* " 
(Jer.  xlviii.  24).  None  of  the  ancient  interpreters 
fcppear  to  give  any  clew  to  the  position  of  this 
place.  By  Mr.  Borter,  however,  it  is  unhesi- 
tatingly identified  with  Kureiyeh,  a  ruined  town 
i>f  some  extent  lying  between  Busrah  and  Sulkhad, 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  Haurda  {Five  Years 
etc.  ii.  191-98;  Handbook,  pp.  523,  524).  The  chief 
argument  in  favor  of  this  is  the  proximity  of 
Kartiyeli  to  Busrah,  which  Mr.  Porter  accepts  as 
identical  with  the  Bozkaii  of  the  same  passage 
*f  Jeremiah.  But  there  are  some  considerations 
vhich  stand  very  much  in  the  way  of  these  identi- 
fications. Jeremiah  is  speaking  (xlviii.  21)  ex- 
pressly of  the  cities  of  the  "  Mishor "  (A.  V. 
"plain-country"),  that  is,  the  district  of  level 
downs  east  of  the  Jordan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  which 
probably  answered  in  whole  or  in  part  to  the  Belka 
of  the  modern  Arabs.     In  this  region  were  situated 


KETURAH 


1531 


a  In  the  A.  V.  of  1611  the  punctuation  was  still 
more  marked  —  "  and  Kerioth  :  anrJ  Hezron,  which  is 
Hazor."  This  agrees  with  the  version  of  Junius  and 
rremellius  —  "  et  Kerijothae  (Chetzron  ea  es*;  Chat- 
lor ),"  and  with  that  of  Luther.  Castellio,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  "  Cariothesron,  quae  alias  Hasor." 

b  *  This  is  a  different  place  from  the  ruins  and  care 
NT  KhUreilun,  near  Tekoa  (which  see),  about  2  hours 
loatheast  of  Beth\ehem.     The  uamos  are   somewhat 


Heshbon,  Dibon,  Elealeh,  Beth-raeon,  Kiv-herea^ 
the  only  places  named  iu  the  passage  in  question,  the 
positions  of  which  are  known  with  ceitauity.  The 
most  northern  of  these  (Heshbon)  is  not  further 
north  than  the  upper  end  of  the  Dead  Sea ;  the 
most  southern  (Kir)  lay  near  its  lower  extremity 
Nor  is  there  anything  in  tiie  parallel  denunciation 
of  Moab  by  Isaiah  (ch.  xvi.)  to  indicate  that  the 
limits  of  Moab  extended  further  to  the  north.  But 
Busrah  and  Kureiyeh  are  no  less  than  60  miles  to 
the  N.  N.  E.  of  Heshbon  itself,  beyond  the  limits 
even  of  the  modern  Belka  (see  Kiepert's  map  to 
Wetzstein's  Hauran  und  die  Trachonen,  1860), 
and  in  a  country  of  an  entirely  opposite  character 
from  the  "  flat  downs,  of  smooth  and  even  turf" 
which  characterize  that  district  —  "a  savage  and 
forbidding  aspect  .  .  .  nothing  but  stones  and 
jagged  black  rocks  .  .  .  the  whole  country  around 
Kureiyeh  covered  with  heaps  of  loose  stones,"  etc. 
(Porter,  ii.  189,  193).  A  more  plausible  identifi- 
cation would  be  Kureiyat,  at  the  western  foot  of 
Jtbel  Attarus,  and  but  a  short  distance  from  either 
Dibon,  Beth-meon,  or  Heshbon. 

But  on  the  other  hand  it  should  not  be  over- 
looked that  Jeremiah  uses  the  expression  "  far  and 
near"  (ver.  24),  and  also  that  if  Busrah  and 
Kureiyeh  are  not  Bozrah  and  Kerioth,  those  im- 
portant places  have  apparently  flourished  without 
any  notice  from  the  sacred  writers.  This  is  one 
of  the  points  which  further  investigation  by  com- 
petent persons,  east  of  the  Jordan,  may  probably 
set  at  rest. 

Kerioth  occurs  in  the  A.  V.,  also  in  ver.  41. 
Here     however    it    bears     the     definite     article 

(nh'^'ni^r!:  Alex.  AKKapiood;  [Vat.  FA.  Akku- 
pa)i/:J  Carioth),  and  would  appear  to  signify  not 
any  one  definite  pbice,  but  "the  cities*'  of  Moab" 
—  as  may  also  be  the  case  with  the  same  word  iu 
Amos  ii.  2.     [Kirioxh.1  G. 

KE'ROS  (D'1|7.     [weaver's   cmiib]:    KaS-qs  ', 

Alex.  Krfpaos'in  Ezr.  ii.  44;  D*'T^J7.'  Ktpds;  [Vat. 
Keipa,  FA.J  Alex.  Keipas  in  Neh.  vii.  47:  Ceros), 
one  of  the  Nethiuim,  whose  descendants  returned 
with  Zerubbabel. 

KET'TLE  (1^*^:  Ae/37?s:  caldaHa),  a  ves- 
sel for  culinary  or  sacrificial  purposes  (1  Sam.  ii. 
14).  The  Hebrew  word  is  also  rendered  "  basket " 
ui  Jer. xxiv  2,  "caldron"  in  2  Chr.  xxxv.  13,  and 
"pot  "  iu  Job  xli.  20.   [Caldron.]     H.  W.  P 

KETU'RAH  (nn^t:5|7,  inceme,  Ges. :  Xer- 
Tovpa'  Cetura),  the  "  wife  "  whom  Abraham  "  add- 
ed and  took"  (A.  V.  "again  took")  besides,  ot 
after  the  death  of,  Sarah  (Gen.  xxv.  1 ;  1  Chr.  i. 
32).  Gesenius  and  others  adopt  the  theory  that 
Abraham  took  Keturah  after  Sarah's  death;  but 
probability  seems  against  it  (compare  Gen.  xvii. 
17,  xviii.  11;  Rom.  iv.  19;  and  Heb.  xi.  12),  and 
we  incline  to  the  belief  that  the  passage  commen- 
cing with  xxv.  1,  and  comprising  perhaps  the  whole 
chapter,  or  at  least  as  far  as  ver.  10,  is  placed  out 


alike,  but  that  is  accidental  Kfiureitdn  is  so  called 
from  a  celebrated  monk  Chariton,  who  a.  d.  340-350 
I  occupied  the  cave  as  a  laura  or  monastery,  which  it 
I  continued  to  be  for  ages.  The  name  is  given  also  to 
I  whe  a^jac^nt  Wady,  and  to  a  fountain  and  a  little  vil- 
lage. !5ee  Tobler's  Denkhldtter  aus  Jerusalem,  p.  681 
and  Sepp's  Jerusalem  und  das  heil.  lM.nd,  i.  529.  II 
t  So  Ewald,  Propheten,  "  Die  Stadtc  Moabs." 


1532 


KETURAH 


irf  its  chronological  sequence  in  order  not  to  break 
the  main  narrative ;  and  that  Abraham  took  Ketu- 
rah  during  Sarah's  lifetime.     That  she  was,  strictly 
Bpeakiiig,  his  wife,  is  also  very  uncertain.     The  He- 
brew word  go  translated  in  this  place  in  the  A.  V., 
and    by   many   scholars,  is  J  shah  a  of  which  the 
first  meaning  given   by  Gesenius  is  "  a  woman,  of 
every  age  and  condition,  whether  married  or  not;  " 
and  although  it  is  commonly  used  with  the  signifi- 
cation of  "  wife,"  as  opposed  to  handmaid,  in  Gen. 
XXX.  4,  it  occurs  with   the  signification  of  concu- 
bine, "  and  she  gave  him  Bilhah  her  handmaid  tx) 
wife."     In  the  record  in  1  Chr.  i.  32,  Keturah  is 
called  a    "concubine,"  and  it  is  also  said,  in  the 
two  verses  immediately  following  the  genealogy  of 
Keturah,    that   "  Abraham  gave  all   that  he  had 
unto  Isaac.     But  unto  the  sons  of  the  concubines, 
which  Abraham  had,  Abraham  gave  gifts,  and  sent 
them  away  from  Isaac  his  son,  while  he  yet  lived, 
eastward,  unto  the  east  country  "  (Gen.  xxv.  5,  6). 
Except   Hagar,  Keturah  is  the  only  person  men- 
tioned   to  whom  this  passage  can   relate;  and  in 
confirmation   of  this   supjwsition  we   find    strong 
evidence  of  a  wide  spread  of  the  tribes  sprung  from 
Keturah,  bearing  the  names  of  her  sons,  as  we  have 
mentioned   in   other  articles.      These  sons   were 
*'  Ziniran,  and  Jokshan,  and  Medan,  and  Midian, 
and  Ishbak,  and  Shuah  "  (ver.  2);  besides  the  sons 
and  grandsons  of  Jokshan,  and  the  sons  of  Midian. 
They  evidently  crossed  the  desert  to  the  Persian 
Gulf  and  occupied  the  whole  intennediate  country, 
where   traces   of  their   names   are   frequent,  while 
Midian  extended  south  into  the  peninsula  of  Ara- 
bia Proper.     The  elder  branch  of  the  "  sons  of  the 
concubines,"  however,  was  that  of   Ishmael.     He 
has  ever  stood  as  the  representative  of  the  bond- 
woman's song ;  and  as  such  his  name  has  become 
generally    applied  by  the  Arabs  to  all  the  Abra- 
hamic  settlers   north    of  the    Peninsula— besides 
the  great  Ishmaelite  element  of  the  nation. 

In  searching  the  works  of  Arab  writers  for  »ny 
information  respecting  these  tribes,  we  must  be 
contented  to  find  them  named  as  Abrahamic,  or 
even  Ishmaelite,  for  under  the  latter  appellation 
*hnost  all  the  former  are  confounded  by  their  de- 
scendants. Keturah  <>  herself  is  by  them  men- 
rioned  very  rarely  and  vaguely,  and  evidently  only 
in  quoting  from  a  rabbinical  writer.  (In  the 
Kdirum  the  name  is  said  to  be  that  of  the  Turks, 
arid  that  of  a  young  girl  (or  slave)  of  Abraham ; 
and,  it  is  added,  her  descendants  are  the  Turks ! ) 
M.  Caussin  de  Perceval  {Essai,  i.  179)  has  en- 
deavored to  identify  her  with  the  name  of  a  tribe 
of  the  Amalekites  (the  1st  Amalek)  called  Kaioora^ 
but  his  arguments  are  not  of  any  weight.  They 
rest  on  a  weak  etymology,  and  are  contradicted  by 
the  8ta't»':>3ents  of  Arab  authors  as  well  as  by  the 
fact  that  the  early  tribes  of  Arabia  (of  which  is 
Katoora)  have  not,  with  the  single  exception  of 
Amalek,  been  identified  with  any  historical  names ; 
while  the  exception  of  Amalek  is  that  of  an  ap- 
parently aboriginal  people  whose  name  is  recorded 
in  the  Bible ;  and  there  are  reasons  for  supposing 
Lha^  these  early  tribes  were  aboriginal. 

E.  S.  P. 


KEZIZ,  THE  VALLEY  OP 


nr\B, 


from     »  ii_iu,     » to    open,' 
clnvis).      The  key  of  a  na- 


KEY  (nnpD, 

Ges.  p.    1138:  kK^Is: 

tive  oriental  lock  is  a  piece  of  wood,  from  7  inchei 
to  2  feet  in  length,  fitted  with  wires  or  short  nails 
which,  being  inserted  laterally  into  the  hollow  bolt 
which  serves  as  a  lock,  raises  other  pins  within  the 
staple  so  as  to  allow  the  bolt  to  be  drawn  back. 
But  it  is  not  difficult  to  open  a  lock  of  this  kind 
even  without  a  key,  namely,  with  the  finger  dipped 
in  paste  or  other  adhesive  substance.     The  passage, 
Cant.  v.  4,  5,  is  thus  probably  explained   (Harnier 
Obs.  iii.  31;  vol.  i.  394,  ed.  Clarke;  EauwolflT,  ap 
Ray,  Trav.  u.  17).       [Lock.]      The  key,  so  ob- 
vious a  symbol  of  authority,  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times,  is  named    more   than    once  in  the 
Bible,  especially  Is.  xxii.  22,  a  passage  to   which 
allusion  is  probably  made   in  Rev.  iii.  7.     The  ex- 
pression "  bearing   the   key   on   the    shoulder "  is 
thus  a  phrase  used,  sometimes  perhaps  in   the  lit- 
eral sense,  to  denote  possession   of  office ;  but  there 
seems   no    reason    to   suppose,  with    Grotius,    any 
figure  of  a  key  embroidered  on  the  garment  of  the 
office-bearer  (see  Is.  ix.  Q)d     In  Talmudic  phrase- 
ology the   Almighty  was  represented   as  "  holding 
the    keys  "  of  various   operations   of  nature,  e.  y. 
rain,  death,  etc.,  t.  e.    exercising   dominion   over 
them.     The  delivery  of  the  key  is  therefore  an  act 
expressive  of  authority  conferred,  and   the  posses- 
sion of  it  imphes  authority  of  some  kind  held  by 
the  receiver.     Tiie  term  "  chamberlain,"  an  oflScer 
whose  mark  of  office  is  sometimes  in  modem  times 
an  actual  key,  is  explained  under  Eunuch  (Grotius, 
Calmet,    Knobel,   on   Is.   xxii.    22;      Hammond: 
Lightfoot,  Hor.  Hebi\ ;    De  Wette  on  Matt.  xvi. 
19;  Carpzov  on    Goodwin,  Moses  ond   Aaron,  ^^. 
141,    Q32\  Diet,  of  Aniiq.  art.    «  Matrimonium ;  " 
Ovid,  Fast.  i.  99,  118,  125,  139;  Hofmann,   Lex. 
•'Camerarius;"  Chaml)ers,  I>ict.  "Chamberlain;" 
Reland,  Ant.  Hthr.  ii.  3,  5).  H.  W.  P. 


T    • 

h        ^ 


i  •  Dr.  Thomson  describes  the  lock  and  key  in 


1 


Iron  Key.    (From  Thebes.) 


KEZFA   (ny^^flp    [cassia-]:    Kaala',    Alex. 
Kaaraia:    Cassm),  the 'second   of  the  daughters  of 


Job,  bom  to  him  after  his  recovery  (Job  xlii.  14). 
KEZIZ,    THE    VALLEY    OF     (p^5? 

V"^-.P  :  A/X6/CO0-IS  [Vat.  -o-et y]  ;  Alex.  A/i€/c/cao-e<s : 
Vallis  Casis),  one  of  the  "  cities  "  of  I3en  jam  in 
(Josh,  xviii.  21).  That  it  was  the  eastern  border 
of  the  tribe  is  endent  from  its  mention  in  com- 
pany with  Beth-hoglah  and  Beth-ha-Akahau. 
The  name  does  not  reappear  in  the  0.  T.,  but  if 
is  possibly  intended  under  the  corrupted  form 
Beth-basi,  in  1  Mace.  ix.  62,  64.  The  name,  if 
Hebrew,  is  derivable  from  a  root  meaning  to  cut  off 
(Ges.  Thes.  1229;  Simonis,  Onom.  70).  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  it  Q2n  have  any  connection  with  the  gen- 


amongthe  modem  Syrians  {Land  and  Book,  i.  493  f.) 
The  key  is  often  "  large  enough  for  a  stout  club,"  and 
the  lock  and  key  together  are  "  almost  a  load  to  carry'- 
Many  of  the  locks  are  on  *he  inside  of  the  doors.  Tc 
unlock  them,  the  owner  thrusts  his  arm  through  a 
hole  for  that  purpose,  and  thus  insert.s  the  key.  Th» 
allusion  in  Cant.  iv.  4,  5,  may  be  to  such  a  lock.  H. 


KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH 

;ral  circumcision  which  took  place  at  Gilgal,  cer- 
tainly in  the  same  neighborhood,  after  the  Jordan 
was  crossed  (Josh.  v.  2-9)  ?  G. 

KIB'ROTH  -  HATTA'AVAH  (*m-1^i7 

•^J^/lin  •  fivfifiara  tt}s  iiriOvfiias'  sepulchra 
concupiscentice),  Num.  xi.  3i',  marg.  "the  graves 
of  lust  "  (comp.  xxxiii.  17).  From  there  being  no 
change  of  spot  mentioned  between  it  and  Taberah 
in  xi.  3,  it  is  probably,  like  the  latter,  about  three 
days'  journey  from  Sinai  (x.  33);  and  from  the  sea 
I)eing  twice  mentioned  in  the  course  of  the  narra- 
tive (xi.  22,  31),  a  maritime  proximity  may  perhaps 
be  inferred.  Here  it  seems  they  abode  a  whole  month, 
during  which  they  went  on  eating  quails,  and  per- 
haps suffering  from  the  plague  which  followed.  If 
the  conjecture  of  Hudherd  (Burckhardt,  p.  495; 
liobinson,  i.  151)  as  a  site  for  Hazeroth  [see  Haz- 
KROTii]  be  adopted,  then  "the  graves  of  lust" 
may  be  perhaps  within  a  day's  journey  thence  in 
the  direction  of  Sinai,  and  would  lie  within  15 
miles  of  the  Gulf  of  Akabah;  but  no  traces  of 
any  graves  have  ever  been  detected  in  the  region." 
Both  Schubert,  between  Sinai  and  the  Wady  Mur- 
rah  {Reisen,  360),  and  Stanley  (S.  ^  F.  82),  just 
before  reaching  HMherd^  encountered  flights  of 
birds  —  the  latter  says  of  "red-legged  cranes." 
Ritter  *  speaks  of  such  flights  as  a  constant  phe- 
nomenon, both  in  this  peninsula  and  in  the  Eu- 
phrates region.  Burckhardt,  Travels  in  Syria, 
406,  8  Aug.,  quotes  Russell's  Aleppo,  ii.  194,  and 
Bays  the  bird  Katta  is  found  in  great  numbers  in 
the  neighborhood  of  Tufileh.  [Tophel.]  He  calls 
it  a  species  of  partridge,  or  "  not  improbably  the 
Sebwt  or  quail.''  Boys  not  uncommonly  kill  three 
or  four  of  them  at  one  throw  with  a  stick." 

H.    H. 

KIBZA'IM  (D^??r?  [see  below]:  Vat.  omits; 
A.lex.  -q  Ka^a-aeifi:  Cibsui/n),  a  city  of  Mount 
Ephraim,  not  named  in  the  meagre,  and  probably 
imperfect,  lists  of  the  towns  of  that  great  tribe 
(see  Josh,  xvi.),  but  mentioned  elsewhere  as  having 
been  given  up  with  its  "  suburbs  "  to  the  Kohath" 
ite  Levites  (xxi.  22).  In  the  parallel  list  of  1 
Chr.  vi.,  JoKMEAM  is  substituted  for  Kibzaim  (ver. 
68),  an  exchange  which,  as  already  pointed  out 
under  the  former  name,  may  have  arisen  from  the 
similarity  between  the  two  in  the  original.  Jok- 
meam  would  appear  to  have  been  situated  at  the 
eastern  quarter  of  Ephraim.  But  this  is  merely 
inference,  no  trace  having  been  hitherto  discovered 
of  either  name. 

Interpreted  as  a  Hebrew  word,  Kibzaim  signi- 
fies "  two  heaps."  G. 

*  KID.  For  some  of  the  facts  pertinent  here, 
»ee  Goat.     It  may  be  added  that  the  wild  goat  is 

«  Save  one  of  a  Mohammedan  saint  (Stanley,  S.  ^  P. 
78),  which  does  not  assist  the  question. 

b  He  remarks  on  the  continuanco  of  the  law  of  na- 
ture in  animal  habits  through  a  course  of  thousands 
of  years  (xiv.  261). 

c  I'liny  {Nat.  Hist.  x.  aS)  says  quails  settle  on  the 
•ails  itf  ships  by  night,  so  as  to  sink  sometimes  the 
ships  in  the  neighboring  sea.  So  Diod.  Sic.  i.  p.  38  : 
Tas  flijpas  Twv  bprvyoDV  iiroiovi'TO,  k^epovTo  re  oJtoi 
KLT  dye'Aas  txeC^ov;  sk  rov  neKdyovt  (LepsiUBj  Tfiebes  to 
Sinai,  23).     Comp.  Joseph.  Ant.  ill.  1,  §  5  ,  and  Prey- 

ta«,  Lex.  Arab.  s.  v.  [  Uv  ;  also  Ealisch  on  Ex.  xvi. 
13,  where  an  incidental  mention  of  the  bird  occurs, 
vhe  liinnean  name  appears  to  be  Tetrao  Alchata. 


KIDRON,  THE   BROOK    1533 

by  no  means  extinct  in  Palestine  at  thepreyenl  day. 
"  In  the  neighborhood  of  En-gedi,"  says  Tristram, 
{Nat.  Hist,  of  the  Bible,  p.  96),  "while  encamped 
by  the  Dead  Sea  shore,  we  obtained  several  fine 
specin)ens,  and  very  interesting  it  was  to  find  thia 
graceful  creature  by  the  very  fountain  to  which  it 
gave  name,  and  in  the  spot  where  it  roamed  of  old 
while  David  wandered  to  escape  the  persecutions  of 
Saul  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  2)."  [En-gedi.]  Thomson 
also  speaks  of  them  as  found  in  the  ravines  near 
this  fountain  {Land  and  Book,  ii.  420). 

Among  the  pastoral  inhabitants  of  Palestine  a 
kid  forms  the  ordinary  dish  at  a  feast  or  entertain- 
ment. "  The  lambs,"  says  Tristram,  "are  mora 
generally  kept  till  they  reach  maturity,  for  the  saka 
of  their  wool,  and  a  calf  is  too  large  and  too  valua- 
ble to  be  slain  except  on  some  very  special  occasions. 
Whenever  in  the  wilder  parts  of  Palestine  the  trav- 
eller halts  at  an  Arab  camp,  or  pays  his  visit  to  a 
village  sheikh,  he  is  pressed  to  stay  until  the  kid 
can  be  kiUed  and  made  ready,  and  he  has  an 
opportunity  of  seeing  in  front  of  the  tent  the  kid 
caught  and  prepared  for  the  cooking  "  {Nnt.  f/ist. 
of  the  Bible,  p.  90  f. ).  This  usage  explains  the  terms 
of  the  elder  brother's  complaint  in  the  parable  of 
the  prodigal:  "  Thou  never  gavest  me  a  kid  that 
I  might  make  merry  with  my  friends,  but  as  goon 
as  this  thy  son  was  come  ....  thou  hast 
killed  for  him  the  fatted  calf"  (Luke  xv.  29,  30). 
Comp.  also  Gen.  xxvii.  9 ;  and  Judg.  vi.  19  and 
xiii.  15. 

The  custom  of  "  seething  a  kid  in  its  mother's 
milk  "  (which  was  forbidden  to  the  Hebrews,  see 
Ex.  xxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  26,  and  Deut.  xiv.  21)  is 
common  among  the  Arabs  of  the  present  day. 
"They  select,"  says  Thomson,  "a  young  kid, 
fat  and  tender,  dress  it  carefully,  and  then  stew  it 
in  milk,  generally  sour,  mixed  with  onions  and  hot 
spices  such  as  they  relish.  They  call  it  Lebn 
inimu  —  kid,  'in  its  mother's  milk.'  "  The  Jews 
however,  refuse  such  food  with  abhorrence,  not  only 
as  being  interdicted  by  the  Mosaic  law,  but  unnat- 
ural  and   barbarous   {Land  and   Book,  i.  135). 

H. 

KID'RON,  THE  BROOK  {)^^1XI  ^03"' 
6  x^'^fJ'O'p^os  KeBpcov  and  twu  KeZpwv;  in  Jer.  only 
NcixaA  KeSpctfj',  and  Alex,  x^iixappos  NaxaA.  K. : 
torrens  Ceclron,  [convallis  Cedron'] ),  a  torrent  or 
valley  —  not  a  "  brook,"  as  in  the  A.  V.  —  in  imme- 
diate proximity  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  not  named  in 
the  earlier  records  of  the  country,  or  in  the  speci- 
fication of  the  boundaries  of  Benjamin  or  Judah, 
but  comes  forward  in  connection  with  some  remark- 
able events  of  the  history.  It  lay  between  the 
city  and  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  was-  crossed  by 
David  in  his  flight  (2  Sam.  xv.  23,  comp.  30),  and 


d  The  name  is  derived  by  Qesenius  and  others  from 
"n^p,  "  to  be  black  ;  "  either,  according  to  Robinson, 
from  the  turbidness  of  its  stream  (comp.  Job  vi.  16 ; 
though  the  words  of  Job  imply  that  this  was  a  condition 
of  all  brooks  when  frozen) ;  or  more  appropriately,  with 
StanJoVj  from  the  depth  and  obscurity  of  the  ravine 
(S.  <f  P.  172) ;  possibly  also  —  though  this  is  proposed 
with  hesitation  —  from  the  impurity  which  seems  to 
have  attached  to  it  from  a  very  early  date. 

W«s  cannot,  hoArever,  too  often  insist  on  the  great 
uncertainty  which  attends  the  derivations  of  these 
ancient  names  ;  and  in  treating  Kidron  as  a  Hebrew 
word,  we  may  be  making  a  mistake  almost  as  absurd 
as  that  of  the  copyist  who  altered  it  into  riav  KeSpuy 
believing  that  it  arose  fro«a  the  presence  of  cedam- 


1534    KIDRON,   THE   BROOK 

by  our  rx)rd  on  his  way  to  Gethsemane  (John  xviii. 
1 ;  «  cornp.  Mark  xiv.  26 ;  Luke  xxii.  39).  Its  con- 
nection with  these  two  occurrences  is  alone  sufficient 
to  le<'ive  no  doubt  that  the  Nachal-Kidron  is  the 
deep  ravine  on  the  east  of  Jerusalem,  now  com- 
monly known  as  the  "  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat." 
But  it  would  seem  as  if  the  name  were  formerly 
applied  also  to  the  ravines  surrounding  other  por- 
tions of  Jerusalem  —  the  south  or  the  west;  since 
Solomon's  prohibition  to  Shimei  to  "  pass  over  the 
torrent  Kidron  "  (IK.  ii.  37;  Jos.  Ant.  nii.  1, 
§  5)  is  said  to  have  been  broken  by  the  latter  when 
he  went  in  the  direction  of  Gath  to  seek  his  fugi- 
tive slaves  (41,  42).  Now  a  person  going  to  Gath 
would  certainly  not  go  by  the  way  of  the  Mount 
of  OUves,  or  approach  the  eastern  side  of  the  city 
at  all.  The  route  —  whether  Gath  were  at  Beii- 
Jibrin  or  at  Tell  es-SnJieh  —  would  be  by  the 
IJethlehem-gate,  and  then  nearly  due  west.  Per- 
haps the  prohibition  may  have  been  a  more  general 
one  than  is  implied  in  ver.  37  (conip.  the  king's 
reiteration  of  it  in  ver.  42),  the  Kidron  being  in 
that  case  specially  mentioned  because  it  was  on  the 
road  to  Bahurim,  Shimei's  home,  and  the  scene  of 
his  criuie.  At  any  rate,  beyond  the  passage  in 
question,  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  name  Kidron 
having  been  applied  to  the  southern  or  western  ra- 
vines of  the  city. 

The  distinguishing  peculiarity  of  the  Kidron 
Valley  —  that  in  respect  to  which  it  is  most  fre- 
quently mentioned  in  the  0.  T.  —  is  the  impurity 
which  appears  to  have  been  ascribed  to  it.  Ex- 
cepting the  two  casual  notices  already  quoted,  we 
first  meet  with  it  as  the  place  in  which  King  Asa 
demolished  and  burnt  the  obscene  phaUic  idol  (vol. 
ii.  p.  1118)  of  his  mother  (1  K.  xv.  13;  2  Chr.  xv.  16). 
Next  we  find  the  wicked  Athaliah  hurried  thither 
to  execution  (Jos.  Ant.  Lx.  7,  §  3;  2  K.  xi.  16). 
It  then  becomes  the  regular  receptacle  for  the  im- 
purities and  abominations  of  the  idol-worship,  when 
removed  from  the  Temple  and  destroyed  by  the  ad- 
herents of  Jehovah^  (2  Chr.  xxix.  16,  xxx.  14;  2 
K.  xxiii.  4,  6,  12).  In  the  course  of  these  narra- 
tives, the  statement  of  Josephus  just  quoted  as  to 
the  death  of  Athaliah  is  supported  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  time  of  Josiah  it  was  the  common  cemetery 
of  the  city  (2  K.  xxiii.  6;  comp.  Jer.  xxvi.  23, 
"graves  of  the  common  people"),  perhaps  the 
"  valley  of  dead  bodies  "  mentioned  by  Jeremiah 
(xxxi.  40)  in  close  connection  with  the  "  fields  "  of 
Kidron;  and  the  restoration  of  which  to  sanctity 
Was  to  be  one  of  the  miracles  of  future  times 
\ilml.). 

How  long  the  valley  continued  to  be  used  for  a 
burying-place  it  is  very  hard  to  ascertain.  After 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in  1099,  the  bodies  of  the 
slain  were  buried  outside  the  Golden  Gateway 
(Mlslin,  ii.  487 ;  Tobler,  Umgebungen,  p.  218) ;  but 
?h>t  had  been  the  practice  in  the  interval  the 
writtc  has  not  succeeded  in  tracing.  To  the  date 
>f  the  monuments  at  the  foot  of  Olivet  we  have  at 
present  no  clew;  but  even  if  they  are  of  pre-Chris- 
tian times  there  is  no  proof  that  they  are  tombs. 


a  Here,  and  here  only,  the  form  used  in  the  A.  V. 
Is  Cedron.  The  variations  in  the  Greek  text  are 
very  curious.  Codex  A  has  tov  KeSpuiv ;  B,  twv  KfSp<ov; 
D  [and  Sin.],  tov  /ee'Spov,  and  in  some  cursive  MSS.  [one 
MS.)  quoted  by  Tischendorf  we  even  find  tuj/  SevSp<av. 

b  The  Targum  appears  to  understand  the  obscure 
^sageZeph.  i.  11,  as  referring  to  the  destruction  of 
She  idolatrous  worship  in  Kidron,  for  it  renders  it, 
«  Howl  all  ye  that  dwell  in  the  Nachal  Kidron,  for  all 


KIDRON,  THE  BROOK 

From  the  date  just  mentioned,  however,  the  burials 
appear  to  have  been  constant,  and  at  present  it 
is  the  favorite  resting-place  of  Moslems  and  Jews^ 
the  former  on  the  west,  the  latter  on  the  east  of  the 
valley.  The  Moslems  are  mostly  confined  to  tlie 
narrow  level  spot  between  the  foot  of  the  wall  and 
the  commencement  of  the  precipitous  slope;  while 
the  Jews  have  possession  of  the  lower  part  of  the 
slopes  of  Olivet,  where  their  scanty  tombstones  are 
crowded  so  thick  together  as  literally  to  cover  the 
surface  like  a  pavement. 

The  term  Nachal  ^  is  in  the  0.  T.,  with  one 
single  exception  (2  K.  xxiii.  4),  attached  to  the 
name  of  Kidron,  and  apparently  to  that  alone  of 
the  valleys  or  ravines  of  Jerusalem.  Hinnoni  is 
always  the  6'e.  This  enables  us  to  infer  with  great 
probability  that  the  Kidron  is  intended  in  2  Chr. 
xxxii.  4,  by  the  "  b7'Ook  (Nachal)  which  ran  through 
the  midst  of  the  land";  and  that  Hezekiah'a 
preparations  for  the  siege  consisted  in  sealing  the 
source  of  the  Kidron  —  "  the  upper  sprhighead 
(not  'watercourse,'  as  A.  V.)  of  Gihon,"  where  it 
burst  out  in  the  wady  some  distance  north  of  the 
city,  and  leading  it  by  a  subterranean  channel  to 
the  interior  of  the  city.  If  this  is  so,  there  is  no 
difficulty  in  accounting  for  tke  fact  of  the  subse- 
quent want  of  water  in  the  ancient  bed  of  the  Kid- 
ron. In  accordance  with  this  also  is  the  specifica- 
tion of  Gihon  as  "  Gihon-in-the-Nachal  "  —  that  is, 
in  the  Kidron  Valley  —  though  this  was  proliably  the 
lower  of  two  outlets  of  the  same  name.  [Gihon.] 
By  Jerome,  in  the  Onomasticon,  it  is  mentioned  as 
"  close  to  Jerusalem  on  the  eastern  side,  and  spoken 
of  by  John  the  Evangelist."  But  the  favorite 
name  of  this  valley  at  the  time  of  Jerome,  and  for 
several  centuries  after,  M'as  "  the  Valley  of  Jehosha- 
phat," and  the  name  Kidron,  or,  in  accordance 
with  the  orthography  of  the  Vulgate,  Cedron,  is 
not  invariably  found  in  the  travellers  (see  Arculf, 
/£arl.  Trav.  1;  Saewulf,  41;  Benjamin  of  Tudela; 
Maundeville,  Earl.  Trav.  176;  Thietmar,  27;  but 
not  the  Bordeaux  Pilgrim,  the  Citez  de  Jherusa- 
lem,  WilUbald,  etc.). 

The  following  description  of  the  Valley  of  Kidron 
in  its  modem  state  —  at  once  the  earliest  and  the 
most  accurate  which  we  possess  —  is  taken  from 
Dr.  Robinson  {Bibl  Res.  i.  269):  — 

"  In  approaching  Jerusalem  from  the  high  mosk 
of  Neby  Samwil  in  the  N.  VV.,  the  traveller  first 
descends  and  crosses  the  bed  of  the  great  Wady 
Beit  Haninn  already  described.  He  then  ascends 
again  towards  the  S.  E.  by  a  small  side  wady  and 
along  a  rocky  slope  for  twenty-five  minutes,  when 
he  reaches  the  Tombs  of  the  Judges,  lying  in  a 
small  gap  or  depression  of  the  ridge,  still  half  an 
hour  distant  from  the  northern  gate  of  the  city. 
A  few  steps  further  he  reaches  the  water-shed  be 
tween  the  great  wady  behind  him  and  the  tract 
before  him ;  and  here  is  the  head  of  the  Valley  of 
Jehoshaphat.  From  this  point  the  dome  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  bears  S.  by  E.  The  tract  around 
this  spot  is  very  rocky;  and  the  rocks  have  been 
much  cut  away,  partly  in  quarrying  building-stone, 


the  people  are  broken  whose  works  were  like  the  work» 
of  the  people  of  the  land  of  Canaan."     [Maktesh.] 

c  Nachal  is  untranslatable  in  English  unless  by 
"  Wady,"  to  which  it  answers  exactly,  and  which  bidi 
lair  to  become  shortly  an  English  word.  It  does  not 
signify  the  stream,  or  the  valley  which  coDtained  the 
bed  of  the  stream,  and  was  its  receptacle  when  Bwollef 
by  winter-rains  —  but  both.      [Riteb.] 


KIDRON,  THE  BROOK 

fcnd  paitly  in  the  formation  of  sepulchres.  The 
rejijion  is  full  of  excavated  tombs ;  and  these  con- 
tinue with  more  or  less  frequency  on  both  sides  of 
the  valley,  all  the  way  down  to  Jerusalem.  The 
falley  runs  for  15  minutes  directly  towards  the 
sity;  «  it  is  here  shallow  and  broad,  and  in  some 
parts  tilled,  though  very  stony.  The  road  follows 
along  its  bottom  to  the  same  point.  The  valley 
now  turns  nearly  east,  almost  at  a  right  angle,  and 
passes  to  the  northward  of  the  Tombs  of  the  Kings 
and  the  Muslim  Wely  before  mentioned.  Here  it 
is  about  200  rods  distant  from  the  city ;  and  the 
tract  between  is  tolerably  level  ground,  planted 
with  olive-trees.  The  Nabulus  road  crosses  it  in 
this  part,  and  ascends  the  hill  on  the  north.  The 
valley  is  here  still  shallow,  and  runs  in  the  same  direc- 
tion for  about  10  minutes.  It  then  bends  again  to 
the  south,  and,  following  this  general  course,  passes 
between  the  city  and  the  Mount  of  Olives. 

<'  Before  reaching  the  city,  and  also  opposite  its 
northern  part,  the  valley  spreads  out  into  a  basin 
of  some  breadth,  which  is  tiUed,  and  contains 
plantations  of  olive  and  other  fruit-trees.  In  this 
part  it  is  crossed  obliquely  by  a  road  leading  from 
the  N.  E.  corner  of  Jerusalem  across  the  northern 
part  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  to  'Andta.  Its  sides 
are  still  full  of  excavated  tombs.  As  the  valley 
descends,  the  steep  side  upon  the  right  becomes 
more  and  more  elevated  above  it ;  until,  at  the  gate 
of  St.  Stephen,  the  height  of  this  brow  is  about 
100  feet.  Here  a  path  winds  down  from  the  gate 
on  a  course  S.  E.  by  E.,  and  crosses  the  valley  by 
a  bridge;  beyond  which  are  the  church  with  the 
Tomb  of  the  Virgin,  Gethsemane,  and  other  plan- 
tations of  olive-trees,  already  described.  The  path 
and  bridge  are  on  a  causeway,  or  rather  terrace, 
built  up  across  the  valley,  perpendicular  on  the 
Bouth  side ;  the  earth  being  filled  in  on  the  northern 
Bide  up  to  the  level  of  the  bridge.  The  bridge 
itself  consists  of  an  arch,  open  on  the  south  side, 
and  17  feet  high  from  the  bed  of  the  channel  be- 
low; but  the  north  side  is  built  up,  with  two  sub- 
terranean drains  entering  it  from  above;  one 
of  which  comes  from  the  sunken  court  of  the  Vir- 
gin's Tomb,  and  the  other  from  the  fields  farther 
in  the  northwest.  The  breadth  of  the  valley  at 
this  point  will  appear  from  the  measurements  which 
I  took  from  St.  Stephen's  Gate  to  Gethsemane, 
along  the  path,  namely  — 

Eng.  feet. 

1.  From  St.  Stephen's  Gate  to  the  brow  of 

the  descent,  level     ....      135 

2.  Bottom  of  the  slope,  the  angle  of  the 

descent  being  16^°            .         .         .  415 

3.  Bridge,  level 140 

4.  N.  \V.  corner  of  Gethsemane,  slight  rise  145 

5.  N.  E.  corner  of              do.          do.       .  150 

The  last  three  numbers  give  the  breadth  of  the 
proper  bottom  of  the  valley  at  this  spot,  namely, 
435  feet,  or  145  yards.  Further  north  it  is  some- 
what broader. 

"  Below  the  bridge  the  valley  contracts  gradually, 
and  sinks  more  rapidly.  The  first  continuous  traces 
5)f  a  water-course  or  torrent-bed  commence  at  the 

iridge,  though  they  occur  likewise  at  intervals 
higher  up.  The  western  hill  becomes  steeper  and 
more  elevated;  while  on  the  east  the  Mount  of 
Olives  rises  much  higher,  but  is  not  so  steep.     At 

Jbe  distance  of  1000  feet  from  the  bridge  on  a 


a  See  a  slight  correction  of  this  by  Tobler,  Umge- 
HMgeM,  p   22. 


KIDROX,  THE   BROOK   1535 

course  S.  1')°  W.  I  he  bottcn  of  the  valley  has  V*- 
come  merely  a  deep  gully,  the  narrow  bed  of  a 
torrent,  from  which  the  hills  rise  directly  on  euch 
side.  Here  another  bridge  *  is  thrown  across  it  on 
an  arch;  and  just  by  on  the  left  are  the  alleged 
tombs  of  Jehoshaphat,  Absalom,  and  others;  as 
also  the  Jewish  cemetery.  The  valley  now  con- 
tinues of  the  same  character,  and  follows  the  same 
course  (S.  10°  W.)  for  550  feet  further;  where  it 
makes  a  sharp  turn  for  a  moment  towards  the  right. 
This  portion  is  the  narrowest  of  all ;  it  is  here  a 
mere  ravine  between  high  :nountains.  The  S.  E. 
corner  of  the  area  of  the  mosque  overhangs  this  part, 
the  corner  of  the  wall  standing  upon  the  very  brink 
of  the  declivity.  From  it  to  the  bottom,  on  a  course 
S.  E.  the  angle  of  depression  is  27°,  and  the  dis- 
tance 450  feet,  giving  an  elevation  of  128  feet  at 
that  point;  to  which  may  be  added  20  feet  or  more 
for  the  rise  of  ground  just  north  along  the  wall; 
making  in  all  an  elevation  of  about  150  feet.  This, 
however,  is  the  highest  point  above  the  valley;  for 
further  south  the  narrow  ridge  of  Ophel  slopes 
down  as  rapidly  as  the  valley  itself.  In  this  part 
of  the  valley  one  would  expect  to  find,  if  anywhere, 
traces  of  ruins  thrown  dowTi  from  above,  and  tht 
ground  raised  by  the  rubbish  thus  accumulated. 
Occasional  blocks  of  stone  are  indeed  seen;  but 
neither  the  surface  of  the  ground,  nor  the  bed  of 
the  torrent,  exhibits  any  special  appearance  of  having 
been  raised  or  interrupted  by  masses  of  ruins. 

"  Below  the  short  turn  above  mentioned,  a  line 
of  1025  feet  on  a  course  S.  W,  brings  us  to  the 
Fountain  of  the  Virgin,  lying  deep  under  the 
western  hill.  The  valley  has  now  opened  a  little; 
but  its  bottom  is  still  occupied  only  by  the  bed  of 
the  torrent.  From  here  a  course  S.  20°  W.  carried 
us  along  the  village  of  Siloam  {Kefr  Selwdn)  on 
the  eastern  side,  and  at  1170  feet  we  were  opposite 
the  mouth  of  the  Tyropoeon  and  the  Pool  of  SiJoam, 
which  lies  255  feet  within  it.  The  mouth  of  this 
valley  is  still  40  or  50  feet  higher  than  the  bed  of 
the  Kidron.  The  steep  descent  between  the  two 
has  been  already  described  as  built  up  in  terraces, 
which,  as  well  as  the  strip  of  level  ground  below, 
are  occupied  with  gardens  belonging  to  the  village 
of  Siloam.  These  are  irrigated  by  the  waters  of 
the  Pool  of  Siloam,  which  at  this  time  were  lost  in 
them.  In  these  gardens  the  stones  have  been  re- 
moved, and  the  soil  is  a  fine  mould.  They  are 
planted  with  fig  and  other  fruit-trees,  and  furnish 
abo  vegetables  for  the  city.  Elsewhere  the  botto»»i 
of  the  valley  is  thickly  strewed  with  small  stones. 

"  Further  down,  the  valley  opens  more  and  is 
tilled.  A  line  of  685  feet  on  the  same  course  (S. 
20°  W.)  brought  us  to  a  rocky  point  of  the  eastern 
hill,  here  called  the  Mount  of  Offense,  over  against 
the  entrance  of  the  Valley  of  Ilinnom.  Thence  to 
the  well  of  Job  or  Nehemiah  is  275  feet  due  south. 
At  the  junction  of  the  two  valleys  the  bottom  forms 
an  oblong  plat,  extending  from  the  gardens  above 
mentioned  nearly  to  the  well  of  Job,  and  being  150 
yards  or  more  in  breadth.  The  western  and  north- 
western parts  of  this  plat  are  in  like  manner  oc- 
cupied oy  gardens;  many  of  which  are  also  on 
terraces,  and  receive  a  portion  of  the  waters  of 
Siloam. 

"  Below  the  weU  of  Neheiciah  the  Valley  of 
Jehoshaphat  continues  to  run  S.  S.  W.  between 
the  Mount  of  Offense  and  the  Hill  of  Evil  CounBeL 

b  YoT  a  minute  account  of  the  two  bridges,  sm 
Tobler,  Umgebungen,  pp.  36-39. 


1536     KIDRON,  THE  BROOK 

no  called.  At  130  feet  is  a  small  cavity  or  outlet 
by  which  the  water  of  tlie  well  sometimes  runs  off. 
At  about  1200  feet,  or  400  yards,  from  the  well  is 
a  place  under  the  western  hill,  where  in  the  rainy 
season  water  flows  out  as  from  a  fountain.  At 
about  1500  feet  or  500  yards  below  the  well  the 
valley  bends  off  S.  75°  E.  for  half  a  mile  or  more, 
and  then  turns  again  more  to  the  south,  and  pur- 
sues its  way  to  the  Dead  Sea.  At  the  angle  where 
it  thus  bends  eastward  a  small  wady  comes  in  from 
the  west,  from  behind  the  Hill  of  Evil  Counsel. 
Th3  width  of  the  main  valley  below  the  well,  as  far 
as  to  the  turn,  varies  from  50  to  100  yards;  it  is 
full  of  olive  and  fig-trees,  and  is  in  most  parts 
ploughed  and  sown  with  grain.  Further  down  it 
takes  the  name  among  the  Arabs  of  Wady  er-Rdhib^ 
'Monks'  Valley,'  from  the  convent  of  St.  Saba 
situated  on  it;  and  still  nearer  to  the  Dead  Sea  it 
is  also  called  Wndy  en-Ndr,  <■  Fire  Valley.'  « 

"  The  channel  of  the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  the 
Brook  Kidron  of  the  Scriptures,  is  nothing  more 
than  the  dry  bed  of  a  wintry  torrent,  bearing  marks 
of  being  occasionally  swept  over  by  a  large  volume 
of  water.  No  stream  flows  here  now  except  during 
the  heavy  rains  of  winter,  when  the  waters  descend 
into  it  from  the  neighboring  hills.  Yet  even  in 
winter  there  is  no  constant  flow;  and  our  friends, 
who  had  resided  several  years  in  the  city,  had  never 
seen  a  stream  running  through  the  valley.  Nor 
is  there  any  evidence  that  there  was  anciently  more 
water  in  it  than  at  present.  Like  the  wadies  of 
the  desert,  the  valley  probably  served  of  old,  as 
now,  only  to  drain  off  the  waters  of  the  rainy 


One  point  is  unnoticed  in  Dr.  Robinson's  de- 
scription, sufficiently  curious  and  well-attested  to 
merit  further  careful  investigation  —  the  possibility 
that  the  Kidron  flows  below  the  present  surface  of 
the  ground.  Dr.  Barclay  {City,  etc.  302)  mentions 
"  a  fountain  that  bursts  forth  during  the  winter  in 
a  valley  entering  the  Kidron  from  the  north,  and 
flows  several  hundred  yards  before  it  sinks;"  and 
again  he  testifies  that  at  a  point  in  the  valley  about 
two  miles  below  the  city  the  murmurings  of  a 
stream  deep  below  the  ground  may  be  distinctly 
heard,  which  stream,  on  excavation,  he  actually  dis- 
jovered  {ibid.).  His  inference  is  that  between  the 
two  points  the  brook  is  flowing  in  a  subterraneous 
channel,  as  is  *'  not  at  all  unfrequent  in  Palestine  " 
(p.  303).  Nor  is  this  a  modern  discovery,  for  it  is 
spoken  of  by  William  of  Tyre ;  by  Brocardus  {Descr. 
cap.  viii.),  as  audible  near  the  "Tomb  of  the 
Virgin;"  and  also  by  Fabri  (i.  370),  Mariiius 
Sanutus  (3,  ll,  9),  and  others. 

That  which  Dr.  Robinson  complains  that  neither 
he  nor  his  friends  were  fortunate  enough  to  witness 
has  since  taken  place.  In  the  winter  of  1853-54  so 
heavy  were  the  rains,  that  not  only  did  the  lower 
part  of  the  Kidron,  below  the  so-called  well  of 
Nehemiah  or  Joab,  run  with  a  considerable  stream 
for  the  whole  of  the  month  of  March  (Barclay,  515), 
but  also  the  upper  part,  "  in  the  middle  section  of 
the  Valley  of  Jehoshaphat,  flowed  for  a  day  or  two  " 
(Stewart,  Tent  cf  Khan,  316).  The  Well  of  Joab 
is  probably  one  of  the  outlets  of  the  mysterious 

a  A  list  of  some  of  the  plants  found  in  this  valley 
is  given  by  Mislin  (iil.  209) ;  and  some  scraps  of  in- 
formation about  the  valley  itself  at  p.  199. 

b  «  During  the  latter  rains  of  February  and  March 
the  well  'Atn  Ayub  is  a  subject  of  much  speculation 
uid  interest  to  all  dwellers  in  the  city.     If  it  over- 


KIDRON,   THE  BROOK 

spring  which  flows  below  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  and 
its  overflow  is  comparatively  common ;  *  but  the 
flowing  of  a  stream  in  the  upper  part  of  the  valley 
would  seem  not  to  have  taken  place  for  many  yearj 
before  the  occasion  in  question,  although  it  occurred 
also  in  the  following  winter  {Jeidsh  IntdUfjencer 
May  1856,  p.  137  note),  and,  as  the  WTiter  is  in- 
fonned,  has  since  become  almost  periodical.     G. 

*  The  language  of  Dr.  Barclay  (see  above)  hardly 
implies  so  much  as  the  actual  discovery  of  the  sub- 
terranean stream  spoken  of.  His  words  are  that 
"  about  two  miles  southeast  of  the  city  "  where  a 
noise  as  of  running  water  beneath  the  ground  was 
said  to  have  been  heard,  •'  on  removing  the  rocks 
to  the  depth  of  about  ten  or  twelve  feet,  water  was 
found,  though  in  small  quantity,  in  midsummer  " 
{City  of  the  Great  King,  pp.  302,  303). 

Lieut.  Warren  avows  his  belief  in  the  existence 
of  this  subterranean  current.  At  the  latest  dates, 
he  was  directing  his  attention  to  this  point,  but 
had  not  solved  the  question.  About  500  yards 
below  the  Bir  Kyvb  [En-Rogel]  he  discovered  a 
flight  of  steps  leading  down  to  an  ancient  aqueduct, 
now  choked  with  silt,  which  he  cleared  about  100 
feet  northward,  and  believes  to  have  been  connected 
with  that  well  and  the  ancient  system  of  water 
supply.  Whatever  may  be  the  truth  however  in 
this  instance,  it  appears  that  some  of  the  rumors 
of  this  nature  are  traceable  to  a  very  different 
origin.  Capt.  Wilson,  of  the  Royal  Engineers, 
relates  an  example  of  this  which  is  worthy  of 
notice.  "A  few  words"  {Ordnance  Survey  of 
Jerusalem,  p.  87,  Lond.  1865)  "  may  be  said 
here  on  the  sound  of  running  water  which  has 
been  heard  by  travellers  near  the  Damascus  Gate, 
and  at  the  head  of  the  Kidron  Valley.  On  one 
occasion,  when  returning  to  the  city  after  a  heavy 
storm  of  rain,  the  same  sound  was  noticed,  and  after 
some  httle  trouble  found  to  arise  from  the  running 
of  water  into  a  cistern  near  the  north  road.  The 
surface  drainage  passing  through  small  earthenwars 
pipes,  and  falling  some  distance  onto  the  water 
below,  made  a  splashing  sound,  which,  softened  by 
the  vaulted  roof,  might  easily  be  mistaken  for  run- 
ning water.  The  same  thing  was  noticed  after- 
wards on  several  occasions,  especially  at  the  two 
cisterns  near  the  Damascus  Gate." 

It  is  undoubtedly  a  correct  opinion  that  the 
Kidron  was  never  more  than  a  winter  torrent 
formed  by  the  water  which  flowed  into  the  valley 
from  the  hills  north  and  east  of  Jerusalem.  It  is 
not  however  a  just  inference  from  this  character  of 
the  stream  that  the  amount  of  water  there  must 
always  have  been  the  same,  nor  is  this  consistent 
with  the  testimony  of  competent  observers.  Mr. 
Tristram  {Land  of  Israel,  p.  256,  2d  ed.),  speaking 
of  a  bluff  about  two  miles  south  of  Ain  Feshkhah, 
on  the  west  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea,  says :  "  Just 
beyond  it,  the  Kedron  in  the  days  of  its  abundance 
has  worked  out  a  tremendous  chasm,  a  few  feet  wide, 
through  which  it  winds  to  the  sea."  The  present 
stream  could  not  have  done  this.  But  the  evidence 
is  more  positive,  that  formerly  rain  was  more 
abundant  in  Palestine  than  at  present,  and  hence 
that  the  Kidron  was  a  larger  stream.     Dr.  Oliu 


flows  and  discharges  its  waters  down  the  Wady  en- 
Nar,  the  lower  part  of  the  Kidron,  then  they  are  oe^ 
tain  that  they  will  have  abundance  of  water  durinv 
the  summer ;  if  there  is  no  overflow,  their  mindf  an 
filled  with  foiebodings."     (Stewart,  816.) 


KINAH 

■ays:  "  The  entire  destruction  of  the  woods  which 
once  covered  the  mountains,  and  the  utter  neglect 
of  the  terraces  which  supported  the  soil  on  steep 
declivities,  have  given  full  range  to  the  rains,  which 
have  left  many  traces  of  bare  rock,  where  formerly 
were  vineyards  and  cornfields."  With  this  agrees 
also  Dean  Stanley's  representation :  "  It  is  prob- 
able that,  as  in  Europe  generally,  since  the  disap- 
pearance of  the  German  forests,  and  in  Greece,  since 
the  fall  of  the  plane-trees,  which  once  shaded  the 
bare  landscape  of  Attica,  the  gradual  cessation  of 
rain  produced  by  this  loss  of  vegetation  has  ex^wsed 
the  country  in  a  greater  degree  than  in  early  times 
to  the  evils  of  drought.  This  at  least  is  the  effect 
of  the  testimony  of  residents  at  Jerusalem  within 
whose  experience  the  Kidron  has  recently  for  the 
first  time  flowed  with  a  copious  torrent,  evidently 
in  consequence  of  the  numerous  enclosures  of  mul- 
berry and  olive  gi'oves,  made  within  the  last  few 
years  by  the  Greek  Convent,  and  in  themselves  a 
sample  of  the  different  aspect  which  such  cultiva- 
tion more  widely  extended  would  give  to  the  whole 
country."    (S.  <f  P.  pp.  121  and  123.)  H. 

KI'NAH  (^3*^17  [lamentation^  dirge]:  '!«£(/*; 
Alex.  Kiua'-  Cina),  a  city  of  Judah,  one  of  those 
which  lay  or.  the  extreme  south  boundary  of  the 
tribe,  next  to  Edom  (Josh.  xv.  22).  It  is  men- 
tioned in  the  Onomasticon  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
but  not  so  as  to  imply  that  they  had  any  actual 
knowledge  of  it.  With  the  sole  exception  of 
Schwarz  (99),  it  ajipears  to  be  unmentioned  by  any 
traveller,  and  the  "  town  Cinah  situated  near  the 
jnldemess  of  Zin"  with  which  he  would  identify 
»t,  is  not  to  be  found  in  his  own  or  any  other  map. 

Professor  Stanley  (S.  tf  P.  p.  160)  very  ingeniously 

connects  Kinah  with  the  Kenites  ("'D'^l?),  who 
settled  in  this  district  (Judg.  i.  16).  But  it  should 
not  be  overlooked  that  the  list  in  Josh.  xv.  purports 
to  record  the  towns  as  they  were  at  the  conquest, 
while  the  settlement  of  the  Kenites  probably 
(though  not  certainly)  did  not  take  place  till  after 
)t.  G. 


I 


I 


«  1.  (a.)     ~)Wt?7,     «  flesh ; "    oiKew ;     caro.     (6.) 

mWl^,  "  kinswoman,"  also  "  kindred,"  oiKei'a,  caro, 

¥om  "1SD!7,   "  tc  swell,"  also  "  to  remain,"  i.  s.  «  be 

mperfluous."  Whence  comes  *lStt7,  "remainder," 
Gtes.  1349-50.  Ilence,  in  Lev.  xviii*.  6,  A.  V.  has  in 
margin  "  remainder." 

2.  "lti?3,  "flesh,"  ffdp^,  caro,  from  ~)bS,  "be 
joyful,"  I.  e.  conveying'  the  notion  of  beauty,  Qes.  p. 
248. 

8.  nn3y.''P,  "  family,"  <^uA^,  familia,  applied 
>oth  to  races' and  single  families  of  mankind,  and  also 
10  aniiaals. 

4.  (a./  ViM2,  rib,  and  in  Keri  ViV2,  from 

yi^,  "  see,"  "  know."     (6.)   Also,  from  same  root, 

Jn!S?TlI2,  "  kindred  ; "  and  hence  "  kinsman,"  or 
« kinswoman,"  used,  like  "  acquaintance,"  in  both 
tenses,  Oes.  p.  574.  But  Buxtorf  limits  (b)  to  the 
abstract  sense,  (o)  tx)  the  concreU,  yvwpijmos,  propin- 
quvs. 

6.  mnSi,  "brotherhood,"  fitod^Krj,  germanitas, 
Qes.  p.  63.  * 

Nearly  allied  with  the  foregoing  in  sense  are  the 
following  general  terms  :  — 
97 


KINDRED  1537 

KINDRED."  I.  Of  the  special  names  de- 
noting  relation  by  consanguinity,  the  principal  will 
be  found  explained  under  their  proper  heads, 
Father,  Brother,  etc.  It  will  be  there  seen 
that  the  words  which  denote  near  relation  in  the 
direct  line  are  used  also  for  the  other  superior  or 
inferior  degrees  in  that  line,  as  grandfather,  grand- 
son, etc. 

On  the  meaning  of  the  expression  Sli'er  hasar 
(see  below  1  and  2)  much  controversy  has  arisen. 
Sh'er,  as  shown  below,  is  in  Lev.  xviii.  6,  in  marg. 
of  A.  v.,  "  remainder."  The  rendering,  however, 
of  S/i'er  basar  in  text  of  A.  V.,  "  near  of  kin,"  may 
be  taken  as  correct,  but,  as  Michaelis  shows,  with- 
out determining  the  precise  extent  to  which  the 
expression  itself  is  applicable  (Mich.  Laws  of  Mosea, 
ii.  48,  ed.  Smith;  Knobel  on  Leviticus;  see  alio 
Lev.  XXV.  49;  Num.  xxvii.  11). 

II.  The  words  which  express  collateral  consan- 
guinity are— (1)  uncle;''  (2)  aunt;  «  (3)  nephew;** 
(4)  niece  (not  in  A.  V.);  (5)  cousin.* 

III.  The  terms  of  affinity  are  —  1.  (a)  father-in 
law/  (b)  mother-in-law;  ff  2.  (a)  son-in-law,*  (b) 
daughter-in-law ; »  3.  (a)  brother-in-law,^'  (6)  sistor- 
in-law.^ 

The  relations  of  kindred,  expressed  by  few  words, 
and  imperfectly  defined  in  the  earliest  ages,  acquired 
in  course  of  time  greater  significance  and  wider 
influence.  The  fuU  list  of  relatives  either  by  con- 
sanguinity, i.  e.  as  arising  from  a  common  ancestor, 
or  by  aflSinity,  i.  e.  as  created  by  marriage,  may  be 
seen  detailed  in  the  Corpus  Juris  Civ.  Digest,  lib. 
xxxviii.  tit.  10,  de  Gradibus ;  see  also  Corp.  Jur. 
Canon.  Deer.  ii.  c.  xxxv.  9,  5. 

The  domestic  and  economical  questions  arising 
out  of  kindred  may  be  classed  under  the  three  heads 
of  Marriage,  Inheritance,  and  Blood-Re- 
venge, and  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  articles  on 
those  subjects  for  information  thereon.  It  is  clear 
that  the  tendency  of  the  Mosaic  Law  was  to  in- 
crease the  restrictions  on  marriage,  by  defining 
more  precisely  the  relations  created  by  it,  as  is  shown 
by  the  cases  of  Abraham  and  Moses.  •  [Iscah  ; 


6.  Dllp,  "  near,"  hence  "  a  relative,"  o  eyyws, 
propinquus,  Qes.  p.  1234. 

7.  bS3,  from  bS2,  "  redeem,"  Ges.  p.  253,  o 
ayxiarevoiv ,  "  a  kinsman,"  i.  e.  the  relative  to  whom 
belonged  the  right  of  redemption  or  of  vengeance 

l^   Tl"^,  aSe\(f>Q^  Tov  jraTpos,  oi«etos  ;  patruut. 
c  mi"^,  or  ni"^,  1}  oiryyciojs,  uxor  patrui. 

d  ^"^3^  in  connection  with  *7p3,  "oSspring;" 
but  see  Jochebed.  It  is  rendered  "  nephew  "  in  A.  V., 
but  indicates  a  descendant  in  general,  and  is  usually 
so  rendered  by  LXX.  and  Vulg.     See  Ges.  p.  864. 

«  Sv-jryev^?,  cognatus,  Luke  i.  36,  58. 

/   Dn    nevBepoi,  socf 

g   ni^n,   irev&epa,  socrus. 

A  inn  J  yofi/Spos,   socer,  from  liin,    "glreln 

marriage,"  whence  come  part,  in  Kal.  ^rin,  m..  and 

npnn,  f.,father-in-law   and   mother-in-law,    «.  « 
parents  who  give  a  daughter  in  marriage. 

«    rivS,   vviKhri,  nurus. 
T-'       f-^ " 

*    D^'',  flL6eX(^bs  ToC  avBpoi,  levir. 

I    ilD^^  V»^  ™''  o5«A^w,  uxoffrairiM. 


1538 


KINB 


JocHEBED.]  For  information  on  the  general  sub- 
ject of  kindred  and  its  obligations,  see  Selden,  de 
Jure  NaturaU,  lib.  v. ;  Michaelis,  Lmcs  of  Moses, 
ed.  Smith,  ii.  3G ;  Knobel  on  Lev.  xviii.  ^  Philo,  de 
Spec.  Leg.  iii.  3,  4,  5,  vol.  ii.  pp.  301-304,  ed.  Man- 
gey;  Burckhardt,  Arab  Tribes,  i.  150;  Keil,  Bibl. 
Arch.  u.  p.  50,  §§  106,  107.    [Kinked.] 

H.  W.  P. 
KINE.     [Cow.]  \ 

KING  C^/? '  '^^^^^  '  iSoo't^f "Js  '  '^^\  ^^ 
name  of  the  supreme  ruler  of  the  Hebrews  during 
a  period  of  about  500 «  years  previous  to  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  \\.  c.  586.  It  was 
borne  first  by  the  ruler  of  the  12  Tribes  united, 
and  then  by  the  rulers  of  Judah  and  Israel  sepa- 
rately. 

The  immediate  occasion  of  the  substitution  of  a 
regal  form  of  government  for  that  of  the  judges 
seems  to  have  been  the  siege  of  Jabesh-Gilead  by 
Nahash,  king  of  the  Ammonites  (1  Sam.  xi.  1,  xii. 
12),  and  the  refusal  to  allow  the  inhabitants  of  that 
city  to  capitulate,  except  on  humiliating  and  cruel 
conditions  (1  Sam.  xi.  2,  4-6).  The  conviction 
seems  to  have  forced  itself  on  the  Israelites  that 
they  could  not  resist  their  formidable  neighbor 
unless  they  placed  themselves  under  the  sway  of  a 
king,  like  surrounding  nations.  Concurrently  with 
this  conviction,  disgust  had  been  excited  by  the 
corrupt  administration  of  justice  under  the  sons  of 
Samuel,  and  a  i-adical  change  was  desired  by  them 
in  this  respect  also  (1  Sam.  viii.  3-5).  Accord- 
ingly the  original  idea  of  a  Hebrew  king  was  two- 
fold :  first,  that  he  should  lead  the  {jeople  to  battle 
in  time  of  war;  ajul,  secondly,  that  he  should  ex- 
ecute judgment  and  justice  to  them  in  war  and  in 
peace  (1  Sam.  viii.  20).  In  both  respects  the 
desired  end  was  attained.  The  righteous  wrath 
and  mihtary  capacity  of  Saul  were  immediately 
triumphant  over  the  Ammonites;  and  though  ulti- 
mately he  was  defeated  and  slain  in  battle  with  the 
Philistines,  he  put  even  them  to  flight  on  more 
than  one  gccasion  (1  Sam.  xiv.  23,  xvii.  52),  and 
generally  waged  successful  war  against  the  sur- 
rounding nations  (1  Sam.  xiv.  47).  His  successor, 
David,  entered  on  a  series  of  brilliant  conquests 
over  the  Philistines,  Moabites,  Syrians,  Edomites, 
and  Ammonites  [see  David,  vol.  i.  p.  561];  and 
the  Israelites,  no  longer  confined  within  the  narrow 
bounds  of  Palestine,  had  an  empire  extending  from 
the  river  Euphrates  to  Gaza,  and  from  the  entering 
hi  of  Hamath  to  the  river  of  Egypt  (1  K.  iv.  21) 
In  the  mean  while  complauits  cease  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  justice ;  and  Solomon  not  only  consolidated 
and  maintained  in  peace  the  empire  of  his  father, 
David,  but  left  an  enduring  reputation  for  his  wis 
dom  as  a  judge.  Under  this  expression,  however, 
we  must  regard  him,  not  merely  as  pronouncing 
decisions,  primarily,  or  in  the  last  resort,  in  civil 
artd  criminal  cases,  but  likewise  as  holding  public 
levees   and   transacting   public    business    "at  the 


KINO 

gate,"  when  he  would  receive  petition.},  hear  »nj« 
plaints,  and  give  summary  decisions  on  various 
points,  which  in  a  modern  European  kingdom  would 
come  under  the  cognizance  of  numerous  distinct 
pubUc  departments. 

To  form  a  correct  idea  of  a  Hebrew  king,  we 
must  abstract  ourselves  from  the  notions  of  modem 
Europe,  and  realize  the  position  of  oriental  sove- 
reigns. It  would  be  a  mistake  to  regard  the 
Hebrew  government  as  a  limited  monarchy,  in  the 
EngUsh  sense  of  the  expression.  It  is  stated  in 
1  Sam.  x.  25,  that  Samuel  "  told  the  people  the 
manner  ^  of  the  kingdom,  and  wrote  it  in  the  book 
and  laid  it  before  the  Ix)rd,"  and  it  is  barely  pos- 
sible that  this  may  refer  to  some  utatement  respect- 
ing the  boundaries  of  the  kingly  power.  r>ut  no 
such  document  has  come  down  to  us;  and  if  it  ever 
existed,  and  contained  rcstrictiona  of  any  moment 
on  the  kingly  power,  it  was  probably  disregarded 
in  practice.  The  following  passage  of  Sir  John 
Malcolm  respecting  the  Shahs  of  Persia  may,  with 
some  slight  modifications,  be  regarded  as  fiairly 
applicable  to  the  Hebrew  monarchy  under  David 
and  Solomon:  "The  monarch  of  Persia  has  been 
pronounced  to  be  one  of  the  most  absolute  in  the 
world.  His  word  has  ever  been  deemed  a  law: 
and  he  has  probably  never  had  any  further  restraint 
upon  the  free  exercise  of  his  vast  authority  than 
has  arisen  from  his  regard  for  religion,  his  respect 
for  established  usages,  his  desire  of  reputation,  and 
his  fear  of  exciting  an  opposition  that  might  be 
dangerous  to  his  power,  or  to  his  life  "  (Malcolm's 
Persia,  vol.  ii.  303;  compare  Elphinstone's  India, 
oi'  the  Jrulion  Mahometan  Empire,  book  viii.  c.  3). 
It  must  not,  however,  be  supposed  to  have  been 
either  the  understanding,  or  the  practice,  that  the 
sovereign  might  seize  at  his  discretion  the  private 
property  of  individuals.  Aliab  did  not  venture  to 
seize  the  vineyard  of  Nabotli  till,  through  the  testi- 
mony of  false  witnesses,  Naboth  had  been  convicted 
of  blasphemy;  and  possibly  his  vineyard  may  have 
been  seized  as  a  confiscation,  without  flagrantly 
outraging  public  sentiment  in  those  who  did  not 
know  the  truth  (1  K.  xxi.  6).  But  no  monarchy 
perhaps  ever  existed  in  which  it  would  not  be 
regarded  as  an  outrage,  that  the  monarch  should 
from  covetousness  seize  the  private  property  of  an 
innocent  subject  in  no  ways  dangerous  to  the  state. 
And  generally,  when  Sir  John  Malcolm  proceeds  as 
follows,  in  reference  to  "  one  of  the  most  absolute  " 
monarchs  in  the  world,  it  will  be  understood  that 
the  Hebrew  king,  whose  power  might  be  described 
in  the  same  way,  is  not,  on  account  of  certain 
restraints  which  exist  in  the  nature  of  things,  to  be 
regarded  as  "  a  limited  monarch  "  in  the  European 
use  of  the  words.  "We  may  assume  that  the 
power  of  the  king  of  Persia  is  by  usage  absolute 
over  the  property  and  lives  of  his  conquered  ene- 
mies, his  rebellions  subjects,  his  own  family,  hit 
ministers,  over  public  officerr,  cml  ard  military, 
and  all  the  numerous  train  oj  domestics;  and  that 


a  The  precise  period  depends  on  the  length  of  the 
reign  of  Saul,  for  estimating  which  there  are  no  cer- 
tain data.  In  the  0.  T.  the  exact  length  is  nowhere 
mentioned.  In  Acts  xiii.  21  forty  years  are  specified ; 
but  this  is  in  a  speech,  and  statistical  accuracy  may 
have  been  foreign  to  the  speaker's  ideas  on  that  occa- 
sion. And  there  are  difficulties  in  admitting  that  he 
reigned  so  long  as  forty  years.  See  Winer  sub  roc, 
KDd  tne  article  Sadl  in  this  Dictionary.  It  is  only  in 
the  reign  of  David  that  mention  is  first  made  of  the 
'  recorder  "  or  "  chronicler  "  of  the  king  (2  Sam.  viii. 


16).     Perhaps  the  contempt  rary  notation  of  dates  may 
have  commenced  in  David"?  reign. 

b  The  word  t-?5trtt,  translated  "manner'-  in  the 
T  :  • ' 
A.  v.,  is  translated  in  the  LXX.  SiKaiw/ma,  t.  e.  statute 
or  ordinance  (see  Ecclus.  iv.  17,  Bar.  ii.  12,  iv.  13) 
But  Josephus  seems  to  have  regarded  the  document  at 
a  prophetical  statement,  read  before  the  king,  of  the 
calamities  which  were  to  arise  from  the  kingly  power 
as  a  kind  of  protest  recorded  for  succeeding  agei  Cm* 
Ant,  vi.  4,  5  6). 


KING 

ke  may  punish  any  person  ^  these  classes,  vnthout 
txaminution  or  formal  procedure  of  any  kind: 
in  all  other  cases  that  are  capital,  the  forma  pre- 
scribed by  law  and  custom  are  observed ;  the  mon- 
arch only  commands,  when  the  evidence  has  been 
sxamined  and  the  law  declared,  that  the  sentence 
shall  be  put  in  execution,  or  that  the  condemned 
culprit  shall  be  pardoned  "  (vol.  ii.  p.  306).  In  ac- 
cordance with  such  usages,  David  ordered  Uriah  to 
be  treacherously  exposed  to  death  in  the  forefront 
of  the  hottest  battle  (2  Sam.  xi.  15);  he  caused 
Rechab  and  Baanah  to  be  slain  instantly,  when 
they  brought  him  the  head  of  Ishb^sheth  (2  Sam. 
iv.  12):  ^'id  he  is  represented  as  having  on  his 
death- bed  recommended  Solomon  to  put  Joab  and 
Shiniei  to  death  (1  K.  ii.  5-9).  In  like  manner, 
Solomon  caused  to  be  killed,  without  trial,  not  only 
hia  elder  brother  Adonijah,  and  Joab,  whose  execu- 
tion might  be  regarded  as  the  exceptional  acts  of  a 
dismal  state  policy  in  the  beginning  of  his  reign, 
but  likewise  Shimei,  after  having  been  seated  on 
the  throne  three  years.  And  King  Saul,  in  resent- 
ment at  their  connivance  with  David's  escape,  put 
to  death  85  priests,  and  caused  a  massacre  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Nob,  including  women,  children,  and 
sucklings  (1  Sam.  xxii.  18,  19). 

Besides  being  commander-in-chief  of  the  army, 
supreme  judge,  and  absolute  master,  as  it  were,  of 
the  lives  of  his  subjects,  the  king  exercised  the 
power  of  imposing  taxes  on  them,  and  of  exacting 
from  them  personal  service  and  labor.  Both  these 
points  seem  clear  from  the  account  given  (1  Sam. 
viii.  11-17)  of  the  evils  which  would  arise  from  the 
kihgly  power;  and  are  confirmed  in  various  ways. 
Whatever  mention  may  be  made  •  of  consulting 
"old  men,"  or  "elders  of  Israel,"  we  never  read 
of  their  deciding  such  points  as  these.  When 
Pul,  the  king  of  Assyria,  imposed  a  tribute  on  the 
kingdom  of  Israel,  "  Menahera,  the  king,"  exacted 
the  money  of  all  the  mighty  men  of  wealth,  of  each 
man  50  shekels  of  silver  (2  K.  xv.  19).  And  when 
Jehoiakim,  king  of  Judah,  gave  his  tribute  of  silver 
and  gold  to  Pharaoh,  he  taxed  the  land  to  give  the 
money ;  he  exacted  the  silver  and  gold  of  the  people 
of  every  one  according  to  his  taxation  (2  K.  xxiii. 
35).  And  the  degree  to  which  the  exaction  of  per- 
sonal labor  might  be  carried  on  a  special  occasion 
is  illustrated  by  King  Solomon's  requirements  for 
building  the  Temple.  He  raised  a  levy  of  30,000 
men,  and  sent  them  to  I^ebanon  by  courses  of  ten 
thou'iand  a  month ;  aud  he  had  70,000  that  bare 
burdens,  and  80,000  hewers  in  the  mountains  (1  K. 
V.  13-15).  Judged  by  the  oriental  standard,  there 
is  nothing  improbable  in  these  numbers.  In  our 
own  days,  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  the  jNIah- 
moodej  eh  Canal  in  Egypt,  INIehemet  AH,  by  orders 
given  to  the  various  sheikhs  of  the  provinces  of 
Sakarah,  Ghizeh,  Mensourah,  Sharkieh,  Menouf, 
Diihyreh,  and  some  others,  caused  300,000  men, 
iromen,  and  children,  to  be  assembled  along  the  site 


I 


a  Son  The  Englishwoman  in  Egypt ,  by  Mrs.  Poole, 
Foi.  ii.  p.  219.  Owing  to  insufficient  provisions,  bad 
Ireatment,  and  neglect  of  proper  arrangements,  30,000 
of  tiiia  number  perished  in  seven  months  (p.  220).  In 
»ompulsory  levies  of  labor,  it  is  probably  difficult  to 
prevent  gross  instances  of  oppression.  At  the  rebel- 
lion of  the  ten  tribes,  Adoairam,  called  als*'  Adoram, 
who  was  over  the  levy  of  30,000  men  foi  Lebanon, 
■ras  stoned  to  death  (1  K.  xii.  18  ;  1  K.  v.  1»  ;  2  Sam. 
u.  24). 

b  It  is  supposed  both  by  Jahn  (Archceol.  Bib.  §  222) 
ind  Bauer  (in  his  Heb.  Mtei  thiimer,  §  20),  that  a  king 


KING  1539 

of  the  intended  canal. «  This  was  120,000  more 
than  the  levy  of  Solomon. 

In  addition  to  these  earthly  powers,  the  King  of 
^drael  had  a  more  awful  claim  to  respect  and  obe- 
dience. He  was  the  vicegerent  of  Jehovali  (1  Sam. 
X.  1,  xvi.  13),  and  as  it  were  His  son,  if  just  and 
holy  (2  Sam.  vii.  14;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  26,  27,  ii,  6,  7). 
He  had  been  set  apart  as  a  consecrated  ruler.  Upon 
his  head  had  been  poured  the  holy  anointing  oil, 
composed  of  olive-oil,  myrrh,  cinnamon,  sweet  cal- 
amus, and  cassia,  which  had  hitherto  been  reserved 
exclusively  for  the  priests  of  Jehovah,  especially 
the  high-priest,  or  had  been  solely  used  to  anoint 
the  Tabernacle  of  the  Congregation,  the  Ark  of  the 
Testimony,  and  the  vessels  of  the  Tabernacle  (Ex. 
XXX.  23-33,  xl.  9;  Lev.  xxi.  10;  IK.  i.  39).  He 
had  become,  in  fact,  emphatically  "the  lord's 
Anointed."  At  the  coronation  of  sovereigns  in 
modern  Europe,  holy  oil  has  been  frequently  used, 
as  a  symbol  of  divine  right;  but  this  has  been 
mainly  regarded  as  a  mere  form ;  and  the  use  of  it 
was  undoubtedly  introduced  in  imitation  of  the 
Hebrew  custom.  But,  from  the  beghming  to  the 
end  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy,  a  living  real  signifi- 
cance was  attached  to  consecration  by  this  holy 
anointing  oil.  From  well-known  anecdotes  related 
of  David, —  and  perhaps,  from  words  in  his  lamen- 
tation over  Saul  and  Jonathan  (2  Sam.  i.  21)  —  ii 
results  that  a  certain  sacredness  invested  the  person 
of  Saul,  the  first  king,  as  the  Lord's  anointed ;  and 
that,  on  this  account,  it  was  deemed  sacrilegious  to 
kill  him,  even  at  his  own  request  (1  Sam.  xxiv.  6, 
10,  xxvi.  9,  16;  2  Sam.  i.  14).  And,  after  the 
destruction  of  the  first  Temple,  in  the  Book  of  La- 
mentations over  the  calamities  of  the  Hebrew  peo- 
ple, it  is  by  the  name  of  "  the  Lord's  Anointed  " 
that  Zedekiah,  the  last  king  of  Judah,  is  bewailed 
(Lam.  iv.  20).  Again,  more  than  600  years  after 
the  capture  of  Zedekiah,  the  name  of  the  Anointed, 
though  never  so  used  in  the  Old  Testament  —  yet 
suggested  probably  by  Ps.  ii.  2,  Dan.  ix.  26  —  had 
become  appropriated  to  the  expected  king,  who  wat 
to  restore  the  kingdom  of  David,  and  inaugurate  a 
period  when  Edom,  Moab,  the  Ammonites,  and  the 
Philistines,  would  again  be  incorporated  with  the 
Hebrew  monarchy,  which  would  extend  from  the 
Euphrates  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea  and  to  the  ends 
of  the  earth  (Acts  i.  6 ;  John  i.  41,  iv.  25 ;  Is.  xi. 
12-14;  Ps.  Ixxii.  8).  And  thus  the  identical  He- 
brew word  which  signifies  anointed, ^  through  its 
Aramaic  form  adopted  into  Greek  and  Latin,  is  still 
preserved  to  us  in  the  English  word  Messiah.  (See 
Gesenius's  Thesaurus,  p.  825.) 

A  ruler  in  whom  so  much  authority,  human  and 
divine,  was  embodied,  was  naturally  distinguished 
by  outward  honors  and  luxuries.  He  had  a  court 
of  oriental  magnificence.  When  the  power  of  the 
kingdom  was  at  its  height,  he  sat  on  a  throne  of 
ivory,  covered  with  pure  gold,  at  the  feet  of  which 
were  two  figures  of  lions.     The  throne  was  ap- 


was  only  anointed  when  a  new  family  came  to  the 
throne,  or  when  the  right  to  the  crown  was  disputed. 
It  is  usually  on  such  occasions  only  that  the  anointing 
is  specified ;  as  in  1  Sam.  x.  1,  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  1  K.  i.  3d, 
1  K.  ix.  3,  2  K.  xi.  12 :  but  this  is  not  intariaUy  the 
case  (see  2  K.  xxiii.  30),  and  there  does  not  seem  suffi- 
cient reason  to  doubt  that  each  individual  king  wa« 
anointed.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  likewise,  that 
the  kings  of  Israel  were  anointed,  though  this  is  not 
specified  by  the  writers  of  Kings  and  ChronicleB,  «rho 
woiild  deem  such  anointin;  invalid. 


1540  KING 

proached  by  6  steps,  guarded  by  12  figures  of  lions, 
two  on  ea«h  step.  The  king  was  dressed  in  royal 
robes  (1  K.  xxii.  10;  2  Chr.  xviii.  9);  his  insignia 
were,  a  crovni  or  diadem  of  pure  gold,  or  perhaps 
radiant  with  precious  gems  (2  Sam.  i.  10,  xii.  30 ; 
2  K.  xi.  12;  Ps.  xxi.  3),  and  a  royal  sceptre  (Ez. 
xix.  11;  Is.  xiv.  5;  Ps.  xlv.  6;  Am.  i.  5,  8).  Those 
who  approached  him  did  him  obeisance,  bowing 
down  and  touching  the  ground  with  their  foreheads 
(1  Sam.  xxiv.  8;  2  Sam.  xix.  18);  and  this  was 
done  even  by  a  king's  wife,  the  mother  of  Solomon 
(1  K.  i.  IG).  Their  officers  and  subjects  called 
themselves  his  servants  or  slaves,  though  they  do 
not  seem  habitually  to  have  given  way  to  such  ex- 
travagant salutations  as  in  the  Chaldaean  and  Per- 
sian courts  (1  Sam.  xvii.  32,  34,  36,  xx.  8;  2  Sam. 
vi.  20;  Dan.  ii.  4).  As  in  the  East  at  present,  a 
kiss  was  a  sign  of  respect  and  homage  (1  Sam.  x. 
1,  perhaps  Ps.  ii.  12).  He  lived  in  a  splendid 
palace,  with  porches  and  columns  (1  K.  vii.  2-7). 
All  his  drinking -vessels  were  of  gold  (1  K.  x.  21). 
He  had  a  large  harem,  which  in  the  time  of  Solomon 
must  have  been  the  source  of  enormous  expense,  if 
we  accept  as  statistically  accurate  the  round  num- 
ber of  700  wives  and  300  concubines,  in  all  1000, 
attributed  to  him  in  the  Book  of  Kings  (1  K.  xi.  3). 
As  is  invariably  the  case  in  the  great  eastern  mon- 
archies at  present,  his  harem  was  guarded  by 
eunuchs;  translated  "officers"  in  the  A.  V.  for 
the  most  part  (1  Sam.  viii.  15;  2  K.  xxiv.  12,  15; 
I  K.  xxii.  9 ;  2  K.  viii.  6,  ix.  32,  33,  xx.  18,  xxiu. 
11;  Jer.  xxxviii.  7). 

The  main  practical  restraints  on  the  kings  seem 
to  have  arisen  from  the  prophets  and  the  prophetical 
order,  though  in  this  respect,  as  in  many  others,  a 
distinction  must  be  made  between  different  periods 
and  different  reigns.  Indeed,  under  all  circum- 
stances, much  would  depend  on  the  individual 
character  of  the  king  or  the  prophet.  No  transac- 
tion of  importance,  however,  was  entered  on  with- 
out consulting  the  will  of  Jehovah,  either  by  Urim 
and  Thummim  or  by  the  prophets ;  and  it  was  the 
general  persuasion  that  the  prophet  was  in  an 
especial  sense  the  senant  and  messenger  of  Jehovali, 
to  whom  Jehovah  had  declared  his  will  (Is.  xliv.  26; 
Am.  iii.  7;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  6,  ix.  6;  see  Pkoi'HEts). 
The  prophets  not  only  rebuked  the  king  with  bold- 
ness for  individual  acts  of  wickedness,  as  after  the 
murders  of  Uriah  and  of  Naboth ;  but  also,  by  in- 
terposing their  denunciations  or  exhortations  at 
critical  periods  of  history,  they  swayed  permanently 
the  destinies  of  the  state.  When,  after  the  revolt 
of  the  ten  tribes,  Rehoboam  had  under  him  at 
Jerusalem  an  army  stated  to  consist  of  180,000 
men,  Shemaiah,  as  interpreter  of  the  divine  will, 
caused  the  army  to  separate  without  attempting  to 
put  down  the  rebellion  (1  K.  xii.  21-24).  When 
Judah  and  Jerusalem  were  in  imminent  peril  from 
the  invasion  of  Sennacherib,  the  prophetical  utter- 
ance of  Isaiah  encouraged  Hezekiah  to  a  successful 
lesistance  (Is.  xxxvii.  22-36).  On  the  other  hand, 
at  the  invasion  of  Judaea  by  the  Chaldees,  Jeremiah 
piophetically  announced  impending  woe  and  calam- 
ities in  a  strain  which  tended  to  paralyze  patriotic 
resistance  to  the  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  4,  2).  And  Jeremiah  evidently  produced 
Ml  impression  on  the  king's  mind  contrary  to  the 
counsels  of  the  princes,  or  what  might  be  called  the 
jrar-party  in  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxxviii.  14-27). 

The  law  of  succession  to  the  throne  is  somewhat 
obscure,  but  it  seems  most  probable  that  the  king 
ioring  his  lifetime  named  his  successor.     This  was 


KING 

certainly  the  case  with  David,  who  passed  orer  bif 
elder  son  Adonyah.  the  wn  of  Haggith,  in  favof 
of  Solomon,  the  son  of  Bath-sheba  (1  K.  i.  30,  ii 
22) ;  and  with  Rehoboam,  of  whom  it  is  said  that 
he  loved  Maachah  the  daughter  of  Absalom  above 
all  his  wives  and  concubines,  and  that  he  made 
Abijah  her  son  to  be  ruler  among  his  brethren,  to 
make  him  king  (2  Chr.  xi.  21,  22).  The  succession 
of  the  first-born  has  been  inferred  from  a  passage  in 
2  Chr.  xxi.  3,  4,  in  which  Jehoshaphat  is  said  to 
have  given  the  kingdom  to  Jehoram  *'  because  he 
was  the  first-born."  But  this  very  passage  tends 
to  show  that  Jehoshaphat  had  the  power  of  naming 
his  successor;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  Je- 
horam, on  his  coming  to  the  throne,  put  to  death 
all  his  brothers,  which  he  would  scarcely,  perhaps 
have  done  if  the  succession  of  the  first-born  had 
been  the  law  of  the  land.  From  the  conciseness 
of  the  narratives  in  the  books  of  Kings  no  inference 
either  way  can  be  drawn  from  the  ordinary  formula 
in  which  the  death  of  the  father  and  succession  of 
his  son  is  recorded  (1  K.  xv.  8).  At  the  same 
time,  if  no  partiality  for  a  favorite  wife  or  son  inter- 
vened, there  would  always  be  a  natural  bias  of 
affection  in  favor  of  the  eldest  son.  There  appears 
to  have  been  some  prominence  given  to  the  mother 
of  the  king  (2  K.  xxiv.  12,  15;  IK.  ii.  19),  and 
it  is  possible  that  the  mother  may  have  been  regent 
during  the  minority  of  a  son.  Indeed  some  such 
custom  best  explains  the  possibility  of  the  audacious 
usuri^ation  of  Athaliah  on  the  death  of  her  son 
Ahaziah :  an  usurpation  which  lasted  six  years  after 
the  destruction  of  ail  the  seed-royal  except  the 
young  Jehoash  (2  K.  xi.  1,  3). 

The  following  is  a  list  of  some  of  the  officers  of 
the  king :  — 

1.  The  Recorder  or  Chronicler,  who  was  perhaps 
analogous  to  the  Historiographer  whom  Sir  John 
Malcolm  mentions  as  an  officer  of  the  Persian  court, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  write  the  annals  of  the  king's 
reign  {IJisiary  of  Persia,  c.  23).  Certain  it  is  that 
there  is  no  regular  series  of  minute  dates  in  Hebrew 
history  until  we  read  of  this  recorder,  or  rtmem^ 
brancer,  as  the  word  mazkir  is  translated  in  a 
marginal  note  of  the  English  version.  He  signifies 
one  who  keeps  the  memory  of  events  alive,  in  ac- 
cordance with  a  motive  assigned  by  Herodotus  for 
writing  his  history,  namely,  that  the  acts  of  men 
might  not  become  extinct  by  time  (Herod,  i.  1; 
2  Sam.  viii.  16;  1  K.  iv.  3;  2  K.  xviii.  18;  Is. 
xxxvi.  3,  22). 

2.  The  Scribe  or  Secretary,  whose  duty  would 
be  to  answer  letters  or  petitions  in  the  name  of  the 
king,  to  write  despatches,  and  to  draw  up  edicts 
(2  Sam.  viii.  17,  xx.  25;  2  K.  xii.  10,  xix.  2, 
xxii.  8). 

3.  The  officer  who  was  over  the  house  (Is.  xxii. 
15,  xxxvi.  3).  His  duties  would  be  those  of  chief 
steward  of  the  household,  and  would  embrace  all 
the  internal  economical  arrangements  of  the  palace, 
the  superintendence  of  the  king's  sen-ants,  and  the 
custody  of  his  costly  vessels  of  gold  and  silver.  He 
seems  to  have  worn  a  distinctive  robe  of  office  and 
girdle.  It  was  against  Shebna,  who  held  this  office, 
that  Isaiah  uttered  his  personal  prophecy  (xxii.  15- 
25),  the  only  instance  of  the  kind  in  his  writings 
(see  Ges.  Com.  on  Isaiah,  p.  694). 

4.  The  king's  friend  (1  K.  iv.  5),  called  likewise 
the  king's  companion.  It  is  evident  from  the  nam* 
that  this  officer  must  have  stood  in  confidentia 
relation  to  the  king,  but  his  duties  are  nowhen 
specified. 


KING 

5.  The  keeper  of  the  vestry  or  wardrobe  (2  K. 
I.  22). 

6.  The  captain  of  the  body-guard  (2  Sam.  xx. 
23).  The  importance  of  this  officer  requires  no 
comment.  It  was  he  who  olieyed  Solomon  in  putting 
fco  death  Adonijah,  Joab,  and  Shimei  (1  K.  ii.  25, 
34,  40). 

7.  Distinct  officers  over  tlie  king's  treasures  — 
his  storeliouses,  laborers,  vineyards,  olive-trees,  and 
sycamore-trees,  herds,  camels,  and  flocks  (1  Chr. 
rxvii.  25-31). 

8.  The  officer  over  all  the  host  or  army  of  Israel, 
the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  who  com- 
manded it  in  person  during  the  king's  absence 
(2  Sam.  XX.  23;  1  Clir.  xxvii.  34;  2  Sam.  xi.  1). 
As  an  instance  of  the  formidable  power  which  a 
general  might  acquire  in  this  office,  see  the  narra- 
tive in  2  Sam.  iii.  30-37,  when  David  deemed  him- 
self obliged  to  tolerate  the  murder  of  Abner  by 
Joab  and  Abishai. 

9.  The  royal  counsellors  (1  Chr.  xxvii.  32;  Is. 
iii.  3,  xix.  11,  13).  Ahithophel  is  a  s[)ecimen  of 
how  much  such  an  officer  might  effect  for  evil  or 
for  good ;  but  whether  there  existed  under  Hebrew 
kings  any  body  corresponding,  even  distantly,  to 
the  English  Privy  Council,  in  former  times,  does 
not  appear  (2  Sam.  xvi.  20-23,  xvii.  1-14). 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  sources  of 
the  royal  revenues :  — 

1.  The  royal  demesnes,  cornfields,  vineyards, 
and  olive-gardens.  Some  at  least  of  these  seem 
to  have  been  taken  from  private  individuals,  but 
whether  as  the  punishment  of  rebellion,  or  on  any 
other  plausible  pretext,  is  not  specified  (1  Sam.  viii. 
14;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  26-28).  2.  The  produce  of  the 
royal  flocks  (1  Sam.  xxi.  7;  2  Sam.  xiii.  23;  2  Chr. 
xxvi.  10;  1  Chr.  xxvii.  25).  3.  A  nominal  tenth 
of  the  produce  of  corn-land  and  vineyards  and  of 
sheep  (1  Sam.  viii.  15,  17).  4.  A  tribute  from 
merchants  who  passed  through  the  Hebrew  territory 
(1  K.  X.  15).  5.  Presents  made  by  his  subjects 
(1  Sam.  xvi.  20;  1  Sam.  x.  27;  1  K.  x.  25;  Ps. 
Ixxii.  10).  There  is  perhaps  no  greater  distinction 
in  the  usages  of  eastern  and  western  nations  than 
on  what  relates  to  the  giving  and  receiving  of 
presents.  When  made  regularly  they  do  in  fact 
amount  to  a  regular  tax.  Thus,  in  the  passage 
last  referred  to  in  the  book  of  Kings,  it  is  stated 
that  they  brought  to  Solomon  "  every  man  his 
present,  vessels  of  silver  and  vessels  of  gold,  and 
garments,  and  armor,  and  spices,  horses  and  mules, 
a  rate  year  by  year."  6.  In  the  time  of  Solomon, 
the  king  had  trading-vessels  of  his  own  at  sea, 
which,  starting  from  I'^iongeber,  brought  back  once 
in  three  3ears  gold  and  silver,  ivory,  apes,  and 
teacocks  (1  K.  x.  22).  It  is  probable  that  Solomon 
and  some  other  kings  may  have  derived  some 
revenue  from  commercial  ventures  (1  K.  ix.  28). 
7.  The  spoiU  of  war  taken  from  conquered  nations 
and  the  tribute  paid  by  them  (2  Sam.  viii.  2,  7,  8, 
10;  IK.  iv.  21;  2  Chr.  xxvii.  5).  8.  Lastly,  an 
undefined  power  of  exacting  compulsory  labor,  to 
which  reference  has  been  already  made  (1  Sam.  viii. 
12,  13,  16).  As  far  as  this  power  was  exercised  it 
was  equivalent  to  so  much  income.  There  is  nothing 
in  1  Sam.  x.  25,  or  in  2  Sam.  v.  3,  to  justify  the 
itatement  that  the  Hebrews  defined  in  express  terms, 
Tt  in  any  terms,  by  a  particular  agreement  or  cove- 
lant  for  that  purpose,  what  services  should  be  ren- 
iered  to  the  king,  or  what  he  could  legall_)'  require. 
(See  Jahn,  Archoeolcjia  Biblica  ;  Bauer,  Lehrbuch 
ier  Ilcbrdiscken  A  Iter th  timer ;  Winer,  s.  t.  Kouig.) 


KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN  1541 

.k  only  remains  to  add,  that  in  Deutenniom^ 
xvii.  14-20  there  is  a  document  containing  sotnfl 
directions  as  to  what  any  king  who  might  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Hebrews  was  to  do  and  not  to  do. 
The  proper  appreciation  of  this  document  would 
mainly  depend  on  its  date.  It  is  the  opinion  of 
many  modern  writers  —  Gesenius,  De  Wette,  Winei 
Ewald,  and  others  —  that  the  book  which  contain 
the  document  was  composed  long  after  the  tinw 
of  Moses.  See,  however,  Deutekonomy  in  the  Ist 
vol.  of  this  work;  and  compare  Gesenius,  O'esdiichte 
der  Ihbrdischen  Sprache  und  Sdirift,  p.  32;  De 
Wette,  Einleitung  in  die  Bibel,  "  Deuteronomiuni " ; 
Winer,  s.  v.  Kijnig;  Ewald,  (Jescldchte  des  Volket 
Israel,  iii.  381.  E.  T. 

*  KING'S  GARDEN,  2  K.  xxv.  4,  etc 
[Garden,  vol.  i.  p.  870  a.} 

*  KING'S  MOWINGS,  Am.  vii.  1.  [Mow- 

INC.] 

*  KING'S  POOL,  Neh.  ii.  14.     [Siloam.] 

*  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN-always  with 

the  article,  ^  fia(ri\eia  riav  ovpavwv- 

1.  This  expression  occurs  thirty-three  times  in 
the  first  Gospel,  but  nowhere  else  in  the  Scriptures. 
In  one  passage  (iii.  2)  it  is  attributed  by  ^latthew 
to  John  the  Baptist,  in  another  (xviii.  1)  to  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  and  in  all  the  rest  to  Christ 
himself.  An  abbreviated  form  of  it  is  found  in 
such  phrases  as,  •'  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom " 
(iv.  23),  "the  word  of  the  kingdom"  (xiii.  19), 
"  the  sons  of  the  kingdom  "  (viii.  12,  xiii.  38),  and 
"  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  "  (xxv.  34).  In  a 
single  instance  (2  Tim.  iv.  18)  Paul  speaks  of  the 
Ix)rd's  "  heavenly  kingdom,"  —  r))v  fiacriKeiay 
aifTov  T^z/  iirovpsiviov,  —  an  expression  which  is 
equivalent  to  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  this 
phrase  was  sometimes  used  by  Christ.  (See  Alatt. 
viii.  11,  12.)  —  It  will  be  observed  that  the  Apostle 
not  only  describes  the  kingdom  as  "  heavenly," 
but  also  as  the  I^ord's,  "  his  heavenly  kingdom." 
In  a  few  passages  of  the  first  Gospel  (xiii.  41,  xvi. 

28,  cf.  XX.  21)  it  is  likewise  referred  to  as  the 
Messiah's  kingdom.  With  these  may  properly  be 
connected  the  language  of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of 
John  (xviii.  36),  the  words  of  the  Angel  to  Mary 
as  preserved  by  Luke  (i.  33),  those  of  Christ  as 
recorded  by  the  same  Evangelist  (xix.  12,  15,  xxii. 

29,  30),  and  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  in  their 
letters  (1  Cor.  xv.  24,  25;  Eph.  v.  5;  Col.  i.  13; 
2  Tim.  iv.  1;  Heb.  i.  8;  2  Pet.  i.  11).  The  king- 
dom  of  heaven  is  therefore  frequently  represented 
as  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  But  it  is  still  more 
frequently  called  the  kingdom  of  God.  ]\Iatthew 
attributes  this  expression  in  several  instances  to 
Christ  (vi.  10,  33,  xii.  28,  xiii.  43,  xxi.  31,  43. 
xxvi.  29),  and  when,  in  reporting  the  Saviour's 
teaching,  his  Gospel  gives  the  words  "  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  the  othfer  synoptical  Gospels  have,  as  a 
rule,  the  words  "  kingdom  of  God  "  (e.  ff.  cf.  Matt. 
V.  3,  xi.  11,  xiii.  31,  33,  with  Luke  vi.  20,  vii.  28, 
xiii.  18,  20).  In  all  the  other  books  of  the  New 
Testament  the  latter  designation  is  regularly  em- 
ployed. While  therefore  the  two  expressions  de- 
note the  same  object,  and  may  be  regarded  aa 
substantially  equivalent,  the  latter  appears  for  some 
reason  to  have  disphoed  the  fomer  in  the  language 
of  the  Apostles.  Keass  (flistoire  de  la  Tkeologi* 
Chreiienne  au  Steele  Aposfolique,  i.  181)  suppose! 
that  it  had  the  advantage  of  being  mfire  compre- 
hensive, not  "  seeming  to  restrict  the  notion  to  a 
future  eitoch,  a  particular  locality,  or  a  state  of 


1542     KINGDOM  OF  HiiiAVEH 

things  different  from  that  in  which  humanity  row 
exists,"  and  was  therefore  preferred  to  the  other 
by  the  Apostles. 

2.  But  the  idea  of  a  divine  or  heavenly  kingdom 
was  not  proposed  for  the  first  time  by  John  the 
Baptist  and  then  adopted  by  Christ.  It  may  be 
traced  in  many  parts  of  the  0.  T.,  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch to  the  prophets  of  the  exile.  The  Israelites 
as  a  people  belonged  especially  to  Jehovah,  and 
were  ^ready  in  the  law  described  as  a  nation  of 
kings  and  priests  unto  Him  (Ex.  xix.  6,  cf.  1  Pet. 
ii.  9).  Yet  even  in  their  best  estate,  under  David 
their  greatest  king,  they  were  but  a  type  of  the 
true  people  of  God,  and  their  sovereign  but  a  shadow 
of  his  greater  Son.  And  this  they  were  clearly 
taught ;  for  a  INIessiah  was  foretold  by  the  prophets, 
who  should  spring  from  the  family  of  David,  should 
subdue  all  his  foes,  and  should  reign  forever  in 
righteousness  and  peace  (Ps.  ii.,  ex. ;  Is.  xi. ;  cf.  Ps. 
Ixxii. ;  Jer.  xxiii.  5  ff.,  xxxi.  31  ff.,  xxxii.  37  fF., 
xxxiii.  7  ff. ;  Ez.  xxxiv.  23  ff.,  xxxvii.  24  ff. ;  Mic. 
iv.  1  ff.).  At  length  in  the  prophecies  cf  Daniel  it 
was  distinctly  revealed  that  the  "  God  of  heaven  " 
was  to  set  up  a  kingdom  (ii.  44),  which  was  to  be 
composed  of  his  saints  (vii.  27),  was  to  be  admin- 
istered by  One  like  a  son  of  man  (vii.  33,  14),  and 
was  to  be  universal  and  everlasting  (\il.  14,  27). 
The  very  expression.  "  kingdom  of  God,"  occurs 
in  the  Apocrypha  (  Wiscl.  of  Sol.  x.  10).  Accord- 
ingly, when  Christ  appeared  among  the  Jews,  they 
were  expecting  this  kingdom  of  "the  God  of 
heaven  "  which  was  to  be  set  up  by  the  agency 
of  their  long  anticipated  Messiah;  and,  however 
erroneous  their  views  of  its  nature  had  become,  they 
were  prepared  to  understand  in  some  measure  the 
language  of  Jesus  and  his  disciples  concerning  it. 
A  few  indeed  of  the  more  devout  and  spiritual,  like 
Simeon  and  Anna,  appear  to  have  had  a  tolerably 
just  conception  of  its  nature. 

3.  This  kingdom,  in  its  ultimate  and  perfect 
form,  is  said  to  have  been  prepared  for  the  saints 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  (Matt.  xxv.  34.) 
It  was  therefore  included  in  the  wise  purpose  of 
God  which  antedates  creation,  and  in  this  sense  it 
is  eternal.  But  the  various  representations  of  the 
N.  T.  have  given  rise  to  some  differences  of  opinion 
among  Biblical  scholars  as  to  the  terminus  a  quo 
of  its  actual  establishment  on  earth,  llie  M'riters 
of  the  0.  T.  speak  of  it  distinctly  as  future  and 
not  present ;  and  many  passages  of  the  N.  T.  refer 
to  it  in  coimection  with  the  second  coming  of 
Christ.  It  is  therefore  maintained  by  some  ijiter- 
preters,  that  this  kingdom  has  not  yet  been  estal>- 
lishal,  and  will  not  be  until  the  Lord  returns  in 
glory.  Others  have  made  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist  the  date  of  its  commencement,  appeal- 
ing to  the  words  of  Christ  (see  Matt.  xi.  12,  xvii. 
11;  Luke  xvi.  IG)  in  support  of  their  position. 
But  it  has  been  objected  to  this,  that  one  who  was 
spoken  of,  by  way  of  contrast,  as  less  than  the 
least  of  those  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Matt.  xi. 
1 1 )  could  not  have  been  an  agent  in  setting  up 
that  kingdom,  by  introducing  men  into  it,  and  that 
the  kingdom  itself  must  take  its  date  from  the 
personal  appearance  and  recognition  of  its  king, 
that  is,  from  the  time  of  Christ's  entrance  on  his 
j)ublic  ministry.  Others  still,  identifying  the  king- 
dom of  God  with  the  Christian  church,  have  fixed 
ipon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  Spirit  was 
poured  out  marvelously,  as  the  date  of  its  estab- 
lishment. Perhaps  the  view  which  connects  it  most 
slosely  with  the  person  of  Christ,  aflarming  that  it 


KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN 

began,  properly  speaking,  with  his  public  niinistry, 
is  entitled  to  the  preference.  For  in  the  course  of 
his  teaching  he  spoke  of  it  clearly  as  already  come. 
At  one  time  he  said  to  the  Pharisees,  <'  If  I  cast 
out  demons  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  come  unto  you  —  (<pdaarev  €<^'  u/xai 
(Matt.  xii.  28);  and  at  another  time  he  said  to  the 
same  class  of  men,  according  to  a  natural  interpre- 
tation of  his  words,  "  Behold,  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  in  the  midst  of  you"  (Luke  xvii.  21).  "The 
kingdom  of  God  "  (Keuss,  I/ist.  de  ki  Theol.  Chr. 
i.  190)  "  which  Jesus  wished  to  realize  began  with 
his  personal  appearance  on  the  world's  theatre;  his 
advent,  and  the  advent  of  the  kingdom,  are  one 
and  the  same  thing,  for  he  is  the  source  and  cause 
of  it,  and  the  cause  may  not  exist  without  the 

effect He  went  so  far  even  as  to  assign  an 

exact  date  to  the  advent  of  the  kingdom,  and  this 
date  was  no  other  than  the  moment  when  John 
Baptist,  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  prophets,  opened 
the  door,  so  to  speak,  by  announcing  to  the  world 
Him  who  would  realize  its  cherished  hojies.  At 
that  moment  the  movement  towards  the  kingdom 
began,  and  men  pressed  on  with  ardor  to  enter 
into  it." 

4.  But  if  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  estabhshed 
at  the  first  coming  of  Christ,  it  is  not  to  be  con- 
summated until  his  second  appearing;  and  then, 
at  length,  it  will  be  transferred  by  the  Son,  as  Medi- 
ator, to  the  Father  (1  Cor.  xv.  24-28).  In  the 
mean  time  its  progress  among  nien  will  be  silent 
and  gradual,  like  the  influence  of  leaven  upon  the 
meal  in  which  it  is  placed,  or  like  the  growth  of  a 
mustard-plant  from  its  diminutive  seed  (Matt.  xiii. 
31  ff.,  33  ff.).  The  petition,  "  Thy  kingdom  come," 
introduced  by  Christ  into  the  prayer  which  he 
taught  his  disciples,  may  naturally  be  referred  to 
this  gradual  extension  of  the  divine  authority  over 
the  hearts  of  men,  making  them  the  true  subjects 
of  God.  To  be  a  member  of  this  kingdom  in  its  per- 
fect form  is  to  be  a  possessor  of  eternal  blessedness 
(iNIatt.  viii.  11,  xxv.  34;  Mark  ix.  47;  Luke  xiii. 
28,  29;  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10,  xv.  60;  Gal.  v.  21;  Eph. 
v.  5;  2  Thess.  i.  5;  2  Tim.  iv.  18);  but  connection 
with  it  in  its  present  form  gives  only  a  foretaste 
of  celestial  good. 

5.  The  nature  of  this  kingdom  may  be  expressed 
in  a  word  by  calling  it  .spiritual.  It  embraces  those, 
and  only  those,  who  are  poor  in  spirit,  who  have 
been  born  of  the  Spirit,  who  have  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  and  who  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth 
(Matt.  v.  3;  John  iii.  3,  5,  iv.  24;  Rom.  viii.  9). 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  eating  and  drinking, 
but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (Kom.  xiv.  17).  It  is  not  of  this  world 
(John  xviii.  36).  It  is  related  to  heaven  rather 
than  to  earth  in  its  principles  and  spirit,  and  its 
consummation  here  would  make  the  society  of  earth 
as  loyal  to  God  and  as  blessed  in  his  service,  as 
that  of  heaven  (Matt.  vi.  10).  Tholuck  {Kxjwsition 
of  the  Sermon  on  the  Jifowit,  i.  103,  Eng.  transl.) 
remarks  in  his  note  on  INIatt.  v.  3 :  "  We  lay  down 
as  the  fundamental  notion  of  the  kingdom  of  God: 
A  community  in  which  God  reif/ns,  ami  which,  as 
the  nntwe  of  a  inyht  f/ore7'nment  involves,  obeys 
Him  not  by  constraint,  but  from  free  will  and  affec- 
tion ;  of  which  it  follows  as  a  necessai'y  consequence 
that  the  parties  are  intimately  bound  to  each  other 
in  the  mutual  interchanf/e  of  offices  of  love.'"  But 
the  spirituality  of  this  kingdom  involves  its  unirer 
sality.  It  is  limitefl  to  no  tribe  or  people,  but  ii 
intended  to  comprise  all  in  every  nation  who  ob^ 


KINGS,  FIRST  AND   SECOND  BOOKS  OF 


1543 


arom  the  heart  >'ie  will  of  God.  Jew  and  Greek, 
bond  and  free,  are  alike  welcomed  to  the  duties, 
the  honors,  and  the  eternal  blessedness  of  the  Mes- 
siah's reign.  And  there  are  a  few  passages  of  the 
N.  T.  which  seem  to  ascribe  to  holy  angels  a  con- 
nection with  it  both  in  service  and  glory.  (Matt. 
xvi.  27,  xiii.  41,  xviii.  10;  Luke  xv.  10;  Heb.  i. 
14;  Eph.  i.  10,  20,  22,  iii.  15;  1  Pet.  i.  12,  iii. 
22.) 

6.  Yet  this  kingdom,  though  in  its  nature 
spiritual,  was  to  have  while  on  earth  a  visible  form 
in  Christian  churches,  and  the  simple  rites  belong- 
ing to  church  life  were  'to  be  observed  by  every 
loyal  subject  (Matt,  xxviii.  18  fF. ;  John  iii.  5 ;  Acts 
ii.  38;  Luke  xxii.  17  fF.;  1  Cor.  xi.  24  ff.).  It 
cannot  however  be  said  that  the  N.  T.  makes  the 
spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ  exactly  coextensive  with 
the  visible  church.  There  are  many  in  the  latter 
who  do  not  belong  to  the  former  (1  John  ii.  9),  and 
Bome  doubtless  in  the  former  who  do  not  take  their 
place  in  the  latter. 

Literature.  —  E.  Reuss,  Histoire  de  la  Theologie 
Chretienne  au  Siecle  Apostolique,  i.  180  ff.  C  F. 
Schmid,  Biblische  Thtoloyie  des  N.  T.  p.  266  ff. 
A.  Tholuck,  Exposition  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  at  Matt.  v.  3.  Heemskerk,  Notio  ttjs  fiacr- 
t\eios  tS)V  oupavwv  ex  mente  Jesu  Christi,  Amst. 
1839.  Bourguet,  Rechevches  sur  la  signification 
du  mot:  Royuume  de  Dicu,  Mont.  1838.  Sar- 
torius,  Ueber  den  Zwech  Jesu  bei  Stiftung  eines 
Gottes-Reiches.  Baumgarteu-Crusius,  Biblische 
Theologie,  pp.  149-157.  A.  H. 

*  KINGDOM  OF  ISRAEL.  [Israel, 
Kingdom  of.] 

*  KINGDOM  OF  JUDAH.  [Judah, 
Kingdom  of.] 

KINGS,  FIRST  and  SECOND  BOOKS 
OF,  originally  only  one  book  in  the  Hebrew  Canon, 
and  first  edited  in  Hebrew  as  two  by  Bomberg, 
after  the  model  of  the  LXX.  and  the  Vulgate  (De 
Wette  and  O.  Theniiis,  Einleitung).  They  are 
called  by  the  LXX.,  Origen,  etc.,  Baa-iK^iiav  rpirt) 
and  TerdpTr],  third  and  fourth  of  the  Kingdoms 
(the  books  of  Samuel  being  the  first  and  second), 
but  by  the  Latins,  with  few  exceptions,  tertius  et 
quartus  Regum  liber.  Jerome,  though  in  the  head- 
ing of  his  translation  of  the  Scriptures  he  follows 
the  Hebrew  name,  and  calls  them  Liber  Malachira 
Primus  and  Secundus,  yet  elsewhere  usually  follows 
the  common  usage  of  the  church  in  his  day.  In 
his  Prologus  Galeatus  he  places  them  as  the  fourth 
of  the  second  order  of  the  sacred  books,  /.  e.  of  the 
Prophets:  "Quartus,  Malachim,  i.  e.  Regum,  qui 
tertio  ot  quarto  Kegum  volumine  continetur.  Me- 
liusque  multo  est  JSIalachim,  i.  e.  Regum,  quam 
Maraelachotli,  i.  e.  Regnovum,  dicere.  Non  enim 
multarum  gentium  describit  regna;  sed  unius  Is- 
raelitici  populi,  qui  tribubus  duodecim  continetur." 
In  his  epistle  to  Paulinus  he  thus  describes  the 
contents  of  these  two  books :  "  Malachim,  i.  e.  ter- 
ius  et  quartus  Kegum  liber,  a  Salomone  usque  ad 
Jechoniam,  et  a  Jeroboam  filio  Nabat  usque  ad 
Osee  qui  ductus  est  in  Assyrios,  regnum  Juda  et 
r^num  describit  Israel.     Si   historiam  respioias. 


verba  simplicia  sunt :  si  in  Uteris  sensum  latentem 
inspexeris,  Ecclesiae  paucitas,  et  hereticorum  conir^ 
ecclesiam  bella,  narrantur."  The  division  into  twe 
books,  being  purely  artificial  and  as  it  were  me- 
chanical, may  be  overlooked  in  speaking  of  them ; 
and  it  must  also  be  remembered  that  the  division 
between  the  books  of  Kings  and  Samuel  is  equally 
artificial,  and  that  in  point  of  fact  tlie  historical 
books  commencing  with  Judges  and  ending  with 
2  Kings  present  the  appearance  of  one  work,« 
giving  a  continuous  history  of  Israel  from  the  times 
of  Joshua  to  the  death  of  Jehoiachin.  It  must 
suffice  here  to  mention,  in  support  of  this  assertion, 
the  frequent  allusion  in  the  book  of  Judges  to  the 
times  of  the  kings  of  Israel  (xvii.  6,  xviii.  1,  xix.  1, 
xxi.  25);  the  concurrent  evidence  of  ch.  ii.  that 
the  writer  lived  in  an  age  when  he  could  take  a 
retrospect  of  the  whole  time  during  which  the 
judges  ruled  (ver.  16-19),  i.  e.  that  he  lived  after 
the  monarchy  had  been  established ;  the  occurrence 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  for  the  first  time,  of  the 
phrase  "  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  "  (iii.  10),  which  is 
repeated  often  in  the  book  (vi.  34,  xi.  29,  xiii.  25, 
xiv.  6,  &c.),  and  is  of  frequent  use  in  Samuel  and 
Kings,  (e.  g.  1  Sam.  x.  6,  xvi.  13,  14,  xix.  9;  2 
Sam.  xxiii.  2;  1  K.  xxii.  24;  2  K.  ii.  16,  &c.); 
the  allusion  in  i.  21  to  the  capture  of  Jebus,  and 
the  continuance  of  a  Jebusite  population  (see  2  Sam. 
xxiv.  16);  the  reference  in  xx.  27  to  the  removal 
of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  from  Shiloh  to  Jerusalem, 
and  the  expression  "  in  those  days,"  pointing,  aa 
in  xvii.  6,  <fec.,  to  remote  times;  the  distinct  refer- 
ence in  xviii.  30  to  the  Captivity  of  Isi-ael  by  Shal- 
raaneser;  with  the  fact  that  the  books  of  Judges, 
Ruth,  Samuel,  Kings,  form  one  unbroken  narrative, 
similar  in  general  character,  which  has  no  beginning 
except  at  Judg.  i.,  while,  it  may  be  added,  the  book 
of  Judges  is  not  a  continuation  of  Joshua,  but 
opens  with  a  repetition  of  the  same  events  with 
which  Joshua  closes.  In  like  manner  the  book  of 
Ruth  clearly  forms  part  of  those  of  Samuel,  sup- 
plying as  it  does  the  essential  point  of  David's 
genealogy  and  early  family  history,  and  is  no  less 
clearly  connected  with  the  book  of  Judges  by  its 
opening  verse,  and  the  epoch  to  which  the  whole 
book  relates.''  Other  links  connecting  the  books 
of  Kings  with  the  preceding  may  be  found  in  the 
comparison,  suggested  by  De  Wette,  of  1  K.  ii.  26 
with  1  Sam.  ii.  35;  ii.  11  with  2  Sam.  v.  5;  IK. 
ii.  3,  4,  V.  17,  18,  viii.  18,  19,  25,  with  2  Sam.  ni. 
12-16;  and  1  K.  iv.  1-6  with  2  Sam.  viii.  15-18. 
Also  2  K.  xvii.  41  may  be  compared  with  Judg.  ii. 
19 ;  1  Sam.  ii.  27  with  Judg.  xiii.  6 ;  2  Sam.  xiv. 
17,  20,  xix.  27,  with  Judg.  xiii.  6;  1  Sam.  ix.  21 
with  Judg.  vi.  15,  and  xx. ;  1  K.  viii.  1  with  2 
Sam.  vi.  17,  and  v.  7,  9 ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  12  with 
Ruth  iv.  17 ;  Ruth  i.  1  with  Judg.  xvii.  7,  8,  9, 
xix.  1,  2  (Bethlehem-Judah);  the  use  in  Judg.  xiii. 
6,  8,  of  the  phrase  "the  man  of  God"  (in  the 
earlier  books  applied  to  Moses  only,  and  that  only 
in  Deut.  xxxiii.  1  and  Josh.  xiv.  6),  may  be  com- 
pared with  the  very  frequent  use  of  it  in  the  books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings  as  the  common  designation 
of  a  prophet,  whereas  only  Jeremiah  besides  (xxxv.  4) 
so  uses  it  before  the  Captivity .c    The  phrase,  "  God 


o  De  AVette's  reasoas  for  reckoning  Kings  as  a  sep- 
►rate  work  seem  to  the  writer  quite  inconclusive.  On 
fie  other  hand,  the  book  of  Joshua  seems  to  be  an 
Odeoenileut  book.  Ewald  classes  these  books  together 
aactly  as  is  done  above  ( Gesck.  i.  175),  and  calls  them 
'  the  great  Book  of  the  Kinas." 


6  Eichhorr  attributes  Ruth  to  the  author  of  ths 
books  of  Samuel  (Th.  P^rker's  De  Wette,  ii.  320). 

c  In  Cbronides,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,  it  repeatedly 
occurs. 


1544 


KIJ^^GS,  FIRST  AND  SECOND  BOOKS  OF 


do  so  to  me,  and  more  also,"  is  common  to  Ruth, 
Samuel,  and  Kings,  and  "  till  they  were  ashame<l," 
to  Judges  and  Kings  (Judg.  iii.  25;  2  K.  ii.  17, 
viii.  11).  And  generally  the  style  of  the  narrative, 
ordinarily  quiet  and  simple,  but  rising  to  great 
vigor  and  spirit  when  stirring  deeds  are  described 
(as  in  Judg.  iv.,  vii.,  xi.,  Ac;  1  Sara,  iv.,  xvii., 
xxxi.  (fee;  1  K.  viii.,  xviii.,  xix.,  Ac),  and  the  in- 
troduction of  poetry  or  poetic  style  in  the  midst 
of  the  narrative  (as  in  Judg.  v.,  1  Sam.  ii.,  2  Sam. 
i.  17,  «fcc.,  1  K.  xxii.  17,  &c. ),  constitute  such  strong 
features  of  resemblance  as  lead  to  the  conclusion 
that  these  several  books  form  but  one  work.  In- 
deed the  very  names  of  the  books  sufficiently  indi- 
cate that  they  were  all  imposed  by  the  same  au- 
thority for  the  convenience  of  division,  and  with 
reference  to  the  subject  treated  of  in  each  division, 
and  not  that  thsy  were  original  titles  of  independent 
works. 

But  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  books  of  Kings. 
"We  shall  consider  — 

I.  Their   historical  and   chronological  range; 
II.  Their   peculiarities    of   diction,    and   other 
features  in  their  literary  aspect; 

III.  Their  authoi-ship,  and   the  sources  of  the 

author's  information; 

IV.  Their  relation  to  the  books  of  Chronicles ; 
v.  Their  place  in  the  canon,  and  the  references 

to  them  in  the  New  Testament. 
I.  The  books  of  Kings  range  from  David's  death 
and  Solomon's  accession  to  the  throne  of  Israel, 
commonly  reckoned  as  b.  c.  1015,  but  according 
to  Lepsius  B.  c.  993  {Konifjsb.  d.  u£gypt.  p.  102), 
to  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and 
the  desolation  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  burning  of  the 
Temple,  according  to  the  same  reckoning  B.  c. 
588  (B.  c.  580,  Lepsius,  p.  107),  — a  period  of  427 
(or  405)  years:  with  a  supplemental  notice  of  an 
event  that  occurred  after  an  interval  of  26  years, 
namely,  the  hberation  of  Jehoiachin  fh)ra  his  prison 
at  Babylon,  and  a  still  further  extension  to  Jehoia- 
chin's  death,  the  time  of  which  is  not  known,  but 
which  was  probably  not  long  after  his  liberation. 
The  history  therefore  comprehends  the  whole  time 
of  the  Israelitish  monarchy,  exclusive  of  the  reigns 
of  Saul  and  David,  whether  existing  as  one  king- 
dom as  under  Solomon  and  the  eight  last  kings,  or 
divided  into  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah. 
It  exhibits  the  Israelites  in  the  two  extremes  of 
power  and  weakness;  under  Solomon  extending 
their  dominion  over  tributary  kingdoms  from  the 
Euphrates  to  the  Mediterranean  and  the  border  of 
Egypt  (1  K.  iv.  21);  under  the  last  kings  reduced 
to  a  miserable  remnant,  subject  alternately  to 
Egypt  and  Assyria,  till  at  length  they  were  rooted 
up  from  their  own  land.  As  the  cause  of  this 
decadence  it  points  out  the  division  of  Solomon's 
monarchy  into  two  parts,  followed  by  the  religious 
schism  and  idolatrous  worship  brought  about  from 
political  motives  by  Jeroboam.  How  the  conse- 
quent wars  between  the  two  kingdoms  necessarily 
weakened  both;  how  they  led  to  calling  in  the 
stranger  to  their  aid  whenever  their  power  was 
•xjually  balanced,  of  which  the  result  was  the  de- 
itruction  first  of  one  kingdom  and  then  of  the  other; 
how  a  further  evil  of  these  foreign  alliances  was  the 
adoption  of  the  idolatrous  superstitions  of  the 
ueathen  nations  whose  friendship  and  protection 
they  sought,  by  which  they  forfeited  the  Divine 
protection  —  all  this  is  with  great  clearness  and 
iiraplicity  set  forth  in  these  books,  which  treat 
squally  of  the  two  kingdoms  while  they  lasted. 


The  doctrine  of  the  Theocracy  is  also  clcarl] 
brought  out  (see  e.  g.  1  K.  xiv.  7-11,  xv.  29,  30.  xvi 
1-7),  and  the  temporal  prosperity  of  the  pious  kings, 
as  Asa,  Jehoshaphat,  Hezekiah,  and  Josiah,  standi 
in  contrast  with  the  calamitous  reigns  of  Kehobo.ain, 
Ahaziah,  Ahaz,  Manasseh,  Jehoiachin,  and  Zed&- 
kiah.  At  the  same  time  the  continuance  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  and  the  permanence  of  the 
dynasty  of  David,  are  contrasted  with  the  frequent 
changes  of  dynasty,  and  the  far  shorter  duration  of 
the  kingdom  of  Israel,  though  the  latter  was  the 
more  populous  and  powerful  kingdom  of  the  two 
(2  Sam.  xxiv.  9).  As  regards  the  afiairf  of  foreign 
nations,  and  the  relation  of  Israel  to  then,  the  his- 
torical notices  in  these  books,  though  in  the  earlier 
times  scanty,  are  most  valuable,  and  as  has  been 
lately  fully  shown  (Kawlinson's  Bampion  Lectures, 
1859),  in  striking  accordance  with  the  latest  addi- 
tions to  our  knowledge  of  contemporary  profane 
history.  Thus  the  patronage  extended  to  Hadad 
the  I<2domite  by  Psinaches  king  of  Egypt  (1  K.  xi. 
19,  20);  the  alliance  of  Solomon  with  his  successor 
Psusennes,  who  reigned  35  years ;  the  accession  of 
Shishak,  or  Sesonchis  I.,  towards  the  close  of  Sol- 
omon's reign  (1  K.  xi.  40),  and  his  invasion  and 
conquest  of  Judaea  in  the  reign  of  Kehoboam,  of 
which  a  monument  still  exists  on  the  walls  of  Kar- 
nac  (Konigsb.  p.  114);  the  time  of  the  Ethiopian 
kings  So  (Sabak)  and  Tirhakah,  of  the  25th  dy- 
nasty; the  rise  and  speetly  fall  of  the  power  of 
Syria ;  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Assyrian  monarchy 
which  overshadowed  it;  Assyria's  struggles  wi»h 
Egypt,  and  the  sudden  ascendency  of  the  Baby- 
lonian empire  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  the  de- 
struction both  of  Assyria  and  I"4,'ypt,  as  we  find 
these  events  in  the  books  of  Kings,  fit  in  exactly 
with  what  we  now  know  of  Egyptian,  Sjrian, 
Assyrian,  and  Babylonian  history.  The  names  of 
Omri,  Jehu,  Menahem,  Hoshea,  Hezekiah,  etc., 
are  believed  to  have  been  deciphered  in  the  cunei- 
form inscriptions,  which  also  contain  pretty  full  ac- 
counts of  the  campaigns  of  Tiglath-l'ileser,  Sargon, 
Sennacherib,  and  Esarhaddon:  Shalmaneser'g 
name  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  though  two  in- 
scriptions in  the  British  Museum  are  thought  to 
refer  to  his  reign.  These  valuable  additions  to  our 
knowledge  of  profane  history,  which  we  may  hope 
will  shortly  be  increased  both  in  number  and  in 
certainty,  together  with  the  fragments  of  ancient 
historians,  which  are  now  becoming  better  under- 
stood, are  of  great  assistance  in  explaining  the  brief 
allusions  in  these  books,  while  they  afford  an  irre- 
fragable testimony  to  their  historical  tnith. 

Another  most  important  aid  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  the  history  in  these  books,  and  to  the 
fiUing  up  of  its  outline,  is  to  be  fourd  in  the 
prophets,  and  especially  in  Isaiah  and  .(eremiah. 
In  the  former  the  reigns  of  Ahaz  and  Hezekiah, 
and  of  the  conten:porary  Israelitish  and  foreign  po- 
tentates, receive  especial  illustration ;  in  the  latter, 
and  to  a  still  greater  extent,  the  reigns  of  Jehoiakim 
and  Zedekiah,  and  those  of  their  heathen  contem- 
poraries. An  intimate  acquaintance  with  these 
prophets  is  of  the  utmost  moment  for  elucidating 
the  concise  narrative  of  the  books  of  Kings.  The 
two  together  give  us  a  really  full  view  of  the  eventj 
of  the  times  at  home  and  abroad. 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  the  chroro- 
logical  details  expressly  given  in  the  books  of  King* 
form  a  remarkable  contrast  with  their  striking  hi». 
torical  accuracy.  These  details  are  inexplicable 
and  frequently  entirely  conf  adictory.     The  very 


KINGS,  FIRST  AND  SECOND  BOOKS  OF 


1545 


ftrat  date  of  a  decidedl}  chronological  character 
which  is  given,  that  of  the  foundation  of  Solomon's 
Temple  (1  K.  vi.  1),  is  manifestly  erroneous,  as 
being  irreconcilable  with  any  view  of  the  chronolo- 
gy of  the  times  of  the  judges,  or  with  St.  Paul's 
salculation,  Acts  xiii.  20.«  It  is  in  fact  abandoned 
by  almost  ali  chronologists,  whatever  school  they 
belong  to,  whether  ancient  or  modem,  and  is  ut- 
terly ignored  by  Josephus.  [Chronology,  vol.  i. 
pp.  444-47.]  Moreover,  M-hen  the  text  is  examined, 
it  immediately  appears  that  this  date  of  480  years 
is  both  unnecessary  and  quite  out  of  place.  The 
reference  to  the  Exodus  is  gratuitous,  and  alien  to 
all  the  other  notes  of  time,  which  refer  merely  to 
Solomon's  accession.  If  it  is  left  out,  the  text  will 
be  quite  perfect  without  it,*  and  will  agree  exactly 
with  the  resume  in  v.  37,  38,  and  also  with  the 
parallel  passage  in  2  Chr.  iii.  2.  The  evidence 
therefore  of  its  being  an  interpolation  is  wonder- 
fully strong.  But  if  so,  it  must  have  been  inserted 
by  a  professed  chronologist,  whose  object  was  to  re- 
duce the  Scripture  history  to  an  exact  system  of 
chronology.  It  is  likely  therefore  that  we  shall  find 
traces  of  the  same  hand  in  other  parts  of  the  books. 
Now  De  Wette  {Einldt.  p.  235),  among  the  evi- 
dences which  he  puts  forward  as  marking  the  books 
of  Kings  as  in  his  opinion  a  separate  work  from 
those  of  Samuel,  mentions,  though  erroneously,  as 
2  Sam.  v.  4,  5  shows,  the  sudden  introduction  of 
"  a  chronological  system  "  {die  f/enauere  Zeitrech- 
imng).  When  therefore  we  find  that  the  very  first 
date  introduced  is  erroneous,  and  that  numerous 
other  dates  are  also  certainly  wrong,  because  con- 
tradictory, it  seems  a  not  unfair  conclusion  that 
Buch  dates  are  the  work  of  an  interpolator,  trying 
to  bring  the  history  within  his  own  chronological 
system :  a  conclusion  somewhat  confirmed  by  the 
alterations  and  omissions  of  these  dates  in  the 
LXX.c  As  regardfj,  however,  these  chronological 
difficulties,  it  must  be  observed  they  are  of  two  es- 
sentially different  kinds.  One  kind  is  merely  the 
want  of  the  data  necessary  for  chronological  exact- 
ness. Such  is  the  absence,  apparently,  of  any 
uniform  rule  for  dealing  with  the  fragments  of 
years  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  the  reigns. 
Such  might  alao  be  a  deficiency  in  the  sum  of  the 
regnal  years  of  Israel  as  compared  with  the  syn- 
chronistic years  of  Judah,  caused  by  unnoticed  in- 
terregna, if  any  such  really  occurred.  And  this 
class  of  difficulties  may  probably  have  belonged  to 
these  books  in  their  original  state,  in  which  exact 
scientific  chronology  was  not  aimed  at.  But  the 
other  kind  of  difficulty  is  of  a  totally  different 
character,  and  embraces  dates  which  are  very  exact 
ill  their  mode  of  expression,  but  are  erroneous  and 
conti-adictory.  Some  of  these  are  pointed  out  be- 
low; and  it  is  such  which  it  seems  reasonable  to 
ascribe  to  the  interpolation  of  later  professed  chro- 
nologists. But  it  is  necessary  to  give  specimens  of 
each  of  these  kinds  of  difficulty,  both  with  a  view  to 
■pproximating  to  a  true  chronology,  and  also  to  show 
the  actual  condition  of  the  books  under  consideration. 
(1.)  When  we  sum  up  the  years  of  all  the  reigns 
cf  the  kings  of  Israel  as  given  in  the  books  of  Kings. 
and  then  all  the  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  i 
df  Judah  from  the  1st  of  Rehoboam  to  the  6th  cf 
V[ozeki<ib,  we  find  that,  instead  of  the  two  sums 


«  The  MSS  ABC  have,  however,  a  different  read- 
tog,  which  is  adopted  by  Lachmann  [Tregelles]  and 
BTordsworth. 

b  «  And  it  came  to  pafis  .  .         in  the  fourth  year 


agreeing,  there  is  an  excess  of  19  or  20  yearn  in 
Judah  — the  reigns  of  the  latter  amounting  to  26J 
years,  while  the  former  make  up  only  242.  But 
we  are  able  to  get  somewhat  nearer  to  the  seat  of 
this  disagreement,  because  it  so  happens  that  the 
parallel  histories  of  Israel  and  Judah  touch  in  four 
or  five  points  where  the  synchronisms  are  precisely 
marked.  These  points  are  (1)  at  the  simultaneous 
accessions  of  Jeroboam  and  Behoboam;  (2)  at  the 
simultaneous  deaths  of  Jehoram  and  Ahaziah,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  the  simultaneous  acces- 
sions of  Jehu  and  Athaliah;  (3)  at  the  15th  year 
of  Amaziah,  which  was  the  1st  of  Jeroboam  II. 
(2  K.  xiv.  17);  (4)  in  the  reign  of  Ahaz,  which  wat 
contemporary  with  some  part  of  Pekah's,  namely, 
according  to  the  text  of  2  K.  xvi.  1,  the  three  first 
years  of  Ahaz  with  the  three  last  of  Pekah;  and 
(5)  at  the  Gth  of  Hezekiah,  which  was  the  9th  of 
Hoshea;  the  two  last  points,  however,  being  lew 
certain  than  the  others,  at  least  as  to  the  precision 
of  the  synchronisms,  depending  as  this  does  on  the 
correctness  of  the  numerals  in  the  text. 

Hence,  insteatl  of  lumping  the  whole  periods  of 
261  years  and  242  years  together,  and  comparing 
their  difference,  it  is  clearly  expedient  to  compare 
the  different  sub-periods,  which  are  defined  by  com- 
mon termini.  Beginning,  therefore,  with  the  sub- 
period  which  commences  with  the  double  accession 
of  Kehoboam  and  Jeroboam,  and  closes  with  the 
double  death  of  Ahaziah  and  Jehoram,  and  summing 
up  the  number  of  years  assigned  to  the  different 
reigns  in  each  kingdom,  we  find  that  the  six  reigns 
in  Judah  make  up  95  years,  and  the  eight  reigns  in 
Israel  make  up  98  years.  Here  there  is  an  excesi 
of  3  years  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  which  may, 
however,  be  readily  accounted  for  by  the  frequent 
changes  of  dyniisty  there,  and  the  probability  of 
fragments  of  years  being  reckoned  as  whole  years, 
thus  causing  the  same  year  to  be  reckoned  twice 
over.  The  95  years  of  Judah,  or  even  a  less  num- 
ber, will  hence  appear  to  be  the  true  number  of 
whole  years  (see  too  Clinton,  F.  II.  ii.  314,  &c.). 

Beguining,  again,  at  the  double  accession  of  Atha- 
liah and  Jehu,  we  have  in  Judah  7-|-40+14  first 
years  of  Amaziah  =  61,  to  correspond  with  28+17 
-)-16  =  61,  ending  with  the  last  year  of  Jehoash 
in  Israel.  Starting  again  with  the  15th  of  Amaziah 
=  1  Jeroboam  II.,  we  have  15  +  52  +  16-1-3  = 
86  (to  the  3d  year  of  Ahaz),  to  correspond  with 
41  + 1  + 10  +  2  +  20  =  74  (to  the  close  of  Pekah's 
reign),  where  we  at  once  detect  a  deficiency  on  the 
part  of  Israel  of  (88—74  =)  12  years,  if  at  least  the 
3d  of  Ahaz  really  corresponded  with  the  20th  of 
Pekah.  And  lastly,  starting  with  the  year  follow- 
ing that  last  named,  we  have  13  last  years  of  Ahaa 
+  7  first  of  Hezekiah  =  20,  to  correspond  with  the 
9  years  of  Hoshea,  where  we  find  another  deficiency 
in  Israel  of  11  years. 

The  two  first  of  the  above  periods  may  then  be 
said  to  agree  together,  and  to  give  95+61  =  156 
years  from  the  accession  of  Rehoboam  and  Jeroboam 
to  the  15th  of  Amaziah  in  Judah,  and  the  death 
of  Jehoash  in  Israel,  and  we  observe  that  the  dis- 
crepance of  12  years  first  occurs  in  the  third  period, 
in  which  the  breaking  up  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel 
began  at  the  close  of  Jehu's  dynasty.  Putting  aside 
the  synchronistic  arrangement  of  the  years  as  w« 


of  Solomon's  reign  over  Israel,  in  the  month  Zif,  which 
is  the  second  month,  that  he  began  to  build  the  houM 
of  the  Lord." 

c  See  1  K.  xri.  8,  15.  29,  vi  1. 


1546 


KIIfGS,   FIEST  AND   SECOND  BOOKS  OF 


now  find  them  in  2  K.  xv.  ff.,  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  whatever  in  supposing  that  the  reigns  of 
the  kings  of  Israel  at  this  time  were  not  continuous, 
and  that  for  several  years  after  the  death  of  Zach- 
ariah,  or  Shallum,  or  both,  the  government  may 
either  have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  king  of  Syria, 
or  broken  up  amongst  contending  parties,  till  at 
length  Menahem  was  able  to  establish  himself  on 
the  throne  by  the  help  of  Pul,  king  of  Assyria,  and 
transmit  his  tributary  throne  to  his  son  Pekaliiah. 

But  there  is  another  mode  of  bringing  this  third 
period  into  harmon}',  which  violates  no  historical 
probability,  and  is  in  fact  strongly  indicated  by  the 
fluctuations  of  the  text.  AVe  are  told  in  2  K.  xv.  8, 
that  Zachariah  began  to  reign  in  the  38th  of  Uzziah, 
and  (xiv.  23)  that  his  father  Jeroboam  began  to 
reign  in  the  15th  of  Amaziah.  Jeroboam  must 
therefore  have  reigned  52  or  53  years,  not  41 :  for 
the  idea  of  an  interregrmra  of  11  or  12  years 
between  Jeroboam  and  his  son  Zachariah  is  absurd. 
But  the  addition  of  these  12  years  to  Jeroboam's 
reign  exactly  equalizes  the  period  in  the  two  king- 
doms, which  would  thus  contain  86  years,  and 
makes  up  242  years  from  the  accession  of  Rehoboam 
and  Jeroboam  to  the  3d  of  Ahaz  and  20th  of  Pekah, 
supposing  always  that  these  last-named  years  really 
synchronize. 

As  regards  the  discrepance  of  11  years  in  the 
last  period,  nothing  can  in  itself  be  more  probable 
than  that  either  during  some  part  of  Pekah's  life- 
time, or  after  his  death,  a  period,  not  included  in 
the  regnal  years  of  either  Pekah  or  Hoshea,  should 
have  elapsed,  when  there  was  either  a  state  of 
anarchy,  or  the  government  was  administered  by  an 
Assyrian  officer,  'i'liere  are  also  several  passages  in 
the  contemporary  prophets  Isaiah  and  Hosea,  which 
would  fall  in  witb  this  view,  as  Hos.  x.  3,  7;  Is.  ix. 
9-19.  But  it  is  impossible  to  assert  peremptorily 
that  such  was  the  case.  The  decision  must  await 
gome  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  chronology 
of  the  times  from  heathen  sources.  The  addition 
of  these  last  20  years  makes  up  for  the  whole  dura- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  261  or  262  years, 
more  or  less.  Now  the  interval,  according  to  Lep- 
sius's  tables,  from  the  accession  of  Sesonchis,  or 
Shishak,  to  that  of  Sabacon,  or  So  (2  K.  xvii.  4), 
is  245  years.  Allowing  Sesonchis  to  have  reigned 
7  years  contemporaneously  with  Solomon,  and 
Sabaco,  who  reigned  12  years,"  to  have  reigned 
9  before  Shalmaneser  came  up  the  second  time 
gainst  Samaria  (245  +  7+9  =  261),  the  chro- 
nology of  Egypt  would  exactly  tally  with  that  here 
given.  It  may,  however,  tuni  out  that  the  time 
thus  allowed  for  the  duration  of  the  Israelitish 
monarchy  is  somewhat  too  long,  and  that  the  time 
indicated  by  the  years  of  the  Israelitish  kings, 
without  any  inteiTegnum,  is  nearer  the  truth.  If 
80,  a  ready  way  of  reducing  the  sum  of  the  reigns 
of  the  kings  of  Judah  would  be  to  assign  41  years 
to  that  of  Uzziah,  instead  of  52  (as  if  the  numbers 
of  Uzziah  and  Jeroboam  had  been  accidentally  in- 
terchanged): an  arrangement  which  interferes  with 
no  known  historical  truth,  though  it  would  disturb 
Jtie  doubtful  synchronism  of  the  3d  of  Ahaz  with 
Jie  20th  of  Pekah,  and  make  the  3d  of  Ahaz  cor- 
respond with  about  the  9th  or  10th  of  Pekah. 
Indeed  it  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  if  we  neglect 
«his  synchronism,  and  consider  as  one  the  period 


«  Lepsius,  Koni^sb.  p.  87. 

t>  Lepsius  suggests  that  Azariah  and  Uzziah  may 
lowibly  be  diCfereut  and  successive  kings,  the  former 


from  the  accession  of  Athaliah  and  Jehu  to  tlie  7th 
of  Hezekiah  and  9th  of  lloshea,  the  sums  of  the 
reigns  in  the  two  kingdoms  agree  exactly,  when  w« 
reckon  41  years  for  Uzziah,  and  52  for  Jeroboam, 
namely,  155  years,  or  250  for  the  whole  time  of  the 
Israelitish  monarchy.  Another  advantage  of  this 
arrangement  would  be  to  reduce  the  age  of  Uzziah 
at  the  birth  of  his  son  and  heir  Jotham  from  the 
improbable  age  of  42  or  43  to  31  or  32.  It  rcay 
be  added  that  the  date  in  2  K.  xv.  1,  which  assigns 
the  1st  of  Uzziah  to  the  27th  of  Jeroboam,  seems 
to  indicate  that  the  author  of  it  only  reckoned  41 
years  for  Uzziah's  reign,  since  from  the  27th  of 
Jeroboam  to  the  1st  of  Pekah  is  just  41  years  (see 
Lepsius's  table,  Konigsb.  p.  103  ^).  Also  that  2  K. 
xvii.  1,  which  makes  the  12th  of  Ahaz  =  Ist  of 
Hoshea,  impHes  that  the  1st  of  Ahaz  =  9th  of 
Pekah. 

(2.)  Turning  next  to  the  other  class  of  difficulties 
mentioned  above,  the  following  instances  will  per- 
haps be  thought  to  justify  the  opinion  that  the 
dates  in  these  books  which  are  intended  to  establish 
a  precise  chronology  are  the  work  of  a  much  later 
hand  or  hands  than  the  books  themselves. 

The  date  in  1  K.  vi.  1  is  one  which  is  obviously 
intended  for  strictly  chronological  purposes.  If 
correct,  it  would,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the 
subsequent  notes  of  time  in  the  books  of  Kings, 
supposing  them  to  be  correct  also,  give,  to  a  year, 
the  length  of  the  time  from  the  Exodus  to  the  Baby- 
lonian Captivity,  and  establish  a  perfect  connection 
between  sacred  and  profane  history.  But  so  little 
is  this  the  case,  that  this  date  is  quite  irreconcilable 
with  I'^gyptian  history,  and  is,  as  stated  above,  by 
almost  universal  consent  rejected  by  chronologists, 
even  on  purely  Scriptural  grounds.  This  date  is 
followed  by  precise  synchronistic  definitions  of  the 
parallel  reigns  of  Israel  and  Judah,  the  eflTect  of 
which  would  be,  and  must  have  been  designed  to 
be,  to  supply  the  want  of  accuracy  in  stating  the 
length  of  the  reigns  without  reference  to  the  odd 
months.  But  these  synchronistic  definitions  are  in 
continual  discord  with  the  statement  of  the  length 
of  reigns.  According  to  1  K.  xxii.  51  Ahaziah 
succeeded  Ahab  in  the  17th  year  of  Jehoshaphat. 
But  according  to  the  statement  of  the  length  of 
Ahab's  reign  in  xvi.  29,  Ahab  died  in  the  18th  of 
Jehoshaphat;  while  according  to  2  K.  i.  17,  Jeho- 
ram,  the  son  of  Ahaziah,  succeeded  his  brother 
(after  his  2  years'  reign)  in  the  second  year  of 
Jehoram  the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  though,  accord- 
ing to  the  length  of  the  reigns,  he  must  have  suc- 
ceeded in  the  18th  or  19th  of  Jehoshaphat  (see  2 
K.  iii.  1),  who  roigned,  in  aU,  25  years  (1  K.  xxii. 
42).  [Jehoram.]  As  regards  Jehoram  the  son 
of  Jehoshaphat,  the  statements  are  so  contradictory 
that  Archbishop  Usher  actually  makes  three  distinct 
beginnings  to  his  regnal  era:  the  first  when  he 
was  made  prorex,  to  meet  2  K.  i.  17;  the  second 
when  he  was  associated  with  his  father,  5  years 
later,  to  meet  2  K.  viii.  16 ;  the  third  when  his  sole 
reign  commenced,  to  meet  1  K.  xxii.  50,  compared 
with  42.  Bat  as  the  only  purpose  of  these  syn- 
chronisms is  to  give  an  accurate  measure  of  time, 
nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  such 
variations  in  the  time  from  which  the  commence- 
ment of  the  regnal  year  is  dated.  It  may  also  hew 
be  remarked  that  the  whole  noti)n  of  these  join^ 


of  whom  reigned  11  years,  and  the  latter  41.  Bat 
beyond  the  confusion  of  the  I  imes  ther«  is  nottiiog 
to  support  such  a  notion. 


KINGS,  FIRST  XND  SECOND  BOOKS  OP 


1547 


feigns  has  not  the  smallest  foundation  in  fact,  and 
unluckily  does  not  come  into  play  in  the  only  cases 
where  there  might  be  any  historical  probability  of 
their  having  occuried,  as  in  the  case  of  Asa's  illness 
and  Uzziah's  leprosy.  From  the  length  of  Ama- 
aiah's  reign,  as  given  2  K.  xiv.  2,  17,  23,  it  is 
manifest  that  Jeroboam  II.  began  to  reign  in  the 
15th  year  of  Amaziah,  and  that  Uzziah  began  to 
reign  in  the  16th  of  Jeroboam.  But  2  K.  xv.  1 
places  the  commencement  of  Uzziah's  reign  in  the 
27th  of  Jeroboam,  and  the  accession  of  Zachariah 
=  the  close  of  Jeroboam's  reign,  in  the  38th  of 
Uzziah  —  statements  utterly  contradictory  and 
irreconcilable. 

Other  grave  chronological  difficulties  seem  to 
have  Uieu'  source  in  the  same  erroneous  calculations 
on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  chronologist.  For  ex- 
ample, one  of  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  tells  us 
that  Menahem  paid  tribute  to  Assyria  in  the  8th 
year  of  Tiglath-Fileser  (Rawl.  Ilerod.  i.  469),  and 
the  same  inscription  passes  on  directly  to  speak  of 
the  overthrow  of  Kezin,  who  we  know  was  Pekah's 
ally.  Now  this  is  scarcely  compatible  with  the 
supposition  that  the  remainder  of  5lenahem's  reign, 
the  2  years  of  Pekahiah,  and  18  or  19  years  of 
Pekah's  reign  intervened,  as  must  have  been  the 
case  according  to  2  K.  xvi.  1,  xv.  32.  But  if  the 
invasion  of  Judaea  was  one  of  the  early  acts  of 
Pekah's  reign,  and  the  destruction  of  Kezin  fol- 
lowed soon  after,  then  we  should  have  a  very  intel- 
ligiblefcourse  of  events  as  follows.  IVIenahem  paid 
his  last  tribute  to  Assyria  in  the  8th  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser,  his  suzerain  (2  K.  xv.  19),  which,  as  he 
reigned  for  some  time  under  Pul,  and  only  reigned 
10  years  in  all,  we  may  assume  to  have  been  his 
own  kst  year.  On  the  accession  of  his  son  Peka- 
hiah, Pekah,  one  of  his  captains,  rebelled  against 
him,  made  an  alliance  with  Rezin  king  of  Syria  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  Assyria,  in  the  course  of  a 
few  months  dethroned  and  kflled  Pekahiah,  and 
reigned  in  his  stead,  and  rapidly  followed  up  his 
success  by  a  joint  expedition  against  Judah,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  set  up  a  king  who  should 
strengthen  his  hands  in  his  rebellion  against 
Assyria.  The  king  of  Assyria,  on  learning  this, 
and  receiving  Ahaz's  message  for  help,  immediately 
marches  to  Syria,  takes  Damascus,  conquers  and 
kills  Rezin,  invades  Israel,  and  carries  away  a  large 
body  of  captives  (2  K.  xv.  29),  and  leaves  Pekah  to 
reign  as  tributary  king  over  the  enfeebled  remnant, 
till  a  conspiracy  deprived  him  of  his  life.  Such  a 
course  of  events  would  be  consistent  with  the 
cuneiform  inscription,  and  with  everything  in  the 
Scripture  narrative,  except  the  synchronistic  ar- 
rangement of  the  reigns.  But  of  course  it  is 
impossible  to  affirm  that  the  above  was  the  true 
state  of  the  case.  Only  at  present  the  text  and 
the  cuneiform  inscription  do  not  agree,  and  few 
people  will  be  satisfied  with  the  explanation  sug- 
gested by  Mr.  Rawlinson,  that  "the  official  who 
»^>mpo9ed,  or  the  workman  who  engraved,  the 
Assyrian  document,  made  a  mistake  in  the  name," 
and  put  Menahem  when  he  should  have  put  Pekah 
{Bampt.  Led.  pp.  136,  409;  Iltrod.  i.  468-471). 
Again :  «'  Scripture  places  only  8  years  between 
the  fall  of  Samaria  and  the  first  invasion  of  Judaea 
oy  Sennacherib  "  (i.  e.  from  the  6th  to  the  14th  of 


IHezekiah).     "The  inscriptions  (cuneiform) 
ing  the  fall  of  Samaria  to  the  first  year  of  Sargon 
j  giving  Sargon  a  reign  of  at  least  15  years,  and 

1  assigning  the  first  attack  on  Hezekiah  to  Sennach- 
[erib's  third  year,  put  an  interval  of  at  least  18 

years  between  the  two  events"  (Rawl.  Herod,  i. 
479).  This  interval  is  further  shown  by  reference 
to  the  canon  of  Ptolemy  to  have  amounted  in  fact 
to  22  years.  Again,  Lepsius  {Koniysb.  p.  95-97) 
shows  with  remarkable  force  of  argument  that  the 
14th  of  Hezekiah  could  not  by  possibiUty  fall 
earlier  than  b.  c.  692,  with  reference  to  Tirhakah's 
accession ;  but  that  the  additional  date  of  the  3d 
of  Sennacherib  furnished  by  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions,  coupled  with  the  fact  given  by  Berosus,  that 
the  year  b.  c.  693  was  the  year  of  Sennacherib'i 
accession,  fixes  the  year  b.  c.  691  as  that  of  Sennach- 
erib's invasion,  and  consequently  as  the  14th  of 
Hezekiah.  But  from  b.  c.  691  to  b.  c.  586,  when 
Jerusalem  was  destroyed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  an 
interval  of  only  105  years ;  whereas  the  sum  of  the 
regnal  years  of  Judah  for  the  same  interval  amounts 
to  125  years."  From  which  calculations  it  neces- 
sarily follows,  both  that  there  is  an  error  in  those 
figures  in  the  book  of  Kings  which  assign  the 
relative  positions  of  the  destruction  of  Samaria  and 
Sennacherib's  invasion,  and  also  in  those  which  meas- 
ure the  distance  between  the  invasion  of  Sennach- 
erib and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  should, 
however,  be  noted  that  there  is  nothing  to  fix  the 
fall  of  Samaria  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah  but  the 
statement  of  the  synchronism ;  and  2  Chr.  xxx.  6, 
18,  &c.,  seems  rather  to  indicate  that  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  had  quite  ceased  in  the  1st  of  Hezekiah. 
Many  other  numbers  have  the  same  stamp  of  incor- 
rectness. Rehoboam's  age  is  given  as  41  at  his 
accession,  1  K.  xiv.  21,  and  yet  we  read  at  2  Chr. 
xiii.  7,  that  he  was  *'  young  and  tender-hearted  '' 
when  he  came  to  the  throne.  Moreover,  if  41  when 
he  became  king,  he  must  have  been  born  before 
Solomon  came  to  the  throne,  which  seems  improb- 
able, especially  in  connection  with  his  Ammonitish 
mother.  In  the  apocryphal  passage  moreover  in 
the  Cod.  Vat.  of  the  LXX.,  which  follows  1  K. 
xii.  24,  his  age  is  said  to  have  been  16  at  his 
accession,  which  is  much  more  probable.  Accord- 
ing to  the  statement  in  2  K.  xv.  33,  compared  with 
ver.  2,  Uzziah's  son  and  heir  Jotham  was  not  bom 
till  his  father  was  42  years  old ;  and  according  to 

2  K.  xxi.  1,  compared  with  ver.  19,  Manasseh's 
son  and  heir  Amon  was  not  born  till  his  father  was 
in  his  45th  year.  Still  more  improbable  is  the 
statement  in  2  K.  xviii.  2,  compared  with  xvi.  2, 
which  makes  Hezekiah  to  have  been  born  when  his 
father  was  11  years  old :  a  statement  which  Bochart 
has  endeavored  to  defend  with  his  usual  vast  erudi- 
tion, but  with  little  success  {Opera,  i.  921).  But 
not  only  does  the  incorrectness  of  the  numbers 
testify  against  their  genuineness,  but  in  some  pas- 
sages the  structure  of  the  sentence  seems  to  betray 
the  fact  of  a  later  insertion  of  the  chronologic^ 
element.  We  have  seen  one  instance  in  1  K.  vi.  1. 
In  Hke  manner  at  1  K.  xiv.  31,  xv.  1,  2,  we  can 
see  that  at  some  time  or  other  xv.  1  has  been 
inverted  between  the  two  other  verses.  So  again 
ver.  9  has  been  inserted  between  8  and  10 ;  and  xv 
24  must  ha,e  once  stood  next  to  xxii.  42,  as  xxiL 


a  Lepsius  proposes  reducmg  the  reign  of  Manasseb  of  his  Cither's  life.  Mr.  Bosanquet  would  lower  tb« 
b  86  years.  lie  observes  with  truth  the  improba-  j  date  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  the  year  a.  a 
iHty  of  Amon  haTia?  been  bom  in  the  45th  year  1655. 


1548 


KINGS,  FIRST  AND  SECONP  BOOKS  OF 


(0  did  to  2  K.  \iii.  17,  at  which  time  the  corrupt 
ver.  16  had  no  existence.  Yet  more  manifestly 
viii.  24,  26,  were  once  consecutive  verses,  though 
they  are  now  parted  hy  25,  which  is  repeated,  with 
a  variation  in  the  numeral,  at  ix.  29.     So  also  xvi. 

1  has  been  interposed  between  xv.  38  and  xvi.  2. 
xviii.  2  is  consecutive  with  xvi.  20.  But  the  plain- 
est instance  of  all  is  2  K.  xi.  21,  xii.  1  (xii.  1  fF., 
lleb.),  where  the  M-ords  "  In  the  seventh  year  of 
Jehu,  Jehoash  began  to  reifjn,"  could  not  possibly 
have  formed  part  of  the  original  sentence,  which 
iTiay  be  seen  in  its  integrity  2  Chr.  xxiv.  1.  The 
disturbance  caused  in  2  K.  xii.  by  the  intrusion  of 
this  clause  is  somewhat  disguised  in  the  LXX.  and 
the  A.  V.  by  the  division  of  Heb.  xii.  1  into  two 
rerses,  and  separate  chapters,  but  is  still  palpable. 
A  similar  instance  is  pointed  out  by  Movers  in  2 
Sam.  v.,  where  ver.  3  and  6  are  parted  by  the 
introduction  of  ver.  4,  5  (p.  190).  But  the  diffi- 
culty remains  of  deciding  in  which  of  the  above 
cases  the  insertion  M-as  by  the  hand  of  the  original 
oompiler,  and  in  which  by  a  later  chronologist. 

Now  whon  to  all  this  we  add  that  the  i>ages  of 
Josephus  are  full,  in  like  manner,  of  a  multitude 
of  inconsistent  chronological  schemes,  which  prevent 
his  being  of  any  use,  in  sjjite  of  Hales's  praises,  in 
clearing  up  chronological  difficulties,  the  proper  in- 
ference seems  to  be,  that  no  authoritative,  correct, 
•ystematic  chronology  was  originally  contiined  in 
the  books  of  Kings,  and  that  the  attempt  to  supply 
Buch  afterwards  led  to  the  introduction  of  many 
erroneous  dates,  and  probably  to  the  corruption  of 
gome  true  ones  which  were  originally  there.  Cer- 
tainly the  present  text  contains  what  are  either 
conflicting  calculations  of  antj^onistic  chronologists, 
or  errors  of  careless  copyists,  which  no  learning  or 
ingenuity  has  ever  been  able  to  reduce  to  the  con- 
sistency of  truth. 

II.  The  peculiarities  of  diction  in  them,  and  other 
features  in  their  literary  history,  may  be  briefly  dis- 
posed of.  The  words  noticed  by  ])e  AVette,  §  185, 
as  indicating  their  modem  date,  are  the  following : 

^'J^S  for  inW,  1  K.  xiv.  2.  (But  this  form  is  also 
found  in  Judg.  xvii.  2,  Jer.  iv.  30,  Ez.  xxxvi.  13, 
and  not  once  in  the  later  books.)    imW  for  "^nS, 

2  K.  i.  15.  (But  this  form  of  HM  "  found  in  Lev. 
Kv.  18,  24;  Josh.  xiv.  12;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  24;  Is.  lix. 
21;  Jer.  x.  6,  xii.  1.  xix.  10,  xx.  11,  xxxv.  2;  Ez. 

xiv.  4,  xxvii.  26.)  UW'^  for  U^^,  1  K.  ix.  8. 
(But  Jer.  xix.  8,  xlix.  17,  are  identical  in  phrase 
and  orthography.)  ^V"!  for  D''V7»  2  K.  xi.  13. 
(But  everywhere  else  in  Kings,  e.  g.  2  K.  xi.  6,  Ac., 
0**^*^,  which  is  also  universal  in  Chronicles,  an 
avowedly  later  book;  and  here,  as  in  ^"^pT!^,  1  K. 
xi.  33,  there  is  every  appearance  of  the  ^  being  a 
clerical  error  for  the  copulative  1 ;  see  Thenius,  /.  c.) 

nS^'^ip,  1  K.  XX.  14.  (But  this  word  occurs 
Lam.  i.  1,  and  there  is  every  appearance  of  its  being 
a  technical  word  in  1  K.  xx.  14,  and  therefore  as 

uld  ax  the  reign  of  Ahab.)  ^3  for  ^PH,  1  K. 
Iv.  22.    (But  1 3  is  used  by  Ez.  xiv.  14,  and  homer 


a  See  Kodiger's  Oesen.  Heb.  Gramm.  Eng.  tr.  p.  6  : 
Keii,  Chron.  p.  10. 


seems  to  have  been  then  already  obsolete.)    D^'^H 

1  K.  xxi.  8,  11.     (Occurs  in  Is.  and  Jer. )     3*1, 

2  K.  XXV.  8.  (But  as  the  term  evidently  came  in 
with  the  Chaldees,  as  seen  in  Kab  shakeh,  liab-saris 
Kab-mag,  its  application  to  the  Chaldee  general  if 
no  evidence  of  a  time  later  than  the  person  to  whom 

the  title  is  given.)  D^K?,  1  K.  viii.  61,  &c.  (But 
there  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  this  expression 
belongs  to  late  Hebr.  It  is  found,  among  other 
places,  in  Is.  xxxviii.  3;  a  pas.sage  against  the  au- 
thenticity of  which  there  is  also  not  a  shadow  of 
proof,  except  upon  the  presumption  that  prophetic 
intimations  and  supernatural  interventions  on  the 
part  of  God  are  impossible.)  V^StCTT,  2  K.  xviiL 
7.  (On  what  grounds  this  word  is'  adduced  it  is 
impossible  to  guess,  since  it  occurs  in  this  sense  in 

Josh.,  Is.,  Sam.,  and  Jer.:  vid.  Gesen.)     ]"intS2, 

2  K.  xviii.  19.  (l3.xxxvi.4,Eccl.ix.4.)  n^'lJlH^ 
2  K.  xviii.  26.  (But  why  should  not  a  Jew,  m 
Ilezekiah's  reign,  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  Nehe- 
miah,  have  called  his  motlier-tongue  "  the  Jews^ 
language,"  in  opposition  to  the  Aramcenn  ?  There 
was  nothing  in  the  Babylonish  Captivity  to  give  it 
the  name,  if  it  had  it  not  before ;  nor  is  there  a  single 
earlier  instance  —  Is.  xix.  18  might  have  furnished 
one  —  of  any  name  given  to  the  language  spoken 
by  all  the  Israelites,  and  which  in  later  times  was 
called  Hebrew:  'EfipaiaTi,  Prolog.  Ecclus. ;  Luke 
xxiii.  38;  John  v.  2,  &c.)«  HS  tiGtt'rj  "12'7, 
2  K.  XXV.  6.  (Frequent  in  Jer.  iv.  12,  xxxix.  5, 
Ac.)  Theod.  Parker  adds  nHQ  (see, too,  Thenius, 
Einl.  §  6),  1  K.  X.  15,  xx.  24;"  2  K.  xviii.  24,  on 
the  presumption  probably  of  its  being  of  Persian 
derivation ;  but  the  etymology  and  origin  of  the 
word  are  quite  uncertain,  and  it  is  repeatedly  used 
in  Jer.  li.,  as  well  as  Is.  xxxvi.  9.     With  better 

reason  might  ^7?  ^^^'^  ^^"  adduced,  1  K.  xii. 
33.  The  expression  "iHSn  ^'D.V,  in  1  K.  iv.  24 
is  also  a  difficult  one  to  form  an  impartial  opinion' 
about.  It  is  doubtful,  as  De  Wette  admits,  whether 
the  phrase  necessarily  implies  its  being  used  by  one 
to  the  east  of  the  Euphrates,  because  the  use  varies 
in  Num.  xxxii.  19,  xxxv.  14;  Josh.  i.  14  fF.,  v.  1, 
xii.  1,  7,  xxii.  7;  1  ("hr.  xxvi.  30;  Deut.  i,  1,  5, 
Ac.  It  is  also  conceivable  that  the  phrase  might 
be  used  as  a  mere  geographical  designation  by  those 
who  belonged  to  one  of  "  the  provinces  beyond  the 
river  "  subject  to  Babylon :  and  at  the  time  of  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  Judaea  had  been  such  a 
province  for  at  least  23  years,  and  probably  longer. 
We  may  safely  affirm  therefore,  that  on  the  wliole 
the  peculiarities  of  diction  in  these  books  do  not 
indicate  a  time  after  the  Captivity,  or  towards  the 
close  of  it,  but  on  the  contrary  point  pretty  dis- 
tinctly to  the  age  of  Jeremiah.  And  it  may  be 
added,  that  the  marked  and  systematic  difierences 
between  the  language  of  Chronicles  and  that  of 
Kings,  taken  with  the  fact  that  all  attempts  to  prove 
the  Chronicles  later  than  Ezra  have  utterly  failed, 
lead  to  the  same  conclusion.  (See  many  exampief 
in  Movers,  p.  200  ff.)  Other  peculiar  or  rare  ex- 
pressions in  these  books  are  the  proverbial  ones. 

T^(72  ^'^rilJl/D,  found  only  in  them  and  in 
Sam.xxv.  22,  34,  "slept  with  his  fath«^,"    •  bin 
that  dieth  in  the  city,  the  dogs  shall  eat,'  etc. 


KINGS,  FIRST  AND 

"bs  n^?^  nb,  i  k.  u.  23,  &c.;  ako  n;-ji?, 

1  K.  i.  41,  45;  elsewhere  only  in  poetry,  and  in  the 
tomposition  of  proper  names,  except  Deut.  ii.  36. 

nbr7r,i.9.  nnai?,  «fowi,"iv.23.  n'rjK, 

»<  stalls,"  V.  6 ;  2  Chr.  ix.  25.  DD  nbVH,  v.  13, 
kX.  15,  21.  VBT^,  "a  stone-quarry"  (Gesen.), 
n.  7.  ^3Db,  vi.  17.  I^nn^,  19.  D^'^fJ?  and 
ni!!?i^?,  "  wild  cucumbers,"  vi.  18,  vii.  24,  2  K. 
i?.  33.     n"1|7^,  X.  28 ;  the  names  of  the  months 

D'^pnw,  viii.  2,  It,  b.'ia,  vi.  37,  38.   sia, 

"to  invent,"  xii.  33,  Neh.  vi.  8,  in  both  cases 
joined  with  ^T2.  H^bCD,  "  an  idol,"  xv.  13. 
nVa  and  "1^^?n,  followed  by  *';inS\  <'  to  de- 
Btroy,"  xiv.  10,  xvi.  3,  xxi.  21.  Q'^f^D'T,  ^^ joints 
of  the  armor,"  xxii.  34.  y^Wy  «'  a  pursuit,"  xviii. 
27.  in^  "  to  bend  one's  self,"  xnii.  42,  2  K.  iv. 
34,  35.  D3tt7,  « to  gird  up,"  xviii.  46.  "ICS, 
«  a  head-band,"  xx.  38,  41.  p?ti7,  "  to  suffice," 
XX.  10.  t^bn,  incert.  signif.  xx.  33.  T^'^V 
HD^b^,  "to  reign,"  xxi.  7.    n'Tl'b!?,  «a  dish," 

2  K.  ii.  20.  Dba,  « to  fold  up,"  ib.  8.  "Tp.b, 
"  a  herdsman,"  iii.  4,  Am.  i.  1.  "TJ^DS,  "  an 
oil-cup,"  iv.  2.  bS  T^n,  "  to  have  a  care  for," 
13;  "T^V,  «'  to  sneeze,"  35;  V"^^P?5  «  abag,"  42. 
^*''iri,  "a  money-bag,"  v.  23.  HDn.n,  "an 
encamping"  (?)  vi.  8;  TT^S,  "a  feast,"  23; 
nro,  "descending,"  9;  ^12,  "a  cab,"  25;  '^'^TQ 
W^^V,  "dove's  dung,"  ib.  '^3?'?,  perhaps  "a 
fly-net,"  viii.  15.  D3  (i"  sense  of  "  self,"  as  in 
Chald.  and  Samar.),  ix.  13.  "1-12^,  «  a  heap," 
1.8;  nnnbp,  "a  vestry,"  22;  nSnqp,  "a 
draught-house,"  27.  "^"J^'  "  Cherethites,"  xi.  4, 
19,  and  2  Sam.  xx.  23,  Cethib.  H©^,  »  a  keeping 
off,"  xi.  6.  "l3^,  "an  acquaintance,"  xii.  6. 
The  form  'T^'',  from  H^pJ,  "  to  shoot,"  xiii.  17. 
hinn^nn  \22,  "hostages,"  xiv.  14,  2  Chr. 

XXV.  24.   ri'^trcnn  rr^a,  "sick  house,"  xv. 

5,  2  Chr.  xivi.  21.  b^P,  "before,"  xv.  10. 
ptJ^P^"^,  "Damascus,"  xvi.  10  (perhaps  only  a 
lalse  reading).  n???'T'^»  "  ^  pavement,"  xvi.  17. 
"TIP^D,  or  TTr*^^?  "  a  covered  way,"  xvi.  18. 
KSn  in  Pih.  "  to  do  secretly,"  xvii.  9.  H^'^tyW, 
with  "'j  16,  only  besides  Deut.  vii.  5,  Mic.  v.  14. 
K72,  I.  q.  ni2,  xvii.  21  (Cethib).  D^priti?, 
Samaritans,"  29.  ]ntt7n5>  "  Nenushtan,"  xviii. 


SECOND  BOOKS  OF 


15i9 


4.      n3P«,   "a   pillar,"    16.       HJ^^    ntt?^ 

"  to  make  peace,"  31,  Is.  xxxvi.  16.  U^'^nn 
"  that  which  grows  up  the  third  year,"  xix.  2i),  Ja 
xxxvii.  30.  nb2  rV^j  "treasure-hous^"  xx. 
13,  Is.  xxxix.  2.  np.trp,  part  of  Jerusalem  so 
caUed,  xxii.  14,  Zeph.  i.  10,  Neh.  xi.  9.  nib-TD, 
"signs  of  the  Zodiac,"  xxiii.  5.  "^J")^>  "a  sub- 
urb," xxiii.  11.     D'^IliJ,   "ploughmen,"  xxv.  12